Diversity Tales, Diversity Fails

Every now and again, the New York Times goes off message with an article as badthink-y as it is clear eyed. From time to time, the (((Editorial Board))) lets slip through a piece that does not stand for the propositions the Board believes it stands for. This article is the latest foray into the netherworld of confused agendas.

Black in Algeria? Then You’d Better Be Muslim

From our intrepid op-ed writer Kamel Daoud, we get a glimpse of how vibrancy is likely to play out when the faction in power is immune to the sting of historical oppression. Daoud presents the reader with a snapshot of Algeria, a case study in the grim future of multikult in a world wherein the mantle of power has been passed from far more magnanimous whites. . .to far less charitable Peoples of Colour. While Algeria has been at the forefront of sending her sons far and wide to colonize and culturally enrich the West, it appears that she has had to deal with a similar tsunami of vibrancy. This particular wave of cultural enrichment is of a decidedly sub Saharan flavor. Algeria is none too keen:

ORAN, Algeria — For a few years now, families of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been gathering at major street crossings in the large cities of northern Algeria. They come to beg for alms, wearing grotesque outfits: oversize veils for the women, even little girls; cotton djellabas for the men; prayer beads ostentatiously displayed. They say “Allah” too readily and misquote verses from the Koran.

Many black migrants, including those who are not Muslim, are deploying symbols of Islam to appeal to Algerians’ sense of charity. Why? Because poverty helps decode culture better than reflection does, and migrants, lacking shelter and food, are quick to realize that in Algeria there often is no empathy between human beings, only empathy between people of the same religion.

Ah, well then. It’s just religious discrimination, right? Daoud wishes this were the case, and makes his best efforts to frame the conflict as one of a purely religious nature. Nevertheless, it quickly becomes apparent that the problem is that of Berbers shitting on unwelcome blacks.

The situation wasn’t always like this. For decades Algerians mostly treated blacks with discreet aloofness; only recently has that turned into violent rejection.

Oh boy. How to square the circle when oppressed respawns as oppressor? What is the appropriately liberal response to clear evidence suggesting that, when left to their own devices, their downtrodden pets will begin to terminate each other? Blame Western interventionism, obvi.

There are no reliable official statistics, but many migrants here come from Mali, Niger and Libya, and their numbers have increased over the past few years, partly due to instability in neighboring countries, especially Libya, once a main hub of immigration from Africa to Europe.

Qaddafi warned you. Now his ghost smirks at your chagrin.

From a geopolitical standpoint, it’s clear that this analysis is correct. Destabilization notwithstanding, how does one explain the fact that the kill switch was so (literally) and quickly activated by the mere presence of a few thousand black Africans within Algerian borders? This suggests a propensity for anti-black antipathy that has long lain semi-fallow in the hearts and minds of many an Algerian-an outlook that predates the regional destabilization occasioned by the Benghazi affair. How could it be that diversity is failing so fantastically in Algeria, especially as we’ve been told that racism is the white man’s invention? Why is it that in the absence of those rascally white racists has a multicultural shangri-la of peace and mutual goodwill not taken root in Algeria? Our author provides us with a clue.

 In Europe, migrants can try to play on the humanitarianism and guilty consciences of their hosts[.]

What’s this? Diversity in Algeria doesn’t work because “historical oppression” against blacks can’t be use as a cudgel with which to drub Algerians into submission to a globalist agenda? Is it that the absence of suicidal guilt for muh slavery and muh oppression means the presence of the will to survive as a people? Could it be that Algerians lack the propensity for outgroup altruism, the very propensity that is presently being used by people like Algerians by those with interests adverse to those of the West to manipulate and exploit the West into accepting such individuals against its interests? Is it possible that this simple equation is applicable across time and space: DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR?

What questions! Our bold author skates past engagement with those questions and poses a few questions of his own with an eye towards laying the blame for Algeria’s racism problem squarely at the feet of those dastardly Europeans.

Yet these two forms of racism are related: Westerners deny (or accuse) Arabs, and Arabs in turn deny (or accuse) black Africans. Is there a causal link? Is this a domino effect of negation? Perhaps. In any event, the parallel, the mimesis, is troubling.

 The lengths to which the author goes to overlook the most obvious cause of the problem in Algeria is astounding. Clearly the issue is not that the black migrants “aren’t Muslim,” as Algerians from the most secular to the archly conservative seem to have attitudes on the problem ranging from “expel negro” to “burn their settlements and kill them all.” The core issue is that diversity always foments conflict wherever it is attempted. People are evolutionarily inclined to favor homogeneous groups of like individuals and kinship networks. People are evolutionarily disinclined to enjoy existence in heterogeneous hellholes filled with a hodgepodge of people with which they share no ethnic or genetic bonds. Racial diversity, as one of the most obvious forms of diversity, tends to trigger the most extreme backlash once it reaches a tipping point.

Even more amazing is to observe how ruthlessly Algeria has dealt with its own migrant invasion in light of the continuous mewling from Arabs and their assortment of goodwhite lackeys to allow unlimited numbers of “migrants” into Europe. The message here is simple: (1) porous borders = failed state = national doom; (2) unchecked immigration of drastically diverse others is profoundly distasteful to everyone, even those in possessions of countries that would, objectively speaking, be better off nuked from space.

 The West would do well to follow Algeria’s lead and treat the influx of interlopers accordingly.

Advertisements

The Anomaly

Delusion

It’s occurred to me that the greatest victory that the Lords of Lies have ever achieved is in successfully convincing the vast majority of rubes that everything is anomalous. To have been able to incapacitate on such a massive scale the collective ability to perceive a threat and come to rational conclusions based upon observable patterns of behavior is quite the achievement. To so effectively have psychically neutered entire populations and generations of individuals that they come to view the augurs of their imminent destruction not with fear, nor even with resignation, but rather with dewy-eyed longing is a feat, no matter how perverse.

These brainwashed masses keep observing the same anomalous events again and again and again. How many times must one observe an anomaly before one comes to the realization that the anomaly is actually the norm? How many innocents must die at the hands of radicalized Muslims shouting Allahu Akbar as they carry out their slaughters before one can safely assume that these are not anomalous outliers and that Islam is not a “religion of peace”? How many times must minority groups agitate against the validity of liberal Western values while maligning whiteness before one realizes that these social justice movements aren’t just one off, unconnected anomalies? Before one realizes that they hate your civilization, they hate you for being heir to that civilization, and long for your annihilation? Before realizing that yes, they are more or less all like that, and that multiculturalism is a cruel and destructive hoax?

The Matrix is quite real. The job of its architects is to keep everyone imprisoned within it while convincing its captives that it doesn’t exist at all. This is done in one of two ways:

(1) Telling everyone that what they’re observing isn’t real.

(2) Telling everyone that what they’re observing is real, but that it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

The Architects’ exclusive responsibility is convincing everyone that the “narrative glitches” being observed are naught but meaningless coincidences. We see this at play in the coverage of the “European Migrant Crisis” and the Paris Terror Attacks. To make the connection between the EU’s suicidal policy of flooding Europe with almost exclusively male, fighting age Muslim “migrants” and the subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks that killed more than 100 people is to be impoli, an intolerant bigot. All of the Matrix’s mouthpieces have been deployed to make certain that few come to this (obvious) badthink conclusion. So, we are told that the bulk of these “migrants” are impoverished Syrian families seeking “a better life” in the West, even while we see images and hear reports of hordes of well-dressed young men bearing iPhone 6es as they stream across various European borders.

Okay, so what if “teh migrants” are predominantly male and seemingly well-off? That doesn’t mean that they’re entering Europe with hostile intentions and visions of jihad dancing in their heads! 

Except. . .they are. Now the Matrix Mouthpieces are deployed to downplay the threat that uncontrolled immigration into Europe is indubitably causing by doubling down on the narrative and expressing concern not about the importation of Islamic fundamentalism to the West and the carnage and mayhem that this will bring, but rather about the potential backlash against the poor, defenseless adherents of The Religion of Peace.

It must be remembered: the only way to show love for the Other is to hate yourself.

Those terrorists weren’t Real Muslims, because Real Muslims would never do such a thing.

They were just anomalies.

Paris Terror Attacks

Paris Attacks

Reports of multiple and seemingly coordinated shootings and explosions erupt across Parisistan Paris.

Further reports of spontaneous “Allahu Akbar-ing” accompanying the attacks; body count now estimated at forty. 100 hostages taken at a Paris music venue.

Is it OK to conclude that opening Europe’s borders to deluges of hostile Muslim hordes was a bad idea now?

Cultural Incompatibility

I spent the last weekend in Miami Beach. Miami Beach is like the Land of the Ubers: open the app and there are always at least 25 drivers swarming the area & ready to arrive in under 3 minutes. One of my drivers was a young Syrian kid who’d just finished his MBA and was in the process of searching for full-time work. He was a conversational fellow, and we soon began a conversation that inevitably turned to the topic of the current events taking place in his country. I expressed my sympathies for the Syrians’ plight and asked him what measures he thought would be necessary for the country to move forward and reestablish some semblance of normalcy there. His answer left me slack-jawed:

“There is no hope. Syria is already gone. We may as well just finish it, if that means that we would be able to gather ISIS there, bomb them, and destroy them completely.” 

Now, I empathize with his anguish. I’m certain that sentiment came from a deep place of grief and frustration. It can’t be easy to watch as your country crumbles, besieged from within and from without. But this is precisely the attitude that makes the Standard Third World Immigrant completely incompatible with the First World. 

They would rather defect than fight for the preservation of their birthrights, their heritages, their ancestries.

They contemplate the utter destruction of their patrimony rather than mobilizing to expel the savages that have brought it to its knees and preparing for the future. 

These are bargains they’d be willing to strike. 


Such an outlook is so alien to the First World mind as to be completely incomprehensible. There is no question that if the U.S. were to come under attack in some WWIII/doomsday scenario, millions of Americans would take up arms and unleash guerrilla warfare upon the invaders, even if they believed that they had only a slim chance of victory. They would do this in spite of the reservations they may have about the country because they are fighters and patriots and because fundamentally, they believe in this country and in its principles.

By contrast, consider the Syrian kid’s position. It is one of defeat and resignation. If this is the attitude one has towards one’s own nation, how loyal will one be if and when one’s adoptive nation falls upon hard times or when there are no more gimmedats to be got? It is highly unlikely that such people will ever develop the sense that their new countries are worth preserving for perpetuity or that they are worth fighting for. These immigrants will never develop a sense of common history, common purpose, or common destiny. The new nation is simply a convenient host to be abandoned when a better host emerges or when the current host expires.

Could one imagine such a sentiment being expressed by anyone in the West or in the First World more generally? What if the Japanese adopted this defeatist attitude after the A-bomb? What if the U.S. adopted this attitude after the Revolution, or the Civil War, or during the Depression? What if Europe adopted this attitude after WWII or after any of the myriad wars waged across the continent throughout its lengthy history? These people didn’t flee. They didn’t abandon hope. They didn’t pray for the absolution of destruction. They rebuilt. They created cultures from the ashes. This is why they managed to achieve First World status while other countries, even ones substantially wealthier in terms of natural resources, have floundered.

A nation’s people are what make a nation either great or shitty. 

Replace the people, destroy the nation. 

This notion is completely lost upon the hoardes of cheering Western do-gooders.


There is a certain intrepidity, a certain nobility of spirit necessary to generate bounty and to create complex & durable civilizations that realistically speaking, few people in this world possess. The Syrian kid is a good kid, and I wish him well. Nonetheless, his comment demonstrated a poverty of spirit that instantly crystallized everything for me. The “European Migrant Crisis” will end in the end of Europe as we know it. It has broader implications for the First World as a whole. We are told that we are obligated to be arch humanitarians, to take in immigrant after immigrant as they face unimaginable hardship. But their hardship is totally imaginable and completely surmountable with time and with collective will. Have many peoples not endured hardship throughout history?

Were the U.S.’ formative years not ones of trials and hardships? Is European history not littered with examples of hardships and abject squalor? How did these civilizations become great? The difference lies in the manner in which the people responded to adversity. To import peoples by the millions to the West who do not share this general orientation is to destroy it by undermining and gradually eroding the cultural attitudes that made it the First World in the first place.

The Middle Class Death Impulse

Christian-Woman-800x400

For any transformative social movement or scheme to be successful, it must have the active support of the middle class. At the very least, such movements must have its passive assent. For as long as it has existed, the middle class has been the gatekeeper of political legitimacy, working to maintain a functional social order by filtering out potentially destabilizing elements before their poison has the chance to infect the mainstream. Consider the responses to both the manufactured “European migrant crisis” and to the incoherent and increasingly strident Black Lives Matter movement. The moribund European middle class finds itself cheering for the Muslim invaders that they will soon be financing on their dime; the American middle class submits itself to hectoring by BLM Minitrue operatives helpfully dispensing advice on how to be more effective allies cucks.

Neither the European immigrant dump nor BLM’s narrative hijack would have been possible in the face of a vigorous and oppositional middle class with the will to forcibly reject these propositions and censure the elites either for daring to foist foreign fuckery upon the nation, or for fecklessly failing to suppress a radical minority fringe group effectively holding the country hostage for gimmedats. A vital middle class is absolutely crucial to the continuation of civilization, as no one cares what impoverished lumpenproles think and as ultra wealthy overlords lack the raw numbers to push political agendas through without the support of a game middle class.

This is the very reason why collectivists of all stripes are antagonistic towards the middle class: they realized how instrumental the bourgeoisie was to the maintenance not only of a free market economic system, but of the civilizational status quo. The middle class has the power to check the degenerate impulses of the lower classes and to police the excesses of the aristocracy. In these tasks, the middle class found its purpose and the will to perpetuate itself.


The middle class across the West is currently in the process of extinguishing itself, the author and finisher of its own demise. It has become a casualty of the very prosperity that it was primarily responsible for creating. The middle class of the West, too clever by half, has “successed” itself into crises of faith and identity. Success has led to decay. Having accomplished everything that it sought to accomplish over the better part of the last 200 years-the achievement of political power, economic access, social liberalization, destruction of the aristocracy and replacement of hereditary leadership with meritocratic leadership, material comfort-it now turns to devour itself. The middle class has found its influence neutralized by modernity and is now left bored and purposeless, trapped by stultifying, safe & meaningless office jobs all the while craving danger and play. What is an iconoclast with no icons to destroy? Not an ideological victor, but rather an ideological nomad.

These have all been hollow achievements, as it turns out that the perverse nature of man makes it so that vying for an ideal invariably brings him more pleasure than the achievement of it. And into the purpose vacuum left by the achievement of middle class goals seeps indolence, decadence and self-destructiveness, as there is nothing left to channel these energies and urges into productive things. Now rather than policing the lower classes, it gleefully adopts its vices; rather than checking the plutocracy, it accepts the imposition of policies and agendas diametrically opposed to its interests and to the best interest of the nations.

The middle class, particularly the Millennial middle class finds itself without a reason to exist: all the great battles have been fought, it would seem that all the great discoveries have been made, material comforts are assured, and they have managed to achieve an unparalleled level of social liberalism. So now what? What else is there? Without true ideals to strive for the middle class turns its passions inwards and begins to hate itself, flagellating itself and seeking to dismantle an unjust “system” that does nothing but transmit undeserved “privilege” to a select few. The middle class plunges to the depths of degeneracy while calling declension “progress.”

With all the trappings of a middle class lifestyle secured, the middle class longs for death. 

There is no greater evidence of this than the response to the European migrant invasion and the longevity of radical movements like Black Lives Matter.

What can one make of the overwhelming middle class support of movements and individuals who, if successful will be hostile to these sympathetic bourgeoisie and scornful of their sensibilities?What to make of the middle class’ enthusiastic support of movements and orgiastic welcome to peoples that will destroy them and the things they value most? How can the Millennial middle class of the West delude itself into believing that Syrian Muslims or ghetto blacks will have any respect for the rule of law, multiculturalism, or a well maintained commons? Why does the middle class accept its victimization at the hands of barbarians while it allows itself to be replaced by fecund foreign populations as it remains largely barren? The desire for oblivion leads them to cheer as the cities they love become thoroughly pozzed by vibrancy and turned into cesspools and war zones, while the childless middle class signalers become targets for their resentful, oppressed pets and their spawn.

What make them think that your standard savage will give a fuck about their bike paths, their farmer’s markets, or their separation of church and state? By supporting these culturally alien movements and peoples, the middle class sows the seeds of its eventual obliteration. These are the actions of a people numbed, who long for sensation again. And the modern middle class of the West has convinced itself that feeling pain is better than feeling nothing at all.

On the Migrant Shitstorm

Migrants

What I hate most about crises of any sort, the current European “migrant crisis” being no exception, is that such events tend to trigger outpourings of the most asinine, basic bitch sort from the most unsophisticated and frankly, unintelligent of individuals. These crises are the worst because they invariably lead to the mobilization of half wits, followed by a deluge of retarded punditry belched up by people of a type who believe that because they feel deeply about the issue in question, that all of their vacuous mewlings in this regard have some profound meaning or contain some heretofore undiscovered truth or unconsidered perspective. To them, feelings should have complete dominion in a world of stark facts and hard realities.

Wrong. Millions of people are illegal and they should go back to where they came from posthaste.

Wrong. Millions of people are in fact illegal and they should go back to where they came from posthaste. Typical shit prog social media offering.

This is the liberal mind at work. And of course it must be, as no other viewpoint to the contrary can be platformed or articulated nowadays without a serious risk of reprisal to the dissident. There can be but one position on the crisis: the right one. And the right position is Western prostration and self flagellation before the uncivilized hordes. The opposing position, the notion that one would desire his country’s elites to institute policies to repel these invaders and preserve his nation so that it remains one predominantly of co-ethnics and co-nationals is of course, fascism. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?

This is no exaggeration of what these retards think. From the bowels of Tumblr came this gem turd of commentary:

Migrant Dreck

The United States, like Western Europe is facing its own “migrant crisis” of sorts. The only difference is that our migrants, rather than coming from Mogadishu and Damascus, hail from Tijuana and points further south. As in Europe, the numbers are staggering: a critical mass of illegals have already comfortably taken up residence in the U.S. and go relatively unmolested while a veritable tidal wave of impoverished illegals is poised to hit the country in the very near future. Americans, who have been stunned into acceptance of this state of affairs by open borders hypnotists and by the soma of multiculturalism, are beginning to wake from their collective slumber and are taking a hard look at things. Ghastly people that they are, they are beginning to demand that America remain a country of Americans rather than being “fundamentally transformed” into an unrecognizable potpourri of the Earth’s wretched.

They are not happy that their elites have allowed their country to be overrun by peoples with whom they have nothing in common, who do not share their norms, and whom they will be forced to support indefinitely through their expropriated tax dollars. They are beginning to demand leaders who will take affirmative action against criminal invaders and to restore America to its former greatness, hence Trump. To leftists however, this awakening is little more than veiled racism. From the Tumblrina:

Y’all do realize that Hitler had similar views about Jewish people that Trump has about Latinxs (sic). Back then nobody thought Hitler would win and somehow he did and then fast forward to all the shit that went down. Y’all need to stop playing and start paying attention to Trump- he’s not kidding.

I’ve actually studied a lot about Hitler and the general formula that goes into the making of a genocide. Someone on my Facebook today said “Trump is just trying to define what it means to be an American” and it sent chills through me. Hitler was just trying to define what it meant to be German. And Turkey in the early 1900s was trying to define what it meant to be Turkish. Which was a large part of the Armenian genocide. Intense nationalism that leads to hatred is fucking scary, and this man is definitely a threat. I’m sure people don’t believe that Trump could order the same things to happen as Hitler did, but here’s the thing: there are two different schools of thought about the Holocaust. And that is that it was premeditated and the other is that it just built up. It was either his plan all along or the atrocities developed with time. Hitler didn’t begin his career with “burn the Jews” he began it with “re-empower Germany and deport the weaker non-Germans who are a threat to us.”

To these idiots, Trump is a neo-Hitler and nationalism is a precursor to genocide. Trump’s views are so similar to Hitler’s that the only rational conclusion that one could reach is that he intends to establish a Third Reich in America that will be mercifully and gloriously cleansed of mestizos should he be elected. But really, what Hitlerian views does Trump espouse? What are his views specifically on the Latixn Question? None, of course. Trump won’t even call for a moratorium on immigration. His views are on illegal immigration to the United States, of which Latixns indisputably comprise the vast majority. His further view is that we should prevent further illegal immigration to the country and deport illegals currently residing within the country, as they have broken our laws to gain entry, are by and large a drain on this society, and are incompatible with our values.


What this Tumblr post doesn’t say is far more interesting than what it does say. By its logic, to assert that nations have unique characters and identities that are worth preserving and will be obliterated by the arrival of hoardes of unlike “migrants” who are more often than not the shittiest of the shit tier of their respective nations is to advocate for genocide.

To assert that nations are sovereign and that they must defend their borders and peoples against impoverished shit-flinging Vandals willing to sacrifice their children for dentures, who desire not to contribute to their target nations, but to sack and pillage them, is to ready the Zyklon-B.

To recognize that porous, undefended borders are a sign of a failed state that has lost its will to exist and is ripe for ravishment and to fight to preserve the state for posterity, to prevent it from being torn asunder is to be a Nazi or a bloodthirsty Turk.

To believe that nation-states and their citizens have interests that do not align with the interests of citizens from other nations, and that its is a leader’s foremost responsibility to attend to those interests and to place them before the interests of global citizenry is not to “define what it means to be X,” it is to call for ethnic cleansing. You are not allowed to be nationalistic. You are only allowed to be cucked and fucked by all comers.

Mexico for the Mexicans, and America for the Mexicans too, I suppose.


The problem is that these types are such cretins who are so ignorant of anything beyond their own assholes that they are incapable of viewing historical events contextually and drawing parallels between historical events and current ones. They mention Hitler’s Germany without recognizing why or how the Nazi Party rose to power. The abortion of a government that preceded the Third Reich, the Weimar Republic was the context that the standard Tumblr prog fails to comprehend. This republic was star-crossed and plagued by instability from the start due to the staggering reparations that Germany had been forced to pay under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and due to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Germany was piled upon by the international community, encouraged to be ashamed of itself and forced to grovel before the world for the role it played in WWI.

Weimar Germany had to contend with an expansive and increasingly expensive social welfare system, hyperinflation, waves of immigration to Germany from other surrounding poorer nations to the East. It also had to deal with the destabilizing influence of Jews within the society, who were often leftists determined to spread the reach of the October Revolution of 1917. (Note the ethnicity of the majority of the assassinated Reds listed under the “commanders and leaders” section). German society during this era was awash with decay and degeneracy. From 1919-1932, Germany was brought to its knees. Germans were demoralized, Germany was being infiltrated by immigrants hostile towards the country and ignorant of its values, deeply in debt, and had no prospects on the horizon for a future substantially better than the dim present.

Hitler promised to restore German greatness, to recapture lands ignominiously lost after WWI, and to stabilize the nation. He recognized what many other Germans recognized: that immigrants and leftist, radical Jewry posed threats to the sovereignty of the German state and diluted the national character. He promised to restore fiscal health. Though it could be argued that he arrived at a terribly wrong solution, he certainly came to the right conclusions-and Germans recognized this fact.


America and Western Europe find themselves in parallel situations. Both are seemingly in the winter of their respective existences. Once great empires fueled by the ingenuity and productivity of its citizens are now saddled with debt, plagued by cultural rot, assailed by hostile migrants who will do nothing but depend upon the every growing state for even basic sustenance. Unemployment is high and the native peoples are encouraged by agitating, envious minority interest groups not to feel proud of their history and accomplishments, but to feel shame for being oppressors and colonizers. They are bidden to let hostile, useless, and culturally incompatible foreigners into their nations as penance for these historical “sins.” The primary sin is having been capable enough to create flourishing oases of civilization in cultural deserts while most of the world has only been able to turn paradises into latrines.

The rising popularity of nationalist parties and candidates in Europe and more recently in America with Trump’s entry into the presidential race is a sign of things to come. Things cannot continue as they are, and the West must develop a backbone if it is to survive.