Diversity Dogma

Practically any topic can be accurately categorized as fact or dogma by the frequency and intensity of debate.  For example, I would guess there’s not presently a single ongoing twitter dispute about whether red or blue light has a shorter wavelength.  Whereas dogma is always subject to furious debate.  In fact I know of at least one such partisan skirmish right now over whether “Diversity is our strength.” That’s mainly because I started it and Ann Coulter amplified.

Before getting to that, it’s worth noting Miss Coulter, despite presumably having fewer testicles than David French, still indicates a surfeit when compared to the entirety of compensated conservative bloviation. The idea that any from this claque of castrati would re-tweet content from this account is beyond mortal imagination. And yet there goes Ann, still fully income viable, with over two million followers and not a groveling disavowal in sight.

Of course the left lobs its fusillade of hoary shun-words at her blonde Hate-base. But she doesn’t care; the people who consume her content don’t care; and thus the attack simply disintegrates. The left just has words. Without tin-soldiers marching to them, those words evaporate on the wind. Thus their power to destroy is primarily what their opposition gives them. It’s a lesson tremulous conservatives are determined to never learn.

In any event, my own proof-of-dogma contribution came in the form of the following observation.

Such a sentiment is obviously going to gain traction in a Coulter thread. Though, as with any apex Internet personality, there were also plenty of hostile pilot fish nipping at indifferent pectoral fins. Each of them seemingly certain that the perfect bon mot just might blast this twiggy bigot from their twitter kibbutz.

And though that is quite unlikely, what I did appreciate from the critical flatulence was how well represented each of the general leftist nostrums were. Here’s a few intellectual explanations of why diversity is our strength.

You’re eradicated…sounds pretty strong to me.

This argument emphasizes how important it is to clarify who the speaker’s “our” is when celebrating diversity as a strength to us. As an odd aside, the strong replacement hybrid theory finds little purchase in the parlors of Tel Aviv.

Are you actually saying what I think I hear you saying?

Dullards may not be able to defend their dogma, but they always know its contours. And in modern debates, the man left standing with both feet inside the permissible boundaries wins.

Tuskegee Airmen!

As we all learned in school, the Red Tails cleared the skies of the Luftwaffe, while the Second Mariachi Division routed the Wehrmacht. This is one of the silliest and most common trench lines in the diversity defense: any diversity means all diversity.

Thus an organization that is 1% diverse is equivalent to one that is 99%. Leftist pretend to believe this any is all fallacy right up to the point of corporate hiring and college admissions, where it goes out the window entirely. In those modern situations, any diversity definitely does not equal all diversity, and so more diversity is always required. That they blithely switch between a) the practically all-white WW2 US Army was totally diverse and effective, and b) every quite diverse contemporary US organization is not nearly diverse enough to be effective, is something critics have been far too quiet in mocking.

Hybrid Vigor

I always appreciate expressions of honest concern from those who want me dead. So it is with leftists who wring their hands over the health of Western genetic stocks in the absence of wholesome African transfusions. Truly there is no more good faith expression than those who look about the bloody and acidic landscape of modern London and worry that its white citizens might be prone to hemophilia and the Hapsburg jaw.

Either live in zero gravity or admit you don’t believe in space.

This is a derivative of the Recipe Paradox. That being the desire to eat foreign dishes, but having no technological means to prepare them without millions of imported foreigners.

Similarly, this critic implies that arts, advancement, and new technologies developed in Tanzania, for instance, have no way of being transmitted for our benefit except in the persons of 10 million migrating Tanzanians. So you either accept mass global colonization or live blindly in limestone caves. It’s your choice, dummy.

My beautiful Jew

This is the impervious solipsism rejoinder. They love and prefer theirs. So why don’t you love and prefer theirs also?…asshole.

If some scientists weren’t white, then what gives you the right to live?

Because it was intentionally conflated by its enemies, the concept of nationalism is conflated with supremacy. It’s a bizarre logical construct. Most parents comprehend indisputably that there are kids who are smarter than their own. Ones also more charming, attractive, athletic, and ambitious. Yet despite this most parents love their own children more than all others and want a safe and prosperous future for them in particular.  Have these parents never even heard of Chien-Shiung Wu?

Lie back and enjoy it

Inevitability is the inevitable language of the tyrant and executioner. Though if diversity is inevitable (and it is not) then so is war, disease, decline, death, and the incineration of the Earth. Yet advocates of diversity inevitability refuse to apply their logical amenability to other inevitable outcomes. For instance, they inevitably take antibiotics when they are sick, flee when they are chased with a machete, and rage about a warming planet that is inevitably blackened charcoal. It is almost as if they are treating inevitability as an expedient in this particular case. I may choose to elaborate and I may not.  

When all else fails

One item I never hear acknowledged from diversity proponents is its self-eradicating nature. It is biologically assured that integration and cross-breeding of diverse populations will result in homogenization, thus destroying the diversity that was allegedly cherished in the first place. Leftists understand this perfectly when they are appealing for the preservation of distinct genetic animal lines, but since humans all bleed red the concept isn’t Narrative viable.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And since people viscerally understand it isn’t true, you’ll see very few diversity advocates urging the diversification of their own native habitat. Though they are quite generous with yours.

And that is always the nature of man. Everyone wants open doors for himself, and a key to lock them when the house is his. It’s universal. And that’s why it’s universally shunned in reputable Western discourse. Thank God there are a few disreputables left.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Diversity Dogma

      • I realize this sort of flippancy drags down the discourse, but, well, pretty much anything I write is going to be comically obtuse in comparison. There are some blogs where I don’t comment because the author is dumb. There are others where I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to hang on with my fingernails if I got a reply.

  1. Pingback: Diversity Dogma | Reaction Times

  2. Pingback: K Blog: Daring Defenders Of Diversity Dogma | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  3. Ann needs to hear from you. So when you send her the infamous tweet, be sure to mention that you want the wall built and are against anchor babies ( just for good measure). I await her response.

    • Miss Ann really couldn’t be more vocal in her desire for The Wall, and in her disgust for the Anchor Baby scam, unless she spray painted it all over the White House.

      • You would think more of the public figures of Conservatism, Inc would see what she is able to get away with and act accordingly, but they don’t. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I do like and respect that she NEVER apologizes and doesn’t back down. It is precisely because she refuses to do so that they have been unable to destroy her, despite their most ardent efforts. The usual response from the right when accused of something like rayciss is to grovel and apologize profusely, which does precisely nothing to appease the left. It just encourages them, because they see it as weakness, which is exactly what it is. Witness what happened with Laura Ingram. She groveled, and as a result they just came after her even harder.

        Porter, I think a lot more people read you than would be willing to admit it. Ann doesn’t fear admitting it, and probably knows full well what kinds of things you write on your blog. Most of the commentariat are just too scared to admit reading such ‘hate blogs’. It would be nice to see this result in a smear campaign against you, though. Such things almost always backfire. In the end, that would just result in your most excellent writing being spread to more people. It’s badly needed. Id imagine that would result in thousands more people saying “hatefull rayciss huh? sounds interesting” and finding their way here.

        • We’re so right-wing now, we have to look left to read Ann Coulter. That being said, she catches on faster than any major conservative figure I know. A few years ago, she was only about illegal immigration, but now she’s about immigration, period. She even takes occasional jabs at (((them))).

  4. Pingback: Diversity Dogma — The Kakistocracy – Notwende

  5. Pingback: Diversity Dogma – Notwende

  6. This is brilliant: “One item I never hear acknowledged from diversity proponents is its self-eradicating nature. It is biologically assured that integration and cross-breeding of diverse populations will result in homogenization, thus destroying the diversity that was allegedly cherished in the first place.”

    But alas they are still proponents of such a course because diversity is not their goal. Their goal == not white.

  7. So is the Jew married to the Irish lass actually confirming that being Jewish is an ethnicity? And he’s participating in the dilution and eradication of said Jewish lineage by way of marriage outside of his heritage?

    He’s both diverse and a Nazi!

    • The Jew married to an Irish woman is making genetic/cultural inroads for the invading population, which will be birthed by Jewish women only. Matriarchy. The Jewish son who out-marries is looked down upon by barren Jewish women because he picked a “shicksa” (non-Jewish whore) over their shrieking ugly gossiping conniving lazy selves. That is reason enough, but the advantage is that the genetic diseases concentrated in some tribes of very-inbred Jews are diluted and less-likely to express in the first generation born to a healthy woman. Everyone wants healthy babies, even if they are “hapa babies”, right?

  8. Of all the stupid reasons to celebrate/enforce diversity, the Recipe Paradox has to be the lamest. There’s simply no way that white people can master foreign cuisine? How hard is it to make a fucking taco?

    • Ya I don’t get that either. I don’t need a mexican to make me a burrito. I make a pretty good one myself. Speaking of which, I think Ill have one for lunch today… That is one of the more absurd arguments I’ve heard for all this. As though one needs to be a hajji to make a shwarma, or Mexican to make a burrito. But, we are talking about the left. Nonsense is the norm. I wonder if there are any good burrito joints in Israel?

  9. On a technical note, hybrid vigour is neither guaranteed nor generationally permanent. Outbreeding depression is a real phenomenon, and further it’s not uncommon for hybrid vigour (when it exists) to affect only one or two generations, leaving the subsequent generations with previously-masked outbreeding problems and a lack of the vigour so highly espoused.

    In sum, when considering heterosis,

    …you should choose a mate that corrects your breeding animal’s faults but complements its good traits. It is not unusual to produce an excellent quality individual from an outbred litter. The abundance of genetic variability can place all the right pieces in one individual. Many top-winning show animals are outbred. Consequently, however, they may have low inbreeding coefficients and may lack the ability to uniformly pass on their good traits to their offspring. After outbreeding, breeders may want to breed back to individuals related to their original stock, to attempt to solidify newly acquired traits.

    Whether Jamal Williams is, “a mate that corrects your daughter’s faults but complements her good traits,” is an exercise left to the reader.

  10. It’s like reading a list of rationalizations from addicts who insist that everyone partakes of their drug-of-choice.

    Misery loves company, and if everyone goes and jumps in a lake, it’s not a question of whether you’ll join them or not because they will do everything possible to drag you in with them.

    The exact same cognitive processes governing pathological altruism drive the woman who, standing in cat feces while surrounded by 150 starving cats (and twenty dead ones) insists she must “rescue” a dozen more. It is said that men go mad in herds but recover sanity one at a time. Never in history have so many gone so mad while constructing cities of skyscrapers in the sky to hold the rationalizations for their madness.

  11. Pathological Altruism definition: Acts that predictably harm the altruist, the object of altruism or an innocent third party.
    1. Harm the altruist: (check, see photos of Mollie Tibbett’s family, Amy Biehl, David Ruenzel, etc.)
    2. Harm the object: (check, because even allowing in the “world’s best and brightest” simply robs their homelands of the very leavening required for the multitudes of people there to have the slightest hope for elevating their miserable condition.)
    3. Harm innocent third parties: (Too obvious for discussion.)

    Open-borders immigration and Diversity, Inc. qualifies as pathological on every metric.

  12. Speaking of item 2 on your list, I work with a guy who said that our current immigration policy, at least on paper, harms third world countries because we rob them of their best and brightest, which limits their potential. Ok, sounds like a good argument for not allowing people to come here. Take a ‘time out’ for a couple years(I’d say time out for the indefinite future, but when dealing with ‘normies’ at work I try to temper my opinions somewhat). But, no, he said that means we should essentially take in the dumbest, most useless, from third world countries. As in we owe it to the world to remove the most retarded people from other countries and care for them here. He believes that eventually such things wouldn’t be necessary, because upon shedding themselves of the bottom of the left side of the bell curve, these countries will leap forward economically and at that point they won’t bother trying to come here anymore, because their own countries will be functional. I then asked him what number of people coming here would accomplish this, and he predictably had no answer for me. But, he is still convinced this is a good idea. He’s a ‘republican’ too. Thats the problem with most of these people, they don’t think past the pretty sounding idea, and delve into the likely outcomes of such things. Such as “at what rate will these literally retarded migrants commit crimes”. Things like that. How do you justify this to the inevitable victims of their crimes? Somehow I doubt “ya but Uganda is doing better because they are here” will do much to comfort the rape victim. But, this is a member of the republican party, more the John McCain type than what you would call a ‘conservative’, and this is the shit he says. He’s actually a pretty smart guy, too, which makes this all the more irritating. If an otherwise intelligent white male republican thinks such things, what hope is there for the rest of the people in this country?

    • I hate this, but what you describe is what I see in the Church, and it’s especially irritating in the South. Good folks, educated, and utterly clueless cuckservatives. Dominated by the idea of being nice, and this from pulpit to pew. Maybe they’ll wise up before it’s too late, but I don’t see it.

    • I, too, wanted to (metaphorically) ask your Repub, Inc. associate how many additional rapes, robberies and murders he’s willing to tolerate, given the indisputable link between low IQ, low impulse control and propensity to commit violent crimes.

      But I, like you, know this is a waste of time. Belief comes first. I can’t say it often enough. BELIEF comes before KNOWLEDGE, before experience, before common sense, before the indisputable evidence of one’s own eyes.

      Do we imagine Amy Biehl experienced an epiphany while her life flowed out from the stab wounds that killed her, courtesy of the very blacks to whom she dedicated her existence?

      Hint: NO.

      Your RNC associate wouldn’t break his belief wall even if the effect of his convictions stood in front of him raping his wife, a blood-soaked knife stuck half an inch into her throat while Mr. RNC watched his own arterial blood spout halfway across the room from his own previously-slit throat.

      Belief trumps everything. Ironic, that Disney created the meme of lemmings running into water to die, when in fact it is humans that appear to take the mass voluntary beaching of cetaceans to a whole new level. Maybe the dolphins and whales that beach themselves are leftist zealots, certain that if only they do so they’ll soon sprout legs.

  13. “Diversity is our Strength” is actually quite true.
    That is, once one comprehends just WHO is making the statement, and to what end.
    Without the fellow travelers (“intersectionalism”) aka diversity THEY are NOTHING.
    We need look only 100 years back or so to the creation (and creators) of the ACLU, NAACP, B’nai B’rith and so on. Or those behind the scenes demanding immigration reform c1965.

    Again, without “diversity” they have no appreciable ability to carry out their plans.
    No foot soldiers, only the strategists.

  14. What a hilarious and brilliant deconstruction of every rebuff
    “Either live in zero gravity or admit you don’t believe in space.”

    It’s no surprise that mainstream media platforms ensure that leftists never have to debate Porters.

    • In the end, this isn’t a debate. If “the other side wins,” did we agree to go quietly onto the metaphorical cattle cars and hand our daughters and granddaughters to Paki’s and Somali’s and Mestizos? There’s no distinction between “Who will you serve?” “Who will you rent to?” “Who will you employ?” and “Who will you marry/with whom will you produce children?”

      Once the coercive machine of the Political System began dictating one, it was on the path to dictating all. There can be no peace with that.

      • Your point is well taken. The other side left no stone unturned in a rather remarkable takeover encompassing church, health care, education and more.
        The one thing they can’t have is a good narrative, although they can clobber you over the head with their bad ones.

        Diversity is our strength
        3rd world refugees are our only beloved charity
        The guy who killed Kate Steinle is innocent
        The guys who fly private to Davos are environmentalists

        The media takeover was probably the most important victory

        The other side doesn’t want us to have any hope so I make sure to have some
        And I sure enjoy the big retweets Porter is getting

  15. “Diversity gives you different opinions and exposure to new ideas” chants the unblinking crowd in perfect monotone.

    Because my brother is almost my genetic copy, I don’t bother talking to him. I would only hear my own thoughts echoed back to me. Everyone knows that family members share the exact same perspective and never clash or benefit from personality differences. It’s only natural to seek an escape from a stifling atmosphere of genetic, cultural and philosophical conformity.

    I grew up in a small town of mostly Germanic and Anglo -Saxon descended whites. To my detriment, I’d never even considered the concept of divergent opinions, as I’d encountered only peace and harmony in each of my encounters with all those identical whites. Though I enjoyed an unruffled existence, I missed out on flavorful tacos, scientific breakthroughs and masterful art. Only diversity will supply a society with technology, music and literature. Until I was able to surround myself with Somalis, I couldn’t comprehend the periodic table or read a sonnet without stuttering.

    The devotees of diversity stand ready to end longstanding relationships and break up families over political disagreement while claiming to thrive on exposure to wildly different ways of life. I’ve thought for a while now that the loudest and gassiest champions of diversity have a pathological fascination with social novelty, which they parade as enlightened concern for exotic peoples. It’s also a defense against the heavier obligations of real relationships. The population churn and superficial vibrancy provide a soothing distraction from rooted responsibilities.They weep for the distant other because their hearts have hardened to the sufferings of the similar next door.

    • Why can’t they just get a bunny rabbit tattoo and be done with their novelty-seeking? Make it a brown bunny, be edgy, right? That way they show the world their street cred for hipness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s