Jonah Goldberg has a problem with the liberal media. He has just recently become concerned that they have a credibility problem. He has finally figured out they are too liberal to do their assigned job – after over a decade of writing for National Cuckview. His nauseating queefage follows below:
Every election cycle, the GOP nominee is smeared as a racist by the Democrats or the press — or both. Representative John Lewis of Georgia trades in a bit more of his hard-earned moral authority each time he insinuates that the GOP nominee is like George Wallace or wants to bring back Jim Crow, and political columnists relinquish a bit more of their claim to objectivity each time they let his comments pass without condemnation or criticism.
So essentially, Jonah’s vaginal eructation issues stem from the total inability for the MSM to properly use the race card to ru-ru the electoral prospects of a Republican candidate for president. Remember when we were all suppossed to swallow our misgivings and vote like it mattered for Mitt Romney and John McCain? Jonah doesn’t. When he has to eat the ideological crap sandwich for the party, Kameraen, it’s different. Then, the same MSM that indulged in amateur gynecology over Sarah Palin’s pregnancy in 2008 now has a credibility problem.
You see, Jonah and his Cuckservative compatriots, are rabbits. They feed off a different clover patch than the Sandernistas, but they are still the numerous, sub-optimal products of the r-style reproductive strategy gone Supa-Fly. And as rabbits, they cannot stand up to the predators. They get eaten. When Jonah hits the beach and the Great White Shark hits the shallows, his defense against this misfortune is to swim faster than the unfortunate swimmer next to him.
Robert Tracinski displays similar behavior in his efforts to throw The ALt-Right under the #BlackLivesMatter Bus so that they can go back to lapping up the cuck like a good little trained loyal “opposition.” The paragraph cited below is what greasy, congealing cuck truly smells like.
Hey, lefties, we finally found your racists for you. For as long as I can remember, people like me—by which I mean advocates of capitalism and free markets and freedom of speech—have been accused by the left of being secret racists who pine for the gold old days of the antebellum South. Tiresome stuff like this. Then along comes a group of actual, declared racists who really do pine for the antebellum South, and who is one of the main targets of their invective? People like me.
Poor, Little Robert The Rabbit. That big, bad wolf on the Alt-Right is targeting him. Caucasoid, Please! He tells the world the following about the Alt-Right.
The alt-right isn’t part of the intellectual traditions of the American right, nor is it an alternative to anything. It’s just the same old white-sheet set, repackaged with red “Make America Great Again” golf caps. They’re serving as ignorant tools of the left, and they should be exposed as such.
It sucks when people do evil, racist things like stereotype.
So that brings us back around to Jonah Goldberg’s whinging. He, Kevin Williamson and much of the rest of the “respectable” conservative online presence have been playing the race card since the first hand of this season’s electoral campaigns. If the “Trump is racist” storyline is losing potency, its because anyone listening has heard all before. And then again. Repetitively.
There are only so many race cards in the standard 52-card deck. Once your magazine has published “The Father Führer” you’ve played your card. The bridge game is on to the next hand. Jonah, Robert Tracinski, and the rest of the conservatives Amerika has lost with for the past eight years are now fully aware they’ve overbid their hands and are about to get Trumped and lose the rubber.
To find out if you have a Twitter shadowban, log out of your account or open a private/incognito window (barring that, you can use an anonymizing service like Anonymouse) and go to Twitter’s Advanced Search page. Here you can see which of your comments others can view.
If you are shadowbanned, your comments will not appear in searches for specific hashtags. Your first hint that you are shadowbanned occurs when you notice that only people who are following you can see your tweets, and you are getting no replies and likes from others, especially on hashtagged posts. It will look like you suddenly got unpopular, which is the point; Twitter is localizing you to your followers so that it can prevent your messages from reaching a wider audience.
This is a cynical move based on knowledge of Twitter’s algorithm that is meant to reduce the spread of dangerous ideas. By removing shadowbanned users from the search results, Twitter aims to prevent ordinary people from seeing non-conforming speech. This happens because the censorship team is made up of die-hard Leftists who want to advance their own agenda by depleting the reach of any alternate viewpoint.
The internet and world wide web were originally intended as a decentralized medium to avoid censorship and undue influence by special interests, but now that a handful of companies — Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Reddit and Tumblr among them — control most of its traffic, censorship has become possible because those who are not represented on these sites have much less reach than those who are. In this way, it has reversed the original promise of the internet, and turned it into a medium as controlled as television channels.
Few understand this idea; Leftists obviously refuse to, and Rightists just do not seem to be able to grasp the subtlety. If one is anti-diversity, it is a recognition that any diversity is toxic. This is not a veiled stab at African-Americans, gypsies or Jews; it is pure logic applied: if more than one group exists in the same place, no group will be able to define the values of that place, and therefore, a constant internal dissent — a type of background hum — will pervade all activities. Eventually that civilization will tear itself apart. Robert Putnam’s research on diversity is just the tip of the iceberg; diversity lowers social trust. It also destroys the ability to have culture, standards or values other than the lowest common denominator, which makes no one happy, and makes all minority groups feel subjugated and the majority feel parasitized. No one with a functional brain thinks that diversity can work, which makes you wonder why the Left insists that it does. The answer is that they want to destroy culture, heritage and standards so that the individual alone is the focus, and diversity is a means to that end. They will then need Big Government to constrain the resulting anarchy and be amazed when that ends in totalitarian Communism, as if they could not have predicted that. Then again, when your political platform begins with denying reality in order to destroy social order, you have cast aside any hope of understanding the consequences of any actions and the effects of any cause.
For your amusement, an early proto-Outliers. The null reaction to these convinced me to never do linkposts again. Should this continue? Answer in the comments, if you have a moment.
It is time we recognize the true goal of egalitarianism: legitimizing mediocrity. To hide this fact, they always argue from the extremes, so that we are presented with a blind retarded gay minority orphan with irritable bowel syndrome and told that if he cannot experience freedom, none of us have freedom, so everyone must change to the standard that allows blind retarded gay minority orphans with colon disease to serve as the form factor for which society is designed. What they really mean is that they want morally neutral, indecisive, and not particularly insightful people of no particular ability to be able to beat down the ones with particular abilities and high levels of intelligence, beauty and moral character. Liberals are the people in the middle, who are not suffering but also have nothing distinctive to put next to their names, therefore are always ranging and hungry like a wolf with AIDS. They want to destroy anything which has risen above a C level activity, and then declare that really well-executed C-level thinking is A-level work. They will replace all heroes with fakes, all artists with entertainers, and otherwise turn everything they touch into mediocrity. Only when hidden in a vast sea of mediocrity can they feel their personal mediocrity will not be noticed, and it is this fear and resentment that propels them.
It can be explained at its simplest and most central as being the triumph of nature over human intentions. Natural methods work because they are reality-based, finely granular and use resonant or balanced internal structures. Human intentions work on the level of appearance, not so much symbols as social gestures to one another. This creates a death spiral where people “must” and “should” do what gives a group of people warm fuzzies, even though they know it is insane, and in the process it drives them insane. For centuries or longer this has been eating the West because of Western success at civilization enabling the population that would otherwise die off to thrive. We now have some good people and many useless ones, and if Western Civilization is to survive, the useless must be disenfranchised and dispossessed and the good must triumph. This is how it is in nature: the wolf who leads the pack is the strongest, and the trees that rise the highest are the healthiest. Leftism is a movement to sabotage this natural process and its implicit hierarchy and standards by demanding tolerance for that which is unrealistic through the process of “equality,” which makes wrong equal to right so long as a person “believes” that wrong. After WWII, this movement took over the West, and the alt right is the first credible pushback because it is honest, atavistic and naturalistic.
The root of cuck is that you see something that you should care about, and notice that it is being savaged, and do nothing about it. You humiliate and abase yourself to avoid noticing what is wrong because noticing things that are wrong will interrupt your personal individualism, or desire to put yourself before all else.
Individualism ties inevitably with convenience, or the process of taking the path of least resistance. Acting toward personal pleasure, wealth and social status is always convenient, but asserting and acting toward goals higher than the individual never is.
This leads us to the origin of “cuck” or embracing known evils in order to advance oneself socially, in a career, or in politics. In a dying civilization, most people cuck because the other option is to admit that something really big is wrong. That is a scary, ambiguous and dangerous path and most flee from it.
By the time an empire falls, it has rotted from within; what rots it from within is an inherent human tendency toward solipsism, which in groups becomes “collectivized individualism” or Crowdism. This individualism originates in the desire to be “cool,” or do what is convenient.
One view of history is that humanity has faced many different crises in the past. However, most of these appear to be internal or related to difficulty in maintaining organization. Applying Occam’s Razor, that suggests that common human pathologies are most likely the culprit, such as individualism.
We know that in groups, humans tend to band together on the idea of equality (which translates into no hierarchy of ability, equal acceptance) and then seize power, erasing the past knowledge as they do so. This pattern repeats as a cycle: civilization rises, population grows, neurotics assemble, equality appears and the decline begins.
My theory, which is Spenglerian/Platonic, is that most of what we see now is the result of many thousands of cycles of smaller civilization-deaths. Local areas and regional governments succumb most frequently, but whole empires eventually catch the disease and fall apart.
In each case, those create a bottleneck that pushes a population out and away from the failed areas. The majority of the population however continue focus on being “cool,” and so when the ruins fall in dust, what is left is a highly social population that is very verbally adept, good at art and dancing, and generally excellent at socializing.
Since the West is in the middle of this process, we see mostly the “cool” that comes of never dedicating oneself to anything larger than the individual. This manifests as “cuck” because people are unwilling to reject the cool and strive for what is less socially successful but more accurate.
A backlash against cool, by seeing it as the province of the inept, may begin by seeing “cool” as a compensatory behavior similar to the “sour grapes” of fairy tale lore: those who cannot make anything of themselves focus on being big cheeses in the social scene instead of achieving something in reality.
Our media, cultural and arts industries have driven themselves insane pursuing the “cool” because it ultimately has no aesthetic except narcissism. Similarly, as politicians try to be more popular, they are forced to reduce their positions to pitching convenience to an apathetic public.
When those in authority try to bow to “cool,” they create a tyranny of the rebellious attitude that tears down any meaning larger than that of the individual. Instead of being current, or staying in touch with youth, this should be viewed as what it is: concession to decay.
One of these Friday nights, you will find yourself in the Texas hill country, looking up at a vast black sky speckled with stars. At that moment, you will understand the essence of the human condition: total, complete and all-encompassing isolation.
You are alone on this journey. When you duck back into that dive bar and talk to Dave about his band and Phil about his media company, you are sharing in an illusion that any of that is anything more than a means to spend time and derive sustenance. It has no greater importance. At the end of the night, Dave and Phil (like you) go home to wait for death, and to hope that the time they are spending has somehow offset the inexorable onrushing emptiness.
No matter how many symbols or activities we invent, we are alone with our nihilism at some point. The big questions — eternity, meaning, purpose, value — strike us from out of invisible corners where they hid. The fears and doubts rise with nothing to blot them out or distract us. We are alone, as we were born, and as we shall die.
The complexity arises because there is overlap between the false social world and this cosmos of nothingness. We need something to do to keep the bucks flowing, and some activities to pleasantly spend or time or even better to derive meaning from. The social world is just the appearance of these, based on the illusion that if a whole group of people are doing something, it is more eternal than the eternal, which is both void and mystery.
Our social groups are empty, our governments and awards transient. Celebrity is isolation even now, because the celebrity is the most recognized and least known person on earth. Fame and notoriety are equally hollow. There is nothing here, nothing that lasts, except what you discover in union with the cosmos.
Even truth is a lie. There are universal aspects to reality, but no universal truth, because truth requires a perceiver — and unless that perceiver is intelligent, moral enough to be diligently honest, and fascinated by the world in which he finds himself, he will hover around the lower levels of perception. What he finds cannot be communicated, only experienced, and then enforced on others by the sword and axe (or FN FAL for you sticklers).
Embrace the nihilism. Total emptiness. Total nothingness. Except for you, your mind, and whatever reality you can discern. This gives rise to the question of how to give your life meaning, as you will be gifting yourself with significance to existence by making choices. None are inherent; all are optional, entirely preferential, on the level of aesthetics more than morality.
Are you a great warrior? A thinker, an artist, a steward, a king? You must shape yourself through self-discipline and the choices you make. You will be a creator, not a consumer. As part of that, you will want to adapt to your environment and then, being consistent with the principles of that adaptation, gradually improve your lot.
This necessarily includes civilization. Humans evolved by tribe and tool, and are dependent on a civilization for their ideas to take root. You can communicate or improve things, or even point civilization in an ascendant direction rather than its default of decay. In this, you have the power to use creative energies to not only leave a legacy, but to feel the significance of sacrifice and excellence.
Civilization is not complex. The way to do it right is well known, as over 6,000 years of recorded history only one approach has made civilizations that not only survive but thrive. However the basics are easy. Life rewards in degrees, not binaries, and so mediocrity alone guarantees survival.
This points you to a fascinating study. If mediocrity is enough, why do civilizations fail? Look to a biological metaphor: parasites draw away energy and resources and this then conveys the civilization into senescence. The question of life is not one of positivity, but of negativity: those who thrive are the ones who suppress the negative, leave the mediocre, and celebrate the excellent so more of it arrives.
In your life, you can see the same thing. Mediocre behaviors waste time and foreclose possibilities, but negative behaviors sabotage prospects. It is the same in civilization. There are normal people, some excellent and most mediocre, and then those who engage in behaviors that sap the vitality of civilization. To succeed, a society must oppress and exile those people in imitation of Darwinian natural selection.
This seems unduly grim. An empty universe, a humanity of failures, a seemingly impossible task. And yet, this is the only canvas on which many great people have found it stimulating enough to paint. It is a backdrop for the greatness of the human mind, harnessed by self-discipline and realism, and it will not abolish the emptiness but will make life a bright enough light that the darkness is kept in balance.
Smart and SeXy
by Roderick Kaine
244 pages, Arktos, 2016
Some books open vistas of thought. Smart and SeXy may challenge all of your conceptions of gender, but it will not do so in the trivial way that mainstream media does, but instead will encourage you to look inside the theory to see what resonates.
Half science paper and half policy paper, this book lines up theories of genetic sex differences and draws connections between them in a way that opens possibilities for further exploration. Fortunately, the author chose to avoid two extremes of style — dry science and popular science-ish writing — that could impede the communication, and so it is written in an erudite but practical style which flows easily across the page.
For many of us, Smart and SeXy goes right on the shelf as a reference because it consolidates over 300 citations to peer-reviewed science journals describing the most recent research in genetics, sociology and human behavior. These links are invaluable, as are the factual data compiled using them; Kaine frequently cites a dozen studies on a page, and ties together the different statistics and facts to show a more complete picture of the issue than is offered anywhere else.
This has the effect of elevating data to theory by using multiple contrasts and critical analysis of the old school to deduce meaning, and from that, to construct general knowledge that eventually approximates a thesis for the book. By building up from a broad base of data, and including seemingly contrary data and explaining it, Smart and SeXy avoids the cherry-picking common to many science-oriented publications.
In 2011, there were almost 100,000 more girls than boys that took the SAT, a difference of 6%. Girls also seem to perform better academically than boys. In the SAT population, there were 127 girls in the top ten percent of their academic class, based on GPA, for every 100 boys. This gap narrowed but remained for students between the top 10 and 20%. There were 144 female test takers with an A+ (4.0) GPA to every 100 boys, while the average GPA of girls was 3.4 compared to 3.27 for boys. Girls also had more years of coursework in subject areas surveyed, which notably includes mathematics and science, and they had taken more AP courses, again including mathematics and science.
These figures have to be taken with something of a grain of salt because the academic advantage of girls is partially a reward teachers give for more docile behavior unrelated to cognitive ability and which is a strong factor in grading at the elementary level.* Some studies have also demonstrated that female teachers tend to grade males more harshly than intellectually equivalent females. Since in most western schools the teacher population is often 75% female or more, this could also partially explain current male underperformance.* In addition to more submissiveness to authority figures, the gender gap in academic performance is likely also partially attributable to non-cognitive skills more common in girls such as organization, dependability, and self-discipline with respect to completing school assignments.** These traits are probably helpful for the timely completion of questionably useful busy work. (98-99)
In addition to being wryly humorous, the above passage tackles a difficult quandary: the thesis of the book is that males, who have only one copy of the X chromosome, experience greater cognitive benefits as a result of the intelligence-related genes that are not suppressed by a second X chromosome which has conflicting traits which can pre-empt intelligence-related genes. If males are more humorous, why is their scholastic performance lacking?
Kaine tackles this question above by first comparing SAT and grade data, which taken alongside an earlier chapter explaining the rough IQ equivalency of SAT scores, shows that grades diverge from intelligence. He then explores this by looking for reasons why grades do not measure intelligence, and in the process uncovers some convincing data about the non-essentiality of school and grades.
Everywhere you see an asterisk, he cites a peer-reviewed study, and this is in addition to the SAT data whose citations are given earlier, which builds the case for his argument using different studies and data points as rungs in a ladder. The effect is quite convincing, and written with a similar mixture of policy, analysis and science.
Smart and SeXy takes an interesting approach because it does not have a single thesis, since its fundamental assumption about X-linked intelligence genes is borne out by the data, but it ends in a conclusion that is more like a thesis. This conclusion unites the policy and science halves of the book, and points out a grim reality that most people do not want to acknowledge: biology is destiny, and feminist/egalitarian sex roles and policies have a dysgenic effect by discouraging reproduction among those who adopt them.
Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the groups that don’t through demographic increase, displacement and eventual subjugation. This is true for both intra-ethnic competition (conservatives and reactionaries out-breed liberals) and inter-ethnic competition.
The real question is whether or not the West will have a place in the future. The West can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. (208)
This conclusion is more like a thesis because it shows the importance of what is discussed in the book, which forms a ladder of the following parts: males tend to be more intelligent, but those genes must be passed through women, so having smart women to breed with is essential or these genes are exterminated; female equality creates a wave of incompetence in society, driving men away and causing intelligent women to fail to reproduce; deleterious traits pile up at the same time important traits decrease, and this creates a chain reaction where the smarter and better people refuse to breed. Plug that into the thesis-conclusion and the end result is civilization death caused by the pursuit of sexual equality.
What makes this book powerful is that, while it is clearly well-versed in the science, it is not exclusively science and extends its domain to what was once called critical thinking or logical analysis, which is an ability to deduce from contrasts and conflicts what is possibly true. Most scientists cannot analyze their way out of a paper bag, hence their tendency to grab a few detailed studies and make broad, unrealistic generalizations; all of the thinking here is tiered in steps to a conclusion, and Kaine compiles some of the more interesting theories he has found in his reading and incorporates them into his own thinking, choosing the best option for each step of the ladder.
In doing so, he often translates less articulated ideas into fully-coherent explanations of the data as presented. For example, here he tackles the concept of sexual gatekeeper unions, a concept exogenous to his writing but neatly woven into the background of data and analysis:
The benefits accrued to women by enforced scarcity of sex explain why the phenomenon of “slut shaming” as well as the dislike of pornography and sex workers is almost entirely female driven. In addition, drug use could also be expected to increase female promiscuity and reduce the cost of sex, which, in connection with the sexual trade union instinct, explains why most temperance and prohibition movements have been largely female driven as well. Although many leadership roles in temperance movements were occupied by men, the base supporters were overwhelmingly female.
Women are able to get more resources for sexual favors if access to sex is limited and they understand this at an instinctual level, though maybe not at a conscious level. A sexual trade union instinct is not necessary to begin the process of developing hypergamic instincts, but it is understandable why it would begin to develop in parallel once hypergamy became sufficiently widespread in a population. (140)
These explanations tie together common sense observations with logical deduction only where supported by fact, and bring out one facet of the reality we face regarding sex roles in society. As is the nature of any book which advances a strong thesis, this book argues persuasively from its thesis as the root of many social conditions; this will not be convincing to all, but that is not from rejection, but the state of being partially convinced. We can for example think of many reasons why women are the largest base of support for temperance movements, and while this may be one possibility, other possibilities also exist and some strike us as more likely.
That does not erode the point being made here, which is that a certain type of thinking leads to a certain result, so that in addition to those other factors, hypergamy also leads to certain political results. Kaine does not argue this as a means of discrediting hypergamy, but of strengthening the front side of his argument where he asserts that hypergamy is pervasive; when we see its connections to politics, society and so on, this gives context to and strengthens the foundations of his argument. This may seem like a trivial distinction but it is important when reading books like this which, at first glance, seem to explain all social ills through their own thesis alone, and that is not what is happening here.
As befits a book whose thesis rests mostly on genetics and breeding patterns, Smart and SeXy begins with a review of human genetics and an explanation of gene expression, especially of intelligence-based genes. It then progresses to explain how duplicate genes can pre-empt one another, and how this can lead to fewer beneficial traits; at that point, it moves into assessments of male intelligence and explanation for differences in behavior between the sexes in addition to intelligence and personality differences. From there, it launches into the political theory half of the book, which starts by exploring the nature of feminism, the institutions that support it, and the effects it has. After that, Kane races toward his thesis: feminism is literally killing us off by destroying natural and healthy breeding patterns that favor intelligence, leading to a death spiral and crash as Idiocracy paves the way for ethnic replacement.
I found the majority of arguments in this book to be convincing, especially if one views them as contributing factors and not singular factors. The carefully balanced arguments, and Kaine’s habit of internally testing his thesis by incorporating and explaining contrary data, ensure that for any idea he offers, the precepts lead to the conclusion but are not identical to it as is the case in propaganda writing. Instead, the book takes us on a lively journey through genetics and sex, making a solid case for the advancement of male intelligence through traditional mating and reproductive patterns.
Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilisation is precious. This is the Alt-Right.
Back in the 1980s, the heavy metal band Slayer wrote perhaps some of the most profound lyrics about the feeling of the time with “Hardening Of The Arteries” from Hell Awaits (1985):
Fear runs wild in the veins of the world
The hate turns the skies jet black
Death is assured in future plans
Why live if there’s nothing there
Spectors of doom await the moment
The mallet is sure and precise
Cover the crypts of all mankind
With cloven hoove begone
[Chorus]
Sadistic minds
Delay the death
Of twisted life
Malicious world
The crippled youth try in dismay
To sabotage the carcass Earth
All new life must perish below
Existence now is futile
Decrepit breath, vile in its stench
A world in decay
Transgressor is as one
[Chorus]
[Lead – King, Hanneman]
Convulsions take the world in hand
Paralysis destroys
Nobody’s out there to save us
Brutal seizure now we die
The point of posting this is not simply that Slayer rules (they do) but that this band nailed a metaphor that most could not express: there was no hope for the future because civilization was obviously moribund.
In 1968, the hippies took over, but in 1965, our immigration laws were changed to favor people from non-European countries. Then again, in the 1930s we had creeping socialism in government, and in the 1920s, an explosion of jazz-fueled flapper vapidity.
The roots of this problem then go very deep, showing us that shortly after the turn of the century, things started to go very wrong down America way. The old America was becoming Amerika, or the new third-world style state.
To find out why, we have to look at the end result: in 1968, the hippies ousted the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) ruling class and replaced it with a new, egalitarian, Leftist one. It took a century for this to happen, and it was most likely the result of the most profound demographic change ever: the 1820s-1880s immigrant wave of non-WASP new citizens.
America was founded by WASPs — WASP is a shorthand for Western Europeans, as they are German-descended for the most part and tend to be Protestant or at least fake it — of the types Scandinavian, Dutch, English, German and Scots. A smattering of others were present but most looked Western European and behaved like them.
Starting with the Irish, new citizens came in droves. They were a cheaper variety of labor for the existing citizens, and as soon as one group got established, it brought over another group to work cheaply for it. The new citizens were of Irish, Slavic, Italian, Greek, and Jewish heritage.
These new citizens experienced the first diversity clash: having left their home countries and come to a new one, they felt like failures, because they had to leave home for a reason and they were now of lower rank. They channeled this feeling into a scapegoating of the majority, who they saw as discriminating against them, and couched this revenge sentiment as class warfare when in fact it was a diversity conflict.
As soon as they gained political power, they began re-making society in the image of their origin nations because they had to keep up the fiction that asserted the opposite of reality: it was not that the old countries failed them, but that the old countries were better, and this new country needed enlightenment.
This is the same formula that non-white populations use today, because psychologically, it is the only game they can play. They either have to repudiate their origins, or must find a reason that the new country is bad. If you wonder why diversity is fatal no matter how nice or smart the groups are, here is the reason.
The governments and institutions created by these new groups were overwhelmingly Leftist because that was the type of order familiar to them from their home countries: strong warlords, class warfare, individualist philosophy and anarchic social order.
In the race for civilization attainment that is history, these Eastern/Southern/Mediterranean Europeans came from the loser states and not the winners, as in the West. The lower a population is, the more Leftist it votes, because Leftism is the philosophy of decay and compensatory behavior that amounts to neurosis and altruism.
It took these groups several generations to gain power, but when they finally did — after the interruptions of the World Wars — they offed the WASP establishment in the 1960s.
For those who want to fix America, a good place to start is to separate the population. Your ancestors were either Western European, or you belong elsewhere. This is not because you are bad — it would be hard to argue that Italians, for example, are bad — but that diversity does not work.
The only way to save America, and Europe, is to undo diversity and send those who do not fit the founding population profile back to their homelands. While this is taboo today, it is losing that edge, because as diversity falls, and class warfare/Leftism implodes, it becomes clear that white diversity will fall as well.
Much as it makes sense to repatriate Africans, Asians and mixed-race people to their homelands, it makes sense to repatriate whites who are of these non-Western European populations. This will revitalize their home countries with new talent and knowledge, as well as fix the flagging populations in those countries.
In turn, America and Europe can achieve homogeneity of population and therefore restore culture, doing away with the need for government and endless increasing police power. Everyone wins. But we must first overcome our pretense of caste, class and ethnic equality, starting among white people.
