“Whiteness is not humxness, in fact, white skin is sub-humxn,” she wrote. “All phenotypes exist within the black family and white ppl are a genetic defect of blackness.” – Yosri Khogali of Toronto Black Lives Matter.
OK, ok I’m about to get stoned out of the Amerika.org compound. Even worse than on a typical post. I come to argue that HBD must acquire and exert ownership of its scientific content or it will become a bastardized joke of an academic discipline the way Climate Scientology is currently headed.
It all starts with pointing out the blindingly obvious. You see, #BLM has an intellectual and philosophical problem. No, it doesn’t come from drinking the Molotov Cocktail rather than lighting and throwing it. It happened when they refused the proposition that all lives mattered. At that point they had to explain why, in particular, just Black Lives mattered. At this point, we experience the joy and the pleasure of HBD.
Like the founder of The Harvard University Anthropology Department, we have an idiotic bigot attempting to monetize their own dishonest justification for hatred. Dr. Louis Agassiz practised the psuedo-science of phrenology and attempted to scientifically prove non-Whites were fundamentally inferior. He hated slavery. You see, he was afraid it would lead to race mixing. He was the equal and opposite pole of today’s #BLM Movement.
Unlike Darwin and others, who thought that humans all belonged to one species and that their populations had differentiated through time as they spread geographically and adapted to new environments, Agassiz could not accept that all groups of humans belonged to the same species, and he argued vehemently for the inferiority of non-white human groups. He was not alone in this; several prominent scientists saw populational differences as major and discontinuous, and used various statistical and other arguments to support this. But Agassiz was also physically revulsed by the idea that all humans were equal.
Now Harvard was a leading light of the American Cathedral even back in the 1800s when Agazzis came to be considered a genius for his work in phrenology. Thus it was no great shock that Agassiz’ researxh came to be incorporated into discourse on the floor of the US Senate. In his segregationist manifesto entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Senator Theodore G. Bilbo makes the following scientific claim:
Weight of the (negro) brain, which indicated cranial capacity of 35 ounces, as compared with 20 for the highest gorilla and 45 for the Caucasian.
More accurate numbers can be found here. Yosri Khogali bases her own form of racial scientology on melanin content, rather than cranial capacity:
“[they] have a higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors that suppress melanin production. They are genetically deficient because melanin is present at the inception of life….Melanin enables black skin to capture light and hold it in its memory mode which reveals that blackness converts light into knowledge. Melanin directly communicates with cosmic energy,” she added. Khogali then proclaimed: “White ppl are recessive genetic defects. This is factual.”
This brings us to the current state of HBD as a discipline. Like Climate Science, HBD addresses some of the most controversial topics in the modern field of science. Like Climate Science, HBD has some totally brilliant people (Here, Here , and Here) publishing work.
Sadly, like Climate Science, HBD has some obviously fraudulent ideas loose in the discipline like wolves in a hen house. Also, like Climate Science, these ideas get co-opted for political purposes. If you think the psuedo-sapience of #BLM is atypical, you have blessedly forgotten the extent to which Al “The Earth has a fever!” Gore became a deracinated whack-job for hire over Global Warming.
This sort of deliberate and malignant misuse of science could end next week. Climate Scientists like Dr. Judith Curry have launched a nascent campaign to reclaim the ethical and intellectual respect they feel is due their discipline amongst the Geological Sciences. This is condign. I wish her the best of luck in her crusade against the greedy and the disingenuous.
To bring this to point, HBD needs a Judith Curry. It needs one in the worst way. HBD is right about a lot. This won’t be valued or put to good use if the entire field of endeavor is seen as Melanin-obsessed or as measuring skulls in the basement with Vernier Calipers. It’s up to the intellectual best in the HBD discipline to redeem it as a field of knowledge.
Several African-Americans abducted, beat and tortured a mentally disabled white fellow and posted the video to social media. Among other things, statements against white people and Donald J. Trump were made, and the victim was humiliated with these statements.
Video below — warning, this contains cruelty and violence:
This is an obvious hate crime. If white people did the same thing to black people, with appropriate substitutions for racial slurs and choice of candidate, this would be non-stop national news coverage with much agitation for charges to be filed in as extreme a manner as possible.
The current incident follows a similar incident from the near past. Given that victims do not always report crimes, it would be foolhardy to assume these are isolated.
While emotions run high, and all sorts of lunacies are being suggested, a cold and sober view suggests that this event is a symptom of diversity failing: each group in our multiculture is competing to be on top, and when one group gets ahead of the others, retribution follows.
In that sense, this incident is as much a product of the failure of diversity as lynchings in the past. When groups are thrown into the same society, friction results, in addition to total social alienation caused by the lack of a standard of behavior specific to a group, and in the sinking sensation of unease that comes with discovering that society is not geared toward the well-being of the group to which an individual belongs.
When diversity failures appear, the following can be said loudly and clearly:
Diversity Is Over
For the last 70 years, we have attempted to make diversity work in its most liberal form, after it was nothing but a series of problems in its more restricted variety since the founding of the nation. Every attempt we have made has failed and left the problem worse than it was before.
Ann Coulter correctly identified the problem as diversity itself instead of a specific race or races:
It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: “Our diversity … is a strength.”
As long as the general has brought it up: 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!”
At Amerika, we have noted this argument for some time, following up on the same argument being made on USENET in the 1990s: the problem is not blacks or whites or any other group, but diversity itself, which puts groups in conflict with one another.
Many of these texts predate Neoreaction, the Alt Right and the new Traditionalist revival of the turn of the millennium. They represent the original position taken by this author in the late 1980s through early 1990s that our problem was something like what Samuel Huntington would later write about as “the clash of civilizations,” namely that each group — ethnic, cultural, religious, class/caste, sexual — needs its own areas and control of its own future so that it can establish its own standards and direction.
While the nation boils with discontent over this latest event, which will lead to positive results for no one, it makes sense instead to go back to our most basic understand and to see that regardless of who is at fault this time, we are all at fault if we continue trying to make the defective and paradoxical policy of diversity (also called internationalism and multiculturalism) function at all.
The problem of law, government and ideology is that they always expand scope. This occurs because they are based on abstract principle as interpreted by individuals, each of whom has a vested interest in self-promoting, and the only way to do that is to expand power. For this reason, even the simplest rule soon broadens and greedily includes more and more, including things for which it was never designed.
A 14-year-old white student accused of making a racist video of a black student that was shared on social media will be prosecuted on charges of ethnic intimidation and harassment, a prosecutor said Tuesday.
…The student recorded a high school student eating chicken wings and, in narrating the piece, refers repeatedly to the black student with a racial slur and obscenity and describes him as “being broke and on welfare” and getting free food.
The black 16-year-old student was earlier accused of assaulting the white student in retaliation.
The original idea of ethnic intimidation laws was to prevent people from making threats to minorities and using those to nudge them out of public spaces. While even that was a terrible idea, as freedom of association is perhaps the most vital principle of an open and free society, the inevitable happened: lawyers and politicians, looking for a way to make a name for themselves, broadened the interpretation.
Now “ethnic intimidation” includes satire. This was never part of the original intent of the law.
In a fair press, not a Lügenpresse as we have now, we would be able to see the video and learn more facts about the interaction of these two people. For example, was racial language used against the white kid first? Was there a previous disagreement? But our lying press will not show us these, and instead will selectively mention certain facts that affirm its narrative, and nothing else.
This leaves us guessing, but so far, no “intimidation” occurred in the video; the videomaker may have expressed some dubious opinions, but nothing more than what is said in many American households of many races about many races. Would we have the same outrage if an Indian student filmed a white person and claimed they were gobbling casseroles to save up energy for scrapbooking and tax evasion?
Laws always expand scope. Today, making fun of a black kid is ethnic intimidation; tomorrow, mentioning any words or ideas that make someone of a minority or protected group nervous will also be ethnic intimidation. That means that expressing facts and analysis will be a felony. Your free speech just died, and no one seems to be mentioning it.
“We have, by no means overcome the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and colonialism and racism” – President Barack Hussein Obama
So speaks a man who has profited off of the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, idiot Klansmen, et al. like nobody else alive today in the United States of America. So he can’t be unfair and declare these people vanquished. To declare victory over the nefarious forces of ¡RASCISM! would do for his fellow Community Organizers what Uber’s driverless cars will do for the taxicab industry. There must be ¡RACISM! or there won’t be an ongoing job description.
Just how vile is the creeping white death in Amerika these days? Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex attempts to run the Nefarious Calculus of Whitelash and tell us just how vigilant we all must be….
According to Wikipedia on KKK membership: As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total. The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog.
If you Google “trump KKK”, you get 14.8 million results. I know that Google’s list of results numbers isn’t very accurate. Yet even if they’re inflating the numbers by 1000x, and there were only about 14,000 news articles about the supposed Trump-KKK connection this election, there are still two to three articles about a Trump-KKK connection for every single Klansman in the world.
And then there are the online crazies who admire Klansmen like President Woodrow Wilson once did. Alexander’s math gets fuzzier, but he still needs a microscope to see the extent of the organized racist cabal. “…about 50,000 poorly organized and generally dysfunctional people, many of whom are too young to vote anyway.”
Let’s say ¡RACISM! Inc. gets tepid support from moderately bigoted white people who don’t rear all the back on the Cat O’ Nine Tails when they unload the Whitelash. David Duke’s recent Senate campaign attracted 3% of the electorate (58,581 votes). If we assume Louisiana is no more and no less ¡RACIST! than your average US state, and assume about 123 million voters will show up for the election, we get just short of 3.7M people nationwide who will vote for an openly White Nationalist candidate.
In 2008, 13% of the US Electorate was African American. It went for Barack Obama by 95% to 4%. If we call this Black Nationalist vote or The Blacklash, we get a total of 12% of the electorate totaling 128 million or about 15 Million. That would be over a 4:1 ratio when comparing Black Nationalist vote to White Nationalist.
To point out the true dishonesty of this particular Obama quote, let’s examine what 2008 would have looked like if the entire Caucasian Persuasion voted WN by a ratio of 95% to 4%. Whites were 74% of the electorate, so 91% of this group would be 67% of the electorate. Out of 123 Million people, that would be in the ballpark of 82 Million. That’s what a Whitelash would look like.
So Trump, in all his vile Klannishness could motivate 3.7 Million people nationwide to vote WN. He’s getting maybe 4% of what a true Whitelash would look like. That’s low-energy, Folks. That’s not winning bigly. It would have taken 2/3 of that vote to get Trump up to parity in California. Pepe wouldn’t even consider it a legitimate frog fart. Nary a Kek would be given.
Why are WNs such scapegoats? Because they inspire the left and all of the hate that will never get written up on the $PLC Hatewatch Blog. If Amerika ever overcame slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism or the Rev. Al Sharpton having a bad hair day; ¡RACISM! Inc and the Dems who rely on it would be destined to languish between the trees. Sorry, Amerika, we $hall never overcome.
Since Amerika specializes in heretical realism, here is a blasphemy against illusion for today: you cannot change what you are.
Biracial actress Meghan Markle is discovering this in her own life, which is why she is writing screeds against it in precious-snowflake magazines for bored lonely white women like Elle:
‘Right, but what are you? Where are your parents from?’ I knew it was coming, I always do. While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: ‘My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I’m half black and half white.’
To describe something as being black and white means it is clearly defined. Yet when your ethnicity is black and white, the dichotomy is not that clear. In fact, it creates a grey area. Being biracial paints a blurred line that is equal parts staggering and illuminating…
When I was about seven, I had been fawning over a boxed set of Barbie dolls. It was called The Heart Family and included a mom doll, a dad doll, and two children. This perfect nuclear family was only sold in sets of white dolls or black dolls. I don’t remember coveting one over the other, I just wanted one. On Christmas morning, swathed in glitter-flecked wrapping paper, there I found my Heart Family: a black mom doll, a white dad doll, and a child in each colour. My dad had taken the sets apart and customised my family.
There is much to appreciate about the deluge of neurotic chaos that is this article, but it takes us back to an old Leftist trope. Leftists are constantly trying to demonstrate that the exception breaks the rule, when by reflection in the eyes of those outside of the individual, the converse is true: the exception proves the rule.
And thus, the harder they try to show us that “biracial” is an identity, the more clearly they illustrate how it is not because the need for ethnic identity is strong. Take the divided Barbie family: it can have a black mother and white father, but as would be consistent with the thesis of Markle’s article, it should have not white or black children, but grey ones.
She writes about how race is a grey area, but that means we need to add on to the end of that sentence “to her,” or perhaps, “she hopes.” The fact is that she is reminded every day that she is between tribes, and therefore has allegiance from neither. As she writes later in the article:
Being ‘ethnically ambiguous’, as I was pegged in the industry, meant I could audition for virtually any role. Morphing from Latina when I was dressed in red, to African American when in mustard yellow; my closet filled with fashionable frocks to make me look as racially varied as an Eighties Benetton poster. Sadly, it didn’t matter: I wasn’t black enough for the black roles and I wasn’t white enough for the white ones, leaving me somewhere in the middle as the ethnic chameleon who couldn’t book a job.
Markle finds herself belonging to the tribe of no-tribe, and she is crafting this victimhood narrative to — in the usual Leftist way — bully us into accepting her new category as important even though all of us are proud of our tribes. She wants to tell us of her suffering, and then have us accept her, when in fact we are threatened in our identity by her because she represents entryism into two groups.
Later in the article, however, the full story is told. Witness the picture of Markle’s mother:
We are seeing not a black woman, but a mulatto, someone who is half-white (or more; it is hard to estimate). This means that Markle is likely not half-black, but a quarter-black, making her a lot like the people from Cuba, Puerto Rico, and South America who have gone a similar ethnic path. This gives her a new identity, and suggests that, indeed, she should consider those ‘Latina’ roles instead.
Race has been with us from the dawn of time. For some reason, the human race branched into four directions, and all that exists are those and hybrids between them, some of which turn out better than others, but none of which have as much promise as the original undiluted race. As the basis of identity, it is important, because it gives us a culture and thus immutable guidance and security from doubt as far as what we should be doing. Those who argue against race seem to exist, like Markle, in a perpetual miasma of doubt and confusion, and we do not want that for ourselves or our children.
Understood in the transcendental sense that appreciates the wisdom of the universe, race is a gift and a birthright, as is ethnicity. To be born a German means to never be faulted for doing German things; those constitute “the good life” and set the soul’s endless agitation for self-importance to rest, which is a blessing like the obliteration of pain by opiates in time of injury. It also gives that person a set of values to strive for, knowing that whether they succeed or fail in that ambition, they are victorious in the attempt as they have done right by their people.
Modernity has run away from you are what you are into “be what you want to be” (US Army slogan from the 1980s) or “have it your way” (Burger King slogan from the 1990s). The idea is that your intent rules over reality; you formulate a vision of what you desire to be, and then you act like you are that thing, and in the eyes of the herd, you are it. In reality, you are what you are, and deviating from this is a path to misery and confusion.
Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont [sic] think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to.
Say you were to witness a dog being beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man. Why? Because dogs are lower than men.
This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by White people are [sic] lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them.
Many have noted the condescending attitude of Leftists toward African-Americans, which consists of expecting them to act out what are viewed as “black” behaviors and thus be easily controlled. Roof identifies that in the last paragraph, but his more interesting point is that white people are race-blind because we view ourselves as the “norm” — from which stereotypical African-American behavior is viewed through the lens of relativism as an acceptable deviation — and in so doing, have lost the identity that black people inherently have.
While no solution identifiable to this writer involves shooting nine black people in a church, the protest of Roof’s actions is interesting. He felt that race had become invisible and that this was harming whites. As he said earlier:
Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause [sic] of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country.
But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes.
In other words, he believed that the issue of race should be taken seriously. He felt strongly enough about this to kill for it, as he will likely die for it.
It all started with an earthquake. Or rather, the crushing wave which came after it.
A wall of water swept into Fukushima, Japan and smashed the ruined nuclear power plants there, rushing far inland and sucking out to sea everything in its path. This deposited hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive waste into the nearby ocean where it sank.
The general feeling was a sigh of relief. But as the months went by, problems emerged. It was not just the one-eyed three-limbed babies, but the sudden rise in cancers among the young, and the disappearance of much of the wildlife. Something was afoot.
Scientists monitoring the waters around Japan had at first insisted the problem was contained, but now found themselves re-calculating. Eventually it came out that scientific grants were handed out to those willing to design studies that showed the problem was minuscule, when in fact it was huge.
A re-calculation of risk based on models including all factors, and not just those the government and industry wanted to see, showed the worst case scenario: Japanese fishing waters were entirely radioactive, and because of evaporation and landfill, the island itself was rapidly becoming so.
Japan would have to be abandoned, a monument to the foolishness of humankind in exploring nuclear energy so recklessly.
Owing to the recent rise of right-wing leaders in Europe, the UN was powerless, but in order to prevent genocide by inaction, Europe acted. Boats arrived and transported the Japanese to New Zealand.
The same boats relocated the white population of New Zealand to northern California where the high real estate costs made them feel at home. President Trump welcomed them as he prepared to relocate all Leftists to the new state, “Cow,” formed of California-Oregon-Washington.
Relocation created a cascade of effects. As the only power in the region, China surged into Southeast Asia, dominating these nations as vassal states. Taiwan was quickly overrun.
That in turn thrust India and Pakistan into conflict as they attempted to stabilize their own position. That war ended with India arming several hundred million citizens with rapidly manufactured AK-47s and overwhelming Pakistan with sheer numbers, driving those citizens and all of its own restive Muslims into Afghanistan.
Like a bowling ball in a watch shop, the political initiative careened across the globe. The destabilization of the middle east brought about by the war in Afghanistan inspired Russia to invade to calm the region.
The Russians learned from their own Afghan adventures and, this time, simply drove the people of the middle east into North Africa. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations simply ceased to exist as their people were relocated. Only Israel and Russia remained.
Europe experienced existential panic. While Russia crushed the middle east, a newly-joined Germany-Austria-Hungary axis powered into Turkey and drove those people into the Russian sector, where they disappeared. German reclaimed its lost lands, including half of Poland.
During these wars, a call was sent out for all able-bodied men to join the war effort. When it was found that fewer than one percent of all non-European-descended residents responded, popular outrage hit a fever pitch, and these were forced into boats and pushed across the Mediterranean.
Driven by necessity, nationalism in Europe hit overdrive. All who were not native to the founding people of a land were exiled. Russian-descended people found themselves driven out of France, and in Germany, all who were not solidly ethnic German found their passports confiscated as they were escorted to waiting boats, trains and planes under the steely eyes of heavily armed guards.
Emboldened by the new environment of political conquest, Brazil armed its excess population and pushed into nearby countries, essentially conquering all of South America except Chile. Its armies got as far as Mexico city.
The Americans reacted by driving south into Mexico, meeting Brazilian forces head on and driving them out of Central America. As part of the new political Machiavellianism sweeping the goal, the Americans relocated all of Central America to the Brazilian Empire and send those who were not of the American founding group after it.
American Indians, Mexicans and other groups joined the great exodus to the South. This freed these groups from the tedious and often controlling arm of the American Western European population, which had a fetish for social order, efficiency and casseroles.
Not to be outdone, Canada invaded Greenland. Americans chuckled until they realized the strategic position that Greenland served, and allied with the Danes and Germans, pushed the Canadians back from the island then conquered Canada.
Again an exodus of those who were not Western European flowed to the South.
Skirmishes broke out in Africa and, in recognition that Africans need a continent of their own, a combined Indian-American forced swept the continent of Chinese and Arab investors, and repatriated all of the white people to Texas, where they could enjoy carrying around weapons for fun instead of purely self-defense.
Mixed-race people everywhere emigrated to Libya, where the remnants of the middle east except Israel had gathered. The North African area became the official genetic punch bowl of the world, and the rest of Africa was ruled by its indigenous people.
The sheer horror of this all induced many Leftists to shoot themselves in the face, and others emigrated to Libya or Brazil, where the values of diversity and tolerance were still in full force.
A new dark age dawned in the West as people realized that equality, brotherhood and liberty were lies, and that social order (and casseroles) alone was real. Parasites, miscreants, perverts and Democrats found themselves on boats to Libya.
All people of Irish descent were repatriated to Ireland, all Italians sent to Italy, Greeks restored to their nation, and mixed-race people given a choice of one of those lands or Libya. Lena Dunham was repatriated to the Bikini Atoll.
Trees grew back on empty land, and reduced pollution and overfishing allowed the oceans and land species to regrow. Wilderness closed many areas of North America and Europe once again.
While most remained in shock from the sheer horror of events, a good number began to realize that this was not an end, but a new beginning. Order was restored, and humanity, freed from the virus of egalitarianism, could resume improving itself.
While many are talking about the options for the Alt Right in its campaign to push further for a sane civilization, one stands out as a tempting and easily conquered target: Affirmative Action.
Affirmative Action pervades all areas of life in the West. The primary damage it does is by putting employers, renters and sellers on the defensive through the legal presumption that if an ethnic, sexual or gender minority is turned down, discrimination is to blame. This leads to vast payouts in the courtroom and has made companies paranoid, causing them to be overly-solicitous to non-majority people.
In hiring, if a majority person and non-majority person both apply, a singular situation results: there is legal liability for not hiring the non-majority person. For this reason, the majority person is always at a disadvantage, and indirectly so are non-majorities, who are hired not for their competence but for political reasons, leading to a prevalence of the less competent.
In renting and selling, the same thing applies. Sell to the majority person, and bias possibly exists, which can result in an expensive court case even if you win, and no one will reimburse you for your costs. For this reason, properties flow away from the majority.
Most government contracts give preference to businesses “owned” (usually in figurehead) by non-majority people. This reduces competition and raises government costs, but also ensures that majority people cannot own their own businesses if they want to compete in this area.
In education, affirmative action has created an empire of preferences for the non-majority students, lowering standards. This has created a base level of mediocrity that is responsible for the current flood of safe spaces and special snowflakes from academia.
Even more damaging, affirmative action has set a legal precedent by which failure to transfer wealth to non-majority people is viewed as prima facie evidence of discrimination. The furthest extension of this, “disparate impact,” creates the bias that holds that if a minority group is not succeeding as much as a majority group, some form of discrimination must be to blame. This idea is now being extended to housing where majority-oriented neighborhoods are seen as discriminatory, with the conclusion that they must be forcibly diversified.
Affirmative Action came into life through the actions of silver tea set socialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt who in 1941 issued a directive forcing defense contractors to avoid using racially discriminatory hiring preferences, essentially demanding they hire with preference for non-majorities.
The doctrine expanded in 1961 and and 1965 when presidents John F. [[[ Kennedy ]]] and Lyndon Baines Johnson wrote executive orders targeting federal contractors. From there, it expanded into all areas of law, strengthened by Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s through 1980s.
At this point, Affirmative Action has taken on a life of its own. It is obviously discriminatory against the majority, but indirectly so, because by creating legal liability, it forces companies to act on their own initiative instead of ordering that directly by government command. Its effects have been ruinous, raising costs and marginalizing majority citizens, all while reducing the quality of our institutions across the board by hiring for political reasons instead of practical ones.
The Affirmative Action debacle really exploded in the 1970s, paving the way for the horrors of the 1980s job market and expanding government:
President Richard Nixon built on Johnson’s legacy in 1969 with the “Philadelphia Order,” which set specific goals and timetables for federal contractors to hire shares of minorities reflecting the racial makeup of their local area. State and local governments soon introduced affirmative action programs of their own, as did many colleges, some with great enthusiasm. In 1974 the University of California mandated that the entering class of the statewide university system aim to have the same share of minorities as the state’s high school graduating class — that is, a quota.
Although it is now enshrined in multiple federal, state and local laws, Affirmative Action has a weak part of its armor: its interpretation. If a president were to write an executive order changing how discrimination is inferred, and clarifying that discrimination only occurs on the level of the individual candidate, “disparate impact” and Affirmative Action would both fall.
This would reduce the red tape and legal harassment faced by the average business, ensure the competence of personnel, and stop the legal discrimination against majority citizens that has caused much of our current political divide. It would in turn force us to re-assess diversity in the wake of a population rapidly separating by membership in identity groups, so we could — for the first time — honestly discuss the future of diversity and what it has done to our society.
Amerikan Leftists have no legitimate right to bitch about ¡RACISM!
They voted to elect and then re-elect a president who described lower income white people as bitterly clinging to their Bibles and their guns. It was sweet of the first president elected for his race alone not to over-generalize. They then proceeded to unsuccessfully attempt to install Hillary “Basket of Deplorables” Clinton.
Remember Van “Whitelash” Jones? Guess who gave him his big break in politics? So why do the clearly hypocritical and disingenuous scam artists still accuse people they don’t see in the mirror every morning of being ¡RACISM!?
That’s easy. Like terrorism, it works like hell. It inspires Leftists to violence and hatred toward the system. That hatred then offers them the chance to disrupt. ¡RACISM! is a subversive tactic.
What excuse do we hear when Twitter censors the Alt-Right? !RACISM! What happens when a black person dissents from liberal gospel. As TJ Sotomayor puts it. “They call us all kinds of n*gg*s.” Malcolm X described this phenomenon in his own life and times.
There are many whites who are trying to solve the problem. But you never see them going under the label of liberals. That white person that you see calling himself a liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere. He’s the most deceitful. He’s like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he’s up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way that even though you see his teeth you think he’s smiling and take him for a friend.
Liberals will never lay off from flogging ¡RACISM! They find it too effective of a marketing strategy. They thrive on the fact that diversity plus proximity incites racial warfare. From FDR to LBJ to BHO the divisive strategy laid out in the writings of Saul Alinsky dictates how past racial grievances are used to sell divisiveness and hatred in current electorates. So what do?
Solutions on the Alt-Right vary. Some are more fundamentally radical than what I put on offer. All, however, seek to give people of all races, cultures and religions the right to set up their own enclave of safety. A place that is uniquely theirs and that gives them a unique sense of cultural honor and pride.
What I would personally like President Trump to pursue on this issue is a concerted effort to strip the Diversity Police of their teeth and to encourage Freedon of Association throughout the private sector of the US economy. That would include who businesses hire, who businesses serve and who can buy and sell real estate at what price and in what location.
This would require a concerted effort to change the ideological complexion of who makes decisions in Federal Court. It would require a difficult and prolonged effort to amend Civil Rights Laws to concentrate specifically against de jure discrimination rather than the specious and overbroad concept of disparate impact. Civil Rights need to be actual rights not the premise by which we block the natural freedom of people that we object to or blame for historical injustices our relatives may have suffered.
An America that allowed people to swirl when they wanted to swirl and to segregate when they wanted to segregate would ultimately become a more segregated America, if not an America composed of different and isolated ethnic nations.
It would also be a peaceful America and a more prosperous and safer America. For people of all races. It would also be a much less Liberal America so Progressives will fight to prevent Freedom of Association from ever being a truly beneficent right enjoyed by the majority of Americans.
Very few people want to admit this, but everyone is a racist.
The term “racist” refers to any one of the following, depending on who you ask:
Someone who recognizes innate differences between the races in the “Human Biodiversity” vein.
Someone who prefers one race over another, including limited to their nation or local community.
Someone who believes that a hierarchy of racial groups exist, with some destined or suggested to rule over others.
Every single person on earth fits into one of these categories, anti-racists most of all. The big secret is that anti-racists are bigoted against the existence of racially-distinct groups, because an anti-racism agenda can only be satisfied when those groups which might rule or might be distinct are eliminated through outbreeding.
This means that for every human alive, there is a racial preference. Some want their race, others want no race, which is an illusion because a race will be created through the genocide by outbreeding of existing races.
For us to have an honest conversation about race, as the media continually encourages us to do, we must first get past the dichotomy of “racist” versus “non-racist.” There are only racists, with anti-racists among them.
That frees our discussion about race to focus on ultimate end results. What should our society look like, for the best possible result? Anti-racists and racists alike — ironically — agree that it should be homogeneous, with racists wanting their race and anti-racists wanting a new hybrid race.
When we realize that not only is everyone racist, but that everyone wants racial homogeneity, our task becomes a lot simpler. We have narrowed the options to simpler choices: for our homogeneous society, do we want an existing race, or to become a mixed-race group?
Logical analysis like this removes the neurosis around the question of race and brings dialogue back to the practical. We do not need more airy terms like the racist/non-racist dichotomy. We need real plans, and judging by not just the racial tension but the general existential misery of our societies, we need to choose quickly.