Amerika

For years, Leftists relied on Stephen Jay Gould’s assertion that the races were all equal because, in Gould’s writing, he claimed that earlier skull measurements were incorrect and that these alterations were motivated by “racism.”

As it turned out, we found out in 2011 that Gould was so wrong as to stretch credulity, causing us to think that as usual, “the Leftist cries out as he strikes you,” or accuses you of exactly what he is doing:

In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.

…But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.

…But the Penn team finds Morton’s results were neither fudged nor influenced by his convictions. They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in his reports, finding that in only 2 percent of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own. These errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton.

…But Dr. Gould himself omitted subgroups in his own reanalysis, and made various errors in his calculations. When these are corrected, the differences between the racial categories recognized by Morton are as he assigned them. “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results,” the Pennsylvania team writes.

It is important to realize how pervasive the mental virus of egalitarianism is by looking at cases like the above. Assumptions about systematic racism and unconscious bias were made, revealing the opposite truth: the bias was not there, and the results were the opposite of what was asserted.

When we say that we are egalitarian, we are buying into the caste revolt that has catastrophically ruined the West over the past couple centuries. In order for the proles to seize control, they have to argue that there is nothing different about a king or high IQ person from anyone else, and therefore anyone can rule, and to make that fair, we will all choose whoever that is.

As a necessary side-effect of this, we have to stop noticing differences and adopt the unconscious bias that says that, since all people are equal, different outcomes are the result of chance or “oppression” instead of a difference in ability. This society would have you look at someone with wealth and assume that he has no different abilities from someone who is poor.

Maybe in some cases that is true, but in the vast majority of cases, those who are more intelligent and capable rise above the rest. That outraged us, so we started offering workarounds: education that rewards the obedient instead of the intellectually capable, jobs that reward hours doing nonsense paperwork instead of results, government that chooses what is popular over what is true.

This causes a tension common to failing societies: what “everyone” agrees is true, is in fact not true, and since there is no reward and great risk in speaking what is true, society becomes dedicated to lies. The converse of that is that it must suppress notice of what is actually true, and by doing that, it creates an industry built around sustaining the lies.

Consider that, much as in the French Revolution people were required to pretend that peasants were equal to kings and not laugh at that, in our current day, we are still struggling with the ability to admit differences between social classes, races, ethnic groups, sexes and family lines:

There are three areas where ideology has impinged on biology, trying its best to distort data: differences between human ethnic groups (“races”), between human males and females, and the study of evolutionary psychology.

…The ideologues’ problem with all these areas is the same: were biology to show, for example, that there are genetic differences between sexes, ethnic groups, or cultures, that could be used to justify racism, sexism, and exceptionalism. And indeed, this has happened in the past: all of us know the sordid history of assuming biology translates directly into human rights, which led to eugenics, racism, the denigration of and lack of opportunity for women, and so on.

It is even more damaging than that: if we reveal that, like Stephen Jay Gould’s research, biology is true and ideology was based on lines, then we know it is time to throw out ideology, or what the authors of the above piece refer to as “ought” instead of “is” based thinking. That which is unrealistic is emotional or social in origin, and that means it puts us at a disadvantage for following an illusion.

This is the core of the struggle between the rising dissident Right and modern society: modern society is based on egalitarianism, which is an “ought”-based notion, where the Right is based on what “is,” and then improving that by selecting the best possible option. If diversity does not work, multiculturalism must go, replaced by the better option of benevolent nationalism.

That in turn threatens Leftism itself because the core of their ideology is based on the priestlike ability to grant redemption from “wrongs” that led to inequality, but if inequality is natural and equality is not, then there is no need for redemption:

Here we see redemptive liberalism’s great ingenuity: It seized proprietorship over innocence itself. It took on the power to grant or deny moral legitimacy across society. Liberals were free of the past while conservatives longed to resurrect it, bigotry and all. What else could “Make America Great Again” mean? In this way redemptive liberalism reshaped the moral culture of the entire Western world with sweeping idealisms like “diversity,” which are as common today in Europe as in America.

So today there is sweetness at the news of racism because it sets off the hunt for innocence and power. Racism and bigotry generally are the great driving engines of modern American liberalism. Even a remote hint of racism can trigger a kind of moral entrepreneurism.

…The great problem for conservatives is that they lack the moral glibness to compete with liberalism’s “innocence.” But today there are signs of what I have called race fatigue. People are becoming openly cynical toward the left’s moral muscling with racism. Add to this liberalism’s monumental failure to come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms, and the makings of a new conservative mandate become clearer. As idealism was the left’s political edge, shouldn’t realism now be the right’s?

This shows us an even greater split, as noted by Samuel Huntington, which is that Leftism is inherently universalistic, or based on what humans have in common, but that is a social construct because people are increasingly concerned with what makes them and their specific local group united instead.

For that reason, identity politics is rising because as Mr. Steele notes above, Leftism has failed to “come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms.” People are fleeing the Left, and turning instead to what they have in common with others that is exclusive of other groups, which causes a rise in identitarianism alongside a simultaneous rejection of universalism, or the notion that we are all the same and therefore, the largest unit within civilization is the individual:

Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.

These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.

…I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved yourself.

The latter sentence is not quite true: white identitarianism is not just white, but focuses on ethnic groups within the European races, and is not based on feeling aggrieved so much as realizing that, if universalism (egalitarianism) is wrong, then no one else will represent the interests of a group that they do not belong to.

For members of a definable ethnic group, this means that they alone must stand up for their own interests, have their own country, ethnic self-determination or control of their future, impose their own standards and laws, defend their language and practice, maintain their genetic heritage, and do so in full knowledge that every other group is representing its own interests, which are contrary to their own.

The Left has acknowledged this, mainly by calling anyone who stands up for their ethnic interests and is also white or whitish a “white supremacist” which equates acting in self-interest while white with wanting whites to rule the world and subjugate other races:

It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate, they say.

That was the twisted formula that made the Holocaust and Rwanda possible and allowed Jim Crow segregation to survive: Nice people looked the other way while those with an appetite for violence did the dirty work, says Mark Naison, a political activist and history professor at Fordham University in New York City.

Never mind that “nice people looking the other way” is what enables Antifa to rampage across the land while Leftists destroy vital institutions, tear down statues, censor free speech and engage in other totalitarian practices that fit within the gulags, censorship, guillotines and secret police heritage of Leftism that goes back to the French Revolution in 1789.

The Leftist argument that white self-interest is “supremacist” only if we make the assumption that multiculturalism is a permanent state, and one group wanting to be in control of itself somehow deprives other groups of something that only that group can provide, like welfare benefits and entitlements. That order has already died, although the death scene is taking some time to play out on stage.

As much as it aggrieves the Left and Leftist minorities, whites are going their own way. They do not want to be part of the multicultural tapestry of failure any longer. They are tired of being the group which is worked into the ground to pay for taxes that support a permanent minority underclass while whites face higher victimization at the hands of other groups.

Historical guilt only goes so far. Like the bad science, it was based on lies, and so now people have thrown out the entire argument. They do not want to “just get along”; they want to just get away from what is obviously another crazy ideology which is going to plunge everyone into disaster, much like Communism and National Socialism did.

This much has been apparent for some time. People trust results, but are less trustful of ideology, and so were resistant to the Tower of Babel agenda until the 1960s, when the combination of WWII anti-racism and a desire to out-compete the Soviets by offering more freedom and social benefits to living here converted the West into a Leftist ideological regime which then expanded after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. With its competition gone, the Western capitalist-Leftist hybrid could triumph over the socialist-Leftist variety.

However, since the 1860s, Americans have been wary of the “one big happy” approach that was used to federalize the independent states so that the USA could unite behind an ideological agenda, and at that point, the Americans hit on the French Revolutionary ideal of equality for workers across the globe, and spun that into an anti-slavery narrative that surpassed previous abolitionist efforts in its dogmatic ferocity.

This agenda reached its full power with the defeat of the last ostensibly Right-leaning powers in WWII, and accelerated after the fall of the Soviets, causing an intensification of things whites had noticed about their homelands — constant ethnic violence, higher crime, loss of social trust, abolition of values and standards, and the dumbing-down of almost everything — since diversity became state policy in the 1940s.

As the 1990s approached with a post-Reagan Leftist narrative diversity and immigration, conservatives wanted to speak out, but felt they could not, and they were proven right by the ongoing destruction of careers for having said the wrong thing. The first incident to really make this popular was the crucifixion of Jimmy “The Greek” Synder in 1988, which shattered his career and left him to die, penniless and alone, eight years later.

Leftists had realized, during the Reagan years, that they could use diversity as a weapon. Given the choice, white people tended to vote for conservatives who would then interrupt the cozy arrangement that liberals had with industry. The only solution was to replace white people by using immigration, legal and illegal alike, as well as accelerated affirmative action to replace whites in positions of power.

At this point, a curious inversion began to happen. Previous diversity theory had held that whichever group was dominant was the only group that could be “racist”; newer thinkers began to realize that, with government behind an ideology, it could use diversity to replace the dominant group through forced interaction, outbreeding and civil rights and affirmative action style employment, education and quota programs in position of authority.

As a result, white people began to think the unthinkable… the despite being the historical majority, they might be entitled to have an identity and act in defense of it, too. This helped united the disparate elements of anti-modern thinking — social conservatives, human biodiversity, men’s rights, the New Right, libertarians, monarchists, traditionalists, and the Old Right — into a common movement based around the defense of the rights of the majority against the historical narrative of guilt and oppression.

These movements rediscovered the nationalism of the 1900s through 1940s, and now began to express it as a right to nationalism for all peoples which thwarted the modern agenda of globalism and diversity, or merging all peoples inevitably into one grey race that, lacking culture and identity of its own, would dependent on Soviet-style Leftist government for its sense of purpose:

But the reasoning behind the linking of the two symbols – white supremacy and Zionism – is far from torturous. The two are not strange bedfellows, but rather natural allies. Both represent a desire to establish and maintain a homogeneous society that posits itself as superior, more advanced, more civilised than the “others” who are, unfortunately, within its midst, a “demographic threat” to be contained through border walls and stricter immigration law. American fascism, then, is holding up a mirror to Zionism.

…Spencer explained that, logically, Zionists should “respect” his views: “… an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist — in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel”.

…”Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer replied. “Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate to the gentiles — I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.” Rosenberg was left speechless, unable to effectively rebuke Spencer.

For too long, we have been taught a fake narrative of diversity along with fake science because both are needed to support the illusion that “equality” is desirable, functional and will lead to good things. It has failed, leaving us with a corrupt and tyrannical government, a shattered economy, social unrest and a people who are blighted by promiscuity, obesity, moral incontinence and the narcissism that is found in the intersection of hipsterism, special snowflake syndrome, and the victim narrative. The nationalist ideal is rising because the internationalist, globalist, diversity and multicultural ideal has been implemented and it is a disaster.

Diversity has already died, just like Stephen Jay Gould’s theory that all humans are the same in abilities. More importantly, the notion that we can exist without acting in our own self-interest as organic groups has died, and with it, the Leftist ideal of one world population has collapsed. Now we are fighting over how to make the transition without committing the errors of the past.

Tags: confederacy, diversity, nationalism, richard spencer, stephen jay gould, zionism