I know we’ve covered a lot of race-based topics lately, but see if you can read this post independent of racial topics:
As more and more black renters began moving into this mostly white San Francisco Bay Area suburb a few years ago, neighbors started complaining about loud parties, mean pit bulls, blaring car radios, prostitution, drug dealing and muggings of schoolchildren.
In 2006, as the influx reached its peak, the police department formed a special crime-fighting unit to deal with the complaints, and authorities began cracking down on tenants in federally subsidized housing.
Now that police unit is the focus of lawsuits by black families who allege the city of 100,000 is orchestrating a campaign to drive them out.
The reason we eliminate race from the equation is that, in a multicultural society where you are a minority, any opposition at first seems like racism. It’s the same way kids always feel their teachers “hate them” when the teachers grade them down for sub-par work.
But here we have a simple equation: impoverished people moving into an area, and local residents are afraid that the area will come to resembles areas from which impoverished people come. Not illogical: poverty implies a certain degree of detachment from social process and, if they’ve lived in such places, their standards come pre-lowered.
Why did this happen?
A growing number of landlords were seeking a guaranteed source of revenue in a city hard-hit by foreclosures. They began offering their Antioch homes to low-income tenants in the HUD Section 8 housing program, which pays about two-thirds of every tenant’s rent.
So Uncle Sap is subsidizing these landlords who figure guaranteed income is better than higher income, all in the name of doing good, and therefore, a community is ruined.
The press will try to spin the race angle — why? it’s spicier, because it’s the elephant in the room of US politics: we all know history has no examples of surviving successful multicultural republics, only third-world ruins in their place — but really this is about income and well-intentioned government policies wrecking otherwise nice places.
Oh, and what were the results of these innocent poor people moving in — I’ll put it here to make it crystal clear:
In 2006, violent crime in Antioch shot up about 19 percent from the year before, while property crime went down slightly.
Police sent 315 complaints about subsidized tenants to the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which manages the federal program in the city, and urged the agency to evict many of them for lease violations such as drug use or gun possession.
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire wants illegal immigrants serving time in state jails deported, a move intended to save the state more than $9 million in the next two-year budget.
The deportation proposal is modeled after a program in Arizona that has saved the state more than $18.5 million since 2005, said Eldon Vail, Secretary of the state Department of Corrections.
Between 1995 and 2007, New York has saved an estimated $141 million by releasing more than 1,950 illegal immigrant inmates to federal hands, according to the New York State Department of Correctional Services.
“Immigrants are a vulnerable group politically, that face the brunt of difficult budget situations,” State Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton said. “I understand this is to preserve state resources, but we’re often talking about people’s lives.”
The people without goals astound me. “But it’s peoples lives!” Yes, it is and so is everything else. Your job is to take care of your people. Let other places take care of their people and if they can’t, alas, it is natural selection and we move on.
These neurotic people fear so much for themselves they get twitchy any time they hear about a tragedy anywhere. It’s because when you are a narcissistic solipsist, every tragedy seems like a symbolic act done to you alone, even if it happened to someone else.
News flash: There is no such thing as objectivity in American journalism. Instead, in large part as a result of the formulaic practices that are taught in U.S. journalism schools, what most mass-media news organizations pursue is what might be described as merely the presentation of the appearance of objectivity (or “objectivity”) in their reporting about any particular subject. Thus, on television, the same talking heads from the so-called left and the so-called right (American media incorrectly use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” all the time, but that’s the subject of another discussion) routinely appear, simplistically representing their host programs’ dutiful attempts to appear “objective.”
Good description of why you should avoid taking the opinion industry seriously.
Africanized bees owe their existence to science. Warwick E. Kerr created them in Brazil during the 1950s by crossing a European bee with an African bee. He wanted a bee that could live in the jungle. He got a bee that swarms by the hundreds of millions, is insanely territorial, mindlessly aggressive, has killed anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand people.
There is no physical way to determine the difference between an Africanized bee and a common European bee. None whatsoever.
Hybridization does not always produce the convenient “better product” we hope for.
Probably for a good reason — or rather, several.
Visiting — or even just viewing photos of family members — prompts brain activity that affects how you feel about them, your friends, and even yourself, a new study suggests.
“We like to be around people that look more like us, but we do not find them as sexually attractive,” added Platek, editor-in-chief of the journal Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience. “I think it is linked to our subconscious ability to detect facial resemblances so we avoid lusting after those that may be related to us.”
The scientists found that relatives and self-lookalikes are processed through a self-referential part of the brain. Friends and strangers who look nothing like the viewer, on the other hand, light up entirely different areas of the brain, those linked to making important and risky decisions with respect to the self.
Since relatives are processed through areas of the brain linked to self-reference, the study could also help to explain why relatives cause us to take things personally.
Yet another consequence of multiculturalism:
When people who really aren’t like you at all are introduced to a society, suddenly everyone vaguely like you starts to seem like a relation. So you head for whatever isn’t already you.
This research explains inherent in-group/out-group human tendencies: we group by evolutionary paths, with those who look similar having passed similar tests and thus having similar abilities, thus allowing us to breed for those traits.
However, when society truly becomes a random mix of people, that collapses, and we start averaging ourselves.
Look around you, and your fellow voters. They’re pretty darn simple.
For example, they thought Obama would bring hope and change… and now are disappointed. They didn’t realize the president is just the symbol, and the underlying machine that gets him elected and gets bills signed is more important.
It’s like expecting a new miller to stop the grinding noises. He can’t. Grinding is what he does, like lobbying is what a president does, and anyone who steps off that reservation is going to find themselves with none of the allies in industry, social groups, minority groups, Hollywood, and ten thousand other lobbies that they’re going to need.
For another example, they expect Israel to just “be cool man” and hand over land to Palestinians because they ask for it. Israel, being aware of history, knows it needs to eventually remove these people so Israel can be a Jewish state. Those fellow voters who are easy to fool want them to hand over whatever the Palestinians ask for, because that will keep the peace.
Keep the peace? How simple-minded. Would you rather keep the peace, or get anything done? If keeping the peace is your only goal, you will soon live in third-world squalor, because every great achievement requires disturbing those opposed to it, and they are generally opposed from the basest reasons: laziness, fear, territoriality, etc.
Look at your fellow simple-minded voters. These people do not have the knowledge or mindset to make decisions. But if you read and understood the above, you will.
Look at history: multicultural states only occur when a civilization is about to collapse.
One race must always be the pitied, and one the pitier, until they switch roles and destroy each other.
Israel is learning this now. Once the darling of the left, they went from oppressed to oppressor as soon as a darker tribe wanted a handout and Israel wouldn’t just “be cool man” and give it to them.
Now the left hates Israel, and die-hard pro-civil-rights liberals are saying things so base and anti-Semitic they would have appalled even Hitler.
What did we learn? The lower always becomes the pitied, and is used as a weapon against others for the purposes of lowering/raising status.
Then the civilization collapses.
We see this pattern again and again.
What’s happening in Israel is, as “activists” never fail to remind us, a civil rights struggle.
In any population, the minority always creates resentment by not being with the plan and quite honestly, by threatening that plan. Then “activists” decide they can give meaning to their lives by championing the minority.
The end result is open collaboration, and covert dark and furious hatred.
The civilization begins a fatal pattern of infighting that leads to collapse.
This is how every multicultural state on earth has ended.
If you’re assumed to be a victim, you are supposed to talk about your victimization and make it job #1. If you’re not assumed to be a victim, and you talk in any way about the victimization of another, you’re thought to be motivated by hate because, hey, what do you have to worry about? You belly full. But what if you care about the future of your civilization because, say, you’ve got kids?
As Samuel Huntington showed us, each ethnic group prefers to associate with those who are like it — religiously, culturally, in values and in heritage.
Multiculturalism doesn’t work, for any race, no matter which races are involved. The problem isn’t blacks or whites — it’s multiculturalism.
I can’t imagine a white person putting together a blog about white racial issues and not getting called a Nazi.
Ah, it’s so easy to side with the underdog — instead of figuring out what’s right, figure out what makes you feel powerful for helping the disadvantaged.
Science sometimes confirms what we knew all along:
A new study by researchers at Vanderbilt University in Nashville and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City suggests a biological explanation for why certain people tend to live life on the edge — it involves the neurotransmitter dopamine, the brain’s feel-good chemical.
Dopamine is responsible for making us feel satisfied after a filling meal, happy when our favorite football team wins, or really happy when we use stimulating drugs like amphetamines or cocaine, which can artificially squeeze more dopamine out of the nerve cells in our brain. It’s also responsible for the high we feel when we do something daring, like skiing down a double black diamond slope or skydiving out of a plane. In the risk taker’s brain, researchers report in the Journal of Neuroscience, there appear to be fewer dopamine-inhibiting receptors — meaning that daredevils’ brains are more saturated with the chemical, predisposing them to keep taking risks and chasing the next high: driving too fast, drinking too much, overspending or even taking drugs.
The findings support Zald’s theory that people who take risks get an unusually big hit of dopamine each time they have a novel experience, because their brains are not able to inhibit the neurotransmitter adequately. That blast makes them feel good, so they keep returning for the rush from similarly risky or new behaviors, just like the addict seeking the next high.
In a society where there are essentially few actual risks, this means we become addicted to a search for novel behavior.
We need a frontier.
Despite the year’s economic meltdown (which itself wasn’t banished but don’t rule it out for next year), the most entries came from the environmental category – for “green” or “going green.”
“If I see one more corporation declare itself ‘green,’ I’m going to start burning tires in my backyard,” wrote Ed Hardiman of Bristow, Va., in his submission.
It’s against all logic to think that buying a “green” product will solve the problem.
The problem is too many people, and they all want suburban homes, cars and modern medical care.
All of that takes infrastructure and much more land than the house itself — hospitals, factories, roads, farms, water treatment plants, and so on — making their footprint bigger than their personal purchasing footprint.
If we had a half-billion people, they could all live comfortably, and cities would be small enough for people to identify bastards and kill them, thus furthering natural selection.
Instead, we’ve got seven billion people — remember, tolerate everyone no matter how stupid! — and so we’re extinguishing ourselves and our environment.
Good thinking. But the truth is never popular, even up until the end.