Posts Tagged ‘race’

White Intersectionality

Friday, June 16th, 2017

During the past decade, a theory was advanced on the Left to counter the rising observation that “equality” programs in fact enforce inequality by transferring money and power from the thriving to the rest.

To destabilize claims of reverse racism, the Left invented “intersectionality,” or the idea that discrimination is only important if done by those in power, and that power can be assessed through the intersection of race and social status. By this calculus, only whites — presumably in power, something called “privilege” — can be racist.

Rising voices are pointing out that intersectionality is an artificial standard:

In the loftier precincts of progressive journalism, higher education, and the non-profit world, those hecklers tend to be proponents of “intersectionality,” a voguish theory purporting that power is inextricably linked to aspects of identity like race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and that an individual’s “marginalization” is thus determined by their accumulation of various traits.

To a conservative, equality is not a fundamental question; fairness, however, is important, and it states that those who engage in productive behavior toward the realization of shared goals should be rewarded while those who do not work toward those goals should either not be rewarded or experience negative consequences.

This forms an opposite to control, or the idea that everyone does the same thing as commanded, because it requires that individuals understand the goal and the methods used to reach it. In fairness, which is part of cooperation, the question is not who started behind — because people are unequal in ability and status by nature — but how well they were treated.

For this reason, a conservative sees reverse racism as just as bad as racism, even if it is intended as an over-compensation.

But what is white intersectionality? There are a collection of traits of Western Europeans that together provide a point for our position that fairness is needed not just at the individual level, but the civilizational level, which means we have the right to dwell alone separated from all others:

  1. Uniqueness. Western Europeans have a culture like none other on Earth, and they have different ideas from the rest about how civilization should be organized and people should relate to one another.
  2. Minority. Globally, Western Europeans are 2% of the population and occupy a relatively small area in Western Europe and North America. Compared to Africa, Asia and South America, we are tiny. We are also highly sociable and so unlikely to defend our minority position.
  3. Perceptive. Our population is “sensitive” in the intersection of thoughtful, able to distinguish fine details, contemplative and reflective. We are easily distracted by new ideas and can be misled quickly.
  4. A target. Any group which has achieved success on its own terms despite a lack of vast natural wealth will naturally be a target for the wealth it has produced, especially if it is also highly sociable.

Taking the intersection of these, we see a population which needs defending not from specific “racism” but from the desire of the rest of the world to be us, conquer us and occupy us. In that view, white racism is defensive, where reverse racism is punitive, and this suggests we need to throw out the entire “racism” debate and focus on nationalism, which works better than diversity.

Ethnic Genetic Interests And Group Selection

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

Scientists have their method reversed: they look at details, and then draw conclusions about the whole, forgetting that a detail serving to represent the whole has only partial truth value and is inherently misleading.

One of the conclusions drawn by scientists is that, because the genes that prevail through natural selection are the ones that reproduce themselves, there is no such thing as “ethnic genetic interests.”

If they were a bit more attentive, they would notice that genetic information contradicts this view entirely, because we can see how European groups pursued homogeneous breeding practices through the ages.

The paradox of group genetic interests and group selection is that, if natural selection picks traits that survive, why do people choose to breed within their tribe rather than without? The safe liberal conclusion is that they only did so because they were geographically isolated, but history shows us that this is not even true, since tribes contacted each other all the time.

A more sensible view is that people choose others like them for the health of the offspring and from the knowledge that, if people who share more of their DNA survive, they are closer to reproductive success than if they invest their DNA into people who do not have any of the common substructure that makes a group similar to one another.

Not Politically Correct serves up a version of the group genetic interest theory that makes sense of this paradox:

How, for example, can I be 50% identical to my father if I’m 99.8% identical to all living humans? The answer is that I am not 50% identical to my father; rather, I am 50% identical to my father by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of all living humans. If all living humans are 99.8% genetically identical then I’m 99.9% identical to my father. Jayman’s argument that two random co-ethnics aren’t related fails to factor this into account: a calculation of relation needs a baseline level of relatedness for comparison. So he’s correct in stating that two co-ethnics are not similar to one another- but only by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of their entire population.

Since the ethnic kinship coefficient has been worked out to the equivalent of half siblings, it may be useful to frame the issue in those terms. If I am 25% identical to my half sibling by comparison to any other co-ethnic, it is because there is a quarter of my genome that I share with my half sibling due to our common descent. Specifically, our mutual descent from our mutual parent gives us a specific combination of genes that nobody else is likely to have. 25% of my genome is 100% identical to his alleles of the same genes and the other 75% is as similar to his as it is to any other co-ethnic, but taken as an average across my entire genome, any given allele is 25% more likely to be shared with him than it is everyone else in our race.

The ethnic kinship coefficient works in an uncannily similar way. Instead of inheriting those 25% identical genes from recent common ancestors, the two co-ethnics inherit the same genes due to the fact that people of their race usually have those genes (think melanin, keratin, microcephalin, EDAR, HERC2, or any other gene for which the frequency of alleles differs overpopulation).

All animals act in self-interest. People, as a type of animal, do the same. Human groups also do the same, and they identify themselves by the metric of “more similar than different.” This means that they share traits and pass them on together, which is why people choose to breed within a group if they are healthy and confident.

Because of this shared genetic heritage, your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This allows the group to choose isolation, as advanced societies did over the ages, and then focus on selective breeding for the best of those traits. Smart observers will notice that this mirrors the conservative formula of realism plus transcendentalism, or a desire to improve quality in the way that nature does.

In addition, there is another factor. Social capital consists of all of the knowledge passed along by family, friends and society to the youngsters of the next generation. For this to work, the new generation must be roughly similar to the old and with the same inclinations, or the social capital will be incomprehensible or seem irrelevant to them.

Natural selection does not reward the person who wins the fistfight. It rewards the traits that are found in the individuals that reproduce the most. In groups, this means that shared traits are the ones that won out, and therefore, the traits that will continue to propagate.

Denial of ethnic group interest and group selection are motivated by a fundamentally egalitarian desire, which is to insist that all people are compatible and that race is an accident of history. Common sense, logic, history itself and the genetic data show that this is an illusory theory.

Bipartisan Racial Bungle

Friday, June 2nd, 2017

You voters asked for — no, demanded — bipartisanship, or for liberals and conservatives to reach across the aisle and join hands to get something done.

Unfortunately, you did not specify what they were supposed to do, and so this bipartisan compromise has gifted you with a new dimension of racial angst:

Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?

As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”

The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.

The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.

In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.

Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.

Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.

Why People Oppose Diversity

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

As the current narrative on race crumbles, the Left struggles to invent a new reason to trivialize anti-diversity sentiment:

It’s easy to blame the anti-immigrant impulses driving so much Trump administration policy on basic bigotry. But a recent line of research has asked whether this visceral disdain for outsiders is not just psychological, but biological.

Evolution, after all, has programmed us to be wary of potential sources of disease or infection. For people who are particularly sensitive to such threats, that can translate into a desire to stay far away from suspect strangers — such as immigrants from a far-away land.

Look, what an interesting shift! Instead of blaming us for bigotry, the Left has changed tack and is blaming us for our ignorance again. Their paternalistic condescending viewpoint is that we primitive dirt people are simply in the grips of a basic instinct that helps us avoid disease.

Spray those immigrants down with Lysol, they reason, and diversity can suddenly work again! The empire is saved.

Not so fast. The classic Leftist gambit is to choose one detail of many about a situation, turn it into a symbol, and make it stand for the whole. If you dislike getting run over by red cars, the reason for your fear is the color red, not the speeding ton of metal heading right for you. If we can just psychoanalyze that fear of red-ness out of you…

There are many reasons that people dislike diversity, and they tend to overlap with one another as do the parts in all instincts, but we can boil them down to this:

  1. Disease. As noted above, there is a fear of foreign disease. Outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis and other diseases in the American Southwest suggest that this fear is entirely reasonable.
  2. Genetic Interests. Very few want to admit this, but most people want their children to look like them and their ancestors. What has worked in the past usually continues working, and most sane people take pride in what their families did because they have achievements, no matter how small, that they can point to. In addition, people want their children to carry on their own traits that they find valuable. In a group, people are co-related and so can share traits and pass them on together, which is why groups break away from larger populations and settle alone; your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This way, they can optimize themselves through selective breeding, and then pass on those traits. This is no different than teaching future generations about the right way to do things, or values or any other social capital, except that genetics is innate, and so provides a starting point for future generations that gives them a chance to succeed.
  3. Logic. Here is the big one: logical fact is stronger than fact, because fact is assessed from data and necessarily streamlined, which misses details which may turn out to be more crucial than the ones included in the calculus. We know that all animals act in self-interest; people do the same. This means that human groups, also, act in self-interest, which much like the goals of an individual organism, consists of reproducing themselves and raising strong offspring. In order to do this, they must bash down every other group in the area or absorb them, which requires dominating the political, cultural, philosophical and religious life of their new country. Diversity creates nothing but enmity because these groups are competing under the guise of coexisting. People who endorse diversity are classic pacifists who would rather lose than engage in conflict, and so they rationalize diversity as “peace” when it is in fact the exact opposite.

Trust the Left to continue alternating between calling us ignorant, bigoted and afraid as their means of perpetuating the rationalization of the ongoing conflict that is diversity. For the Left, there is only one truth and it is called equality, and so all other language merely serves as a pretext for advancing equality over the natural order which is its opposite.

Piper Harron Has a Point!

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

Piper Harron has a PhD in Maffs! She writes for academic journals. Piper Harron has GrrlPower!

She tells us vile cis-gendered Caucasoids to quit our jobs. Give them to queer, racial minority females. Over time, I think we should. Make Piper Harron actually have to do math and run something. It shouldn’t go any worse than having the local special needs class play one of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos. But anyway, here’s her idiot screed.

Not to alarm you, but I probably want you to quit your job, or at least take a demotion. Statistically speaking, you are probably taking up room that should go to someone else. If you are a white cis man (meaning you identify as male and you were assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power. That’s right, please quit. Too difficult? Well, as a first step, at least get off your hiring committee, your curriculum committee, and make sure you’re replaced by a woman of color or trans person. Don’t have any in your department? HOW SHOCKING.

She is correct. You should step away from the system. Do not work for those who systemically seek to purge you. You are their platform and fuel to their parasitism. Now you just *know* that you didn’t build that! And guess what that paragon of original thought, Barack Obama would tell you? you didn’t build that.

Fair enough. Now let’s look at what Piper Harron didn’t build. Fred Reed has a long, but not all-inclusive list. Here, this will help Piper figure out what she now needs to reinvent when we down tools, walk off, and put her in charge of maintenance.

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

Now why would she reinvent all these things? They are just there. They are around us. Just push out the whitey-Huwhites, march through the institutions, and you can coast on all that stuff that they supposedly didn’t build. Well, Piper, why don’t you go explain that to all Soviet Conscripts who got made to harvest potatoes under Gorbachev to prevent a massive Russian famine throughout the CCCP? Why don’t you go tell that to the Venezuelans that are losing 10 lbs a year under Socialismo? The calories don’t don’t just get burned – they get Holodomored!

All of those things that you successfully steal by yelling “You didn’t build that!” They will crash around your stupid, SJW ears in ruin. You will maintain what you steal about as well as The Ostrogoths maintained the granduer that was Rome. They didn’t. You will not succeed either.

This is why Socialism is both malignant and evil. Socialism leads to one thing. One thing only. It leads to death. God hates Socialism. He forbabe it in the commandment that he gave to Moses below.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

So yes, White Man. Resign. Move away from Piper Harron. Force her to make as many hard, complicated decisions that she is thoroughly too stupid and arrogant to ever succeed at as you possibly can. She will do the gene pool a favor, make those decisions terribly, and with any decency or luck; eradicate herself and anyone else stupid and ingenuous to rely upon her judgement for anything. Then we can busy and rebuild all that stuff we didn’t build in the first place.

No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination by Scott Greer

Friday, May 12th, 2017

Scott Greer
No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination
192 pages, WND Books, $12 (2017)

As the new millennium dawned, it became clear that a sea change in attitudes among the people of the West was underway. While in the long term this seems to be a shift from bureaucratic and artificial societies to more organic and hierarchical ones, the rising battlefield presented political correctness as a target of opportunity because in recent years, it has been the primary weapon of the Leftist takeover of Western Civilization.

This phenomenon has become most visible on the campus, where a new cadre of seemingly all-powerful student groups are demanding — and winning — increasing concessions from school administrators, usually because no one wants to appear to be allied with horrible racists, sexists and classists in our increasingly Leftist cultural milieu. Scott Greer tackles this topic with a book written for everyday conservatives but which applies the wisdom of the underground right through a careful recounting of the events leading to this new norm.

Greer begins by diving into the most recent events at universities which show the insanity of political correctness, then explores related fields in race-based politics and false rape accusations, then delves deeper into the theory and political goals of the PC movement. In doing so, he points out that PC does not aim toward positive goals, but negative ones, namely shattering the power of white people, conservatives, realists and other non-Leftists in the university setting.

In other words, it is a classic power grab through public shaming of dissidents — but in this case, your skin is your uniform, and you can be a dissident through simply failing to agree with what the PC overlords say; actively opposing them is not necessary. By implication and revelation of a conspiracy of details, Greer unveils the fundamentally Soviet nature of Political Correctness.

What’s happening at campuses is not an isolated affair — it is a result of what is happening in America as a whole. The sense of shared values and culture among Americans is vanishing rapidly, at the same time many feel isolated from their communities and families. Mass immigration has dramatically altered our country’s demographics, while multiculturalism has created a confusing landscape of competing visions for what it means to be an American. Many citizens see our national society as one of millions of alienated atoms living in a continental strip mall, not interconnected denizens living happily together in one proud country.

Thus, they turn to alternative forms of identity. A real American identity — one not entirely composed of platitudes about “equality and opportunity — is becoming a thing of the past. The ones who cling to it, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s and the press’s treatment of Donald Trump’s supporters, are considered racist buffoons who need to die off. The momentum of the present is veering toward tribalism, not unity. And the only thing keeping all the tribes of the Left unified right now is their shared animosity toward whites. (159)

We can see Greer’s thesis here: the success of the Left in advancing class warfare and multiculturalism has destroyed any unifying sense of culture, and so groups are going their own way, which has fragmented the Left, requiring that it cook up a new enemy in order to unite its ranks, and it has chosen “privilege theory”: because white people have “privilege” in historically-white societies, they are the only ones who can be racist, and therefore — by implication, of course — the only way to end racism is to eliminate whites.

This is a more complex analysis of the “anti-racism = anti-white” meme that has been floating around, but Greer is correct go into the nuance because it reveals how Leftism is a kind of inertia which by destroying existing social order, creates conditions under which it has no choice but to explode like a supernova and become fully totalitarian. The success of the Left is its actual enemy, but it needs a scapegoat, just like the Communists needed kulaks and the Nazis needed Jews.

By taking this balanced approach, Greer avoids tackling the historical questions which at this point are so muddied by centuries of political fighting that there is no way to even approach them in an unbiased manner, and instead looks at political correctness the way a sociologist would. Increasing Balkanization of the West means the need for a scapegoat, and PC found it in white men.

In order to reach this point, the book narrates some of the recent history of political correctness, including various incidents which — when removed from the context of the Leftist media — stand out as appalling. Even though to those of us who recognize a consistency in Leftist behavior from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union, the blatant inversion of concepts such as “fairness” and “equality” into persecution of those who do not need these things shows us the human animal at its worst: a snarling beast, enraged that any may succeed, thus demanding that all be brought down to a lower level through the social power of the word “equality.”

The most important thing to remember is that the favored form of diversity isn’t necessarily “the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization,” as Merriam-Webster would put it. Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around. Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean “white only.” An all-black dorm is a sign of diversity, but an all-white fraternity is a sign of Jim Crow. That double standard is easier to understand once you think of higher education’s commitment to ethnic diversity as not one upholding the strict definition of the term. (16)

No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination maintains a thoroughly professional view of the situation, avoiding partisanship as much as possible, in order to dig far enough into the headlines to see the motivation behind political correctness and how it is being applied, which ordinary people will not hear from the media or from a single source.

Greer uses an investigative journalism approach. He begins with a single incident, then digs into similar incidents, then looks at the parties involved and their statements, and contrasts these to public statements made by schools and organizations. In doing so, the reader can witness the application of the theory sliding away from the theory as time goes on. The cognitive dissonance effect is erased through this method.

While No Campus For White Men uses a provocative title, it is in fact a mild book, with flashes of humor and cultured alertness to the actual goals of institutions versus what they have become scattered throughout. It makes for a quick read and a good refresher on the politically correct disasters of recent years. For any reader from innocent novice through cynical veteran, this book provides a cornerstone of a practical attack on PC culture.


Monday, May 1st, 2017

Finally, the mainstream press has moved away from the racism/anti-racism dichotomy to understand, as Michel Houellebecq and Fred Nietzsche did years ago, that the problem of diversity is but one symptom of the great problem of civilization downfall:

Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter. When I say that Europe is in the process of killing itself, I do not mean that the burden of European Commission regulation has become overbearing or that the European Convention on Human Rights has not done enough to satisfy the demands of a particular community.

I mean that the civilisation we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other western

European country can avoid that fate, because we all appear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies.
As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.

None of the above will be shocking to Amerika readers, who have realized for some time that our problem is civilization collapse from lack of internal social order, specifically from a lack of aristocratic hierarchy, and that the only solution is to restore Western Civilization by emulating ecosystems in our human designs.

The article goes on to point out that decay has no single source, but it is manifested in two simultaneous issues:

There is no single cause of the present sickness. The culture produced by the tributaries of Judaeo-Christian culture, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment has not been levelled by nothing. But the final act has come about because of two simultaneous concatenations — sets of linked events — from which it is now all but impossible to recover.

The first is the mass movement of peoples into Europe…The result was that what had been Europe — the home of the European peoples — gradually became a home for the entire world. The places that had been European gradually became somewhere else.

…Which brings me to the second concatenation. For even the mass movement of millions of people into Europe would not sound such a final note for the continent were it not for the fact that (coincidentally or otherwise) at the same time Europe lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy.

He sensibly mentions “guilt for the past,” referring to the toxic brew of guilt for colonialism, the KKK, Hitler, removing travelers from your front lawn, class inequality and having invented more stuff than anyone else that afflicts European-descended peoples like a brain-control virus.

Unfortunately, the author then cucks and declares that European-ness is not genetic (“about race”) but is based in our values. This then becomes a version of the traditional cuck conservative argument for patriotism to our Leftist governments, following the religion of Christianity despite its inability to defend us, and “working hard” to be an equal worker who pays taxes for those social programs that seem very popular until it is time to cough up the money to keep them going.

He has hit on the classic partial truth. This is a modern trope where one detail of a complex situation becomes a symbol for the whole. We have self-help books about how to use carrots to cure your life of all its ills. Surely a well-balanced diet involves carrots, but carrots are not “the” solution. They are part of it.

In the same way, this author substitutes a part of the answer for the whole answer. This means we never reach the whole answer, and it is why his article ultimately fails, despite having hit on some important truths. The whole answer requires us to look at what it means to be European.

If we look at Europeans through their genetics, we see that Europeans are a consistent group, meaning that they have preserved their genetic identity over time. This means that, like every other group on earth, Europeans are defined not by values only but by the intersection of culture, heritage and identity.

Were this author to apply his solution to other groups, we would see if for how ludicrous it is. How could Japan remain Japanese if we shipped a hundred million Russians there? Would Israel remain Jewish if we relocated the population of Syria there? How African would Zimbabwe be if we relocated the population of a full Chinese province to Zimbabwe?

Obviously, replacing the population breaks that genetic line, and at this point, the population ceases to be and is replaced by the new mixed population. The problem with this is that values systems are genetic and so, by replacing the genetics, one destroys the value system.

You can compare this process to what happens in fast-food joints. An ethnic food is put into the hands of another group; they adapt it to their needs, adding sugar and salt and different oils, and soon it fits their needs instead of those of the original group. This is fine if you are importing the food to another country, but not in the native land. Something is destroyed.

Denial of this fact leads to hopelessness because most thinking people recognize at a gut level that when the genetics of a population are adulterated, that population vanishes. This is part of the pathology that is causing Europeans to give up and stop reproducing:

European civilisation is dying. It is dying in plain sight and almost nobody is talking about it. No, our civilisation is not succumbing to onslaught from an external foe. But we seem to be suffering from a pernicious anaemia of the spirit that drags us down from inside. There are many symptoms of this decline but the most deadly is that we are losing the will to breed. Birth rates in all 28 EU countries are now below replacement rates and all indigenous populations are in decline.

What greater sign could there be that our civilisation is dying than the fact that the majority of Europeans have insufficient zest in life to replace themselves? Civilisation can struggle on even in difficult circumstances, but it can hardly survive without people.

Without European-descended people, Europe ceases to exist. We can take a bun, put a salty chunk of fatty meat on it, squirt ketchup (originally from India) and mustard (a German creation) onto it, and call it a McEurope, but it will not be Europe. It will be an inferior substitute.

European hopelessness has many sources. On this front, the Left has taken the lead: our lifestyle is killing us. We are miserable in our cubicle jobs, exhausted by social pretense that requires we pretend to like and approve of idiots and idiocy, and worn down by the endless guilt-propaganda in music, video and art.

Even more, we live in wholly unnatural ways. Our food is over-processed, we do not walk enough, our communities are hostile and covered in ugly advertising, and people are generally so neurotic and unstable that we prefer to avoid them. We have become prisoners in our homes, shuttling between work and shops, then retreating for that glorious moment of locking the door and sealing out the world.

If Europeans are not breeding, it is because they are miserable, and this misery arises from hopelessness. None of us believe the system can ever change. If one good candidate gets elected, this person will be destroyed by the entrenched interests that are vested in not changing the system at all. Even if they survive, one candidate cannot single-handedly un-do decades if not centuries of bad decisions.

Worse still, it seems to us that most of our people support the insanity. Hollow-eyed from lack of sleep in our noisy cities, inundated in propaganda, they repeat dogma like zombies. They do this in order to keep the social position they have already learned. For them, to admit the system has failed is to admit personal defeat, and then they will lose out. So they keep going through the motions.

This has created a situation where we have no culture, only ideology. When television is our only shared culture, we have died as nations, and this encourages the hopelessness that has us not breeding and acting in self-destructive ways:

But the TV industry’s nostalgia quest is “bigger than it was even 10 years ago,” says Rob Sharenow, executive vice president and general manager of A&E and Lifetime. “We live in a fractured culture where there are very few moments of unity and focus. These anniversaries give us a way to compare shared experience and remember.”

Emphasis mine.

The obvious and yet ignored subtext is that a nation of diverse ethnicities and values shares nothing but experiences, not understanding of experiences, so to maintain the appearance of unity we must revisit those shared experiences, but we will still be isolated in our understanding and perception.

Diversity doesn’t work but entertainment media will work hard to use that fact to get ratings for programming that creates the false illusion that we can all get along. We are sheep, controlled by the dumb things we voted for long ago, ushered down a path to doom by oblivious leaders, and with nothing in common that could adulterate our hopelessness.

It is not surprising that, in this situation, any population would cease to breed and start wishing for the end. We have been living without hope for too long, and see no way out.

Los Angeles Schools and The Dolezal Option

Friday, March 31st, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Women’s Day

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

International Women’s Day strikes many of us as a stupid idea, but it is hard to articulate why. Like most minority-against-majority politics, it creates a false “identity” based not on membership to a larger group, but on the parts of the individual that give power by differentiating it from the group. This leads to criticism on a practical, not political, level.

Minority-against-majority politics are a form of individualism, or assertion of the intent of the individual against the known working social, natural and logical order of nature. In other words, the individual wants to escape their rightful context as part of the whole, and become the perspective of the whole, like God or a movie camera. They want life to be about them, at the very center.

This is an unconscious desire and like most of those, will almost never be articulated as such because it is unknown to the person holding it and to speak of it that way would be to give up the game. Individualists are thus the perfect carriers of this mental infection, which expresses itself as self-pity and victimhood coupled with the resulting sense of revenge and competition.

That in turn emerges as a simple formula: I want. The primal form of individualism is a separation from what is needed, in the broader sense of fitting into the world and having a meaningful place, with the desire of the individual to be the most important. That translates “need” into a sense of whim, consumption and desire known as wants that are external affirmations of the individual.

In this way, individualism abolishes the individual. The person as they are — traits, ability, place in hierarchy, moral character, intelligence — is replaced by wants and the type of weird competition that results whereby people attempt to be demonstrate greater importance to themselves than others.

Feminism is one form of this broken pathology. Women attempt to be like men, and in doing so, lose what it is to be women. This is no different than black men who want to sit at the white man’s table, and in doing so, abolish the notion of a black man’s table and program their brains to deny its possibility. Competition is often the opposite of creativity.

Minority-against-majority politics fail for this reason: they are essentially assimilationism by the minority group into the majority, mainly because by demanding a place in what someone else has done, it destroys what is unique about the minority group. Women become the androgynous detail-obsessive authoritarians that stalk American workplaces; blacks become Oreos; Jews become Official Victims.

In the same way, Leftists should not aspire to sit at the conservative table because Leftists want an entirely different type of society, probably one from the third world. When you desire to sit at the table of another group, they define you. This is one of the many reasons white people should stop yapping about The Rich™ and The Jew™ and instead just fix our own problems.

International Women’s Day is in that sense a type of scapegoating. Women, instead of finding a way to be happy at being women, are blaming men for the fact that men and women are different, and by looking toward what men have, are ignoring what women are and therefore, what they need instead of what they want.

Women abolishing themselves is nothing new. Where many of us grew up in the South, women had most of the power because they ran the homes and all of the informal cultural and social networks that kept society running in the everyday. Men handled war, producing wealth and budgeting, basically, but women did everything else.

These ladies did not suffer from a lack of power. They just did not have the same power as men. And so, the two genders complemented each other without “equality” — in politics, a simplistic concept derived from human intention contrary to reality — but also without unbalance. They could both have power, and be women.

A young girl growing up today has none of this expectation. She will be an equal citizen, a robot serf who goes through the gristmill like anyone else and spends her life on her career as if she were a family of one for eternity. The smarter she is and the more seriously she takes it, the more likely she will be to never have a family and to never find actual (“true”) love.

Modernity has destroyed everything good through its insistence on equality, which is the political form of individualism, and is applied through collectivism like democracy, unions, socialism and entitlements. We are a herd of cattle who give in to our weakness, which we call evil, and let our self-importance surpass our place in the order of nature, man and gods.

As a result, we make ourselves miserable. International Women’s Day is just one part of this. The ego rages, and demands what it intends and not what it needs, and then finds itself having “power” which was always illusory, and so ends up isolated, alienated, atomized and meaningless. This is a rush headlong into a moribund state, which is why the West is collapsing.

In addition, International Women’s Day this year includes a protest called “A Day Without A Woman” where all the women stay home from work. Like related protests “A Day Without An Immigrant” and the government shutdown of several years ago, this will most likely backfire when the rest of us realize that women outside the workforce makes work and home better in parallel, refuting Modernity for just a moment.

Diversity Will Destroy African-Americans Too

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

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

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

One Leftist African-American Hollywoodite even noticed this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading