As we enter the age of civil rights fatigue those who oppose diversity will face increasing opposition from the dying system. A vastly entrenched nepotistic bureaucracy, industry and media exists because of the political jobs program created by anti-discrimination and anti-poverty legislation. They will defend their meal ticket with increasing acrimony. They can be defeated by attacking their motivations and clarifying our position.
Who is the opposition? Government employees and politicians can use race as a "blank check" to get approval, much as poverty has been used in democracies since the dawn of time. Your program seems self-serving until you justify it as helping the poor. Industry benefits by selling books, movies, and personalities based on their attitude toward race; non-profit groups like the SPLC furiously beat the drums of fear and receive a corresponding massive influx of donations. Media needs hot topic issues that are both a threat and a moral vindication to sell their online and print ads.
Their motivations can be attacked by looking to their self-interest. As Tom Wolfe notes, political correctness is a way of trend-hopping to advance oneself socially, just like the rest of liberalism. He called this mentality "Radical Chic" and defined it as:
Attacking the motivations of the politically correct requires recognizing what they are doing. They are trying to manipulate you with social guilt and implied exclusion from the group. You can retaliate by pointing out that they're just as conformist as the suit and tie guys of the 1950s. The hip has moved on. The un-hip and dead are these bogus 1960s values (really inherited from the early 1900s, when fashionable anarchists roamed London throwing ineffective bombs) that people keep flogging because... they're not hip. They're pretenders.
In response to the inevitable outrage, clarifying our position — I use "our" to refer to all who recognize the failure of diversity — precludes a number of stealth attacks the PC herd will attempt. Their goal is to style us as poseurs, or pretenders who are hiding racial hatred behind a social pretense of educated, scientific political inquiry. We can kick that assault to the curb by pointing out that instead we are nationalists.
Nationalism does not connote, as its detractors argue, preference against other races. Instead, nationalism demonstrates preference for its own ethnic group. It does not worry about whether other groups are "bad" or "inferior"; it simply excludes them. The point of nationalism is to have a national identity and thus a shared culture, heritage and values. With that, we can govern ourselves without ideological government and economic control (consumerism/socialism).
A nationalist wants inclusion of his own people only. Anything other than his people should be excluded. This is not a personal judgment, or even a values judgment at all. They don't fit: happy nations are homogenous in culture, heritage and values. By that definition, implied in reciprocal, any person who does not fit this type should be excluded. Even if they have 1,000 IQ points and never commit any crimes, they do not belong among Us because they are Them and should be excluded.
Hate groups arise because governments or economies force diversity upon populations. Those then retaliate by attacking the immediate cause of their discomfort, which is the presence of others among them. Unless individuals choose to join the pretense wagon of "it doesn't bother me, all my neighbors are lovely," which only fools the kind of people who weep over the "profound" messages on greeting cards, all people possess a natural instinct to group with people like themselves, not just in origins but behavior and morality, encompassed by the triad of culture, heritage and values.
The diversity crowd wants to equate nationalism with membership in a hate group. This confuses the intent of the two groups: nationalists want homogeneity to avoid racism; racists want diversity so that they can feel better than someone else. The West has seen enough immivasion to realize that Mexicans killing blacks and Indians clobbering Chinese are more common than "evil white people" beating up blacks. We have also witnessed enough Muslim hate attacks against Jews to see the religion issue is not a simple question of Christian supremacy. For these reasons people are turning from both racism and diversity.
Advocates of diversity will try to invoke outrage through the pretense of the "good" that diversity brings, so that they can summon a hive swarm of angry liberal bees intent on destroying the ideological violators. But our point is not to take either the left side, or the right; it is that we want a third option which is right down the middle: we want to be among ourselves only. We are not concerned with others. We want to make a future for Us. And so we've tossed diversity on the dustbin of history with other failed ideas. We're free of it now.
Who is the opposition? Government employees and politicians can use race as a "blank check" to get approval, much as poverty has been used in democracies since the dawn of time. Your program seems self-serving until you justify it as helping the poor. Industry benefits by selling books, movies, and personalities based on their attitude toward race; non-profit groups like the SPLC furiously beat the drums of fear and receive a corresponding massive influx of donations. Media needs hot topic issues that are both a threat and a moral vindication to sell their online and print ads.
Their motivations can be attacked by looking to their self-interest. As Tom Wolfe notes, political correctness is a way of trend-hopping to advance oneself socially, just like the rest of liberalism. He called this mentality "Radical Chic" and defined it as:
"...an exercise in double-tracking one's public image: on the one hand, defining oneself through committed allegiance to a radical cause, but on the other, vitally, demonstrating this allegiance because it is the fashionable, au courant way to be seen in moneyed, name-conscious Society."Politically correct people do not care about the consequences of their words. They want to be hip, trendy, young, fresh and exciting, so they adopt a pose they think leads to that end. They believe that it's their ticket to the political and financial elite, and wherever liberals have money — generally the coastal cities — this can be true but is not universally so. Thus the politically correct herd is 95% wannabes and a lucky few who rise to the top.
In response to the inevitable outrage, clarifying our position — I use "our" to refer to all who recognize the failure of diversity — precludes a number of stealth attacks the PC herd will attempt. Their goal is to style us as poseurs, or pretenders who are hiding racial hatred behind a social pretense of educated, scientific political inquiry. We can kick that assault to the curb by pointing out that instead we are nationalists.
 |
| The Tower of Babel: the ultimate symbol of cataclysmic diversity, |
A nationalist wants inclusion of his own people only. Anything other than his people should be excluded. This is not a personal judgment, or even a values judgment at all. They don't fit: happy nations are homogenous in culture, heritage and values. By that definition, implied in reciprocal, any person who does not fit this type should be excluded. Even if they have 1,000 IQ points and never commit any crimes, they do not belong among Us because they are Them and should be excluded.
Hate groups arise because governments or economies force diversity upon populations. Those then retaliate by attacking the immediate cause of their discomfort, which is the presence of others among them. Unless individuals choose to join the pretense wagon of "it doesn't bother me, all my neighbors are lovely," which only fools the kind of people who weep over the "profound" messages on greeting cards, all people possess a natural instinct to group with people like themselves, not just in origins but behavior and morality, encompassed by the triad of culture, heritage and values.
The diversity crowd wants to equate nationalism with membership in a hate group. This confuses the intent of the two groups: nationalists want homogeneity to avoid racism; racists want diversity so that they can feel better than someone else. The West has seen enough immivasion to realize that Mexicans killing blacks and Indians clobbering Chinese are more common than "evil white people" beating up blacks. We have also witnessed enough Muslim hate attacks against Jews to see the religion issue is not a simple question of Christian supremacy. For these reasons people are turning from both racism and diversity.
Advocates of diversity will try to invoke outrage through the pretense of the "good" that diversity brings, so that they can summon a hive swarm of angry liberal bees intent on destroying the ideological violators. But our point is not to take either the left side, or the right; it is that we want a third option which is right down the middle: we want to be among ourselves only. We are not concerned with others. We want to make a future for Us. And so we've tossed diversity on the dustbin of history with other failed ideas. We're free of it now.
