Exclusionism is an Absolutely Indispensable Prerequisite of Civilization

In order to advance or maintain civilization, an attitude of systematically excluding what is below the standard necessary for such maintenance, is required. Freedom-for-aggression is especially to be excluded. Brotherhood with all humanity, such that savages and enemies of civilization are treated as worthy of inclusion, has to be excluded.

The Pro-Diversity Choose Their Issues so as to Maximize the Opportunity for Smearing Any Opposition

It has long been the custom for those on the left, and even the moderate right, to choose issues so as to position themselves to smear opponents, especially as for racial hatred against some commonly despised minority. This game has been going on so long now, that even a political operative not known for idealism or education, such as Karl Rove, would try to get amnesty for millions of perfectly undesirable illegal aliens, by saying: 'you just don't want brown people to get anything'. This way, one never has to offer a decent argument for one's proposal. Only one response may well be encouraged: opponents must go on the counteroffensive immediately, saying: smears are used in the place where a rational argument was rightly to be expected. Is this because no rational argument can ever be found for what is proposed. Then and only then, should one dispute the smears themselves. You are not smear-term a or b, well, fine, but first you must righteously punish the use of that smear approach, turning it against the smearer as stated above.

Valuing Openness to Populations in Proportion as They Do Not Spontaneously Cooperate Beyond the Level of Extended Family- Indicates What Objectives?

That is, what goals should be suspected when such values are urged on hitherto successful societies, specifically regarding success in cooperating on the largest scales found in the world?
In this regard, does it not also cause intense chagrin for many, that their favored groups are wretchedly lacking in the ability to spontaneously cooperate on any larger scales? What would an egalitarian do?
Added from: Sunday, August 3, 2008

What Sort Would Want Hugely More Of Those Who Don't Spontaneously Cooperate Without Despotic Compulsion
The power-greedy have the most powerful incentives to bring in as many as can be got away with of that kind, who do not spontaneously cooperate beyond the level of extended family, unless despotic measures are used to ensure that everyone contributes more or less fairly. The good and desirable societies are those where the power-greedy have not yet succeeded in substituting power for spontaneous cooperation. Most of the world would move and free-ride on the populations which can trust each other to work fairly together in larger organizations than extended family ones. Since ruinous free-riding can mushroom through mass immigration, crushing the freedom of those societies, and the power-greedy excitedly glimpse this chance at winning greater power, the explanation is likely to be genetic in large part. As the benefit of the cooperation is lost, and indeed would go sharply negative with enough free-riding accumulated through immigration, this means it can be invaded by non-cooperators and that group strategy would die. Unless that is, it is a parasite manipulation, which gets its carriers to treat other carriers as more closely related than they are, while not tending to do that for non-carriers, and even pushing for them to be shunned.

Smearing From the Left: The Slippery Slope and the Malicious Confounding of Two Very Different Kinds of Ideals

Slippery slope fallacies start and end with attempted smearing, and commonly include equivocation, false dilemma, and misconception of ideals; and all of this often deliberately. Sometimes even all of this is contained or implied in a one-word exclamation.
Ideals can be of two kinds: one in which you can never have too much of the valued item (e.g. health), and the second; which involves an ideal range, neither too much nor too little, with evils lying on either side of the range (e.g. hydration/dehydration).
The slippery slope equivocation confounds these two kinds of ideals, in order to smear, by dishonestly generating a false dilemma (e.g. capital punishment inexorably leads to death camps).
The left has to use this smear approach because there are no rational arguments as to why they should have more power...[continued in comments section below]

More Pro-diversity Means More Nihilism

The more a society tries to value increased diversity of cultures and human population genetics, the more it must try to value discontinuity, and this yields increase of nihilism. It is necessarily that way, since avoidance of nihilism requires, at the very minimum, that we value continuity sufficiently to work towards the future...[continued in comments section]

Pro-Minority Enthusiasm Can Cover for an Anti-Democratic Wish for Tyranny

When factions wish for political changes which have no hope of majority support, doctrines such as pro-diversity, and valuing openness to diversity, can become all the more attractive. Pro-minority, anti-majority, pro-diversity and radical, despotic attitudes are all commonly found together. Even an open racial hatred against the majority can express a greed for power, which is frustrated by the difficulty of moving the majority politically.

A Metric for 'Diversity' of the Sort Which is Dishonestly Presented as Value-in-Itself

This measure could be: units of distance between even quite small populations, as a percentage of the 'miles' of genetic distance between them. Leaving out of account the specifically anti-Caucasian
aspect of the pro-diversity of officialdom and its professoriate, the distance units can be the same for each group compared. When two groups with maximum genetic distance between them are at minimum spatial separation, we have the greater part of that 'diversity' which we're asked to celebrate as somehow creating value in itself. Adding distance of points of average IQ between the two groups compared (notional miles consisting of a percentage of the maximum IQ difference between groups), there may then be a close-to-universal measure of what that diversity is, which is presented as value in the above way...[continued in comments section below]