Slutwalk

I recently saw some ridiculous thing called “slutwalk” where ugly, whorish women demand the right to be sluts and whores and still be treated with respect. Essentially, their message is “I can dress as a whore and act as vulgarly as a bitch in heat, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to fuck me”.

Well guess what? Nobody wants to fuck worthless, whorish, loud, disrespectful women; at least nobody with whom I’d share a cup of coffee would. Women don’t become sexually attractive by being classless, disgusting sluts. Nobody in his right mind would put his cock in that. They are undesirable social refuse, and only undesirable male refuse and scum without any worth or self respect would fuck them, and even they would first have to get drunk and think of something else. Essentially, such slutty, whorish women without any modesty or feeling of self-worth are the Western equivalent of Arab or African male scum: filthy, lazy, incompetent and without self control, discipline or protective instinct for women, who finger-rape female reporters on the streets because they are essentially sub-human beasts out of control.

Both those groups are disgusting. They never learned how to play the game of being human; essentially, they are total degenerates. The Western women don’t know how to be women, and Islamic men don’t know how to be men. They are failures at being human.

Male and female roles are a dance, it’s a gentle and careful play of give and take, of respect and support, of emotion, intellect and instinct. It’s a game of refusing to ask and demand in order to allow your partner the possibility to give it to you freely and vulnerably. It’s a subtle, incredibly subtle game.

A truly emancipated woman will be decent, polite, respectful, beautiful, intelligent, gentle, kind and self-possessed. She will be quiet and modest, giving the man a chance to encourage her and support her. She will be beautiful and attractive, out of respect for the man, because she admires him and desires his company and wants to be her best for him. He in turn will recognize those signs and will gently support the woman, encourage her, serve her and protect her, because her beauty and her shy smile are a signal that he is respected, admired and wanted, and he in turn will put his strength to her service. He will be the shield under which she can blossom and show everything that she is and can be. One of the strongest sexual signals a woman sends is a display of beauty and weakness and need, to which a man instinctively responds by worshiping the woman and putting his strength to her service. This subtle game of minds and emotions laced with instinct and physical responses is the richness of human sexuality that is so often forgotten in today’s vulgar understanding of sexuality which is reduced to the basest genital-rubbing of animal copulation. If one partner doesn’t respond properly to the subtle signals in this dance, (s)he’s not worthy and the game ends.

If a woman is behaving like a slut, she basically declares that she has nothing at all in her entire being that is above the level of two dogs fucking in the street. If a man is acting sexually aggressive towards women, if he can’t control his sexuality, if he doesn’t respect a woman’s wishes and choices, he’s no better than a dog in heat, and is not really a man; he’s merely a male human animal without any value. If a woman isn’t beautiful and vulnerable for the man, it’s a sign that she doesn’t respect him and the game ends. If she makes display of her own power, it’s a sign that she despises the man and deems him unworthy and the game ends. If she is too openly sexual and not shy, it means her soul, mind and emotions are not merged together with her body and playing along, it means she’s essentially a chunk of meat, a worthless person, and it’s a turnoff for the man. If a man displays any lack of respect, protection and self-control, it means he’s a worthless animal, it means that the soul, mind and emotions don’t control the body and its instincts, and it’s a turnoff for the woman.

The woman who knows how to cooperate with a man will show vulnerability, and he will respond by providing support, encouraging her and protecting her. She won’t have to force any doors open by power of her own. All the doors will open for her by his power at her service. Sex is a game that subtly and slowly evolves, it’s a dance that begins with sharing vulnerability in a subtle way, for instance when the woman tries very hard to be beautiful and attractive for him, because that’s the show of need and vulnerability, and he will respond by providing help, support and protection. She, in turn, will respond by accepting those things with gratitude, and those acts that begin with subtle hints and exchange of subtle hints and signals soon turns into entwining of emotions and desires, ending with bodies entwined in sexual union of vulnerability, support, exchange and joy. A woman doesn’t need to dress like a slut to be sexy. In fact, if she dresses like slut she is the opposite of sexy. She is sexy when she subtly, unconsciously hints need and vulnerability, because I never met a woman who couldn’t get out of her clothes in seconds, if the circumstances demand it. Dressing like a slut isn’t a hint of sexual availability, it’s a scream of despair by someone without any feeling of self-worth.

A woman’s emancipation isn’t about hinting that she doesn’t need a man in order to be happy. No, a woman’s emancipation is in showing she isn’t desperate for any man, it’s in showing that she doesn’t need to act like a desperate crack whore to get sexual attention. A woman’s emancipation is being a worthy person who tries to be the best possible woman for the man who will show he’s worthy by reading her signals properly and responding in kind. An emancipated woman is the perfect dance partner for the emancipated perfect man. You are emancipated by being worthy but vulnerable, because a worthy vulnerable woman will be the perfect turn-on for the worthy powerful man.

That’s how men and women evolved, to be mutually supportive and complementary. They work best as a unit and actually need each other, they can’t realize their full potential alone. A woman without a man’s support is crippled, and a man without a woman’s support will become depressed and die. They literally need each other’s love in order to realize their potential. Feminists who teach women how they don’t need men, and men who talk about “red pills” and not needing women are idiots. Women and men desperately need each other, but they need each other in the right way, they need to play the game of give and take, of intertwining of emotions, minds, flows of energy and bodies, in order to protect each other’s weaknesses from harm, in order to make each other’s strengths flourish. The talk about “not needing” the other sex is just hurt feelings talking, it’s all bullshit. What people don’t need is someone who will abuse their trust, treat them like shit and betray them; but they need a partner who will be supportive, loyal, gentle and kind, who will love them and encourage them to be the best version of self that they can be. Sex is much, much more than rubbing genitals in order to achieve orgasm. Sex is to surrender to someone in order to be more. Sex is being vulnerable in order to be protected, sex is feeling admired and wanted because you’re wonderful, sex is laughing at weird jokes, talking for hours about all sorts of things, shoveling snow together in winter and then making warm tea and laughing at something stupid. It’s a subtle, rich, sophisticated thing that makes you fully human, as opposed to being a two-legged animal in heat. A yogin and a yogini can experience deep fullness of sexual exchange by merely feeling and enjoying each other’s spiritual energy, clothes on and everything, while animalistic people can never experience anything as fulfilling regardless of how they rub their pleasure zones. For humans, physical sexuality is never enough, it never even begins to touch what is possible when the soul, emotion, mind and energy are joined together with the body in the fullness of experience. In fact, the physical sexuality often adds so little to the experience, it can be completely omitted. Those women who flaunt their physical body in a vulgar manner in fact show their belief that other than empty flesh, they possess nothing of interest; they are the female equivalent of male rapists, who feel so worthless they are certain a woman would refuse them if they asked, and so they don’t. Those two are the male and female versions of the same worthless scum.

A worthy, sophisticated woman will be beautiful, but will not attempt to be overtly sexy or dress scantly. She will trust she is cool and wonderful enough as a person that one will want her entirety, that a worthy man will enjoy her style, her humor, wit, emotional subtlety, ideas and energy, and when it comes to removing her clothes, she can do that quickly enough whatever she has on. A worthy, sophisticated man will have confidence that the woman he would want as his partner would recognize him and invite him; he will not try hard, or be desperate, overtly seductive or deceitful in order to get sex quickly. To him, it isn’t about getting sex quickly, it’s about getting the right woman, and when the woman is right every aspect of their interaction is sex, from holding hands, feeling each other’s emotions, hearing each other’s thoughts spoken, breathing in sync and sexual joining. A worthy man knows that if the slow, subtle dance of sexuality isn’t spontaneous and if it’s not mutual and deep, it’s not worth demeaning yourself by even bothering, he just lets that woman get the man who’s right for her, and it’s not him. For confident, emancipated men and women, it’s never a power play, it’s never a game of conquest, it’s finding the partner who makes you a fully-flourishing version of yourself. That’s also why sluts always end up with drunks and thugs – because they are right for each other, and nobody else would want them. A Western whore who twerks with her arse in the general direction of a cock will end up raped by some Arab piece of shit who waves his cock in the general direction of cunt. To hell with that worthless shit. We in the West are better than this, we are the superior, sophisticated civilization of subtle sexual poetry and art, we are the more realized, more emancipated version of humans. We should not demean ourselves by degrading our sexuality to the level of dogs and Africans.

Vae victis

I was thinking about where does all the bullshit of our civilization come from, because it does look like it must have a common root somewhere – all the socialism, minority rights, all this whining and complaining by worthless losers that the fact that someone else is better at everything means that this person is “privileged” and this somehow needs to be redressed.

It’s all Jesus’ fault. He’s the one who cooked up this entire mess by claiming that the rich people will go to hell and the poor will go to heaven because somehow God loves losers and it’s a zero sum game, in the sense that everybody is entitled to the same amount of good and bad stuff and if you don’t get your rightful share, it must be redressed in afterlife (Lk 16, 19-25).

Let me just remind you that this quasi-moral position was not common throughout history. On the contrary, in the Roman empire you had a Darwinian meritocracy, in the sense that if you were powerful, you were simply worth more. It was obvious from the way imperium was distributed among the state officials, where the more powerful officials had more lictors, who were basically the law and could simply execute someone on the spot if he looked at them wrongly, with a few carefully listed exceptions. If you had power, you wielded it without any consideration for the powerless, and if someone lost, he was fucked – the official policy was “vae victis”, which basically translates as “woe to the losers”. The losers were either killed or sold on the slave market together with their families. One would say that this is so beneath today’s moral standards that this country must have been a total shithole. On the contrary, it was the flower of culture, art and science of the time. We inherited their methodical thinking, their approach to the law, their organization of state, and their aesthetics. However, since the Christians took over and introduced us to the glory of the dark ages, we also inherited their concept of guilt for being successful, guilt for feeling good about your achievements, fear of power as a corrupting influence, and basically the concept according to which God prefers losers and is terribly offended if the losers suffer any consequences of being losers, and winners enjoy any privileges of being winners.

Can you even imagine a “social justice warrior” trying to “redistribute wealth” and “check privilege” in this cultural milieu? It would be laughable. Imagine someone trying to guilt a person of Roman mentality for “enjoying white male privilege”. The response would be something along these lines: “I don’t understand what you mean. It’s not a privilege, it’s an earned right. We white males invented everything worth having in this world. We invented steam power, we invented steel, we invented electricity, we invented petroleum energetics and internal combustion engine, we invented nuclear power plants, we made all the IT companies, all the sciences, all the technology, we invested all that effort, and we of course enjoy the fruits of our achievements. What else are we supposed to do? Whenever someone else is capable of functioning on our level, he too enjoys the fruits of his achievements, like the Asians, for instance, who are competent and function just fine on merit. It’s not our problem that some groups of people can’t succeed on merit. They are losers and their purpose in life is servitude to the winners, and they are fortunate if we allow them even that, because we could as easily kick them out of our countries because they are underachieving losers unworthy of our glorious civilization; they can organize their own shitholes according to their shitty ideas about how a civilization should work, but if their ideas worked they wouldn’t be losers, they would be winners. Asians and Jews don’t need help in order to succeed, for instance. They are doing just fine because they are smart, competent and hard working. It’s the scum that’s complaining, it’s the scum that wants undeserved privileges and tries to guilt the winners into giving them stuff. Fuck them. They are all like those obnoxious Gipsy beggars who whine ‘I’m a poor piece of shit, give me money’. Why would we give someone money for being a piece of shit? Being a piece of shit should be rewarded with a bullet through the head. Being a worthy person should be rewarded with wealth and fame.”

Actually, now that you remind me, that would actually work great. Let’s organize ourselves according to those principles. Reward friends, worthy people and those whom you admire with money. Let worthless scum die in squalor. Be proud of doing that because you are supporting what’s good and discouraging what’s bad. Injustice is when the worthy aren’t rewarded enough, and the unworthy are not poor and miserable enough. Never be ashamed of being wealthy and powerful – instead, use your power to stimulate good, worthy and valuable things in the world, because it’s a great privilege to be able to do so, and it’s immensely spiritually rewarding. Reward the philosophers, spiritual teachers, inventors, scientists and other worthy intellectuals who enrich the world with great things. Reward the brave soldiers, those who help the innocent against scum and villains. Don’t feed scum and losers, no matter how much they whine about injustice, because the only injustice is that they exist at all; as Jesus properly remarked once, if you’re incompetent, even that little which you do have should be taken away from you and given to the one who is competent and has the most, because he’s worthy and you’re not (Lk 19, 11-28).

Sex sells

I frequently run into feminist bullshit about objectification of women in advertisement for products, and my response is, are you fucking serious? Really?

Sex sells. But did you ever stop to think about the mechanics of it all? Do you really think that the half-naked supermodel on the ad is the one who is being sold? That she’s the one who is exploited, manipulated or abused?

No, she isn’t. She’s well paid for what she does. She’s not the one who is treated as an object in this entire transaction. You are.

You see, it’s like fishing. There’s the fisherman, the hook, the bait and the fish. The point of bait is to look attractive in order to fool the fish into thinking it’s getting something of value, but the whole point of the transaction is to trick the fish into having to surrender its resources (meat) while it mistakenly thinks it’s getting something (bait).

The thing with advertising is actually different in the sense that with advertising, the bait is actively cooperating with the fisherman and is getting the share of your resources, and you are the one who is treated like a helpless idiot who can be shown a sexually attractive female giving out positive sexual signals so that your dick gets hard and you concentrate on the promise of sex while you’re separated from your money. She’s not the sexual object. You are. She is a deceiver, she’s the active party, the subject, while you’re the object. She’s deceiving you, she’s manipulating your instincts for profit. You’re merely the fool who is predated upon by the marketing experts and psychologists and multinational corporations and manipulative women.

Just follow the money. What’s the point of advertising? To sell products. Who buys the products? You do. Who sells the products? The corporation that financed the ad. Who pays for the campaign? The customers do, it’s all financed from revenue. Is the supermodel on the billboard getting money? Yes. Who’s the only one in it that’s not getting the money? You. Therefore you’re the one who’s being exploited and treated like an object. You’re being pulled by your dick into surrendering resources. Essentially, the entire sex/advertisement industry is made on treating men like stupid idiots who can be manipulated by sex into giving money. It’s about time men learn self-respect and simply refuse to look at naked women unless those women specifically show their bodies to them with the purpose of having sex in the context of a meaningful relationship. Stop allowing women to earn money by treating you like idiotic half-human beings who can be easily manipulated by false promises of sex. Start respecting yourselves, and do it by refusing to have your sexuality abused by the advertisement industry which tickles your balls in order to suck your wallet dry. Refuse to even acknowledge the sexual teasing of women unless they really mean it, in the sense that they want to surrender themselves to you and share their life with you. You need to teach women to respect you, and you can’t do that if you don’t respect yourself enough to refuse insincere manipulative offerings.

Democracy and its alternatives

Whenever democracy as a system of rule is questioned, I invariably see Winston Churchill quoted saying that “democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others”.

I’ve been thinking about that, because I have an unnerving feeling that it’s one of those things that ring true, but only because of shared assumptions that might prove to be false.

First of all, excuse me if I don’t just take Churchill’s word for it, because a genius who engineered such a brilliant military feat as the invasion of Turkey at Gallipoli and personally presided over the demise of the British Empire might also be completely mistaken on other matters.

Let us first define what a system of government is, what democracy is, and what makes a good system of government. This is important because I want us to avoid conflating political and economic systems to the point where we can no longer separate their individual effects. Also, we need to separate the concept of general scientific and technological advancement from our estimates of political systems. Also, we need to separate the natural and circumstantial wealth from our equation. I will first explain why, so that you can follow my line of thinking more easily.

An example of separating the system of government from the economic system are the Asian technological giants, such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore and China. They all have very authoritarian social systems and systems of government, where democracy doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing to them that it does to us. However, they all adopted some form of a capitalist, free market economy, and as soon as they did, their overall economic condition has improved significantly, to the point of transforming them into world powers. Why is it important to separate government from economy? Because we might feel tempted to ascribe the success of the economy to a system of government, and that would be a fallacy. Obviously, we can have successful economies regardless of whether the government is democratic or dictatorial, as long as it doesn’t meddle into the economy.

The reason why we need to separate the overall level of scientific and technological progress from the system of government is because those two things are also independent values, in a sense that you can have a technologically inferior democracy of ancient Greece, and technologically superior dictatorship of ancient Persia. You can also have a technologically inferior America and technologically superior Nazi Germany. Soviet Union was a communist dictatorship, and was technologically either the most advanced on Earth or on par with the most advanced. Essentially, technology and science are as separate from government as is economy, but of course government can significantly influence them both if it chooses to do so.

We also need to remove natural and circumstantial wealth from our equations. Circumstantial wealth is derived from one’s geography; for instance, a country like Croatia can have great natural beauty, which can be an useful source of income from tourism, but it says nothing about either the merit of its economic system, or its government. It’s simply the property of its geography. Some other country, like Singapore, can be located on a major trade route, and can derive a part of its economic success from that. Others, like the Arab countries, can have vast natural reserves of oil, which provide incredibly high income, independently from their economic or political system. A country can, therefore, derive substantial wealth from simply being at the right place at the right time. Before Rockefeller figured out what to do with oil, it was completely useless and didn’t provide any income to the Arab tribes who lived there, and value of their political and economic systems should be assessed on their pre-petroleum state.

So, the fact that some country is wealthy or technologically advanced doesn’t mean that its system of government is superior, because one can become wealthy due to robbery, and one can become technologically advanced because the militaristic regime invests resources in technology in order to be able to successfully attack other countries.

So, we now have quite a problem: we eliminated the vast majority of factors that would normally weigh into our assessment, and the question is, what remains there for us to use in order to compare various systems of government?

Let us first see what forms of government were actually in use throughout history.

We had tribal meritocratic democracy, as probably the first form of government over small populations. Essentially, you had elders who defined what should and shouldn’t be done, you had some shaman who was consulted on supernatural things, and you had the chief who made operational decisions when there wasn’t enough time for long deliberations. This is probably the optimal form of government for humans, and probably the only one that has been around so long it has the strong backing in human genetics; it is probably as old as the use of fire and tools, if not older. Essentially, it’s the pattern humans naturally recreate whenever possible, whether in tribes, religious communities or gangs.

This system has one major flaw: it doesn’t scale well for bigger communities, and was abandoned in favor of the oriental despotic system when agriculture needed to be organized on a large scale in order to provide food much more efficiently than was possible for smaller communities or their agglomerates. Essentially, in order to organize a big state, you couldn’t rely on letting people just naturally do whatever they felt like doing. You needed to order them around in some logical, efficient arrangement. You needed to organize irrigation, you needed to organize an army and defensive fortifications, essentially you needed a system where those who knew what had to be done would give the orders, and everybody else would obey them. This worked remarkably well, and is the second most stable form of government known to mankind. However, with mass feeding and mass living it also introduced mass murder, in form of wars. This is the first form of government that made possible the organization of large scale military expeditions, either for defense or conquest. It also made it possible to advance science, technology and architecture on levels not seen before. This form of government was independently invented on different continents, and is apparently a normal phase of development from tribalism into civilization.

One might now mention ancient Greece as an example of democracy, but I disagree. The Greeks were on the tribal, pre-civilized or proto-civilized stage of social development, and their civilization is more of a tribal agglomerate than anything else. They were no more or less democratic than the Lakota or the Cheyenne. Their polises were democratic compared to the Persian Empire, in the same way in which the North American native tribes were democratic compared to the Aztecs, but that doesn’t make them more advanced. It just means they were small enough to be able to manage their affairs efficiently in a tribal manner.

One of the most important social developments in tribal societies that grew to unusual size, but still not big enough to demand strict top-down management of the oriental despotisms, is formation of aristocracy, which is essentially a hierarchical layer of “more deserving” members of society, who wished to have more rights and privileges compared to others. This is a different, more defined form of hierarchy compared to the meritocracy present in the smaller communities, and was usually hereditary. Essentially, it enabled concentration of wealth and power within a small social circle which separated itself from the more “base” folk. What “democracy” usually meant in such communities was that this aristocracy made the decisions which the rest of the people had to obey. Greece and Rome are an excellent example of such social divisions.

The interesting thing with such social stratifications is that they lessen the requirement for broad popular support in the process of election of leadership. Essentially, in small social groups you have to govern by consent. As the community grows bigger, and as the society is stratified, the highest social stratum can elect leadership with little or no input from the lower strata. In some cases, when leadership becomes hereditary, the democratic input is reduced to zero. One can argue that the worst examples of leadership come from this category, because if one didn’t even have to convince the aristocracy of his society of his merit for leadership, and only had to be born in the right family, the probability of him having “the right stuff” for a leader is negligible. Even in Roman times it was common knowledge that the best emperors were in fact adopted, basically hand-picked as heirs to the throne, and the worst ones were born to the position. The few examples to the contrary, such as Titus, were the exceptions that made the rule. Essentially, what that means is that you can have a very good and effective system of government as long as the leader or the aristocracy has to pick the successor from the number of those who rose through the ranks and are therefore competent. But if leadership is hereditary, the probability of getting an idiot for a king is exceedingly high.

Also, while you can have a system of government which consists of a successful warlord and his henchmen who divide the country among themselves, the stability of such government is poor, because if the majority of people are treated as hardly more than cattle, the “nobility” is meritocratic only in a sense of rewarding help in times of war, and such war-based meritocracy is hardly conducive to the general advancement of society. This is why such primitive feudal societies are hardly more than an armed gang of thugs which exploits the population of illiterate peasants.

In order for a society to advance, it must be inclusive, in a sense that the general population has a stake in it, in a sense that it will be willing to defend its government, and not just move out of the way if a rival gang of thugs wishes to take over. Also, for the society to be stable the general population must willingly finance it, and not just be forced to pay taxes. Apparently, this is the real use of the entire show of democracy, in which the general population is allowed to pick one of the leadership candidates presented to them by the higher social strata. The end-result would be very similar if the aristocracy simply elected the president themselves, but then the general population would feel excluded and, in fact, would feel a certain degree of resentment toward the aristocracy, and this doesn’t allow for an effective government. If you want people to obey you, you basically have only two options. You can employ the pharaonic model, where the ruler is presented as someone who has the heavenly mandate and it is therefore a religious duty of all citizens to obey him as they would obey the gods. Alternatively, you can attempt to emulate the tribal meritocratic democracy, where the people elect their leader among the most effective social organizers, someone whom they feel as their own, and would obey him because they trust him. You can, of course, skip the requirement of popular support, and rule by naked force, but historically such rule lacks stability and is quickly deposed by some alternative militant fraction.

Essentially, what we can safely conclude is that real democracy works only in smaller tribal communities, which are small enough for all the members to know each other, to have a say in the choice of leadership, and to have the ability to depose leadership if it goes astray. As the community grows, it becomes impractical to elect the leadership directly, because you simply don’t know all the people directly and you are not aware of their qualifications directly, so the best you can do is divide the community into small sub-communities that elect their own delegates to represent them in a popular assembly, where the leadership of the entire nation is elected. It would actually be dangerous for the people to attempt to elect the leadership directly, because they don’t actually know the candidates directly and can only judge them on superficial impressions and propaganda. This, in fact, is the greatest drawback of today’s attempts at emulating democracy.

So, instead of trying to say whether Churchill was right saying that democracy was the best system of government, we would be better off asking a different set of questions – for instance, what methods did different systems of government historically use to assure broad popular support, and with what results? If we judge on the stability of a society, our current model of government can only be seen as a recent experiment which produced mostly disastrous results, from the slaughterhouse that was the French revolution, through American independence which meant buying slaves from African markets in order to grow cotton on land that was stolen from the native tribes, through colonialism, two world wars, eugenics, racism and genocide. Essentially, if you think we fare better than the pharaonic despotisms of antiquity, you are deluding yourselves. Our political system is very volatile and historically proved likely to result in bloody conflicts. What masks this reality is the huge advancement in science and technology, and a rather broad access to the benefits of modern technology, where a common citizen can enjoy functionality that used to be beyond the wildest dreams of kings. This, however, has nothing to do with democracy; Singapore is not a democracy in any conventional meaning of the word and is among the wealthiest countries. South Korea is at best an elitist hierarchical society, and has extremely advanced technology. Do we even need to mention China? Essentially, what makes a society work is some strange mixture of the popular support for the government, a sense of inclusion of the general population, a feeling of sharing the common goals with the leadership, a feeling that the laws of the society are just and fair, and a Darwinian meritocracy of economy and science. It needs to be democratic only in the broadest sense, that the general population identifies with the government and recognizes it as its own.

About diversity

Let’s talk about diversity. It’s touted as one of the most important positive things about the modern society. However, we need to see what it is, and if it is all it’s claimed to be.

A society is based on some basic principles. For instance, whether church is separated from the state, whether government is limited by constitution or dictatorial, whether all people are equal before the law or they are separated into castes. If you want a state to function at all, you can’t have diversity about those fundamental issues in your society, because if you do it will end in a civil war. You need to have a basic agreement on some fundamental concepts, and if someone opposes those concepts, he’s not really enriching your society, he’s striking a discordant note which might produce societal collapse.

For instance, if you have a society consisting of one group that promotes the concept of sanctity of life, and another group that promotes the concept of harvesting tissues from aborted fetuses in order to grow replacement organs for rich people, this is not the kind of diversity that will help. Also, if you have diversity where most religions agree that church should be separate from the state and that they should all peacefully coexist and preach their respective religious teachings, and one believes that this is a blasphemous concept, and that its religious laws should be the law of the land, and all non-believers should be either converted, killed or forced to pay a special religious tax, this is not the kind of diversity that will help the long term well-being of the state. What I want to say is, diversity cannot go so far as to oppose the basic precepts of one’s civilization, and the basic precepts of the state constitution. You can’t have a functional modern society if a significant portion of the population thinks it’s fine to eat babies.

People often think of diversity in terms of cuisine or clothing. It’s fine to eat Indian food one day, and Mexican the next. It’s actually something to be recommended. It’s also fine if people dress in different ways, because it is harmful to be stuck in fixed patterns and it’s great to see and experience some diversity. Also, people mention diversity in the context of race and sexual orientation. Again, I don’t see a problem there if you’re not dealing with harmful options. If someone’s sexual preference is to fuck babies or goats, that’s not diversity, that’s just fucked up; however, anything consensual that happens between adults is fine with me. Also, if you have people of different races but similar abilities, it’s all fine, nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you ignore the concept of actual value. Diversity is fine if it embraces different things of value, but if it forces us to accept things that are of no positive value, that actually degrade our life and experience, of what use is diversity then? For instance, if some African tribe has a custom of genitally mutilating little girls or owning slaves, should we embrace this as diversity? No, we should condemn this as primitive, and we should actually go so far as to eradicate the custom altogether, because this kind of “diversity” should be called “evil”, and evil needs to be fought.

One of the main advantages of nation-states is that those individual states can be organized according to specific civilizational and societal circumstances, instead of trying to force everyone to accept some common denominator, and those separate states can then compete to see which is best. If you have independent nation-states, people can choose to live somewhere where the basic rules agree with them. If they don’t like the rules, they can get the hell out. That, in my opinion, is real diversity, of the kind that was historically proven. Let people organize their respective societies according to their respective ideas, but when some of those fail, don’t whine about it, because that’s how evolution actually works in the real world. You try different things, and some work better than others. You have diversity, but most of those diverse options will prove to be failures.