Amerika

Sometime in the early 1990s, it became clear that the post-Reagan world involved people who wanted to spread democracy and they saw diversity as the future. This never made sense to me, since it was apparently that having many cultures would mean having no culture in common. We would live in a shopping mall and have nothing in common but money.

All of the educated, experienced, and “mature” people told me this was insane. Of course it would work out; the foreigners would assimilate by adopting our constitution, free markets, and ideology of openness. We would be stronger since we would have all these new ideas and possibilities.

Few of them realized that, having grown up in the most diverse part of the world, to me the problems of diversity were nothing new. I had friends of all races, ethnic groups, religions, and sexual orientation. I knew good people from everywhere on Earth. But that had nothing to do with the problem of diversity.

Quite simply, diversity abolishes culture and then, in short order, it makes a permanent political system, at which point it erases the founding group. The foreigners are not being assimilated; the continuous creators of the nation are, which makes government, corporations, and crazy lobbies including religions and ideologues more powerful.

It was a path to decline like that of the Soviet Union or the Nazis and Fascists. Ideology cannot replace biology. Government cannot replace culture. Free markets are great, but they are not a social system. Any system tainted by socialism quickly destroys the productive and replaces them with those who are participation award recipients.

Diversity (“civil rights”) became the blank cheque for American government to go full socialist. No one wanted to be accused of being the losing side in the Civil War and WW2, so anti-racism was the only permissible attitude, which let bureaucrats get funding for government expansion and allowed them to pass laws for increased control.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) like Political Correctness (PC) provided the justification and impetus for a socialist revolution in America. The idea was that a diversity swing vote would always pull the lever for more free stuff that the former White and Whitish majority would pay for.

This kept government in power indefinitely, at least until recently. The political machine ran on race guilt and the need to “solve” poverty, allowing it nearly unlimited funds and a public afraid to criticize it because its motives were good (in theory).

All of this came from diversity. We could not oppose diversity or we would be called “racists” whether that was true or not, and in America starting in the late 1980s, anyone “racist” lost any jobs or hope of future that they had. In an increasingly surveillance-oriented, jobs-based society to be “racist” was the kiss of death.

This left no space for honest assessment of diversity, which was by pure logical fact never a good idea. Combining multiple cultures destroys them all and eventually genocides them by outbreeding. Only mono-ethnic societies have a chance at survival; poly-ethnic societies are doomed.

Recognizing this situation makes it impossible to support diversity even if one is fully not “racist,” but the accusations will fly anyway. Many of us found ourselves without an ideological home: culturally progressive, we wanted the best for everyone, but we were also realists who found the warm feelings of diversity hid a nasty core of failure.

Back in the early 1990s, the destructive force of Political Correctness could be seen on the horizon: one could not criticize the diversity-socialism agenda, therefore it was the only remaining options. Leftists considered this clever.

Those of us who started out Leftist because we shared their belief in human progress and fairness felt betrayed. We were no longer making a better future for humanity, but instead were adopting the failed system of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Peasant Revolts, Mongols, and French Revolutionaries. We were choosing death over life.

It was not necessary to become a neo-Nazi to oppose this stuff, but for a long time, the far-Right was the only voice against the dominance of diversity and the ethnic self-interest voting it would use to achieve socialism in its milder, more cosmopolitan Keynesian form.

Only when Robert Putnam published research, following his Bowling Alone analysis of late democracy loneliness, showing that diversity makes Whites distrust Whites and compels everyone to “hunker down” and disengage from society, did the mainstream react.

Diversity itself is to blame, not the foreign groups involved. If you have a mono-ethnic society, you can have a culture. With a poly-ethnic society, any “culture” is actually political obedience and workplace conventions. Entertainment and media create a simulacra of culture that exists without context or purpose.

When diversity made it clear that it was going to exterminate White people if it could, White people turned against it. For many of us, that happened decades ago when we saw that the intent of the diversity supporters was to seize power, adopt tyranny/socialism, and run a political machine in perpetuity.

This movement will get a lot farther the minute it stops seeking tangible targets for its discontent (Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, Mexicans, the Rich) and starts focusing on its real enemies, which are bad policies based on unrealistic ideas like equity, diversity, sexual liberation, and tolerance.

In the meantime, the battle heats up on the streets as the diversity lobby responds with guilt, shame, and outrage:

“We’re here to speak for the people who cannot speak, and we’re here to stand up for their rights,” said Violet.

And some breaking out into a fight on Highland Avenue and East 14th street.

Protests like these have been ramping up, since President Trump’s federal immigration policy threatened to deport undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

The realization has not yet dropped that diversity will exterminate all groups caught in its web. They will lose their culture, adopt an anti-culture of tolerance and permissiveness, then rapidly outbreed and soon vanish into a sea of identical grey race faces.

Mostly, they are here for the free stuff we give out and the ability to send money home where it buys a lot more than it can here. Diversity arises from the connection between economic forces and political forces, namely the need to have higher population to pay off the taxes needed for already-promised entitlements.

Diversity always operates by the need for governments to move its working classes to easier jobs or subsidies, which requires a new cheaper labor force from abroad that conveniently will always support the government that sponsored it.

It also creates a potent force for civilization decay, which makes bureaucracy and consumerism (bourgeois “last man” consumption as a substitute for meaning) more powerful. As the legendary Ann Coulter says, diversity is never a strength for anyone:

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

If you look at America today, the African-American population has figured out the diversity trap first. They saw how society feted them and celebrated them with one hand while replacing them with Mexicans and low Oriental Asians with the other. Diversity kills off all groups through a continual flow of foreign DNA.

The first American diversity was the Irish — we are leaving aside the Amerinds (Indians) and enslaved Africans who were marginalized or excluded from social power — but this quickly led to Italians, Russians, Jews, Puerto Ricans, and finally every third world country on Earth sending its people here.

Wherever diversity goes, it starts as war against the majority, but rapidly turns into all against all, which ends when the groups are exhausted and “assimilate” each other into a new cultureless grey race with none of the unique traits that made each group powerful.

It has nothing to do with who the diverse groups are, and everything to do with the fact of diversity itself. Having a poly-ethnic society leads to breakdown and genocide even if these groups are within the same race:

The Congolese health ministry said on Saturday there were 773 bodies in hospital morgues in and around Goma following a recent offensive by rebels who seized the eastern city.

Well-trained and professionally armed, M23 is the latest in a long line of Rwandan-supported rebel movements to emerge in Congo’s volatile eastern borderlands following two successive wars stemming from Rwanda’s 1994 genocide.

It is the most potent of more than 100 armed groups vying for control of the eastern region.

Rwanda has been on the genocide radar for some time now because it is where different ethnic groups in the same race are colliding and vying for a particular property: who gets to define the culture, genetics, and behaviors of the area in which they live.

This puts the lie to the idea that it is evil Whites or primitive Blacks that are causing diversity to fail. Diversity is simply an illogical idea because to succeed it must genocide the groups involved and replace them with a grey race.

Since each population has a genetic framework, this erases its specific abilities. Since genes code for small things, it takes many of them working in concert to make a trait, like the thousand-plus genes that code for intelligence.

Each population therefore consists of a semi-inbred framework of related genes that code for its abilities together but not alone. When two populations mix, the two frameworks collapse where they are not very similar, because nature rolls the dice for each gene and therefore complex traits are not preserved.

Before the genetic damage occurs, however, diversity does social damage. Each group faces a binary choice: dominate, or be dominated. The majority especially they fear because it is continuous with the origin of the society, so serves as a reminder that all other groups do not fit.

For this reason, diversity kicks off a war of all-against-all which because none have a majority, ends in mutual defeat. This does not stop constant racial resentment from causing civil war and social conflict on a regular basis:

The Fenians were a group of Irish-Americans whose ultimate goal was Irish independence.

They attempted to accomplish this by trying to invade and occupy parts of British North America and essentially ransom them back to Britain in return for Irish independence.

Even years after the supposed “assimilation” and “integration” of foreign ethnic groups, the resentment and jockeying for power remains. Each group faces the choice of either losing its identity and being accepted, or keeping its identity and being marginalized and therefore, having less wealth.

Within groups, diversity creates chaos because there is no longer a single rubric for acceptable public behavior and more importantly, behavior that will be rewarded with the esteem of the group. This is how people find mates and diversity interrupts this process:

We live in large, techno-commercial, highly differentiated, socially mobile, diverse societies. Underneath our egalitarian commitments, we are birds of very different feathers who often flock together, date, and think it a good idea to get married. Even within homogeneous groups of the same ethnicity and social class, ending up with a compatible partner becomes a tall order.

It is hard enough finding partners in a homogenous society, but in a diverse one, the behaviors that would attract partners now become ambiguous. This leaves people bonding on transparent and shallow similarities like hobbies, movies, music, sports, and religion.

We dance around the fact of existence that culture is at its heart somewhat arbitrary. That is, the rules and ideals that work for one group will not work for any other group; Western Europeans are genetically similar enough to share culture across national lines to a degree, but beyond that, similarities fall off.

Culture determines what behavior is acceptable, and culture is specific to a genetic group that shares the same genetic framework of traits and inclinations. Social settings and socializing with others rewards instead mutual respect for individualism, which translates into the idea of “we are all one” or we are all similar.

That universalism — found also in organized religions from the middle east — creates a weak bond that is strong in the short term but fades over time. However, it enables people to form vast mobs addicted to the idea of universalism, therefore they demand ever-increasing amounts of it.

However, universalism led to a participation award society more concerned with giving every person a job than whether those jobs were done well, and the resulting quality crash plunged our societies into third-world status:

Much of the friction Trump has with the governing class arises from his rejection of universalism, the metaprinciple at the heart of liberalism. This principle declares that one’s brother, father, wife, child, neighbor, countryman, coreligionist, or fellow tribe member are all supposed to be treated no differently from an absolute stranger. For universalists, those naturally closer to us have no priority claims upon our time and resources, and it is unfair and discriminatory to proceed otherwise.

However, in a diverse society, universalism is required, because asserting any specific culture scares and enrages those from other cultures. This is why in diverse societies the former majority negates itself; it tries to disappear in order to get along with others.

Naturally every diverse society produces something like Political Correctness (PC) or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). It must do so in order to suppress the conflict brought about by diversity. It does so by prohibiting any criticism of diversity, so that a false consensus can be presented visually.

Since each group is vying for dominance, all of them steal, especially from the former majority since they want to destroy it. The resulting culture of corruption destroys the first-world core of that society and replaces it with disorder:

To start with, the driving impulse of the ANC (including its EFF and MKP offshoots) has always been to loot. Its animating ideology, the National Democratic Revolution (NDR), is one of “kleptocracism”: the belief that power brings with it an entitlement to (racial) plunder. The declared goal of the NDR is to “return” the “wealth of our country, the mines of our country, the factories and the land in our country” to “the people” (the black majority) from whom these had been “stolen” (by the white minority).

It is time consuming and ultimately futile to chase down the rabbit hole to try and pin down the historical legitimation for this assertion. It is a classic “accusation in the mirror” formulation whereby a party imputes to its enemy exactly what it is intending to do to them. You will find the same phrasing used in other countries, with quite distinct histories to South Africa’s, where revolutionary racial nationalists were seeking to dispossess productive but politically vulnerable minorities of their property. As we now know from hard experience the suggestion that the “wealth” being seized by the party would be passed over into the hands of “the people” was also misdirection.

Although it is de rigueur to blame specific groups, like Blacks or Whites, for the failure of diversity, a more accurate analysis holds that diversity itself is unstable and therefore creates the problems it was designed to solve.

Means-over-ends logic generally follows this pattern. Instead of working toward a goal like the most stable society possible, humans run away from things they fear and make it taboo to mention them, which forces everyone to comply with an illusion so that eventually the society becomes wholly reality-denying.

For this reason, every time diversity occurs, it ends up replicating international politics, where groups struggle for dominance using guilt and shame as weapons, but this benefits those who are succeeding less and penalizes those who have risen above the rest.

In the filing, China said the measures were “discriminatory and protectionist” and violated trade rules.

If the “model minorities” behave like any other diversity group, the problem is not “bad races” but diversity itself.

When we see the drama of diversity play out similarly from Rwanda to Northern Ireland to Vietnam to Ukraine, it becomes clear that diversity of any form will destroy the future of a civilization. By removing culture, it leaves a society adrift, and it then tears itself apart with infighting.

We know this is the case because in international relations we see the same thing, tempered only by national borders and geographical separation.

Everywhere diversity goes, the same consequences like a pathology or infection follow it:

To start with, the driving impulse of the ANC (including its EFF and MKP offshoots) has always been to loot. Its animating ideology, the National Democratic Revolution (NDR), is one of “kleptocracism”: the belief that power brings with it an entitlement to (racial) plunder. The declared goal of the NDR is to “return” the “wealth of our country, the mines of our country, the factories and the land in our country” to “the people” (the black majority) from whom these had been “stolen” (by the white minority).

It is time consuming and ultimately futile to chase down the rabbit hole to try and pin down the historical legitimation for this assertion. It is a classic “accusation in the mirror” formulation whereby a party imputes to its enemy exactly what it is intending to do to them. You will find the same phrasing used in other countries, with quite distinct histories to South Africa’s, where revolutionary racial nationalists were seeking to dispossess productive but politically vulnerable minorities of their property. As we now know from hard experience the suggestion that the “wealth” being seized by the party would be passed over into the hands of “the people” was also misdirection.

Any diversity, even that within the same race such as Southern Europeans and Western Europeans, ends in internal conflict, corruption, and each group trying to out-loot the others.

All of this leads to a decision point in the West: in Europe, the UK, Australia, and North America, diversity gave power to the Left, who promptly shifted us to socialism and bankrupted us while bleeding away our greatest strengths. These people hate our strength and want weakness so they can prey on what is left.

Using civil rights as a blank cheque and battering ram, they dismantled every functional part of society and replaced them with bureaucracy and consumerism. Our future is bleaker because of the effect diversity had on our political system.

In addition, they have divided Whites into compliant people who have gone insane because they believe paradoxical and nonsensical dogma instead of what reality plainly shows them, and unruly dropouts who no longer trust or will work for their host civilization.

Diversity has reduced the value of the West to a fraction of what it formerly was, and we are now seeing a market correction that is bigger than any candidate. People want the forward momentum on diversity to stop and ideally, the entire thing to go away.

Not surprisingly, we are finally seeing the diversity is our strength Communist-style slogan evaporating:

“I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is, ‘Our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said. “I think our strength is our unity.”

It was clear to me back in the early 1990s that we would eventually arrive at this point and the backlash would be acrimonious because when you deceive people and tell them that diversity is doing good things, and it is not, they eventually wake up and feel betrayed, which then comes out as angry emotion.

For me, it was clear that a number of the “democratization” policies of the twentieth century — socialism, diversity, bureaucracy, rent control, appeasement — were doomed and the duty of anyone concerned about the future was to figure out how to restrain the blowback.

We do not want another Hitler or obviously, to fall into Communism. As technology accelerates, the number of jobs declines, so the last thing we want to do is import more labor. Government entitlements stimulus spending decreases the value of the currency, so that is a bad idea but will always exist with diversity.

The way out is to start thinking about civilization design again. Only mono-ethnic societies have a chance at survival; only capitalist ones thrive; the only pleasant ones have strong culture and strong leaders who do not micromanage. Diversity goes against all of those things.

Instead of directing our ire at the various groups in diversity, we should treat this soberly and maturely and simply get rid of these failed programs and never do them again.

Tags: benevolent xenophobia, diversity, Globalism, internationalism, multiculturalism, pacifism