Amerika

There’s an almost mystical underpinning to human experience: beware of what you deny, as by denying it, you make it the center but unspoken issue.

In abusive families, it’s the alcoholism, incest or beating of the kids. In a workplace, it’s the health of the company or the scandal brewing. In politics, it’s the issues that are too “impolitic” to discuss.

We write a lot about race on this blog because, other than the looming ecocide, race is the primary issue that voters and politicians won’t talk about.

It is nearly invisible because, as a part of the general liberal agenda toward financial equality through class warfare, it is held in the hands of “good intentions” and thus, it’s hard to criticize.

That’s like pointing out that the people giving out free cupcakes work for a dentist.

In the meantime, race remains a difficult issue because for the left, it is a means of importing voters who will then vote leftist. The right since 1945 has just been trying to catch up and find its own strategy.

Yet we very rarely talk about the actual consequences of race as an issue, which is that we are still using each other to the same degree (though in better circumstances) that we did under slavery.

Social scientists attribute negative attitudes toward blackness to historical and cultural processes in our society that perpetuate perceptions of dark skin as inferior to white, stigmatizing blacks and other ethnic minorities as being lazy, shiftless, and ineducable—attitudes that affect the achievement gap in educational attainment between blacks and Latinos versus whites and Asians. These attitudes have been referred to as symptoms of systemic racism.

Such stereotypes have even been accepted by people victimized by them, a process called stereotype threat. Some parents and teachers do not recognize the pervasive effect that white culture has on children from other ethnic groups. And we can see how negative stereotypes persist despite efforts to change them. – Tolerance.org

Above please find the positive narrative that we are told is the basis for our outlook on race. White racism is the cause of minority ills.

There are others who will tell you that the cause of minority ills is the low performance of minorities. There may or may not be factual data to support this idea, or the concept of evolution branching, but that is unimportant.

What is important is that in every context, at every time it has been tried, “diversity” — whether of race, caste, religion, or even philosophy — has been not only a massive failure, but a destructive one. It is one symptom of a dying regime and it has always been politically popular for economic reasons, while the decadent leaders of that dying regime ignored its consequences among the population.

In other words, it is dogma: political “truths” that clash with reality, yet remain necessary for the regime to function, so are demanded as a kind of shibboleth (test phrase) which guards entry to the financial hierarchy.

It is only in the modern time that with the combination of moral politics (think American Civil War or World War II), big media, and a socio-economic (financial) hierarchy beset by voracious social climbing on the basis of having the “right” opinions, dying civilizations have been able to convince the citizens to enforce this dogma on each other.

And while we fight out whether to blame the white majority, or blame minorities, look what is happening:

Science is NOT politically neutral. To the contrary, everything about science is inherently political. This includes the kind of questions that are asked, the specific methodology used to try to find answers, and the social context that is used to frame the findings. A scientist who claims he/she is “objective” is either being deliberately deceitful or is unaware of how personal bias is impacting his/her work. These are both worst-case scenarios. From the perspective of a science consumer, scientists need to 1. be aware of their own biases (that are relevant to the research topic), and 2. either get support in making sure their bias is not reflected in their research methodology/write-up or be transparent about their bias so that readers can make an informed opinion.

Science is still the best game in town, but research findings alone do not justify anything. I’m not trying to be funny. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is it racist to state that Blacks kids graduate high school at lower rates and generally perform less well academically than white kids?
2. Is it racist to state that Black people, especially Black men are MUCH more likely to be arrested and charged with a crime and more likely to be incarcerated?
3. Is it racist to state that Blacks score almost a full standard deviation lower than whites on tests of intelligence — despite no evidence that contemporary tests of intelligence are racially biased.
4. Is it racist to talk about Jeremiah Wright and the church that Obama attended?

The above are all facts. Their truth is not in question. Yet they can (and often are) used to promote racist ideologies and agendas. This doesn’t mean, of course, that everyone who endorses such statements is intentionally promoting racism. To the contrary, these statements are often explicitly used in support of an anti-racism agenda. At the same time, without the relevant context, these statements do, in actuality, promote racism regardless of the speaker’s good intentions, because without the proper context, they reinforce harmful group stereotypes. – Psychology Today

First, we have come to distrust truth itself. If it is impolitic, we can not only not discuss it, but we must also not act on it. That leads to us conveniently blowing off other truths as well.

Second, we have made minorities into the dreaded “political football.” They are used by other groups to jockey for political power. If your campaign runs into trouble, do something for The Minorities^TM, who in addition to the poor, the retarded and the elderly are great pity-symbols to make you look like a nice person.

Finally, we have made denial of truth and affirmation of dogma a method of recognizing others, which then tends to serve the agenda we claim to be refuting, which is that like birds of a feather flock together:

I happened to find myself at a slightly “rough around the edges” bar recently with an SWPL friend of mine. The funny thing about SWPLs is that they are quick to deny classism in an abstract sense, but readily engage in it when lower castes are too proximal for their comfort. The person I was with for the record was doing a liberal arts degree and was indoctrinated with plenty enough feminism, raised in a mostly white community, and had such bourgeois interests such as wine-tasting.

Anyway, the boisterous blue collar workers nearby prompted him to exclaim, “God, I hate white people so much!” Disregarding the fact that when the average person thinks of a ‘white person’ they think of someone exactly like him. What they surely meant to say was, “Even though most of my friends are white people who share the same socieconomic class as me, and my friends of colour are of the acceptable sort, I hate white people when they aren’t university educated, liberal drones like myself.”

I have my share of classist perspectives, but what annoys me is the hypocrisy of theoretically espousing that everyone is perfectly equal whilst wanting to distance oneself from the ‘bad kinds’ of equal people. – Sofiastry

This is the result of class warfare: since we cannot officially admit to class as anything but a measurement of your salary, people use other means. One way that seems misguided is that they loathe those who aren’t as hip, slender, “educated” (given modern education, this dubious term gets scare quotes), etc. as they.

In short, minorities have become a political football that determines how far you can climb socially.

Theodor Herzl pointed out that the cause of anti-Semitism was not Jews or Gentiles, but diversity. In a majority-minority situation, distrust and fighting for power become the norm.

We are finding that out every year in new places. Hutus versus Tutsis, Catholics versus Protestants, native Europeans versus Muslim Arabs, Hopi versus Cherokee, Scythians against Greeks, Slavs versus Balts, Sephardim versus Ashkenazim, and many more. Any disparity in population produces “diversity” and endless internal conflict.

This is not a failing of the groups themselves, or the concept of groups.

Groups separate based on different values and this causes them to separate geographically. This probably goes back to our time in Africa, when one group of early humans wanted a fixed civilization, so journeyed away from the teeming masses to harsher lands. This journey changed them, and that change is a form of culture. We can definitely see it in the history of our Greco-Roman ancestors, who pulled away from a chaotic majority and formed breakaway nations that later succeeded far more than their ancestor populations.

Race is the final frontier in American politics because we cannot discuss it honestly, and we refuse to do that because it would reveal how much we’re using it to manipulate each other.

In the meantime, it seems no one is thinking of the effects on the people involved. Would African-Americans be happier as second-class citizens in America, or as rulers of Africa? Would Mexico be better off if its most promising workers stopped headed north to the USA, and started working on fixing up Mexico instead?

These questions pass by, like whispers in the backdraft of a passing train, unheard as the empire crumbles.