Though the officially sanctioned mantras of the moment are ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, all societies, communities, or groups require a degree of exclusion and commonalities in order to ensure feelings of significance, representation, and belonging to their members.
Consider the idea of the human athlete. It holds water only because humans exclude other species from the competition. If the fastest humans had to race against cheetahs and antelope, they wouldn’t amount to plate of beans. If the fastest human swimmers had to compete against dolphins or marlins — or even walruses — , they’d be nothing special. If the strongest man had to compete against a buffalo or horse in pulling a truck, he would appear the weakling. So, human athleticism has value and instills pride & sense of victory only when other species are excluded. A truly open Olympics that includes all species would relegate humans to losers in all events except those requiring special knowledge and skills like tennis, golf, or synchronized swimming.
Even among humans, exclusion is necessary for the well-being of certain groups. So, women are allowed to compete apart from men for under conditions of coed competition, no women would ever win any event. And in boxing and wrestling, there are weight categories for if all boxers had to compete in a single category, the big guys would always trounce the little guys. Even the great Sugar Ray Robinson or Roberto Duran couldn’t have had a chance against Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, or Mike Tyson. And it is because we have middle school sports, high school sports, college sports, and professional sports that younger players also have a chance of playing and being winners. If we had only a totally inclusive sports system that is open to all the diverse players, the winners would only be professional males. Also, divisions by regions play a defacto exclusionary mechanism along racial lines. For instance, white communities have high school teams with lots of white players on the football and basketball team. But in integrated communities, most whites may not be selected for teams or may only serve as bench-warmers as blacks are generally more athletic than whites.
In a nation like Turkey or Japan, most sports teams may not have the best athletes in the world, but most athletes are of the nation and therefore the entire nation feels represented in the sports by its players. This goes for Russia as well. While Russian runners may not be fastest in the world, at least Russians run for Russia in the Olympics.
But America and increasingly Western Europe are different cases. With lots of blacks, sports are being dominated by Negroes, and whites are becoming excluded from many sports and/or positions on the teams. In one way, one might argue that it doesn’t matter as the only thing that SHOULD matter is who-is-the-best. But other than the hypocrisy of a society that insists on the equality of the races but then also rationalizes racial domination due to natural superiority, there is the problem of psycho-social health. Is it healthy for white males to be relegated to a bunch of ‘losers’ who only cheer like silly little girls while black males win all the glory? And what is the psycho-socio-sexual result of this? Won’t white women lose respect for white males? Won’t white females go with Negro males? And given that blacks are dangerous to civilization due to their naturally overt aggressiveness, temperamental psychopathy, and lower levels of IQ, is it wise for a society to lionize blacks as ‘heroes’?
When ancient Greeks held the Olympics, they only allowed Greek competitors. They weren’t looking for the best athletes in the world but the best Greek athletes in the Greek world. For Greeks to have Greek pride, the Olympics had to be open to all Greeks but exclude non-Greeks. How would Jews in Israel feel if Arab males dominated all the sports and if Jewish women had the hots for Arab ‘heroes’ while looking upon Jewish males as a bunch of ‘wussy boys’?
Of course, there is an underside to exclusion. America is a rich and powerful nation because it provided opportunities for all kinds of people to achieve great things. Consider the contribution of Jews to American science, medicine, and computers. But if the majority population of a nation is to retain their power, it must maintain means to exclude talented minorities from certain positions of power; it must also compete all the harder to hold its own against the possibly hostile minority.
Contrary to libertarian fantasies, there can never be any such thing as a color-blind society. And contrary to multi-culturalists, the mixing of the races will not lead to ‘going beyond race’. One look at India, Turkey, and Latin America — all of them with lots of mixed-race peoples — reminds us that there are lots of divisions and tensions along ethnic, color, and cultural lines despite the mixed-ness of the peoples.
Jews in America are very conscious of their power and use their power to expand and protect their power and privilege against other groups. Both multi-culturalism and libertarianism undermine white people’s need to wake up to the reality and forge a new strategy that explicitly struggles for white pride, power, and interests. Jews often ask, ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ Whites must think likewise. The issue shouldn’t be socialism vs capitalism but ‘is it good for white folks?’ If some degree of capitalism is good for whites, go with capitalism. If some degree of socialism is good for whites, go with socialism. We need a national social-capitalism that fights for the white race than for abstract ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment