Against Inclusiveness

book coverMy new book, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It, is now out. It treats inclusiveness as an expression of scientism, rationalized methods of social organization, and the interests and habitual outlook of our ruling classes. I say that at bottom it’s an attempt to do away with forms of social organization other than global markets and transnational expert bureaucracies. I also discuss what to do about it. You might want to give it a try!

UPDATE: My first review, from Orthosphere promoter Bruce Charlton.

About these ads

25 thoughts on “Against Inclusiveness

  1. Just a suggestion: Those with tight budgets might consider requesting that their local and/or college library order a copy.

    Let the regime subsidize Squire Kalb’s work!

  2. Having nearly finished “Tyranny of Liberalism” I am eager to try this new offering. I recommend the former highly.

  3. “You might want to give it a try!”
    Might? Might?!
    I’ve been waiting eons* for you to put out a new book!!
    And finally that day has come, thank you Mr. Kalb.
    I’m sure this will be an enlightening read, as always.

    *Okay, maybe not eons, more like years…or months..or something like that. The point is that your “Tyranny of Liberalism” debuted 2008, almost 5 years ago. Even if technically I had not been waiting that long, I was still waiting all that time…in spirit. ;)

  4. Mr. Kalb,

    Does this book suggest that an “exclusivity” is your preferred manner of being?

    Do you, in fact, desire to strive towards Supremacy such that you as a white man would be, by definition, a genuine white Supremacist and seeker of exclusivity?

    Is it not a fact that greater than the desire for a coercive all-inclusiveness is the liberal’s insatiable hatred for exclusivity. Exclusivity, of course, being the inevitable outcome for one genuinely striving towards Supremacy?

    • To say inclusiveness can’t be a supreme value doesn’t make exclusion the supreme value. The value of inclusion and exclusion are determined by reference to other substantive goods.

      • Mr. Kalb,

        We have to be more specific about what we are talking about. It’s not just inclusion versus exclusion. It is a coercive all-inclusiveness versus naturally exclusionary actions. The former seeks to banish the latter with hatred as its primary motivator.

        If you desire to explain “Liberalism” in the most complete and thorough manner, you would not necessarily hold “exclusion” as your highest value BUT you would to some degree become “exclusionary” IF your explanation of “Liberalism” was most truthful.

        Now, as a Chrisitian, it is a given that you believe in the existence of objective Supremacy. If you then desire to strive towards this objective Supremacy, it would not necessitate you holding “exclusion” as your highest value BUT it would suggest that your genuine effort would render you to some degree “exclusionary.” This effect is only amplified if all around you seek “inclusion.”

      • A point of the book that is made explicitly is that for a religious or cultural community to exist and function in its own way there has to be some degree of religious or cultural (e.g. ethnic) discrimination. Ditto for sex discrimination and a normal system of marriage and family life.

  5. “Liberalism’s” desire for an all-inclusiveness even if obtained by tyrannical methods is not its highest value, but a means to an end, ie., Final Liberation. To assert “inclusion” as “Liberalism’s” highest value is to simply obscure its desired goal of self-annihilation and the fact of increasing alienation FOR ALL.

    • I said a supreme goal, not the sole supreme goal. The point is that the end state to which liberalism aspires would involve total inclusiveness on dimensions such as sex and ethnicity, which means total abolition of sex and ethnicity as social ordering principles.

  6. A quotation from Mr Kalb’s book in Mr Charlton’s review of it:

    “At bottom, coolness is as silly as people think. It is notoriously unsustainable. Those who live by it either crash and burn, fall into gross hypocrisy (“sell out”), or grow out of it.”

    What exactly is “coolness”? Is it merely a pose? Miles Davis was once described as the King of Cool, and I hate his music. So I consulted the the Wikipedia article on Cool (aesthetic) in hope of enlightenment. My dreary conclusion is that the compliment “cool” is applied to any human behaviour which is esteemed by the bovine majority at the present hour.

    • Real “cool” is exactly as it sounds: emotional stability especially when others around you are not. It implies aloofness, force of will, and unmovability. In reasonable doses it is a virtue of sorts. But “cool” definitely could not possibly care about “being cool”. Is it a pose? If you can hold the pose long enough!

      • There appears to be a theory and practice of Cool (that I was hardly aware of). At this very moment in a Department of Sociology at some deservedly obscure university, perhaps students are feigning an interest as a tutorette drones on about the sexual significance of “coolness”. How many commentaries on “coolness”, written by unemployable wretches, have appeared already in learned journals?

        I’d bet that there’s an academic industry devoted entirely to the study of “coolness” in all its infinite variety.

      • Contemporary “coolness” conveys to the observer a pose of control and detachment. Someone acting cool must strive to show little concern or caring for goings on around him. Unflappable. Relaxed and chilled out, as if they would function just as smoothly in prison as at a bar scene. A “cool” person is expected to not narc on his cohorts or express disapproval about much of anything. It is a narcissistic self-preservation strategy, the opposite of building meaningful ties to others. It is also necessarily anti-intellectual since it must sacrifice earnestness (squareness) to achieve its effect.

        On the other hand, “Never lose your cool” is very good advice indeed.

  7. Dear people, “cool” has been uncool for many years now, this book gave it its definite burial: http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture-Consumerism/dp/0226260127 and it is expiring in the infinite ironies of hipsterism.

    I read some of Charlton’s excerpts of Kalb’s book. As far as I can tell, it is not liberalism or inclusion that he objects to, but the modern condition in toto. It is not “liberalism” that leads to people pursuing cool as opposed to some deeper value, but consumer capitalism. Liberals for the most part trying to work for what they see as transcendent values, which makes them somewhat old-fashioned and uncool. Hipsters — what passes for cool these days — are different; their response to modernism is irony, repurposed fashion, and lifestyle twiddles like making their own artisanal cupcakes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s