Posts Tagged ‘segregation’

How We Will Re-Segregate The World: Mitochondrial DNA Tests

Friday, October 6th, 2017

As usual, Israel is leading the way to ending the diaspora for all peoples by advocating a strong and sensible biological nationalism. In the latest, courts in the Jewish state have recognized mitochondrial DNA tests as a means of tracking the matrilineal Judaic heritage:

Mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material present in cellular bodies called mitochondria, is inherited exclusively from a person’s mother, and therefore genetic markers in this DNA can be traced back many generations to determine a person’s maternal ancestors with a high degree of certainty.

According to the rabbi, experts in Jewish genealogy and history have determined that fully 40% of all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four Jewish women who left the Middle East over 1,000 years ago and settled in Europe.

According to the scientific report commissioned by Eretz Hemdah for its ruling, there is a certainty of at least 90% and up to 99% that someone bearing specific genetic markers in their mitochondrial DNA is descended from one of these women.

This test is somewhat unique in that Jews have a strong link back to these four women, and so mitochondrial DNA, which tracks the maternal genetic line, can be used as positive proof of relation to that group. However, the broader issue of using DNA testing has been introduced and is now legally acceptable in a modern courtroom.

One possibility is that tests can be designed to look for networks of genes that code for certain traits which, in groups, frame a certain population. This gets us past simpler methods such as looking for blonde hair and blue eyes only, and instead toward looking for the group of clusters of genes that code for those traits in historically German people, for example.

With gene sequencing becoming ever cheaper and faster, it will soon be possible to easily separate a historical population — for example, Western Europeans (English, Germans, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavians, northern French) in America — from all others, and then to repatriate the others with reparations for their loss of citizenship and past lack of self-determination while they were stranded in a foreign society.

As liberal democracy falls worldwide and gives way to a “clash of civilizations,” this technological capability will allow us to unmake the “proposition nation” which has so liberally failed us:

Holland [Email her] claims that “in this country, citizenship is not about cultural identity; it is about constitutional principles. From the beginning, Americans embraced a new definition of citizenship and a new process of naturalization that set the nation apart from its European heritage.”

Bunk. This is simply a myth invented by anti-national liberal intellectuals in hysterical reaction to the trauma of World War II.

In contrast, back in the 18th century the founders explicitly said, in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, that their purpose was “to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”–their posterity, not the people of the world but the posterity of a specific, essentially British, community that–in the case of New England, for example–had grown rapidly through natural increase with essentially no immigration for nearly 200 years.

Similarly, John Jay’s first essay in The Federalist Papers, written as part of the campaign to get the Constitution ratified, explained that the federal experiment could work precisely because Americans were “one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…a band of brethren.”

As it turned out, the federal experiment could not work, as we have seen with its determination to begin experiments in ethnic diversity in the 1800s and racial diversity in the 1960s. The Constitution has now been inverted for some time, or interpreted to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. This means that our experiment in limited democracy — a.k.a. a “republic” — has failed.

It was not hard to see how this would happen because we had seen experiments in democracy before in the ancient world. When people are given the vote, they engage in herd behavior, which paradoxically is an expression of individualism, or the belief that the individual and its desires are more important than “invisible” networks like future prediction, natural law, social order and values systems.

Individualists seek to escape Darwinian consequences for doing the wrong thing in a society that has purpose. If there is a purpose, all acts either further that purpose or do not; those acts that do not can either be against the purpose, or merely neutral or irrelevant, but only those who advance the purpose or at least act in harmony with it experience the reward of an increase in social status.

That fear of external reality — including the invisible but real factor of cause/effect reasoning, which allows us to predict the outcomes of our actions over time — plays into the inherent solipsism of the human mind. Our big brains get strong signals from our internal impulses, and weaker ones from the more ambiguous interpretations of external objects, tendencies and events. We favor the internal signals.

Those are different from our inner selves, in which we have intuition and the ability to use logical analysis, because those faculties are not impulses but require deliberate, self-disciplined behavior to discover. However, inner selves are not uniform; as individuals we are all somewhere on a spectrum of intellectual ability and moral character.

When we declare equality, and its political counterpart democracy and philosophical counterpart pluralism or “agree to disagree,” we suspend the need for people to demonstrate ability to fulfill or harmonize with social purpose in their actions in reality. This cuts the solipsism free, and people indulge in emotional impulses, the first of which is pacifism or a refusal to find answers that upset other people.

At that point, unreality becomes the norm, and eventually insanity reigns as we descend deeper and deeper into the world of our mental signals. This manifests ultimately in a society where people have nothing in common and delusion is the norm, which causes the remaining sane people to pull back. However, they are atomized, or isolated by a lack of coherence to their civilization.

We find ourselves in such a situation now. Modern European and American civilization has disintegrated as a result of this atomization, and so we are returning to tribalism, rejecting the proposition nation and the idea that a union can be formed of ideology or economic system alone:

Europeans, like Trumpians, want their borders secured and closed to the masses of the Third World.

Germans are weary of 70 years of wearing sackcloth and ashes.

Race, tribe, borders, culture, history — issues of identity — are tearing at the seams of the EU and pulling apart nations.

We Americans may celebrate our multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural diversity as our greatest attribute. But the acrimony and the divisions among us seem greater than ever before in our lifetimes.

Not many Americans are actually celebrating diversity. White Americans thought they were ending white guilt by electing Barack Obama. Instead, they merely emboldened the racial grievances of the past, leading to an identity politics where each person sought to find a victim group to join so they could win the “oppression Olympics” and no longer be seen as a guilty party.

From that came a situation where every time a black person was killed by police, riots burned the city. Ferguson was just the most notorious of these. This resulted in “de-policing,” where officers essentially ignored as many African-American suspects as possible and concealed the crimes, causing a wave of lawlessness in American cities.

At the same time, the Obama/Merkel globalist policy came crashing down. Higher social welfare benefits led to currency devaluation at the same time that the diverse populations seemed to explode in assault, rape, vandalism and theft. A new generation of Red Guards, called SJWs, took over campuses and corporations. The American way of life was threatened and people had trouble making ends meet.

The dawning suspicion emerged that no matter what white people did, the blood debt of race guilt could never be paid, and so diversity became a cross to die upon or something to fight. Polls showed shock at how America had changed since the 1980s, resentment of immigration and diversity, and increasing skepticism toward both Leftism and liberal democracy.

As this shakes out, the people of the West are divided into two camps: those who want the old order of the Obama/Merkel years, and those who are done with all of the modern nonsense that culminated in that ugly era, and wish to do away with all of it. These “awakened” people come from what has historically been known as The Remnant, or the approximately 5% of civilization who are intellectually alert and desire positive change:

Apparently, then, if the Lord’s word is good for anything — I do not offer any opinion about that, — the only element in Judean society that was particularly worth bothering about was the Remnant. Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done in Judea, the Remnant would have to do it.

…The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass man — be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper — gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak minded and weak willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible. The list of luxury products that she patronized is interesting; it calls to mind the women’s page of a Sunday newspaper in 1928, or the display set forth in one of our professedly “smart” periodicals. In another place, Isaiah even recalls the affectations that we used to know by the name “flapper gait” and the “debutante slouch.” It may be fair to discount Isaiah’s vivacity a little for prophetic fervor; after all, since his real job was not to convert the masses but to brace and reassure the Remnant, he probably felt that he might lay it on indiscriminately and as thick as he liked — in fact, that he was expected to do so. But even so, the Judean mass man must have been a most objectionable individual, and the mass woman utterly odious.

If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.

The Remnant is the group that must be convinced for social change to occur. When that mental shift happens, momentum will gather behind changes previously thought too extreme under the old order, and this will roll over what had previously been considered “common knowledge” and the only legitimate way things could be done in a civilized society.

Among the Remnant, the sea change gripping the West is a foregone conclusion: they realize that the era of ideology, equality and liberal democracy is over and that it is being replaced with a pre-Enlightement™ “dark age” in which identity, values and hierarchy are prized over any of the stew of buzzwords — justice, liberty, equality, freedom, diversity, pluralism, tolerance — that define the modern era.

All of those reduce to individualism when thoroughly analyzed. Individualism can be seen as a rejection of the need to rise above ourselves, and thus a retreat into the natural human solipsism from which we broke out, initially, to make great civilization. With individualism necessarily comes the idea that the inner traits of the individual do not matter because everyone is equal, and this inevitably extends to class, other ethnic groups, and finally other races; however, with the fall of individualism, this belief in a society without an identity and without hierarchy will also die.

Already the momentum of this change has proven overwhelming for the forces that be. The elections in Germany and France, while they did not deliver wins, proved that enough people support the revocation of modernism that its days of unchallenged rule are over, and as all of its programs seem to fail at once — environmental, economic, social, overpopulation and military — it will fade away.

That moment brings us to where Israel is now. A nation dedicated to preserving an ethnic group, like Japanese or Germans, will need to exclude all others including any hybrids. To weed those out, in the twenty-first century nationalists will use genetic tests and other means, and send those who do not belong back to appropriate homelands.

For us in the present day, that seems unbelievable. But a hundred years ago, diversity seemed impossible, and a hundred years before that, a classless society did as well. As vast as those changes were, an even vaster change is coming: modernity is being deposed, and as part of that, a great population re-sorting will occur.

75% Of White Americans Discuss Important Matters With 100% White Friend Group

Thursday, August 3rd, 2017

According to a new survey, when it comes to serious matters, three-quarters of white Americans discuss those matters with a friend group that is 100% white. As the survey relates:

Among white Americans, 91% of people comprising their social networks are also white, while five percent are identified as some other race. Among black Americans, 83% of people in their social networks are composed of people who are also black, while eight percent are white and six percent are some other race. Among Hispanic Americans, approximately two-thirds (64%) of the people who comprise their core social networks are also Hispanic, while nearly 1-in-5 (19%) are white and nine percent are some other race.

…Fully three-quarters (75%) of white Americans report that the network of people with whom they discuss important matters is entirely white, with no minority presence, while 15% report having a more racially mixed social network. Approximately two-thirds (65%) of black Americans report having a core social network that is composed entirely of people who are also black, while nearly one-quarter (23%) say their network includes a mix of people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Less than half (46%) of Hispanics report that their social network includes only other people who also identify as Hispanic, while more than one-third (34%) report having a mixed social network. Notably, nearly one-in-ten (9%) Hispanics report having an all-white core social network.

This is what Balkanization looks like: each group retreats into its own, because any other group might be offended or working against them. As this continues, expect less important social groups to follow this pattern as well, leading to all ethnic groups segregating from one another.

White Racism Is Disguised As Anti-Racism, And Anti-White Racism Does Not Help

Wednesday, May 24th, 2017

After the last election, the ripple wave passing through the Black community is notice of what has been obvious but forbidden because of a perceived need to ally with the Left.

African-Americans are recognizing that white SWPLs are anti-racist in theory, but discriminatory in action:

It got so bad in 2014 – 2015 that I stopped renting farmland on estates where I could be easily seen from the road, and I stopped making food deliveries into wealthier neighborhoods because of how often police would “happen by” and sometimes even question me five or ten minutes after I got a strange look from a passerby (usually someone jogging, but occasionally someone in a car). I’m not a paranoid kinda guy, but this happened way too often to be a coincidence.

It isn’t Richard Spencer calling the cops on me for farming while Black. It’s nervous White women in yoga pants with “I’m with Her” and “Coexist” stickers on their German SUVs.

Second is the sheer degree of cultural appropriation going on with businesses in the city proper. It’s little things – e.g. shops and other businesses incorporating wide swaths of hiphop culture into their branding while having not a single Black owner, partner, employee, or vendor. And those businesses are KILLING IT here. This is a town where Blackness advances White-owned brands and subjects Black-owned businesses to inspection by law enforcement.

Do you really think that problem comes from people like Richard Spencer?

White anti-racism is often designed to mask a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitude to diversity. There is no better way to hide sins than to virtue signal the opposite, so that if someone calls you a racist you can point to your Black Lives Matter participation, Bob Marley posters, membership in the Diversity Council and massive collection of old school hip-hop on vinyl.

Richard Spencer is not the problem the black community faces; it struggles with the fact that white America wants to be white America, and this requires excluding everyone else but a few token minorities. At the same time, it will gladly appropriate the massive perceived authenticity of black culture and use it to sell more worthless consumer products.

On the flip side of this, anti-white racism (also called “anti-racism”) is not helping the black community either. It shields the guilty and exacerbates the problem by making white people afraid to interact with or speak truthfully to minorities. Only recognizing that every group wants to live with and interact with only its own leads out of this puzzle.

American Re-Segregation: The Shadow News Story Of The New Millennium

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

Politics reminds me of bullfighting: the matador waves a cape, the bull charges, and the matador steps aside, sticking a little spear in the bull each time, eventually bleeding him into weakness, then killing him.

For a bonus to the analogy, people are usually screaming in Spanish there, too.

In American politics, they wave the flag of ideology and promise benefits. The voters — people in groups are dunces — rush forward at whatever target is offered. While the herd is congratulating itself, politicians help themselves to more of the wealth. Most will not object until too much is taken, and by that point it is too late. To mix metaphors: boiling a frog.

Right now the Left is bandying about numerous variations of their one and only theme, “equality,” especially on the topic of Civil Rights which is their get-out-of-jail-free card because no one wants to be styled as Hitler in the media. They have a golden ticket and they use it like a lance.

In the meantime, they are hiding from us the real story: America, like Europe, is re-segregating.

For those who remember history, which is like 500 people in North America at this point, segregation was what happened after the Civil War. The slaves were freed, and each ethnic group went its own way. This “worked,” like most bad ideas seem to succeed at first, for a time. There were thriving black communities, but when they got powerful enough to challenge the white minority, the usual diversity story played out through ethnic conflict and amusingly horrible race riots.

In the 1950s, people — still drugged on a moral superiority high after WWII — decided that segregation was wrong and that we should force people to live together. Nothing says fair and balanced quite like forcing people who resent each other to interact, right? Billions were wasted on forced school busing, redistricting and other attempts to make unequal schools (as all schools are) “equal.”

The desegregation effort hit its peak in 2016 when Barack Obama order the relocation of “the diversity” to the white suburbs, presumably to reinforce the Leftist motto of “there is no escape.”

Despite this action, and perhaps prompting it, the hardline reality is that Americans of all races have been re-segregating because all people like to live near people like them. This enables high-trust communities where you know how to behave in public, socializing is easy, and the constant background hum of low-grade inter-ethnic crime and violence diminishes, except for those pesky dudes who steal your Amazon package off your front porch during the workday.

Resegregation takes many forms, since there are now many ethnic groups (temporarily) living here, and it shocked the media who refused to recognize that, for the most part, this resegregation was voluntary and encouraged by all races, religions and ethnic groups:

More than a half century after the civil rights era, many urban neighborhoods and institutions in American life remain unintegrated and, experts say, segregation is a primary driver in creating economic and social disparities and straining relations between police and the communities they serve.

The enduring forms of segregation – and in the case of many schools, resegregation – contribute to mistrust between the races and a lack of understanding and empathy, and can lead to violent encounters between law enforcement authorities and residents.

The writer failed to notice the hilarious coincidence in this sentence:

“You’re kind of looking at the greatest hits of segregation: Baltimore, Chicago, Minneapolis,” says Myron Orfield, director of the University of Minnesota Law School’s Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, referring to the police killings of Freddie Gray, Laquan McDonald, and Castile.

The places that integrated first, and were most diverse, are the ones now heading in separate directions. He forgot to mention Los Angeles, home of the Rodney King PCP-fueled rampage and ensuing beatdown and riots, and Houston, which is basically a collection of ethnic camps where different groups live apart from one another.

But across the country, different groups are separating in part because, now that race is not a matter of black and white but hundreds of different groups, each group is seeking a community where its standards, aesthetics, values and leadership can prevail:

In research I conducted with Siri Warkentien, another sociologist, we used a statistical model and census data to identify the most common changes in racial composition in 10,681 neighborhoods in metropolitan L.A., Houston, Chicago and New York, beginning as far back as 1970 in some areas. That starting point corresponds with the implementation of the 1968 federal Fair Housing Act, which protects buyers and renters from discrimination in choosing where to live.

…The data show that vast portions of south and east Los Angeles are slipping from mixed populations toward single race populations. And the change has not just occurred in formerly white areas. One of the trajectories that we identified followed a similar pattern in neighborhoods that were once black. Compton residents were nearly three-quarters black in 1980; by 1990, the mix was about 52% black and 43% Latino; in 2014, two-thirds Latino. Such slow but steadily increasing Latino growth can be found in 46% of the neighborhoods we studied in the Los Angeles metropolitan region.

…Our research found that this process is occurring again in Southern California, but this time among immigrants from Asia, the source of the largest number of U.S. newcomers now. For example, the Asian proportion of the population in Cerritos increased from 44% in 1990 to 58% in 2000 to 62% in 2014. It appears to be following a path toward Asian segregation much like Covina is on the path to Latino segregation.

Some media sources quietly acknowledged the role of “white flight” in the resegregation of the suburbs:

Our research finds that neighborhoods that are more than about 30 percent non-white, within a couple of decades, two-thirds of them will become predominantly non-white.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that people realize that racially mixed schools tend to be less effective and more violent and so they are moving to places with people like them:

Following Brown v Board of Education and some subsequent Supreme Court rulings, we had a pretty rapid period of de-segregation, particularly in the South. But it came because of court orders and starting in the 1980s you began to see court orders being lifted, and as communities were no longer forced to integrate, they’ve started to do things that re-segregate students.

Outside of the South we’ve never seen any real effort to integrate schools and so in places like Chicago, New York City, Boston, Newark, where you saw white parents pulling out of the public school system and moving to the suburbs, this has led to increasing segregation in those cities as well.

The same is true of other races, even though the media focuses on white flight from the mixed-race suburb. However, results vary by race, and this includes what people put their energy into in each community. What people value, they work on achieving. This is called “social investment” and different groups care about different things, leading to unequal priorities in different communities.

A side effect of the “new” post-desegregation white flight is the creation of whitopias, or places that are majority white and have more of a traditional American social fabric and framework of social investment:

Imagine moving to a place where you can leave your front door unlocked as you run your errands, where the community enjoys a winning ratio of playgrounds to potholes, where you can turn your kids loose at 3 p.m., not to worry, then see them in time for supper, where the neighbors greet those children by name, where your trouble-free high school feels like a de facto private school, where if you decide to play hooky from work, you can drive just twenty minutes and put your sailboat on the water, where the outdoor serenity is shattered only by each seagull’s cry, where you can joyride your off-road vehicles (Snowmobiles! ATVs! Mountain bikes! Rock crawlers!) on Nature’s bold terrain, where your family and abundant friends feel close to the soil, and where suburban blight has yet to spoil your vistas. Just imagine.

If you could move to such a place, would you?

If so, you would join a growing number of white Americans homesteading in a constellation of small towns and so-called “exurbs” that are extremely white. They are creating communal pods that cannily preserve a white-bread world, a throwback to an imagined past with “authentic” 1950s values and the nifty suburban amenities available today.

Instead of focusing on the negative, let us flip this around: do all races want the same thing? What is a white utopia to some will be a cultural wasteland to others, focused on insipid Mayberry style goofy American Caucasian living. This is why people are breaking apart, and the big story that the media is dodging is the re-segregation of America.

Balkanization Is Our Future, Not “Ethnic Liberalism”

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

Billy Roper points out that the future of the West is Balkanization, or retreat into separate enclaves per ethnic group, because the policy of diversity has failed and as a result, people have fallen back on what “freedom of association” remains to withdraw from the disaster of mixed-ethnic society and produce their own communities mirroring European countries:

And on this year’s edition, out this week, they say natural geographic sorting has taken place over the past couple of decades. Liberals have moved next to liberals, conservatives next to conservatives. It used to be the rule just not to bring up politics in polite company. Now imagine a real estate ad – two-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bath, cul-de-sac, good schools, nice neighbors, no people of the other party need apply.

Of course, the recent media coverage about racial gerrymandering also supports the observation I made in my book The Balk, as does this NPR program: people are moving to segregate themselves politically and racially, to live among their own kind ethnically and culturally, voting with their feet, as America separates itself out through internal immigration on the road to balkanization. The black areas are becoming blacker, the Hispanic areas browner, and the White areas Whiter. What we are witnessing is the emergence of new ethnostates, which will become new nations when America goes down.

The people who really lost out here were the people who gambled on miscegenation. Their kids will have to pick one tribe or the other, and because the closer the tribe is to human origins, the more it influences appearance, this means they will have bred toward the more original group. If you had a white parent, no one cares anymore.

In the meantime, people are sorting not just according to race, but by ethnicity, with groups such as the founding group of the United States, the Western Europeans (WASPs) finding their own space apart from the mixed-ethnic Europeans (South, Irish, East) and third-world immigrant flood. Again, people do not care how well-behaved or intelligent these immigrants are, or what their SAT scores are. They just want to live with people like themselves, which means that Everyone Else need not apply.

This contrasts the “magic dirt”/proposition nation/Leftist view of society, which is that we can combine all different genetic strains of people and then indoctrinate them in Leftist ideology and forge a nation out of those robotic, obedient, and conformist beige people.

Conservatives in name tend to adopt this view as well. Witness Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro assert multiculturalism as a goal of “conservatism”:

The alt-right are people like Richard Spencer who think that Western civilization and Western culture are inseparable from ethnicity. In other words, European ethnicity is the dominant force behind Western culture and Western civilization biologically.

…I think the alt-right doesn’t want immigration, legal or illegal, because they oppose immigration on the basis that it endangers Western civilization or European ethnicity. People that I’m aware of on the mainstream conservative side, if they have objections to immigration, it’s on the basis of costs or culture, not on the basis of race.

I don’t care if someone immigrates here so long as they’re willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization. I don’t care what someone’s race happens to be. This is consistent with the founding vision of the country. But the alt-right doesn’t accept that.

Shapiro is wrong, of course; the founding fathers specified that they wanted Western European people only and were quite vocal about race and inherent inequality. But current American conservatives, who have been selected for their ability to work with the post-1968 Leftist Establishment, see it differently.

Even more, it is nonsense to assume that culture is independent from race, just like it is insane to separate sex and love. You can force it to appear as if this is true, but then, a conspiracy of details over time destroys you, much as it has destroyed our society for pursuing these illusions.

All general tendencies — “traits” — are heritable. Cultures are composed of traits, if not explicitly, in orientation. This is why human differentiation happened. This means that the hardware required to run culture, at least without it being enforced temporarily at gunpoint, is limited to the group that invented that culture.

Shapiro may not like this, but he is out of luck because it is uncontroversial by itself. If someone argued that we should replace the Maori or Zulu with legions of Fred from Accounting and his lovely wife Mabel from Cleveland, OH, then they would be uniformly seen as genocidal racists. When the inverse is argued, people shrug it off, because it fits within the Leftist wealth transfer narrative.

Shapiro also fits within that narrative, which is unfortunate given his entertaining insight in many other matters.

The grim fact is that Balkanization is happening because Western people, steeped in egalitarianism and universalism, cannot accept that there are different groups because they have different genetics. At least, they cannot accept it in public. When you deny this impulse, it comes out in the form of groups withdrawing from the ruined false center of society, and retreating to be with their own.

As usual, diversity fails. It is attempted genocide that will benefit no groups, although some members of each will be peeled off and mixed into the new beige master race of perfect Leftist supporters. Instead, it will create a collapse where different ethnic, ethnic-religious and ethnic-cultural groups. With that, superpower status goes away forever.

Balkanization offers us a view of the civilization cycle. Civilizations rise, invert their thinking, become individualistic, and then extinguish themselves through equality including democracy and diversity. Within them, the former active and productive agents pack their bags and go elsewhere, producing a new civilization, while the miscegenated remnants writhe in third world status.

Desperate Leftists Create Segregation To Avoid White Exodus

Tuesday, September 13th, 2016


Diversity fails because it combines groups with conflicting directions of self-interest. Each group needs its own standards, culture and pride, which is formed of knowledge that their civilization was created by them and designed for them and will always be controlled by them.

However, the liberal ideology of egalitarianism requires proof because it is conjectural, which means that any working example of non-egalitarian social organization is a threat which must be destroyed. For this reason, Leftists cram together different groups whenever possible to try to “prove” that diversity works.

While those in power can force this to happen, the inevitable occurs: members of these different groups have different opinions, and start to find the other groups offensive because they act in ways that contradict or offend the values of one or more groups. At that point, the diversity acolytes must turn to segregation.

The quest to avoid the inherent conflict of diversity has begun in schools, where ethnic groups are self-segregating to avoid diversity:

At Cal State Los Angeles, a new housing program opens up dorms for black students who want to be separated from the rest of the campus.

The housing option is generating criticism on social media. The campus is setting aside 20 spots in their 192 unit dorm complex for African-American students and others who share similar interests or concerns.

A similar housing option is available at UC Davis…[where] the program has proved to be successful. Graduation rates are high among black students who live in the African-American theme program.

In other words, not only was segregation chosen by minority groups, but it is working better than diversity.

In Denmark, public schools are endorsing segregation for a similar reason, which is that it may help retain native Danish people and presumably, this will improve results for the immigrant students:

The Langkær upper secondary school outside the city of Aarhus said its first-year students had been divided into seven different classes, out of which three classes had a 50 percent limit on the number of ethnic minority students.

The remaining four classes consisted only of students from an immigrant background.

The school’s headmaster, Yago Bundgaard, denied allegations that the practice amounted to discrimination and said that the aim was to encourage integration by preventing a dwindling number of ethnic Danes from leaving the school.

In both cases, ethnic groups are self-segregating not to avoid the other, specifically, because multiple groups are involved. They are removing themselves from diversity because diversity does not work, owing to its paradoxical design that creates inherent conflicts of interest between the groups involved.

As some have noted, this self-segregation is an extension of the idea of “safe spaces,” which were created because student bodies are now so internally different that many of the views of other students are shocking, offensive and disturbing to some students:

She’s not entirely wrong, and as she points out, there have essentially become two types of safe spaces on college campuses in recent years. One is perfectly acceptable — groups of students with similar interests or backgrounds joining together to share experiences and ideas. These are otherwise known as friend groups.

The other is clearly designed to exclude, and that’s the kind that turns adult students into toddlers.

This division posited by the university President paraphrased above is inaccurate. All safe spaces are designed to exclude those whose ideas are offensive to the people in the safe space. The difference is that we accept anti-diversity safe spaces, where ideological safe spaces are contradictory to the goals of a university.

This shows us a more accurate division:

  • Anti-diversity safe spaces (ADSS) are designed to protect the culture, values and people of an ethnic group. They do this by excluding all other groups because their values are competing. These have a long history, dating back to Lapp settlements and Indian reservations, and continue with protection of ethnic groups like remote Amazonian tribes who wish to maintain their mostly “uncontacted” status.

  • Ideological safe spaces (ISS) on the other hand are designed to protect a dogmatic viewpoint by excluding other ideas. Those ideas can be similar to cultural ideals, but part of the goal of a university is to expose students to a wide range of ideas so they understand the breadth of the fields in which they will write and think. This is why “survey courses” exist in almost all disciplines.

Exclusion is one of the fundamental rights of territory, which is property owned or controlled by a group. For an ethnic group to have its own standards and values, it must exclude all others.

While the special snowflakes in their ISSs are mostly hoping to avoid ideas, ADSSs are succeeding by protecting each group and giving it a sense of pride in its own identity. This threatens the goal of globalism, which is to abolish borders so that it can unite the world into a single ideological and economic space.

After Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump, the notion of globalism has died, and with it the perception that the Leftist agenda leads to a more Utopian society. Instead, we see that it leads toward a dystopian society like that of the third world, where a few rich elites rule a crime-ridden, corrupt, filthy and violent mixed-race group.

These ideas will take time to settle in. But in the meantime, expect more ethnic groups to join the exodus from diversity. They must do so, in order to preserve themselves, and regardless of whether they are minority or majority groups, results will be better for them.

The Dilemma of Fixing Diversity

Friday, July 15th, 2016


So Terrance Williams isn’t going back to Africa. I still don’t know what in the heck that has to do with being afraid of dogs, but the clip was hilarious. It also raised a nettlesome issue that needs to be addressed to properly plan for and execute a nationalistic set of politics. You see Terrance Williams is probably as suburban ‘Murikan Peebles as I am. Put either one of our butts in the Serengeti wilds and the hyenas would chewing big holes in our corpses. Forcing him out into Zululand, against his will and against his nature, would be an unjust and immoral death sentence.

However,1 there is an increasingly unchurched, unschooled, and flat-out uncivilized group of African Americans in large Amerikan cities. I’ll let Chris Rock say what I’m socially enjoined not to when it comes to describing these people. I personally and professionally blame President Lyndon Baines Johnson. This Great Society looks like the ruins of Detroit’s municipal culture. The Great Society is found where residents of Birmingham, Alabama scream because non-African American people move into neighborhoods, clean up all the garbage and raise the property values.

This, they argue, forces them out. If you’re talking the sort of people who are realistically described by TV shows like The Wire, I’m failing to see the problem here. If you don’t want Harm City, you get rid of the people that make your urban areas Bodymore, Murderland. We are going to get what we tolerate. God pretty much thinks you have it coming to you if you are stupid enough to put up with it.

There is going to be some sort of nationalistic sorting. The people who are good, decent, and do what people are supposed do will take out the damn, stinking garbage. It may well be significantly based upon race, nationality or religion. We will do it, or our great nation is going to die in the ditch.

After Nice, France, this will be condign instead of lamentable. People who come into a society and refuse to make the effort to sublimate their individualism on the behalf of everyone else’s commonweal are a gallimaufry of solipsistic, fvcked-up @$$holes. My philosophical and political home is on the Alt-Right because the traditional, Cuckboy Right from whence I migrated doesn’t have the guts, piss or vinegar to get this necessary job done. They won’t. Ever.

And that brings me to a conundrum. We face a fundamental dilemma. There are good and intelligent people that come from backgrounds not generally conducive to what we see as proper American Nationalism. There are three options of handling this.

  1. The old Field Artillery Maxim “Fvck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.” Just let intelligent, worthwhile members of generally dysgenic and uncivil communities go down the gutter along with the trash. This has the advantage of being cheap and easy. It gets the necessary clean-up done a whole lot faster. It makes it easier to draw a line between good and evil. None of this fifty shades of grey crap. Put the leather disco armor and the whips away. Just separate and kick those not to the benefit of traditional Eurocentric society out.

  2. Establish a standard and a maximum level of exceptions willingly made. Implicit in this option is that we go ahead and let The New Black Panthers take over and run someplace else. Just let them try and run it and send packing those who deserve to live there. This is a lot more difficult and leaves you prone to infiltration. It’s a fine line between decency and Cucktitude. It’s like art vs. porn – you’ll know it when you see it on your teenager’s cell phone.

  3. Freedom of Association. Allow people to decide who they let in the spaces they own. Allow them to decide who they include and, more importantly, who they exclude. Separate isn’t ever equal. Separate by choice is actually free. It’s amazing how frequently equality and freedom are antithetical. Giving people the space to escape from diversity when it is not beneficial would make it less of a curse. It would allow people to live in the America of their choice instead of the Amerika that gets stomped into their faces by the jack-booted Regressive Left.

So those are the options going forward. Forcibly separate everyone, forcibly separate out as much deadwood as possible or pursue ordered classical liberty that allows men and women of good will to separate on their own initiative. This is what is surreptitiously happening anyway and will continue to happen every time either blacks or whites get that sliver of daylight and a vision of the end zone. Bring back freedom of association, and nationalism can flourish within a democratic republic. The current Progressive race relations policies are literally making Reconquista 2.0 a coming reality.

1 Five Dallas police officers agree with JPW on this one but are unavailable for comment.


Wednesday, July 13th, 2016

After seventy years of government propaganda about the benefits of the multicultural state, calls for re-segregation are ringing out from all quarters:

The end game is land ownership. The endgame is our own government in a nation within a nation. Okay. So we claim the states of Louisiana, we claim the states of Mississippi, we claim the states of South Carolina, we claim the states of Alabama, and we claim the states of Georgia.

We just need to start migrating back to those states and taking control of the economics in those states. If black people move in, most definitely white people will move out. So it’s not a hard process for us to have our own country within a country.

…We want to control the politics in our community. If a politician is not bringing anything to the table for the betterment of that community, we are not going to vote for these particular people. And we most definitely want to control the education.

The above comes from a New Black Panther leader who has realized that on a practical level, nationalism cannot exist without the exclusion of other races. He wants to recapture part of North America, but fails to take into account what will happen when the demographically-like Asiatic majority is making the rules. A more sensible idea is reparations with mandatory repatriation for all non-Western Europeans, but it will take people a long time to reach that obvious conclusion. Under that rule, each ethnic group gets self-determination in its own isolated states, and also brings expertise from a modernized America back to its homelands.

He also expands on what is already happening, which is a process of re-segregation as diversity makes groups wary of one another, especially in light of lowered social trust in diverse communities. Communities are already re-segregating through voluntary action:

Data compiled by American University professors Michael Bader and Siri Warkentien finds that New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston are experiencing a slower, steadier version of “white flight” that could produce re-segregation over time. In fact, 35 percent of the neighborhoods surveyed will likely re-segregate within the next 20 years. And this change is part of a trend happening in cities nationwide.

According to the study, cities are undergoing a process called gradual succession. It’s the idea is that “neighborhoods will change from one group to another group over many, many years and not so much whites fleeing neighborhoods rapidly,” said Bader, who is the lead researcher. “It will appear integrated for some time but will eventually transition to all one group, essentially re-segregating.” This results in blacks becoming concentrated into small areas of cities and inner suburbs. Latinos and Asians are segregating into neighborhood clusters throughout metropolitan areas.

This process began in the public schools, which owing to high local taxes prohibit most citizens from sending their children to private schools, where re-segregation has occurred in response to ethnic friction in the schools:

Poor, black and Hispanic children are becoming increasingly isolated from their white, affluent peers in the nation’s public schools, according to new federal data showing that the number of high-poverty schools serving primarily black and brown students more than doubled between 2001 and 2014.

The data was released by the Government Accountability Office on Tuesday, 62 years to the day after the Supreme Court decided that segregated schools are “inherently unequal” and therefore unconstitutional.

A major factor in this re-segregation is the rise of non-black minority groups. As Latinos and Asians move in, the balance of neighborhoods is altered, and people tend to leave in order to be with those like them:

The data show that vast portions of south and east Los Angeles are slipping from mixed populations toward single race populations. And the change has not just occurred in formerly white areas. One of the trajectories that we identified followed a similar pattern in neighborhoods that were once black. Compton residents were nearly three-quarters black in 1980; by 1990, the mix was about 52% black and 43% Latino; in 2014, two-thirds Latino. Such slow but steadily increasing Latino growth can be found in 46% of the neighborhoods we studied in the Los Angeles metropolitan region.

Immigration is one obvious factor. The Latino population increased in Los Angeles after immigration laws were changed in 1965 to encourage family reunification.

As history shows us, the more Leftist policies are tried, the more a backlash arises not from ideological disagreement, but from the real-world problems unleashed by approaching a complexity reality with a one-size-fits-all ideological abstraction. This in turn reinforces Nationalist ideas not just among Caucasians, but every ethnic population, starting with groups conventionally discriminated against such as African-Americans and Jews.

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

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The virtue signaling outrage followed quickly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why segregation is natural and happens time and again

Wednesday, March 16th, 2016

Your grandmother may have told you that “birds of a feather flock together.” You probably ignored it. Folk wisdom was for old people, you thought, perhaps, and it was not very clear. What do these gnomic, naturalistic-metaphor sayings mean anyway? You moved off to the city.

Fifteen years later, you’re noticing that your neighbors look like you, earn like you and have similar tastes. How did that happen? You wanted to escape your white-bread, one-note suburb or small town. As it turns out, people naturally segregate without meaning to:

In Schelling’s model, individuals prefer to have some similar neighbours, but they do not discriminate against different neighbours – in short, they are tolerant. If individuals are unhappy with their neighbourhood, they can freely move to a neighbourhood with a more preferable composition.

In the example below, the yellow individual is unhappy about her assigned location because she does not have enough yellow neighbours, so she decides to move to a new neighbourhood. But when she moves, the composition of both her old and new neighbourhoods change. As a result, an old yellow neighbour and a new blue neighbour also decide to move.

This causes a domino effect that leads neighbourhoods to separate into yellow and blue ghettos. In the end, although no single individual prefers it, everyone ends up in segregated neighbourhoods.

What you are seeing is evolution in action. Within a group, different subgroups form; each of those has its own way of doing things. Those then separate and isolate so that they can improve those methods of doing things without interference by other groups. They are not acting against the others; they are acting in self-interest, and for the best interests of future generations. And so, in an inverse of the Tragedy of the Commons, the groups separate as if by a saltation process like sorts the stones in the river. A new order prevails, despite the human desire for power that makes us wish otherwise.

Recommended Reading