Posts Tagged ‘african-americans’

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.

How The Visigoth Holiday Went Sour

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016

hillary_clinton_voting_booth

You don’t promise Louis Farrakhan a draft horse and show up with nothing but a stuffed pink pony. You also don’t piss on the man’s leg and tell him it’s raining.

Maybe there’s a little bit of the pigeon in every confidence man, or maybe you just can’t fool all the people all of the time. The Leftists promise a Visigoth Holiday. In this fantasy, the brave Leftists will raid the city, and then give out the spoils to all who help them. Vote for them, and they promise you free money.

Like the children fed a few too many candy bars on Halloween, the Reverend Farrakhan feels his stomach turn. He offers his followers the following lowdown on Hillary Clinton.

“My dear brothers and sisters, this is serious,” Farrakhan told his congregation. “Her husband and Joe Biden were the authors of the crime bill that put tens of thousands of black brothers and sisters in prison. Mrs. Clinton backed the crime bill and then called our young people super predators. Of course she apologized, but just a minute. See Hitler could’ve said to the Jews after Auschwitz, ‘I’m so sorry.’ Would that be enough to satisfy you?”

My, my, my. Did he just say she was literally Hitler?

“In 2009 Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. It was Mrs. Sanger who advocated population control of black and poor people…In a 1939 letter, Sanger wrote about getting the black preachers to help with her efforts. She said, ‘we don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.’ … And when Mrs. Clinton received the award, [she said] I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage. Her tenacity. Her vision.’ Now they have to admit that the war on drugs was a war on black people.”

If not Uncle Adolf, perhaps Nathan Bedford Forrest. Or maybe Tom Wolfe desrcibed this well in his famous piece Radical Chic. Farrakhan certainly made sure Hillary caught some flak. But this is diversity’s Spirit of Mordor.

There was one genius in the art of confrontation who had mau-mauing down to what you could term a laboratory science. He had it figured out so he didn’t even have to bring his boys downtown in person. He would just show up with a crocus sack full of revolvers, ice picks, fish knives, switchblades, hatchets, blackjacks, gravity knives, straight razors, hand grenades, blow guns, bazookas, Molotov cocktails, tank rippers, unbelievable stuff, and he’d dump it all out on somebody’s shiny walnut conference table. He’d say “These are some of the things I took off my boys last night … I don’t know, man … Thirty minutes ago I talked a Panther out of busting up a cop …” And they would lay money on this man’s ghetto youth patrol like it was now or never … The Ethnic Catering Service, the bureaucrats felt like it was all real. They’d say to themselves, “We’ve given jobs to a hundred of the toughest hard-core youth in Hunters Point. The problem is on the way to being solved.” They never inquired if the bloods they were giving the jobs were the same ones who were causing the trouble. They’d say to themselves, “We don’t have to find them. They find us” … Once the Ethnic Catering Service was on the case, they felt like they were reaching all those hard-to-reach hard-to-hold hardcore hardrock blackrage badass furious funky ghetto youth.

The power structure lures in a diverse coalition of supplicants with a big candy bag of gimmedats. It promises far beyond what it can actually deliver. “If you like your doctor…” Then they have to figure out how to walk it back and get them to accept less than they were promised.

Two Lyndon B. Johnson quotes describe the game that is played with “diversity.”

First he holds out the lollipop.

“I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Then he reveals the scam.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

So Farrakhan reacts the only way he can. He tries to raise the price of African-American votes. He tries to get more on behalf of his flock. But to do so, he has to threaten Hillary. This is of limited efficacy. What? He’s voting Trump? No. Evil Emperor Lyndon B. Johnson had the right of it. They are voting Democrat for the next two centuries.

Hillary knows it. Louis knows it. The people in the pews all know it. This is just gamesmanship. The only real threat Farrakhan has to make is that he and his will not ride to war with the rest of the Visigoths. Early voting patterns suggest that this could already be happening. Given the tightening of the election and the precarious position of The Democrats’ Precious, Farrakhan senses his shot at some of the graft. He pours on the denunciations and demands.

In doing so, he reveals the Achilles Heel of diversity: when a politician pledges to support protected groups — women, ethnic minorities, LGBT — this only works so long as the interests of each group are in alignment, which they only are temporarily, at first, when each group senses that it can have gimmedats in the same way Leftists plunder the population to pay themselves millions.

Over time, however, the interests become divergent. Different ethnic minorities have different wants. Every group wants its share of the pie, but there is not enough to go around. To pander to women, Clinton has to bring up “great women” like Margaret Sanger, and when she makes a speech to an African-American audience, she mentions Martin Luther King, Jr., instead. But this causes the groups to see through the multifaceted persona to realize they are being played.

The diversity model has broken down. The grifter-in-chief has met her match, and it is the first of many, because now that one group has started the shakedown, others will do the same. Hillary has chosen a losing position because each of these groups will demand its own benefits program, and they clash with each other as we go from airy theory to thorny implementation.

What will Hillary be willing to offer in order to real his votes back in? The real question intelligent African-American voters should ask is what she will actually deliver? Maybe not enough for them to waste a vote this time out. It’s just that sort of realistic cynicism that turns the Visigoth Holiday pitched by Progressives into a bitter taste in the mouth of all who listened to the promises of plunder.

Dear Black People: It’s Not You; It’s Diversity

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016

islam

A riot is a form of protest. It is also a form of spontaneous criminal activity, or an emotional outburst. One might also see it as the failure of order, the loss of social structure, or a mass expression of a frustration that is so unspecified that the only tangible expression is to burn it all down.

From the people at Black Lives Matter riots across America, we hear the same message: institutional racism is keeping us down. However, this is after seventy years of the same forced inclusion policies that power affirmative action, civil rights, anti-discrimination laws, and the media push for “united colors” in all ads and movies.

Think of the last time you saw a movie where the entire cast was white. Or a presidential cabinet.

For that reason, the “institutional racism” explanation seems unlikely to most of us out here. We pay every day for diversity, you know. Every product is more expensive because of civil rights regulations and affirmative action lawsuits. Companies must hire minorities in order to avoid government interference, and so they do, and pass the costs right on to us. Plus we inherit the red tape, the constant riots, the no-fly areas, etc.

Since white people started to notice this, there have been two camps. The first is headed by a writer who is universally respect on the Right, John Derbyshire. He wrote a highly influential piece, “The Talk: Nonblack Version” in which he warned people about the dangers of African-Americans:

(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.

The second group includes your author, who has been writing about this idea since the middle-1990s: the problem is not African-Americans — and yes, that term has more meaning for Rightists than Leftists — but diversity itself.

Diversity is the notion that more than one identifiable group — race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, and most likely political alignment — can occupy the same space and work together to provide a government, economy and civilization.

Sometimes called “multiculturalism,” or by its original name “internationalism,” diversity relies on what legendary Right-wing writer Peter Brimelow calls the “proposition nation” and John Derbyshire describes as the “magic dirt” theory. This species of theory says that we must assume that all people are equal, and therefore when we subject them to the same laws and economic pressures, they perform the same way. It is an implicit argument for diversity, which Leftists view as a subset of class warfare designed to achieve equality.

The Alt-Right expresses one of its pillars as the idea that genetics, not laws and propaganda, determine the future of a nation. We cannot mold people into equal citizens. The first group would argue that is because of defects in certain groups; the second group argues that this is because different groups have different expressions of self-interest, starting with the need for identity and pride in who they are.

The question upon us then is whether diversity could work — that is, function as a policy which contributes more good than harm to society in accord with its goals — at all. Policies fail all the time; we implement them with good intentions, then realize that their goals are paradoxical or at least paradoxical to our goals, and then revoke them. Think of how Prohibition, which was more popular than diversity even, became enacted through a Constitutional Amendment and then repealed the exact same way.

The root of race realism is recognition that each group has its own ways, and that these do not apply to any other group; it also includes knowing that every group, like every individual, acts in self-interest, and that the interest of every group is to conquer all others and assert itself — culture, heritage, values, language, customs, calendar, cuisine and morality — through total control in as much territory as it can get. This is the Machiavellian realpolitik of ethnicity and is the only universal thing about humanity, mainly because it is not based on “human-ness” but on the needs of survival.

Diversity conflicts with this race realism. It supposes that you can dump random people into an area, enforce laws on them and bribe them with “good jobs,” and you will get the same results as you did with the people who invented those laws. This reverses causation: the original group created those laws as an expression of their culture, itself an expression of their ethnic makeup and values, and no other group will find itself compatible with those laws.

When seen through the lens of race realism, diversity cannot work because different groups are different and have different self-interests, therefore when combined in the same area, those self-interests will inevitably conflict. We all need different things, which is why we formed different ethnic groups in the first place, originating either from Hyperboreans (per the Traditionalists) or a migration from Africa and then parallel evolution as modern science alleges.

As a Southern man, one is more likely to be mugged by Mexicans than blacks — but the same is true for blacks, Asians and middle easterners. The orientals run rigged businesses which are notoriously good at extracting government aid; the Mexicans and South Asians steal by convenience and holdups; the blacks are known for violent muggings and gang violence; the middle easterners tend to run illusory businesses and focus on contraband and graft. These stereotypes exist for a reason, and they exist across ethnic groups; each perceives these behaviors in each other. This is not racism, but observation of generalities in our world.

Expanding from that however, what we see are conflicts between the type of society that people are genetically programmed for — an expression of their self-interest — and the society created here by Western Europeans. When one lives in the middle east, different behaviors are rewarded and these are handled by society there through designing itself to accommodate those enough to channel them toward somewhat productive results. The same is true of the other groups and their behaviors. When one lives in Africa, gang warfare is the norm.

We can verify that this is true because of stereotypes among different white groups. Western Europeans are perceived as priggish, moralistic and yet prone to deviance. The Irish are known for corruption as well as rigid and fanatical Catholicism. Southern Europeans are expected to participate in Mafia style activities, loud family fights and promiscuity. Eastern Europeans are known for missing the obvious, violent racketeering, and being willing to sell you their women for the right price (often, a Lexus with a gold package).

Even more, we have different castes. The Brahmins are known for being brainy, but also weak to social influences. The Kshatriya are known for their excellence in warfare and craft, but tendency to use pragmatic instead of realistic solutions. Our laborer-caste are known for needing to be told what to do, and requiring constant supervision to avoid slipping into day-to-day “white trash” behavior.

If we are going to be race realists, we must go all the way.

Among Western Europeans, there is little variation. We share Nordic-Germanic roots and are more similar to each other than to any other group. We like the same type of social order, use the same type of gut feeling to assess any action we might take, and have the same need for some kind of reverent or at least purposeful order. We are approximately the same, and other groups — including Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans — seem alien to us, even if less alien than (in decreasing order) blacks, middle easterners, South Asians and North Asians (Orientals).

Growing up in the South, one knows many good black people. They are not the same as us, but they share many of the same values, which they achieve through their own ends. Their Christianity is different; their cuisine is different (and alternatingly baffling and irresistible); their neighborhoods and social ways are different. But it would be hard for a Southern man to say that “all negroes are bad,” because he knows many good blacks, if not most of the blacks he encounters. Still, they need a different social order and as a group, cannot exist within the white order, which is why after emancipation the white man left the black man to run his own neighborhoods and have his own businesses, schools, police and even courts.

The same is true of any other group. In a massively multicultural majority-minority city such as are common on our Southern border, the average white person knows Jews, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Iranians and members of every other group who are good people, that is, trying to do “the right thing” as best they can perceive it. And yet their needs are different and their methods are different in parallel, which reflects their self-interest as needing a society of their own.

The elephant in the room is pride. Every ethnic group needs to know it lives in a society of its own creation, designed for its ways and goals, which it guides. This gives it a chance to improve qualitatively to the point where the group can say it used its methods to overcome the challenges of nature both visible and invisible, and that its results are entirely the result of its work. This is the basis of pride, and it is part of self-interest.

Diversity takes away not just pride but recognition of self-interest from each group, and forces it to go to war with other groups in order to decide which values system will prevail. In the United States and Europe, the founding populations seem to assume that this issue is settled, and that our languages, laws, values, etc. will always be there. But those are negotiable. Diversity creates a battlefield where each group is forced to try to assert its values over those of other groups.

This is why members of the second group of race realists object to diversity itself, and not simply African-Americans. We do not want to live with even “model minority” groups like North Asians because that, too, is diversity. We recognize that it is unlikely that liberals and conservatives can co-exist for long, even within the same group, much as difference of religion — for example, Catholic versus Protestant — is unstable. We realize that any diversity, even one drop, destroys social trust and hope for the future.

We are what history refers to as “xenophobes.” Back in the day, we opposed slavery because it is a form of diversity. We opposed importation of Chinese workers not because we hate them, but because they would create diversity, and we know that any loss of unity leads to a death spiral of distrust, rebellion against the norm — some would say that the alarmingly teenage Leftist movement came from this — and struggle for power, culminating in social collapse.

The problem is diversity. Diversity does not work. It does not work because it cannot work. In any form — race, ethnicity, religion, politics — it fails and creates a ruin of society. This is why Leftists adore it: their goal is to create a dark organization in our society, attack it and subvert it, then dominate what is left and use that to transfer wealth and power to themselves. They are the parasites that arise when social trust is destroyed by diversity.

Our only future lies in ending diversity. This means that every person who is not of our founding group — Western Europeans in America, ethnic French in France, ethnic Germans in Germany, and so on — must go back to their continent of origin. If we end this as gentlemen, which we should because it is in our nature, we will do so by giving them reparations contingent upon repatriation, so that they may get a good start and we end this bad policy as friends and allies, not resentful enemies.

But it must end. Diversity is paradoxical; it is illogical; it is denial of obvious reality. Over the past 150 years, it has shattered America and over the past forty years, seriously damaged any integrity to Europe. The longshot of this is that it has deprived us of pride and made us into morose, angry, selfish and bitter individuals. Our only survival comes through ending diversity so that we can then tackle those other problems by ourselves, for ourselves, so that someday we may have pride again.

Charlotte, N.C. Burns In Latest Round Of Diversity Riots

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016

race_riots_in_charlotte_north_carolina

Dearly Beloved,

Here we gather again to mourn yet another race riot, this time in Charlotte, N.C. — although the media will not call it such.

Yet again we see the Leftist narrative debunked but only after it served its purpose, which was to inflame the community:

Quiet returned to Charlotte streets Wednesday after the police-involved shooting of an African-American man ignited a night of anger and violence that left windows smashed, stores looted, trucks set ablaze and 16 police officers wounded in the melee.

The violence erupted hours after the shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott, 43, who police say was armed and ignored several commands to drop his weapon.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney, at a news conference Wednesday, rejected claims Scott was holding a book, not a gun, and said the gun had been recovered by detectives. No book was found, Putney added.

As is typical, there are no solutions on the radar. The Left wants more power to minorities, including benefits payments and affirmative action; the Right wants people to stop pointing guns at cops; out here in the cold wilderness, us Realists want to look at the situation as a whole.

It makes sense to be sympathetic to the African-American point of view in the bigger picture. Not the specifics of this event, since those were rendered false by the Left-agenda narrative. But let us look at African-Americans and their situation, with compassion.

There is no possible solution for African-American angst in America. No matter what we do — trillions in welfare, lawsuits, benefits, affirmative action and draconian civil rights laws — they will always know that this society was founded by people other than them, designed for people other than them, and that African-Americans are only here because they were sold in Africa to slave traders for use as farm labor here.

Even with a black President, and former black Secretaries of Defense and State, with black Supreme Court justices and Martin Luther King Jr. as our official American Gandhi, black discontent roils. It does so not because of poverty, but because of the denial of pride.

For African-Americans, or any other population, to have pride in their nation they need to know it was founded by them, designed for them, and ruled by them since its creation. They need to have a sense of belonging that comes only from being the group that is the nation, and not one group of many, especially not one whose original utility was as chattel labor.

No matter what we do in response to this latest shooting and the resulting riots, nothing can ever be done that will make African-Americans happy, because the condition of their unhappiness is created by diversity.

Thus, as we contemplate this latest tragedy in a long line of American and European race riots, we should instead of looking for someone to blame, look at the conditions which make such events inevitable.

Gathered here, we pray.

We Cannot Assume Responsibility For Any Other Group

Wednesday, August 17th, 2016

We — whoever that is, just like the mythical “They” who allegedly control us — are a group with our own habits, dreams, hopes and delights. No other group has these, although they can share in ours for a time.

When we are well (in the head) we experience a vast sense of irresponsibility: we are not responsible for what happens to others, or even members of our own group. Each person must find his or her own way, and the best thing to do is to avoid introducing confusion to that role by taking partial responsibility.

But taking partial responsibility is what we have done, most notably for other ethnic groups. This leads to situations where no one can possibly come out unscathed:

Neighborhood kids and teens had been pulling “snatch and grabs,” Mayes said, holding the door open while others grabbed whatever they could before the owner could get around the counter. So a new policy was put in place: No more than two kids in the store at a time.

“I guess when [Sherman Park] would close at 10, a lot of the kids go over to the gas station,” Mayes said, recalling how the shooting incident began.

On one of those nights less than a month ago, the owner, who’d already had the windows of his store busted out, freaked when a large group of teens came in from the park. He locked the doors, Mayes said, then came from around the back and fired a shot or two, apparently to scare the group off.

In this case, the City of Milwaukee has taken partial responsibility for its black population. We know this old story: the kids do bad stuff in the park, so the police patrol it and close it at ten. The kids then go elsewhere to do the same stuff for exactly the same reasons as before. The cause of their behavior remains unknown.

While the conventional narrative is to say that these people are criminals, or to talk about black crime, we can use a more direct analysis. The black people of Milwaukee live as a conquered tribe. They did not create the city, nor are responsible for its prosperity, so despite declining white numbers there, they still see it as a white person thing.

The good white people have foolishly assumed responsibility for the black people of Milwaukee by passing laws and using police to try to cut back on bad behavior. This creates more bad behavior because the people who are misbehaving are furious and resentful at how powerless they are, for whatever reason. This is even openly articulated:

“There’s a lot of frustration here with the lack of black-owned businesses,” Mayes said as police cleared out Sherman Park—a gathering point for those protesting Smith’s death—on Monday night.

Other people run the city. Those people then do not tell the black people what to do, as they did under slavery, but instead have put themselves solely in the negative role of punishing bad behavior. This means that a black person confronts a world run by others, where black people are seen as a menace, in which he has no power and his only contact with those who rule him is when they are punishing him or shooting at him.

This is why our problem is diversity and not any specific group. With diversity, no one has control over their lives; it is delegated to the mixed-race group and so no one gets to have their cultural values be in control, see their people consistently rule, and know they are part of a society founded by their own people. Instead, they are deprived of one of the most vital aspects of human survival — pride — which in turn removes any sense of security or well-being. The result is constant low-level grinding against authority.

Diversity will be the headstone for the USA. In the name of being inclusive to Irish immigrants, the Americans made war against the slave-owners, despite slavery providing a better life for the average African-American than ghettos and welfare can. Then they went to war against the old European powers twice to advance the Leftist narrative of equality. Coming home, they applied the same fanatical multicultural agenda that the Soviets did, and now it has permanently fractured the idea of being American for everyone (equally so, no doubt).

White Nationalists miss the point when they target other groups and assume the high criminality they see is these groups acting as they would like to. Some of it is, perhaps, but a good portion arises from the sense of degradation that comes from being imported labor in another racial group’s civilization. No one can ever feel good about that, and so resentment grows like an algal bloom, periodically exploding into view as it has in Milwaukee, before the wishful thinking types hide the disaster and we all go back into oblivion for a few more years.

The City That Bleeds: Race, History And The Death of Baltimore by Paul Kersey

Wednesday, June 8th, 2016

paul_kersey_-_the_city_that_bleeds_race_history_and_the_death_of_baltimore

This book depressed me so much that I hid it under a pillow for two days. There are two reasons for this: first, it shows the decline of our country; second, the supposed beneficiaries are not doing so well either.

Baltimore, MD is a city which has been handed to African control thanks to the popular vote. African-Americans staff its police, management and media. As a result, it has a pro-African slant; every race acts for itself, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional.

African-American violence is intense compared to white activities for which the city was designed. This creates a Hellish environment in which most of the victims are African-American and the murders, shootings, rapes and thefts go on and on. But no one wins except those who depend on the pretense of “equality.”

Kersey, borrowing perhaps from Colin Flaherty, uses a “counter-spin” technique: he quotes mainstream media and then shows us what was under-emphasized and nearly edited out, and uses that to reorient our consciousness toward the actual issues in each article. The end result is that we see the consequences of pleasant political activities, not the feelings behind them.

The black community, meanwhile, collectively “lynched” white civilization in Baltimore, turning once-thriving public housing buildings into “concentration camps,” and remaking the city in their image. Every week, another horrific crime occurs — such as the execution-style killing of five black women in 1999, three generations of a single family wiped out by black males — that does far more to threaten the stability of Baltimore than those two lynchings did back in the 1930s. (235)

I find this book brings up profound moral conflicts. I would like the best for everyone out there, but what happens when self-management by a third-world population ends up in creating horrible murder rates and constant degradation of civilization? I cannot step into the role of stewardship, or saying, “sorry, black people, but you need whitey in charge,” but nor can I endorse what has happened in Baltimore.

Let me be clear: plenty of people live happily in Baltimore, but they have moved to gated communities, hi-rise condos or the suburbs. The rest are living in rotting ghettos where urine-soaked buildings are bulldozed, gang warfare rings out in the streets, and violence of all types is endemic. The statistics in The City That Bleeds: Race, History And The Death of Baltimore are convincing enough, but it is the personal stories that resonate the most. If I have to read about the death of another honor student or normal, good person, I may vomit.

In fact, the most sensible response to this book is emesis. It is well-written and factually clear. What it communicates is that under the disgusting hybrid of diversity, no one succeeds. White people flee the city and so live in essentially disconnected suburbs, and black people get to live in war zones of drugs, crime, violence, rape and misery. Is this… is this working for anyone? It does not seem like it.

Gun crime in Baltimore is almost exclusively black, with a smattering of white homicide victims thrown in for good measure. The late Lawrence Auster dubbed it “Black Baltimore’s Youth Intifada,” but such a title fails to take into consideration that the internecine black-on-black (and tragic black-on-white) crime in the city has helped make Baltimore one of America’s least desirable places to live. (56)

This book consists of articles from Stuff Black People Don’t Like, Kersey’s acerbic and fact-based blog on the crisis of diversity. He describes various African-American behaviors as “eccentricities,” and it seems to me this is a gentle way to approach the issue. The fact is that races are different, and have different needs and thus different behaviors.

As Kersey illustrates, what has gone wrong in Baltimore is the attempt to apply a white social order to a black population. Every population and every race has its own needs and behaviors, and attempting to forge one rule for the ox and the lion is foolishness. In Baltimore, the result of diversity is a black leadership caste that will always excuse its constituents despite the constant violence that generally seems to leave good people dead and criminals wandering anonymous and indemnified in the night.

The dangerous conditions black people create in any zip code, neighborhood, or community they claim as “theirs” within the city makes Baltimore incredibly unsafe for either walking or bike riding. Mike Bowman, a white 32-year-old, was attacked by more than 10 black kids while he was biking through the city recently. Thankfully, he had a camera on his helmet, which captured the vicious, unprovoked assault. Most peculiar in the situation was the fact that Bowman’s attackers didn’t even steal anything from him. (258)

This approaches a question I find morally difficult. I grew up in the South, where black people and white people exist in harmony because we lived in different spheres. As a result, law enforcement in black communities was largely left up to blacks… and whites minded their own communities. It was not cruelty that made us disregard black crime, but respect. We let them choose their own standards and just switched off our judgmental, neurotic minds because we knew on some level that our needs, standards and values were different. In Baltimore, however, a mixed-race city attempts to find common ground between these groups, and fails.

I find Kersey convincing. He does not overplay his hand nor hide his viewpoint, but relies on facts and first-person reports to tell the story. It is an appalling and miserable story, but an interesting one nonetheless. It makes me wonder what would happen if we segregated Baltimore and let African-Americans rule their own areas, and vice-versa for whites, as I imagine most of these problems would disappear, at least in terms of the reports issued. But under democracy/diversity/equality such a logical solution is impossible.

I had to set this book side multiple times. The story of teen rappers with promise, or honor students with bullet holes in their heads, made me want to go to (mental) Disneyland and pretend that nothing was happening. But that kind of obliviousness is not only morally dishonest, but a sin. It avoids confronting the reality of Baltimore and every other city on earth, which is that diversity does not work.

Some may read The City That Bleeds: Race, History And The Death of Baltimore as a condemnation of blacks, but I see it as a red flag which says “diversity does not work.” Each population needs self-rule and its own standards, and African-Americans in Baltimore have gotten power, but not the ability to reshape white laws into black laws. That would make a society people could live with, but instead there is constant internal tension.

If this book showed me anything, it is that diversity does not work and diverse cities will never survive. I acknowledge that whites and blacks have different behaviors and needs, but the real sadness here is diversity. Black people in America are forced into a secondary role as people living within white rules, but still trying to maintain their own culture. After reading The City That Bleeds: Race, History And The Death of Baltimore, it seems to me that we should give them self-rule in entirety and leave white institutions and white rules for white people (only).

The essays in this book are short and hard-hitting. Kersey writes well, combining the modern blog style with the type of writing you might find at The Atlantic. If it needs anything, an editor like John Morgan — this generation’s Maxwell Perkins — might clean up some of the ambiguities and punctuation and make this even better, but as it is, this is a solid, hard-hitting book that will force any reader to confront moral questions of leadership regarding diversity and the autonomy of black populations in Baltimore. It is most definitely worth a read, but have a glass of strong whiskey handy!