Making “Racism” Illegal Always Punishes The Majority

You would think people would learn. You would be wrong. People engage in the same old patterns, get the same bad results, and then rationalize the failure. Such is the case with the ongoing diversity experiment in South Africa, in which we are learning that when “racism” becomes illegal, it is only enforced against the population perceived to be highest.

Estate agent Vicki Momberg was sentenced on Wednesday to an effective two years in prison, following a racist rant towards police and emergency service workers which was caught on camera in February 2016 and which occurred after Momberg had experienced a smash-and-grab. The sentence was applauded by many for its strong anti-racism message, but also raises important questions about justice and society.

…One of the few bodies to voice criticism about the sentence was lobby group AfriForum, which said the ruling “confirms double standards in South Africa regarding race”.

Afriforum said that Momberg’s racist comments needed to be condemned, but questioned why the same approach was not taken towards black people who insulted white South Africans.

“Analysis: Why the Vicki Momberg racism sentence deserves scrutiny,” by Rebecca Davis, Daily Maverick, March 29, 2018

This double standard is not anomalous. Equality does not exist in nature, or we would not need to strive for it (as Leftists suggest we do). This means we are imposing it, and since we cannot make the lower more competent, it means penalizing the competent — the weak eating the strong — so that they can subsidize the less competent. This is the root of wealth transfer, socialism, diversity, and all other equality-based policy.

Does Diversity Cause Anti-Semitism?

Looking for articles about George F. Will and Zionism, I stumbled across the words of the words of a Holocaust revisionist about anti-Semitism from an interview with the neoconservative columnist:

At one point, and suddenly changing the subject, Will asked me why I think that anti-Semitism exists. I said that this is a complex issue, and that a better way to put it might be to ask why hostility toward Jews has persisted over so many centuries, and in so many different cultures.

I went on to say that I largely agreed with what Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement, had written (in The Jewish State) on this issue. I mentioned that Herzl, along with many others, often referred to the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in society as “the Jewish question.”

Having approached this situation from the opposite direction, namely “what data patterns can we infer that might prevent genocide?,” I found this interesting, and not only because Herzl is one of my heroes. Herzl articulated one of those rare arguments that is not against another race, but against the concept of diversity itself, following in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle.

In Herzl’s view, the cause of anti-Semitism was diversity itself, or the fact that a foreign population within an ethnically-consistent population would stand out and become a scapegoat. He wrote about this after witnessing The Dreyfuss Affair and analyzing the psychology of the crowds, and his ideas led to the formation of modern (post-diaspora) Israel:

Herzl first encountered the anti-Semitism that would shape his life and the fate of the Jews in the twentieth century while studying at the University of Vienna (1882). Later, during his stay in Paris as a journalist, he was brought face-to-face with the problem. At the time, he regarded the Jewish problem as a social issue and wrote a drama, The Ghetto (1894), in which assimilation and conversion are rejected as solutions.

In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was unjustly accused of treason, mainly because of the prevailing anti-Semitic atmosphere. Herzl witnessed mobs shouting “Death to the Jews” in France, the home of the French Revolution, and resolved that there was only one solution: the mass immigration of Jews to a land that they could call their own. Thus, the Dreyfus Case became one of the determinants in the genesis of Political Zionism.

Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve. He mulled over the idea of Jewish sovereignty, and, despite ridicule from Jewish leaders, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896). Herzl argued that the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national. He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly. The Jews are one people, he said, and their plight could be transformed into a positive force by the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers. He saw the Jewish question as an international political question to be dealt with in the arena of international politics.

…Although at the time no one could have imagined it, Zionism led, only fifty years later, to the establishment of the independent State of Israel.

In his book The Jewish State, Herzl expanded on his earliest ideas: conversion and assimilation do not work, so Jews must either exist as (1) an isolated ethnic minority within host states — the condition of the diaspora — or (2) an ethnic group with its own state, a philosophy known as nationalism.

This leads back to the fundamental question: what is the cause of anti-Semitism? Some say that it is ethnic cruelty, others claim it is a legitimate response to the ethnic cruelty of Jews, but as Herzl found out and common sense dictates, people recognize that having a group of Other among them — whoever it is — is a form of slow genocide by outbreeding and therefore eventually lash out, leading to situations where whole villages unite to burn Jews alive in barns.

Diversity causes negative consequences for both host and minority populations and is unpopular with those who experience it while knowing of the alternative. It will lead to the eradication of indigenous peoples, and this makes them withdraw from society entirely, a condition known as atomization.

It is not surprising that as diversity thrashes a society to death, there will be outbursts which as mis-directed at the foreign population instead of diversity itself. Those who find themselves irked by diversity should heed this lesson, and instead of attack the Other, attack the policy of Othering the majority, namely diversity.

Chinese Students Discover Nationalism Through Alienation in Diverse America

Amazing how well diversity and equality backfire once experienced by those who have known their absence:

Some Western academics, politicians and media commentators believe Beijing may be winning that war when it comes to its overseas students – that rather than bringing Chinese youth towards a more politically liberal outlook, study in the West may instead be arousing greater nationalism and disdain for host countries, and in the process, be ushering in the Communist Party’s eyes, ears and hostile approach to free speech onto Western campuses.

…Han says that since coming to the US, he has been disappointed by American uninterest in understanding, or even listening to, views like these. Growing up in China, he explains, despite government propaganda, he came to see the US as a beacon of freedom, liberalism and open-mindedness. “But after a lot of people come here, they realise it’s not like that,” he says. “If you’re Chinese, when people talk about politics and democracy, you’ll always be targeted […] They try to put us under one very radical label, like, ‘Chinese people are lovers of dictatorships,’ things like that. At times, it’s very aggressive.”

…In many ways, interactions like these play into the Communist Party’s patriotic education campaign, which Chinese students are subjected to growing up. Instituted in the early 1990s, in the aftermath of the Tiananmen uprising, the curriculum began emphasising Chinese nationalism and the country’s 5,000 years of greatness that were interrupted by imperialistic atrocities inflicted by the West and Japan during a “century of humiliation” (1839-1949).

Westerners have never known a world apart from diversity, democracy, equality, and tolerance. We pride ourselves in having fought two world wars for “freedom” and see it as a bedrock of our civilization. While Chinese feel that Americans are biased against Chinese, they are also experiencing how the rhetoric of equality becomes a cause in itself that necessarily excludes those with national pride.

Much as people in the Soviet Union were unaware of any other way of life until they saw information about America and Western Europe, Americans are unaware of how our mania for individual freedom makes us the enemies of any who want to keep their national cultures. Only recently has that begun changing with the rise of identity politics, which causes Americans to experience what these Chinese students have undergone.

The Basis Of Nationalism And Natural Selection: Neurological Compatibility

Nationalists speak about genetic compatibility, but it is less commonly noted that genetic compatibility leads to neurological compatibility as the basis of friendship and in turn, of nations:

Dating sites would be well-advised to add “brain activity” as a compatability criterion, according to a study released Tuesday showing that close friends have eerily comparable neural responses to life experiences.

“Our results suggest that friends process the world around them in exceptionally similar ways,” said lead author Carolyn Parkinson, director of the Computational Social Neuroscience Lab at the University of California in Los Angeles.

…The closer the relationship, the more alike the neural patterns in parts of the brain governing emotional response, high-level reasoning, and the capacity to focus one’s attention.

People who are friends are more likely to be genetically similar:

Sociologists have long pointed out that we often favor people who look like us. Now, a new study shows that that bias runs deeper still: we tend to chose friends who are genetically similar to ourselves.

…Compared to strangers, the people the subjects chose to be friends with had significantly more in common genetically. They shared about one percent of their genome – about as related as fourth cousins. Most often, friends shared genes related to sense of smell, the authors found.

Long ago, the researchers think, this tendency to chose genetically similar friends might have provided our ancestors with an evolutionary advantage. Having people around who share some of the same weaknesses, preferences and needs can be useful for building a support network.

There was one exception to this rule, however. Friends significantly differed in their arsenal of immunity genes, the team found. Speculating, the researchers think that this might increase the chances that our friends will be more resistant to the germs that cripple us, and could thus take care of us and help stop the spread of infection.

In other words, the basis of human socializing and cooperation is genetic and neurological similarity. People who think along the same lines, find themselves as natural allies, and able to appreciate each other. These groups also have their own internal diversity in that people are attracted to those whose immune systems work differently than their own, creating a double barrier to disease.

When we apply this to civilization, we see that a group of people who are genetically/neurologically similar are more likely to be friends than people who are attempting to control one another because they are dissimilar. The scourge of the twentieth century, managerial/bureaucratic control, is thus deprecated in favor of similarity and cooperation.

In this way, we see nationalism as an extended friend/family group. Those who have similar ambitions for their civilization group together, and within that group, they achieve diversity at a biological level by choosing people near them who offer what they do not, at least at the immunological level but perhaps on many more.

Diversity cannot compare to the simplicity and clarity of this model. In diversity, people are choosing mates based on fractional similarities, and the resulting instability means a lack of unity and thus constant internal conflict. In the friends/family model of nationalism, people group with those similar to them, and so cooperation is an unspoken mutual goal.

Intermediate Stage In Diversity: Proportional Representation And Meritocracy

Diversity destroys civilizations and results in genocide of the majority through outbreeding because every identifiable group — race, religion, ethnicity, caste — acts only in its own interests. This means that groups inevitably clash because each needs to be in control of its surroundings in order to avoid being replaced.

This process takes time and is rationalized by participants at different levels that allow them to accept it. At first, diversity is limited to a labor role, and over time it expands to full-blown cultural warfare. A quotation from John Wayne shows us how people rationalize its first stage in an attempt to deal “fairly” with diversity from 1971:

I’ve directed two pictures and I gave the blacks their proper position. I had a black slave in The Alamo, and I had a correct number of blacks in The Green Berets. If it’s supposed to be a black character, naturally I use a black actor. But I don’t go so far as hunting for positions for them. I think the Hollywood studios are carrying their tokenism a little too far. There’s no doubt that 10 percent of the population is black, or colored, or whatever they want to call themselves; they certainly aren’t Caucasian. Anyway, I suppose there should be the same percentage of the colored race in films as in society. But it can’t always be that way. There isn’t necessarily going to be 10 percent of the grips or sound men who are black, because more than likely, 10 percent haven’t trained themselves for that type of work.

This is similar to the “meritocracy” view used by conservatives. The idea is that, since diversity is there, people should be treated fairly, which means showing them as they actually are in the world. However, this clashes with egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal, because then the diversity is not being shown as equally successful as the majority.

Hence the society enters the next stage, where the diversity is artificially made more prominent, successful, and competent in the public eye. That in turn further deepens the inter-group warfare because it has created a politically protected class whose interests are now directly opposed to that of the majority.

Nancy Pelosi Accuses Donald Trump Of Trying To Make America White Again (MAWA)

Trying to make sense of the complex coalition of grievances — feminism, minorities, youth, disabled, criminals — that they have assembled, the Left came right out and accused president Donald Trump of majoritarianism. This is a typical stage in diversity where, since the society is divided, one group forms a coalition of the discontented and the other aims for protection of the historical majority.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of waging an “unmistakable campaign to make America white again”:

Trump’s proposal would offer a path to citizenship for 1.8 million so-called “Dreamers.” He would insist on $25 billion in funding for a border wall and security. The proposal also called for a crackdown on chain migration and the diversity visa lottery program.

Pelosi wrote in a statement on Friday that the 50 percent cut to legal immigration and the “recent announcements to end Temporary Protected Status for Central Americans and Haitians are both part of the same cruel agenda. They are part of the Trump administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”

At this point in the diversity game, the social breakdown predicted by Plato and Aristotle, and documented by Robert Putnam, has occurred. Putnam found that diversity causes people to become alienated from one another; Haidt follows up on this by pointing out that diversity erodes culture. This begins with the lack of a sense of what the society is, since it no longer means a tribe and now relies on amorphous financial, legal, and socioeconomic definitions.

If Donald Trump defends the majority, he will be accused of racism because that is how his actions appear to a coalition of those who want to remove the majority from power; if he defends the coalition, he will be seen as participating in the ongoing genocide of the majority (frequently called “white genocide” despite the murkiness of the term “white”) and his base will abandon him.

As usual, diversity becomes genocide when the instability of diversity becomes clear. We are at a fork in the road: either we admit that diversity has failed, at which point we become “racists” arguing for a monotribalist American ethnostate, or we double down on diversity, at which point we signal that we are in favor of the ethnic destruction of the majority.

Ethnic Ties Are More Important That Alliances With Other Races

Diversity makes people isolated and withdrawn, conditions that go alongside paranoia. Xenophobia, or the pragmatic recognition that other groups want to dominate your group, can also coincide with paranoia. But in the end, ethnic allegiance is more important than cross-racial alliances. We can see this in the case of Donald Trump and John Lewis:

Shortly after arriving in Atlanta, Trump signed a bill that grants Georgia its first national historic park at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site near downtown Atlanta. He signed it shortly after Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, boarded Air Force One.

The measure was long championed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and vocal Trump critic, who praised the bill without mentioning the president.

In theory, Trump is reaching out to another ethnic group, but this is not praiseworthy in the eyes of a member of that group. If he acknowledges the help of a cross-racial ally, he is ceding some power to that other group, so he cannot both recognize the help and maintain his own action in the self-interest of his group. This is yet another reason why diversity will never work, but in the meantime, will make unintentional enemies of us all.

The Grief Exception: Diversity Causes Depression

At The Guardian, buried deep within an article on depression lurks a shocking admission of its causes, including diversity.

Then, as the years and decades passed, doctors on the frontline started to come back with another question. All over the world, they were being encouraged to tell patients that depression is, in fact, just the result of a spontaneous chemical imbalance in your brain – it is produced by low serotonin, or a natural lack of some other chemical. It’s not caused by your life – it’s caused by your broken brain. Some of the doctors began to ask how this fitted with the grief exception. If you agree that the symptoms of depression are a logical and understandable response to one set of life circumstances – losing a loved one – might they not be an understandable response to other situations? What about if you lose your job? What if you are stuck in a job that you hate for the next 40 years? What about if you are alone and friendless?

The grief exception seemed to have blasted a hole in the claim that the causes of depression are sealed away in your skull. It suggested that there are causes out here, in the world, and they needed to be investigated and solved there. This was a debate that mainstream psychiatry (with some exceptions) did not want to have. So, they responded in a simple way – by whittling away the grief exception. With each new edition of the manual they reduced the period of grief that you were allowed before being labelled mentally ill – down to a few months and then, finally, to nothing at all. Now, if your baby dies at 10am, your doctor can diagnose you with a mental illness at 10.01am and start drugging you straight away.

…We act like human distress can be assessed solely on a checklist that can be separated out from our lives, and labelled as brain diseases. If we started to take people’s actual lives into account when we treat depression and anxiety, Joanne explained, it would require “an entire system overhaul”. She told me that when “you have a person with extreme human distress, [we need to] stop treating the symptoms. The symptoms are a messenger of a deeper problem. Let’s get to the deeper problem.”

The grief exception points out that depression cannot be purely chemical because people experience it in response to grief, which is an external stimulus. If grief can cause the effects of depression, then we cannot universally say that those effects cause depression, because that is a cause-effect error. If when it rains, the sidewalk is wet, it does not mean that the if the sidewalk is wet, it has rained; there are other ways in that the sidewalk can become wet.

As it turns out, that is not all. Instability caused by diversity causes people to fear for their future, and this makes them depressed and paranoid:

We all know that every human being has basic physical needs: for food, for water, for shelter, for clean air. It turns out that, in the same way, all humans have certain basic psychological needs. We need to feel we belong. We need to feel valued. We need to feel we’re good at something. We need to feel we have a secure future. And there is growing evidence that our culture isn’t meeting those psychological needs for many – perhaps most – people. I kept learning that, in very different ways, we have become disconnected from things we really need, and this deep disconnection is driving this epidemic of depression and anxiety all around us.

…Professor John Cacioppo of Chicago University taught me that being acutely lonely is as stressful as being punched in the face by a stranger – and massively increases your risk of depression. Dr Vincent Felitti in San Diego showed me that surviving severe childhood trauma makes you 3,100% more likely to attempt suicide as an adult. Professor Michael Chandler in Vancouver explained to me that if a community feels it has no control over the big decisions affecting it, the suicide rate will shoot up.

As time goes on, we are seeing that diversity is destructive to all groups involved and that our attempts to fix the situation only make it worse. Like any other crusade against a condition of life itself, this one is doomed to fail because it has no condition for stopping, thus will continue to accelerate in manic intensity until it self-destructs.

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.