Open Wide for Diversity!
“Leftists: Whites in South Africa can’t be African [because] their ancestors invaded centuries ago. Also Leftists: Those black Africans fresh off the ‘refugee’ boat are more French than the French.”-Frank Carpenter
“Civic nationalism says America is a set of ideas, but it never says we can strip citizenship of those who disagree with those ideas or do not uphold those ideas. Which is why civic nationalism can ONLY ever cede ground to the Left. It has no immune system.”-Richard Houck
DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH—the Orwellian canard rammed up the collective anus of Western Man with no lubricant. The benefits of diversity are so self-evident, you’ll be de-platformed, fired from your job, assaulted in the streets, and possibly imprisoned for questioning the narrative. Every age has its dogma, and this is ours: it is a fallen world, and the blame lies exclusively with whites. Only after our complete erasure can salvation be attained. Of course, if this were true, then it is axiomatic that all of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations, listed below, would be global juggernauts:
1. Papua New Guinea
3. The Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. South Africa
If diversity simply correlates to less whites, as it of course does, and diversity is a source of incredible strength—indeed, our greatest strength—then explain Detroit, Michigan to me. Lagos? Port-au-Prince? The entire list above? I’ll wait. If America is simply a set of principles, an idea or ideal if you will, then why, with nearly a carbon-copy of our Constitution minus a provision that racially excludes whites, is Liberia such a disaster?
If diversity is our greatest strength, why does it result in more violence and diminished health by all metrics, from civic to mental to physical? Why is it that, in 2012, 51% of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program? Why is that number now 63%? Why, since the year 2000, has the US population living at or below 200% of the federal poverty level grown by twenty-five million—roughly coinciding with the numbers of non-Western immigrants that have been permitted to flood into this country? Why is it that, from the Office of Refugee Resettlement Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2013, we know that 19.7% of Middle Eastern refugees get public housing, 68.3% receive cash assistance, 73.1% get Medicaid or RMA, and 91.4% receive food stamps? Why do cities that become “majority-minority”—such as Houston—suddenly resemble the Third World? Why, when London, Toronto, and Frankfurt became majority non-white, did their murder rates eclipse those of New York City, despite those nations’ much-vaunted gun-control laws? Why does the Congressional Black Caucus operate exactly like their African counterparts? Why was it that Susan Konrath of the University of Michigan conducted a survey of seventy-two studies in 2010 and found that empathy in this country had declined by 40%? Why has trust bottomed-out in the United States? As Michael Jonas reported in his 2007 article, “The Downside of Diversity”:
It has become increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger. But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam…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. Higher diversity meant lower social capital.
These findings were echoed by economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT, who reviewed 15 studies, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater racial and ethnic diversity was linked to lower school funding, census response rates, and general levels of trust. Kahn and Costa also conducted their own research, which found higher desertion rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace. Putnam wrote in his “Diversity and Community” paper that those in more diverse communities:
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.
In his report, Putnam makes the curious claim that ethno-centric conservatism is “ahistorical.” If this were true, why is it only now that “diversity” has become such a major pre-occupation in Western countries? If that were true, why was the United States nearly 90% white in 1950 and 84% white in 1965 when the Hart-Celler Act (more commonly known as the Immigration Act) was deceptively foisted on the American people by a Congress beholden to Jewish special interest groups? Why is it the case that a recent Oxford University study found that most Britons still live in the old Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms of their ancestors (the study said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population”)? As 80% of British and 88% of Irish genetic material can be traced back to the core Younger Dryas settlers 12,000 years ago, I would say ethno-centric conservatism is plenty historical, but what do I know? I guess you’ll just have to trust me. Speaking of trust, Ilana Mercer expands:
Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history,” a finding the “progressive” Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, found perplexing. Almost as predictable is the manner in which these straightforward, sad findings are being misconstrued by puzzled pundits or pressure groups accustomed to maligning You Know Who…Diversity generates withdrawal and isolation. The thousands of people surveyed [by Putnam] were not intolerant, bigoted or even hostile; they were merely miserable. This is mass depression, the kind associated with loss, quiet resignation, and hopelessness.
It also means increased feelings of loneliness, which contribute to lower life expectancy and a whole host of medical issues. It is also little wonder “deaths by despair” and opioid abuse are soaring among the white American population; white males’ real wages and life expectancies are falling. There are more white deaths than births in a majority of US states. Diversity has effectively hollowed-out and atomized our nation. Why on earth would a government continue to pursue policies aimed at “diversifying” the population when it is so clearly destructive to a majority of its people? This is because the ruling class is no longer comprised of our people: they are predominantly Jews, their philo-Semitic collaborators, token race-baiting non-white agitators, and the high-earning high-caste Indians and Chinese ruling families who benefit from the present system. For Matt Nuenke:
The classic host/parasite conflict is the Gentile/Jewish conflict…The Jews have been able to successfully manipulate their hosts into behaviors that favor the fitness of Jews at the expense of their hosts. The hosts are unable to deter this manipulation for many reasons but the main ones are: the Jews are far more intelligent (my note: more intelligent on average, yes, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say far more so; nevertheless, their higher IQs are a factor, albeit one I believe for a variety of reasons is less significant than those Nuenke offers next), the Jews control the media to make indoctrination not only possible but exceedingly easy, the Jews will fight amongst themselves but will unite like a beehive when threatened by outsiders, they are highly xenophobic or ethnocentric, and they have the wealth and the resources to enforce their will nationally as well as internationally. Likewise, Whites are not aware of being harmed by the Jews’ manipulation of Whites’ behavior that benefits Jewish fitness, and Whites are genetically biased towards maladaptive altruism…This situation makes Whites extremely vulnerable to Jewish manipulation and harm. And as it turns out, to the whims and wishes of many other races as well under the aegis of Jewish media and Jewish political control. Let us look at just some of the few manipulations of the host's behavior that has been taking place…to enhance Jewish fitness:
1. Americans pay an exorbitant amount of money to prop up Israel at the behest of American Jews. In addition, we have intervened militarily in the Middle East as a protector of Israel. This has cost many billions of dollars over the last few decades and there is no end in sight. (my note: Our endless involvements in the Middle East have represented a cost to the American taxpayer equivalent to one full year of college tuition. The subsidizing of illegal aliens represents a lifetime cost to the taxpayer of another full year of college tuition)
2. American foreign policy is always directed in such a way that policy will bring no harm to Jews in other countries. To excessive restraints on nationalism to suppression of free speech in Europe, to supporting European policies that hurt Whites, American foreign policy is heavily influence by Jewish interests.
3. Multiculturalism has led to massive immigration in both the United States and in Europe with a decrease in the quality of life for Whites and an increase in crime. Whites are no longer allowed to have a White only nation under international pressure for open borders.
4. The media, courts, and especially Hollywood has been assaulting anything that is cherished by Christians. They attack Christian ideals, symbols, and the traditional family.
5. By promoting diversity, Whites are forced into a lesser position of rights under quotas, affirmative action, set asides, and opportunities. Even Asians, who already have higher educational levels and average income, can take advantage of these minority programs, and Whites must pay the price.
6. The media in general portrays Whites, as the purveyors of hate against minorities, by only reporting the White on minority hate crimes while ignoring the reverse. This manipulation of public perception is primarily used to make Whites feel guilty because therefore Whites must be incorrigible racists. This again tends to undermine White racial identity, while the same racial identity is encouraged in all other groups.
“Conservatism” deigns to be the counter-vailing force against this rotten liberalism foisted on our nations, but all it really does is aid in the disarmament of whites’ racial identity and thus our ability to defend against the litany of abuses visited upon us. To the mainstream GOP, the country is just an abstraction, little more than its GDP. The GOP has already accepted the premises of neo-liberalism as an economic system and liberalism as an ideology—as such, it cannot conserve a single thing. Conservative leaders remind me of a great lyric from the song “Shock Me” by Baroness: “In a battle, you only brought your shield.” Even worse, though, when this army goes into battle, it doesn’t even stay in formation but receives orders from on high to only operate as individuals. Probably half of the leadership are traitors, and the rest either think they’re fighting the Soviets or, more damning still, don’t even realize we’re at war. Encouragingly, more and more average Americans realize the gravity of the situation, but will it be enough? As Dave Reaboi writes:
We’ve got now a significant minority in the country—and a powerful majority in elite institutions like media and academia—that believes we don’t have a right to restrict immigration into the US at all, because it’s racist. This loud minority is amplified on social media, sure—but conservatives understand that these are the people who’re teaching their children and creating the intellectual environment for them. They see, correctly, that it’s only a matter of time. When Trump says “if we don’t have borders, we don’t have a country,” that aphorism resonates because it’s *more essentially true* than anything in GOP orthodoxy you’d read about in any conservative media pre-Trump. The Trump/Romney argument on the Right, at this point, is utterly boring. It’s the same conflict, like the Eternal Recurrence, between people who know what time it is, and people who don’t.
The hour is later than you think.