Friday, April 4, 2008

What Is State-Sponsored Pro-Diversity For?

The greater the discordance that can be pushed into a grouping, the more pro-diversity that will be. To value additional increments of diversity on account of their diversity or discordance alone, is also to value increase of discord. This cannot be done without contradiction, though, as the pro-diversity doctrine itself is exempt from being required to value discordance from its own value-statement. Likewise, and with obvious self-contradiction, the pro-diversity regime, as a pragmatic affair, can only value increase of diversity and discord, up to a point. That point is reached NO LATER THAN the moment when conflict is florid enough to allow for the imposition of dictatorship. Inductively, recall if there is not a very strong pattern, in which pro-diversity is urged on those polities insofar as they have been resistant to despotism, over recent decades, or even across centuries.
Turn it the other way as well: insofar as a country has been inured to despotism long-term, that country is the less likely to have pro-diversity urged on it. Reflection on this should largely answer the question: What is state-sponsored pro-diversity for?
Added 7-11-08 from: Monday, July 7, 2008

The Powerful Are Pro-Diversity Not In Spite Of, But Because Of, Civil War Potentials Like This...
Innocents caught in crossfire in cities from coast to coast The race war aspects are to the power-greedy, not bugs, but features. Government aggressors, cheered on by scholars and media, have long tried to juxtapose incompatible groups, as much as can be got away with. If war is the health of the state, civil war is the flourishing State. The more pervasive and worse the conflict, the more power is to be had from overseeing it. The more that diversity can be maximized, and distance between ever more irreconcilable groups, can be forcibly minimized; the more conflict and power is to be won. Few rise to the top of power hierarchies without knowing all of this. The limit is only on what can be got away with here and now, which is often a question of whether the smartest are on their side with conflict-enhancement or not. Therefore, to chasten officialdom for such malpractices, we need smart and educated people to speak up, and in a knowing and accusing way. Like this: Officials, we know your enthusiasm for mass immigration of hostiles is about power-greed, to be gratified via war and dictatorship.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-9-08 from: Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Unleashing The Savage On The Unsuspecting Civilized: What Motivates The Passion To Do It?
(1)There exists malice without even the least hope of personal gain. With that, there is no trail of Benjamins or even pennies, to follow, as for explaining motivations.
(2)There is the taste for freedom-FOR-aggression, one which maliciously delights not only in its own possibilities for aggression, but broadly takes cheer in almost anyone's freedom for aggression, with only one exception. That exception is the kind of latitude for aggression, that allows for acts of literal aggression, which yet have the effect of limiting or opposing someone else's aggression. Vigilantes, pre-emptive strikes against known aggressors, official malfeasances against obvious criminals; all these are howled against by those whose sympathy is deeply committed to freedom-for-aggression in general. This is the echt-liberal attitude. It is diagnostic or definitive of it, since the particular political positions change with the times. The racial progressive of today is very different from one of 100 years ago.
(3)Most of all, there is power-greed, especially of officials. This is the largest and most important motivation explaining the question posed at the outset, because it is situated so as to gain mightily from a feedback mechanism between the growth of government power and government schools' employment, pay scales and prestige at the upper levels. When you have more power to unleash savages on the innocent or better people, you have more power. Power means getting others to do or suffer, what they do NOT want to do. If you get them to do what they want, what you have is not power. What is not wanted, is to be made to suffer damage. Accordingly, the mark of power is to be able to cause others to suffer damage.
Added Tuesday from: Saturday, August 2, 2008
Why Following The Money Trail & The Electoral Stratagems' Trails Leads Into A Cul-De-Sac
As found on Dissecting Leftism from here "According to the IRS data[...] The top 25% of Americans earned 68% of the nation's income, but paid 86% of the nation's taxes. And astonishingly, the top 50% of American earners brought in 88% of income dollars, but paid 97% of all income taxes in this country." From
Pew Hispanic: interest in immigration lags behind education, cost of living, jobs, healthcare, and crime
where this quote is to be found, regarding Hispanic views on "which candidate is better for immigrants: BHO leads 50% to 12%. The outliers from that 12% are those making more than $75,000 per year (40% for BHO vs 27% for McCain) and Republicans (28% for BHO, 35% for McCain)"Are McCain or the national republican party about to change, in light of the above information? Of course not, they'd rather lose elections than be too much in the way of someone's power-greed. Consider the "follow the money" trail, as an insight into politics; how can it explain the figures on taxes given above? The distribution is far from what would be expected then, impossibly far from it. If the rich could often turn money into power, taxpaying shares, and expenditures' levels, would be exceedingly different. Electoral considerations are also not relevant, to the extent that the majority is an obstacle in the way of officials' power-greed , its preferences are disregarded. Examples to prove this are racial quotas for the disadvantaged minorities, and the mass immigration of those eligible for it, forced integration, and segregation of those slated for 'bilingual education', privilege for Islam, disadvantageous international agreements, and whatever else shows high elite divergence from popular views. Neither money nor democracy can explain these divergences of policy preferences, between the rulers and the ruled, but power-greed of officials easily can.
Added 8-06-08 from an earlier comment: ...This makes for a bond between them and any sort of violent criminals, as the street level ones soften the people up to accept more power, to be won by the power-greedy elites of today. It's the elites of power, and not the money ones. Punishing the rich doesn't get at the problem, since that would be only another way of handing too easily to the power-greedy what they're trying to get by other means.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 9-16-08 from : Monday, September 15, 2008

The Diversity Also Means Those With The Lowest Standards
regarding the conditions for having children. The diversity is the disadvantaged minorities, for the most part. The disadvantaged minorities, as for being the Diversity which is to be valued, are downside-divergent especially for their very low standards in terms of the minimum conditions in which they will have children. This is the diversity we're supposed to celebrate and value openness to. Malice and power-greed can explain such a nihilistic impulse, but there is no way to square it with loyalty to civilization. Such a pseudo-value works for the destruction of the more civilized insofar as they have higher standards, and it aims at their biological destruction or absorption into what is much lower. The diversity is population-genetically distinct, since class diversity is excluded.


Audacious Epigone said...

Interesting take. It is always the prosperous homogeneity that is relentlessly assaulted by calls (and legal mandates) for greater diversity, whereas the pathological ones and those in need of remedial attention are off-limits (no one's urging historically black colleges to target more whites and Asians). Unfettered third-world migration into the US or Denmark? Of course. But for Euro-descent back into Zimbabwe with full legal rights? You'll have to dig in the right places just to hear about the farm confiscations that have taken place over the last several years, let alone official voices condemning it.

John S. Bolton said...

Yes, but Japan, Taiwan and several other prosperous societies don't have diversity value urged on them. My theory is that countries like that are both easy to get total power established in, and unlikely to move against other dictatorships, assuming that they had gone that way. The countries which are more likely to join in a group to overthrow a dictatorship would be the priority ones for the power-greedy to do damage to.