Amerika

We all know the mainstream conservative line:

Skin color doesn’t matter. What matters is that they adopt our values. If they support the Constitution, convert to Christianity, believe in America, join the military, and vote Republican, they’re my kind of people!

Emotionally and socially, we can be sympathetic to this inclusive view; in social circumstances as well as in selling stuff to people through mercantile shops, being accepting of all is a winning strategy, and therefore the middle class endorses it.

However, we are not talking in social and emotional terms here. We are speaking of civilization planning because if you do not formulate a mission statement and plan for your civilization, the default human behavior of ruining everything and demanding someone else fix it takes over.

This explains why all human civilizations and groups fail the same way: humans behave the same way and, unless redirected, will tear down everything good and leave behind a third world ruin, simply because individuals prioritize their wants over those of civilization.

Imagine a human body if the gut and muscles could make decisions instead of the brain. Humanity without good leadership follows the same pattern. Like herding animals, we each try to take everything we can while using the group for protection.

In order to reduce this, successful societies use a bundle of ideas: social hierarchy, to breed the best; strong leadership, to encourage unity of goal; reward after performance, to promote the competent; and of course, culture instead of bureaucracy, since the latter compels decay.

As part of having culture, we need innate culture, or the genetic frameworks embedded in our biology that make us think, act, and idealize things similarly. No amount of laws, armies, constitutions, and patriotism can substitute for that.

In fact, history shows us that diverse civilizations fail and are replaced with lesser versions of themselves that never rise above third-world status again. Even when all of the groups involved are smart and nice, diversity kills civilization.

Your average Boomercon, like your average Leftist, knows subconsciously that his civilization is failing and that diversity, our reaction to unions, themselves the result of class warfare that empowered the lower castes, is killing it.

Consequently, the little blighter goes straight into denial. That is, he pretends that the real problem is not a problem, and in fact is a good thing. That way, he can keep believing that he does not need to change his thinking and accept that what we are doing is wrong.

You can recognize them because they immediately deflect away from the actual issue, the failure of diversity, toward trying to remind the Left that everyone is being treated the same, which conservatives think is what “equality” means, when in fact to those who believe in it — the Left — it means that people who are less capable get raised up to the same level as the capable.

Never in history has “equality” been implemented in any way without resulting, over time, in subsidies that take from the succeeding to give to the struggling. Equality means class warfare, or the have-nots taking from the haves, every time.

See an example of this misdirection here:

Secondly, if you look at what Biden says, he could have brought the nation together by talking about Tony Timpe, the white man whose life was pressed out of him in 2016 by Dallas police officers. You could talk about the fact that as many white people are killed as black people.

But no, instead, choosing to turn this into a conversation about systemic racism and racialize what is not clearly a racist issue. This is an issue of police brutality, perhaps, but it is not obviously a racist issue and racializing that fuels this diversion of perception away from statistical reality.

Here the Buckleyite conservative — William F. Buckley removed discussion of race and culture to make conservatism palatable to the post-WW2 liberalized West, and reduced conservatism to mean “Christian libertarianism” — makes two fundamental logical errors.

First, he wants to talk about fairness instead of equality. In fairness terms, a White person who acted like George Floyd would have gotten the same treatment. In equality terms, a Black person gets better treatment because he is less wealthy, intelligent, and powerful than White people are presumed to be.

Second, he tries to trap the Left into contradiction by pointing out their hypocrisy. This typically moronic conservative misstep, DR3, delights conservatives who think, “Ha ha! We’ve got the hypocrites now!”

In reality, Leftists do not think like conservatives, who believe equality=fairness. Leftists want subsidies. They want it in socialism, and they will demand it in race, much as they did when equalizing the peasants to the kings with the guillotine. Kill the higher, raise the lower.

To them, it is not hypocritical to demand special treatment for the lower; in their view, that is the whole point of the exercise. You cannot raise a peasant up to be a king, but you can demand that the king die so that the peasant can have some loot and fewer rules organizing him.

Conservatives have been Leftists for so long that they have forgotten what it means to be a conservative. Leftists support equality; conservatives do not. That would be news to most mainstream conservatives!

However, with the rise of the Tea Party, Brexit, and Donald Trump, conservatives are rediscovering the simple fact of all or nothing, which says that you either take conservatism to its logical conclusions or find yourself replaced by Leftists:

But as the upset victory of Donald Trump and his enduring popularity among Republican voters demonstrates, the “hard-right” approach isn’t detrimental to the GOP’s chances at the ballot box; it’s key. Republicans lose the support of the base, and thus lose elections, when they’re perceived as betraying conservative principles by being too moderate.

AP specifically points to Greene and Gaetz as examples of Republicans who have successfully leveraged their pro-Trump credentials into strong personal brands that put them above the reproach of party leadership.

The boldness and general lack of concern for political correctness has paid huge dividends for Greene. In the first three months of 2021, she reportedly raised $3.2 million. That’s more than double the $1.5 million the typical House GOP incumbent spent on the entire 2020 election. In an era in which Republican voters are hesitant to donate to the GOP as an organization, they’re instead donating directly (and big time) to lawmakers such as Greene whom they feel they can trust.

The GOP — who first and foremost are employees of government who want to get along with their colleagues and work the bureaucracy in a time when it leans Left — may not have realized this, but conservatives increasingly are.

The message that we cannot coexist with diversity and equality at all has steadily infiltrated the audience for the Right. We are realizing that by being reasonable, and compromising with the Left, we lost the culture war, and now we have a real full-blown crisis.

Like conservatives, who became corrupted by co-existing with Leftists, many people have been corrupted by feeling that they must support diversity because they live in diverse communities:

The overwhelming majority of American immigrants are concentrated in a handful of large states including California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois, and by all indications they get along quite well with their white and native-born neighbors, as I had demonstrated in a long 2011 article. Therefore, I thought it very unlikely that such equanimity would be seriously disrupted by the harsh rhetoric of Trump and his national allies, even if that were magnified by the power of the media and the Internet. And this indeed has turned out to be the case.

For obvious reasons, non-white immigration has always been an issue of paramount importance to the white racialist community. Such individuals therefore constitute the bulk of fervent anti-immigration activists, though many of them might fiercely deny the nature of those sentiments, perhaps even to themselves. But these political zealots may mistakenly convince themselves that the general public shares their particular ideological focus. Instead, I see very little evidence that the immigration issue is of overriding importance to “normies,” except in particular situations when it directly affects their lives in a negative way.

As an example, white voters in heavily immigrant California had supported Trump in 2016 by 20-25 points less than whites in the rest of the country, with the striking disconnect between his anti-immigrant rhetoric and their own personal experiences probably being a major factor.

If you are anti-immigrant or say things like “all lives matter,” this directly attacks your neighbors who are nice and intelligent and from Asian, African, Jewish, Italian, Hispanic, or otherwise mixed-race origins.

I live this daily. I grew up in the most diverse part of North America, have lived in Los Angeles and Detroit, and have traveled the world enough to know the difference between diverse areas and non-diverse ones. Generally, nice White people do not like to attack other nice people.

However, when you return to the question at hand, we are not talking about whether Blacks or other Other groups are bad, but whether diversity is good or bad. Even if those groups were nice and smart, we would still face:

• Loss of culture: when you have multiple cultures in the same place, mainstream culture stops specifying what is good and bad in order to include everyone.
• Loss of social trust: because people no longer have culture, they can no longer anticipate which behavior is rewarded, so they hunker down and avoid the world outside their doors.
• Demographic replacement: when you bring in Other groups, they breed like mad in order to no longer be minorities who exist at the whim and will of the majority, creating a power transfer via the swing vote.
• Genocide by outbreeding: people fall in love with the girl or boy next door and have spawn, only later realizing that they may have picked an unsuitable partner, which destroys the majority by racial admixture and worse, trace admixture.

Diversity creates a system where industry, media, and government turn against the majority in order to capture the swing vote and buying power of minorities:

While the fear of cultural and demographic change may be driving Republican politics off a cliff, most Americans aren’t as freaked out as GOP primary voters. Google, which knows as much or more about consumers than any other American company, found that most Americans feel positively about diversity and inclusion when it comes to advertising. Their 2019 survey revealed 64 percent “said they took some sort of action after seeing an ad that they considered to be diverse or inclusive.” The numbers improved with key demographic groups, especially younger consumers.

Danielle Austen, CEO of Fluent 360, a multicultural advertising firm based in Chicago, told me “Gen Z and millennials have an expectation of the brands and companies they do business with and it drives their business decisions.” Marketing research data back her up.

Delta Airlines faced a kinetic response from consumers after the company took a muted stance to Georgia’s Jim Crow-style voting bill. Activist Latosha Brown and others protested in front of the airline’s Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport ticket counter. Delta, Coca-Cola and companies based in states facing new voting laws have stepped up their statements of opposition to the bill following those boycott threats.

If you want the problem with diversity in a nutshell, you can see it here: each group agitates for its own interests because its other option is to remain powerless, and it will only have power when it has total control. Diversity is tyranny.

This means that conservatives need to stop thinking about race and unite in opposition to diversity and class warfare, since these are the methods used to both defeat conservatives and destroy civilization.

Looking back into history, we can see that diversity like other forms of “progress” consists of the advance of human control against the unknown in nature, basically refusing to accept the limits of our knowledge and instead asserting as truth that which flatters our sense of personal power:

Despite our science-venerating culture, we have arrived at a similar moment to our forebears, who gazed at the night sky in awe. We have been forced to acknowledge the boundaries of knowledge.

There is a difference, however. Our ancestors feared the unknowable, and therefore preferred to show caution and humility in the face of what could not be understood. They treated the ineffable with respect and reverence. Our culture encourages precisely the opposite approach. We show only conceit and arrogance. We seek to defeat, ignore or trivialise that which we cannot explain or understand.

Descartes’ legacy – a dualism that assumes separation between soul and body, mind and matter – has in many ways proved a poisonous one for western societies. An impoverished, mechanistic worldview treats both the planet and our bodies primarily as material objects: one a plaything for our greed, the other a canvas for our insecurities.

Descartes merely extended The Enlightement™ dogma of “man as the measure of all things,” instead of a desire to fit into an order comprised of nature, tradition, and hierarchy. Diversity expanded that further by denying the different needs of different groups.

Currently, conservatives remain hard in denial. They want to find a way that they can patch up this system which has produced Clown World and make it good, but none exists. The assumptions behind this system were broken, in part, and the other parts have given way.

We need to start anew with better assumptions, including recognizing that diversity is death and hierarchy is necessary. Only then will we be distinct from the Left, and therefore, able to start winning instead of tagging along as losers in a dying regime.

Tags: conservatives, race, rationalism, rene descartes