Friday, 17 March 2017

Geopolitics, ‘diversity’ and the modern janissaries

In a world of globalised market states, internal dynamics will impact geopolitics in strange and dangerous ways. So what should we make of “diversity”? It appears the entire social structure of both Western Europe and the US revolves around this topic, and it is easy to see why: Everywhere that there is argument, there is an unresolved opportunity to rule.

Of course, we are all human. My perspective on the world is very different from most people. But I prefer to respect their experiences, rather than regard their culture as an inferior, ignorant version of mine regardless of whether they share my skin colour, language or passport. Issues which seem to concern progressives quite a bit.

It's pretty clear what's going on with this whole "diversity" experience, as far as I can tell. It is an attempt, so far successful, by one strand of the Anglo-American tradition to create a janissary class and eradicate the last remnants of its traditionalist competitors and achieve total domination. In order to understand “diversity,” we have to unpack the thinking of today’s elites.

First, the basics. "Diversity" and "multiculturalism" are simply the modern descendants of the Puritan tradition, which evolved into "Nonconformism" in Britain and "Unitarianism" or "Transcendentalism" in the US. This finally mutated into the Progressive political movement, which controlled the US and UK before WWII and conquered the world as a result of that war. This movement is now the culture of the global transnational elite.

But keep in mind, this movement now asking you to be "multicultural" and "diverse" is coming to you with blood dripping from its lips after ripping apart its enemies last century, and it's asking for a kiss.

The key to the riddle of "diversity" is that the traditions progressivism is destroying are all real, such as Christmas, whereas the ones it esteems are largely invented, such as Kwanzaa. Of course, I’m not saying diversity is a method of social control. Its goal is to heal “deep spiritual wounds” and to correct the evils of the past, such as segregation, lynching and inappropriate lawn ornaments.

If you wonder about "diversity," try this experiment at home:

1: go to your local shops. Buy four or five different flavours of ice cream.
2: Scoop large chunks of each flavour, chosen randomly, into the blender. Don’t turn the blender on.
3: observe
4: turn the blender on for 15 seconds.
5: ask yourself the following question. Were the contents of the blender more "diverse" before, or after, step 4?

Ice cream aside, one of the most notable real-world achievements of this philosophy of government was the destruction of Eastern Europe, which was once a vibrant patchwork of multicultural diversity. The doctrine introduced the same kind of violence into Mitteleuropa that it brought to Iraq in 2003.

It's easy to forget these days that "democracy" and "nationalism" are basically the same thing. At least, that’s how Woodrow Wilson understood it. How can you have democracy without nationalism? You can't. Anyone who wants to argue the Nazis were not a typical expression of democratic thug politics, sees a strange nuance of translation between "Demos" and "Volk."

In my opinion, upper class "professionals" are extremely classist and status-conscious. The best indicator of this class are those who use the word “we” when referring to “government.” Their egalitarianism is thoroughly bogus. But their non-racism and antiracism is genuine.

By the way, "class" (caste) isn’t about one’s tax bracket. It is about status, prestige and power. Nor does caste in the West depend on lineage. It mainly depends on where a person went to university.

Almost all the West's levers of power are controlled by progressive aristocrats, but they are outnumbered. This class is always looking for children of the underclass it can plausibly recruit and train as professionals. Case in point: “affirmative action.” This cements the alliance between the two classes, and directs attention away from its unnatural and essentially military nature.

Unfortunately, the phrase "my people" has two meanings in English. There is a whole other traditionalist culture in Western society which sees the world very differently from progressive elites and isn't suffering from some kind of rural mental retardation. It simply doesn’t have power.

The top rank of social status in the western world today is conferred by, and only by, intellectual competency and achievement, preferably involving some association with the arts, sciences or public policy. Wealth confers no rank, and wealth in the absence of personal achievement is downright embarrassing.

Ottoman janissaries
No one, for example, gains any status by being the son of a successful car dealer. Some people might think they have status by driving a fancy car or something, but that's actually because they have no status at all (in the broader societal sense). No amount of “bling” is enough to make an underprivileged pharmaceutical merchant welcome at cocktail parties, or to admit him to Oxford.

Of course, white people of the traditionalist persuasion are not saints. In the past their skin colour supplied them with privileges. And if you offered the privileges again, I'm sure they would take them. Similarly, if you offered the Hohenzollerns the crown of Prussia back, I'm sure they'd take it. But that's no reason to worry about the second coming of Kaiser Bill.

Instead, these days, as the US election just discovered and Europe is about to see (hopefully not too harshly) lower-caste white people are dangerously discriminated against, in favour of a rapidly-expanding class of minorities who will soon become the majority. These newcomers are being used transparently as a janissary caste by the ruling progressive elite.

The movement for diversity is a naked elite power play. And whether their skin is white, black, green or purple, nobody appreciates discriminatory treatment. The fact that lower caste white people in the US and Europe submit to this power play is a consequence of their present powerlessness. If that changes, a lot of things will change with it.

If that change occurs – an unlikely possibility but certainly not impossible – this discriminatory stick will be used against the elites. After all, the line between a "native" and a "nativist" is awful thin. If I were a progressive, I'd think pretty hard about how to get that ring off of my finger and throw it into Mt Doom. Because rings do tend to change hands.

I have no desire at all to see violence. I have zero cultural affinity with the kinds of people who might vote for Donald Trump. In fact, if they came to power – actual power, not this present parliamentarian farce – I would think really hard about finding a quiet hillside somewhere. So I raise my voice against progressive “diversity” only because their irresponsible and narcissistic policy leads us closer every day to exactly this violence.

No comments: