Posts Tagged ‘affirmative action’

Western Civilization Has Doomed Itself By Choosing Affirmative Action

Wednesday, April 5th, 2017

Western Civilization has cursed itself by implementing affirmative action as part of its culture

It may have been adopted out of good intentions and warm feelings. The reality never changes, however. Affirmative action is inevitably used as a weapon by minorities to extract free benefits at the expense of Western civilization.

It can be equated to self-flagellation in Catholic terms, or psychologically to ad nauseum self-critique of the once proud European individual.

Instead of balancing imperfection, Western man strove for perfection and in the process realized deep down how imperfect he really is. The Germans are a telling example, where their incredible individualist achievements resulted in a deep self-critique type of unintended flawed, even dark organizational culture. All their efforts to regain some stature keep on failing i.e. the European Monetary Union and Volkswagen’s fraudulent exhaust systems.

Another example is the famous Boer nation in Africa. They conquered an arid country resulting in cross-border ambitions which included UN sanctioned administration of Namibia and a successful British de-colonialization project in the 1960s. But in the process they realized deep down that they were/are imperfect resulting in the failed, but valiantly flawed attempt to transfer power to Mandela.

Boers remained the skunk, just like the Germans remained the Nazi.

They say that intelligent peoples are subdued by their known lack of knowledge, while dumb people are enamored by the same.

This self-curse is of course widespread in American culture. It reached a pinnacle when America literally elected an Affirmative Action President riding on the progressive wave of a soon-to-fail Mandela. Just like in Germany and South Africa, Americans suffer the same self-critique continuing even after their capitulation to Obama.

This is evident in the failed election polls that predicted a landslide Clinton victory. The reason polls failed is that people lied.  And the fact is, despite getting their secret wish fulfilled, they keep on lying. Further evidence of this is found in the unusually confused fake news stories where journalists, previously thinking that they were the only ones lying, now have to depend on a lying public.

The American culture will always be called progressive and they will suffer the same outcome as a result that Germans and Boers are suffering.  If one takes that Germans had a massive production machinery resource and Boers had a massive gold resource, then it could be said that America had a massive human resource.

This means that changing our method of managing these resources will not help because affirmative action grows to consume all available resources. What we tolerate increases. When we create policies that encourage free riding, and do so on the basis of presumed racial guilt, the group of takers will increase to sabotage the makers just enough to create collapse conditions.

Our only way out is through nihilism: an end to the politics of human intent, and a beginning to leadership by results. Affirmative action is destructive and will never reach an end date, but will only expand. This means that affirmative action has failed in terms of results, and needs to be abolished.

Once that form of guilt-mongering is out of the way, we can re-balance our political dialogue to establish a realistic self-critique instead of an overly-emotional one. But for this to happen, affirmative action first must die.

Los Angeles Schools and The Dolezal Option

Friday, March 31st, 2017

So how much are you willing to pay for the right to publically announce that you are White? How much of a negative externality are you willing to place on your neighbors? Let’s submit racial identity to a von Nuemann-Morgenstern Preference Lottery.

If Johnnie Whitebread would pay $750/child/month to subscribe to the Caucasian Persuasion like it was DirecTV, he could be said to value his White Privelege at least that much. Otherwise, he could resign from Whiteness and become whatever else his can of spray tan could make him. Call it The Dolezal Option.

The thesis stated above would be considered ridiculous in any polite society. Perhaps it’s why I don’t live in Los Angeles, California. You see, if you get control of the public schools, and slant the playing field against White Parents hoping to have their children educated and prepared to join adult society, then you can essentially tax their lack of Melanin. To avoid this sort of sanction, parents effectively give up their Whiteness.

White parents who stand to lose teachers and counselors at their neighborhood public school in Los Angeles are changing their ethnic status with LA Unified to get around a district policy that strips extra staff from schools that are more than 30 percent white. And some Latino parents who fear deportation under the Trump Administration are saying they are white, further imperiling the smaller class sizes guaranteed under a 40-year-old desegregation settlement. A 1978 legal settlement requires that LA schools with less than 30 percent white students get extra teachers, counselors, and parent-teacher conferences. But each year, a handful of schools lose that status, known as PHBAO (pronounced “fuh-BOW”) — an acronym for “Predominantly Hispanic, Black, Asian, or Other.”

As a student of Economic Mathematics, the Linear Algebra of Racism occurring here is fascinating in a cynically detached sort of a way. This all came to a head in the case of Walter Reed Middle School. You see, Walter Reed will lose money, teachers and councilors should it exceed the hard racial cap of 30% White. In one row of the Racial Identity Gaming Matrix, we have Evil Caucasoids identifying as Talcum X, or anything that will prevent the loss of school quality. On another row, we have Hispanics claiming to be Trump Compliant in order to prevent too close an examination of their current immigration status. If ICE fears generate Off-Whites more rapidly than The Quota System generates Dolezals, then Walter Reed Middle School fires or transfers teachers.

In essence, we have an environment that attacks the traditions of communities and families by providing them with perverse economic incentives to disavow their racial past. Call it ethnic cleansing via moral hazard. While professional Cost Estimators are chided not to consider cost avoidances as monetary benefits, I guaruntee you that they take them into account everytime they examine their bank accounts. The perhaps unintended consequence of Los Angeles’ Civil Rights Raceturbation involving the LAUSD is that they are effectively paying people to deny their own racial heritage. If it works as well as terrorism, you can bet on seeing it proliferate.

This isn’t a new trend in Hyper-racial Amerika. A personnel man my father used to know was African-American enough to professionally survive suggesting that his buddy exploit a DoD program that gave preferences in small business contracting to Native Americans. He told him he could make a fortune if he just stopped being black and joined the MoNig Tribe when he filled out his bid paperwork. Perhaps he meant it as a joke. If the system is cynical, many will cynically game it in retribution. The Law of Attraction works whether we know of it or want it to.

But what of these children at Walter Reed Middle? Do they know their parents feel enjoined to lie about their God-breathed origins? Does it effect how they view themselves and their families? And what would you see in the mirror if you seriously tried to defraud the government as a proud founder of the MoNig Tribe. Does this help kill off who these people are? Is it the predictable consequence of attempting to enforce equality at the price of individual dignity? Is this existential ennui the only possible result of economically coercing people into The Dolezal Option?

Affirmative Action And The Coming White on White Civil War

Monday, March 6th, 2017

Affirmative Action is a weapon in the hands of wealthy white progressives. The SWPLs employ this weapon to marginalize, demean and strip wealth and opportunity from other, less affluent Whites who they collectively and personally detest on a deep and visceral level. Audacious Antigone describes the disparate impact of the typical Affirmative Action college admissions policy below.

For simplification, just think about whites and blacks. In both cases, the wealthier a person (or the family he grows up in) is, the better his academic performance tends to be. Whites outperform blacks at every level of socio-economic status (SES), but in the cases of both whites and blacks as SES increases so does academic performance. So if some number of whites who would otherwise be accepted to a school have to be cut out to make room for a corresponding number of blacks, it tends to be low SES whites who get the cutting. The blacks who get in are those who (relatively) narrowly missed getting in before the racial handicapping. These tend to be high SES blacks.

So “Affirmative Action” is a class stratification tool. It keeps down the JD Vances of Appalachia the way DDT got sprayed on mosquitoes in a wiser age. It’s been keeping the dirty and dangerous out of SWPL Honkeytopia since 1965. People who wonder why our nation is so divided need to get past just race. They need to look at how race issues have been weaponized, and just who they’ve been fired at, perhaps since Reconstruction.

It’s not just a question of letting Django off the chain. It’s who he gets directed towards once all the weapons are locked and loaded. Every time the SWPLs unleash a new policy to “undo racial discrimination” or “rectify the mistakes of the past” these never quite seem to rectify the goddam hell out Chelsea Clinton or one of The Kennedys. And this, my five to seven Constant Readers, is in no way, shape or form some unintentional externality.

As technology grew and distance receeded as a fact of life, Americans were effectively forced closer together. Put several competing species in the same ecosystem and the fit will invariable make contact with the shan. One subculture would get to be lead dog; while all the of the rest would quickly come to hate the view. This Z-Man post about Rock Music makes that insight in a different fashion.

Prior to the two great industrial wars of the 20th century, America did not have a unified national culture. It was federation of regions. New England may as well have been a different country from the Deep South or the Southwest. The South was very different from Appalachia. There was no unified “American” culture to which all the regional cultures submitted.

This enforced unification did what diversity does. Diversity plus proximity let to conflict. Affirmative Action was yet another weapon in the war to establish a certain group of Brahmins as cultural hegemons in The United States. How this “Great Society” impacted actual living and breathing blacks was an afterthought. It was about nailing down a pecking order and knocking certain people’s peckers on down into the dirt. It helped finish wrecking what opposition to progressivism still remained standing after Reconstruction and The New Deal. Once the outcaste Whites were cucked, then the outcaste Whites could be ruled.

So what happens when the masses uncuck? Well, Van Jones might have even had a point when he called it a Whitelash. Where he swung out of his cleats and missed on the Lord Charles was his assumption that it was specifically aimed at Blacks. Just as the original Civil War was predominantly white on white; so shall this one be as well. African Americans may get collatorally damaged; but as the YouTube saying goes: “Your blues are not my blues.” This is White on White – in house and in family. An old score, perhaps dating to 1867 is getting settled.

That puts the Left in a new and scary world. Issues can’t get graphed on an XY Axis between Authoritarianism v. Autonomy and Freedom v. Altruism. There’s a Z-Axis now. Elitism V. Populism. People fighting a 2-D battle are in a lot of trouble. This will be true of Elitist “Conservatives” as well as those on the Left. If Van Jones has a shell, he needs to make like a turtle. The artillary will yea verily start to fly.

Affirmative Action In The Crosshairs

Monday, March 6th, 2017

Despite having a journalist home among Communists, Ross Douthat tries to express an alternative (sometimes called “conservative”) view such as this suggestion that the imminent fall of Affirmative Action is a good thing:

After all, what are white Americans supposed to make of a system that offers Hispanic or Asian business owners an advantage never enjoyed by their own Irish or Polish or Scots-Irish forefathers, or boosts upper-class African and Caribbean college applicants whose ancestors never lived in slavery? What are they supposed to think of a system that was established 50 years ago as a temporary experiment, but keeps gaining new half-lives and further beneficiaries — moving “swiftly and imperceptibly,” as Chris Caldwell once put it, “from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong”?

His attack takes the form of a it-does-not-work analysis which is probably correct, and hints at what white people have noticed, which is that all legal actions styled after the Civil Rights act are based on impact, or “inequality of outcome” as last week’s internet trope has it, which means that white people are penalized for succeeding because the disparate results are considered de facto proof of racism.

This hint expands into other areas. Wealth transfer, as is usual for the Left, is at the top. Another is the thought that, as Plato mentioned, tyrants always buy loyalty from foreigners as a means of supplanting the power of the indigenous majority. Still more is that Affirmative Action and Civil Rights law are a basic form of tribalism where one tribe is presumed to be guilty and therefore, condemned until eternity to support the others.

Douthat offers a suggestion which, like 99.99% of everything in media, offers a band-aid for a gaping wound. “The good enough is the enemy of the good,” as the old saying goes, and most people — being inclined toward chumpiness, or greater fear of conflict than zeal for realistic answers — just want to patch up the leaky boat. He wants reparations without repatriation:

Instead of reparations as an addition to our current affirmative-action regime, then, maybe they should be considered as an alternative — one that directly addresses a unique government-sanctioned crime against part of the American people, without requiring a preference regime that makes lower-class white Americans feel like victims of a multicultural version of The Man.

So, this week’s immodest proposal: Abolish racial preferences in college admissions, phase out preferences in government hiring and contracting, eliminate the disparate-impact standard in the private sector, and allow state-sanctioned discrimination only on the basis of socioeconomic status, if at all. Then at the same time, create a reparations program — the Frederick Douglass Fund, let’s call it — that pays out exclusively, directly and one time only to the proven descendants of American slaves.

On the surface, like all things partially true and all things Modern, this seems to make sense. Instead of those expensive benefits, welfare payouts and the disaster that Affirmative Action has wrought in making our industry non-competitive, we should just do a one-time cash award and be done with it. Douthat suggests $10,000 and that it would cost $370bn in total.

What he forgets is that $10,000 is chump change (heh) in our modern world. That will not buy anyone out of poverty, which is itself an illusion because poverty is a relative measurement and thus exists in all societies, and expands as wealth is dumped into it. It will not make anyone retired. It will just give them a small boost, and leave racial resentment where it is.

Douthat cannot say any of this of course because in Leftist-dominated Amerika, he would lose his job, never get another one and never have another friend. He would become an ideological enemy of the state, and people would scatter from him as if he were a leper because to be seen as an ally of an ideological dissident is to become an enemy of The People, and then your life is basically over as surely as if you committed multiple felonies ending in murder.

But, a more practical plan is this: reparations-with-repatriation, or giving those who are not of the founding group a one-time stipend contingent upon loss of citizenship and relocation. No piddly $10,000 either. Yes, it would cost trillions, but also save trillions over the next ten years in terms of entitlement programs, Affirmative Action damage to our economy, but even more, in terms of the sheer amount of social, political and cultural destruction and chaos caused by diversity.

Those trillions would be well spent. We could end this disaster as friends. True, the cost is shocking… and Leftists will never admit that their stupidity caused it. But there is only one way to end a problem, and that is to get to its root cause, and the root cause of ethnic inequality in this country is diversity, and the only solution to that is ending diversity as gently as we know how.

When Affirmative Action Dies, So Does The Hart-Celler Strategy

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

In 1965, Leftists and compliant RINOs shuffled through Congress a strategy for permanent Leftist rule: import the third world, who tend to vote Leftist, so that demographically, the Republican base would be replaced and Leftists would win all elections.

The citadel wall for Hart-Celler is Affirmative Action and related policies, which holds that if a minority person and a majority person are competing for the same position or resource, it goes to the minority person, otherwise the person previously controlling that resource can be sued and lose everything they have.

If Affirmative action (and related laws) die, then the Hart-Celler strategy fails, because the different ethnic groups will retreat from one another and create a “balkanized” or ethnically-separated nation, effectively reversing diversity as a policy.

The Left fears this outcome, and so warns us that loss of Affirmative Action would doom the Left:

Affirmative Action. In 2007, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a stunning opinion that was joined by three other justices in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which he said that the Constitution requires that government always act in a color-blind fashion and thus all forms of affirmative action are unconstitutional. The Court, 5–4, declared unconstitutional the ability of local school districts to consider race as one factor in assigning students to schools so as to achieve racial diversity. Roberts’s opinion was joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Kennedy was the fifth vote to strike down the school districts’ use of race, but he did not go along with Roberts’s condemnation of all uses of race to benefit minorities, remedy past discrimination, and enhance diversity.

Most recently, on June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court, in Fisher v. University of Texas, upheld the ability of colleges and universities to engage in affirmative action to benefit minorities and enhance diversity. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito vehemently dissented. Replacing Scalia with a conservative Trump appointee provides a fourth vote for their position, but if Trump gets to replace Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy, that will end affirmative action in the United States.

The way to beat Affirmative Action is through a law passed via Congress that explicitly denies the law or the one-sidedness of its interpretation. If Trump achieves this, the great Democrat demographic replacement plan fails, and America separates, paving the way for the question of whether minorities and a majority can coexist at all without destroying one another.

Why Diversity Is Over

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.

Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.

People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.

One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.

The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.

But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”

The sapling whips back.

The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.

But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:

It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.

But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.

…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.

These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.

This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:

“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”

The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:

“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”

He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”

And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”

This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.

Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.

The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.

If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.

Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:

Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.

Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”

As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.

Trump is acting indirectly and it remains to be seen whether he will cuck or not. However, a rising tide of acknowledgement that diversity has failed — following the recognition in Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order that after liberal democracy comes world nationalism — shows us that the people want this to be the first step, an indirect stab at removing diversity, because it is now becoming clear that coexistence between different groups is fatal:

When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”

The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.

This was apparently even a few years ago, when the UK discussed its guilt-fetishism:

Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.

…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”

The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.

If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.

Hate Crimes, Scapegoating and Failed Diversity

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

I still fall for it sometimes. The pseudo-erudite chatter put forth by The Cathedral. I actually heard that the four thugs in Chicago’s BLMKidnapping got charged with a hate crime and felt happy. Like it was the smell of napalm in the morning. Silly, silly me. I was forgetting a relevant passage from the Old Testament – Leviticus 16:8-10.

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

So the scapegoat is a symbol. The animal assumes all the sins for a community and takes them out into the woods. The members of the community can then drink, fight, fornicate and bear false witness athwart their neighbor for another year with a bleached conscience. Hate Crime convictions serve the same purpose.

Traditionally, hate crime laws have been almost exclusively aimed at white people. They are used primarily by other white people. They are a method of absolving their own impure reaction to diversity. It makes the “good whites” different from those other white people. Like Dylan Storm Roof or Eric Rudolph for example. So what does this hate crime charge against the BLMKidnappers even mean?

It means nothing. What was done to the poor, mentally disabled guy would have felt just as awful had it been an S&M session where he plum forgot the safe word. It would have been just as messed up had it been a love crime. Kidnapping, assault, false imprisonment, all of these things mean something. They are all good charges and I hope these four dirtbags enjoy their stay at The Chiraq Hilton. A preferred customer bonus of a few more free nights because of Hate Crime charges? Bogus.

So why do we need a set of laws to cast lots upon societal goats? Because we all feel varying levels of discomfort with diversity and our told to feel guilt and inadequacy. Thus, when we see DYlan Roof chimp out in a church somewhere, we can all condemn him and point out with a reasonably high probability of accuracy that I wouldn’t shoot a bunch of nice, old ladies at an African American church.

Then again, so what? Taking down The Stars and Bars won’t make you like diversity. Putting Dylan Roof or Timothy McVeigh under a jail somewhere with cockroaches in their soup will not make you truly believe !DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH! Our cheering for hate crime convictions is an empty symbolic ritual. It’s like people who take The Lord’s Supper and get nothing except unleavened bread and cheap wine.

Hate crime laws are a sham. They are a panacea. They are fake virtue signaling. They will not make you any more accepting of racial, cultural or religious diversity. They only allow you to participate in the charade of pretending like you do.

Bring back Freedom of Association in all private accommodations and get rid of disparate impact as a legal standard. Abolish all forms of racial quotas. Stop penalizing people who fail to virtue signal in favor of diversity. This is supposed to be the USA, not North Korea.

Then when you see the races, cultures or religions mix, you know its legitimate. When given an honest choice, a few people will choose to accept a certain level of diversity. This is nothing to celebrate. Just respect it and accept it like any other rational adult’s decision. The same is true of the choice to avoid diversity. Just accept and respect it like you would any other rational adult’s decision. Then, we can stop worrying about fighting hate crimes and worry more about fighting actual criminals.

End Affirmative Action

Sunday, November 20th, 2016

white_people_are_a_plague_to_the_planet

While many are talking about the options for the Alt Right in its campaign to push further for a sane civilization, one stands out as a tempting and easily conquered target: Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action pervades all areas of life in the West. The primary damage it does is by putting employers, renters and sellers on the defensive through the legal presumption that if an ethnic, sexual or gender minority is turned down, discrimination is to blame. This leads to vast payouts in the courtroom and has made companies paranoid, causing them to be overly-solicitous to non-majority people.

In hiring, if a majority person and non-majority person both apply, a singular situation results: there is legal liability for not hiring the non-majority person. For this reason, the majority person is always at a disadvantage, and indirectly so are non-majorities, who are hired not for their competence but for political reasons, leading to a prevalence of the less competent.

In renting and selling, the same thing applies. Sell to the majority person, and bias possibly exists, which can result in an expensive court case even if you win, and no one will reimburse you for your costs. For this reason, properties flow away from the majority.

Most government contracts give preference to businesses “owned” (usually in figurehead) by non-majority people. This reduces competition and raises government costs, but also ensures that majority people cannot own their own businesses if they want to compete in this area.

In education, affirmative action has created an empire of preferences for the non-majority students, lowering standards. This has created a base level of mediocrity that is responsible for the current flood of safe spaces and special snowflakes from academia.

Even more damaging, affirmative action has set a legal precedent by which failure to transfer wealth to non-majority people is viewed as prima facie evidence of discrimination. The furthest extension of this, “disparate impact,” creates the bias that holds that if a minority group is not succeeding as much as a majority group, some form of discrimination must be to blame. This idea is now being extended to housing where majority-oriented neighborhoods are seen as discriminatory, with the conclusion that they must be forcibly diversified.

Affirmative Action came into life through the actions of silver tea set socialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt who in 1941 issued a directive forcing defense contractors to avoid using racially discriminatory hiring preferences, essentially demanding they hire with preference for non-majorities.

The doctrine expanded in 1961 and and 1965 when presidents John F. [[[ Kennedy ]]] and Lyndon Baines Johnson wrote executive orders targeting federal contractors. From there, it expanded into all areas of law, strengthened by Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s through 1980s.

At this point, Affirmative Action has taken on a life of its own. It is obviously discriminatory against the majority, but indirectly so, because by creating legal liability, it forces companies to act on their own initiative instead of ordering that directly by government command. Its effects have been ruinous, raising costs and marginalizing majority citizens, all while reducing the quality of our institutions across the board by hiring for political reasons instead of practical ones.

The Affirmative Action debacle really exploded in the 1970s, paving the way for the horrors of the 1980s job market and expanding government:

President Richard Nixon built on Johnson’s legacy in 1969 with the “Philadelphia Order,” which set specific goals and timetables for federal contractors to hire shares of minorities reflecting the racial makeup of their local area. State and local governments soon introduced affirmative action programs of their own, as did many colleges, some with great enthusiasm. In 1974 the University of California mandated that the entering class of the statewide university system aim to have the same share of minorities as the state’s high school graduating class — that is, a quota.

Although it is now enshrined in multiple federal, state and local laws, Affirmative Action has a weak part of its armor: its interpretation. If a president were to write an executive order changing how discrimination is inferred, and clarifying that discrimination only occurs on the level of the individual candidate, “disparate impact” and Affirmative Action would both fall.

This would reduce the red tape and legal harassment faced by the average business, ensure the competence of personnel, and stop the legal discrimination against majority citizens that has caused much of our current political divide. It would in turn force us to re-assess diversity in the wake of a population rapidly separating by membership in identity groups, so we could — for the first time — honestly discuss the future of diversity and what it has done to our society.

The Two-Step Plan To Ending The Immigration And Race War Crisis

Friday, October 14th, 2016

diversity_dysfunction

The Left promised us that if it got its way, it would end the constant racial enmity of the other 95% of the world against the 5% of us whose ancestors formed first-world societies. Seventy years later, race riots are common as is ethnic violence and immigrant rapes, murders and violent protests.

As usual, the neurotics have swarmed to tell us that the problem is insoluble, so we had better just accept it. “You are talking about millions of people,” they say. “How will you convince people to leave? They will resist, it will be even worse! No, the only plan is the current plan, even if it is failing.”

This reminds me again that the neurotics love suicide cults and that Leftism is essentially a suicide cult. They love theories like global warming and nuclear war because it gives them an excuse for what has always been their goal: Do-Whatever-You-Want Day.

Although it seems like a collective, the Left is individualistic. Each individual in it wants the benefits of civilization without the burdens; they crave “anarchy with grocery stores.” Together these individuals use collective bargaining, which curiously resembles extortion, to achieve their goal.

For them, it does not matter that a certain idea — say, diversity — will end in the destruction of civilization. They are already thinking of how the seas will rise and swallow us and GMO foods will give us cancer and how everything is just already lost, so we might as well… Do-Whatever-You-Want.

But for those of us who neither wish to die nor leave our successive generations of descendants a terminal failure of a society, the question of solutions arises. We know that diversity does not work because it cannot work — no group gets the self-determination and values it desires — but how can we fix it?

Luckily a two-step process shows us the way:

  1. End the welfare and benefits state. Europeans especially love their cradle-to-grave healthcare, welfare, education, food aid and so on. These things are destructive on their own, but doubly appealing to people from impoverished countries who hear about the “free money.” Remove them and the attraction vanishes.

  2. End affirmative action and anti-discrimination law. Without the legal requirement that non-natives be hired before natives, all the easy jobs go away. Without laws saying that people must rent and sell to the non-natives, all the housing goes away. Poverty returns just like in the motherland.

With this, we remove that which attracts them to us: the easier, more prosperous life without having to create it by themselves as would have to happen in their third-world nations. This makes life back in the motherland more competitive than life here, where they have no guaranteed jobs, housing and welfare.

Back when welfare was proposed, many criticized it along these lines: If you offer free things, you will support parasites as well as those in actual need. What you tolerate, you get more of. And so, you will get more parasites until you drown in them.

Look what has happened. We are drowning in people who come here to take the benefits, but hate us and constantly complain about racism.

Right now, Suzy Allahuackbar can come here and immediately apply for food benefits. She can also take advantage of charities. Then, she can get citizenship and full welfare. If she wants a job, she cannot be turned down in favor of a white person thanks to affirmative action, so she will get it. And then, it is very hard to fire her even if she is totally incompetent. If she is fired, she gets more welfare anyway. She cannot be turned down if she wants to rent or buy housing. If anyone says anything mean to her, she can sue and live really large.

This is not to say that immigrants are bad, only that immigration is. There are many good people among them; however, diversity does not work, and so they do not belong here. Their presence destroys our social order no matter how hard they try to fit in. The only sensible immigration policy is no immigration.

For that reason, sensible people have a “zero tolerance” policy for immigration. It is not that we hate other races, or dislike the individuals we encounter. It is simply that diversity of any form — even “good” groups — causes social breakdown and will destroy us. The only sane response is no diversity, not even one drop.

Civil rights law has shattered America. Instead of acknowledging that slavery was a mistake and sending everyone back to Africa, we decided to become a multicultural state, just as we had with the Indians. Both policies created nothing but misery, and now we have added third-world immigration to make everything more confused and hostile.

Many on the right oppose the policy advocated here of reparations with repatriation. This is how a gentleman ends a bad deal with good people: something went wrong, so we offer reasonable compensation, and end the collaboration. This sets up members of other groups with some seed capital to help out in their own countries.

Africans, who we purchased from African, Arab and Jewish slave merchants, would find themselves returning to a continent full of possibilities. Using their reparations seed capital, they could establish businesses and communities, and re-take the continent from the Arab, Indian and Chinese forces that are currently about to conquer it.

Other groups would go back to their homelands as well. Asians in America can do nothing for Asia but spy for it in our defense companies; back home, they can take American techniques and knowledge and apply it for the betterment of their people. The same is true of Hispanics, Arabs, Jews, Inuit, Indians and the [[[ Irish ]]]. Home is good.

No one sane endorses cruelty. This is why Europeans are reticent to embark on any policy that sounds like it might be retributive. What is being advocated here, however, is redistributive: thank immigrants for participating in our failed policy by giving them money to go home and cutting off their access to free things here.

We can then change our immigration laws to a saner policy, if we have any immigration at all. Our founding group comprises a third of our people and, given a healthier and less insane society, will quickly produce enough children to bring our population to a sane level (150-200 million).

In the meantime, we can stop pretending that there is no solution to this problem. The solution is obvious and always has been, but the neurotics oppose it as they do anything sane and sensible. As more people realize the necessity of removing the neurotics from power, we come closer to ending the toxic policy of diversity.

Affirmative Action Continues Its Destruction

Friday, October 14th, 2016

seize_the_subsidy

Plato emphasized understanding the difference between cause and effect. Most people cannot make the connection. For an exercise in learning, let us look at the case of the 911 operator who hung up on thousands of emergency calls:

As the caller tried to give out his location, Williams hung up on him. After she hung up, Williams said, “Ain’t nobody got time for this. For real.”

Her behavior was discovered after a supervisor noticed she had an unusual number of calls lasting under 20 seconds. She had apparently hung up on emergency callers thousands of times. When confronted by police, Williams admitted she hung up on callers when she didn’t feel like talking to them.

How did she get into this position, and have her behavior be unnoticed for so long?

Affirmative action was the idea that, in order to rectify “inequality” in American household incomes, companies should be forced to hire candidates from minority groups. What this translated to in the real world was that if two candidates walk in that door, and one is white and one is from a protected group (minorities, women and homosexuals), the only safe strategy was to hire the one from the protected group.

It does not matter if the non-protected candidate is better; the lawsuit can still occur, and the employer will cut his losses and settle rather than risk millions in legal fees and delays. It also does not matter if the protected candidate is incompetent because they can sue anyway, and juries tend to side with the underdog and rule against the employer. This creates a minefield where the only sensible strategy is to hire the protected candidate, every time.

To fail to hire that candidate would result in the risk of a lawsuit, which could put the Human Resources person or hiring manager out of a job. And so, it came to pass that many jobs simply filled up with minorities. In addition, thanks to other laws designed to make the workplace safe for those from protected groups, those who “noticed” misbehavior by members of protected groups themselves came under scrutiny.

This meant that if a worker observed a coworker doing something wrong, and that coworker was from a protected group, the only sensible strategy was to say absolutely nothing. And so America now carries a load of people like this woman who were hired only because they are from a protected group. While there are almost certainly competent candidates from protected groups, the law does not distinguish between competent and incompetent.

As a result, the quality of services plummets because these institutions are staffed with people who must be hired and cannot be fired. Notice that it took until a thousand calls before this woman was even noticed, and despite that crushing burden of evidence, her managers still moved slowly before firing her. This is your future under Affirmative Action.