Posts Tagged ‘houston’

How The West Beat The Soviets: Consumerism

Sunday, November 12th, 2017

At this point, the Cold War has been mostly forgotten in the West thanks to Leftist teachers who preferred to teach social justice to actual history. However, its lessons remain with us because the order from which we are currently emerging was formed at the moment the Cold War ended, and as the larger Age of Ideology fails, we can see how the two ideas were linked.

From roughly the end of WW2 through the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West and East (Eurasia and Asia) were engaged in a “Cold War,” or conflict which refused to go fully military but still resembled a military struggle. Ultimately, the Soviets could not make their economy work, overspent on weapons, and found themselves subverted by the Western lifestyle.

We will see, perhaps, the long lines outside the first McDonald’s in Moscow, or note how Russians saved up months of income for a precious pair of blue jeans, and perhaps also recall how scarce a commodity Western pop music was in Communist countries before the fall. But the real story was one of breadlines versus abundance in American grocery stores.

As the Houston Chronicle recalls, a visit by Boris Yeltsin to a Clear Lake grocery store may have set the stage for the collapse of Soviet confidence in their own system:

According to Houston Chronicle reporter Stefanie Asin, it wasn’t all the screens, dials, and wonder at NASA that blew up his skirt, it was the unscheduled trip inside a nearby Randall’s location.

Yeltsin, then 58, “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement,” wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, “there would be a revolution.”

…About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.

In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of communism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Left regrouped around an idea: it could hybridize consumerism with ideology, and use the fires of capitalism to drive its cultural revolution and ultimate takeover of the West. David Brooks chronicles this in his book about the new elites, BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.

Interestingly, as this new consumerism-communism hybrid rises, people are seeing the appeal in something much older: a touch of the Stalin era, maybe some overtones of Hitler, but mostly, a longing for the world before WW1, when there was still social order, a sense of purpose to the West, and democracy had not yet infested everything with a zombie-like obsession with furthering “equality.”

Perhaps our modern Clear Lake Randall’s is when we visit the countryside, or a society outside the West, and see that people are living with a sense of purpose and belief, and therefore, are a great deal happier than we can be. Somewhere, the good life is meaningful, and it is not found in consumerism, globalism, diversity or any other aspect of the toxic brew brought by egalitarianism.

Amerika Gets Its Worst Congresscritter Ever, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Thanks To The Voting Rights Act

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

Houston needs disaster relief. It has needed such succor since Jan 3, 1995. On that tragic date in history, Sheila Jackson Lee joined the nefarious ranks of Congress.

Jackson-Lee is perhaps the worst member of Congress ever for three reasons: She is stupid. She is evil. She is greedy. She is also obnoxious, but I said three reasons and we on the Alt-Right never give out extra credit. Other than that, she has an opaque and unfathomable character. If she were not in Congress, she would be that woman whose fundamentally bitchy and malignant nature would be driving otherwise dutiful Christians out of a low church Baptist congregation. She is an execration.

She is not merely stupid. She is the long and wrong tail of the intellectual bell curve. She is to stupid what Harvey was to rainy weather. Her real objection to Harvey is that NOAA didn’t name it Hurricane Jamarquavious. I wish I were kidding. I.AM.NOT.KIDDING.

Texas congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee complained in 2003 that storm names were too white. “All racial groups should be represented,” she said, and asked officials to “try to be inclusive of African-American names.”

And in case you thing President Trump needs more advice on how to handle Kim Jong-un, here’s who not to call. Sheila displays her geographical cluelessness below.

“I stand here asking us to do what we did not do in Vietnam, (which) was to recognize the valiant and outstanding service of our men and women, and to understand victory had been achieved,” she said during the special order speech, which House members can give on any topic at the end of a day’s legislative work. “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working,” she said. “We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side.”

And I would have you know, I am not a liar when I call The She-Jack an outlier. Her visit to NASA JPL will go down in history. Winston Smith’s Memory Hole can burn it over and over again. Yet the stupid cannot die!

In 1997, while on a trip to the Mars Pathfinder operations center in California, Jackson Lee asked if the Pathfinder had succeeded in taking a picture of the flag planted on Mars by Neil Armstrong in 1969. Needless to say, Jackson Lee, then a member of the House Science Committee, had confused Mars with the Moon.

I find myself sick and tired of genius tech overlords who are evil. I don’t like being tired, so today I’ll discuss low tech evil. It’s She-Jack, so I’ll be discussing evil that may well require a job that’s one or two steps below automation. It’s low, mean-spirited, hyper-aggressive nasty. In Amerika, that typically involves an absolutely moronic obsession with race. She won’t drink Pepsi-Cola, so let me ask you a very personal question, Amerika… Is your cola dark enough?

Jackson Lee recently blasted a Pepsi advertisement shown during the Super Bowl in which a black woman throws a can of soda at her husband for ogling an attractive white woman next to them. “It was not humorous. It was demeaning — an African-American woman throwing something at an African-American male and winding up hitting a Caucasian woman,” she thundered from the House floor.

And then there is the Sheila Jackson Lee management style.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas also hands out nicknames to the people who work for her. The Houston Democrat addressed one of her employees as “you stupid motherfucker.” And not just once, but “constantly,” recalls the staffer, “like, all the time.”

It wasn’t just limited to demeaning sobriquets.

Capitol Hill is famous for its demanding, insensitive bosses. Yet even by the harsh standards of Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee stands out. She may be the worst boss in Washington. “It’s like being an Iraq War veteran,” says someone who worked for her. Strangers may say, “‘oh I know what you’ve been through.’ No, you really don’t. Because until you’ve experienced it…. People don’t tell the worst of the stories, because they’re really unbelievable.” For some, a job in Jackson Lee’s office proved not just emotionally but physically perilous. One staffer recalls a frank conversation with his doctor, who told him he needed to quit. “It’s your life or your job,” the doctor told him…

And it wasn’t just her employees who were in danger when the intellectual and moral Low Pressure System known as She-Jack blew into town.

Her former drivers say the congresswoman demanded they run red lights and drive on highway shoulders around traffic. This caused at least one accident. As Jackson Lee was yelling at a staffer to drive faster she turned too sharply, smashing the side of her car into a wall. Jackson Lee’s requests don’t stop at the end of a normal working day. “In the middle of the night, people had to go get her garlic. She’ll call you at two in the morning for garlic because she takes them as supplements,” a former staffer said. Jackson Lee’s garlic runs were confirmed by other staffers, too, though no one could remember the exact brand of the supplement. The deputy chief of staff “would have to go get it, and he would have to go drop it off. It was some kind of a multi-vitamin,” another former staffer said. On Christmas Eve, one staffer was at a midnight mass ceremony at her church. When the boss called, the staffer didn’t answer. “She got so irritated that I wasn’t answering her call on Christmas Eve. So she called me every minute for 56 minutes,” the source recalled.

Evil is bad, stupid is worse. Greed makes it quite the trifecta. Nepotism, like charity, begins in the home. Members of The House of Representatives have the power of the purse. Representative Jackson-Lee opened up that purse and made it rain over where her husband worked.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) steered more than $5 million in tax dollars to the University of Houston, where her husband is an official. The Washington Post revealed in an investigative report dubbed “Family Ties” that Jackson ensured her husband’s university was well subsidized.

Then there was what happened a hospital her husband had ties to had monetary problems.

Houston Riverside General Hospital specialized in the kind of medicine its better-heeled brethren did their best to avoid. Like treating the poor, the mentally ill, the drug-addled. So it’s no surprise that the 95-year-old nonprofit — formerly known as Houston Negro Hospital — shared the same broken finances as the people it served. Most patients couldn’t pay their own way, leaving Riverside to survive off the rock-bottom reimbursement rates of Medicare and Medicaid. At one point, it was losing $10,000 a day. That’s when executives decided to cauterize the wound with a hot poker of fraud.

So they were about to go down hard. Then Representative Jackson Lee went up to bat for her friends.

In 1996, the State of Texas accused Riverside of padding fees and billing for drug rehabilitation services it never provided. Texas canceled $1 million in contracts and demanded that the hospital repay another $763,000. It also urged the feds to audit Riverside’s Medicare and Medicaid payments. Yet charges of fraud weren’t enough for bureaucrats to fully close the spigot. The money continued to flow.
It would take another eight years before the state finally had enough. In 2004, it moved most of its drug-treatment contracts to more trusted providers, slashing Riverside’s funding by 75 percent.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, CEO Earnest Gibson III had friends in influential places. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) demanded an investigation of the cuts, calling on Governor Rick Perry to restore the money. Perry, who had appointed Gibson to the Board of Regents at Texas Southern University, was happy to oblige. By the time it was over, Riverside emerged with another $3 million.

Thus, like garbage, Congresswoman Jackson Lee floats to the top of the harbor as the Houston bayous are flooded by the City of Houston and the Army Corps of Engineers deciding to use half of the city as a reservoir pond. She is demanding $150Bn in recovery money.

Houston congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said federal lawmakers should begin working on a Hurricane Harvey aid package worth about $150 billion, more than double the amount Hurricane Sandy needed five years ago. Jackson Lee told CNN today that the funding to recover from the massive flooding is needed “because this not only includes the Houston Harris County area, which is 6 million in its metroplex, but all of our areas, such as Beaumont, that was hit last night, Victoria and Corpus and places in south Texas.” “We don’t know where else Hurricane Harvey will come,” she said. “And we understand it may turn back to Houston on tomorrow and the next day.”

If it were just hurricane relief, and if somebody could produce an estimate that demonstrated where this money is needed, then it would be logical to vote for the funds and get Houston back on its feet. But this is not the case with hurricane relief bills. They are demotic vehicles for the grifters and the greedy. Hurricane Sandy’s $75 billion relief bill only spent $25 billion on actual storm relief.

If the same proves true of the Harvey relief bill, and if She-Jack gets her way, we’re talking $100 billion stolen from the American taxpayer. Nobody in their right mind would ever put somebody like Sheila Jackson Lee in charge of a $150 billion hedge fund with little or no administrative control on how she invested it. But this, by its very nature, is what happens under government by and for the people, who after all elected fraudster Sylvester Turner, the Kwame Kilpatrick of Texas.

Harvey’s floodwaters will recede. Brave and hard-working people will feed the starving, shelter the dispossessed, rescue the stranded and rebuild among the sodden refuse and wreckage. Then Joel Osteen will go back to asking for more of your money. Sadly, Sheila Jackson Lee will remain an anthropogenic disaster that infects both Houston and the United States Congress until the various tribes of Houston emerge from their primeval state of demotism.

As Democracy-Created Problems Mount, The Thin Veneer Of The First World Cracks

Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

We, the citizens of the air conditioning and the infomercial, of the the fast food joint at the corner and the Wal-mart in the middle of town, like to think that we have attained a status where the problems of humanity — namely that 99% of us are screwing up most of the time, producing miserable societies — are as far away in time as they are in space.

Any time you see something denied, look quickly to see the truth that is being concealed and know it is true. The more we insist on equality, the more we know we are unequal; the more that we talk about our first world lifestyles, the more we should know that these are disappearing, replaced by a life completely controlled by democracy, consumerism and neurosis.

Hurricane Irma is currently ravaging Florida, but Hurricane Harvey changed America. It was not the story hidden within the story — that a city flooded itself by draining its reservoirs, after relatively minimal storm damage — but that normal people everywhere are waking up to the fact that we live in a fake society.

The media was quick to run a narrative of “Texans helping Texans, regardless of race, color or creed.” You know what this is: emphasize the dominant paradigm, so that people can go back to comfortable oblivion instead of being forced to face the fact that our society is in collapse.

Alone that tells you that our civilization is in collapse. If people have to actively deny and conceal something, it means the opposite is true. So Texans did not come together, regardless of race, color and creed; instead, minority-majority rule meant that the mayor was content to treat the relatively wealthy flooded suburbs as subject populations, knowing that his voter base would approve. Looting was widespread and generally ran across the color line. And we are not back to business as usual, because people have realized that our current civilization is dysfunctional and hostile to those who have the ability to fix it. Government hates competence in its constituency because the competence of certain individuals is a threat to control that is enforced by shepherding the masses of the brainwashed. The masses, voting for individualistic benefit, create a parasitic government that then promises to take care of them, and in the process, becomes a system of wealth transfer from the productive to those whose only commodity of value is their vote. They then form a loose cartel based on insisting that this way of life is the best and only option, and that anyone who dissents is guilty of anti-social behavior. Usually, this quiets the herd, including the dangerous tip of those who are intelligent, thoughtful, analytical and alert.

This time however, it did not work. As part of the growing alienation between Americans who support the equality agenda and those who do not, people are rebelling against the narrative. They realize that things would not be concealed unless they contained a grain of truth, and that the truth is that once you look behind the curtain, you see that everything about our government, equality and diversity is a lie.

A natural disaster shows you how much you depend on civilization. The first layer is the obvious stuff: electricity, water, sewer, grocery stores and cops on the streets. Then, you want a basic sense of stability, such as that there are those who will help you and people in power who will do their best to minimize the impact of events like this. You also want more than cops on the street, but a justice system which cannot be bought and puts the bad guys away or sends them away. You also want leaders that you can believe in who you think will replicate the world you grew up in, maybe a little improved, but not greatly diminished. And finally, there is the existential level: you want a civilization that has a purpose, so that life has a point, and that recognizes reality and adapts to it, so you do not encounter unpleasant surprises, and ideally that aims for excellence, so that we are creating meaning together by striving to not just subsist, and not just adapt, but even more than thrive, to ascend and therefore, to have something worth sacrificing for. People will go to work for the paycheck, but they are only really motivated when they believe there is something larger and more important than them which is being honored, perpetuated, refined and improved by the group participation of which they are part. The existential level comes out more than anything else during a natural disaster because people need an answer to the question, “Why rebuild? Why keep going? Why strive at all?”

Right now in the West we have the parasite dark organization that arises in any human group as the basis for our government, industry and cultural institutions. To understand this, we must first define terms: “organization” used in an adjectival or adverbial sense means the state of being organized, or having a plan, separated functions, tools and materials in place, hierarchy, delegation and the like; an “organization” in a noun sense means a group of humans united by certain principles and goals, from three friends up through a large corporation, government, tribe or centralized religion. Dark organizations happen when the goals of individuals conflict with the goals of the organization, and those individuals begin using the organization as a vehicle for their own goals instead of the goals of the organization, and the hierarchy or leadership within is not strong enough — or is disempowered by internal conflicts, including revolt by lower ranks — to resist it.

This happened in the West when we overthrew our monarchs to divide power so that the mercantile middle classes could expand their own power. First they removed the absolute authority of the monarchs and then, blaming them for the problems caused by that lack of absolute authority, removed them entirely. Since then we have had mob rule, but it keeps going because people believe in it and rationalize its failures because of their need for that belief, mainly because they cannot conceive of anything different. So they shrug off the insanity, wait in the lines, sit in entirely avoidable traffic jams that we treat like an odd kind of weather event, endure pointless make-work activities and moronic socialization, pay taxes that increase every year, support both criminal underclasses that contribute nothing and parasitic fake culture and fake leadership that actively steals from them, and cut off their brains from thinking about all the productive things they could do with the money, time and energy wasted on the parasites.

Government seems like it can keep going indefinitely. But it has a weakness: it depends on lots of nice white guys showing up, willing to carry out its insane orders, believing in its justifications and purpose. This is eroding, and events like Hurricane Harvey are accelerating it. When your local government makes disastrous decisions, and the number of people who want to take from the till increases, and bloat also swells, then you know that you are headed toward a crash. You are in a bubble, trading on the wealth and power of the past so that useless people can take “their fair share” despite offering nothing that contributes to improvement.

Our thinking went backward when we insisted on equality. Before equality, there was the idea of hierarchy, or that each person had a place in the structure of society, but unequally; we all gave according to our ability, and received according to our actual need in order to serve our purpose, which meant that many were poor because their roles were small. If they died, they were easily replaced, and so they received lower levels of funding. After equality, the assumption was different: we basically said that x + y = 1 for all values of x, so choose any arbitrary values that make you feel good. This is why people are fanatical about believing lies; they must make all choices good so that no one can be assessed according to their level of contribution. This is a type of pacifism that says we do not need to struggle for position, or even to use self-discipline to improve our contributions, but in a backward interpretation of the original formula, we are assumed to be contributors and then the system makes room for us and approves of whatever weird behaviors we indulge in. That is an anti-reality formula; instead of rewarding those who adapt to reality, we assume that the reward goes to everyone, and find an argument that says that whatever they were doing was useful after all, in contradiction of how things appear.

The reversal of thinking — instead of seeing what the result is, assuming that the result is good and therefore approving of anything on the left side of the equation — creates warm and fuzzy feelings among human beings. They no longer must struggle to get a good result (the right side of the equation) but can focus entirely on the left side of the equation, which is where they project their feelings, drama, emotions, judgements and sentiments. To them, their notions appear real if other people treat them as real, and it is this affirmation (or validation) that they want. They want other people to rubber-stamp the unrealistic as the real, because then they are blameless if a Darwinistic Event occurs and they are eliminated or humiliated.

Politics arises from that reversal. It is no longer important to show that an idea, when implemented, produces the right results; all results are the same. Instead, you merely have to excite 51% or more of the population about it, and it becomes law. Democracy is the expression of the social sensation of going along with the crowd because it is easier and less risky than standing out. Whoever produces the simplest idea wins, but that idea needs to not only be simple in itself, but appeal to the basic desires of humanity. Free stuff, blaming someone else for our problems, and feeling that nice warm togetherness that lets a hive mind buzz in unison are all perpetually popular themes. Politics occurs as a result with having to deal with a society without hierarchy, where other than the leaders, everyone is an equal, which means that in order to get anything done you need to get them all roaring at the same time. Because of equality, leadership becomes a question of politics, which is more like the work of an actor on stage or the phenomenon of a football game or even the choice of which television commercial is most effective, than some kind of reasoned decision based on facts, logic and context!

Equality creates nerds. The point of equality is to create a human-only world where all that matters is what other humans think; reality itself is deprecated and obsolete, but mass sentiment determines who wins and who dies. This produces nerds, or those who are experts in deductive reasoning based on human sources. A nerd can read an instruction manual or scientific study, and from it make conclusions about how reality is, focusing on broad and square logical statements instead of the finely nuanced, coordinated detail-oriented, logic-intensive and depth-focused world of nature. A nerd loves machines and rules, references and orthogonal logic patterns, and shies away from the complexity of a forest, ecosystem, weather pattern or philosophical argument. They are products of the system. They are the ones who rule in any democracy because they understand the mechanisms of both technology and the herd. When your society goes nerd, it becomes entirely self-referential, and misses out on the broader world outside of the human-centric logic used by social interaction and politics. Where nature demands results, politics and nerds focus on methods and procedures. This makes them powerful within human society, but unable to predict the consequences of nature, which turns out not to be “some thing out there” but a pattern order that pervades us all, and dooms the best-laid plans of nerds and politicians because those schema are too simple to take account of the nuance, detail and subtlety of nature.

This in turn creates neurosis because there are no actual rules, only responses to whatever the herd is doing at that moment. Modern people are attention whores because with equality, no one has any actual place, and everyone starts from square one. As a result, they are all trying to prove their importance by competing for money or ideological purity, because either makes them noteworthy and then they can start cultivating their personal Crowd which will ensure their popularity and thus, newsworthiness and from that, profitability. Equality makes everyone into a prostitute for social influence points, or status. This leads them to become entirely self-serving independent of their actual role in civilization, and this leads to a mixture of arrogance, pretense, narcissism and solipsism which is the defining feature of the person in the egalitarian society. The more equal we are, the more we have nothing, and must seek out some position of importance in order to avoid becoming simply generic human containers who die alone in irrelevance. Human attention is the only thing between us and the voracious void, so we pursue it like a drug, feeling good about ourselves only when we glow in the eyes of others, and feeling awful when we are deprived of this socializing influence. We are dependent on others for our own sense of identity and worth, and this is how we are controlled, not by a centralized force but by the instinct to form a herd that lurks in every human soul.

This leads us to the dirty secret of humanity: we think we are all so very individualistic, distinct and important, when in truth, most people are the same, being simply feral atavistic animals seeking to become important through using others in order to survive. Civilization becomes addictive like sex or skydiving, a feeling of well-being we seek before anything else because it temporarily ceases the emptiness we feel from having been made equal. Humans pursue ideas like “equality” and “diversity” because these reflect individualism, but since the individualist is beholden to the Crowd for his power, individualism corrupts and reduces individuality, creating empty people. We are more similar than we think in that there are only a few functions known as the “4 Fs” — feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — which humans focus on, although our versions are more abstracted than those literal ideas. For example, people posture at being important in order to feed better thanks to higher salaries; they fight through sports, business, socializing and culture; they flee from any idea which invalidates what they have achieved; and they seek mates by showing off whenever they can. We are biology, no matter how much we deny it.

Our contemporary narrative takes advantage of this. The Leftist idea, which is egalitarianism, makes us feel like the adversity we face has been removed by the collective action of humanity. This in turn makes us believe that we are somehow breaking new ground for humanity when in reality we are denying fundamentals that we need for civilization. Like a bad business, we are cutting corners by refusing to put energy into civilization so that we can instead devote it to short-term enjoyments. The only way to rationalize this behavior is through the nebulous and emotional world of social morality, which follows the utilitarian idea that whatever most people will vocalize approval of must then be what is right, even when it is not — or especially when it is not. This rationalization enables us to live in a solipsistic bubble where we pretend that we are unique, different, iconoclastic and special by using the same logic that allows us to claim that decay is progress. To those caught in the addiction to being unique and special that comes with trying to rise to a state above the mere equality that is granted to everyone, and therefore is worthless, “diversity” seems a natural way to decrease the amount of standards in a society, and therefore allows us to get more freaky, weird, eccentric, eclectic, and dramatic, which in turn allows us to engage in stunts and attention whoring and raise our own status, since “equality” actually pushes us downward by eliminating any innate identity or position we would have if we were living in a hierarchical society.

Our behavior thus is compensatory in that since we are not getting what we need, we focus instead on short-term temporary wants as a means of feeling compensated for what has been taken from us that we cannot identify. That makes us dependent on our compensatory behavior because we feel that it is all we have, and we have a vague sense of being victimized, but since the person doing the victimizing is ourselves, since we have unknowingly become pathological in our cult-like pursuit of equality, we cannot lash out, and instead target those around us by becoming parasitic to our own civilization. This takes us full circle: people feel a lack of power, so they demand equality, which in turn makes them powerless, so they sabotage their society, but this makes them complicit in a dark organization like a gang, cult, cartel or mob which then demands allegiance, so they cannot stop the cycle. Endless cries for equality are met by endless degradation of conditions, while those savvy and cynical enough to see through the whole thing promise the mewling mob what it demands, and then abscond with the profits because they know that only disaster lies ahead. Whether that is Hugo Chavez dying a billionaire as his countrymen starved, Soviet apparatchiks in their dachas, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren becoming millionaires in office, or simply your average rank-and-file bureaucrat making six figures to administer civil rights, affirmative action, sexual assault protection or any of the other voter hot button programs, equality means theft.

People generally recognize that this is the case, and it makes them hopeless. Anyone with a brain in the West has been morbidly depressed since at least the 1920s, with the most perceptive beginning to feel the queasiness in the 1820s or earlier. However, they know that a transition to anything else will involve massive carnage and possibly failure, so they hang on, patching up society like a leaky boat and hoping for the best instead of letting it sink while they build a new boat. These people, who are complicit in continuing the decline because they have rationalized the decay as positive and are afraid of anything else, collaborate with the government and other captive industries to further the narrative: We Can Fix This. They want us to think that Houston flooding is merely an aberration, a glitch, or a deviation from the norm, instead of the norm itself. The truth is that we cannot fix this and even if we could, it would be doom for us, a slow death by a thousand cuts that makes us existentially miserable and prone to abuse our families, friends and coworkers as it drives us mad. We are locked in a train heading toward a ravine where the bridge is out, keeping ourselves distracted by fighting over the distribution of food in the restaurant car while the abyss grows steadily nearer. We all want off the train, but there is no way to jump from a speeding train without risk of death or serious injury, so we huddle closer, in public keeping up the charade by focusing on any issue other than the one real issue of civilization collapse, and in private always wondering exactly when the crash will come.

Houston shows us our future. The minority-majority city will never act in a sane way because it is divided by racial politics. Every group votes for what benefits them, with only the Western European group voting for what will make the local civilization there work for everyone. Who wants to pay for a billion-dollar aqueduct when there are pensions, benefits, diversity programs, more schools for the children of illegal aliens, and more helpful government programs that hire the bureaucrats who get those pensions, to be funded? Houston has known since Tropical Storm Allision in 2001 that an epic flood disaster was going to occur, and the :

What’s at stake is the safety of the nation’s fourth-largest city. If the dams failed, half of Houston would be underwater.

…Addicks and Barker were six decades old, with a long history of seepage and erosion, when the Corps evaluated their condition in 2007. Once positioned far from downtown, they were now surrounded by houses and highways. Some residences sat within the reservoirs, which straddle the Energy Corridor along Interstate 10 and west of Beltway 8.

Development upstream was sending more runoff into the reservoirs, which were filling faster and storing water for longer. Nine out of the top 10 pools for both reservoirs have occurred since 1990.

“Every piece of concrete that’s poured upstream is going to have an impact on these reservoirs. Every square inch,” Long said

…The deadliest scenario for Addicks involves the outlets failing as the pool rises to 106 feet, producing the staggering loss of billions in property and thousands of lives after water submerges downtown, west and south Houston and the Texas Medical Center. 

You can see the growth of Houston over time, and how that growth coincides with the mostly-Hispanic immigration that transformed a once white-run city into a Democrat-run, mostly non-white city. Houstonians who grew up after 1982 found themselves in a minority-majority city with street signs in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and other languages corresponding to the 145 languages that people speak there. White people make up 24.9% of the population of Houston, and 38.8% of the population of the Houston metropolitan area.

As Houston grew, it lost a vital resource: the wide flood plain that enabled the reservoirs to dump water outside of the city, instead of having to release it into the mainly white neighborhoods surrounding the bayous, into which the reservoirs drain as outlets.

It was not to be. On April 18, during the height of the storm, when the dam gates were closed, the flow in Buffalo Bayou reached nearly 7,000 cfs, as measured by the gauge at Piney Point. (The Memorial Day flood on May 26, 2015, exceeded 7,000 cfs and reached 8,500 cfs, according to the Harris County Flood Control District, page 9.) As of this writing, combined releases from the dams, measured by the Piney Point gauge, have exceeded 3,000 cubic feet per second for longer than even after the Memorial Day flood, the first time the Corps deliberately raised the release rate to 3,000 cfs, and frequently have reached 3,700 cfs. Homes downstream are expected to flood above 4,000 cfs.

Consistently, Houston has rejected any plan for addressing the problem of huge amounts of rain, namely that such amounts would necessitate a release above 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in order to drain the reservoirs in anticipation of future rain, as it indeed did, destroying many neighborhoods. Hurricane Harvey called Houston’s bluff, which mayors Lanier, Brown, Parker and Turner — all Democrats, two black — had been ignoring as a possibility by not acting on any plan to increase drainage. The growth of Houston, coupled with its refusal to upgrade its drainage, created this flood.

In fact, there were two floods: the initial storm surge, which flooded areas that normally flooded during storms like Allison, and the reservoir release, which produced the really devastating damage that destroyed homes along the bayous two days after the storm hit. This flood has provoked a class action lawsuit from homeowners who observed the correlation between the reservoir release and the destruction of their homes. In their view, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Houston essentially used some of its oldest and wealthiest neighborhoods as a giant retention pond, instead of venting the reservoirs outside the city, which created a flood of epic proportions:

The controlled releases, which topped out with the dams gushing a combined 13,000 cubic feet per second, sent water surging into homes along Buffalo Bayou in neighborhoods, outlined by I-10 to the north, Gessner to the east, Briar Forest to the south and the reservoir to the west. Mayor Sylvester Turner ordered a mandatory evacuation for all homes that had flooded once it became clear the water would not recede anytime soon.

…This comes as people are looking back at the years of warnings that this kind of event could happen, about developing rice fields and wetlands that used to sop up storm water, about how Addicks and Barker were aging, about how another plan was needed to be put in place before a major storm like Harvey hit.

…After all, in 1996 a report from engineers with the Harris County Flood Control District found that Harris County’s reservoir system was not cutting it, a problem that put thousands of home in jeopardy. At that time the proposed solution was a $400 million underground system that would pipe water from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel.

And so it comes down to money. Spend on benefits for the diversity, or spend it on protecting the mostly white and Jewish neighborhoods threatened by reservoir-induced flooding? The 1996 report warned that Houston had expanded to cover the floodplain once used to drain the reservoirs:

The report was filed away without action, then last week Harvey struck. The usually dry Addicks and Barker reservoirs quickly filled until, on Aug. 28, they were nearly full and water had spread to their surrounding neighborhoods. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the floodgates to let a controlled amount escape. But instead of the normal 4,000 cubic feet per second, Corps officials opened the gates wide enough to release more than 13,000 cubic feet per second to keep the rising reservoir levels from overtopping the dams. They did so knowing it would flood neighborhoods downstream.

And just as the 1996 report predicted, water in many of the flooded homes would not drain for days or even weeks.

Despite this warning, the coalition of housing developers who wield the power of campaign financing and the minority voters who make up the largest voting bloc, would not support any changes, especially since the new homes in the floodplain were providing affordable housing for the new population, which was mostly non-white which was accelerated by the Obama policy of relocating Section 8 housing to the suburbs. As in Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles and other cities where the minority vote decides every election, people vote for what benefits their own tribes, and leave the costs to be absorbed by others, in this case mostly white, longer-term residents of Houston. Minorities never vote conservative, and Democrats win elections by promising benefits, not addressing infrastructural or structural problems. The more benefits we pay out, the more our wealth declines along with our motivation and hope, in parallel to what we saw in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries; benefits, like labor unions, are a socialist idea. The Balkanization begins in Houston.

Every plan that has promised to address the potential superfloods has been voted down, including some that took the reasonable step of limiting development:

Harris County Flood Control District, Texas Water Development Board and others released a study in August that looked at a key problem area: the overflow of Cypress Creek into Addicks Reservoir. One plan listed in the study, known as “Alternative Five,” proposes the acquisition of land along Cypress Creek to act as a sponge or reservoir for floodwaters. The more land that soaks up floodwater, the less likely the dams are to be breached: That’s just common sense. Area officials, nonprofit organizations and developers should unite to take the steps necessary to implement this plan now.

This alternative, which will provide a host of benefits to residents in addition to flood protection, is garnering support from groups that want to use natural resources as a primary defense against flooding as well as groups that support conventional infrastructure projects. Not only will the plan help relieve the pressure on the dams, as the area grows more populated, Houstonians also will be grateful for the green space. The mixed-use floodways will provide recreational amenities and will benefit the biodiversity of the area by maintaining a home for quail, dove, rabbits and a large variety of songbirds and ducks.

There’s no time to waste. Nearby land is being developed and concrete is being poured at a rapid pace.

However, displacing this land by making it a floodplain would frustrate both the developers, who see money in building neighborhoods closer to the city, and minority voters, who are increasingly located in suburbs and want this new housing. While people from the coasts — seemingly to a man knowing zero about the situation in Houston, yet willing to opine on it with the pretense of authority — suggest that Houston’s lack of zoning is the problem, the reality is far simpler: even with zoning, new neighborhoods are springing up anywhere land can be bought in order to accommodate the flood of newcomers, most of whom are from Central America and Asia and vote consistently Democrat. Zoning will raise the costs of housing, but will not stop the growth of the city. And Texas’ famously high property taxes, required to maintain the school system under the “Robin Hood” policy of redistributing money from wealthy areas to poorer ones, keep going up as bilingual schools are built to take on the flood of new children, 91% of whom are non-white. This means that anyone who owns land that could be kept in a natural state is driven out when they receive the astronomical bill based on the new value of their land, since development nearby raises its estimated sales price, which is the metric by which taxes are calculated. And whites? They are the prosperous tax base that also accurately reports its income, in contrast to some newer successful groups who have already for cheating in schools and, by reputation, on their taxes. In Asian and many Hispanic countries, cheating on taxes and exams is part of the national culture.

It is not global warming that brought about this flood, but over-development to support a rising minority-majority population:

Other researchers argue that poor urban infrastructure and the rapid, unchecked sprawl of cities on to marshlands and other places that usually absorb excess rainwater have led to flooding.

“We know climate change is influencing the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water but it is hard to attribute this to individual [flooding] events,” says Paolo Ruti, head of the global weather research division of the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva.

Those marshlands refer to the areas West, Northwest and South of Houston that in the past absorbed the extra water.

Television coverage of this event was interesting, since it focused mostly on what appeared to be obese people from minority groups getting rescued from homes in the outer suburbs like Cypress. This both affirms the narrative of equality (less capable = victims; more capable = tax base and evildoers) but also plays to popular stereotypes in the cruelest manner of bigots, so that the standard low-information white voter can sit back and quietly mutter ethnic slurs, which focuses his attention on specific minority groups instead of the problem of diversity, which is that his interests will never win in an election again. Hating black people plays into the hands of the pro-diversity crowd because it redirects focus to a false event, which is the behavior of minorities, and away from the actual question, which is that diversity is a government-sponsored event which can be ended by changing our laws, unleashing a wave of similar lawsuits, or, if necessary, open revolution.

White Houstonians are held hostage by the minority vote just as white voters are in Detroit or Baltimore. The third world strategy is to arrive en masse in clueless Western-style democracies, and then produce many offspring, so that soon, the minority population controls the vote and can turn the government against the people who created it. This demonstrates a classic conflict between r– and K-strategic populations — something I have been writing about since 2009 — which is that poorer and dumber populations have many more children, and eventually overwhelm those who are more competent at making leadership decisions, at which point the society collapses into a third-world state. Couple this with the fact that, to dumber people, more intelligent ideas than they are capable of generating in fact appear to be unintelligent ideas, and you have a perfect political storm where the incompetent swarm the gates and take over, only to create a failed state which makes successively worse decisions, as happened with the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, and arguably, the Obama revolution which wrecked America economically, culturally and structurally, paving the way for the populist backlash, which wanted an end to “globalism” or the advance of worldwide Leftism with its diversity initiative, after noticing the Soviet-style transformation unable to respond to actual risk. These people want their countries back and distrust the permanent political class running those countries. They are united against the toxic coalition of Leftists, minorities and large corporations that has transformed America and Europe by following the Leftist agenda.

We have seen this pattern before outside America, where minority-majority voters pair with Leftists and corporate interests to pursue an internationalist agenda instead of focusing on the health of the civilization and its founding group:

It is no exaggeration to say that this myth of the “moral high ground” was sustained only by sheer denialism, by a studied aversion of the eyes from these well-known faults. This held true even as the first signs of a new corruption became clear as one ANC leader after another quickly developed wealthy white “godfathers”. I asked Anton Harber, then editor of the Mail and Guardian, why his paper was paying so little attention to this alarming new phenomenon. He replied indignantly that having campaigned so strongly for liberation they had no wish to embarrass the new black elite. This sort of attitude was widespread. There was a rush among white opinion-makers to befriend the ANC and anyone who brought up such matters, let alone things like the use of torture in the MK camps, was thought to be churlish, perhaps even pro-apartheid.

The new ANC elite could not have hoped for such luck: a key newspaper deciding that news of budding corruption should be treated as non-news. They were not slow to take advantage. Even before 1994 Joe Modise, the putative defence minister, had made contact with various large arms manufacturers, had established contact with many old apartheid security apparatchiks and was a frequent attender at European air shows and the like: everything was ready to go.

This follows a pattern we see worldwide throughout history, which is that diversity is not a friend, but a challenge that no society has successfully navigated. Thomas Sowell lays out the basic problem with diversity:

If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.

Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japan’s homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times?

Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?

To which Ann Coulter adds the unpopular truth that diversity causes permanent political division that endangers societies:

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

On top of that, research data shows that diversity destroys social order and therefore is a dysfunctional form of civilization that will eradicate the host population. By contrast, homogeneity provides a firm basis for civilization, as a landmark study that demonstrates the superiority of ethnocentric civilizations in holding back both groupthink and selfishness:

Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

For now, people are vested in the system — it pays their wages, provides their security, and threatens to destroy them if they say something that is not politically correct — and so they feel clever for partaking in it and believing that it functions. They like the thought that they are represented by something, that they have freedom, and that no matter what they do, society cannot eject them or judge them as lower because they have equality. In order to have these, they select utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think is “good” actually is good, and in order to have a society where most people disagree on most things, they adopt pluralism or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and still have some semblance of functional order. From that, the step to diversity is not a long one, and it brings the eternal crisis of egalitarianism (equality): if you have a group of people who are fundamentally different in ability, the only way to make them all the same — how our brains interpret the word “equality” — is to take from those at the top, and give to those at the bottom, which means that the worst slowly consume the best, in a metaphorical relationship similar to that of biological parasites in nature. This happens without diversity, but diversity accelerates it, and soon we get the white=bad/non-white=good narrative that we saw in the early news stories about the Hurricane Harvey floods in Houston.

Even more, during a natural disaster, we see the need for civilization, which is not a generic thing but comes in different types, of which first world, third world, totalitarian, democratic, and nationalistic are potentially overlapping descriptors. All nice things end when you set up your civilization incorrectly; homogeneity is a pre-requisite for having a nice civilization. You cannot shape people into being like you with laws and incentives; to have nice places, you must have nice people, which means people like you on a biological level, as expressed both in genetics and outward appearance (phenotype). Even more, you need a leadership system that ensures that instead of having the worst slowly consume the best, you both empower the best to rule, and remove incentives for the best to victimize the rest, which requires vesting most of the wealth — usually through land, without insane property taxes — with the best. Without people of genius for leadership curating civilization at every step and every level, idiocy intervenes, and idiocy is subversive because it appeals to the broadest number of people since anything less idiotic is incomprehensible and offensive to them, so they will demand that those higher ideas go away and are replaced by idiotic ones. We have nothing now but pro-idiot policies.

The mayor of Houston is a man named Sylvester Turner who has a glowing résumé. He is not of the majority, so experience has taught me that this means that his experience and deeds have been vastly inflated by well-meaning but self-hating which means neurotic members of the majority group. He works for those who vote for him, which in a city that is three-quarters minority, means that he works against the interests of the white people and in favor of the Left-leaning, benefits-inclined minorities. Before him came Annise Parker, who was also an outsider, being a lesbian. She, too, worked for her tribe at the expense of the founders of this city, who were Western Europeans. She achieved the minority vote because she was not of the majority. Before her was Bill White, a member of the majority who was popular with the business community and progressives for his mixture of libertarian business policy and Leftist social policy. Previous to him was Lee Brown, also not of the majority ethnic group, who was universally recognized as lazy and incompetent but made Houston look “progressive” at a time when it was trying to expand. Before him was Bob Lanier, an old-school Democrat who was cozy with industry. He was of the majority group and should have known better, but apparently wanted power more than he wanted to be right, and the citizens of this city voted enthusiastically for them because he promised to make it grow by bringing in lots of outside people and industry. All of these people had a chance to make this flood problem go away, perhaps only for $400 million — a tiny fraction of the damage done by Harvey — and blew it off, because the coalition of minority voters and voracious industry did not want to spend the money on anything but benefits and new roads to the suburbs they were perpetually building around the city, many of which became homes for those minority voters. These people were mostly white, but under the non-white mayor Brown, the time was right because of Tropical Storm Allison, which flooded the city to the point that it was clear that something needed to be done. None acted.

Houston is a blue city. Most of the whites are faced with a grim choice: admit they are living in a third world nightmare with a pile of white wealth on top, or rationalize the problem, which means finding a way to argue to their own minds that bad=good, which they do through enthusiastic support of diversity, high taxes, immigration, gay rights and a slough of other Leftist issues that make people feel that nice warm sense of one-ness that comes with a buzzing hive mind. Rationalizers follow the mental policy that inevitable disaster can be postponed for long enough to forget about it, and that in the meantime, it is best to explain away the bad as good and tilt at windmills that are unrelated to actual problems. Most of us are familiar with the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

They came for the Communists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn’t
object – For I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left to object.

Rationalization means recognizing that there is an incoming and ongoing problem and choosing to re-style it as a victory. Obviously Niemöller had some issues, because removal of labor leaders, Socialists and Communists is never a bad thing, but the point he makes is a good one. Rationalization is a sickness of the mind. It takes many forms, some of them on the right. “Work hard, pray hard” and the Benedict Option are one form; another is anti-Semitism, which blames Jews for the problems created by Aryans through caste revolt, in which our r-strategy serfs overwhelmed our K-strategy aristocrats with the help of the mercantile bourgeois middle class. The so-called “Jewish Question” or JQ is a form of rationalization that avoids the real issue — civilization decline brought on by egalitarian sentiments, and a resulting lack of hierarchy and social order — while pursuing a symbolic issue, namely the scapegoat of the Jews, who for whatever wrongs they have done, did not create our decline, because we did it ourselves. The JQ is “we wuz kangs” for white people, or an explanation of how we were once great until someone else stole it from us, and an easy answer in that if we destroy that other, then the good times can resume. Leftism is another rationalization; instead of admitting that people are unequal and we want the best on top, Leftism says that it is positive that ineptitude and chaos rule because otherwise, we would have to face the morally and emotionally difficult task of recognizing hierarchy and the need for purpose. Leftism is just like the JQ: a pathology of blaming someone else for our cognitive incompetence.

Turner is obviously a bad guy here, in his participation in encouraging the reservoir release that created the flood, but he is not the source. Neither are the poor Jewish people who got flooded out in Meyerland. Democracy and diversity did this to you, and they happened because you voted for them, tolerated them and were afraid to speak up while you still had a chance. Now that Leftism has momentum, it is squashing all dissent aggressively, and so the only response is to confront it head-on as Trump and Brexit voters have done, but we must go further. The problem with democracy is that it cultivates helplessness and neurosis in us, much as socialism does, and so it must be removed; the problem of diversity is easily removed by sacking our Civil Rights laws and affirmative action, then beginning the reparations-with-repatriation process for all who are not of our founding group, who are Western Europeans. This means that Irish-Americans go back as well as Mexicans, Africans, Asians and Arabs. Modernity is the era defined by equality and individualism, and we now see that its end result is that all nice things get destroyed and are in turn replaced by third-world ruins.

It is hard — intellectually, morally, and emotionally — to face these truths. The sociable thing to do in any situation is to insist that everyone is good, we are all one, and all are welcome. People perennially desire to give in to this pathology, which like pacifism is a desire to avoid conflict by sacrificing what is accurate, good and right. It must be opposed, if you want a functional civilization, without regard to level of detail. Any egalitarianism is toxic; not one drop can be permitted. Any pluralism is toxic; not one drop can be allowed. Any democracy is toxic; not one drop can be sustained. All of those little drops come together to make a trickle, and that wears down the levee, and then they multiply, and soon those drops are a flood, submerging everything good while the bad feasts on the remains.

Diversity Paradise Houston Shows The Psychological Effects of Diversity

Saturday, September 9th, 2017

A week after a tragedy, the psychological effects begin to manifest. People who otherwise were stable and sane start to act differently. They stumble over common words, drive as if they were distracted and on heavy drugs, and make decisions with no relationship to reality. The tragedy has set in; now, the body assimilates it, taking all of the darkness within in an attempt to master it.

People experience these little mental health moments as they become unable to deal with the sheer crisis around them. Houston survived a hurricane, only to be flooded by its government which released the reservoirs in order to avoid endangering the newly-built areas around the city. There was hope, and then it perished under waves of rain, pond and sewer water.

It is perhaps a euphemism to call these failures of cognition “mental health moments.” They occur when people check out of reality entirely, and turn into the world of the self, like autistics stimming looking for a source of inspiration within themselves instead of out there in the world or even the more dangerous territory of their inner selves.

In fact, it seems like our entire society uses natural selection to ensure that the only people who prevail are those who do not mind going into a mental fugue state. Too much traffic, a task at a job that is both pointless and sure to be wasted, a society wracked by legal corruption? Just go into the zone of nothingness and allow the hours to pass without pain. It’s like morphine plus religion.

This mental discoordination appears after a disaster. The normal state of things, guaranteed by social good feelings and government, has been interrupted. People feel a sense of loss, but even more, a feeling that all of the normal rules do not apply. The promises were lies. The usual way of living has failed and been replaced by a more basic sense of survival.

When Houston flooded, the disconnection appeared. The normal way of doing things, which we assume to be safe and benevolent towards us, revealed itself to be empty and toxic. The assumptions of our fellow citizens, and the glowing newspaper articles about how people “came together regardless of race, age or gender” showed that they were not just lies, but lies designed to make us into ideological zombies.

White people — mostly Western Europeans — love diversity, mainly because they are naturally competitive, and so this becomes just another way of beating your neighbors. You have a black friend? Well, I have Asian, Latino, Indian and black transgender friends. And yet, when all the drama is done, they retreat to their all-white suburbs, and if those become infiltrated by the Other, the value of those houses mysteriously drops as all those anti-racist white people go elsewhere in search of others like them.

In that sense, we exist in two realities. The public reality affirms the equal nature of all people; the private truth points out that all of us want people like ourselves to exist alongside. Every now and then, the streams cross, as happens when a disaster removes all the pretense and forces us to adhere to what actually functions in terms of results in reality.

After the Houston floods, the mayor came out and made a speech. Then, he indulged in the pretense of the crowd: he allowed them to criticize him, ask “pointed” questions, and demand answers. Victory was on his side: there are always reasons why none of those apply, or at least can be deferred long enough to be swallowed by the memory hole.

The audience immediately separates into two groups: the fools, who do not understand that politics is a game of image, rely on the promises made and the laws written, and demand results. More savvy, the realists recognize that politicians thrive by finding large groups of people to vote for them, and so those laws, standards, and conventions can be overthrown and replaced.

Whatever the crowd wants, it gets.

The emptiness of the response shows us how much we are self-selected victims of democracy. We fear the moment where we must prove ourselves in reality, so we fall back into these human-only activities where all of our choices are “just opinions,” and therefore never wrong. We make the economic decision to suppress reality in favor of our own pretense and that of our friends.

All is vanity. About the only pure things left are love for nature and love for God. Those who adore and trust whatever created all of this, while knowing that it was not necessary and therefore somewhat arbitrary, recognize that it tends toward a proliferation of life, beauty and goodness. Such people have not an innate purpose, but the ability to choose a logical path which resembles purpose.

Humans fear that purpose because it makes us feel small, and we retaliate by demanding that our opinions become law, which is what the term “equality” really means. We are equal without having to adapt to our world or to contribute anything. We can just be as we are and never change, which means we never cross the streams because we remain only in that public world.

In the public world, appearance matters more than reality. Most people just want to be nice, or inoffensive but with the right motivations, because that way they feel powerful for having used The System toward their own ends. But this replaces reality with human emotion, which is why so many of them would rather die than be proven wrong.

Again, natural selection emerges. All of the people who were willing to confront reality have died off by becoming Romantic poets or joining the French Foreign Legion. What remains are those who live in a world of human emotion, denying both reality out there and the deep inner traits of their personalities which demand meaning, something which requires context in the world.

The result is that our nations do not feel like home anymore. They are ruled by a mechanical ideology that resembles that of the Soviets. The people who win are those who care the least about the consequences of their actions. We become neurotic, and come to hate each other. Much of this comes from our denial of the situation around us.

For example, in Houston, Sylvester Turner is an affirmative action mayor. He was elected because he did not offend the various minority groups, who did not want a white guy in charge. This means that he will say whatever makes those groups happy, and offer to everyone else empty excuses.

We need to call guys like this what they are — Kwame Kilpatrick (Detroit), Lee Brown (Houston) or Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) diversity candidates — because they are fundamentally insincere to the stated objectives of multiculturalism and democracy. They work for their own groups, which requires obliterating all others, and they do this through the soft methods of law, economics and social opinion. People go along with it in order to seem intelligent, while insisting that what we actually have is the surface definition of democracy and diversity.

The result shows us our future if we do not remove diversity. All groups act in self-interest, except the pretentious Caucasians, and so when a member of these groups gets in power, he does nothing but steal, corrupt and manipulate. That benefits his people. The rest of you will starve in flooded homes.

Across Houston, in its white neighborhoods, piles of debris and soaking belongings have emerged. The reservoir was emptied so that those who are likely to support the mayor were not inconvenienced, but those white people — unlikely to vote for him in the first place — they can be destroyed. It’s not like they will ever rise up against the system they have created.

You can see immediately whether someone understands the world around them by their attitude toward democracy. Those that think their elected leaders are coming to save them, or that they can manipulate those leaders, or even that a logical argument is being had in the media or with politicians… these people do not get it. They still believe in the surface.

Someone who sees government as an employment program that sells power in exchange for donations to candidates, the media as an entertainment product that reports only what creates an emotional reaction, and other people as a herd in which most understand almost nothing, by having seen this things, can never believe in “the System” but has seen the actual nature of people and their behavior.

We are victims of democracy. We believe in it, when it is actually a form of theater; we trust it to save us, when really its objective is to enrich its own members. And then, as doom approaches, we rationalize it, so that we can feel good and smart for having chosen the winning side, even if it will eventually destroy us.

This originates in our own hubris. We insist that whatever we do is right, instead of the natural form where we must do what is right according to the order above us, including nature and whatever gods we can summon. Our hubris makes us blind, and so we trust the Sylvester Turners of the world, forgetting that their goals do not overlap (much) with our own.

That hubris prevents us from seeing the obvious. This life is insane: sitting in traffic, tolerating idiocy at the office, pretending everyone matters and claiming our world is the best possible option, all reflect a mental health moment that has become a crutch. Surrounded by ugliness, we just space out when the time comes.

Even greater insanity might be trusting democracy itself. How can one reasonably expect a herd of human animals — bickering, preening, conformist, emotional — to make any kind of realistic choice? The answer is that one cannot, and so whoever tells them pleasant lies will win the day. This especially applies to smarter and smugly self-satisfied groups like Caucasians.

When you add diversity into the mix, it becomes even more impossibly unstable. Houston, after all, had two floods: one that flooded the usual areas that get hit by heavy rains, and the second caused by the release of water from the reservoirs, effectively using most of the city’s remaining white areas as a giant retention pond. The first flood was unavoidable, but actually not all that bad, compared to previous events; the second was catastrophic, and a product of the toxic brew of diversity and democracy that strangles Houston.

The West is headed toward dhimmitude not through importation of Muslims, but through diversity and democracy. We invite in the world; they vote against our interests because their interests begin when our power is shattered. And then, to rub our nose in it, they flood our neighborhoods and refuse to pay for actual drainage systems because there are benefits to be had and paid out, for votes, taken from our money.

In the long term, as we watch Houston float away, it becomes clear that diversity will never work. It merely enslaves the productive to the needs of the destructive. In turn, that makes the productive neurotic and oblivious, and so they self-destruct in emotional events far more devastating than even a 1,000 year flood.

Detroiting Houston Led to The Great Flood of 2017

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

As Houston continues to welter in floodwaters, the postmortem begins, with many finding that growth without infrastructure growth created the groundwork for the floods brought on by Hurricane Harvey:

When the Brookings Institution ranked the prosperity growth of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, New Orleans came in dead last. (The ranking tracked changes in productivity, average annual wage, and living standards from 2010 to 2015.) Houston, by contrast, was second only to Silicon Valley. Houstonians don’t need to escape the area to build better lives. Theirs is a city of hope where ordinary people come to find jobs, buy houses, and live the middle-class dream.

…Only 17 percent of Houston area homeowners have flood insurance, and federal disaster relief pays a pittance — capped at $33,000 and often much less — compared with the cost of rebuilding.

…Houston is on a flat coastal plain with clay soil that doesn’t absorb water easily. Pavement exacerbates the problem. The glib response is to decry “development” and advocate stricter regulations — to call for Houston to mimic the unaffordable, anti-growth cities of the West Coast and Northeast.

Houston grew quickly because it offered affordable housing in contrast to the over-regulated areas on the coasts. In theory, as a city grows, it takes in more income and can then dedicated some of that to improved drainage, which in the case of Houston would involve a subterranean cistern leading out of the city, either to the Gulf of Mexico or an outlying area where the water could be stored, updating its 1940s reservoir system.

Unfortunately, that would be expensive, and Houston is broke.

Once upon a time, Houston had a reasonable system for getting rid of excess water, which was to channel it into large reservoirs and then drained those slowly into the bayous, shallow muddy rivers which lead into the gulf. But as Houston doubled in size thanks mostly to immigration — the city is 44.7% Hispanic, not counting the metro area — the reservoirs were forced to collect the runoff from more concrete-covered developments, land which deposits five times as much water as natural land.

This system worked for many years but cannot bear the water load of the new developments:

Houston has quietly become our fourth largest and fastest-growing city, due in large part to cheap housing. But the latter has come at an exorbitant cost to its safety. The swamps and wetlands that once characterized Houston’s hinterland have been replaced with strip malls and suburban tract homes.

Those landscapes once served as a natural flood protection system for the city. Research shows that, if they hadn’t been filled and developed, Harvey’s impact would have been lessened. Sam Brody and his colleagues at Texas A&M University in Galveston have been predicting an event like this for nearly a decade. That their work went unheeded by Texas policymakers should not be forgotten.

…For a lasting recovery, Houston will need to supplement whatever barrier system it builds with a broader, regional network of wetlands, retention ponds, and green infrastructure to restore the once-robust, natural flood protection lost to a half-century of urban sprawl.

Specifically, Houston’s reservoir system worked when the reservoirs were outside of the city and had nothing but open land beyond them, so that they could discharge into this land. This enabled Houston to survive numerous floods in the 1980s and 1990s, but as the city revived in the 1990s, rising demand for housing caused by immigrants from Mexico and people fleeing high-tax California caused the city to expand outward beyond the reservoirs.

Starting with Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, it became clear that Houston needed a new drainage system. But Democratic mayors Lee Brown, Bill White, Annise Parker and now Sylvester Turner have refused to act. To get elected in Houston, you need to please the minority vote, and they are not interested in saving the mostly-white communities which flooded during Harvey, but they are interested in more pensions and benefits, the burden of which has bankrupted the city.

Interestingly enough, the amount of water produced by Harvey was not that much greater than during previous floods:

The bayou is above it’s [sic] all-time peak of 61.2 feet and has hit 62.7 feet.

Currently the Left is pushing for the non-solution of making zoning the law in Houston, which has been famous a no-zoning city, but all that will do is raise the costs of housing and make government more powerful, which will benefit the same builders who have run the city for years as now they can exclude competition more easily. The real problem at this point is that Houston needs to install a drainage system with powerful pumps, long drainage canals or tunnels, and someplace to put that water which is removed from the city.

It has needed this since Allison made it clear that the new concrete explosion had amplified even smaller storms into disasters, so when facing a crisis like Harvey, the city has no chance to prevail. And yet, under the last sixteen years of Democrats, nothing has been done.

In this, we see a similar pattern to cities like Detroit and Chicago, where the minority swing vote has prevented necessary investment in infrastructure in order to pay for the social benefits favored by the Left. The city avoids investing in the future and therefore, is perpetually playing catch-up, with the result being urban decay.

The entire third world shows signs of this same problem. Short-term thinking has voters approving of more social benefits at the same time there is less money to pay for them, and the result is that these countries default and currency collapse occurs, ensuring perpetual poverty for all but a few who coincidentally often happen to work in government.

Houston shows us how this will play out in America: unable to pass the bills needed to fix infrastructure, despite an abundance of wealth, politicians will find themselves held hostage by the minority swing vote and thus, the only politicians who will run for office are those committed to ignoring long-term problems like floods of Biblical proportions, dooming those communities to collapse.

In the meantime, the people most affected by the flooding are those in the affluent white communities to the West and Southwest. This flooding was not caused by the storms, but by controlled release from the reservoirs. With floodwaters predicted to stay high for two weeks as the reservoirs drain, it is likely that many of the properties in those affluent communities will be worth a lot less, since they will either be teardowns or lose market value because of the certainty of future floods. This means that in addition to its current woes, Houston will experience a sudden crash in property taxes, which are based on property value.

Yet again we see how diversity never produces anything but dysfunction, because diversity is that paradoxical notion that competing groups can replace their individual interests with the intersection of their common interests, which is actually very little. Voters demand what benefits their group and screws the other groups, and in this case, the people who pay all the taxes in Houston found themselves rudely awakened by what minority-majority rule does to a formerly prosperous city.

Anarchy, Confederacy and Tyranny

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Tyranny is not a method, like authoritarianism, but a condition under which one exists when leadership is motivated by something other than the health of the organic nation as a whole. It needs to be the nation as a whole because otherwise it becomes divisive as one group is favored over others, which is one of the many paths to tyranny.

A tyrant might rule for his own sense of power and importance. He might favor one group over others. He might represent a foreign power wishing to destroy the society. Or, he might simply be in the grips of a messianic universalist dogma like Communism. In all cases, the result is the same: the organic nation loses, and the tyrant grows more powerful.

What is this organic nation? Mostly intangible patterns to tangibles like heritage, culture, history, values, faith, morality and wisdom. These are intangible between they are invisible relationships between objects over time, and not objects themselves. The pattern of a nation is first a genetic founding group, and then the culture and values that nurture it to be the best according to its purpose, a nebulous term indicating a position in an order like an ecosystem, where each tribe of humans exists in a balance with nature and have a certain role among both human and animal tribes.

Watching the storm die down in Houston, it has become clear that natural disasters, by interrupting the infrastructure and institutions of civilization, create a type of temporary anarchy which is profound in what is missing: the sense of being able to conduct an ordinary life according to the purpose assigned to the tribe to which one belongs. This, more than “freedom,” is what the healthy person desires. They want the ability to live so that they make something of their lives that is worth living and dying for.

Houston, in the final analysis, will be seen as a typical city like Detroit or Chicago that has run itself into debt because the voters wanted social benefits more than flood control drainage. But more broadly, it shows us why the Confederacy wanted to retain the rights of states, instead of joining an all-powerful Union.

The reason for this, ironically, was the same reason that the original colonies seceded from England in the first place.

The Civil War began based on the pretext of slavery, but the cause ran deeper: the destruction of the Southern economy by Northern industrial interests. Let us look at a primary source, the Declaration of Causes from Georgia:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The document begins by talking about slavery, but then picks up to the actual cause: Northern taxation, tariffs and other impositions upon the South which were designed to crush its industry, which would then allow it to be purchased and controlled by Northern industry, which wanted vertical integration of its industry, much of which (including textiles) used the raw output of Southern agriculture.

Georgia explains this here:

After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South.

The South was an agrarian economy that provided raw materials; the North was an industrial economy that took those raw materials, finished them into textiles and other goods, and then sold them overseas. The South, realizing that its goods fetched better prices in England and mainland Europe, began selling directly overseas and receiving higher prices. This sustained Southern independence from the North and frustrated Northern manufacturers, who realized that there was great profit in buying low and selling high.

To counter that, the North imposed a number of tariffs on European goods, and Europe raised reciprocal tariffs in response. This forced the South to sell its goods to the North at reduced prices; when America raised her tariffs, other nations raised theirs to American goods, and so the only market was domestic. However, the Walker Tariff Act of 1846 lowered tariffs, in part to pacify British concern over the borders that were drawn for Oregon earlier that year. That meant the South could keep its economy.

In response, Northern politicians paired up with industry and came up with a compromise: the forerunners of today’s liberals objected to slavery on a moral basis, and so this aegis of righteousness could be adopted in order to conceal the financial motivations behind the desire to crush the South. That ideological crusade then became the pretext, or excuse, for war.

Texas added another complaint:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Much of the contentious behavior that preceded that war involved the annexation of new territories in the Northwest and former French colonies, namely because the Northern states — under the guise of opposing slavery, but actually in a competition of economic systems — refused to allow the South any of this territory, and used other means of artificially limiting the size of the South.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln, who made anti-slavery part of his campaign, it became clear that inevitably the larger territory of the North plus its larger population would defeat the popular vote and Electoral College both, and slavery would be abolished, which was significant in that it would gut the Southern economy, allowing it to be purchased by the industries of the North so they would have guaranteed supply of raw materials.

As part of its desire to intensify the pressure on the South, the federal government stopped providing many promised protections, offloading more cost onto the governments of the Southern States in an attempt to weaken them. By allowing Indians and Mexico to attack Texas, the government hoped to force the State to pay for its own defenses and distract itself with more immediate threats.

In other words, the South could either go to war, or be destroyed by the ballot box.

The American Civil War reprised the French Revolution in that ideology was used as a cover for theft. In the French Revolution, the lower classes wanted wealth and power, and some elements of the mercantile middle classes wanted to remove any barriers to their further profits, so an ideological pretext was invented for the overthrow of the kings. In America, the same was done using slavery, when the actual motive was the $16bn Southern economy.

Abraham Lincoln formalized the metapolitics of ideological pretexts with what would become American policy, from a letter to Karl Marx:

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.

Today, we call that globalism, which might be better understood as worldwide Leftism, or a doctrine of the equality of all human individuals. This idea makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside because it promises an end to struggle for social acceptance, and so it is a powerful way to motivate masses of people as is required by democracy, and upon its success the US — like the French Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks — adopted it as the most fundamental policy of American rule.

At this point, we have come to the root cause of the American Civil War: it was an attempt to preserve an early form of democracy from the later form into which democracy, aided by the mercantile middle classes and lower class revolt, evolves. As one famous discourse explains it:

The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting…

Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law.”

Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me,” replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question.”

Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence.”

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America,which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton (author of the famous phrase, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Editor) wrote, “I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had “tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.”

The Jeffersonian ideal consisted of the notion that government was a necessary evil that could be mitigated by limiting its size and power. This is the modern conservative ideal of “small government,” which means not just a government of few employees, but one of few powers, which requires that government not have an ideology such as the one Lincoln adopted above, but merely be a caretaker of its people. The flaw in the Jeffersonian view is that it focuses on restricting government, but does not find a way to compel government to affirmatively reach toward positive goals, which creates a pattern of history where government ignores obvious problems, and then to fix them, as Plato related regarding tyrants, demands more powers which are not rescinded after the crisis passes.

Critics of democracy have long observed that it inevitably grows in power over time because it changes the people over which it rules. Plato notes that men under democracy become solipsistic because of the focus on “freedom” instead of virtue. Alexander de Tocqueville described this risk to human psychology as well in Democracy in America, Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI, “What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear”:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison quotes John Adams as saying:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

The hope of that paper was to establish that a Republic — essentially a democracy limited by laws, rights and procedures — was fundamentally different than a democracy, despite being a variety of democracy. What history has shown us in the intervening years is that if even a highly architected document like the Constitution cannot limit people from voting changes to their Republic to make it into a democracy, there is no hope for democracy at all, because any infection of democracy into a political system will inevitably lead to full democracy and the tyranny of the majority, as happened in the American Civil War.

In Houston, we see a similar failure: a city that was warned about the potential of a catastrophic flood, but chose instead to spend its money on social benefits, as the majority wanted. Who is this majority? Steve Sailer reminds us that Houston became a minority-majority city in the 1980s, and since that time, has leaned Leftward, including toward policies that increased the amount of concrete in the city, avoided vital drainage projects, and enhanced benefits, causing the city to be deeply in debt.

The dynamic of the current situation in Houston is similar to that of the Confederacy, which was held hostage by a more numerous voting majority in the North comprised of mixed-ethnic people who were sympathetic to the underdog narrative of the abolitionists. Anti-Immigrant sentiment blossomed in America for the four decades prior to the Civil War, and in fact pro-immigrant emotions of the time parallel our current national narrative:

Although a smattering of Irish Catholics had lived in America since the colonial period, there was no significant immigration to the United States until the catastrophe of the Potato Famine (1845-1853) set it in motion. The first non-Protestant group to arrive in large numbers, the Irish often faced both religious and ethnic prejudice from the then largely Anglo-Saxon population. Anti-Catholic, particularly anti–Irish Catholic, feelings led to the formation of the American or Know-Nothing Party, which enjoyed a brief period of influence in the early 1850s before the growing sectional dispute pushed the Catholic immigrant issue to the sidelines.

…Nevertheless, the firing on Fort Sumter and President Abraham Lincoln’s call for volunteers evoked a sense of patriotism to the Union that was fanned by Irish newspapers and political and religious leaders. Patrick Donohue’s Boston Pilot, the ‘Irishman’s bible,’ enthusiastically supported the war to restore the Union. Archbishop John Joseph Hughes of New York, the ‘bishop and chief’ of the New York Irish whose influence was nationwide, also urged his flock to help suppress the rebellion. But early in the war he pointedly warned the Lincoln administration that if Irish-American soldiers had ‘to fight for the abolition of slavery, then, indeed, they will turn away in disgust from the discharge of what would otherwise be a patriotic duty.’

…Of the approximately 140,000 Irish-born soldiers in the Federal armies, about one-third came from New York. Ambitious Irish New Yorkers fanned out across the country, encouraging state governors to approve the Irish formations in other states while securing commands for themselves. Scattered Irish regiments were formed in the West, but the East provided the bulk of officially designated Irish units.

Any immigrant group or group in a diverse society that does not perceive itself as being in control will feel a similar sentiment: it resents and tries to subvert whatever group is above it. This is one of the many reasons that diversity does not work. Another is a loss of social trust which results in alienation even within ethnic groups.

More importantly, however, each identifiable group acts in its own interests — this extends to race, religion, ethnicity, class and politics — and will use politics as a means to enrich itself while damaging other groups. This is exactly what happened in Houston, where Mayor Sylvester Turner supports benefits to the mostly-minority city services workers while opposing any increase in drainage systems:

Metro Houston, which includes smaller communities and unincorporated parts of Harris County, has added more than a million people since 1992, while the amount of water-absorbing wetlands per capita has been halved. Paved surfaces in the county increased by well over 25 percent in that period, according to researchers.

Paved land generates five times more runoff than woodlands.

…More than a quarter of the $726,000 in contributions to Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner last December came from developers, engineers, builders and real estate interests. Some of the money for Turner, a Democrat who won a Dec. 12 runoff, was collected at a Metro National fundraiser.

The situation gets more interesting when one considers the nature of Houston: it is a commercial downtown surrounded by suburbs, which are highly segregated by race despite the massively diverse and cosmopolitan character of the city. The suburbs, especially the white suburbs, pay most of the taxes; the recipients of social benefits are mostly minorities. Like the South paid for the North, the suburbs are paying for the city.

For this reason, voters have divided into two camps: those who rationalize the situation and convince themselves to support it, and those who do not, but know that they will never win because the city is only 24.9% white, and therefore between combined minority and Leftist votes, will always approve the Leftist agenda of more social programs and benefits. This is why Houston has elected blacks and lesbians as its recent mayors, and why it is a very blue region in a red state.

Much like the Confederacy, European-Americans are held hostage to a similar pattern: the cities of the coasts, who are blue, have the numbers and the money, so they control the media and the voting, but it is the European-Americans in the center of the country who are the middle class and upper class voters squeezed to provide most of the taxes. In Houston, this occurs through property taxes based on the value of the home. Tenement homes pay very little in taxes; middle-class and above homes pay the vast majority.

Real wages have not budged for decades, corresponding to the introduction of welfare and entitlements programs in the federal budget, which means that the squeeze on the middle class is becoming more pronounced at a time when, owing to the influx of third world immigrants whose lower IQs make them destined to be poor, costs are steadily rising.

As in the past, a refusal to look honestly at the situation and the need for producers to be rewarded and not parasitized has set the conditions for a civil war. While the waters recede, many European-Americans in Houston are realizing that the money taken from them went to another group, and now those European-Americans pay the price with flooded homes and ruined businesses.

Houston Shows Us The Future Of The USA

Monday, August 28th, 2017

Our public narrative has taken on Soviet dimensions in this country. While the media crows about how many different races and creeds have come together to help each other in Houston during the Hurricane Harvey flood, most Houstonians are trying to avoid the constant looting which is generally done by one ethnic group to another, not within ethnic lines.

To an outsider, this is being portrayed as a tragedy, but really, it is a preventable tragedy because the only really destructive force at work is the ineptitude of the drainage system. Much rain has fallen, but the city is built on a flat plain; if there were enough drainage, none of this flooding would have happened at all.

Why, you might ask, is there no drainage? The answer is that Houston has always been run by two industries, oil and builders. The builders want the ability to throw up subdivisions cheaply, and so the city spread out like poured cement. They leave it to the city to make drainage projects, but the city — which is 24.9% white — has spent its money on social projects: schools for the steady flood of Californians and Mexicans coming into the city, community centers, diversity programs, and benefits for its employees.

The hard fact is that Houston is dead broke because it spend the money on benefits and civil rights programs, and now has nothing for infrastructure, much like the rest of America:

This push for 401(k)-style “defined contribution” plans, however, would do nothing to solve the primary source of Houston’s spiraling pension costs: the $8.2 billion in debt Houston has accumulated after years of underfunding its pensions and the pension funds falling short of their investment goals.

Its budgets have long emphasized borrowing from the future to pay for yesterday and its politicians have hidden the disaster behind “odd” accounting practices. Especially as the most numerous generations retire, Houston will be paying down debt for past obligations, which sets up the condition for the real debt bomb.

Developers (what they call “builders”) have forced this process by building incessantly in three compass directions, which requires the city to build more roads and spend more on expanding its many freeways. On top of that, the expanding population has required the construction of many schools, which are paid for through property taxes which are among the highest in the nation causing Texas to lag in rankings despite having no state income tax. Its school district, which is 8.4% white, absorbs most of these costs, but the students are about 80% “disadvantaged” and often receive state and federal aid.

That school district, however, is only for the City of Houston, not the much wider world of outer suburbs. Houston extends for fifty miles in every direction and most of that space is taken up by smaller cities who are dependent on Houston, and from whom people commute to Houston, but are technically independent. In each of these, the figures are similar to HISD, and so are the challenges. Despite its reputation as the most diverse city in America, Houston is in fact highly segregated by income, mainly because of white flight from the city to the outer suburbs. Places like Tomball, Spring, Katy, The Woodlands, Pearland, Kingwood and Magnolia attract the white population, which otherwise confines itself to the Northwest corner of the metropolitan area, having ceded most of the rest to other ethnic groups:

“In 1980, Anglos made up 63 percent of the population,” Klineberg says. “Now they’re less than 33 percent.” Hispanics in Harris County today constitute 41 percent, he adds, African-Americans 18.4 percent, and Asians and other races 7.8 percent. “The change is even more extreme if you look at the population under 30,” Klineberg says, “where 78 percent are now non-Anglos.”

…Perhaps the most disturbing is that, according to the Pew Research Center, Houston is the most income-segregated of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, with the greatest percentage of rich people living among the rich and the third-greatest percentage of poor people among the poor. And the new waves of immigrants are split between highly skilled college graduates (especially Asians), who effortlessly join the upper echelons of Houston, and poorly educated manual laborers (especially Latinos), who trim the lawns and wash restaurant dishes. “The great danger for the future of America is not an ethnic divide but class divide,” Klineberg warns.

In other words, in diversity paradise, the dream of equality has not been realized; instead, it has been displaced by a vicious competition for class status. The white population (“Anglos” in the above text) have been fleeing this for some time, either going to the Memorial area or one of the outlying sub-cities. This follows the classic pattern in Houston, which has to been to establish “Chinatowns,” or neighborhoods which are mostly one ethnic group, so that its members can coexist while not coexisting at all. The developers like this just fine because as soon as a neighborhood reaches a certain threshold of mixture, the previous ethnic group moves on, probably to brand-new homes made by Hispanic labor in the outer suburbs. This separation means that until something like a hurricane hits, the city’s relatively high amount of crime is relegated to each neighborhood, with most crime being gang-related in a fight over the city’s lucrative drug trade.

All of this adds up to the actual issue behind Hurricane Harvey and the related floods: while the storm dropped a lot of rain across a wide area, the cause of the flooding was the inability to get the water out of the city, mostly because of the huge area built up by the ethnic tension in Houston. You can drive from I-10 just outside of Sealy all the way through Channelview without seeing any substantial interruptions in the concrete. Newer homes are constructed within a few feet of the property line, and the endless roads, parking lots, shopping centers and sluice ways create a nearly unbroken plateau of concrete. This concrete not only raises the risk of flooding, but creates hotter local temperatures. The effect on flooding is dramatic however:

“It pales in comparison with the other driving force, which is the built environment. If you’re going to put 4 million people in this flood-vulnerable area in a way which involves ubiquitous application of impervious surfaces, you’re going to get flooding.”

In other words: there is a lot of concrete in Houston. In 2000, 4.7 million people lived in the Houston metropolitan area. Now the population is about 6.5 million. While efforts are under way to densify and improve public transport in the urban core, much of the growth has been suburban, where houses are big and cheap and commuters drive long distances on some of the world’s widest freeways. The city keeps loosening its belt: a third ring-road cuts through exurbs some 30 miles from downtown, spurring more expansion.

People were able to buy in the city cheaply, then fled to the exurbs, creating a plane of concrete which roasts the city at night and also channels all that water into a narrow series of bayous and drainage ditches, which worked back when the city was smaller, but now have made it the perfect disaster waiting to happen — or, as you read this, happening. White flight, illegal immigration, and migration from high-tax states like California have created runaway growth. In turn, that gave native Houstonians somewhat of a commandment to sell their homes. As with other forms of white flight, it is a race to the bottom, meaning that no one wants to be the last white person to sell out in their neighborhood, since the price between the first white family leaving and the last will represent a radical drop in value. People leave their homes and go to the outer areas, then move again, trying to flee the disaster that has been created. This is why Houston has street signs in seven languages, vibrant diversity in demographics, many ethnic restaurants and lots of neighborhoods dedicated to avoiding one another. We might go so far as to say that Houston demonstrates the “minority-based profit model,” where founders sell out to newcomers who move in on the promise of the type of society that the founders could create, but the newcomers, who can only create the type of environments they are fleeing from, cannot replicate.

With coming generations being mostly minorities, there is no indication that the white exodus will end soon. For now, the oil companies stay because they can hire people local to their West and East Houston locations, and settle them out there in comfortable homes; when those go, their only hiring pool will be a vast surge of minorities, and while they will favor Indian and Oriental candidates, that grand vision did not work out so well for Silicon Valley, and it will likely equally fail in the high-stakes oil business. If all of the white people and their industry leave, Houston will resemble a multicultural Mexico City, with many people living in near-poverty under conditions that would not strike most as consistent with a major American city. Already many businesses have been forced to hire private security to compensate for the lack of response from the police department, who seem to excel in taking notes after crimes have occurred but not preventing them, even when they are repeated on a regular basis. These effects are diminished in the outer suburbs, which have their own private security or sub-city police forces.

As water closes over the top of Houston, hopefully not only cleaning it but perhaps ending it, we can autopsy this disaster. At a time when cheap housing made the city expand faster than ever before, its government delayed working on drainage projects in order to pay for social services and pensions, despite warnings of high risk of catastrophic floods. Because diversity destroys social trust, white people fled the city, depriving it of the income it had when it attracted not just white people, but independent-minded and therefore more productive white people who made it a wealthy city during the boom years. In this way, the city reflects America’s future.

Third world people come from the third world, which is not “poor” so much as it is disorganized and individualistic, therefore people do not come together to create the shared institutions that allow for productive economies like law enforcement, legal systems, communications, banking and other services. As a result, they stay in a band of subsistence living where they produce little and have little, which creates conditions where a few very wealthy people control everything and pay all the taxes for that privilege. Over time, like Brazil and Mexico, however, these third world empires degenerate because this arrangement is unsustainable, at which point the wealthy are sacrificed as in Zimbabwe and South Africa, leaving behind only a permanent mob of people living under primitive conditions. In the USA, this will be accelerated by the impact of the loss of white wealth as these people flee to the countryside.

The Houston story is in fact a story of white flight to Houston. Back in the 1970s, this was a small town known as a rather backward place despite being mostly Anglo, mainly because of its Wild West style origins and lack of much social order, being essentially an extended dormitory for the oil industry. White people fled there after being in Detroit, New York or California and having seen the disaster of the big city, which is not just ethnic but existential, because it is a high-stress low-trust existence that rewards sociopaths and parasites. They could go to Houston and be paid less, but pay much less for housing, and in exchange for not being highly erudite and hip urban center dwellers, could have a comfortable life. The news never reported on Houston, and most people viewed it as a hick town. These were, in retrospect, the glory days for the city, because everyone there was a pioneer of sorts and so it had a very do-it-yourself outlook. Once the city became popular, these types were driven out and replaced by the same people who make other cities into madhouses, and since then, it has endured a series of Leftist mayors who have pandered to its Leftist and minority voters at the expense of little things like, you know, drainage.

As the world watches the waters close over all that nice cheap housing and many taco stands, we have yet another glimpse of the lesson of this period in history: Leftism does not work. Equality discourages pioneers and encourages parasites; diversity makes people abandon the civic resources that make a city first-world and not third-world; socialist style pensions, social welfare programs, and benefits deplete the productive and increase the number of unproductive; “freedom” allows cynical industries to take over, cover the place in concrete and kill off the wildlife and its ecosystems, and then expand outward until they create a crisis. This model does not work. It is the model used across most of the West and if it does not desist and take on the cost of un-doing these bad ideas made into bad policies, it too will find itself under water, floating past signs in seven languages and endless diversity, wondering where it all went wrong.

Immigration Devastates Houston

Thursday, March 9th, 2017

An alert reader from Houston, TX sends the following observations, transcribed here:

When the first of the Donald J. Trump executive orders against illegal immigration hit, traffic in Houston dropped considerably. It seemed that many were staying home, as if they had realized that the great free-for-all had been interrupted.

In fact, many non-majority groups did experience fear, which they spoke of as if they were entitled to this land as well as their own:

Immigrant communities across the United States are in a state of fear and uncertainty after a week of immigration raids and leaks from the Trump administration that have raised the specter of a mass deportations.

…“It’s almost like it’s psychological warfare that’s being waged against people of color to create a constant feeling of fear and uncertainty,” said Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, a human rights organization in Tucson, Arizona.

After the Obama years, in which rule of law was suspended and it was widely perceived among minority communities that they were gaining political power against the majority and could use it as a cash cow for their own agendas, the new Trump rules upended an order which always penalized the majority.

Of course, that unbalance was too much, because the anti-majority coalition with Leftists proved to be such a great source of power and free stuff paid for by the taxpayers. And so, the usual neurotics announced a workaround:

Hernández, also an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, has campaigned to end a program that deputises local officials to act as federal immigration agents, potentially turning a minor infraction into a life-altering event.

The 28-year-old community organiser with United We Dream celebrated a victory this week, after the Harris County sheriff’s office announced it would end its use of this program, known as 287(g).

In other words, illegal immigrants need not fear because the police will not arrest them for being illegal. Thus, they can continue to violate the law — no one else gets this “privilege” — with impunity.

The traffic returned. The racial resentment on the streets returned. And this resentment was vocalized by illegals not as justice, but as conquest of the majority by the minority coalition:

“But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: Our country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave. We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States,” he continued. “And thanks to us, the United States eats, grows and, as we’ve seen today, sings and dances.”

“So when they attack us, we already know what we are going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we will not leave. That is what we are going to do,” he added.

Diversity does not — cannot — work. It pits groups against one another in a battle for control of political power and the ability to set standards of identity, including values and national identity. Each group acts in self-interest, but when they are combined in a nation together, they become bitter combatants.

The only solution is to go beyond what Trump can or is willing to say, and to point out that diversity is paradoxical and will never work. In fact, it has already failed, and by allowing it to continue with our laws or lack of will to enforce them, we have created the groundwork for the breakup of our nation, civil war and increasing ethnic conflict. This benefits no one.

The Future Of Diversity Conflict: Diversity Against Diversity

Sunday, July 31st, 2016

The diversity are killing each other. Or rather, the same tensions that exist between diverse minorities and the majority also exist between ethnic minorities. Witness this event from Texas’ bog city:

The controversy began after Sethi posted, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like #AllLivesMatter” in a now deleted Facebook status.

…Vice President Rohini Sethi’s five sanctions include a 50-day suspension beginning Aug. 1, mandatory attendance of the Libra Project diversity workshop, mandatory attendance of three cultural events per month, a reflection letter and a public presentation in the Senate Meeting on Sep. 28.

Rohini Sethi is not white, and appears to be of Indian subcontinent descent. Her comment was probably intended in a gentle way to remind us that other minorities need to be spared too. But when she confronts a cop, what will it be? Chinese, Mexican, El Salvadorian, African-American, Korean, Vietnamese? All of these ethnicities are common in Houston, and clashes between Hispanics, African-Americans and Vietnamese with Indian subcontinent descended people are common.

The future of diversity warfare was revealed over twenty years ago with the Los Angeles Riots and the time afterwards. Most of the violence against blacks came from Hispanics, who are indios and thus Asian, not “white” as the FBI database records them. And vice-versa.

Now that we have many ethnic groups together, they are all competing for a simple thing: control of the narrative so their cultural values and needs can predominate. Nationalists argue that this can only be solved by self-determination which requires exclusion of all other groups, like a more extreme form of segregation where we all stay in our homelands. But democracy and diversity want to force us to live together by a standard and culture formed of the lowest common denominator of all groups, which translates to “Everyone should eat/shop/work and not criticize each other,” and which never works.

What happened to Sethi was an injustice. She did not say “go ahead and shoot black people”; she said, in effect, “include my people too.” Yet another tragedy of diversity, this time a rare enforcement on someone who is not white, but with the same injustice and resentment generated.

Ethnic Self-Rule And Secession Gain Prominence In Houston, Texas

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016


As has been mentioned on this blog for many years, Nationalism is a goal that can be achieved collaboratively by members of different ethnic groups. We all want the same end-state, which is that each group has independence and self-determination, and so even if that state appears adversarial we can work amicably toward it because it is in each of our groups’ self-interest.

In fact, nationalism is merely the recognition that (1) diversity does not work because it removes the ability to have a culture and (2) each group acts in self-interest, and those self-interests naturally and inevitably clash. With nationalism, we stop the kumbaya pretense and opt for a gentle Machiavellianism.

Dwight Boykins, African-American Houston City Councilman, spoke a truth that all Red Pill and Black Pill people know:

Speaking to Fox 26 in Houston, City Councilman Dwight Boykins (District D), “I think at this point, because of the crisis situation, not in Houston but throughout the country, we need to have officers patrolling areas that reflect the ethnicity [of that community].”

The councilman continued, “Because that will eliminate second-guessing. People know their community; they know their culture; and I think that can make a difference.”

…Tritico said, “Well, if that doesn’t work, I guess we could have separate schools and maybe separate people in the restaurants … just keep the races separate so we won’t have to have these problems anymore.”

The idea shocks people because in a time where every notion must be supported by lies and therefore is a lie, common sense is like an alien language, and threatens to pull back the curtain and reveal the utter emptiness of all of the lies we live by every day and upon which we base our political system.

Nationalism recognizes that people are not equal, but its basis is that groups have different needs because they are trying to maintain their culture, which — not police — is the basis of stability in their community and what enables it to function.

Modern policing has effectively failed in large cities like Houston, where most crime goes unreported and highly-mobile criminals cannot be stopped. What keeps people in line, besides individuals with guns, is culture: the idea of right and wrong, and how people should organize themselves as a group to live for the best.

In addition, as Robert Putnam‘s research revealed, diversity creates distrust in a community. That and higher levels of crime in impoverished and minority communities creates a perfect storm of nervous cops and angry citizens, exploding in gunfire and riots.

If we are honest like Dwight Boykins, we say what we mean: each ethnic group should have its own communities, and its own rules, standards, institutions, judges, lawyers, police and politicians. The great diversity experiment has failed, as Europeans worldwide are recognizing, and it is time to find a peaceful solution instead of continuing the failure and violence.

The virtue signaling outrage followed quickly:

Houston Police Officers’ Union 2nd Vice President Joseph Gamaldi responded that the idea was ludicrous and wouldn’t work.

Fox 26 Senior Legal Analyst Chris Tritico led off the weekend panel’s discussion saying, “I’m shocked at the suggestion.”

… “He is saying you have to look like the community. I am saying you understand the community by getting involved with the leaders, getting involved with community itself… so that the people in the community can feel comfortable with you.” [said Jacquie Baly, a black Republican from Fort Bend County]

…Former Harris County Democrat Chairman Gerald Birnberg [said] “For one thing, we don’t have an equal number of African-American police officers as we do African-American members of the community. For another, what does that say about an African-American who dares to venture outside of ‘their neighborhood’ where they’re not predominantly there. What about the Latino community which is dispersed throughout the entirety of Harris County?”

…Mayor Sylvester Turner’s office contacted Breitbart Texas shortly after this article was published. Communications Director Janice Evans said Mayor Turner never took the council member’s comments seriously.

These are all good objections, but they are tangential, not to the point. The point is that we keep having “diversity incidents” every month and they are getting worse. No one is benefiting from this arrangement, as the ghettos keep getting poorer as business flees after the riots, and government welfare while generous limits options to a fairly basic existence for most people.

Boykins stepped ahead of the game by acknowledging the reality of the situation, and while he may or may not have retracted the statement, the ripples it has created are only beginning.

Recommended Reading