Civilization Needs A Center

Even when we attempt to avoid the reality of power, we are ruled by it, because our only method of abolishing power is to transfer it elsewhere. At that point, a struggle for power becomes a constant event, and in the effort to “win,” everyone seems to forget that the goal of power is the thriving of the civilization.

As it turns out, this makes sense because human societies need centers:

When we speak about the absolutism of central power, the point is less that whatever the occupant of the center says goes (so that if something he says doesn’t go he must have said the wrong thing, but in that case was he really occupying the center?) than that no one can imagine anything happening without reference to the center. If I want to do something, I imagine the conditions under which the central power will allow or support it—if I think in terms of how I can do it by evading central power, I am still thinking of the center as a general constraint that must structure my thinking.

…There has to be a center because humanity is constituted through joint attention, and attention must be attention toward something, and if attention is joint that something must be at the convergence of the respective lines of vision of the attenders. The only way this object of attention can be held in place is if it is desired by all of those attending upon it, and the only way it can be desired rather than appropriated is if its appropriation is proscribed; and the only way its appropriation can be proscribed is if the participants on the scene constitute this proscription by offering signs to each other that they will suspend any attempt to appropriate the object. The source of the sign(s) offered must be a reversal of the movement towards the object, and this reversal must result from the fear of violence produced by this novel, collective, unconstrained rush toward the object.

Joint attention directs toward an object of power or a purpose to the society. That center must then be sacred, or defended by all, so that no one seizes it and uses it for their own ends. In turn, the center shapes how people think about their own lives, goals, and what behaviors they are willing to engage in.

With diversity as with equality, society lacks a center; its goal is its method, meaning that it applies equality in order to have equality and the same with diversity, and so it is caught in a feedback loop of always intensifying its drive toward an ideological extreme. This cuts reality out of the equation, essentially appropriating the center by replacing it with a simpler, more narrowly defined goal.

In addition, diversity creates a society of many groups, each of whom avoid appropriating their own center by attempting to appropriate the center of society as a whole. If they do not attempt to seize power, they have attempted to appropriate their own center by failing to act out its unstated goal, which is to have self-rule and dominion over all that is around them.

Not surprisingly, diversity destroys civilizations. This is not, as many surmise, through the bad behavior of a single group, but through the good behavior of every group, because since each group acts in its own interests alone, no two groups can have fully overlapping objectives, leading to unending conflict.

Diversity Is Dysfunction

In the old narrative, there were a few evil racists who hated people of other racial and ethnic groups. If we removed the power that these racists had, the theory went, then everyone could live in harmony.

In reality, we see another instance of humanity denying nature. Different groups exist for a reason, namely that if a group wants its own values to persist, it must separate itself and then encode those values into its DNA through years of selective breeding. This is how we achieved different groups with different abilities.

That “different abilities” part, even if those abilities are not linearly measured in a superior/inferior scale, enrages egalitarians. Those people are essentially individualists who want to remove the ability of someone else to know better than the individualist does, so they declare all people equal, essentially abolishing differences in ability, talent, and wisdom. This makes the entire herd feel happy because everyone is accepted and, they think, will dwell in peace because there is nothing to fight over.

So far, throughout history, this approach has failed every time it has been tried along with other idealistic notions such as the planned community, bohemian lifestyle, and socialist economies. It denies reality so that the human ego will feel good and therefore, the group will do as the individualists want, namely to let the individualists do whatever they want in exchange for universal tolerance, freedom, equality, etc.

America came late to the equality game since a frontier nation has no need for equality. You go out there, tough it out against the elements, hostile tribes, disease, famine, and your own learning curve, and the ones that survive prosper. Under those conditions, charity seems wise but a support net seems to reverse the triumph of those who prevail against the harsh environment.

After WW2, however, America got into the equality game first to show our opposition to Hitler, and next to be “better than” the Soviets, who were after all offering what seemed to be more equality than we were. Instead, we demonstrated more prosperity, but in order to avoid socialist revolt, implemented socialist programs to buy off our citizens.

At the same time, the Democrats hatched a plan to get rid of the remaining holdouts against socialism. These people were of the majority group and tradition, so the Left imported third world people to serve as allies to the Left and to break up that original group, replacing it with a cultureless, alienated, and atomized herd which could be manipulated.

This worked well for over fifty years, but on the semicentennial anniversary of the changes in our immigration law, it became clear that everything was rapidly falling apart. We had a black president, but race relations were worse than ever, because now that every group felt itself equal, each was fighting for control.

That is part of the “diversity pattern,” and we can see it unfolding before our eyes as the different minority groups within our diversity are attacking one another over a clash of values and identities:

“The ADL is CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people,” Women’s March organizer Tamika Mallory posted on Twitter. “This is a sign that they are tone deaf and not committed to addressing the concerns of black folk.” Mallory came under fire earlier this year after attending a Feb. 25 speech by Louis Farrakhan in which the Nation of Islam leader said “the Jews have control over” the FBI.

Cat Brooks, the co-founder of the Anti Police-Terror Project, told ABC News that she agreed with Mallory, saying, “You can’t be a piece of an anti-bias training when you openly support a racist, oppressive and brutal colonization of Palestine.”

The Washington chapter of Black Lives Matter, meanwhile, tweeted that the ADL was “ultra pro-cop,” and cited a 2016 letter in which Greenblatt said “ADL has not endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement” because “a small minority of [its] leaders … supported anti-Israel — and at times anti-Semitic — positions.” Greenblatt’s letter didn’t identify the leaders in question.

What do you do when your diversity is at war within itself? We have seen an uptick in such events for some time, especially in minority-majority cities in the southern half of the country where incoming Hispanics, Asians, and middle eastern people are driving African-Americans out of their traditional economic opportunities and neighborhoods. I saw it twenty-five years ago when open warfare broke out between black and Hispanic communities. We should expect to see more.

Those that we might have identified as “racist” in past years tended to make this argument: some groups can assimilate, but some cannot, and those groups also tend to be criminal, dirty, stupid, violent, mean, and parasitic. In other words, they supported diversity in theory except for some groups. As time went on, however, it became clear that the problem was not whatever group was complaining that week, but diversity itself.

Diversity divides a nation. It can no longer have a strong values system, identity, heritage, rules, or social order once there are people with different cultures within it. Even more, those different groups are used to hybridize with the original group, breeding out the DNA coding for its set of values, creating a permanent cultureless grey race which is wholly dependent on Leftist government, a group which in turn becomes its perpetual rulers.

We recognize now that diversity is dysfunction. It was never meant to work, only to destroy the majority so that Leftists could rule. It will not lead to peace, but to constant low-grade infighting until life becomes too maddening to worry about anything other than the very basics of modern life, like jobs and consumer shopping. In turn, over time, the wealth we built up for generations will be erased, and replaced with a typical chaotic and dysfunctional third world nation.

Genocide Without Guns

It is easy to destroy a population: demoralize it. Induce it into degenerate behavior. Replace images of it with the Other, idealize the Other. Then they self-destruct and you can escape guilt. What no one realizes: this is not being done to whites alone, but to every ethnic group imported into diversity. None will win, and none will remain.