Bioleninism and the importance of ethnocultural homogeneity
Diversity is easily the best word to describe the System’s cultural agenda for the past few decades. The explicit premise is promoting underrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minorities, the implicit goal is the systemic suppression and eventual elimination of straight white men, who are and have always been the most functional and productive members of Western civilizations. The diversity agenda is, in of itself, the cult of Bioleninism.
It shouldn’t be news to anyone that diversity is bad (if you still have doubts, I recommend you check out this paper), but beyond that, we must understand why ethnocultural and social uniformity are crucial. The negative side-effects of diversity are directly opposite to the benefits of homogeneity, and the reasoning for that is pretty clear-cut: people with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds are less likely to disagree (and thus create conflict) and are able to more efficiently cooperate with each other. The very reason nations were formed in the first place is because similar people united and cooperated in order to repel foreign and hostile groups, to reject this is to plunge into an atomistic spiral to decivilization.
Culture plays a huge role in the determination of value (which is subjective), this is perhaps most evident in our centuries-old works of art, which are often priced in the hundreds of thousands or even millions, despite having little material value. Consumers with different cultural backgrounds may value certain goods and services differently, just as workers may value their own labor differently. Therefore, an abundance of cultures within the same market may amount to problematic price calculation, which is precisely what is currently happening in the West.
With cultural uniformity ensured, both employers and employees would have similar concepts of reasonable work conditions, shift times, holiday breaks, vacations, valid justifications for absence, etc. removing the necessity for those things to be artificially defined through legislation, which would also allow for some flexibility. With worker rights, wages and overall aspects of labor established and maintained by culture rather than legislation, there is no room for such legislation to be usurped in favor of any corporations or the state itself.
The other key aspect is, of course, the biological differences between different groups. Said differences imply different roles in the social division of labor (e.g. homemaker vs breadwinner, white-collar vs blue-collar workers), which are maintained as cultural pillars (or “social constructs”). Disturbing these pillars not only disturbs the economy, but also creates a vacuum wherever changes are made. For instance, when feminists reject motherhood in favor of professional careers, there is an increase in the supply of labor (which men are largely more fit for) and a decrease in the number of mothers (which men are completely unfit for, obviously).
In a free society, the groups who naturally perform better will be the natural aristocracy, thus the presence of minority groups of any kind naturally results in hostility. By allowing such groups to exist and granting them political power as we have in the West, they will naturally grow and bind together as their inferior socioeconomic performance implies a degree of dependency on the state that does not exist for the majority, and that’s why the Overton window constantly shifts to the left.
Essentially, Communism thrives from plotting all of those with a natural low-status against the aristocracy, replacing it with a new ruling class of rootless cosmopolitans of a different demographic, thus the maintenance of minority groups within a nation is not only prejudicial to itself, but also an indirect threat to private property. In short, enforcing ethnocultural homogeneity is quintessential for society to exert its full potential as well as keeping ideological threats at bay.