Posts Tagged ‘civil rights’

Trump Building That Wall By Removing Affirmative Action

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017

The attitude most Caucasians take toward diversity these days is something like this: “The idea was that they could come here and live the good life, so long as there were not problems. That obviously has not been the case, so we need to think about rolling this back so that it gently fades away, instead of doubling down on it.”

If there is one reason for the failure of the Left, it is that they have made themselves the Civil Rights™ party and their primary goal is to disenfranchise the natural populations of America and Europe by replacing them with third world permaLeftist voters. People wanted that when it seemed like it would end the race guilt and riots, but under Obama, things got worse. So obviously “more” of the same will not help.

There are a number of ways of rolling back diversity, but most people are conservative at a procedural level if nothing else, so prefer for this to be as low-impact as possible. It will almost certainly be a variation on the Pincer Strategy: raise lowers, lower benefits. This encourages and end to newcomers, and suggests to those who are not happy living in Chinatowns that they should go home.

It does this without abusing them or even acting against them; all we need to do is remove the laws, created by Leftists, that give preference and incentives to diversity. There are several roots to this tree — HUD, anti-discrimination law, civil rights law — but the prototype of these policies is the type of quota preference that became affirmative action.

Luckily, the Trump administration is taking aim at affirmative action in academia:

In particular, Kennedy’s affirmative-action opinion embraced the theory that admissions officers at public universities may use diversity as their rationale to give several advantages to applicants of color. The idea goes all the way back to a solo concurring opinion by Justice Lewis Powell in a 1978 case called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which embraced Harvard University’s description of its admission practices at the time.

…But diversity does permit admissions officers to make “holistic” judgments about applicants and curate a class that includes people from many different backgrounds. In practice, at the institutions that use the technique — which is almost all major universities, whether state or private — the racial balance ends up looking remarkably similar from year to year.

…According to an internal Justice Department document leaked to Charlie Savage of the New York Times, the department is looking for internal volunteers to work on an investigation and litigation of “intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” The investigation would be run out of the political part of the civil rights division, where Sessions’s policy team can keep an eye on it.

If affirmative action falls, it means that schools will no longer be able to use racial quotas in choosing who they admit. This will change the face of American universities by dropping the lowest performing minorities. More importantly, however, this will be a stone thrown in a pond with ripples spreading outward that will affect all other parts of American law and politics.

Without affirmative action as a basis in education, its status in the workplace may also be in doubt, in that a legal decision against it will have weight in other areas of law as well. This will in turn affect all of the civil rights law based on affirmative action and disparate intent, or “equality in outcomes” rather than “equality of opportunity,” and possibly reach deeply into all government programs that violate choice of association by forcing people to hire, rent to, sell to, work with, and live near other groups.

Were that to come to pass, a “soft balkanization” would occur, where minorities would withdraw to communities for them and policed by them, known as Chinatowns, and white people would have their own spaces, divided internally in the usual myriad of ways that white people separate themselves. This in turn will give momentum to ethnic self-interest among all groups, and weaken the idea of the proposition nation, or nation-state where political allegiance, not membership in the founding ethnic group, determines citizenship.

Some have pointed out the immediate problem of Trump’s action: American universities, if they make admissions choices purely by test scores and grades, will become mostly Asian. However, without the legal pressure to extend admission to minorities, universities may find themselves choosing to be white. Either way, this outcome is better than the current pro-minority regime.

Long ago an admissions officer admitted in candor that for California schools, the primary problem was Asians: “They all have great test scores and grades, but for them, this is just a step toward a profession. They kill campus life and study all the time. And they are more intent on personal benefit than idealism. You can’t build a nation on that.”

He was in favor of admitting well-rounded students of every type, but was leery of Asian study-buddies just like he was skeptical of their overly-nerdly white and Jewish counterparts. Nerds follow instructions, do very well in school, and then become back office fixtures in repetitive tasks. They are not the people who change history, and those are the ones that every school desires.

The point of repealing affirmative action is not to simply remove quotas, but to remove oversight entirely, returning education to the healthier state it was in years ago. Different schools will make different choices, but many will opt for where the arc of history is bending, which is toward innate group identity like tribalism. In America, that means not just white people but WASPs.

Trump is being savvy here. The fall of affirmative action in academia will not only open the door to removing anti-Caucasian laws elsewhere, but will also savage the special snowflakes we see in education today. Having large numbers of minorities created a need for easy degrees for people to get through, like African-American Studies and Gender Studies, and those in turn brought the real lunatics onboard as faculty.

Without the need for those programs, these schools will have upward pressure from a more white and less politicized entering student body, and so those faculty are going to find themselves going elsewhere. “Tenured” does not mean you cannot be downsized when your department attracts four students. The indirect purge of Leftists from academia has begun.

As for those of us on the Alt Right, it makes sense to keep the pressure high. Affirmative action must fall, and so should all other Civil Rights laws, which were written predicated on the assumption that the wealth of white America was an infinite blank check for government to use as it wishes. The “populism” on the Right is rejection of government and return to culture, heritage, and people instead.

A Legal Precedent For White Civil Rights?

Friday, May 19th, 2017

In the lexicon of modern American government, the Irish are “white.” Despite Civil Rights being primarily interpreted — through intersectionality and privilege theory — as a one-way street, an older court cases raise the possibility of civil rights protection for European-descended people:

The most serious charge against five of the teenagers—Sean, Ashley Longe, Kayla Narey, Sharon Chanon Velazquez, and Flannery Mullins—is civil rights violation with bodily injury. Defense lawyers expect Scheibel to argue that Phoebe’s civil rights were violated because she was called an “Irish slut”—a denigration of her national origin—and because the bullying interfered with her right to an education. The bodily injury, the defense lawyers say, is Phoebe’s death by suicide. The maximum penalty for this charge is 10 years in prison. The teens are also charged with other crimes, including criminal harassment and stalking.

Unfortunately, while the precedent for prosecution was set, the case was not decided on the basis of the civil rights charge because the defendants pled out to lesser charges to avoid the risk of long prison sentences:

All five teens struck plea deals with the prosecution where, in exchange to pleading guilty on the misdemeanor charge of criminal harassment, the more serious charges they faced were dropped. Longe faced the most serious charges including one count of each assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, criminal harassment, disturbing a school assembly and a civil rights violation with a bodily injury resulting. The felony charge civil rights violation with bodily injury alone carries a 10-year maximum sentence. Some of the other accused teens also faced the violation of civil rights with bodily injury charge, as well as statutory rape and stalking.

While the civil rights charges were not assessed by the court for their validity, the threat was at least serious enough that lawyers from both sides approved these deals. Perhaps this is something that nationalists can resurrect as an idea in cases where white people face discrimination, including affirmative action cases.

For example, we might fragment the category “white.” If affirmative action is designed to protect minorities, the Irish deserve protection as well. From that point, we get into a game of subdividing the population to its smallest groups, revealing exactly how the “whites are victimizers, minorities are victims” (WAVMAV) approach to government has failed us.

Chinese Racism As A Huge Force Multiplier

Wednesday, March 29th, 2017

Jim over at Isegoria has found yet another example of waste, fraud and abuse over in the DOD. It involves a poorly-formulated lamentation over racism in The Middle Kingdom. First and foremost, the Chinese would have to consider us legitimately Homo Sapiens before they could be any more racist against Whites like myself than I could be against somebody’s pet dog. Secondly, perhaps to our detriment one day, racism helps China immensely. Chinese Racism, like terrorism, works like Hell.

Unlike other Far-Left countries, China has a profound unifying force that allows them to even survive their own Drano-drink of Full-blown, idiotic Marxism. China can survive drinking the Molotov Cocktail of dialectical materialism because they are unified by their determined and unbreakable ¡RACISM! This, according to the OSD Office of Net Assessment has strategic consequences. I’m of the opinion that for China, ¡RACISM! is an awesome force multiplier. Here’s what the OSD-ONA has to say in service to our own ineluctable Political Correctness.

I. The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism:
Nine Major Consequences
II. A. Racism and Eugenics Heavily Inform the Chinese Worldview
II. B. Chinese Racism Informs Their View of the United States
II. C. Chinese Racism Informs Their View of International Politics
II. D. Chinese Appeals to “Racial Solidarity”
II. E. Chinese Racism Retards their Relations with the Third World
II. F. Chinese Racism Contributes to their Overconfidence
II. G. Racism Is Also a Strategic Asset that Makes China a Formidable Adversary
II. H. The Chinese Are Not Open to a Civil Rights Movement
II. I. The Treatment of Christians and Ethnic Minorities Within China

I respond to each bullet point in detail below.

  1. So racism and eugenics inform the Chinese worldview. This just means they are an intelligent people. Anyone with a brain and a sense of self-dignity makes their mating selection with an eye towards both racism and eugenics. Check out African-Americans on You-Tube and you’ll get one swirler for every five who crack jokes about “Whitey on The Woodpile” and accuse Black Females who date, sleep with or breed with Caucasoids of “Jumping the Fence” or being Bedwenches.

    Whites are equally judgemental; just way more subtle about it. For every one who flat-out ridicules “mud-sharking” or “drilling for oil;” you’ll get five who talk about (((Tolerance))) while quietly denying minorities the right to make any decisions that matter to them. George Lopez offers us a Hispanic perspective on the whole mating game. (Before he told the audience not to park their car in front of a Mexican’s house).

    When a man uses his brain in synonymy with his erectile organ, he probably practices a certain level of both racism and eugenics in his quest for just the right vessel for his seed. Oh, and don’t assume women think too differently. They sleep with the conqueror. It was Queen Victoria who advised her daughter to “Close her eyes and think of England.”

  2. Chinese racism also makes them properly leery of the Good ‘Ol US of A. Diversity plus proximity equals conflict. Diversity sows American disunity and turmoil. The United States is in metastable equilibrium on a good day. It’s Mt. Pinatubo waiting to blow off a smoking load. As American industries leave and American cities die from Pozz-poisoning, we have to export that pain somewhere. China, quite wisely, prefers not to land on that world of hurt.
  3. Chinese racism should inform their view of international politics. With the exception of the State of Israel being formed after WWII at the behest of a large plurality of the world community, rarely has the community of nations viewed the troubles of another diaspora as anything other than a marketing opportunity, a real estate play, or at worst; a veritable buffet of wealth to steal and flesh to despoil. You look after number one or number one gets flushed like a number two. In a cruel and uncaring world, it ain’t like anyone gives you a damn.
  4. China is lucky that it can appeal to racial solidarity. How did the pozz work out for Yugoslavia? Racial solidarity makes China, China and it used to make Japan, Japan. How is Japan’s population doing at self-replication lately? How is Russia’s? How is White Amerika’s? The Chinese have always historically succeeded at making more. Are France and Germany?
  5. China’s racism keeps them from getting sucked into the Third World. They buy up assets and stay away from the people. This is wise. Russian, American and Turkish military personnel die in Syria. Chinese do not. US personnel get gacked in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Chinese do not. Someone please explain to me how this is a bug as opposed to a feature.
    1. The Chinese are not involved where they have no interest.
    2. People know darn well what the real racists would throw down on their asses. The Pax Romanum was as racist as the Khymer Rouge. If you touched some dude named Julius, the Romans would take two boards and a handful of nails and gladly put you up for the night…
  6. Bullet point F is ridiculous. Show me who since Japan in WWII has totally worked a Chinese Army. Chinese racism only leads to overconfidence when you show me the army that could put them to flight, wreck their military and have its tanks and APCs doing doughnuts on the lawn at The Forbidden Palace. That guy that stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square was overconfident. The Chinese Army is pretty darn salty to describe as overconfident.
  7. This bullet point is more accurate. Real Racists have one another’s backs when they confront diversity. If you aren’t them, you won’t exactly like what they do to you. However, you will never see them doing what GOP Cucks routinely do to other Republicans. They never seem to get around to doing to each other what National Review did to Ayn Rand. They are too busy guarding one another’s backs. It’s almost as if they have an ironclad determination to see their own kind survive or something. Yes, this does make them formidable adversaries.
  8. I’m not sure what the OSD thinks having a Civil Rights Movement has to so with much of anything other than catamiting their Politically Correct masters. Civil Rights Movements often get subverted by the internal enemies of a country. Angela Merkel just let Muslims go marauding through Germany’s young women like a lawnmower through the new Spring grass because she was afraid of being called racist. If a Uighur lays one hand on a daughter of an Inner Party member, he will be short that hand and perhaps his head as well.
  9. Again, China will treat Christians, Muslims, ethnic minorities and anyone not named Wang, Chen or Chin the way other people treat their domestic animals — on a good day. That’s kind of the way they see us. When the dog craps on the rug, it gets spanked. When it gets too old to chew its bone, you take it out back and kill it with an axe. As for Christians and Muslims, the Middle Kingdom between Heaven and Earth is like an old Mississippi Golf Club. Both Jesus and Mohammad were the wrong race to apply for membership. “Tough titty.” Said the kitty.

So, in conclusion, this particular sparkling jewels of coruscating brilliance from our MI guys in The Five-Sided Puzzle Palace has several problems. The worst being that it was POMed for, included in a budget and paid for at taxpayer expense. You can’t defeat a legitimately hard-assed enemy like China if you are deliberately deceived by your own mythological propaganda.

In East Asia, everyone not you wants you to take a dirt nap. Therefore paranoia, irascibility, and racism all three become significant force multipliers as you fight to stay alive just one more generation. The Chinese have managed that feat successfully ever since Ghengis Khan got bored and rode away. There are raped, brutalized and traumatized women all over Germany and Sweden cursing their unjust fates that their own societies have failed to remain similarly ¡RACIST! The OSD isn’t helping our nation defend anything other than its own suicidal delusions with this piece of dreck analysis of China.

Affirmative Action In The Crosshairs

Monday, March 6th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Diversity Is Over

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sapling whips back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Affirmative Action

Sunday, November 20th, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¡RACISM! As A Censorship Tactic And A Mode of Societal Control

Friday, November 18th, 2016


Amerikan Leftists have no legitimate right to bitch about ¡RACISM!

They voted to elect and then re-elect a president who described lower income white people as bitterly clinging to their Bibles and their guns. It was sweet of the first president elected for his race alone not to over-generalize. They then proceeded to unsuccessfully attempt to install Hillary “Basket of Deplorables” Clinton.

Remember Van “Whitelash” Jones? Guess who gave him his big break in politics? So why do the clearly hypocritical and disingenuous scam artists still accuse people they don’t see in the mirror every morning of being ¡RACISM!?

That’s easy. Like terrorism, it works like hell. It inspires Leftists to violence and hatred toward the system. That hatred then offers them the chance to disrupt. ¡RACISM! is a subversive tactic.

What excuse do we hear when Twitter censors the Alt-Right? !RACISM! What happens when a black person dissents from liberal gospel. As TJ Sotomayor puts it. “They call us all kinds of n*gg*s.” Malcolm X described this phenomenon in his own life and times.

There are many whites who are trying to solve the problem. But you never see them going under the label of liberals. That white person that you see calling himself a liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere. He’s the most deceitful. He’s like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he’s up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way that even though you see his teeth you think he’s smiling and take him for a friend.

Liberals will never lay off from flogging ¡RACISM! They find it too effective of a marketing strategy. They thrive on the fact that diversity plus proximity incites racial warfare. From FDR to LBJ to BHO the divisive strategy laid out in the writings of Saul Alinsky dictates how past racial grievances are used to sell divisiveness and hatred in current electorates. So what do?

Solutions on the Alt-Right vary. Some are more fundamentally radical than what I put on offer. All, however, seek to give people of all races, cultures and religions the right to set up their own enclave of safety. A place that is uniquely theirs and that gives them a unique sense of cultural honor and pride.

What I would personally like President Trump to pursue on this issue is a concerted effort to strip the Diversity Police of their teeth and to encourage Freedon of Association throughout the private sector of the US economy. That would include who businesses hire, who businesses serve and who can buy and sell real estate at what price and in what location.

This would require a concerted effort to change the ideological complexion of who makes decisions in Federal Court. It would require a difficult and prolonged effort to amend Civil Rights Laws to concentrate specifically against de jure discrimination rather than the specious and overbroad concept of disparate impact. Civil Rights need to be actual rights not the premise by which we block the natural freedom of people that we object to or blame for historical injustices our relatives may have suffered.

An America that allowed people to swirl when they wanted to swirl and to segregate when they wanted to segregate would ultimately become a more segregated America, if not an America composed of different and isolated ethnic nations.

It would also be a peaceful America and a more prosperous and safer America. For people of all races. It would also be a much less Liberal America so Progressives will fight to prevent Freedom of Association from ever being a truly beneficent right enjoyed by the majority of Americans.

The Right To Be Corrupt

Friday, October 21st, 2016


Many believe that liberties are the foundation of a free and open society, but these introduce a multitude of problems that would not exist without them.

With the introduction of free speech — a civil liberty — the following problems arise:

  • Free speech indicates that without it, people would not be free to speak up. But with or without “free speech” speaking is as easy as opening your mouth. Unless you stutter, or something. Thus free speech gives the impression that you must support the liberal politicians that give you free speech, else you will be silenced.

  • With free speech, that freedom may be taken away at any moment. In fact all of your rights will be taken away, as soon as you speak against those that have something to lose from it. Then you are less than a cockroach, to them, and they will try to exterminate you.

  • As soon as there is a freedom, you live with the overhanging threat of losing it. As the people fear losing their rights, they take the necessary steps to secure them. This means that they will vote for anyone that promise them said rights and that is liberals and the left.

  • When people think that they have freedoms, they begin to behave as if they could do anything, because they use their freedoms as a free pass to validate poor behavior. This is a psychological process that is called rationalization, and that means “to lie” and make excuses. So not only do they misbehave, they also justify it, and with that the decay to their character strikes twofold.

  • The people smitten by the greatness of free speech, begin to look down upon those that do not have it, and try to spread it: they are missionaries that give everybody around them problems. In this way the West has destabilized the Middle East when it should have kept to its own business.

  • The people that have tasted the advantage of possessing freedoms, will come to demand more freedoms so that they may not just speak, or write, but soon they will have rights to behave in any way that they like. Having introduced free speech, other human rights follow and there cannot be any end to the rights that humans and animals must have to protect them from all of life.

Without free speech you may still speak, but no one may take that away from you because there is nothing to take, consequently the people cannot fear losing rights that they do not possess. This retain all the advantages of open communication, but leaves the political scheme behind, and with that the left has no political platform.

Without free speech we cannot justify saying anything with the right to speak as we please. Without free speech, the people won’t think that they are more enlightened than others in this way and so they won’t try and spread their politics and cause problems worldwide. Without rights, we need not make up ever more rights to protect everyone from everything just because these people are fearful.

The people that defend human rights are called liberals. They are not liberated though, because they have become slaves to these rights. No one need freedoms any more than the liberals do and they never have enough of it while the rest of us just go about our own business.

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

Friday, October 14th, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

Luckily a two-step process shows us the way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affirmative Action Continues Its Destruction

Friday, October 14th, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading