Final Kraut Outline, Pepper with Hatefacts

Universalism and atomized individualism are not the cornerstones of Western Civ. They are the products of the Boomer generation ie great wealth. Western Civilization's key defining feature has been a commitment to individualism and the commonweal. It is a compromise between the two, and the racial questions the altright offers are necessary for that to be fulfilled.

Among the Rational Skeptics, there seems to be a false dichotomy in how you guys view the world, you see multiculturalism and civic nationalism as separate in the modern context. I contend this is flawed, we define our civic nationalism AS diversity and multiculturalism. This is not a word which rejects civic nationalism, but one which is failed models of civic nationalism. For so many to fail so much is a huge categorical error that cannot be overlooked.

This is also, fundamentally, the issue with addressing your arguments on the face of them. They are rather idealistic, they assume a society in which we iron out all these petty differences but lack even any theoretical trajectory to that end.

Civic Nationalism either fails because it creates too mixed and diverse a population or it is essentially racial nationalism because the people who have the right values will be of the same racial or ethnic group with some outliers

This may surprise you but it shouldn't. Every western country is importing the third world and arguing doing so is in accordance with our values. That's values based nationalism is it not? Just a perverse set of values. The mere fact that Western Values have been twisted to being about universal tolerance and diversity is a testament to how unstable civic nationalism is. This didnt happen with any popular will, it happened with Elite and Academic virtue signaling, moneyed interests desirin cheap labor, and Marxist subversion. Not only did a minority pull this off but they did it without even being noticed. And it isnt classical liberals challenging them for their grip on power.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/14/trudeau-says-canada-has-no-core-identity

Every western country either has or will have an anti-white spoils system (affirmative action to the SPLC). This is justified by innate cognitive equality being pre-supposed and then blaming society (white society) as a whole for its failure to materialize. The most parsimonious explanation of course being that equality was never real in the sense they desire.

White people are currently being taken for a ride for the sake of people who are displacing them. And retreating into drugs as the US OD epidemic shows. Whites, particularly rural ones, are unjustly suffering the slings of a society who hates them for being convenient scapegoats. The solution to this is not to politely convince people already primed to see in groups that doing so is wrong, especially when the classical liberals are overwhelmingly white men themselves, the solution is to give these people an identity of their own. Something to regain their pride and fight back with.

The only lasting solution is to make white people racially conscious.

America in particular has an epidemic of racialized violence against whites. America will also be facing a white minority. So the clock is ticking, we cant afford to wait on well-meaning platitudes

As things stand, identity politics is the order of the day. Just as it is in every diverse society from Lebanon to Yugoslavia. The solution is not to try a hypothetical deracinated classical liberalism which PoC have no reason nor any intention of accepting. The solution is to go further with what is already working with the election of Donald Trump and the rise of Right Wing parties in Europe. The solution is White Identity. And yes, white identity is playing a role here even if it is merely implicit. A sense that whites were losing and recent demographic change predicted places voting for Trump. He created a uniform white voting bloc which seized the rust belt.

In Europe, you'd be a fool to think Islam is the only reason these parties dislike mass immigration. Front National and AfD would not want the masses of Christian Africa either. This is budding white identity.

Parties which bill themselves as classically liberal or libertarian however, flounder. Classical Liberalism really doesnt offer anything that resonates with people when polarization is this intense. It's an ideology for times of peace and plenty, not times of struggle. It also doesnt appeal to minorities who, in addition to being more clannish and collectivist anyway, aren't going to accept the fact that in free competition many groups will absolutely out-compete them. And if you think the human is designed to merely accept not just itself losing but everyone like him losing then you're delusional.

And no nation has this diversity worked out, because diverse societies are inherently unstable. They're blamed for the dysfunction of former colonies after all.

And no Nation has actually been able to properly assimilate even well off immigrants, as their participation in politics shows.

The nation which comes closest is a racially conscious one created by a race realist authoritarian. This is important because being racially conscious is why it works, it allows them to properly forsee the issues that need to be addressed with the level of diversity they do have, it makes them vote as a bloc for their interests (the PAC has never lost an election, conversely if America had the demographics and bloc voting it has now back in the 80s then the GOP would never have won), moreover it prevents them from allowing themelves to be overrun to the point where they lose control of their society (immigration policy is designed to keep them in a supermajority)


http://www.vdare.com/articles/electing-a-new-people

http://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/

Fundamentally the issue is race and the lie of diversity.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/02/non-whites-of-every-stripe-vote-democrat/


1. Civic Nationalism ignores, utterly, the issue that different people are different. That they have different qualities and tribal interests. True, a really good civic nationalism would make these a non-issue (maybe, it's never been done and lasted) but civic nationalists tend to utterly ignore these issues so they will probably not make a very good policy.
Think of it as debating a command economy versus a free economy. Yes, market interventions can be better than leaving it alone but only if you do it correctly, which you probably wont.
An example of this in action: http://www.vdare.com/articles/paul-ryan-presaged-canadas-conservative-party-elects-a-new-people-which-in-turn-elects-liberal-party-duh
As well as any shady behavior by the Chinese in Canada and Australia

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2-3/203.full.pdf+html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/2-general-opinions-about-the-federal-government/

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a6ywqpe9hl/tabs_OPI_hate_crimes_20150511.pdf

2. Any successful civic nationalism will have and maintain a vastly more dominant ethnic or racial group. So it is de facto racial/ethnic nationalism. This is evident in history that as diversity increases to the point where multiple groups can vie for power, social disharmony and polarization reigns. Case in point, Singapore

http://cos.sagepub.com/content/53/2/120.abstract

http://www.necsi.edu/research/social/syria/syria.pdf

http://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1251240

https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332/Does-Ethnic-Diversity-Have-a-Negative-Effect-on

3. Civic Nationalism is based on agreeing to a common identity based on abstract and ephemeral values (values that can go out of fashion and will need reinventing). So if that identity ever gets deconstructed (which it can be for decades without anyone noticing) then the system is compromised. This is clear in the revisionist history that America was made for all people's and its commitment to liberty was deemed a universalist one rather than being for other Europeans, who were deemed compatible with it. 1790 immigration act.

4. Nobody is as passionate for civic nationalism. That matters. It means its supporters will be less engaged and less willing to win versus their competitors.
This is often why Civic Nationalists try to suppress ethnic nationalism in my opinion, as it is their closest competitor too. But that makes Point #3 even worse since they are suppressing the mechanism by which that could be corrected if the situation were to devolve too far. To go further, they often make common cause with left wing and internationalist movements to accomplish this suppression, ie giving power to the very groups which will likely do the subversion required in Point #3.

General stuff about individualism and discrimination

1. There is no right to not be discriminated against. I would argue saying there is neglects the fact that Western governments now operate under that assumption. Hence why we have an anti-white spoils system either in place or developing in every Western nation. Categorical error. This cannot be dismissed. The government will always take a side, and Nicholas Nassim Taleb argues that the intolerant minority will win, an argument against diversity.

You can argue the altright is simply the opposite polarity of this but we're on the side of not just the majority but the historical majority, founding population, and even indigenous population. That is another moral dynamic.

2. Individualism is not real as an absolute value when you think about it. You exist because two people took time out of their lives to birth you, maintained a division of labor to raise you, and you're born and nurtured in a society you didnt build but was built by your ancestors who had an organic (tribal) attachment to you on some level. You're not an island. You benefit from their legal system, their culture, their infrastructure, their technology, etc.

Left Libertarians argue that their economic policies, even if somewhat collectivist, actually enhance liberty for the most people. The AltRight argues exactly the same. That a homogeneous or near homogeneous society will provide the same benefit, all else being equal.

Moreover, atomized hyper-individualism was actually promoted by... the Frankfurt School as part of their process breaking down authorities and traditional institutions. This is most evident in The Authoritarian Personality wherein any in-group/pro-social behavior is 'authoritarian.' Why? Well the simple fact is that they blamed Western Culture for the failure of marxism to materialize in the West after World War 1, they argued these insitutions gave the workers a "false consciousness" that prevented them from uniting with their cross-national brothers. Same kind of arguments are suggested to be why multiethnic societies dont work out today by the way, "Americans, Brits, French, etc are too racist and hopelessly reactionary. Especially the working class."

Really what this is that rootless individuals are more easy to be ruled because they'll defer to no other authority than the State because they are relatively unburdened by other loyalties.

3. White Identity isnt real.
It's as real as Black Identity, Asian Identity, Hispanic identity. All have their subdivisions but they act in concert politically. It's an alliance (against whom?). Moreover, ethnic identity isnt viable for settler countries where Euromuttery runs rampant. Fundamentally people assume that identity can only be constructed backwards rather than forward as well. This is fallacious.

And let's be real; in Germany, France, the UK, Sweden, etc it is argued that even those national/ethnic identities arent real. You can deconstruct anything if you wish

4. Skilled, values tested immigration.

The latter is a daunting prospect. The former, quite frankly, isnt the concern of the day but still has issues. It's still an issue of racialized politics and diversity. Now you can set the minimum very high and reduce this issues (though not entirely, see JQ).

For one, a lot of 'skilled immigration' isnt skilled, it's an excuse to not spend money on training. http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b10min.html

Any good restrictions will result in a mostly white country

And there is the brain drain issue. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ea-and-intelligence-theory/

You're stripping the third world of not just smart individuals but often smart families and their genes

And the primary beneficiaries are the Chinese. That's worrisome

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1862338/courting-would-be-canadian-pm-justin-trudeau-chinese-corruption-suspect

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/02/henry-yu-canada-must-become-asian-to-overcome-white-supremacism.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/january/motivation-independence-psychology-012813.html

http://observer.com/2016/08/breaking-chinese-mole-uncovered-inside-the-fbi/

http://therightstuff.biz/2016/06/13/the-yerrow-perir/

http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-dare-chinese-immigration-does-pose-a-security-risk-and-china-would-know-what-to-do

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouvers-housing-market-fuelled-by-chinese-buyers-study/article27064577/

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2015/06/alice-wong-or-when-china-came-to-canada.html

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2015/11/digging-hole-to-china.html