That's Divisive!
Posted on: 11/04/2017 02:00 AM

Although it has been a theme in the media for quite some time, headlines and descriptions referring to division have become even more common since Donald Trump was elected President. Even so, a phrase such as "A Nation Divided" carries numerous implicit lies within it.

A nation is a group of people related by blood, speaking the same language and broadly subscribing to the same hierarchy of values. They could conceivably have all come from a common ancestor. A group of people of various races, ethnicities and languages all shoved in together is not a nation. Not even close. It is, most certainly divided. It must be.

It must be divided because culture and language develop in tandem with the environment and genetics of a people. This culture is tailored to compensate for the people's weaknesses, enhance their strengths and allow them to thrive in their environment. People from other cultures cannot thrive in the environment created by the original culture, and people of substantively different genetics cannot conform to the original culture sufficiently to thrive. Hence, in any heterogeneous social setting, even with everyone being treated fairly and equally, there will be differences in outcomes because of this.

The American society has never been so well-off materially. Even our poorest people carry computing power on their hips that would have made the Space Shuttle engineers envious. Even the poorest American receiving public assistance is in the top 1% of global income equivalent. You would think there would be few complaints.

But researchers have discovered that it is not the absolute level of wellbeing that causes disatisfaction so much as being able to notice a disparity in wellbeing. When this becomes too great or too obvious, disatisfaction quickly follows.




And, of course, because different groups will have different levels of performance in any given cultural scenario, a multicultural setting will always create disatisfaction.

Furthermore, because the different groups in a multicultural milieu will perform differently, it is literally impossible to create a policy that will be beneficial to every group, or won't have a disparate impact. Such a simple policy as requiring rescue squad workers to pass a swimming test -- which seems to be common sense -- will have a disparate impact because people of African ancestry have more dense bones, and thus the men in particular will have to expend more effort than an otherwise physically equivalent European man to achieve the same results.

This also applies to matters of tax policy. Since people of European ancestry, though less than 70% of the population nevertheless pay 80% of the taxes, any tax cuts will be more beneficial to them than other groups whereas tax increases will be more detrimental to them. And the list goes on and on.

It becomes inevitable that nearly any policy issue can be seen through a racial or ethnic lens, and seen as being of greater or lesser benefit to certain groups when compared to others. And so we see increasing ethnic polarization, with primarily persons of non-European descent making common cause against the European-American founding stock of the country.

In this sort of environment, practically anything can be seen as "divisive" though, in practice, those who apply the term only do so when the beneficiaries of an action are thought to be European-Americans. Excellent recent examples include President Trump's promise to end the diversity lottery.

Though I will explore the diversity lottery in greater depth in another article, the key aspect from the standpoint of non-Europeans is that they form a largely united voting block that can serve to harness and marginalize European-Americans through the mechanism of voting. Anything that decreases the rate of non-European immigration can be seen as beneficial to European-Americans by depriving non-European people of the ability to use government as a mechanism to transfer wealth. Thus. even though abolishing the diversity lottery makes solid sense in terms of safety for people of all ethnicities, it is seen as "divisive."

And this is the point I want to get to. References to a "divided" nation or something being "divisive" are always and only made when our globalist-leftist-global-corporatist ruling class aren't getting what they want. These terms are NEVER used in describing a policy that complies with their objectives of white displacement. Anytime you see these terms, look carefully at their application. If you are European-American, chances are, if they don't like it, it's good for you.



Printed from Western Voices World News (http://www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/thats_divisive.html)