Posts Tagged ‘african-americans’

Freedom of Dissociation Must Become A Right

Tuesday, November 14th, 2017

I opine today in vigorous concord and comity with Mr. Ekow N. Yankaw and all the wonderful people who write for and edit The New York Times. It’s very rarely that I read an article on The New York Times and nod along agreeing. It’s even more uncommon, almost unheard of, to hear them so effectively amplify a point made by the profoundly and fearlessly observant John Derbyshire.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

In other words, John Derbyshire just doesn’t believe blacks and whites can consistantly get along on a daily basis. Of course this was the heights of utter heresy. He got fired, and then publicly condemned. Repeatedly. By the people he used to work with.

So none of the Thinking People, The Scholars of Perspicacious Intellect, The Tolerant Ones, The Voices of Eternal Reason (or at least ineffable tenure at some #SJW sinecure) could possibly buttress John Derbyshire’s view of the world. Oh, wait

It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

He has no choice, you see. He has to give his children…!THE TALK! Now to listen to the media, we can only believe one of these people is correct. And we know which one the The Thinking People, The Righteous Ones, The Grand Torquemadas of Love and Tolerance, tell us that decent Amerikans are enjoined to support. Well let me offer you an option that isn’t on the menu amongst those who hate you so much they get upset anytime white people breed amongst their own kind.

Agree with both of them. If Ekow N. Yankah simply can’t bring himself to have his precious offspring around my boy because any child of mine is tainted by The Caucasian Persuasion, then that is certainly his right. The Little League Baseball Team, The Municipal Youth Orchestra, the Korean Language and Culture School and the Religious Private School my son attends will all find a way to stagger forward absent the blessed, enlightened seed of Ekow N. Yankah, The High Lama of Blackity-Black-Black-Black. I understand. That stuff is just homestyle down here amongst the ‘Baca Chawing Hicks down here in Madison County, AL. Exposing his saintly offspring to this sort of inbred, cousin-screwing in the outhouse Crackashit would have the poor young tyke playing the counterpoint to the banjo jingle from the movie Deliverance.

Go away Ekow N. Yankah. Don’t let the White Man’s door hit your ass on the way out. Nobody is calling you up 24 hours a day and saying “Please Ekow N. Yankah, bless us with your precious diversity!” You know, we honkey mofos managed a thing or two without your coruscating brilliance to light the higher path for us. When a couple of your by-blows comes up with stuff like this, get back to me about how my kids aren’t good enough to play with one of yours. I mean, these white people are downright scary.

Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Skyscrapers. The piano. The harpsichord. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera at great length.

I think the only thing that fix the utter tragedy of your children being tainted with the musty, backwoods stink of mine is a new civil right. One that will help our society become a whole heck of a lot more civil than your bigoted screed in The New York Times, Mr. Ekow N. Yankah. We need Freedom of Association. You get the right to ban me and mine from any activity you can plan, build and operate on your own. Any business you start, I don’t have to be allowed through the door. Any church you and yours found has no obligation to give the sick degenerates of my phenotype any membership or sacrament. I see no reason you should even have me and my kind in any neighborhood you can buy up and build up. If you don’t want me around, I’m not begging for your company.

In return: I can banish you. I can never have to pay for the illegitimate kids that comprise 80% of your race’s cohort in Modern Amerika. I don’t believe they are good enough to be friends with my kids. I just don’t believe decent White People can trust the little bastards. Martin Luther King, Jr had a dream that we would all judge people by the content of their characters and not the color of their skins. If you want him to put the bong down and wake up and smell the asphalt; we’re good Brother Man. If Rodney King asks you “Can’t we all just get along?” and you say not until you get off the dope and the welfare, Knee-Grow, rave the fvck on John Dunne!

If you, Mr. Ekow N. Yankah; are ready to acknowledge that tribe, race, genetic heritage and cultural home training all impact character and therefore should be taken account when judging character than congratulations! Ekow N. Yankah, your Alt-Right Certificate of Rudimentary Intellectual Achievement is waiting for you right here at Your Kewpie Doll is in your email inbox. Make it your mascot when you tell us all more hate truths over at The Gnu Yawwk Times. Or, if you are just another BLM hypocritical bullshitter, than I denounce you for the shrivel-dick, huckstering, psuedo-intellectual posuer that you are and hereby publically condemn The New York Times for publishing a man with the proximate IQ of a rotting pomegranate. And in conclusion, I’ve had about enough of singing kumbaya with these malignant hating blackguards hell-bent on White Genocide.

Why Minority Groups Are Poor (Hint: It’s Not White People)

Monday, November 13th, 2017

On the nationalist side of politics, we frequently encounter a converse: if our people are thriving, and everyone else is starving, must this not be the result of our actions?

In the common human lexicon, if one group is thriving and another is not, because on a social level we assume them to be the same, this leaves only the conclusion that the thriving group victimized the less-thriving group.

We arrive at this conclusion because the notion of equality commands it. If we say that humans are equal, then we must explain the obvious contradiction of that statement by results in reality, and the only answers available to us involve those unequal people being victims.

The quest that is thus created, or the War on Inequality as we might dub it, also provides convenient cover for tyrannical power: it has an unlimited mandate to end a great evil which cannot be ended because humans are not equal, nor do they have equal desires, and so results will always vary.

For example, not every person wants to be a billionaire, or even to live in the upper middle class suburbs that we are shown as “normal” America in movies. Most people want to live in a relatively safe community, have some friends and a family, and something to do with their time where they can succeed and relatively enjoy what they do.

In the eyes of many, that requires only a city apartment or rural trailer, some alcohol and a local friend group, maybe a rotating series of significant others. The vast majority of humanity seem to live this way, going through life as a self alone, looking for whatever pleasures can come to them and not worrying themselves excessively about obligations to anything larger than the self.

The War on Inequality then mobilizes people toward discontent and avarice, telling them that their current lives are not enough and that there may be more free money around the corner. The average person, understanding nothing of economics, will see this as something like a lottery: there is a small chance of a big win, so go for it, and if it fails, just ignore the minor loss to them and move on.

When we apply this jihad against inequality toward a mixed-race society, we telegraph to different ethnic groups that they have the potential ability to exploit the richer group, thus making their group more powerful. Since any society not designed by their own group and run by it for its own purposes is effectively hostile to them, they see a winning strategy here: deplete the enemy, increase their own strength, and eventually dominate. Not surprisingly, this is what non Western European but European-descended white groups did for the first century and a half of American government, and now, non-European racial groups have taken up the same quest.

For this strategy to work, these non-founding groups must style themselves as victims and subsidies as the only possible solution. Empirical data suggests that this is not true:

If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

…The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law enforcement policies. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

In other words, African-Americans have become a pawn of the Left, who are using them to justify programs that do not actually benefit them in the long term, despite delivering the promise of more money and power in the short term.

In a longer perspective view, African-Americans benefited mostly from the economic and technological growth of the United States which enabled them to have basic jobs, food, housing and some consumer goods in exchange for merely having some kind of employment. Public education allowed them to have a range of jobs beyond sharecropper, which was their replacement economic role after the end of slavery.

However, that development has been arrested, mostly by Leftist social programs, which induced a victimhood/scapegoat mentality and caused African-American expectations to fall, mostly by directing the argument away from economics and toward subsidy politics:

Ex-slave Booker T. Washington saw manual or domestic labor as the first step up the ladder of economic mobility and thus by no means degrading. “No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized,” declared the founder of Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute for teaching blacks skilled trades. But the economic advance that would lead to social acceptance required education and the spread of work skills, to allow blacks to “rise to the level of owning stores, operating factories, owning bank stocks, loaning white people money, and manufacturing goods that the white man needs,” Washington taught.

…Du Bois sensed the necessity of conventional morality for a people’s rise. He worried that, by his estimate, a quarter of black births in 1900 were out of wedlock, and only half of blacks observed “monogamic sex mores,” as opposed to whites’ 2 percent and 90 percent, respectively. He also worried that black preachers were too interested in making money to “adopt a new attitude toward rational amusement and sound moral habits.” He saw, in other words, that black cultural mores had a self-destructive streak, and that the one indigenous black institution that could preach a moral message was shirking its principal duty. As it later turned out, one of the tragedies of twentieth-century black American history is that those churches fell under the Du Bois spell, becoming political organizations—partly out of the self-interestedness that Du Bois scorned in their preachers—rather than agencies of personal improvement and self-discipline, soul by soul.

…We fought a Civil War that cost 620,000 lives, ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, had a civil rights movement, a Civil Rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, a War on Poverty, a massive affirmative-action program in education and employment. Now, says Dattel, it’s up to black Americans. “Before we can achieve any major, broad-based improvement in the social and economic status of blacks, they must develop a frank process of self-examination to replace the current unwillingness to look objectively at destructive behavioral norms. Otherwise, the myriad programs designed specifically to aid blacks will fail to achieve large-scale transformation. The particular burden—of facing themselves—lies squarely on the black community.”

Du Bois and Washington discovered two sides of nationalism: any group that wishes to prevail must be self-reliant, and it must adopt the cultural attitudes that allow it to succeed; these are generally of a natural selection variety that rewards good behavior and punishes bad, with good being the productive and non-destructive and bad being the irrelevant or destructive.

American politics, in its zeal for blaming the dominant ethnic group (Western Europeans) for the woes of all groups who came since to take advantage of what that founding group created, also generated a scapegoat rhetoric that removes agency and self-reliance from these minority groups, making them perpetually self-destructive.

On top of this, as Washington noted, there are attributes to the African-American community that make it prone to be self-destructive anyway. Others, perhaps more cynical than your author, will note the lower average IQs and lack of centuries spent in tight collaboration and manorial, honor-based societies. Either way: white people did not do this to you.

Those who understand nationalism will add another point, which is that diversity sabotages any group. To be part of a mixed-race nation is to be unstable, as an ethnic group, because other groups have their own self-interest lying elsewhere than an exact overlap with yours. Groups may be able to come together for economic and political reasons, but never on questions of their future or the very specific values, standards and principles that ethnic groups develop in order to keep themselves together and improving.

With the rise of victimhood/scapegoat policies, the Left targeted nationalism, because to be anything but universal — accessible to all humans — means that someone is kept our, or rather that everyone else is kept out. To someone who has an ethnic home in a country dedicated to that ethnic group, this is not threatening. But in mixed-ethnic and mixed-race states, this natural exclusion provokes a “fear of missing out” style resentment of the identity of others manifested in a desire to destroy that identity:

But racism and xenophobia don’t need to be physically violent to cause harm – they are underlying belief systems, hateful words, ignorant thoughts, a dismissal of one’s experiences of racism and xenophobia, and the alienation of those who do not ‘fit’ into the category of ‘Irish’. There are Irish people who actively avoid getting into taxis with black drivers; who ignorantly stereotype people of various races and ethnicities; who mock other people’s accents; who use slurs without shame; who talk degradingly about “foreign nationals” who are coming to Ireland and “taking our jobs”; who believe certain groups of people all look the same; and who tell people of colour, “You should just go back to your own country then,” lest they criticize Ireland.

…I reckon it’s time for us to open up the borders of Irishness, and change what it means to be Irish nowadays. Beginning to openly and understandingly discuss race, culture and the evolving nature of contemporary Ireland will only help us to enrich Irishness. I’ve always known Ireland to be multicultural, complex and varied, but I still often feel as if I’m a mismatch with the ‘traditional’ sense of Irishness; I’m the loner cousin that no one really likes talking about at family get-togethers, but is put up with in the corner all the same. It’s time that we discussed the changing nature of Irishness and shed light on the non-white Irish experience, letting the alienated cousin know that they’re part of the family after all.

Multicultural “Irishness” is not Irishness; it is an obliteration of Irishness. Much as victimhood/scapegoat politics led African-Americans to discard proper identity politics, in which they work toward a positive identity by curtailing the negative, multiculturalism causes people to focus on tearing down culture and replacing it with economics alone.

As The Age of Ideology winds down, we are leaving behind the notion of universality, or that we can set up one system that works for all groups. Instead, we are noticing that each group has its own needs, many of which are arbitrary, but that these are not aberrant but seek to give the group common symbols and practices to cement its identity.

With the realization that each ethnic group needs its own ability to determine its future, we are also leaving behind the old narrative that white people somehow victimized the world and forced them into poverty. Instead, we are seeing that diversity harms these groups, and obstructs them from what they need, which is rule over themselves and the ability to determine their own future.

Race-Mixing Makes People Incompetent

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

Many of us argue against race-mixing, or miscegenation, on the basis of the obvious point that it is genocide. If you mix an ethnic group, you replace the original group with something else.

Proof of this comes from recent events where miscegenation equals degeneration as traits are lost:

Black Students United takes issue with the fact that there are more African and Caribbean students on campus when compared to black students. The group defines black students as those who come from black families that have lived in America for two or more generations. While the group said it doesn’t mind the university trying to recruit African students, they want the college to pay more attention to black students whose families have been affected by years of white supremacy.

Anecdotally, African immigrants achieve more than African-Americans, and this presents a problem. Why could this be? We might say that those who were subjected to slavery were from lower castes, or at least captured in warfare. We could say that those who are coming over are of a higher caste.

Or we could point out that many African-Americans are a quarter Caucasian, meaning that they are of mixed race.

In theory, if we believe the superior/inferior doctrine of races, this would improve them. But much as mixing different chemicals can produce a muddle, mixing races will destroy both.

Consider this. There are several thousand genes that code for intelligence. Remove some, and the effect is lost. This is true of most traits; they are the result of a combination of many genes.

When you breed people who are of the same race, ethnic group and caste, those genes exist in common, so the traits are passed on. But when you mix race, ethnicity or caste, then some of those thousands of genes are not passed on, and the trait is lost or only partially passed on. This results in people without the original ability or worse, the appearance of the original with less competence.

In this way, mixing an African and a Caucasian loses what each does well. This could explain the average relatively lower performance of African-Americans. Not only do they suffer from having been the type of people within their race who were likely to be enslaved, and the consequences of slavery and living in the ‘hood, but they have also been deprived of their genetic birthright.

By the same token, this shows us why mixing ethnic groups within a race is so destructive. When you mix a German with an Irishman, you get neither a German nor an Irishman, but something else. Those unique networks of genes coding for traits are lost, and with them, whatever made each group great is lost. Instead you get a person of generic abilities like the incompetents now flooding the West.

After several centuries of denying race, ethnicity and caste, the West is awakening to its importance. Mixing any of these elements produces lesser-quality human beings, independent of whatever linear considerations we apply to each race. Diversity is death, and miscegenation is worse. The new world we inherit will place a much higher priority on this concern.

Effect Of A Black Population On Competitiveness

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

Every truth goes through three stages: it seems impossible, it seems laughable, and then it becomes normal. Information floating across my table sometimes causes me to ignore it at first, because it seems really far-fetched.

But in some instances, it then becomes clearly more true than not, which is how we qualify “truth,” as a heuristic approximation of reality that is a work in progress. This graph almost had me dismissing it out of hand, but then, a second look revealed its importance:

The graph attempts to show a correlation between the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and the growth of the black population in Zimbabwe over time (higher values indicate a less competitive economy).

If the two graphs are put together, one can visualize the data demonstrating a correlation between them. Essentially it points to the idea that the more people Zimbabwe has, the less competitive it becomes. Before you say it is all due to the failure of leadership in Zimbabwe, notably by Sir Robert Mugabe, let’s look at South Africa:

For some strange reason the same trend appears in a country spawned by President Mandela. But most people would agree that Mandela was not Mugabe and we must consider that that the two economies are radically different, with Zimbabwe being an emerging economy and South Africa at least officially a first world nation. The commonality between them however, is that both countries were British colonies and that their majority demographic are sub-Saharan black ethnic peoples.

In order to get a broader perspective, it makes sense to compare these charts to those of an efficient first-world country:

In Spain, the black population is a significant minority, but still the correlation seems to increase. We may still be uncomfortable making a causal connection of this correlation, however, because other factors affect the productivity of an economy, which is why the CGI report takes into account hundreds of parameters.

So let’s look at the bastion of productive economies: America. The data is there but is too coarse for a sensible graph. Using the same method as above, the US GCI/black population correlation appears to be 0.59. However, the US is highly sensitive to changes in its CGI ranking; the correlation would increase to 0.64 if the 2017 final ranking is 4th place (it is now estimated at 3rd place). This means that the USA GCI/black correlation will rapidly increase if American GCI rankings drop.

What this means is that the more black people you have in a population, the less competitive that population is. The GCI indicates not just financial competitiveness, but has other implications including how well the institutions of that society function, and thus, what its future is going to look like. Low competitiveness societies are third world or heading toward it rapidly.

Since the data matches between these three nations, and we can see how the ranking dramatically effects the accuracy of the data, it is important to realize the time factor here: a society which once had functional institutions, but now is in dysfunction, will not show that dysfunction for many years because the people who make those institutions work are holdovers from the past.

Once those people go, the GCI ranking drops, and then we see the same pattern. I first laughed off this data because it is an absurdly simple concept, that the more black people your society has, the less competitive it is. However, I came to see that it is real, but wanted to raise a few other points.

First, this does not necessarily imply that the problem is black people themselves, because in former colonies and the first world, black people are a proxy for diversity, or the destructive habit of mixing multiple ethnic groups in the same society, which lowers social trust and because of that will make all social institutions less functional, which in turn lowers competitiveness. However, it seems likely that the effect is more pronounced with black people, so it is possible there are dual effects: (1) a lowering of social order with diversity and (2) the more “different” the diverse population, the greater the damage to competitiveness as a proxy for social function.

Second, this will probably be addressed by another aspect of social order. Diversity, like apartheid before it, is unpopular as of the second term of the Obama presidency in the USA. It became clear that even having a black president was not going to heal old wounds, and racial tensions intensified rather than decreased. The great middle class dream for all problems to just “go away” so that the middle class could focus on its careers, hobbies and television has failed; problems, like risk, must be managed or the overwhelm the organization around them.

While in practice the Trump administration is changing its macro approach in order to strengthen the US economy, note should be taken of what happens at micro-level too, such as demographic changes in the population and the degree of interpersonal friction and thus lowered communication they create. In addition, the Hispanic effect on the US economy is far from certain because of the unpopularity of even thinking about these effects, but if a group that is more diverse has a wide impact, the Hispanic impact on competitiveness is most likely to lower it as well.

It is undeniable that Americans are walking with open-eyes into the future thinking that becoming a minority is cool. Since the current US majority views its minorities with empathy and a helping hand, the question becomes what blacks will do once they become the majority in 25 years.

And following that: what they will do once they become replaced by Hispanic and then Asian majorities, as demographic trends indicate will be the sequence. When white people are a quarter of the American population, and other ethnic groups are dominant both in numbers and in positions within the system, we are facing an entirely different competitive landscape, because any diversity demerit to competitiveness will be increased manifold.

Given the apparent drop in productive economies due to sheer black numbers, the answer requires not only an in-depth investigation, but also the cultural question only blacks can answer: do blacks want whites around at all? If history teaches us anything, it is that diversity of any form — even ethnic and religious diversity — is a constant source of conflict which reduces the effectiveness of a nation.

The research of Martin van Crefeld indicated that even strong majorities cannot withstand sustained minor conflicts. This applies to black majority countries as well, and any majority presence of over about 20% seems to trigger constant internal conflict, like inflammation in the body. Interestingly, in Africa there is no clear majority tribe.

Africa may then point us toward a future vision: a world without a majority, where the minority groups are so many that none dominate except in a local area, but also, because there is no possibility of collaboration, long-term infrastructure becomes impossible and invasions by foreign powers will be successful as they roll up the discoordinated local areas much like the settlers in the US conquered the Amerinds.

In any case, the immediate data is clear: having black people, and diversity in general, damages the competitiveness of your country. With that comes a host of other problems, including lack of internal standards and reliability, and through that, a lack of ability to respond to its external world, which is always a sign that collapse is imminent.

Black Lives Do Not Matter In Post-Obama America

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

Bumbling my way around this historically minority-majority town, two things catch my eye: first, interactions with African-Americans have been polite, open and friendly; second, Hispanic people tend to ignore me if they can, or behave in a surly and passive-aggressive manner.

That struck me as curious, so it was time for a drive to the northeast part of downtown, which was historically an African-American community. Surprise and confusion: it is now a Hispanic community, save a small corner which has become gentrified and now is Soviet-style look-alike condominiums.

A quick look at the demographics of this area confirms the suspicions one might have on observing such a thing: over the past two decades, Hispanic and Asian numbers have steadily climbed, resulting in African-Americans being proportionally smaller as a portion of the population. In other words, they are losing demographic and thus democratic power.

Hitting the fast-forward button for a moment, we can see the future of this town. The white population continues to bail out with the exception of the very wealthy, who are not only high in average IQ but capable with business. They will rule industry for the near future. But everyone else will be non-white, and they will push the whites into a handful of neighborhoods.

Then, we have to ask, who will rule the remaining neighborhoods? African-Americans — mirroring the white flight of decades ago — seem to move out when too many Chinese, Mexican, Guatemalan, Vietnamese, Indian, Arab or Honduran people move in. African-Americans will find themselves in a handful of neighborhoods as well.

Surely there will be mixed-race neighborhoods for awhile. But if the answer is that the Hispanic cops do not come quickly to African-American doors, or that white people find their neighbors refuse to speak to them, the sorting will accelerate. Neighborhoods will become fully ethnic across the board.

At the same time, African-Americans will find themselves displaced. Other minority groups qualify for affirmative action as well, and tend to be picked first for low-level jobs because they have slightly higher average IQs. This means that African-Americans will be limited to working in their communities, and will get second cut at government benefits because other more numerous groups will have higher perceived need.

Enter the Asians. They are known as a hard-working group that gets great grades. These will begin displacing whites as they march through the institutions, get the degrees, and then get members in the door. Once they hit that magic 20% number, they will turn to nepotism, and soon traditionally white institutions — already infiltrated by near-whites like Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks and Poles — will be assimilated.

In turn, Asians will begin moving into Hispanic neighborhoods by buying up the better houses, being proportionately wealthier than the Hispanics. Hispanics, or indios, are Central American Amerinds, who are distinct from the “First Nations”/”Native American” North American Amerinds, but both have a root in Siberia. These groups will find it easy to interbreed.

Over time, the more prosperous Asians will swallow up the Hispanics. For them, it will be like having a Vietnamese grandfather, because the shared genes will predominate and squeeze out any New World outliers. Soon the city will mostly have a population that resembles Filipinos or Vietnamese, and then it will begin subverting the Africans.

This happens through the oldest method possible: high-testosterone African-American youth will be attracted to the young Asian-Hispanic hybrids, and will have kids with them, but those will be rejected by the Asian community. The only obvious solution is that they will grow up among the African communities, and gradually be incorporated into the bloodline there.

Then we have another question of thresholds. At what percentage of Asian do blek people start simply feeling like Asian-Hispanics with a tan? Soon the African population, and any remaining Caucasians, will be absorbed through this trace admixture. Eventually, this population will see itself simply as a thing-in-itself, and not question its origins.

The new group will speak english, but adapt it to their genetic inclinations: short declarative sentences from the Spanish-speaking Amerinds, monosyllables from the East Asian languages, and eventually it will lose those definitive articles, with grammar more like a Slavic language and sentences that end in “yo” and “fam.” Over centuries, this will revert to a language more like Asian languages.

At this point, you will be unable to find a single African-American in the city. Their neighborhoods will be taken over, their churches bulldozed, their cultural contributions forgotten about and then dumped for “lack of funds.” They will be ethnically erased. This is what African-Americans see coming, and it is why they are wising up to the wisdom of the old white order.

Positive Views Of Slavery And Evolution

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

Olatunji Jesutomisin writes of the advantages of slavery in a provocative essay on the struggles of Africa:

You didn’t have ships when they sailed in on their ships into the African coast. You didn’t have anything comparable to defend against or valuable to trade with when they brought their guns and trinkets to your shores and sold it to your African lords in exchange for slaves. Africa is what African Americans would be if not for slavery. So where is this a example of massive development and wealth that the white man was supposed to have stifled and stole from you.

Get your priorities right sir. The problems of the African whether in Africa or America go deeper than something a white man stole. We are spoiled and lazy. We have never been forced out of life and death necessity to create value for ourselves — think electricity for warmth, trains, cars and ships for transportation, industrial level farming for sustainable food supply. The very things that define an industrialised and wealth creating society.

Slavery became the gift that kept on giving. The hill we would die on. And to this day we keep asserting that simply because we survived slavery and segregation that we deserved some hidden wealth without having to produce it. As if we are the only group who have had to go through massive suffering. We have a saying in Africa that we are a lucky continent in that we would literally all be wiped off if we had the earthquakes and hurricanes that frequently hit the northern hemisphere.

The whole thing is worth reading. In addition, it makes sense to mention that slaves sold were “excess population” — captives of war, political enemies, prisoners — who had no value, and by being bought and sold, were given value so that there was a reason to spare their lives. Then they were given a place in a thriving society and cradle-to-grave care.

Relentless realist nationalists like myself will note that slavery, like keeping the American Indians on the continent, was a form of diversity and in itself was detestable. Failing to rehome the freed slaves after the War Of Northern Aggression was also a mistake. However, we can correct this mistake now, and give Africa people with new learning who can give it a chance to thrive on its own terms.

A Simple And Effective Solution To Black Fears About White Supremacy

Monday, May 15th, 2017

An African writer expresses resurgent white self-interest:

These groups are not merely concerned with fashioning a history of the United States where they are the victors: Spencer and his followers are looking to remake our society to fit their vile and oppressive vision.

A vision where black deaths at the hands of the state are met with shrugs at best, but more likely with laurels and commemoration. A vision where, despite the rhetoric of racial separatism and “homelands” for each race, people of color would be lashed into servitude to a rich white power elite. A vision where the labor movement – that magnificent engine that builds equality through solidarity and shared struggle in places like Winston-Salem, North Carolina and Bogalusa, Louisiana – is destroyed utterly.

The left has a history of breaking such contemptible political currents, and it is that history that we must tap into and learn from today.

White people want their nations back because diversity has again failed; there is no way to combine multiple groups into a single nation. Instead, each group becomes a special interest and the society tears itself apart. We can see this both in white withdrawal and in the consistent voting for the Left and its civil rights benefits by African-Americans.

Instead, it makes sense to separate. Each group needs its own nation. Because there is an entirely African continent, it makes sense to swap people: we take their white South Africans, and they take Africans from all over the West. This way, each group has its own space and controls its own future, and no one owes anything to anyone else.

On this blog, we have argued for years for reparations with repatriation, meaning that we save up the costs of a few years of welfare, civil rights lawsuits, costs of race riots and affirmative action and give it directly to African-Americans instead on the condition that they allow us to relocate them to Africa.

This would enable all groups to separate with dignity instead of enmity, and end the constant grinding internal conflict that diversity provides. This extends not just to African-Americans, but all who are not of the Western European strain that founded this nation.

It would solve all of the problems of black America, including racism, in a single act. The racial resentment could end, and on the principle of nationalism we could unite.

Or we could have another few decades of fighting over benefits and police shootings, followed by open race war and civil war.

Diversity Will Destroy African-Americans Too

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

Diversity — the policy of putting different ethnic groups in the same country so that no group can have its own culture compete with the power of ideology and government — is sold to us as a way to protect vulnerable minority groups. In reality, it is a vortex of meaninglessness that will absorb all groups.

Contrary to media image, diversity gives minority groups like African-Americans a choice: be condescend to, or be ignored, but either way, they never get what they want and need, which is rule by themselves, for themselves and control of their future. They will always be a means to an end for the government and its attendant Leftist ideology.

One Leftist African-American Hollywoodite even noticed this:

“If I see another 45-year-old white woman from Williamsburg saying ‘black lives matter,’ I’m going to punch you in the mouth,” the “Saturday Night Live” star said during her recent four-night stint at New York comedy club, Carolines on Broadway. “Stop doing that.”

…Currently single, the “Ghostbusters” actress also blames the president on the lack of love in her life.

“I want to be in love,” she said. “I want to do that, but it’s 2017, and we got a pig in office. The world is about to end.”

What we are seeing here is expression of her special interest group: for black people interested in milking the white civilization for more direct benefits and indirect advantages like fame in entertainment, the world is about to end, because a wave of European discontent with diversity and liberal democracy is sweeping through Western culture.

If we think through her statement, she makes a good point, albeit a paradoxical one. Blacks do not want whites commenting on black events, even in support, because they see this as condescension. White people virtue signal using minorities as tools. This is offensively paternalistic.

But on the other hand, for white people to simply mind their own business is also “problematic” because then they ignore black issues. For example, if white hipster women — Jones identifies Gen X from Williamsburg, which are almost certainly aging bloated hipsters — simply ignored black lives matter, that would also be perceived as racist.

We see this kind of damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-do-not paradox in many places, exploding into hilarity as well-intentioned white suburban nerds screw up Black History Month yet again:

The township schools superintendent apologized to parents for a recent high school lunch menu that served fried chicken to celebrate Black History Month [alongside: corn bread, sweet potato casserole, sauteed spinach, mac & cheese and peach and apple crisps].

…Pomptonian Vice President Cathy Penna said one of their directors worked with an administrator in one of the district’s schools on creating a menu event to celebrate Black History Month.

“The suggestion was to do something to celebrate soul food,” Penna said in an email. The company tries to offer a diverse menu respecting different cultures, she wrote.

They were trying to respect black culture, you see, but did not realize — being white suburban nerds — that they also tapped into a stereotype. Then again, how could they do anything but use stereotypes, since they are trying to symbolize a race of diverse individuals with a casual token of acknowledgement?

When white people try to help, it ends badly. Then again, if they did nothing for Black History Month, people would call them racist. The only solution that comes to mind is something ludicrous like burgers shaped like Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a common dilemma, damned if you try to be not-racist and damned if you do not vigorously signal anti-racism, even across the pond:

A Cambridge college has been accused of ‘cultural misrepresentation’ by students after serving ‘Jamaican stew’ and ‘Tunisian rice’ on its menus.

Students argued the dishes served at Pembroke College were not authentic to countries they were described to be from.

No one complained about the Greek salad or watery Italian pasta sauce, but a similar cursory treatment — familiar to cafeterias worldwide, apparently — given to minority foods is transformed into something offensive and disturbing. Can the Germans riot for what we have done to beer? Or the English reclaim “Salisbury Steak” from its adulterated modern form, the cheeseburger?

The difference of viewpoint can be explained by a simple fact: majorities do not view themselves as a separate group from the nation, but minorities do. When white people started heading toward minority status, they finally starting “getting” the complaints that minority communities have been issuing for decades.

To be a minority is to never feel at home in a place. You are always of a separate identity than the nation itself, and are either forced to assimilate or to be an outsider, but in neither case do you feel as if you are in the right place. You only feel if you are in the right place if you are in a nation created by people like you, for people like you, ruled by people like you.

African-Americans have never had that. This leads to a condition where they see only two sides, a majority versus united minorities:

“They feel like even if they’re illiterate, skin color should give them privilege. Even if they are an illiterate, they feel superior to a black president with a Harvard degree. What interrupted that was a black president and immigrants. Trump plugged in on that. He’s talking basically about let’s get white males in charge. That was the covert message of this campaign.”

Voting for Trump was a way for whites to restore power they felt was usurped by President Obama, Jordan said.

He has discovered why diversity cannot work. Each group has its own self-interest. These conflict when groups are combined under one nation-state roof. As a result, a zero-sum game is created where minority groups feel themselves succeeding only when they are actively beating down, profiting from or displacing the majority.

There is no way out of this crisis, and it is not about who the majority is, so much as the fact that there is a majority and a minority. This explains in part why crises all over the world explode into violence as soon as diversity arises. Where multiple groups coexist, a power struggle is created for whose self-interest will rule the region.

African-Americans are caught in this struggle, which is why they are offended both by white affirmation of Black Lives Matter and white failure to support Black Lives Matter. Either act is a statement of majority power, either by determining what is a valid group to support, or by being self-interested and demonstrating the clash between that and black self-interest.

There is a line of clothing named FUBU which by rumor stands for “For Us, By Us.” This is the attitude of nationalists toward the nation. The nation-state, with its magic dirt and proposition nation trimmings, cannot work. Only the homogeneous ethnic state allows people to know that it is created for them, by them, and that they command it for their own self-interest.

FUBU is the only working model for the black community, but as Marcus Garvey noted, this will probably require repatriation to Africa. Without that, blacks will be just another ethnic group vying for power in a group, with each group effectively becoming unstated enemies of all the others, in the usual destruction that diversity visits on us.

Black America Is Still Baffled By White Shift In Racial Attitudes

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

Over at Garvey’s Ghost, as always an insightful commentary into the possibility of the return of black slavery:

This is the levels to which so called black leadership such as John Lewis have sunk to. They actually peddle the belief that slavery is just around the corner. Never mind that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have occurred without the direct, willing participation of Africans (stories of kidnapping by white people are wholly over stated). So unless a significant portion of black people who have power over the lives of black people, countrywide, decide to engage in slave trading, it’s not happening.

He is correct. White people originally viewed slavery as a benevolent institution lifting blacks out of dire poverty and instability and giving them a comfortable, stable life that they could not provide for themselves. Looking at Africa today, we see that our ancestors had a point, and slavery appears to have increased the lifespan, average IQ and health of black people in America.

This does not mean it was “right,” but also, that it was not necessarily wrong either. After all, it was very similar to feudalism and other forms of slavery that happened in Europe, but without the feudal order, slavery passed into commerce (chattel slavery) or law (indentured servitude) and thus lost its sacred origins. Knowing the people in the South, it is likely that slaves were rarely mistreated, especially with no provocation, but any looking into the past is conjectural now, and we know we cannot trust any narrative of it tinged by the Left. The mystery remains.

But the fear of John Lewis that slavery will return, and the apparent interest with which the black community greeted his words, suggests that black America has not caught on to the change in white people. We viewed slavery as bad, so we changed it, and now, we are over feeling bad about it. It was a long time ago, and we have invested a lot in the black community, so in our view, it is over.

On the other hand, white attitudes toward diversity were never about a hatred for any one group. They were more a recognition of our own unique place, which first we saw as reason to enslave others and lift them out of savagery that way, and later as we got more Leftist, to do the same with welfare. But it was always about us, and other groups were pretty much a means to an end.

Now, white attitudes toward diversity have entirely shifted: we see no group as culpable, but we see diversity as a failed enterprise. This means blacks are not being singled out for criticism, as the dumber of the white nationalists tend to do; instead, diversity is the target. We are starting to realize that no matter if the group is “good” or “bad,” diversity will not work for us.

Diversity shatters social trust, removes social standards, alienates people and utterly dissolves any sense of pride in country or self. As a result, it must be dismantled. At the end of the day, this has no bearing on slavery, or anything else related to black people. But slavery is a form of diversity, so now people are realizing why it was insane in addition to being of questionable moral basis.

White People Live In A Fugue Of Guilt

Saturday, December 10th, 2016

Not that this should be taken as an endorsement of his actions, but Dylann Storm Roof made a cogent point about white race guilt:

Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont [sic] think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to.

Say you were to witness a dog being beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man. Why? Because dogs are lower than men.

This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by White people are [sic] lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them.

Many have noted the condescending attitude of Leftists toward African-Americans, which consists of expecting them to act out what are viewed as “black” behaviors and thus be easily controlled. Roof identifies that in the last paragraph, but his more interesting point is that white people are race-blind because we view ourselves as the “norm” — from which stereotypical African-American behavior is viewed through the lens of relativism as an acceptable deviation — and in so doing, have lost the identity that black people inherently have.

While no solution identifiable to this writer involves shooting nine black people in a church, the protest of Roof’s actions is interesting. He felt that race had become invisible and that this was harming whites. As he said earlier:

Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause [sic] of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country.

But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes.

In other words, he believed that the issue of race should be taken seriously. He felt strongly enough about this to kill for it, as he will likely die for it.

Recommended Reading