On The Deaths Of White Nationalism And White Diversity

In one of those rare cosmic occurrences where events balance each other with equal and opposing forces, two ideas died this week: first, white nationalism collapsed when the unstable behavior that dogged white nationalism 1.0 came out in the Alt Right era, and second, the idea that diversity can work at all expired when we saw what happened in South Africa. This means that both white nationalism and diversity, two opposites cut from the same cloth, have perished in our minds and hearts.

As mentioned here before, the Alt Right is a replacement for white nationalism, which failed to attract a wide audience for several reasons.

First, racial loyalty is less proximate to identity than ethnic, religious, and cultural loyalty. A Southern WASP feels more kinship with Southern WASPs than “huwhite people” as a generic abstraction. We think in terms of our own group and the good people within it, and do not want to be obligated to unite with others simply because they share the same race. Race is too broad of a category. In addition, most of the people we know and detest are white of some form, and what we want is for natural selection to keep making whites better. In this view, the source of white decline has been egalitarianism, or the insistence that all of us are in this together, instead of allowing the best to break away and continue evolution on their own.

Second, white nationalism is not a plan; it is a complaint. White people look around and realize that our class warfare agenda has, much as Plato noted 2400 years ago was the tendency of tyrants, imported foreigners in order to shatter our majority culture and make us politically pliable. They also notice that Other groups tend to have different ways, some of which are both baffling and destructive, like black crime. Then they notice that these groups seem to always work against white majority interests… so they complain about these groups. In reality, diversity is just a symptom of the class warfare upon which we embarked centuries ago, where bourgeois tyrants unite with angry proles to overthrow the naturally talented and replace them with bureaucrats; this means that something went wrong with our society, and we need a new structure for civilization itself, but white nationalism does not address that.

Finally, white nationalism is a Leftist-style ideological movement. Ideology consists of a notion that suggests that the way reality works is wrong, and that our human-centered ideas will do better not in practical terms but in idealistic ones, and that we can all work together to tear down the wrong and replace it with our human good. The original form of ideology is equality, or the notion that all people should be treated the same despite unequal contributions and abilities.

White nationalism follows in this model by suggesting that our problem is a lack of white equality. It seeks to blend together all whites, caste and ethnicity ignored, into a mass movement that will then remove any conditions which do not favor white people, an outlook which naturally turns more toward disposing of the Other than strengthening the complex, delicate, and intricate structures within our white populations that are necessary for them to improve.

For example, the “if it’s white, it’s right” attitude goes against natural selection. If you want strong whites, you choose the best whites; ideology says, however, to choose all whites, like a union or egalitarian socialist government. That will result in weaker whites despite having higher numbers.

In the same way, white nationalists would erase national identities and heritage and replace them with the generic “white” category, which breaks the organic bonds to history and creates what is essentially an ideological unity. Instead of having a real-world connection to heritage and customs, people are expected to develop a political connection to whiteness, and from that, re-invent the organic. This runs the risk of the worst case scenario: mass mobilization like Leftism, domination of the political arena, and then as internal instabilities in the philosophy arise, an increasingly totalitarian state which mostly acts out of fear of losing control.

That explains why white nationalists are so pathological. All that is required to be a white nationalist is to be white or whitish and to promote the ideology of white nationalism. This forces people to base their identities in this ideology, and therefore to see any deviation from it as hostile. That in turn makes them inclined to engage in repetitive behavior designed to force others to validate the ideology, but this also makes them wage war against those who agree on the basics (diversity failing, nationalism good, social conservatism important) but refuse to adopt the tenets of the ideology. In this way white nationalism has held back the development of white identities, and has produced angry obsessives who drive people away wherever they show up and insist that we behave exactly as they do in pursuit of racial Utopia.

This week we saw the consequences of the ideology of white nationalism. When you are an ideologue, you select others as means to the end of the ideology, which means you care less about them as people and more about the fact that they have the right ideas and are willing to work with you to achieve racial Utopia. Like fringe Leftist movements, for example Communism, white nationalism attracts marginal people who are basically not very stable, and then further destabilizes them by saturating them in propaganda of an emotional nature.

Ideology works best when it it produces an inverse scapegoat that explains away the failures of its members, and a regular scapegoat for who can be blamed. This is why white nationalism and national socialism are effective mental viruses but tend to fail in reality: they produce polarized people on a mission to destroy the scapegoat in order to feel that the inverse scapegoat is true, but they lack a positive vision of a society they want to create that is independent from what they complain about.

What does a white nationalist society look like? They do not know, except that it is devoid of minorities including Jews. This means that the fundamental sickness in our modern time, where we become wimpy little men who march off to jobs and obey bureaucrats in order to be “equal,” will not be addressed, and we will end up back where we are in the present day.

Our sickness is not mysterious, but most refuse to recognize it. We adopted equality in order to facilitate class revolt so we could overthrow natural leaders including but not limited to kings and aristocrats, simply because we are clever beings who are very proud of our cleverness and, with our society having beaten Round one of the challenges to any civilization, wanted to kick back and enjoy the good times instead of realizing that we had just entered Round Two.

In Round Two, the real challenge is finding a way to keep society together and focused on improving itself instead of lazily turning its energies toward making people feel good about themselves while ignoring the necessity of constant refinement and improvement in order to avoid stagnation and consequent acceleration of entropy. We got to this crisis point because we won the last level, but we have not yet figured out that level two is much harder.

If we are to survive Round Two, it will be by denying equality — including diversity and globalism — and focusing instead on making the best among us, by both moral and intellectual measurements, rise above the rest so that we can all benefit from their competence. The other option as we have seen is to allow the rest to rule over the best, at which point society drowns in incompetence, with diversity being only one of its many bad choices.

Although the touchstone event, or the highly visible happening that triggered a smouldering problem, may have been the “white trash” brawl, the bigger point has been made over the past few months: the Alt Right is winning wherever it emphasizes a futurist traditional view of civilization, and loses wherever it goes back to the bad old days of white nationalism 1.0.

It does not make sense to belabor the sad news coming from the demise of the Traditionalist Worker’s Party. Matt Parrott and I have written back and forth for years, read each other’s material, and generally had a lively dialogue, and I am saddened at the personal and professional tragedy that has befallen him. I never knew Matt Heimbach in depth, but never had cause to doubt him. Sometimes people just make mistakes. The reason that this event sticks with all of us is that it shows the fragility of the model of White Nationalism 1.0, with formal organizations leading protests and depending on bringing in enough true believers to make the news. That model is fundamentally unstable and may put too much pressure on people, as is seen by the steady stream of scandals, arrests, violence, corruption, and other mistakes from white nationalism 1.0 organizations.

A better future might be found instead in rejecting the modern model entirely. We are conservatives, or people who agree on a few basic ideas, the most important of which is that there is an eternal order for Western Civilization that produces the best results, and that this order includes the genetic group of Western Europeans who are biologically inclined toward this order and therefore can rebirth it. That might be the big point of the Alt Right: we cannot shape people into an order by using external force, but if we nurture their internal tendency toward what is intuitive for them, civilization can be reborn, even from the ashes in which we now live.

That idea throws out the whole notion of organizations marching in the streets and instead takes us into conservatism. We are not uniformed members, but ordinary citizens with opinions based in fact, and our goal is to find a way to represent those opinions even though they offend some people and are inherently unpopular because they invoke notions like hierarchy, duty, sacrifice, self-discipline, and looking at a world where the individual is not the largest unit possible. We need to be this kind of responsible and informal, yet natural, entity for people to come to us.

And be not fooled: they are coming.

This week we also say the diversity endgame in South Africa. Having legalized the appropriation of land, neglected to enforce the law against home invasions and land invasions as well as constant crime, the South African state — in which the more numerous black population owns the vote — increased its persecution of the white settlers who made South Africa into a thriving place instead of the mostly-abandoned land it was when they arrived. People vote for their interests based on who they are, not some ideology, and so the idea of “civic nationalism” has died alongside diversity in South Africa. The original supposition was that by ending apartheid, the settlers showed fairness to the black population and that both black and white could see the value in rule of law, a constitution, stability, and working institutions. As it turns out, the detractors were right; the civic nationalism system in South Africa has fallen apart with persecution of whites so extreme that even relatively pinkish Australia wants to take them in.

Diversity died in America with the Obama years, but people are slowly catching on. Genetics determines the vote. Demographics determines destiny. No two tribes can coexist in the same space. These ideas require time to understand, mostly because they require rejecting our founding myth of external control, which states that all people are equal and therefore, if we have the right rules, we can create a great Republic with citizens of random backgrounds. As it turns out, people act as one might expect given their backgrounds, and work toward slowly recreating their homelands here, even if they do not intend to. With that, civic nationalism began its long and ugly death.

This means that there is a void of future plans in the West. We are seeing the cracks form in the old system and realizing that, like other Leftist systems, it has changed us into meek and directionless people while taking our strength for itself. We have seen our system go from anarchistic to totalitarian, even if hidden behind soft words, and we do not like this new Soviet direction.

For us to step into this void, we must offer plans that are both visionary and beneficial. A good example can be found in the tax cuts enacted by Donald Trump when he got into office: the vision is of a world where nanny state government does not exist, and the benefit comes from the restored economy and better future prospects we see. Conservatives who tie their ideals to practical benefits, even if those require upending and replacing the status quo, win where those who offer ideology alone will fail.

Alt Right ideas surged forward because this new system of thought took the form of a cultural wave that aimed at changing attitudes by pointing out what was not working in our current system. It combined the concerns of nationalists with the idea of cultural change from the New Right, the concepts of Evola/Guenon traditionalism as popularized by Bill White around the turn of the millennium, a new scientific outlook on race and class brought on by DNA science, and the notion of renovating civilization itself to avoid its destructive behaviors offered by the deep ecology movement. The Alt Right brought something new, and if it can add the practical benefit to its ideas as Trump has, it will zip right into that vacuum and give people a future they can look forward to.

As it is, however, nothing is cast in stone. When we drift back to white nationalism, we deprive people of an alternative to the system that is failing around us. For this reason, while the Alt Right got a huge boost this week from watching diversity reach its final stage in South Africa, it is also on notice: white nationalism is dead, and we need to move on, or join diversity in the dustbin of history.

Looking Into The Future Of The West As A 56% Republic

Nu-Amerika, they tell us, will be a paradise where every group gets along with every other, and it will totally not be like the rest of history where one group gets in power and enslaves the rest. Only Utopia lies ahead because we have beaten history, logic, and even human nature itself. We alone are supreme.

Unfortunately, it does not seem to have worked out like that. The more diversity we have, the less of a functional society we have. In addition, we have people taking up positions that they cannot reliably do, leading to a degradation of quality across the board.

Up until the election of Barack Obama, most people went along with the idea that diversity was a work in progress. We still had not — still! — made things equal. When a black president appeared, and he was able to implement policies for his people, it seemed to us that the debt was paid and everything would be peachy.

However, the “post-racial” presidency showed an increase in racial incidents and enmity, in part because the racial issue was never as simple as giving third world groups a seat at the table. Different groups need different societies, and have different abilities. Ignoring that creates perpetual clashes.

We were fine with bashing Jethro Bodine and Jed Clampett as examples of the dumb white people we saw around us. Somehow, we can never turn the same cruel eye toward other groups, which means that we degrade ourselves while praising an illusion of what other groups are. This makes us hate ourselves.

Instead, it may be time to admit that there never was a debt. The people we enslaved and colonized are in fact incapable of maintaining civilizations like ours, and the idea that we can all live together with any other group is complete illusion. Everything the Left has said has been a lie.

This places us in a difficult place. Our civilization has dug itself a deep hole over the past thousand years. First we got rid of our leadership, then our social order, then our customs, and now finally, we have discarded our genetics. Any solution will involve only some of us carrying on.

That solution will be inevitable anyway. Despite Donald Trump’s singlehanded revitalization of the American economy, gloom persists: the nice place we grew up in back in the 1960s-1990s has been replaced by a virtual wasteland where no one is really “American,” just here to visit and profit, and there are no values or behaviors held in common.

For those of us who grew up in Generation X, we always saw that this was the case. Adults were idiots who always missed the obvious because it was unsociable. Society valued the obedient fools over working minds. Divorce ruined the family. We were all inhabitants of a sinking ship, realizing that while others would die before it sank, we would be the ones to have to take down the flag and watch the icy waters come over the sides.

If you wonder why the West seems so depressed, this is it. We have many obligations, but only by being diligently vapid can we pretend that there is a future. Nothing is really any fun, and very little is of quality, but they are the options that we have nonetheless, so we go through the motions.

The vast number of parasites have essentially destroyed everything of quality. Why are lightbulbs expensive? To pay for the lawyers, diversity hires, extra workers to replace the incompetents, incompetents that cannot be fired, union rules, lawsuits, regulations, perks, high taxes, and other costs that are irrelevant to profit or quality.

We can see that this will not get better under diversity. The new citizens were chosen specifically because they would not object to this decadent regime because in their view, it is better than what they had. This means that we have created a zombie society out of control, about to be inherited by those who will destroy it.

Our future path clearly branches. To the left is the path that is easy at first, which involves throwing more patches and band-aids onto democracy, equality, pluralism, and our hybrid capitalist-socialist economic system. On the right is a path that is hard at first, but will become progressively easier as we leave the insanity behind.

Wakanda 2.0

by Jonathan Peter Wilkinson on March 10, 2018

You can always tell a man of respect. Other people emulate his decisions. You can say what you like about him, but ground truth don’t give a fvck. Ignore what people say about the man. Watch what they do about him. If immitation is the sincerest form of praise, than Robert Mugabe has won the belts and if you wanna be the man, you gotta beat the man. According to New South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Mugabe is The Man!

You see, Zimbabwean President For Life, Robert Mugabe was an expert at so-called “land reform.” South Africa has now decided to hashtag that #MeToo.

The National Assembly on Tuesday set in motion a process to amend the Constitution so as to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation. The motion, brought by the EFF leader Julius Malema, was adopted with a vote of 241 in support, and 83 against.

This has run into the roadblock known as Article 25 of The South African Constitution.

(1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.
(2) Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application—
(a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
(b) subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.

According to The dominant African National Congress, this silly consititution is holding back (you guessed it) ¡PROGRESS! “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.”

So here’s how Whitey games this crap. Remember, even in a properly rigged “Democracy” the enemy always gets a vote. Here are some of the strategies on the table.

  1. Leave. Monetize every scrap of material property that can turned into currency and exported abroad immediately. Let the farm go fallow and simply down tools and walk. If you really didn’t build that, Julius Malema will just wave his magic wand and produce an immediately productive farm without you. Let the EFF go have an equality party or something.
  2. Make your property less inviting. During the 2008 mortgage meltdown, the banks were gaming which homes they foreclosed on based on how valuable they were when they got auctioned off. If you made the property look trashy enough, you got to live their rent free until Bank of Amerika got around to foreclosing on properties they couldn’t easily auction. South African land confiscation will work the same way. They will loot all the good stuff first. Toss a few beer cans all over the property and put a few tractors and cars up on blocks, and confiscating your family’s farm won’t provide anywhere near as much “social equality” as that nard-working fellow’s well-kept property a few acres down the road.
  3. Play along and hope equality applies to you. You get fvcked.

Not every guy I know is a freakin genius, but most of them are bright enough not to want to live in Zimbabwe. The EFF’s pimp-slapping of the rather frightened ANC will have them massively pushing buttons one and two. You don’t get much out of the Cuck-Whities deluded enough to open door number three. Communism leads to learned helplessness and studied stupid. They are effectively paying their White Farmers in South Africa to fornicate off or walk. People do what they are paid to.

We know what will happen in Wakanda 2.0 because this is what happens in every egalitarian society when the colonized take over from the colonizers, the workers take over from management, and the baying mob takes over from the kings. Just like after the French Revolution, everybody starves. And if they recover from that, they will start talking about land confiscation again as if it were the solution to all of their problems… again. The cycle never ends.

India Shows That Wherever Diversity Is Tried, Social Breakdown Follows

by Brett Stevens on March 10, 2018

Diversity cannot work: individuals in each group want to assert the standards of each group so that they can have a context for social and existential meaning. When you are a member of a group, you will be approved of by that group, so no matter what else goes wrong in your life, you have a ground zero of meaning.

When that meaning is taken away, people become alienated, so they retain it as long as they are able. Identity — group membership — is where people begin to answer the question, “How do you know that your life is a good one?” Community serves as both support group and behavior blueprint for human beings.

Identity consists of layers of religion, race, culture, ethnicity, customs, language, and philosophy. To be part of a group, you have to act as its other members do, believe in its ideas, and be able to apply those behaviors and notions in any random circumstance. This is how you demonstrate membership and fitness to be a member.

This causes clashes because as each group needs to demonstrate fitness, its members must project values by acting them out, and these contradict the values of other groups and therefore are offensive to those groups. The only way to be remotely compatible is for any significant activity to occur entirely in private, which causes further alienation as groups resent the loss of public space.

Unlike ideology, which is based on human preferences for what “should” be, this analysis is based on logical fact, and it applies wherever humans or any other intelligent forms of life exist. Diversity does not work because it never works because it is paradoxical and cannot ever work. It is a formula for perpetual conflict and enmity.

America and Europe are currently having negative diversity experiences and are hoping that perhaps, with the right combinations of laws and handouts, they can patch this failing system. But a far older example can be found in India, where ethnic and religious diversity destabilizes the nation:

Union minister Giriraj Singh courted controversy on Sunday when he contended that “social harmony gets fractured wherever Hindu population drops”, a veiled attack on the phenomenon of rising Muslim populace in the country.

…Singh’s views found resonance with Rajasthan BJP leader Banwari Lal Singhal, who alleged that Muslims were bearing more children with an aim to outnumber Hindus and to take control of the country by 2030.

“The way the Muslim population is increasing, the existence of Hindus is in danger. It is a well-planned conspiracy to have a Muslim in the chair of president, prime minister and chief ministers,” Singhal told PTI last month.

This resembles attempts by Palestinians, Mexicans, Chinese, and Arabs to enter first-world countries and use their higher breeding rates to achieve a greater number of voters and thus, permanent political control.

Minority populations generally start out small and, when no problems immediately present themselves, are allowed to grow. Once they are no longer small, they become a voice in politics and culture, with the majority changing its behavior to accommodate the minority.

However, once the minority group becomes larger than about 20%, the society fractures because it is now impossible to avoid minority people, and so everything must be adapted to them. Culture, customs, and language can no longer be assumed; the minorities become valuable voters and consumers. Thus the society loses any shared culture.

We can see this process playing out in India over the past two centuries:

To put it in broader perspective, Muslim population has steadily grown from 13% in 1800 to 16% in 1850 to 20% in 1900 to 25% in 1947 and anywhere between 30 to 33% today taking into account the geographical area of pre-partitioned India. These statistics are available from various sources.

…Between 1961 and 1991 Muslim population had grown by 133.66% as compared to Hindu growth of 89.24% — the Muslim population growth being 150% of the Hindu population growth.

…Between 1961 and 2001, in absolute numbers, the Hindu population has grown from 366 million to 827 million – a growth of 126% while the Muslim population in the same period grew from 47 million to 138 million — a growth of 193 per cent. The Muslim population growth was consistent at about 50 per cent higher than the Hindu population. What is more alarming is that Hindu population growth rate has declined from 25% in the previous decades to about 20% in the decade preceding the Census while the Muslim population growth, if not increased, as the initial data had indicated, it has almost remained constant, and if declined, only marginally so.

Why does Hindu growth recede? As Robert Putnam predicted, diversity destroys social trust and causes people to become isolated. This atomization makes them feel existential pain, and they are less likely to have children from a lack of desire to pass this misery on to a new generation.

In the same way, since the 1960s when diversity became a feature of the West, our reproduction rates have declined, starting among the most intelligent. Some blame education for this, and surely it factors in, as does the later marriage and lack of fidelity caused by the sexual revolution, but at its root is a lack of drive to get married, create a stable family and have children.

As a result, the majority population declines while the minority population rises, even though the minority population — as is the case with Muslims in India — experiences many of the same opportunities and educational attainments. Diversity kills off the native population.

This imbalance causes a gradual shift in control of the nation, argues a provocative book in Hindu-Muslim power balance in India, because it throws the majority into a death spiral while the minority continues to rise:

From being 87% of the population in 1951, Hindu population has now fallen below 80%. Meanwhile, the Muslim population of India has been rising from around 10% in 1951 to more than 14% today.

In other words, even if the Muslim population does not rise further, the decrease in the Hindu population makes future conflict unavoidable. Mention of this disturbs advocates of multiculturalism/diversity, who are so focused on achieving equality with diversity as the means of doing so that they are disturbed by any dissent.

The diversity arc has run from people thinking it was a good idea back in the 1960s to people in the 2010s seeing that, worldwide, diversity has created situations where the indigenous population is destroyed through slow genocide and is replaced by a foreign population, effectively erasing the nation.

For this reason, populism is rising. People who want to have families do not want their children to grow up as dispossessed aliens in the ruins of their former homelands, and now that diversity has demonstrated its endgame of democide and suicide, they feel confident opposing it in any nation.

Now Is A Good Time To Have That Conversation About Reparations-With-Repatriation

by Brett Stevens on March 5, 2018

The Left deals in fears. They describe scenarios that they fear and then invent solutions that sort of command those scenarios not to exist, instead of looking at the reasons why they exist (and in many cases, recur). For this reason, it is always sensible to listen to the Left and see what they are on about.

Thus it seems wise to listen to Maxine Waters when she talks about reparations:

“In order to get where we need to go on this issue and other issues, we really got to understand that 2018 is important in taking back the House and taking back the Senate,” Waters said.

“And of course, we’ve got to get the White House back.”

She continued, “If we want to get to the point where we can get reparations, we’ve got to have the power to do that, Number 1, by having a supportive president would be wonderful, but taking back the House would be absolutely wonderful.”

For a moment, step back from your preconceptions and view this world from the viewpoint of a minority group who were not the founders of a nation.

This place was not designed for you. None of its symbols, customs, values, imagery, or history fits you. In fact, the majority only makes it worse when they try to include you, because this does not negate the fact that you were brought here as labor, whether in chains or as a low-paid immigrant.

You can try to “assimilate,” as the moron conservatives argue, but that means giving up who you are and admitting that you are a conquered people. In fact, no matter what you do, you will feel like a conquered people, at least until you live in a land founded by your people, designed for your people, commanded by your people.

This applies to every group but the founding Western Europeans. If you are not English, German, Scots, Dutch, northern French, or Nordic, you are going to find that the founding group look different from you and their values and customs are alien to you. Their ways exclude the ways you need to live and behave.

As a result, you are always looking for compensation. Not because you feel injured, per se, because you are living better here than in your source nation. You want compensation because you feel left out, and you are always going to feel left out until your people are in control.

And those nice majority people? They seem friendly, but you know that everyone acts in their own best interests and wants to live among people like themselves. When they run off to a Whitopia, you know that even if you batter down the doors and get in, that place is Not For You.

You contemplate going back to your source nation. It might be a little rough, but there are great places to live in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Your middle classes now have the knowledge they picked up at trade schools and business schools to make an American/European-style first world nation within the third world.

The biggest problem you foresee is political instability. Then again, with an infusion of first world trained people, tolerance for that kind of nonsense will fall. It is a gamble, but you could end up coming out far ahead, especially at the existential level. You would know what to do to be rewarded and succeed, and experience less anxiety.

However, it is going to feel like a defeat if you are just thrown out. That seems unjust and dismissive. However, you know that no matter how much welfare and reparations you are given, it will never really feel right here, either. And yet you feel like you are owed something.

As it becomes clear that diversity is over, people who are not of the founding group are considering their options. Inevitably, the wall of protection — anti-discrimination, affirmative action, anti-“racist” groups, and the entitlements state — are going to fall as Amerika gears up to take on China.

With that in mind, we can consider the only sane idea: reparations-with-repatriation. In other words, every person who is not of the founding group is given a certain amount of money on the condition that they revoke their own citizenship and repatriate to their continent of genetic origin (COGO).

Most of the pushback against this comes from hardcore conservatives. “Not a red damn cent!” they growl, feeling self-righteous. “People should come here to assimilate, be like us and follow our ways, and if they do not like that, they can Go Back Home on their own dime.”

This approach is both lacking in compassion and lacking in realism. We know the current way does not work; we want to end it without making people justifiably hate us. Ending our welfare state will give us a momentary monetary boon both as the economy booms and as our expenses fall. A one-time cost to end the travesty of diversity is well-spent.

We should take Maxine Waters at her word, but add our own: repatriation. Otherwise, calls for reparations will become a regular event like the race riots, employment lawsuits, diversity officers, welfare, crime, violence, and lack of social order that we suffer from diversity.

We can end this wound now and forever. Let us shake hands, give a gift of goodwill, and send the people who are not of the founding group on their way. That way, for both us and them, normal and healthy life can resume.

Conservatives Lose When They Pander To Minorities

by Brett Stevens on March 5, 2018

As a general rule, Leftism resembles a begging-the-question fallacy, essentially making assumptions mandatory such that people are equal, and then arguing from that assumption of an assumption. This gets embarrassing when conservatives — who in theory should know better — adopt the same approach.

Never content to win, and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Republican careerists who want the bureaucracy to keep funding them are demanding the usual pandering:

Veteran Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen warned Sunday the GOP is “heading into trouble” in a future that looks grim unless the party can attract more millennials, women and minorities.

“Very few women are running… on the Republican Party ticket for office. Far greater numbers of women are identifying themselves as being in the Democratic Party. Minorities — that have always been traditionally a group that we should really be going after, I don’t see that we really have a recruiting program that’s active to get minorities involved in our party,” she continued.

Ros-Lehtinen decried that the growth of the GOP “seems to be very limited in a specific group.” But, she noted, “the demographics of our great country is changing greatly.”

Our system like most formalized systems produces lots of people who are good at the system itself, such as school or making money, and bad at reality. They know how to manipulate other people but once they get outside the human world and into logical or factual questions, they are lost, because their only skill is appeasing the pretense of others.

Let us say it once, and say it loud, so that it is clearly understood:

Minority groups will never support majority interests.

Our careerist bureaucrats want us to believe that a system can exist where minority and majority interests overlap, but they are confusing lowest common denominator interests — lack of victimization, crime, and poverty — with the interests that actually motivate people, which tend to be more moral and aesthetic.

Every person needs a place. They need also to know what they should be doing in order to be esteemed by their colleagues. This measurement, called “social status,” reflects the degree of existential terror they experience: if they are doing the right things by the measurement of their status group, even if life turns out badly for them, they will not be blamed or thought less of, and this provides a great comfort.

Quoting the incomparable Tom Wolfe again on the nature of social status as a prime motivator for human behavior:

Not long ago, in New York, a drug dealer named Pappy Mason was out of prison on parole standing on the sidewalk in front of a bar with a group of his buddies, drinking a beer. A police detective happened to be driving by in an unmarked car and recognized him. He stopped, got out, and said “Mason, you know what stupid is? Stupid is what you’re doing right now, drinking in public. You get your ass back in that building–or I’m taking your ass in.”

Now here was Mason, in front of his buddies. He had a terrible decision to make. Taking his ass in meant taking him to the precinct station and booking him. Drinking on the sidewalk was–a–Mickey Mouse–misdemeanor but it was enough to violate his parole and put him right back in prison. On the other hand, just caving in to some pig of a cop in front of his posse and slinking back into the bar was unthinkable . . .On the other hand, maybe it was thinkable . . .To go back to jail–so he did think . . .slinked back into the bar . . .You did what you had to do, Pappy–but the humiliation! the humiliation!

A day passed, two days passed–the humiliation! Day after day it festered . . . festered . . . Eventually he found himself back in prison for an unrelated offense . . .and the same old humiliation . . .slinking back into the bar that night . . .festered . . . Finally, it became too much. He got a message out to one of his boys on the outside: “Go kill a cop.” And the guy said, “What cop?” And Mason said, “Any cop.” And so three members of his posse drove about . . . looking for a cop, any cop.

They came upon a young patrolman alone in a police car in front of the house of an immigrant from Guinea who, as it tuned out had been threatened by drug dealers. They had already tried to burn down his house because he had reported their activities to the police. The young cop, named Eddie Byrne, had been assigned to protect him. It was now late at night, quiet, and the three assailants came up behind the car and assassinated the young policeman.

It became a cause of public outrage. It had taken the life of a young man, Eddie Byrne. Yes, but the cops . . .they had trashed Pappy Mason’s status picture of himself.

That a wound to one’s status, not to one’s body, not to one’s bank account, not to one’s general fortunes in life, that such a wound to one’s status could have such a severe effect upon the psyche of the human beast, is no minor matter. It means that we have come upon a form of anguish that is somehow primal. Even the most trivial and the most unlikely circumstances can be colored by the beast’s constant and unrelenting concern for his own status. Which is to stay, his own standing, his own rank, in the eyes of others and in his own eyes.

When you have status in a group, you have existential certainty: “Do this, and you will always be part of the group.” Asking someone to transition groups means that they move from considering cultural values most important to a reductive value set of money, safety, convenience, sexual desire, and power in the system. Some will do that, but when times turn hard, they will not have the support of the group.

And so, for most people, the risks outweigh the potential rewards: they do what the group does not out of sheer conformity, but for the sake of having a gang or personal army on their side. Someone who is a good member of the tribe will be defended, and a profiteer will not, so most people opt to be good and safe.

Tribes consist of layers — ethnic, religious, cultural, racial, sexual, regional, class/caste — which give people a sense that they are among people like them who share their values and will have their backs as long as they uphold those values.

Asking minority groups to assimilate is like asking them to remove the social safety net outside of government and the method by which they find friends and mates. It is reducing them to the status of atomized individuals who cannot form bonds and thus are forever alone.

For this reason, minority groups are never going to support majority rights, and the ultimate majoritarians are conservatives, who not only affirm the people and values that founded this country, but are unwilling to recognize the special needs of any group other than that core because to do so would be repudiating the goodness of the founding of the nation.

Conservatives have one choice, and none of the careerists want to hear it, but Trump, Farage, and other populist leaders have found it: stand by what makes Western Civilization unique, which begins with its people. Everyone else, even if they are here, opposes us, but they will destroy what they came here for in the process.