Furthest Right

With The Rise Of Identity Politics, Our “Post-Racial” Mixed-Race Future Dies

We know that Leftist policy on race resembles nothing logical or realistic. This becomes clear when we see that its origins were in caste warfare against our natural elites so that they could be replaced with Leftist leaders who are both incompetent and quietly, covertly tyrannical.

Leftists love to argue backward, “a solution in search of a problem” or “a theory in search of data” as opposed to a theory that fits the data. Their arguments universally belong to the categories of begging-the-question fallacies or cherry-picking data. It is how they think: find a rationalization for what they want, not figure out what is right.

In their original argument for racial equity and diversity, they said that we should stop being cruel to other groups. Then it became that we should accept them in our society as equals. Finally, they unveiled their master plan: to breed us out and replace us with a mixed-race group because cultureless lower IQ people tend to support Leftism.

With the election of Bill Clinton, white people — most of whom are apparently morons, or at least vote like them — thought that we had “race relations” licked. It was a sign of acceptance, and we could bring minority groups into the mainstream and end the race guilt and class guilt that had dogged us for centuries.

As it turned out, that backfired. The new acceptance of race simply expanded the grievance because minority groups pursue their own interests only, like every group does, and the Left became emboldened and expanded its diversity propaganda and initiatives. That led to the election of Barack Obama twenty years later.

Obama, we were told, would be our “post-racial” president. Instead of acceptance, the new idea was to abolish race entirely so that the constant racial tension would be over. That illusion died in the fires of Ferguson, MO, and the rise of Black Lives Matter.

With the sudden preeminence of Leftist identity politics, groups within the majority discovered their own self-interest and began an identity politics of their own generally referred to as the “Alt Right,” which aims to restore Western Civilization through defending and nurturing its genetic root, Western European people.

In response, the Left finds itself reconsidering identity politics. In particular, they have noted that “post-racial” will mean the elimination of their own ethnic groups in favor of a mixed-race group following the white majority. This led to analysis of the paradox of a post-racial future:

A statistical geneticist clarifies that it is not a rarity for one child to resemble one parent and vice versa; the issue’s abstract says that “race is a human invention,” and that skin color has misguidedly been used as a “proxy” for race. And yet the magazine cover undermines all of these correctives. “Black and White,” it reads, under the portrait of the twins. “These twin sisters make us rethink everything we know about race.”

Sometimes, these people aren’t even real. In 1993, Time published “The New Face of America,” a computer-generated woman with light-brown skin created from “a mix of several races.” For its hundred-and-twenty-fifth-anniversary issue, in 2013, National Geographic profiled multiracial people to illustrate the “changing face of America.” In recent years, the multiracial person, who breaks the rules of the caste system, has become the subject of liberal, cross-racial desire, vaunted as diviners of social progress, or of apocalypse. Barack Obama is the most famous member of the newly consolidated Loving Generation, as it is termed in a new docu-series from Topic; one only has to look at the excitement around Meghan Markle, or the dozens of accounts on Instagram and Facebook devoted to fawning over mixed-race “swirl babies,” to see the fixation develop. But, for centuries, a significant portion of colonized populations have qualified as multiracial, even if their genes do not manifest in the look of light skin, hazel or blue eyes, and hair that grows in perfect ringlets. It follows that multiraciality ought not to be the vessel for social hope. Our awe at the notion of a raceless future only betrays the truths of our present.

In other words, you can have it one of two ways: either race is not real and your group gets eliminated, or race is real and “post-racial” means the passive genocide of minority groups:

The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as:

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.1

Diversity “inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” When different ethnic or religious groups have been placed nearby, they have fought each other in a pattern that has been consistent since the dawn of time. Then, as we can see by observing the remains later, the two groups assimilate each other, and in the process lose what made them unique. These leftover groups never attain the characteristics of the original groups and generally fade away, like the ruins of a once-great civilization. This is what our leaders have in store for us.

Our leaders want this because it will make us easy to control. When religion, race and culture are out of the way, they can have a grey tribe with no values in common, which makes it easy to sell products to or manipulate with political ideology. They are the perfect consumers and perfect voters because they have no higher allegiances — like culture, heritage or belief — that conflicts with the government propaganda and advertising. As the Greek philosopher, Plato, wrote 2400 years ago:

And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?

And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?

They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.

By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.2

Those who rule over us are using the same strategy as the tyrant Plato describes: import new people from former colonies, or satellites, and use them to displace the existing population. This new population is chosen because it can be bribed with benefits, sometimes called “welfare” or “socialism,” and it will then always support the tyrant. The problem is, as Plato notes, that it requires bringing in foreign people from many lands. This effectively destroys the ability of a society to have any rules of its own, and through time and interbreeding, it is replaced by a new population.

Minority groups and European-descended groups are realizing at the same time that diversity is path to destruction not just of our civilization, but of their individual groups. This realization will roll back diversity and put us on a path toward balkanization, or splitting into different groups formed of overlapping religion, race, culture, ethnicity, and political orientation:

The Nativists had a solid point: diversity destroys social trust, creates conflict over which values system will predominate, causes a sadomasochistic victim-victimizer cycle, makes people alienated and atomized, instigates outbreaks of violence, destroys culture, creates genocide through assimilation, and refocuses society on a symbolic goal at the expense of realistic, time-proven ones.

With the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016, we see that a Nativist trope has been proven true. Diversity creates Balkanization, named for the split of different ethnic and religious groups in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, much as it introduced Ireland to chaos over the ethnically-distinct and religiously-nonconformist Northern Irish (Scots-Irish) group. When a nation Balkanizes, it divides into groups within it who want nothing to do with each other and exist in a muted state of constant cultural warfare.

Even the mainstream press organ The Week (hat tip: Billy Roper) has noticed the permanent Balkanization of America:

Only “the thinnest of threads” still holds the nation together, says veteran pollster Frank Luntz, who was astonished by the raw rancor he saw in his diverse focus groups. “We’re one thread from everything being cut.”

For healing to occur, our Balkanized country would need our warring tribes to talk to each other, understand each other’s perspectives, see each other’s humanity. Not much chance of that. Every faction has its own media now, where partisans can be “affirmed, not informed,” as Luntz puts it. No one need be troubled by different ideas and views. Geographically, we’ve sorted ourselves into communities of like-minded people, so we can avoid close, personal contact with people we don’t trust or like. Our nation is more polarized than at any time in recent history.

There is no cure for this condition. When groups split, the first step is that they revert back into their ethnic, religious and cultural identities. After that, they separate, and stop working together. Cultural warfare picks up speed and eventually, open warfare results. This occurs despite members of each group wanting to avoid it.

Many people can point the finger at other groups, much as African-Americans do toward whites or neo-Nazis do toward Jews, but very few are willing to admit the core of the problem: our addiction to egalitarianism forces us to accept the abolition of ourselves and our replacement with whatever equal people want to come here.

When you say that all people are equal, it suddenly makes no sense to protect social order such as nationalism, class, or even hierarchy. Instead, you want to create a large mob, program them with ideology, control them with economics and humiliation, and use them as a means toward the end of forging Utopia through egalitarianism.

The root of our problem is diversity because diversity, like other egalitarian ideas including feminism, is a destructive policy because it is paradoxical and therefore will have different real-world effects than what is promised:

To find the cause, we backtrack. Why are we in a multicultural society? Because a large number of our people believe it’s a good idea. On what principle do they believe that it is a good idea? Why, the equality of all people, of course. Why do they believe this principle is important? In that view, it’s the only way to achieve “freedom” and “justice” and other “good” things. Why do we believe some things are good, and some bad? There’s this Absolute rule, see, that to respect the life of another is the highest good; you can see it in Christianity, and liberalism. What kind of thinking would motivate this rule? Fear of other people, fear of predation, and fear of death; if we’re all equal, none of us can be interrupted or criticized by others, and that’s “freedom,” remember. What made us abandon the idea of making a stronger, more natural society for this strange plastic equality? Probably the same fear, and the loss of belief in something worth fighting and striving and dying for on a daily basis.

Aha. The root of our modern society, with its egalitarian sentiments, is fear of other people, and fear of being inferior. Fear of being proven, as occurs in nature, unequal to a task, and having a predator walk away in victory licking his chops; fear of having judgment passed over us. Fear of nature as an Order, and the desire to impose our own, based on the individual so that none might fear predation. And what might we call this belief? Well, since it no longer affirms that some things are worth striving for as a whole, and instead relies on defense of what already exists, we’ll call it passivity. It’s the antithesis of heroism: the belief that nothing is worth sacrificing for on a constant basis.

Sure, we have wars. But we view ourselves as provoked into those, and only a small subset of the population faces the battlefield; they’re paid to do it, in fact. It’s like any other job. Some go to offices, and some to dusty graves in fields strewn with the shell casings and burnt plastic and metal detritus of warfare. But on a daily basis, do we confront death, and do we affirm that it’s worth risking death for anything? Hell, no, we don’t. We run in fear from that very vision. So: the root of our social situation at the current time is fear, and it manifests itself in a passive philosophy that, unlike heroic beliefs, is unified by a desire to avoid the possible risk of death, thus negating the idea that any constant ideal is so worthy that we would give up our security of life for it.

Individualists want “me first” above all else, and to that end, they remove any rules that say they must be productive, competent, or good before they are rewarded by society. This means correspondingly that they cannot lose social status for being unproductive, incompetent, or falling short of “good” even if they do not make it fully to “evil.”

To enforce this individualism, they form collectives, which demand that if one person is rewarded, all people are rewarded. This naturally extends to race and identity politics, where minority groups — realizing that their position is less advantageous — demand subsidies and special considerations from the majority.

This process creates a death cycle of internal conflict. As minorities agitate, the minority withdraws and prepares itself for a time after social order which will suspiciously resemble modern Brazil: elite former majorities, now minorities, retreat to guarded gated communities or remote rural locations.

We are seeing this happen in America and Europe as white families arm themselves against the racial decline in preparation for balkanization:

Obama’s presidency, they feared, would empower minorities to threaten their property and families.

The insight Stroud gained from her interviews is backed up by many, many studies. A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent. A 2016 study from the University of Illinois at Chicago found that racial resentment among whites fueled opposition to gun control. This drives political affiliations: A 2017 study in the Social Studies Quarterly found that gun owners had become 50 percent more likely to vote Republican since 1972—and that gun culture had become strongly associated with explicit racism.

For many conservative men, the gun feels like a force for order in a chaotic world, suggests a study published in December of last year. In a series of three experiments, Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay asked hundreds of liberals and conservatives to imagine holding a handgun—and found that conservatives felt less risk and greater personal control than liberal counterparts.

…Baylor University sociologists Paul Froese and F. Carson Mencken created a “gun empowerment scale” designed to measure how a nationally representative sample of almost 600 owners felt about their weapons. Their study found that people at the highest level of their scale—the ones who felt most emotionally and morally attached to their guns—were 78 percent white and 65 percent male.

…Both Froese and Stroud found pervasive anti-government sentiments among their study participants. “This is interesting because these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the ‘nation,’ says Froese. “On that point, I expect that many in this group see the ‘nation’ as being white.”

In other words, following the research of Robert Putnam, diversity causes people to “hunker down” because they do not trust others and do not believe that their civilization is heading toward success, which means by the converse, that it is failing.

When people perceive that social order has failed, and that government including the police are biased against them, they do two things: they buy guns, and retreat to communities of people like them, much as they did during “white flight.” They want to protect their families, businesses, neighbors, and friends from the ongoing disaster.

Few of them will stop to think why they got to this state, but a penetrating analysis reveals that demands for equality always lead down this path:

At first, democracy might just be the ideal state. Socrates describes it as “a charming sort of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to the equal and unequal alike.”

…Socrates, often considered to be a mouthpiece for Plato, contends that once given freedom in a democracy, we tend to become drunk off of it. We become so concerned with our liberty that we recoil at any institution that would try to limit it.

…Now the leader is truly a tyrant. He neglects the needs of the people in order to maintain his position. Finally, we see how democracy has led to tyranny, how our desire for liberty has brought only slavery.

If being forced to work to support a vast contingent of people whose interests conflict with your own, while defending yourself because the State will not, knowing that its goal is to eliminate you through passive genocide or socially/economically induced outbreeding, is not slavery, we wonder what is.

For white people, the real challenge here is beating the mental virus within. We — especially conservatives! — have been indoctrinated to champion individualism and freedom, equality, liberty, independence, and other forms of the individual being right and any order larger than the individual being wrong.

As it turns out, only those larger orders can protect us. Only some of them qualify: we do not want to end up defending government or the group itself, but only those within the group who act according to the principles of our civilization, starting with defense of the genetic group (Western Europeans) that alone can create it.

In this way, diversity leads to balkanization and in turn to the rebirth of civilization as people see that individualism/equality creates doom, and only restoring organic civilization — independent of government and economic self-interest — can avoid it.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn