The Chad Holocaust + A Vulgar Display of Cowards
“In the box you’ve made for your new Eden
Suffering leads to frustration and fear Through a media-issued panic-stricken world view
And what you think
Ain’t what it is
So face it
Sheltered life fed on lies
It’s the knowledge you despise
Your brain can’t even fathom it
Evolution gives a voice to what’s suppressed
The myth of our fathers is the cause of our unrest.”-Incendiary, “Fact or Fiction”
“In the 20 years since The Bell Curve was published, the suppression of the fundamental truths in that book [have grown] more outrageous…This kind of suppression of dissent has infiltrated all walks of life and has had a poisonous effect on the onetime valued ideal of a free exchange of ideas.”-Byron Roth
In today’s climate of fear and intimidation, it is completely unacceptable on pain of social and economic oblivion, subjection to violence, and increasingly often imprisonment for simply giving voice to the well-established science on biological differences between men and women, and between races, or else objecting to demographic dispossession or contradicting established orthodoxy such as the Six Million fiction. These orthodoxies must be accepted at face value and never interrogated, and the Occam’s razor of naturally-evolved differences must be denied with the fervor of a fanatic. All disparities must be attributed to the decidedly religious/superstitious and unmeasurable notions of “invisible structures of systemic racism” or “implicit bias.” The thing about implicit cognitive systems and processes versus explicit cognitive systems and processes is that one of the central features of an implicit system is its automatic, usually evolved, nature; otherwise, it is hard-wired through pattern recognition. Thus “implicit bias” is ineradicable unless one wishes to change human nature itself—which, in the most profound arrogance, the Left is in fact trying to do.
Make no mistake, multi-culturalism and egalitarianism are faith-based doctrines. There is scant historical proof of the former’s success, unless you count small, racially homogeneous nations such as Belgium and Switzerland, and no empirical evidence supporting the existence of any kind of equality between groups, let alone individuals. Granted, one population group such as Northeast Asians may generally excel in particular areas, but to hold that any two Japanese or Koreans will be interchangeable—the notion of which belies the Left’s adherence to the basic tenets of Marxism—is completely false. This article of faith accepts that there is something wrong with the system when a Gambian with a 67-IQ cannot out-compete a Taiwanese with a 104-IQ for a computer programming job. Accusations of “racism” in the face of biological differences, particularly those pertaining to intelligence, are nothing more than the superstitious clinging to their “exploded doctrines,” as Lothrop Stoddard called them, of environmentalism and natural equality, identical to the mindset that saw Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for his belief that there are more solar systems than just ours and that the universe is infinite.
The Left is correct on two counts, however: 1) That the system is rotten, and 2) In their assertion that the elites have constructed a society that is not based on merit but rather on the perpetuation of power and control for those at the top; they are for the most part incorrect in identifying who those elites are that are manipulating the system to their advantage, or else trying to undermine and alter it altogether for their on-going benefit. But the system succeeds in spite of itself when the competent individual attains his position based on merit, as opposed to the federally-mandated and -subsidized elevation of an individual well beyond his station and ability-level. This is only selectively-applied, however, depending on the field, with the unacknowledged sub-text that “diversity” cannot be uniformly beneficial if Google wouldn’t hire a programmer or any airline wouldn’t hire a pilot based solely on immutable characteristics, but a university would hire some paper-pusher or accept a student based solely on these “flexible” or “holistic” criteria. Certainly these individuals have only been disadvantaged due to some combination of socio-economic factors and racism/bias. However, as Byron Roth notes:
Evolutionary explanations undercut [this social constructivist] view since, from the evolutionary perspective, a substantial number of human characteristics must be determined by genes shaped by thousands of years of natural selection. Given the demonstrable reality of natural selection and the resultant evolution that it creates, the notion that the human is a “blank slate” is simply untenable.
The Left believes in evolution except as it applies to human beings. Roth also takes care to point out in his article “The War on Human Nature” the two chief opponents of Edward O. Wilson’s land-mark 1975 book Sociobiology, which had its flaws but was nevertheless a vital entry into the field; those critics—the Jewish scientists Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould—objected to the “negative implications” that Wilson’s work might suggest certain groups were “inferior” to others. The other most vociferous critic of Wilson’s was—you guessed it, another Jew—Devra G. Kleiman. Roth notes the irony that Wilson never mentions race once in the text and contrasts Wilson’s work with the now-familiar Cult-Marx line in this case held by Lewontin and Gould who claim that Wilson’s book shows “the personal and social class prejudice of the author.” This is a double classic: projection and mind-reading in ten words or less.
This is an ideology that, it should be readily apparent by now, is utterly unconcerned with consistency or even coherence. Their ideology is such a mess of contradictions it’s often impossible to discern what, exactly, they are advocating for. Again, we know what the Left defines itself as being against, and that the unifying theme of the Left-wing is its approval of anything that will harm Western civilization, but what do they stand for? The Left’s structure is remarkably similar to 1984, with an Outer Party of grunts and functionaries who take their cues from the Inner Party. As such, it is clear that they have no coherent worldview as we might understand it (though the brains behind the operation do, and it centers principally on power not compassion); instead the Outer Party simply have a collection of opinions and reactive “takes,” a sort of Golden Corral buffet of a la carte positions du jour, subject to change at the behest of their overlords. This also includes what passes for “conservatism” in the mainstream, which generally hews more liberal than Bill Clinton (and that’s not a joke). They are mere “useful idiots” for the super-state totally in thrall to plantation economics. In practice, globalism results in nations being nothing more than just patches of land, and citizens just whoever happens to be there. Indeed, in the hands of the globalists, “citizenship” itself becomes utterly meaningless.
For Roger Scruton, this kind of ideology underpins the so-called elites’ “acceptance of subsidized immigration and…attacks on customs and institutions associated with traditional and native forms of life”…if they are Western in origin. Scruton correctly asserts that the identity of the typical Brussels-, Davos-, Harvard-, or Hollywood-type is constructed in opposition to the nation-state; he continues, the “elites’” political vision will encompass “cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community,” again, unless that community is non-Western, and even better if it is antagonistic toward Western culture; the ethno-religion of Judaism is one example. Islam is another. In fact, these systems of belief and organization are often falsely attributed with the preservation in the latter case and the development in the former case of the values and ideals that traditionally characterize our civilization. This is another blatant falsehood.
I am on the side of facts and rationality. Liberalism has become a corruption. Its adherents believe in their own righteousness, in the moral unassailability of their position—which is grounded in mere fantasy—yet they espouse an ideology as poisonous as anything yet conceived by Man. Yes, the vast majority of Leftists are cowards, generally only going for soft targets; they wouldn’t dare criticize Islam because that would involve the real risk of physical harm and possibly even death. Nevertheless, cowardice is often far more dangerous than bravery; weak, craven people are liable to do anything to survive, including selling out that which they hold most dear. They cannot be expected to have principles or to play by any recognizable “rules.” Though Islam may have a higher body count at 270 million people by Dr. Bill Warner’s estimation, it’s got a 1,300-year head-start on Left-wing totalitarianism and its 100 million corpses and counting; given the intensity and the relatively brief time-frame, it must measure as the most lethal ideology of all time. It exceeds even Islam in its religious fervor and intensity of devotion because with no promise of eternity on the other side, it is possessed with a hysterical immediacy. Though they are only tasked with carrying out the globalists’ dirty work, the unquestioning belief in a man-made utopia possesses the body of Leftists with an unflinching and absolute certainty in the virtues of their tyranny. As C.S. Lewis said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”