>Identity politics is morally wrong and objectionable.
Why?
Virtue is not distilled within certain aspects of one's personal identification.
Identity politics is also incompatible with the cement that glues the diverse American polity together. It not only stresses what divides us from each other, but also eschews, as a mere power play, the natural-law rationale for inherent human rights that was cited in the Declaration of Independence. All that’s left, then, is will-to-power, and the only question is how to gain power, which is now understood to include the power to define “reality.” When everything becomes will-to-power, we end up with nothing but a war of all against all. Nobody wins that.
Acting as if all people can be separated from their genetics because of an ideal is optimistic at best. Culture is downstream from genetics. You can not bring tribal elements into a society based on the ideals of logic and justice and expect the magic soil to change them. It does not. There is ample evidence of this. Your hope that it's true is not enough to make it true.
Cultures built on sentiment, will never embrace logic. They will always be tribal. Tribal survival is more important to them than justice. Logic is overwhelmed by sentiment. With jews, it's the fact that their father is Satan who is also the father of the lie. They are, quite literally, the people of the lie. How will you reconcile that with logic and justice?
magic soil
The magic is the rules. Which traits to reward, which traits to punish. Who gets to live and who has to die. Nature always sets such rules. But society can do this too.
Everything in the world keeps changing. Our cells aren't an exception. From birth to death, all our cells keep mutating. Without the rules to differentiate between good and bad, every race will inevitably become unstable.
When the same trait can be produced or strengthen by different genes, an offspring would be better than the parents. When the difference between good and bad is known and rewarded, even diversity will bring strength.
When the rules are known and followed, races become irrelevant. When the rules are forgotten, even the strongest race will destroy itself.
I always use the term Beelzebub. Why? Lord of the flies. And what do flies congregate on, and eat? SHIT! Ergo, Lord of the shit eaters!
Tribalism surrenders itself to self-interests. Morals and ethos although they may serve one's self interests at times does not surrender itself solely to self interests.
Identity politics primarily separates people because of their "genetics." I refuse to participate.
>Identity politics is also incompatible with the cement that glues the diverse American polity together.
This is historically inaccurate
Until 1964 if memory serves, the US immigration policy was specifically designed to preserve a white christian majority. Jewish lobby succeeded at changing that, we see the result now
Besides, it is known since antiquity that ethnic diversity creates factions eventually leading to internal conflicts. Ethnic unity is far more desirable to ethnic diversity. Ethnocentrism is the winning survival strategy
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/02/24/aristotle-on-immigration-diversity-and-democracy/
Aristotle is greatly concerned with the preservation of civil peace in the city-state. One of the most common causes of “faction” and civil war, he says, was the unhappy consequences of unassimilated immigration and the consequent diversity. Aristotle’s prose is perfectly clear:
>Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted. (1303A13)
Thus, immigration of different peoples was a common source of conflict, often leading to civil war and concluding with the ethnic cleansing of either the native peoples or the invaders.
...
Ethnic diversity doesn't result in greater unity, it brings the opposite, and it's precisely why it's been sold to us as desirable
(post is archived)