The War On Racism Will Cause Collapse And Genocide

Over at Legitimate Grievances, a site whose tagline is “the only way to win the war on racism will be to end it,” Al Stankard points out that the war on racism is a death spiral because it perpetuates the problem it seeks to solve:

As the war on racism wears on intractably, as it has our whole lives and with the mirage of success receding perpetually from view, the alt-right has descended onto the scene like a black swan. While for many of us it serves as a convenient scapegoat for the ongoing failure of the war on racism, it could just as well be interpreted as a by-product of that same war on racism, and a sign that we are at an historical crossroads and that there may well be more black swans to come. When an ideology, such as Antiracism, creates its own bogeyman, then it has entered into a negative feedback loop that ensures its own demise.

Most people prefer to live with those like them, not just in terms of race but ethnic group, caste, religion, culture, class, and even political orientation. To make us all get along, we have to abolish those things, but they are also the parts of hierarchy and social order necessary to keep a first world society — as opposed to a third world style one — operating.

The war on racism throws us into a doom loop. The more we crusade against racism, the more we find, and the more we create racial animus through clumsy and unjust attempts to equalize. This will only end when any groups that have risen above the level of equal — high Asians, whites, and Jews — are eliminated and we are all a uniform brown with an average IQ in the mid-90s, at which point social Darwinism will end because competition will end and pacifism will rule.

Even The Atlantic has noticed the autumnal death cycle of diversity which plays out through Leftist desires for funding for their socialist-style entitlements programs:

As the birth rate has declined in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, and Japan, the immigrant share of their populations has increased…These countries have high median incomes, which are attractive to international migrants, plus their economies need new humans to sustain both GDP growth and government services…as the children of immigrants find jobs and pay taxes, immigrant families wind up being a net contributor to the government over many decades, according to a 2016 report from the National Academy of Sciences.

…But there is a growing body of evidence that as rich majority-white countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived threat of the foreign-born to national culture. That concept will sound familiar to anybody who watched the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but it’s a truly global trend. A 2015 study of immigration and far-right attitudes in Austria found that the proximity of low and medium-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right.” The effect was strongest in areas with higher unemployment, suggesting that culture and economics might reinforce each other in this equation. Last week, the far-right Austrian party triumphed in the nation’s election.

This is where the story finally connects with welfare and the future of liberalism. Rich countries tend to redistribute wealth from the rich few to the less-rich multitude. But when that multitude suddenly includes minorities who are seen as outsiders, the white majority can turn resentful and take back their egalitarian promises. Take, for example, the Twin Cities of Minnesota. They were once revered for their liberal local policies—like corporate-tax redistribution from rich areas to poor neighborhoods and low-income housing construction near business districts. But since the 1980s, as the metro area attracted more nonwhite immigrants, the metro has become deeply segregated by income and race and affordable-housing construction has backtracked. Or take Finland, that renowned “Santa Claus State” of cradle-to-grave social services, where the welfare state is being “systematically dismantled.” The far right has emerged in the last few decades, just as foreign-born population has suddenly grown.

…But an unavoidable lesson of the last few years, from both inside and outside the U.S., is that cultural heterogeneity and egalitarianism often cut against each other. Pluralist social democracy is stuck in a finger trap of math and bigotry, where to pull on one end (support for diversity) seems to naturally strain the other (support for equality).

This remarkably blunt article exists to conceal a simple truth: when people experience diversity, they do not like it, despite the happy faces of celebrities and professors telling us that we should eat our damn vegetables and start appreciating diversity already. In fact, this is the classic feedback loop. As diversity grows, so does opposition to diversity, mainly because diversity is having negative effects. What are those? Think about the inverse relationship between “equality” and “diversity” when you read Robert Putnam’s research findings:

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

…Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks — whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations — that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.

…Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.

Further research has shown stronger connections between diversity and social collapse, including the role of diversity as division in American politics. Some have looked further into why diversity is so destructive, finding a number of reasons from antiquity onward suggesting that not just racial but ethnic diversity is destructive to social order and precedes civilizational collapse.

Empathy Does Not Help Us Make Better Decisions

A new study reveals the lack of importance of empathy in how we make decisions:

Iacoboni and his colleagues hypothesized that people who had greater neural resonance than the other participants while watching the hand-piercing video would also be less likely to choose to silence the baby in the hypothetical dilemma, and that proved to be true. Indeed, people with stronger activity in the inferior frontal cortex, a part of the brain essential for empathy and imitation, were less willing to cause direct harm, such as silencing the baby.

But the researchers found no correlation between people’s brain activity and their willingness to hypothetically harm one person in the interest of the greater good—such as silencing the baby to save more lives. Those decisions are thought to stem from more cognitive, deliberative processes.

The Left tells us that the problem in society is not incompetence or solipsism, but that people are anti-social or cruel, which usually means that they rise above others through competition or are unmoved by the “problem” of inequality. The solution that the Left proposes, as always, is destructive: empathy, or the thought that if we just “felt their pain” we would see why we have to “help” other people rather than let them face the consequences of their choices as in natural selection.

The Leftist “argument from suffering” ignores the role of individuals in their own suffering and how people think when they actually have to make a decision. Instead of using empathy, they use logic, because that is how they survive as individuals. In conversation, however, they use empathy because that is how you make other people like you, and by doing that, the self-interested individual succeeds in a socially-driven society like our own.

Hippies Destroyed America

From the Star Tribune, an analysis of what actually ails America:

When the complete history of the decline and fall of the American nation comes to be written, the turning point toward failure will not be recorded as the election of Donald Trump in 2016. It will be found among the events of 1968.

…Forces unleashed back then by angry protesters and resentful defenders of traditional ideals culminated decades later in the division of our people into “red” and “blue” warring tribes, with no cultural intermediaries left to speak of.

…The “Protestant ethic” of self-discipline and personal responsibility was rejected by many boomers. In its place was thrust forward a culture of entitlement and “self-actualization” as the New Jerusalem for America. Duty to family and country was old-fashioned, not “hip,” while “if it feels good, do it” became a norm for progressive minds to embrace.

In other words, we had a Socialist takeover. By allying with the Communists in WW2, America made herself open to the idea of Socialism, but paired it with a thriving capitalist state and applied it through “Great Society” and “New Deal” programs, which applied the Socialist subsidy state through tax-and-spend wealth transfer. This accomplished the goal of egalitarianism, which is always to reduce the higher so that the lower can thrive.

During the 1968 years, America shifted from a civilization founded on the idea of opportunity to one based on the idea of subsidy, or that “we” the people would subsidize each other, which always means taking from the productive and gifting to the unproductive. It took another twenty years to take effect fully, and during the intervening two decades, we have seen the destruction that it has wrought in the style of Soviet Communism.

Included among its many tentacles is the idea that a majority population such as Caucasian must be replaced because of their inherent rank in ability above third-world groups. This has manifested itself as a government agenda to destroy Caucasians through affirmative action, taxes, lawsuits, subjugation, and other forms of control. The hippies enjoy their final victory, but they do so at the expense of the land they inherited. “We had to destroy the village to save it, sir.”

Mainstream Media Has Not Yet Realized That Trump Is A Moderate

From USA Today, a sensible analysis of Donald Trump the moderate:

I served in Ronald Reagan’s White House and managed his reelection campaign in 1984. Then, like now, the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was more than a transformative political figure — he was the face of a national revolution. President Reagan won more than 54 million votes in 1984, carrying 49 out of 50 states. Americans overwhelmingly trusted him to roll back government bureaucracy, unleash economic prosperity and pursue peace through military strength.

More than three decades later, Trump ran and won on similar promises. He too vowed to hold Washington accountable, jumpstart sluggish economic growth, and rebuild America’s military to protect our nation’s interests first and foremost. His message resonated in corners of the country where the liberal media and political punditry thought it impossible.

Trump offered a simple platform: he would back off from the ideological agenda of Leftists and their hope of globalism, and instead focus on function. That means reducing taxes and regulation, centering America on some idea of what we are trying to do, and restoring the confidence and faith people have in their nation-state. However, this conflicts with the Leftist agenda of conformity, so it is provoking squawks of discontent from the Establishment formed informally of Leftists in government, media, industry, academia, and entertainment.

Anti-Diversity Means No More Ethnic Conflict

The Jersusalem Post opines that racial animosity arises from conflicting interests even in neutral, pacifistic, diversity-worshiping America:

Though US President Donald Trump is a philosemite and has proven to be a major ally of Israel, many of the issues that he has advanced – anti-immigration, America First, anti-globalism – are shared by blatantly antisemitic conservative politicians. Indeed, a number of political pundits have noted that, leaving aside Patrick Buchanan’s anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, there are remarkable similarities between Trump’s campaign and the issues championed by Buchanan during his unsuccessful 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns.

As a result, the supporters of men like Buchanan have shown thrown their support behind Trump and have been emboldened by Trump’s victory. Because Trump is dependent on this constituency for its support, he cannot easily disassociate himself from them or openly criticize them.

The tragedy here is that ethnic interests conflict: the Western European substrate of America wants to have its own nation, and the Jewish people surely need theirs. While Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic, he recognizes the primal rule of nations. One ethnic group defines one nation. Only when two or more overlap do we see the horrors of racial resentment, pogroms, Holocausts and other outward signs of ethnic conflict.

Mirror Neurons: The “Monkey See, Monkey Do” That Explains Why Ideology Is Infectious

As we look deeper into the causes of The Human Problem that results in genocide through diversity caused by civilization breakdown, the topic of mirror neurons rises more frequently.

Mirror neurons are fundamental components of our brains that “mirror” actions we see in the world, so that we feel as if we were doing those actions. This causes them to create a fast-moving virus of conformity throughout humanity as people lose the distinction between self and group:

In the study, which was published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, Iacoboni and colleagues analyzed mirror neurons, brain cells that respond equally when someone performs an action or simply watches someone else perform the same action. Mirror neurons play a vital role in how people learn through mimicry and feel empathy for others.

When you wince while seeing someone experience pain — a phenomenon called “neural resonance” — mirror neurons are responsible.

In addition, these mirror neurons explain many human behaviors, and why those behaviors spread through an infection model:

Mirroring works in both. Learning through observation is important, especially if you see a player who is more skilled than you are. Seeing the actions of others activates your own motor system. And watching sports is almost like playing the game. When you watch with others, you’re getting this vicarious experience, and you have the fellow humans [around you] doing the same thing. It’s highly rewarding.

…Creating and/or inducing mirroring during a salesman-customer interaction likely benefits salesmanship. A good salesman’s connection with the customer lowers all the defenses. You feel good if you buy stuff from this guy you like so much. I guess some politicians do that, too.

…People have their own motives, public opinion changes and issues change, but also the public image of [candidates] is affected by what other people are thinking. [The media] report on polls [as though] people are just thinking about the issues. But if, in a community, someone says, “I’m unhappy with this candidate who I really liked two months ago,” that can spread like emotions spread. You may see an incredible sway in polls because of a community in which people reinforce each other’s decision-making.

…In most cases, when you are in any social situation, you want to conform. It’s a way of feeling that you belong to that community, even if it’s just a party. And a simple way to belong is to do what other people do.

This article mentions mirror neuron response as a control mechanism, albeit — for now — confined to psychological maladies:

A number of conditions — schizophrenia, depression, autism — have a social cognition deficit. [People suffering from] malfunctioning social cognition don’t get into the minds of others. If we are able to improve empathy, we may improve the social cognition — and even the community function — of these patients.

Those of us who are concerned about the genocidal tendencies of humanity realize that, terrifyingly, mirror neurons create a social-emotional response that resembles herd behavior like stampedes, feeding frenzies, and events where the group turns on an individual and kills them. All of these are observable in nature and there is zero reason to think they do not manifest in humanity.

Interracial Marriage Causing African-American Genocide

From over at Truth Over Tradition, a stunning analysis of how interracial marriage is causing a de facto genocide of the African-American ethnic group in the United States:

According to all the latest marriage statistics here in the U.S., there are more black people marrying out-side of their race than ever before. Research shows that there are well over 500,000 interracial marriages between black and whites today. Research also shows that about 3 in every 10 new black marriages are with someone outside of their race, with most of them being white. And out of all of the interracial marriages today, it is discovered that black men marry outside of their race almost three times as much as black women do.

The increasing numbers of interracial marriages among our people today is a clear sign that the black family in America is slowly dying out and on record to become extinct. Today, Black America is only 13% of the U.S. population. And when you take into account that the majority of our brothers are locked up in prison, dead, or gay; then you can easily see how our men choosing to marry our oppressor’s women instead of our own women, can completely blot out the black race. But this is NOT a coincidence; this is America’s plan to white us out of existence. It’s called Blanqueamiento [which] is the racial whitening of a dark population of people by mating with them to dissolve their race.

Genocide can take many forms. Any deliberate activity to displace or remove an ethnic group is a form of genocide, even if done through “soft” methods like economic or cultural pressure, or through decentralized methods like people independently obeying ideology instead of a centralized command or law. As time goes on, it becomes clear that diversity will bring genocide to all groups under its control.

What Is A Minority?

We hear the term minority group relatively frequently, but it is rarely defined. The United Nations offers the definition of a minority group under international law:

According to a definition offered in 1977 by Francesco Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a minority is: A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the State – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.

As implied by the term “minority,” the fundamental idea is of a distinct group that is numerically inferior, but the broader question is, why limit this to a particular state, especially since “globalism” seems to be the trend of the moment? A minority is any distinct group that is not the majority worldwide, in this new definition, which expands our focus to cover any potentially endangered population.

Another question is power. If an ideology holds sway in a nation, even a numerically dominant group can be threatened because it has inferior numerical support for its position, even if it does not realize that it is at risk. Any group on the wrong end of power could be a minority here, such as the numerical majority in Syria who are not Alawite.

This definition of minority makes sense in a historical context, but by applying its spirit to the changed circumstances under which we find ourselves, we see how the term “minority” has both lost and gained meaning.

Ongoing Sikh Genocide In India

In the Northern Indian state of Punjab and its environs, an ethnic population known as Sikhs are attempting to survive despite government attempts to integrate them into a secular, materialistic and bureaucratic state.

Most of the Sikhs belong to the ethnic group of the Jatts, who are by lore a mix of Scythian and Northern Indian, something borne out by the number of infants born there with hazel eyes and light skin. Local histories hold that some Jatt tribes migrated from Europe and some came with Alexander the Great, such as the Gill and Mann tribes.

Sikhs have endured the attempts at their conquest by numerous empires. The Moghuls wanted to convert them to Islam, which caused the Sikhs to take an appropriately militarized and somewhat xenophobic attitude toward nearby tribes. Currently, the Indian government wants to mainstream Sikhs into what Indian “culture” has become, which is more globalist than localist.

Conflict continues to the present day between Sikhs and those who support integration into broader India:

At least eleven people were injured as dozens of Sikh radicals clashed with supporters of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) at the revered Golden Temple, in Amritsar, Punjab.

It is understood the scuffle erupted over who would speak first at the service, held to remember victims of military offensive Operation Blue Star that left hundreds dead on June 6, 1984, when soldiers stormed the compound in a bid to flush out separatist insurgents holed up in the temple.

As globalism winds down with the failure of the modern subsidy state, localist communities and cultures are resisting it, leading to these types of clashes in which anti-integration and pro-integration forces fight for control of the institutions that regulate the local community, either aiding its independence or threatening to obliterate it through uniformity.

Signs Of The Decline: Lack of Trust in the Professions


Civilizations collapse when they experience a loss of social order; this leads to the civilization being conquered by invaders and its population destroyed through a type of genocide by outbreeding. When trust in institutions, people and government to be free of corruption and competent declines, this process is advancing.

Gallup reports a massive decline in faith in the professions, which reveals both a lack of trust and a sense that corruption now dominates our institutions.


As the reader can see from this chart excerpted from the above article, trust is declining toward professions like law, government, political pundits, media and finance. For example, only one in five people profess a high degree of trust in lawyers, who are the people who often make our laws and decide our future with court cases.

If you were wondering what the fall of Rome was like, this is one of the advance signs of an “internal collapse” in that style. Long before the Vandals arrived, conquered and subjugating the people — leading to their genocide and replacement with modern Italians — Rome also experienced corruption and incompetence that lowered trust in this way.