FOR MANY YEARS I have pointed out the perils of promoting multiculturalism.
Did anyone pay me any mind? No, and we have arrived at the current conditions that exist in the United States.
Fact: People prefer the company of those similar to themselves.
Fact: People forced into the company of those very different from themselves get edgy.
Fact: Edginess in time leads to mayhem and murder.
Fact: Nations are families, i.e. very large groups of people who are alike in religion, race, language and culture.
Fact: People want it that way.
Let’s look at university campuses. Go to the student union cafeteria. In spite of campuses being ground zero of diversity-loving, you will find black students sitting together over here, white students sitting together over there, and Orientals sitting together on the patio outside, studying.*
Multicultural violence is increasing in the United States, and it’s just going to get worse. I see no light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Promoting multiculturalism is the kerosene that fuels the fire, daily.
Multiculturalism within a nation — or any society — is a problem that needs to be addressed in the kindest way possible. It is never to be encouraged.
It’s putting a pistol to your head.
We’re all just people, you say, and must learn to live together in peace. Likewise, lions and tigers are all big, carnivorous cats. Does the male lion invite tigers into the pride in the name of diversity? No. There would be murder and mayhem.
It’s a good analogy. Lions are smarter than Americans, Western Europeans and Canadians too.
Listen to your sage.
* * * *
* The black students will be planning their next BLM march. The white students, embarrassed about being white, will be wondering if they’ll be invited to participate. The Oriental students will still be studying.
(For a long spell, since turning my politics rightward about a decade ago, I have been a bit perplexed by my aversion to some elements of traditional conservatism.
(This column clears it up for me. It was written by two young men, Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described “dangerous faggot,” and Allum Bokhari, a Breitbart correspondent who lives in London. Yiannopoulos is also British-born.
(You may have heard of the Alt-Right, the alternative right. There are two versions of the Alt-Right, the extreme and the moderate. The latter makes sense to me. The former does not. Fortunately, the moderate wing is far more populated.
(I am pleased to come out as a “natural conservative” and, it appears, a moderate Alt-Righter.)
* * * *
NATURAL CONSERVATIVES are mostly white, mostly male, middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritizes the interests of their own demographic.
In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe.
Noted social psychologist Jonathan Haidt described the conservative instinct in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind.
The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism.
Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity.
They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.
An establishment Republican, with their overriding belief in the glory of the free market, might be moved to tear down a cathedral and replace it with a strip mall if it made economic sense. Such an act would horrify a natural conservative.
Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.
For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe.
Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the Alt-Right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting.
Needless to say, natural conservatives’ concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the United States.
These attempts to scrub Western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the Alt-Right, who in addition to the preservation of Western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues.
This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of Western history and literature curricula.
An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behavior as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.
In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the Alt-Right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t.
Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for president since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.
* * * *
The rise of Donald Trump suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.
* * * *
Alt-Righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving Western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”
Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the Alt-Right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.
The Alt-Right do not hold a Utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritize the interests of their tribe, they recognize that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – do the same.
As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.
You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in Alt-Right online communities: that’s because many instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows.
In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “Kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.
The Alt-Right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.
The Alt-Right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.
A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to Alt-Righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.
Some Alt-Righters make a more subtle argument.
They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.
Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the Alt-Right.
It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades.
Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad.
In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.
For those who believe in the late Andrew Breitbart’s dictum that politics is downstream from culture, the number of writers, political candidates and media personalities who actually believe that culture is the most important battleground can be dispiriting.
Natural liberals, who instinctively enjoy diversity and are happy with radical social change – so long as it’s in an egalitarian direction – are now represented by both sides of the political establishment.
Natural conservatives, meanwhile, have been slowly abandoned by Republicans — and other conservative parties in other countries. Having lost faith in their former representatives, they now turn to new ones — Donald Trump and the alternative right.
There are principled objections to the tribal concerns of the Alt-Right, but Establishment conservatives have tended not to express them, instead turning nasty in the course of their panicked backlash.
National Review writer Kevin Williamson, in a recent article attacking the sort of voters who back Trump, said that white working-class communities “deserve to die.”
Although the Alt-Right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathizes with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige. National Review has been just as directly unpleasant about the Alt-Right as it has, on occasion, been about white Americans in general.
In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.
It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.
For decades, the concerns of those who cherish Western culture have been openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist.
The Alt-Right is the inevitable result.
No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the Establishment may think the Alt-Right’s concerns are, they can’t be ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere.
As Haidt reminds us, their politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.
In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away, which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and hope they go away either.
LOTS OF AMERICANS are scurrying down the Bernie Hole. That would be Bernie Sanders, the socialist candidate who’s running for president as a faux Democrat.
But before we start chuckling at Bernie, let’s get some laughs from the entire Democrat end of the Great Divide.
On that side, we find just two candidates: The humorless, charm-challenged, battle ax and future felon Hillary Clinton and the quasi-Democrat but admitted socialist called ole Bernie.
Lurking in the wings is the aging, foot-in-mouth, groping, leering Joe Biden, an old pol who cannot keep his hands off good-looking women within grab-ass distance. That is what the Democrats offer voters, a geriatric trio of whiteys.
The party of inclusion and diversity. Oh, the irony!
Are you laughing yet? Can you believe this?
Are we in Alice’s Wonderland?
On the Republican side, we have black, white, Latino, Asian, women, men, an incredibly diverse, talented lineup. The multiculture-obsessed Democrats have three old honkys, and the allegedly racist Republicans reflect a veritable mosaic of color, culture and idiom.
Oh, the irony, again! Let us hold hands and hum Kumbaya.
Why, even Jeb Bush speaks fluent Spanish. Neither Hillary nor Bernie nor Joe speak anything but English. They are language-deficient.
Let’s look at Bernie now.
He’s a socialist, which means he likes Big Government, Heavy Regulation, Welfare, and High Taxes. Just like Barry, but more.
Think Greece. And cringe.
Looking at Bernie’s campaign website, a number of things leap out at me, issues that reflect the dreamy-eyed Utopianism that runs rampant through the leftist way of thinking — if you can call it thinking.
Income equality. There are too many rich people and too many poor people. So rob from the successful and gift to the unsuccessful.
Getting “Big Money” out of politics. Dream on, Bernie.
Racial justice. Blacks are oppressed and cops are bad. Arrant nonsense.
Fighting for women’s rights. What are the rights women lack?
Caring for Veterans. Seven years into a Democrat administration, why hasn’t that happened already, Bernie?
Support the Iran Deal. Yes, Bernie trusts Iran! Good Lord. He has faith in the “Death to America!” Ayatollahs.
There are more, but I know you’re laughing so hard right now that it’s difficult to focus your eyes. Grab a Kleenex.
Thankfully, ole Bernie will not be president, but it’s sad that so many people subscribe to his cockeyed nuttiness. He’s a leftover radical relic from the flower-power 1960s, hardly a sane fit for the 21st century.
Where are the Franklin D. Roosevelts and Harry Trumans? Now those were good Democrats, people worth voting for.
WERE IT NOT so disruptive and destructive, the seething obsession with race in the United States would be hilarious.
Do most nations do this? No. It exists almost exclusively in the white man’s world, and it’s something the white man is doing to himself, self-abuse, gleefully abetted by blacks.
Are citizens daily hurling accusations of racism at fellow citizens in China, Russia, Bolivia, Kenya, Israel, ad nauseam? Of course not.
Slavery caused it, you might say. But slavery existed in South America too. Slavery has existed throughout human history in almost all corners of the globe, and it still exists in some zones. People with all manner of skin tones, including white people, have been slaves.
Yet this perpetual hurling of “You’re a racist!” is almost exclusively contained nowadays in societies dubbed liberal democracies.
It is a political tool used by leftists. Sure, conservatives fling it on occasion too, but that’s because it’s a filthy habit they’ve picked up from leftists. It’s become so common that everybody uses it. It’s now a late-stage cancer eating the innards of society.
The cancer is not racism itself — not at all — but the constant hurling of the epithet and the grievous damage it’s causing.
Racism is part of human nature, and always will be. People, many of whom are not too bright, look askance at those who are different. You will never, ever stop this. You must live with it, and try to ease its effects as much as possible, occasionally with sensible laws.
Tragically, the racism epithet is rotting American society, and it’s a dreadful thing to witness from down where I live.
Were it possible, I would come up there and rap you all across the knuckles with a hardwood cane. I would do it until you’re bloody and howling with pain. It would be good and just.