I was conditioned by my environment to think a certain way. My parents taught me again and again that all people are equal, that "racism" is evil and backwards, that we need to be tolerant and embrace everyone and everything. This was a message repeated by my school teachers, and by the media. I'm sure this is how the majority of Americans and Europeans are raised.
And yet, again and again, we see people independently breaking free from this social conditioning and bucking this narrative. Despite every authority figure feeding the same ideas into the child, at some point he rebels and rejects them. How can this be? How can individuals be rejecting something which is ingrained so deeply in the child and which is so ubiquitous in modern society?
The reason the anti-racist philosophy continues to fail:
1) It is in direct opposition to our evolved instincts
2) It is in direct opposition to daily experience and observations
3) It is applied unevenly
Humans are relatives of apes. And anyone who has studied the behavior of apes will recognize that they are fiercely tribalistic in nature. They have evolved to live in small, tight-knit groups and to avoid and oppose any and all outside groups.
The reason tribalism has evolved is that it provides distinct survival advantages. Outsiders of the tribe present a very real threat to the survival of the group. One major reason for this is that outsiders carry foreign diseases. Perhaps the most clear example of this is the way Europeans introduced smallpox to the Native Americans which devastated their population. It would thus make much sense for Native Americans to fear and avoid the European settlers. The second threat that outsiders pose is violence and the taking of land and resources. There are hundreds of examples of this through history. Finally, outsiders carry the threat of impregnating female tribal members, causing immense harm to the males who have invested time and effort to protecting their women.
It is self-evident that humans carry these same tribalistic impulses. While in the past we would separate ourselves into literal ethnic tribes, today we separate ourselves into various other divisions. The "us vs. them" tribalist mentality can be found in sports, religion, nationalism, gangs, and everywhere in between. Even members of a city or town may divide themselves geographically, and take pride in being part of the "west/north/east/south" side of town.
When I first learned about our evolved tribalism, I felt it was something that needed to be overcome. I felt it was backwards and harmful, that it led to unnecessary violence and division. This was my social conditioning coming out, as well as the mentality I had gained from reading libertarian philosophy.
It wasn't until many years later that I recognized tribalism as essential. We should not fight against our human nature, rather we should embrace it. There is much wisdom in nature, and it is arrogant to think we know better than millions of years of evolution. Science is starting to catch up to this wisdom of nature. Work has been done suggesting that ethnocentric cooperation is a more effective strategy than humanistic cooperation.
When a nation is ethnically and culturally homogeneous, there is greater social cohesion. People feel a stronger connection to other members of the group, and this is manifested in their behavior. There is a greater willingness to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of the group, and less inclination to harm or steal from the members of your own tribe. Tribalism simply creates a more effective, cooperative, well-functioning society.
Multiculturalism is fundamentally unnatural. It creates divisions in society on a biological level. And division leads to dysfunction.
When an immigrant ethnic group becomes large enough in a foreign society, they cease assimilating and begin to coalesce into a distinct tribe. Whole cities become segregated according to race, language, and culture. The nation literally splits in two, with two distinct and often opposing tribes living within the same borders and under the same laws. This is a recipe for disaster. Violence and strife is inevitable. The ideal nation will draw it's borders in such a way as to ensure a people with a generally shared culture and ethnicity, and this formation must be protected at the nation's borders. A nation without borders is no nation at all.
As the child grows, it will begin to see and experience things that contradict the anti-racist worldview. He begins to see that different races often do behave very differently. He begins to see signs that all races are not, in fact, equal. To cure this cognitive dissonance, society provides him with sociological theory. The reason races behave differently, he is told, is because of [racism, oppression, colonialism, etc.] and that all the differences are learned behavior. If the child is unintelligent or uninquisitive, he will likely hold to this claim for the rest of his life. Any clear distinctions between racial groups and behaviors gets stuffed into the little box in their mind: "Of course, oppression!"
An intelligent enough individual will recognize that the differences he sees cannot be explained simply by the Nurture side of the coin. The differences are vast and well-defined, and can be seen again and again in different nations, cultures, and even sociological backgrounds. If he digs deeply enough he will start to realize that the "poverty = crime" narrative has some obvious problems, such as white appalachia. If he studies IQ he will realize that it has a real correlation with intellect, and is heritable.
If he reads enough authors, he will see that other intelligent people have already asked these questions and come to the same conclusionsHe will see that there is a genuine fear in the scientific community of being labeled racist/sexist/bigot and that such fear stifles true scientific inquiry.
All of us, in our daily lives, experience cognitive dissonance towards the "we are all equal" trope. The question is whether we will uphold that trope by clinging to rationalizations, or embrace the world as it truly is. Red Pill or Blue Pill.
The anti-racist narrative suffers from the fatal flaw of being applied unevenly. People are starting to wake up to this fact.
When the Trump/David Duke controversy was unfolding, I started researching the man's ideas. I found this powerful quote:
"All people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage."
The reason this quote is so powerful is that it carries it's own cognitive dissonance. If you apply the quote to non-white races and groups, everyone would call it obvious and self-evident. "Do Africans have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage and people?" Of course, everyone would say. "Do Arabs have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage and people?" Of course, everyone would say. "Do Whites have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage and people?" Uh oh....
Want some more cognitive dissonance? Compare the wikipedia articles on racial pride.
And thus we see that the anti-racist narrative is focused almost exclusively towards the white race. In the media, blatant examples of racism towards whites are ignored or downplayed, while examples of racism by whites are manufactured and exaggerated. The SJW's have gone so far as to argue that you can't be racist against whites, which is an intensely racist argument in it's own right.
There are dozens of examples of Jews pushing multiculturalism in Western, European nations, while opposing it in their own nation of Israel. If multiculturalism and mass immigration is good for Europe, why is it bad for Israel? Cognitive dissonance once again ensues.
The Cultural Marxists have pushed their hand too far, and have revealed their cards. The people are starting to wake up to the lies they have been fed. As science advances, it puts to shame the myths of the sociologists. Remember: All people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage. Do not be made to feel ashamed for pride in your own people, regardless of what race you belong to.
Date of publication: March 7, 2016