James Kalb’s Against Inclusiveness

5,222 words

James Kalb
Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It
Tacoma: Angelico Press, 2013

Behold! We the Netizens in the days of yore, after Al Gore hath wrought the Internet, ventured forth with the might of our 56K modems. Yon Information Superhighway was then yet a realm of unbounded freedom, long ere Woke Capital unleashed its tyranny. It was in these bold times that I came upon the writings of the sage Jim Kalb.

He has a new domain now, and I was pleasantly surprised to find an archive of his older writings [1]. Some of the classics from the ancient days include FAQs about conservatism [2], sexual morality [3], anti-feminism [4], and anti-inclusiveness [5]. He’s recapped thoughts along those lines [6] with his latest book, Against Inclusiveness [7]. This follows The Tyranny of Liberalism [8] with the compelling subtitle Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2008).

Other than that, he has some very impressive personal credentials [9]. He got a math degree from Dartmouth. He entered a graduate program in philosophy. Then he moved on to Yale for a law degree. (Fortunately, he didn’t end up getting recruited as a Deep State swamp creature.) Then he became an attorney. This informs his writing style: unadorned and highbrow, strong on rhetoric, and frequently taking down the usual counterarguments. Overall, he’s not high on the “deplorability” scale, but he does step into forbidden territory occasionally. This was so likewise during the 1990s, when political correctness was emerging as a new orthodoxy.

Opening statement

The Tyranny of Liberalism discussed the destructive tendencies of political correctness in theory and practice. However, that yielded little discussion, so he expanded into the theme with Against Inclusiveness.

No one, it seemed, wanted to touch or even notice it. This is not surprising. To criticize inclusiveness means favoring exclusion. People find that frightening, and it suggests topics such as group differences that are imprudent to mention.

That much should come as no surprise. Then:

Not long ago, the president of Harvard University and one of America’s most eminent scientists both lost their jobs by making comments on sex and race that were rational, and relevant to important issues, but offensive to current sensibilities. If that can happen to Lawrence Summers and James Watson, how can the rest of us feel secure?

I’ll add that outrage-a-thons like these [10] have created a climate of intimidation. (Obviously, that’s the point.) Financial ruination is one of the penalties for a charge of heresy by the PC cult. Then:

Topics that are prudent for each of us to avoid individually may be disastrous to avoid as a society. Sex, religion, and ethnicity are aspects of human identity, because they relate to basic human connections. Without substantive debate, “inclusiveness” with regard to such matters has become an imperative that is transforming the whole of life. A realistic discussion of what it means to try to suppress those connections and negate their effect seems called for.

Normal and productive discussion about these matters has become nearly impossible resulting from the PC climate. For purposes of this book, just as the author did in his earliest presentation, he doesn’t cross certain tripwires:

These arguments have limited scope and do not depend on contentious matters such as natural differences among races or the merits of particular cultures. Instead, they deal with the role of cultural networks and distinctions of sex in functioning and argue that such effects must be accepted and taken into account, if people are to live together harmoniously and productively.

He does make his points without challenging one of the foundational pillars of absolute egalitarianism. (The footnote correctly explains that such subjects are hard to avoid in practice.) This doesn’t seem like a lack of knowledge or of bravery on the author’s part. Bringing in supporting facts would’ve necessitated a much larger book.

Early on, he provides an operating definition for inclusiveness. What does this warm and fuzzy term really involve?

Inclusiveness expresses a demand for equal treatment. Liberals believe that the benefits of society should be equally available to all, to the extent consistent with the efficient operation of a liberal system based on technology, markets, and bureaucratic supervision and control. Furthermore, they consider it a basic responsibility of government and indeed everyone to make them so. [. . .]

More specifically, it requires that persona of every race, ethnicity, religious background, sex, disability status, and sexual orientation participate equally in all major social activities, with nearly proportional presence and success established as the measure of equal opportunity for such participation.

He then illustrates the distinction from some related concepts: tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.

“Inclusiveness” has taken on characteristics of a secular religion. (I concur, and so do others [11].) Contradicting The Narrative becomes heresy. Even established religions must conform:

Other religions that want to remain socially acceptable must assimilate to inclusiveness and become something other than they were. Respectable Western Christianity has largely done so. In mainline churches, the Gospel is now said to be “radically inclusive” above all else.

I’ll add that this is rather chilling. It’s a travesty that an ancient faith is expected to conform to moldy Current Year progressivism. This isn’t so much a matter of homegrown ultracalvinism, even if it sometimes serves as a gateway drug to cultural Marxism. The convergence of so many Protestant denominations had a lot to do with institutional politics — the “long march through the institutions” and all that — with umbrella groups serving as a transmission belt. There’s got to be a story in that somewhere.

Inclusiveness intrudes into broad areas of life, which by definition makes it totalitarian. It necessitates sweeping social engineering efforts, some quite persnickety:

To this end grammar must be neutered, cultural boundaries abolished, family redefined to cover every possible living arrangement, ethnic festivals turned into festivals of inclusion, and traditional institutions diversified to the point of losing all definition. Distinctions of nationality must go as well, since they stand in the way of the comprehensive organization of all human things on the lines that are now considered uniquely rational.

In that case, it’s fundamentally globalist too. Now he gets rather more hard-hitting. He indeed has at least some idea of what the stakes are:

The American people must abolish itself as a people or complex of peoples defined by anything but inclusion, so that the goal of our national existence becomes self-transcendence through self-abolition. Mass third-world immigration becomes an almost metaphysical necessity, since without it traces of ethnic nationality would remain. Affirmative action must then be applied to force the resulting diversity into every nook and cranny of our public life.

Other than that, inclusiveness has nihilistic tendencies well beyond the usual “anything goes” mandates. It calls not only for inversion of status [12], but the inversion of the perception of reality to fit The Narrative.

None of that PC micromanagement is really about making “marginalized” groups feel better or all that. Instead, it’s about power and control:

Nobody really cares about Sufi poetry. The point of “diversity” is not diversity, but rather simplifying society, subjecting it more thoroughly to governing elites, and getting rid of non-liberal principles of order.

Some other interesting items:

. . .[I]nclusiveness does not touch the forms of differential treatment associated with the ruling institutions of present-day society. It is notable, but ironically not much noted, that the rise of inclusiveness has coincided with the rise of social inequality with regard to wealth, certified expertise, bureaucratic position, educational background, and other present-day markers of status and power.

In other words, cultural Marxism has pushed aside economic leftism. Some of the Occupy Wall Street folks and high-functioning Bernie Bros probably reached similar conclusions.

Exhibit A: Traditional Distinctions

The chapter begins:

Liberals pick and choose their discriminations. Financial, bureaucratic, and academic distinctions are acceptable, while natural and traditional ones are not. [. . .] The idea, it seems, is that there is something odd and irrelevant about distinctions such as sex, family, kinship, culture, and religion that makes it wrong for them to have material consequences. . .

This reductive economism has no place for culture. Still, culture does matter. It’s an important part of our lives. Restating in my words, people are more than isolated social units, and problems arise when humanity is considered as a mass of interchangeable, reprogrammable production/consumption modules.

Culture also contains time-tested traditional wisdom. Cohesive communities matter too. Social networks develop naturally for several reasons. Marriage is an institution that developed spontaneously in ancient time, and varies somewhat according to culture, but throwing its traditional rules out the window produces bad results.

Considerations of this kind make discrimination and exclusion necessary to any complex and well-developed way of life.

Given the variation in customs, applying universal standards in a diverse society will offend the sensibilities of at least some of the population, rather than producing equal satisfaction. (Obviously, everyone would want things run their way, and nobody will be happy about the endless controversy.) It’s one of the reasons why multiculturalism doesn’t work. The “least common denominators” across all of humanity’s varying cultures aren’t enough to hold together a peaceful and free society. Why force together people who don’t want to be together? It’s impossible to micromanage everyone into equal happiness.

Discrimination is simply dealing by preference with people of one sort rather than another.

Discrimination by education is something deemed acceptable, one which is routine in employment qualification and produces little controversy. Discrimination may be anything from a mild preference to an absolute prerequisite. Usually, it exists for a reason. Sometimes it’s about interpersonal compatibility, such as excluding people you don’t get along with, or preference for membership in a social circle. It’s natural to have preferences.

Ethnicity and religion are other factors too, but each is a forbidden basis for discrimination. Experience with members of these groups makes them known quantities. It misses the mark to call those particular preferences “fear” or “hatred,” since discrimination based on most other preferences — such as where someone went to college — is neither fear nor hatred. (I’ll add that only some identity groups are told they shouldn’t have preferences; others are tacitly allowed to favor their own kind.) Forbidding discrimination concerning the usual list of protected groups — race, religion, lifestyle, etc. — while permitting discrimination about everything else is arbitrary. Moreover:

We cannot demand that men and women ignore that they are men and women or that they have no attitudes regarding what that means. Nor is it wrong, in the conduct of life, to take into account common background, with its attendant memories, attitudes, loyalties, habits, and expectations.

Other than that, it’s inevitable that not everyone gets along, whether it’s individually or according to group membership. Actual hatred does exist, but it’s not completely avoidable.

The chapter also covers stereotypes, loosely along the lines of the observation that political correctness is a war against noticing. Other than that, various groups differ meaningfully in many ways (no speculation about causes is provided). Accumulated knowledge about them will be helpful, such as to avoid trouble. Social and professional roles are another distinction leading to somewhat predictable behavior. For example, people are expected to act as befitting of their profession.

The major essential categories of sex, ethnicity, and religion are described. For example:

“Cultural sensitivity” is necessary, when we deal with those from other backgrounds, so much that ethnic diversity is a major challenge leading to numerous issues that require special training and procedures to deal with. Not every employer wants to multiply major challenges, and there is no general obligation to do so. It is as reasonable for one who would rather have some things just work. . .

I’ll add a few observations here. Everyone realizes at least subconsciously that the slogan “diversity is our greatest strength” is baloney. Instead, diversity has been a source of endless friction. More incompatible cultures mean more conflicts. Liberals don’t move to “vibrant” neighborhoods, despite the cheap rent and access to downtown, with few exceptions. Even the ones who really have a martyr complex are well aware that they’re asking for trouble.

Exhibit B: Antidiscrimination & Inclusiveness

This chapter begins with a list of some viewpoints deemed discriminatory, yet these are sensible and remain common knowledge despite the taboo. On the other hand, inclusiveness demands several nonsensical policy positions. (The lists here are hardly exhaustive.) The demand for inclusiveness reaches into private lives, effectively becoming a form of thought control.

You can buy Greg Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream here. [13]

In practice, inclusiveness has a broader scope than antidiscrimination, demanding more radical measures to implement it. He compares the outcome of some groups formerly receiving discrimination. Jews, the Chinese, and the Irish have their act together, while blacks and Hispanics are losing ground despite Affirmative Action. (Again, average IQ differences aren’t discussed. Ethnic networking isn’t mentioned either, though it would be quite relevant to the discussion since some groups are tacitly permitted to practice it, while among others it would be illegal discrimination.) Then the subjects get rather more hard-hitting. For one item, the book goes into the hollow notion of collective guilt — not in great depth, but enough to get the point across.

Then some other common arguments for inclusiveness are detailed. These are broadening recognition of common humanity, avoiding hurt feelings, promoting community in a fragmented world, and the benefits of diversity. These nebulous justifications don’t hold up. It also covers the argument from fear, such as the inevitable reductio ad hitlerum. Finally, inclusiveness can’t be justified as promoting peace in society. For example:

Supporters of the movement intentionally increase diversity through mass immigration and inflame group resentments by publicizing real or invented injustices.

Obviously, it would be better if they’d just leave well enough alone. He does note that if things came to political separation, this could be accomplished peacefully. That isn’t described in detail, but that’s OK — others have done so [14].

Exhibit C: Why Such Strength?

Inclusiveness is touted as a positive good, despite weakness in arguments for it. Counterarguments are brushed aside. Obviously, this works to the advantage of certain classes. Inclusiveness necessitates designated authorities and “experts” to officiate, handle inevitable conflicts, and so forth. I’ll add that these are among several modern rackets to get money without doing anything productive, like collegiate Deans of Diversity and their assistants, professional social media censors, presenters of indoctrination seminars, corporate HR munchkins, etc.

All significant decisions must be made by someone who can pass himself off as an outside authority, applying neutral standards of human rights, economic efficiency, and administrative effectiveness. [. . .] Expertise, bureaucracy, money, and the state become the only serious principles of order, and the verbal, credentialed, well-placed, and rich end up running everything.

The inclusiveness regime promotes bureaucratic centralization, globalism, mass culture, and social atomization. Local cultures and traditional social understandings lose out.

The book then discusses scientism and its limitations in depth. The world doesn’t always work according to theory. Those who reject fundamental liberal premises are labeled as irrational or malicious. This perspective leads to totalitarian tendencies, a common problem with utopianism.

Exhibit D: Effects of Inclusiveness

All told, the book comes from an elevated plane heavy on theory, yet with practical considerations in mind regarding the effects of inclusiveness in real-world situations. Liberalism instead often tends to reason things out from first principles. Then when problems inevitably arise, the answer is typically to ignore them, double down on their failed strategies, or criticize anyone for noticing. The inclusiveness regime misses the mark in several ways.

Diversity must be treated as a positive good, but it’s necessary to ignore the real reasons for actual disparities, put extra effort into cultural sensitivity, and waste resources on procrustean pursuits. Managing diversity also means promoting ideological uniformity. Culture and social customs get watered down into an unappealing least common denominator. Bureaucracy flourishes. The feeling of community diminishes. Areas such as academia and science are politicized. (I’ll add that this much has been going on for a century.) Liberalism develops into an orthodoxy. Some groups effectively are immune from criticism. Even critical thinking is on target.

Exhibit E: The Inclusivist Regime

Sources of authority that liberalism dislikes, such as religion and the family, are derogated. (The grounds are reminiscent of some points in the Frankfurt School classic The Authoritarian Personality [15].) Then it discusses managerial control, a subject about which Sam Francis also discussed extensively. The people have little say in the matter, and decisions are handled by distant authorities, and increasingly at transnational levels. I’ll add that part of it obviously includes Deep State swamp creatures, Eurocrats, UN cookie pushers, and other NWO characters.

And, in any case, the representatives are ipso facto members of the ruling class, who soon adopt ruling class standards and aspirations, if they did not hold them already.

This managerial class, naturally, believes that they’re fit to run the show. However, they’re cogs in the system and have “little scope or basis for independence.” Moreover:

Nor are the people in a position to resist. Without an independent structure of discussion and authority, they cannot organize themselves effectively. The destruction of non-liberal authorities and forms of order enables the regime to maintain itself with the appearance of consent and minimal use of force. The people have the theoretical power to end affirmative action, mass third-world immigration, and other inclusivist initiatives, but they let them stand. Thus, these measures are held to have democratic legitimacy in spite of their unpopularity.

Objecting to expanded centralized powers is one more of those taboo topics. A long description follows of society where traditional distinctions are downplayed or made unimportant. The picture lengthily painted is a broad canvas of Clown World in soft pastels. The deracinated citizens align themselves into PC-acceptable identities, for example:

The system is pointless, so people try to escape it. This is why the rebel without a cause has become a major social type, although not one whose efforts go anywhere. He even is a failure at rebelling: how can you rebel against liberation? In the end, people turn to anything at all as a way of establishing who they are, even defacing their own bodies through piercing, tattooing, cutting, or anorexia.

The book doesn’t mention bugmen, furries, transdoodles, or wiggers, but it’s not hard to see how they fit into this analysis.

Exhibit F: Progress or Decline?

This mushy mass culture leaves a lot of people unsatisfied. How should society be ordered, then? The liberal answer is essentially to “do your own thing,” though their wise experts have the final say on what goes. I’ll add that they do a great job talking freedom-loving classical liberal rhetoric while practicing nanny-state measures, seldom getting called out for inconsistency.

Our ruling class and its hangers-on are convinced that they are radically superior, morally and intellectually, to everyone who has ever lived. They have extricated themselves from inveterate error and now see the obvious, so that any drug-addled rocker against racism is justified in looking down on the saints and sages of the past.

In the end, there’s not much to love about the practical results. Affirmative Action isn’t merely a politically fashionable graft; it has some serious real-world consequences. Inclusiveness has become divisive. By promoting dependence on the government, it hurts the people it was intended to help, leading to some ugly results. The beneficiaries even feel resentful. (What a surprise. . .) After liberal policies were implemented, outcomes got worse for blacks, Hispanics, women, and gays.

Exhibit G: Liberalism and Its Competitors

This begins describing several ideologies, their source of authority, and why they all fall short. (The analysis seems too hasty in dismissing them.) The rest of the chapter discusses Christianity. First is the liberal-friendly variety, essentially watered down into little more than ultracalvinism.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here [16]

A long discussion of Catholicism follows; Mr. Kalb’s preferred denomination. He sees that even their message has adapted to the times, but argues that Catholic dogma is really more eternal than that. Moreover, Scripture such as Galatians 3:28 is not really “a manifesto for contemporary left-wing egalitarianism.”

Although I’m an outsider here, I’ll add some observations. Christianity is a universal religion, but there’s no mandate to eradicate worldly differences on the basis of spiritual unity. Neither is it necessary to disrupt the multiplicity of nations within their boundaries which developed in accordance with Providence. (David Duke’s My Awakening had some similar observations.) Those who assert the contrary generally have a habit of disregarding scriptures that they don’t like, and it seems that they aren’t so interested in religion as such, but merely put a halo on their ideology. Finally, Catholic doctrine has several helpful principles, such as the subsidiarity doctrine [17] which is the antidote to managerial centralization.

Exhibit H: Back to the Center

The principles behind the liberal order seem fair, but the devil is in the details:

Trying to make everyone equally happy isn’t possible, certainly not by an overreaching managerial state.

As a highest principle, equal freedom ends in soft, smothering tyranny. Such a tyranny is likely to become increasingly chaotic. Systems tend toward entropy, political systems being like all others.

If — or rather when — all this collapses under its own contradictions, “the question is how much damage they will do while they are with us and what will happen when the system falls apart. Where they cannot create, utopias destroy.”

Apparently, this does not end well. A backlash is certainly possible, and moderate reform will be the best hope to prevent it.

Scientism fails to provide a workable model. Liberals can’t make everyone equally happy. Necessary instead are things like sensibility, tradition, and experience. Discernment will be the best guide. For the final word on difficult questions, he envisions Church authority, or something similar. To me, this much seems like an odd conclusion; Constitutional law worked pretty well until the Warren Court when SCOTUS started exceeding its authority routinely.

Exhibit I: Making It Real

The contemporary forms of both liberalism and conservatism feature inclusiveness, just to a different degree. (In other words, you can choose either liberal reverse discrimination, or the neutral treatment that cuckservatives cringeworthily call “honoring the heritage of the late MLK.” Either way, people like us aren’t supposed to choose our own side.) There needs to be another alternative.

The book then describes what an anti-inclusivist right might look like. It’s nothing too remarkable. (No helicopter rides are involved.) Generally, it’s a matter of turning away from some of the intellectual flaws of liberal theory and also embracing the virtues and goods that find no place in liberalism. Some reframing will be necessary, for one example:

The point of politics is not abolition of inequalities and barriers to the free expression of the will, but rather it is the defense and facilitation of a life worth living. If you cannot talk about what that is, you cannot talk about politics.

Some new tips are given on bringing our liberal friends back down to earth from Epsilon Eridani, but it doesn’t go too far.

Exhibit J: Conclusion

Liberalism has been remarkably resilient, but it won’t last forever. Some social arrangements such as family might serve as a counterweight for now. Society may degenerate further yet. Liberalism doesn’t have the answers, and this is an area of opportunity.

We cannot expect fast results, but, if we have something to offer, we have reason to be confident in the ultimate outcome. Basic issues cannot be suppressed forever and can reassert themselves very quickly, when the wind changes. Pour water into a bucket full of sand and it looks as if nothing is happening, until the bucket overflows.

When liberalism ends, there’s likely going to be some upheaval, and we need to be prepared with better answers.


Sometimes the analysis falls short, though this is understandable given the scope Kalb set out to cover. One item is the foundational observation that the few remaining PC-acceptable identity categories are those resulting from commercial activity or government measures:

Instead, people must sort themselves out by class, money, style, occupational level, and educational certification.

Although the connection isn’t made, that loosely boils down to class consciousness. (In this regard, old-style cultural Marxism worked as designed.) Still, there’s more to the picture than the foundational premise can explain. The System actively encourages identity politics for protected groups, but anathematizes it for others. Only the latter are expected to take inclusiveness and tolerance seriously. In practice, new-style cultural Marxism (political correctness, intersectionality, etc.) is loaded up with special pleading, pernicious biases [18], in-your-face agitprop [19], mania for the abnormal [20], and so forth.

Mr. Kalb indeed is aware of the glaring double standards saturating political correctness. His analysis essentially is that it results from the impossibility of social policy favoring all identity groups evenly. I’ll have to differ here. Did the constellation of very widely disparate interest groups in the liberal-minority coalition just spontaneously fall into place at random during the 1960s? (Granted, it would take a long history lecture [21] even to begin going into all that.) Moreover, how has this odd fruit salad remained remarkably cohesive and with fewer public disputes than might be expected?

The greatest limitation was skipping discussions of whether or not some group differences are innate. Mr. Kalb certainly is aware of the controversies. He occasionally steps as close as possible to it without taking sides, though a “what if” case could be useful — as I’ll illustrate shortly. Fortunately, there are many other books available to fill in the gaps.

Closing arguments

The book did reference specific news events, often in the footnotes. Still, even more yet would’ve been helpful too. That would’ve brought to concrete form more of his theoretical objections to liberalism, as well as clarifying what specifically he meant. Without that, sometimes it gets a little dry. Basically, whenever one mentions: “Liberal theory implies A, B, and C. . .” it makes it all the more compelling to illustrate (for example) how A, B, and C are responsible for the SHAFTA Treaty, the deregulation of the financial sector, and annoying rap music.

Mr. Kalb understands the cult-like characteristics of political correctness, realizes the inversion agenda, and is aware of the totalitarian extent of PC micromanagement. Against Inclusiveness went pretty far down the rabbit hole. Still, some areas are left unexplored. Globalism is touched on, but briefly. Some other dark forces driving numerous destructive trends are left unmentioned. He doesn’t describe in great depth what this means for our future if it’s not stopped, though he has at least some general ideas. These missing pieces aren’t a problem, since others have connected the dots pretty well.

Other than that, despite all the discussion of the implications of liberal theory, there are some much simpler factors too: self-interest, collusion, and outright malice. The soi-disant progressive left is an alliance of convenience among groups having little to nothing in common besides shared grudges and the desire for more freebies. The Hive is backed and generally kept on target by The System, powerful globalist-minded institutions harboring their own agendas.

Whatever fine rhetoric they sometimes use, the endgame isn’t really about an equitable redistribution (as they see it) of resources, representation, prestige, etc. The mask is beginning to slip off, now that they think they have it in the bag. Some of them have made their open hostility [22] pretty clear; to put it mildly, the world they want has no place for us. Lofty notions like inclusiveness were only manipulation tactics to twist our sense of fair play against us.

Finally, there are reasons why one might want to steer clear of difficult topics like human biodiversity and race realism. Nonetheless, the arguments the book presents will be especially helpful for civic nationalists and the Alt-Lite, since they have to make their case while avoiding these topics likewise. (They do have a place; all I ask is that they don’t hinder the rest of us [23].) Those higher on the “deplorability” scale also can benefit from familiarizing themselves with what Against Inclusiveness has to say as supporting evidence.

For us, remember that avoiding topics about differences between identity groups is a tactical disadvantage. One side of the debate can assert absolute egalitarianism; the idea that race is nothing more than appearance (or for that matter, that the sexes are identical besides a few unimportant body parts). Meanwhile, the other side mustn’t contradict it. There’s a reason why leftists have pushed radical egalitarian notions aggressively since Rousseau and sometimes even faked their research (Boas, Mead, Lysenko, Gould) while doing their utmost to maintain a taboo over opposing views and otherwise muddy the waters. The stakes are tremendous, and that too can be demonstrated on the theoretical level. Specifically, if the absolute egalitarianism premise is false, then the usual nebulous, immeasurable, unfalsifiable, and therefore tautological explanations for differing outcomes — “privilege,” structural this, institutionalized that, systematic whatever, collective guilt, etc. — don’t hold water, badly failing the Occam’s Razor test.

What if biologically differing categories of people actually do have innate differences resulting in different average abilities or behavior [24]? If so, attempts to produce equality of results are wrongheaded, along with much other procrustean nonsense. They’re doomed to become expensive boondoggles failing to deliver the goods. In practice, this involves massive wealth transfers, overreaching utopian social engineering, and endless propaganda. The long history of tax-funded giveaways, misspent donations, bureaucratic overhead [25], shakedowns, lost productivity [26], overburdened law enforcement, urban blight, mass rioting, and so forth amounts to trillions of dollars wasted on social leveling schemes and managing problems caused by diversity.


The revelations will not be much of a surprise for most of those within the Dissident Right. We already know the score, and then some. For us, the primary value will be additional intellectual ammunition in the war of narratives. It’s packed with useful talking points, as well as counterarguments knocking the legs out from under the opposition’s usual shtick.

For mainstream conservatives, this should be a decent wakeup call. The more timid variety of libertarians might grow a pair. Any liberals with functioning logic circuits brave enough to get all the way through it will have their faith at least shaken. (Most liberals don’t really delve nearly this far into their theory. Often they’ll consider their ideology simply a matter of fairness or similar fine sentiments. Emotion and self-interest are other common factors.) Overall, this is a good fit for a highbrow audience to show that there’s something deeply wrong with the warm and squishy concept of “inclusiveness.”

If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page [27] and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.