Furthest Right

This Was An Anti-Diversity Election


It is time we face an obvious truth: pundits and academics make their money not by telling the truth, but by coming up with interesting theories that avoid the blunt truth, because we all want life to be more complex and more interesting than it is.

After this historic 2016 presidential election, the writers and conversationalists are out in force telling us all of their creative and imaginative but unrealistic theories about the election. All of them have missed the most basic point: this was an election against diversity and globalism because people finally saw what those were like in practice.

Americans were OK with the Hollywood version of diversity where people come from foreign lands and become just like us. But as they saw this more in practice, they realized that this meant the erasure of us. We were being replaced, genocided and destroyed, and the elites proudly approved of this practice, which meant the elites were insane.

Ferguson elected Trump as much as anything else. When Americans see a group of minorities rioting in defense of someone who has obviously shot not for his race but his ongoing and out-of-control criminal activity, they realize that those minorities are not concerned with truth, but identity. The dead guy was one of our own, so the guys in charge — whitey, we presume — must be to blame.

At that point, Americans saw the tragic nature of diversity. Someone is always to blame, and for minority groups, there will never be the comfort of knowing they are in a society created by their own people for their own people. We have stolen pride from minority groups and forever relegated them to secondary status through diversity.

In addition, diversity means that white people are always targets whenever things do not work out so well for someone who is a member of an ethnic, religious, sexual or (perceived) gender minority. Whitey is always to blame, usually by other white people, who arrogantly assume that white people are in control.

Diversity does not work. It cannot work. It never has. If as a writer I have any contribution to this debate, it is the knowledge that our ongoing racial and ethnic warfare in the USA has never been about Blacks or Indians being bad. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, or — as is wise to assume — the truth is more varied and nuanced than either of those extremes.

But the real culprit is diversity because it pits different groups against one another because for the society as a whole, there can be only one ethical, moral, values, and legal standard, and that will always reflect the group that created it.

The Right-wing media is currently digging its own grave by trying to explain away the anti-diversity nature of this election.

For example, the normally insightful Victor Davis Hanson side-steps the issue this way:

Finally, the more Clinton Inc. talked about the Latino vote, the black vote, the gay vote, the woman vote, the more Americans tired of the same old identity politics pandering. What if minority bloc voters who had turned out for Obama might not be as sympathetic to a middle-aged, multimillionaire white woman? And what if the working white classes might flock to the politically incorrect populist Trump in a way that they would not to a leftist elitist like Hillary Clinton? In other words, the more Clinton played the identity politics card, the more she earned fewer returns for herself and more voters for Trump.

No, Vic: identity politics are a side effect of diversity. When you put different groups in the same country, they are all competing for whose self-interest gets to rule. This creates a fragmentation of social standards, and so the groups split further, with women and sexual minorities breaking out as well. Soon everyone is fighting for their own tribe — which is a mixture of race, ethnicity, religion, politics, culture, values and lifestyles — because that is the only way to avoid being assimilated, or destroyed, both in culture and in the self-esteem it conveys.

Culture is more than practicality. We know it arises from genetics, and that it is unique to each group; it is therefore somewhat arbitrary, but more likely, represents the intersection between environmental adaptations and ideals that make each group what they are.

To take this away is to make the group a conquered people. Assimilation into a 1980s culture of shopping malls, fast-food courts, Dale Carnegie/Willy Loman salesman culture, and materials science which could provide explanations but not prescriptions, may have destroyed white people in America — and other groups know it will surely destroy them. And so they oppose it.

Americans are in the first stages of realizing that diversity does not work. It is not about letting the right groups in, or admitting only exceptional individuals, but that we do not need it at all. We have enough genetic variation inside of a single population, say, Germans, to avoid inbreeding and continue evolution. We do not need outsiders for that, or to do the jobs we used to do, many of which could be avoided anyway by having a smaller, more focused population that is less likely to favor mass culture because it has a culture of its own.

The often-insightful David Brooks hits on this in what seems like an off-the-cuff comment:

Sometimes you get the sense that the campaign barely matters. People are just going with their gene pool, and whatever it is.

Of course that is what they do. Genes determine inclinations, and those translated through real-world options direct behavior. How could it be anything else?

Yet for the last two hundred years, in pursuit of an opiate god named Equality, we have refused to believe this. People are all the same, they say. It is the rules and economic incentives which determine what succeeds or fails.

In reality, none of that is true. People exist on a scale that is both vertical and horizontal. The vertical is quality, and the horizontal is specific adaptation and fitness at that, as happens with creatures in an ecosystem. Hawks rise above mice, but some mice are better at being mice than others. Sometimes, that leads to predation; sometimes, more rarely, to the birth of a new species that optimizes itself for a new function based on the original choice by an individual mouse.

That knowledge threatens people. It means that they are not omnipotent gods as their big brains tell them they are, but mice in the field, hoping to make the right choice, and becoming changed by their choices when they want to be static, unchanging, eternal and immortal. It says that we are not “in control.” We can make choices, but those are either informed by reality, or lead us into illusion, and this means that we have not “free will” but the need to make analytical, results-based decisions. That in turn kills our illusion of our intent alone, our whims and judgments, being the essence of us, which allows us in turn to continue with the I-am-God assumption.

Arrogance and pretense on the level of individuals find confirmation in The Crowd, a group of mutually deferential people who affirm the illusions of the individual through group assent. This is why they act like a cult, a gang and a nasty social clique all at once:

“This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing, [its] unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there would be a winking ‘we did it’ feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar, and saved the republic.”

This election refuted that behavior, too, which is problematic because it is the basis of Leftism and its modern quasi-conservative hybrid, liberalism. Interestingly, the Leftist press is closer to identifying the anti-diversity nature of this election than the conservative press, which shows that the “in group” is clueless on both sides, but that the Left has been shocked into action.

Der Spiegel opines:

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who recently branded Trump a “hate preacher,” has said he is preparing for “difficult times.” The chancellor herself also reminded the president-elect that “democracy, freedom, respect for the law and for human dignity, regardless of ancestry, skin color, religion, gender and sexual orientation” are all values that must be defended — the very ones that the Republican candidate more or less openly questioned during his campaign.

In other words, Trump has replaced blind ideological loyalty to “Equality” with the principle of identity, or that each group has its own standards — and is worth preserving for its uniqueness alone, whatever we think of its merits.

Sea change of this nature only happens when something has thoroughly failed. The continued refugee rape wave in Europe, Palestinian violence in Israel, and domestic racial unrest in America have proven that diversity is a dead letter. With the shift of the Left from anti-Establishment rebels to pompous Establishment nanny state globalists, Leftism has died too.

At least the Left seems to understand this. They also understand that the concept of democracy is changing. It is no longer about letting everyone vote, but having each group have self-determination so that if voting is retained — a foolish idea, given how people behave in groups — the group votes for changes that apply only to itself, by itself.

The Guardian doubles down:

But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

Do you see the shell game here? Neoliberalism can either be a goal, or a method. It is not an ideology in itself, but a means of implementing world Leftism, this time by using economic forces (something learned from the failure of the Soviet Union to do so during the Cold War) instead of political ones.

Blaming “neoliberalism” is a clever way of shifting the blame from the master to his tools. The agenda — equality — remains the same, and requires diversity/globalism to achieve that end. No wonder it comes from a Leftist newspaper.

The truth is that the media is in trouble. They have an audience to whom they need to sell a product. The difficulty is that this audience purchases only that which confirms its worldview, which it uses like a crutch to justify its lifestyle and make it feel better about its position in life.

For this reason, the Left-press (93%) will continue to repeat the same illusions it did during the election. They have no choice; their audience wants to buy a Left-product (really: justification of individualism) and so will tolerate nothing else.

In the past, competition kept the press somewhat sane. Leftist newspapers hit the stands next to the right-wing newspapers, and if there was too much disparity between the two, the audience would fragment, so there was convergence. Thanks to the victory of the Left in the 1990s as the 1968 generation matured and took public roles of power, the right-wing press is all but dead, and as a result the Leftist press is on its own.

Even so, the right-wing press is still trying to feel out a milder version of the NeverTrump drama. They are beaten, marginalized, and want to achieve social respectability by repeating mainstream opinions, which are Leftist, with a slight right-wing spin. The problem is that the audience they seek will simply go to the Left-wing papers.

That audience likes to scream about how “racist, sexist, and homophobic” Donald Trump is, but offer no proof. They are onto something, but in inverse. The normal people out here want the death of Political Correctness, and they realize that this requires legitimizing opinions formerly seen as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as normal.

This means not the death of the Left-wing press, but the demise of its cultural dominance. It is no longer seen as the voice of moral authority but as a special interest which attempts to assert its worldview to the exclusion of all others so that it can seize power.

As even The New Yorker admits:

Trump connected to the segment of the population that was prepared to believe that racism was realism, misogyny was locker-room talk, inconvenient facts were media myths, and viciousness was the new normal. Just as surely as he has redrawn the electoral map, he has radically altered the Overton window.

In other words, these people reject the Leftist definitions that awareness of racial differences and a desire to live among people like oneself is “racism,” that noticing that men and women serve different roles is “sexism” or misogyny, and that the media is objective and unbiased. This is a population awakening from a nightmare of mental control.

For seventy years, the Left has made diversity its implement of control. Those who do not get onboard with the program of worldwide racial mixing are Hitler, but those who do get the best jobs, prestige, fame and wealth. This election demanded a stop to that slide into oblivion, and if the Left cannot accept that, they will be forced into obsolescence.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn