Amerika

For your enjoyment today, we present two writers on the same topic: how the realist question of “Is diversity good?” gets redirected into the procedurist debate over which aspects of diversity are bad.

by Arran Ryan, PhD

In accordance with a realist philosophy of science¹ the aim of science is to uncover the generative mechanisms in the world, which exist independent of humans and conscious experience. These generative mechanisms include such things as genetic codes, chemical agents, electron and molecular structures, in the physical realm, and social structures, social interaction and relationships in the human sphere; these generative mechanisms uncover the inner and deep structure of the universe.

Causation involves events of the type specified to be the cause, generating events described in the effect. Scientific inquiry involves attributing a nature to the invariances observed in nature or society. Causal relationships then, are not as the empiricist David Hume (1711-1776) supposed, a succession of unconnected events, but involve necessary connections between things, so there is no problem of induction as Hume thought. As well, the natural and social world does not consist of “atoms” of individuals, with no necessary connections between them, and no essential properties and relations. What is true for sub-atomic particles, atoms, to galaxies, is true for all human interactions as well.

The NAXALT — “not all X are like that,” where X is an ethnic, religious, cultural, sexual, or racial group — argument fails because it is a sophistry that does not take into account the concept of averages, or as I have put it here, that White nationalism is based upon a statistical proposition, rather than a universal generalization. On average men are taller than women, but that does not preclude the existence of some very tall women at the right tail of the bell curve. And behind the notion of averages is the generative mechanisms causing the differences; genes in the example of height differences, intelligence, lifespan, and racial differences.

Then there is the example of perhaps, some particularly brilliant Black person. As has been said, the proponents of the NAXALT argument are liberals, who see the ontology of society comprised solely of individuals, with no essential racial or collective properties and relations. These social atoms all have the same rights by virtual of existence. The proponent of NAXALT is appealing to this ontological individualism in rejecting the White nationalist position.

However, for the liberal, there is an essential contradiction here, as today multiculturalism and identity politics does seem to posit racial essences to groups, so modern liberalism is internally inconsistent. After all, if races do not exist, what sense is there in giving billions in Black reparations, if all that exists are arbitrary individuals, and the supposed individual victims are all long dead? What is the sense in having victim groups like CAIR, BLM, AIPAC, NAACP, and La Raza, if we are all the same?

A realist philosophy of science recognises the existence of unrealized potentials and propensities, and as well, the emergence of certain characteristics (emergent properties) which are properties of systems and collectives, not seen in the parts. Thus, an individual atom in space does not have a temperature as such, but a system of vibrating particles, interacting, has an average kinetic energy, and hence, thermodynamically, a temperature. Analogous to this, take the example of the lone virtuous Muslim. This is seemingly not a social problem, being racially diluted. Yet, as the numbers of Muslims increases, and the interactions between them become, like the particles “more energetic,” we reach a situation as in the UK, where one third of British Muslims want sharia law by 2044, and ever rising with mass immigration.² Thus, even the virtuous Muslim may undergo a change in nature once the environmental triggers change.

As another example, Han Chinese peacefully engaging in commerce, may change in nature if war between China and the US occurs over Taiwan, and mother China calls its diaspora in the West, to take action. We have not seen anything yet, since immigration has led to the professional nerve centers of Western societies being heavily endowed by such people. There is little discussion of this coming social chaos; the thousands of military age Chinese who entered the US through the open Biden-Harris border alone could take down the grid, leading to social chaos and the deaths of millions of Americans. And Karma Harris wants even more of them, so long as the illegals vote for her, illegally. Go figure.

But what about the statistical outliers, such as the brilliant, peaceful Black person; are small numbers of such people welcome in a White nationalist society? I think not, for public policy reasons alone, regardless of any underlying propensities. For a start, it was the ideology that there would only be small numbers of non-Whites admitted to America and Australia after the traditional immigration restriction policies were overturned by the usual suspects in the mid-1960s. It was a convenient falsehood that should have been strongly called out at the time and fought against.

Thus, the abandonment of say the White Australia policy, led then to multiculturalism, then to the Asianisation of Australia, in a country that was 97 percent Anglo-Celtic at federation in 1901, but is set to become majority non-White about the same time as the US descends into racial darkness. In the US, non-White immigration, and high diverse birth-rates, will lead to Whites becoming a minority some think by 2040-2050, but it will be much sooner if comrade Karma Harris wins the US election in November 2024, which with the established system of electoral fraud, and illegals voting (see the Gateway Pundit.com) seems very likely. The point is that for a social policy such as immigration for White nationalists, even one person can lead to the slippery slope of the beginning of the undermining of the policy.

The situation resembles the Sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap.³ One grain of sand is not a heap. But if one grain of sand is not a heap, then 2 grains of sand are not a heap. And if that, then 3 grains of sand are not a heap. By continuous application of the logical rule of modus ponens, (P implies Q, P, therefore Q) we can infer, that one billion grains of sand are not a heap. The conclusion is false, but there is no non-arbitrary cut off point. In such situations, when faced with such a slippery slope to absurdity, if possible, one should not get on the logical slide at all.

Thus, in the parallel situation with the composition of a White nationalist society, since there is no non-arbitrary cut-off point for the number of “virtuous colored folk,” and we know that at some point there will be emergent bad properties, it is best then not to get on the slippery slope at all, and thus have precisely zero non-Whites, Muslims, whatever, if you want to have a functional society. We can already see how diversity has fragmented social unity and left behind a paranoid, lonely, and cultureless pluralism.⁴

Finally, while the NAXALT argument against White nationalism is “anti-White sophistry,” not all uses of the NAXALT argument are invalid. For example, radical feminists have claimed that “all men are rapists.” This lies behind the TikTok meme of a few months back, that many women would rather be alone in a forest with a bear than a man, as a bear will not rape them, only eat them (and their vaginas) alive, which they presumably would prefer! Looked at from the bear’s perspective, this is not probable if bears have anything else to eat besides the feminists. However, the obvious response is that not all men are rapists; few are, and some aging women are raping high school boys and being jailed for it too. Hence the hashtag #NotAllmen, or NAMALT.

But the feminists have a response to that use of NAXALT. Thus, we have Suzanne Harrington claiming that while not all men are rapists, “all men are part of the problem…all men are complicit in rape culture unless they are actively calling out rape culture.”⁵ Here she does not spell out exactly how all men are complicit in rape culture, and why exactly calling out rape culture puts one in the clear; surely by feminist “logic” men must be eternally guilty whatever they do? Again, NAXALT can be applied, as most men are not complicit in rape culture, and only a high re-definition by radical feminism generates that. And, if it is in man’s nature to participate in “rape culture,” as defined by fruit loopy feminism, then, harassment and rape are normal.⁶

If the evidence supports this, then so be it, but there is no such evidence and it is circular to posit that the mere exist of man-to-female rape shows this, any more than the statutory rape of school boys by middle age, pre-menopausal female school teachers shows that “all women are complicit in rape culture.” In any case, that is no doubt a conclusion the feminist would want to avoid, perhaps even more than they would eschew, as rabid Leftoids, and White racial nihilists, White nationalism.

by Brett Stevens

We live in a time of ass. That is, people lack basic understanding that was considered not just “common sense” but essential to function, even sixty years ago. In an age of ass, all but a tenth of a percent of what you hear in public is a partial truth or outright lie, and any exceptions are militantly ignored by the good people.

To be one of the good people, you have to not notice the decline. All of the people who want to get somewhere by using The System agree that you cannot mention real sources of the decline, but you can mention token issues of the day as long as they are on the surface and will not really rock the boat!

Keeping in line with this process, both nationalists and their defenders have up until now generally confined their arguments to existing within the egalitarian fallacy that presumes that societies are comprised of individuals who serve no role except to act toward their own desires and self-expression.

In other words, we must assume the current failing system is functional, instead of pointing out that it is not and seeing egalitarianism (a fancy form of individualism, narcissism, or hubris) as the problem in itself. We are anarchists in this time, assuming that society is formed of individuals without a need for social order.

This splinters into two arguments:

• Nationalists instead of arguing for nationalism as something good in itself take their time to criticize other ethnic groups, finding problems with the Jews, Negroes, Indians, Orientals, Amerinds/Hispanics, Arabs, and so on. Instead of looking at the question from the perspective of what makes a happy civilization, they try to find fault with other groups to use as an argument against diversity.
• Multiculturalists refuse to view civilization as anything more than warm bodies united by a legal system. In their view, any objections to diversity must involve racism and bigotry, therefore diversity is a moral imperative. This ignores the need for shared things like culture which are highly influenced by genetics.

Neither group looks at the question of civilization itself.

A successful civilization in the traditional sense is formed of a group with a lot in common, which cuts down on internal dialogue and random behavior. This means that they need to be of the same ethnicity, culture, and religion.

Note that this does not say “race.” Race is too general of a category; it includes groups at the edges of the racial cline where admixture is common. It also spans too many varieties of human to achieve the closeness of an ethno-nationalist society.

When we talk about ethnostates, we mean that instead of the nation-state of multiple ethnic groups united under a legal system, the organic nation consists of one ethnic group, with one culture including its religion, separated from all others.

These societies work better than the rest because of the low overhead. People who are genetically similar tend to want similar things, have similar aesthetics, and similar standards. The lack of overhead and confusion makes these societies efficient and pleasant, which means that people happily do what is necessary to thrive and enjoy their lives.

Even more, these societies resist genocide. When you combine two ethnic groups, you get a new ethnic group, and the two constituent groups are destroyed. Even when only a small amount of mixing occurs — called trace miscegenation — the original genetics of the group are replaced and therefore, erased.

This means that if you want your group to survive, you must keep out all outsiders. Luckily unless you have fewer than two thousand individuals, inbreeding is not a problem. In fact, some inbreeding is useful to lock in traits and preserve the best of them.

A society with one ethnic group can also pursue natural selection. Because everyone is similar, this group can have standards for what is ideal as a human being and in human behavior. It promotes those who achieve these and demotes those who act against them, using natural selection to enhance its internal traits.

Centuries ago, in The Republic, Plato pointed out that inner mental state of the individual mirrors that of the civilization. Healthy civilizations produce healthy individuals; healthy individuals produce healthy civilizations. This cycle helps civilizations refine themselves into being the best they can be.

Diversity prevents this and makes degenerating civilizations that end up having none of the genetic traits of the original groups, which is why most of the world consists of poor third-world mixed-race groups. Diversity is a decay process, not any kind of strength.

The reason diversity is a sacred cow is that people are afraid of noticing that our civilization is in decline and getting worse each year, faster and faster, unless we start doing something about it. By necessity, that “something” will include ending ethnic diversity.

Footnotes

¹ R. Harre & E. H. Madden (1975), Causal Powers, Oxford: Basil Blackwell; R. Harre (1993), Laws of Nature, London: Duckworth.

² G. Bunn, “Terrifying State of Britain: Almost a Third of Country’s Muslims Want Sharia Law Implemented by 2044,” August 4, 2024, https://www.gbnews.com/news/hamas-support-uk-muslims-poll.

³ D. Hyde, “Sorites Paradox,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox.

⁴ R. D. Putnam, “E. Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture,” Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 30 (2), pp. 137-174.

⁵ S. Harrington, “Suzanne Harrington: Not All men? Yes, Actually All Men are Part of the Problem,” March 24, https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle-columnists/arid-40247828.html.

⁶ J. Valenti, “Male Sexuality isn’t Brutal by Default. It is Dangerous to Suggest It Is,” November 29, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/male-sexual-assault-nature.

Tags: diversity, Ethno Nationalism, nationalism, NAXAL, pluralism, white nationalism