Right-wing Racism: 20 rules

Tom Kratman explains the 20 rules of racism from the Right perspective:

1. Anyone responsible for three hundred years of slavery would have to be a lot older than you and me.

2. There has to be some genetics in “racism’s” DNA, some DNA in its gene pool, or it just isn’t racism.

3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.

4. Reality isn’t racist: The reality is that there are pond-scummy gallows bait in every group. Some of those will be more of a problem to their own group than to you (see Rule 14, below). Some will be more of a problem to you precisely because you’re not a member of their group. It is wise, not racist, to avoid the latter. In Boston, this may be referred to as the “Evelyn Wagler-George Pratt Rule,” and that’s not code. Odd exception to half of Rule 4: Jesse Jackson would much rather be followed by a white on the streets of DC, at night, than a black.

5. There have been two instances in recent history where the concept of “honorary white” held sway. One was in apartheid South Africa where, for example, Japanese were considered “honorary white.” The other was when, in relation to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the American mainstream media made Hispanic George Zimmerman an “honorary white.” This is not entirely coincidence since (see Rule 18) the very liberal American media is as racist in their way as ever the Afrikaner Broederbond was in its.

6. Nobody really thinks whites are as evil as portrayed by white liberals and black demagogues. If they really thought so, they’d be too afraid to ever leave the house, since a) there are a lot more whites, b) those whites are much better armed, c) they’re more likely to be veterans of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ground gaining combat arms, and d) they have an historically demonstrated cultural aptitude for mass, organized violence.

7. People who insist you’re speaking in code insist on it because they believe it’s true. They believe it’s true because they really do speak in code and can’t imagine anyone who does not speak in code. It’s not racist to think those people are idiots, nor to note that they’re mostly white. (Exception to rule: When conservatives talk about guns and zombies? Especially in terms of using the former to kill the latter? Yeah; “zombie” is code for “liberals of any color.” See Rule 6, above.)

8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

9. Speaking of slavery, the bulk of slave raiding and trading in Africa was black, usually Islamic black (see Rule 16, below), on black. The Arabic word for black and slave is the same, “Abd.” And the first registered slave owner in Virginia was black. Pointing this out to liberals, white and black, is always fun.

10. It’s not racist to wish that our first black president had been Thomas Sowell.

Read the rest at his site. Of the ten listed here, I disagree only with point 3. My observations as a Person of Color who can seamlessly pass for a) American, b) English, c) Hispanic, and d) Italian at will have led me to conclude is that if there were not various human subspecies and people did not disfavor the other subspecies and distinct population groups on the basis of massive genetic differences, they would disfavor other population groups on the basis of minor genetic differences.

I grew up in an area where a mixed marriage was considered to be a Norwegian married to a Swede. The idea that Ibo and Zhuang are going to mingle happily with Bavarians and Dutch, in the USA or anywhere, is observably antiscientific,  ahistorical, and illogical.

Structuring a society on the basis of the myth of human equality is about as intelligent as building a plane without taking either gravity or aerodynamics into account. The only question is when it will crash and kill a statistically significant percentage of the occupants, not if.

“A threat to the UK”

In yet another strike against democracy, nearly four in ten British voters demonstrate that they are nothing but media lapdogs by agreeing that the only British party leader who ISN’T an enemy of the British people is “a threat to the UK“.

Ahead of the BBC debate tomorrow night, pollsters ComRes asked voters to consider several statements and say whether they applied more to Mr Farage or Mr Clegg. The results reveal weaknesses in both camps

In the poll, 38 per cent of people said Mr Farage ’is a danger to Britain’, compared to just 23 per cent who said the same of Mr Clegg. Despite UKIP drawing much of its support from older voters, 44 per cent of people aged 55-64 said Mr Farage posed a threat to the UK. Half of people working in the public sector, and 44 per cent of people in Scotland and the South West also agreed Mr Farage was a danger to the country.

Mr. Farage is a threat to the imperial neofascist European Union. And that is why its lackeys are trying to convince the British that he is a threat to the UK. These people are simply addicted to the Big Lie.

The only way in which UKIP’s Farage can be considered a threat to the UK is if its people are afraid of their own sovereignty.

Still bailing

It’s going to be fascinating to learn how long the great game of Let’s Pretend can continue:

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, easing investor concern that interest rates may rise earlier than previously forecast, said the world’s biggest economy will need Fed stimulus for “some time.”

Yellen said today the Fed hasn’t done enough to combat unemployment even after holding interest rates near zero for more than five years and pumping up its balance sheet to $4.23 trillion with bond purchases.

“This extraordinary commitment is still needed and will be for some time, and I believe that view is widely shared by my fellow policy makers,” Yellen said at a community development conference in Chicago. “The scars from the Great Recession remain, and reaching our goals will take time.”

The amusing thing is that if you take the GDP numbers seriously, the Great Recession was actually a very minor one. Of course, it’s all fiction at this point, and poorly written fiction at that.

Remember, the Fed always talks about the general economy, but all it actually cares about is keeping the giant banks from collapsing.

Dumbing down tech

An old school programmer points out the way in which even programmers are being taught to be glorified power users rather than actual computer engineers:

If I may be so brash, it has been my humble experience that there are two things traditionally taught in universities as a part of a computer science curriculum which many people just never really fully comprehend: pointers and recursion.

You used to start out in college with a course in data structures, with linked lists and hash tables and whatnot, with extensive use of pointers. Those courses were often used as weedout courses: they were so hard that anyone that couldn’t handle the mental challenge of a CS degree would give up, which was a good thing, because if you thought pointers are hard, wait until you try to prove things about fixed point theory.

All the kids who did great in high school writing pong games in BASIC for their Apple II would get to college, take CompSci 101, a data structures course, and when they hit the pointers business their brains would just totally explode, and the next thing you knew, they were majoring in Political Science because law school seemed like a better idea. I’ve seen all kinds of figures for drop-out rates in CS and they’re usually between 40% and 70%. The universities tend to see this as a waste; I think it’s just a necessary culling of the people who aren’t going to be happy or successful in programming careers.

The other hard course for many young CS students was the course where you learned functional programming, including recursive programming. MIT set the bar very high for these courses, creating a required course (6.001) and a textbook (Abelson & Sussman’s Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) which were used at dozens or even hundreds of top CS schools as the de facto introduction to computer science. (You can, and should, watch an older version of the lectures online.)

The difficulty of these courses is astonishing. In the first lecture you’ve learned pretty much all of Scheme, and you’re already being introduced to a fixed-point function that takes another function as its input. When I struggled through such a course, CSE121 at Penn, I watched as many if not most of the students just didn’t make it. The material was too hard. I wrote a long sob email to the professor saying It Just Wasn’t Fair. Somebody at Penn must have listened to me (or one of the other complainers), because that course is now taught in Java.

I wish they hadn’t listened.

The real reason the courses are being dumbed down, of course, is so that women can pass them. But they’re not only being dumbed down, they are being prettied-up and sparkle-ponied in an attempt to make the girls feel as if they’re actually able to do something meaningful. This isn’t the case, of course, but the programs are being designed in such a way that the young women won’t figure out that they’ve been sold a very expensive course in self-esteem until after they graduate and realize they can’t actually do any real programming.

This isn’t good for anyone, not for the girls who should be majoring in something else, the girls who could handle the traditional programming curriculum, or the young men who would be better off teaching themselves to program instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars to not learn the more rigorous aspects of the discipline.

I started out as a CompSci Engineering major myself. In the first semester, I realized that I didn’t enjoy the level of detail required to succeed and immediately switched to Economics. I am very, very glad that my university didn’t make the course more to my liking, as I now know that I would not have made for a good programmer, much less a great one. This isn’t a case of old school guys rhapsodizing about the good old days either, the situation is materially detrimental to practically everyone concerned except the universities and the banks profiting from the student loan system.

As an employer, I’ve seen that the 100% Java schools have started churning out quite a few CS graduates who are simply not smart enough to work as programmers on anything more sophisticated than Yet Another Java Accounting Application, although they did manage to squeak through the newly-dumbed-down coursework. These students would never survive 6.001 at MIT, or CS 323 at Yale, and frankly, that is one reason why, as an employer, a CS degree from MIT or Yale carries more weight than a CS degree from Duke, which recently went All-Java, or U. Penn, which replaced Scheme and ML with Java in trying to teach the class that nearly killed me and my friends, CSE121. Not that I don’t want to hire smart kids from Duke and Penn — I do — it’s just a lot harder for me to figure out who they are.

Universities should be making the entry STEM courses harder, not easier, but as it stands, both their financial and their PR incentives run in precisely the opposite direction.

Not on your side

Kevin Williamson appears to think that a pragmatic appeal to the lesser evil is going to work again after six years of the Obama adminstration:

Republicans
now have the opportunity to effectively bring the Obama
administration’s legislative program to an early end this November by
eliminating the Democrats’ majority in the Senate, which would also give
them a much stronger hand in keeping the worst of his appointees out of
office, safely quarantined in whatever dank recesses of academia
currently housing them. And while one should never underestimate the
Republicans’ ability to blunder their way into missing a political
opportunity or the fickleness of our bread-and-circuses electorate,
there is a very good chance that that will happen. (Knock wood, salt
over the shoulder — pick your own prophylactic.) But conservatives all
too often seem to have failed to learn the lesson of the heavy losses we
have suffered during the Obama years: The differences among us are
minor compared with the differences between us and them, which are
fundamental.

Conservatives had an opportunity to put
the Obama administration not to an effective end but a literal one in
2012, but we blew it. Mitt Romney improved on John McCain’s vote total
(barely), fared better in every battleground state save Ohio, and even
won independents. The election in the end was decided by 334,000 votes
in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Even with Barack Obama’s
edge among newly registered minority voters and an unusually high
turnout among overwhelmingly Democratic black voters, only 57.5 percent
of eligible voters actually showed up. That left a lot of room for
conservatives to make a difference. But we did not take the opportunity.

The
three most important words in politics are: “Compared with what?” And I
am more than a little sympathetic to conservatives’ complaints about
the failures of elected Republicans in Washington, who consistently
disappoint us even when they are in the majority. I am also sympathetic
to the view that our situation may have deteriorated to the point that
even a unified Republican government under the leadership of principled
conservatives may not be enough to turn things around. And though I
reject the notion that Mitt Romney wasn’t good enough for true-believing
conservatives, let’s say, arguendo, that that was the case. Unless you
are ready to give up entirely on the notion of advancing conservative
principles through the ballot box, you might consider looking at things
this way: Even if you do not think that it matters much whether
Republicans win, it matters a great deal that Democrats lose.

No,
no, and no again. A thousand times no.  Mitt Romney wasn’t good enough.
John McCain would have actually been worse than Obama. Failing a little
more slowly, destroying the country a little less spectacularly, is not
and will never be a solution. It cannot be a solution.

At
this point, the die is cast. There is no one in American politics, now
that Ron Paul is retired, who is even potentially interested in the
policies that need to be implemented to salvage what is observably a
failing empire. There is not a single candidate in either party who will
even attempt to fix the financial system, deport the millions of
invaders, and end the foreign wars.

It is better to be
openly attacked by confirmed enemies than repeatedly betrayed by false
friends. The Republicans have proven that they are no friends to
freedom, small government, or traditional America and it is a
fundamental error for anyone who values freedom or small government or
traditional America to support them.

Mr. Williamson says: “I am coming around to the view that I’d rather be disappointed by
Republicans who periodically fail live up to their principles than have
my country pillaged and hobbled by Democrats who consistently live up to
theirs.”

That’s a false choice. Mr. Williamson should
know better. The Republicans don’t “periodically fail to live up to
their principles”. They predictably, and reliably, fail to live up to
their pretended principles.

White liberal racism

It’s fascinating to see how white liberals the way in which make a habit of denying the undeniable whenever it contradicts their narrative. From the woman who calls herself “Pox Vay” on Twitter:

You’re not a person of color. You’re a white guy who shares genes with people of color. But you don’t share the life experience.

It’s hard to argue with this. After all, there are so few People of Color who are NCAA Division One 100-meter sprinters, right? Or study economics in Tokyo, neh?

She’s not the only one. Carrie Cuinn, a white racist who is one of SFWA’s extremist pinkshirts, specifically rejected my inclusion on her list of Hispanic science fiction writers, never mind the fact that I am probably one of the best-selling Hispanic science fiction writers after Larry Correia and Sarah Hoyt. Interestingly enough, neither of them were on her list either, although I suspect their omission was more out of ignorance than white liberal racism.

Surely this woman is a reliable expert on who is, and who is not, Hispanic….

This is a longtime pattern with the Left. I remember a feminist professor at my university openly declaring “Margaret Thatcher is not a woman” due to her ideology. The Left not only arrogates to itself the right to disqualify anyone as it sees fit, but observably believes that its narrative supersedes science, sex, and human genetics.

Christians: No to Noah

We have this on the authority of no less than Mr. John C. Wright:

I saw the movie NOAH just now. What a load of horse manure. In days to come, time permitting, I will pen a more thorough review, but for now, let me just say: Christian men, save your money. Go see GOD’S NOT DEAD. Tell Hollywood we don’t like movies about Biblical figures that mock the source material.

I have to admit that it never even occurred to me to go see it, but it’s always nice to receive confirmation that one’s assumptions were correct. Wright adds in the comments:

This movie particularly offends me, because back when I was an atheist, I could and did, write stories so convincingly Christian that I fooled at least one editor and two reviewers into thinking I was one. It is a talent all artists have. It is called make believe. No director of this stature lacks this talent. The atheist flavor in the film was not inserted by accident nor oversight, it was deliberate.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again

In light of John C. Wright’s Unified Field Theory of Madness, perhaps we need an addendum to explain the Contrapuntal Certainty of Left-Wing Social Policies:

From Grand Theft Auto V to Saints Row 2 and Fight Night, many games let players choose between characters of different races. However, researchers have found that when white people play as black characters in video games classified as violent, the players were more threatening, offensive and racist in real life. Scientists described the findings as ‘disturbing’ because it is the first time the race of a computer alter ego, or avatar, has been linked to this change in behaviour.

There may be a third certainty beyond death and taxes, and that is the tendency of every left-wing social policy to deliver consequences that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of those expected and predicted. We have seen tax hikes that raise less money, we have seen a War on Poverty that increased the number of the poor, we have seen how multiculturalism increases social divisiveness, and now we are seeing that the proposed solution to supposed racism in video games actually increases racism in real life.

This should have interesting ramifications for the women who are incessantly crying for more female protagonists in video games in order to encourage more female involvement; at this point, one wouldn’t be surprised if that ended up leading to the development of online prostitution through video gaming networks.

A belated awakening

It would appear that the Ukrainian nationalists who led the US/EU supported charge against the democratically elected government are beginning to wake up to the fact that they were used as cannon fodder by the globalists:

Fears are growing of a neo-fascist uprising in Ukraine as ousted president Viktor Yanukovych called for referendums in every region to determine how pro-Russian the country actually is. Hundreds of members of the ultra-nationalist Right Sector movement stormed the parliament (Rada) building in Kiev last night, smashing windows and breaking down doors.

The riot erupted just hours before Russia’s foreign ministry today warned that ethnic minorities in Ukraine are ‘living in fear’ of the expanding power of the far-right across the divided nation.

Right Sector activists are angry over the killing of their leader, Oleksandr Muzychko, better known as Sashko Bily, who died in a shoot-out with police in a cafe in Rivne, in western Ukraine, on Monday.

Based on the term “neo-fascist” that is being applied to them now, what do you want to bet that Right Sector’s assault on the unelected government will be portrayed rather differently than their previous assault on the duly elected one in the Western media?

A failure of leadership

This is what happens when you buy into the tolerance trap and permit the lavender mafia entrance into your organization:

Employees and volunteers at Mozilla – the organisation which promotes open source software such as its Firefox browser – have called for new chief executive Brendan Eich to stand down because of his donations to political campaigns to ban gay marriage.

This week Mozilla named Brendan Eich as its new chief executive, following the resignation of Gary Kovacs which was announced in April last year. Eich was previously Mozilla’s chief technology officer and has a long history with the group dating back to before its formation from Netscape, having worked on the Navigator browser in the 90s and creating JavaScript in a marathon, ten-day programming session in 1995.

The controversy stems from a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 to support California’s Proposition 8, which opposed gay marriage. The donation was listed in a public database with Mozilla appearing next to Eich’s name as his employer. It caused controversy in the technology industry when it was uncovered in 2012.

Eich posted on his own blog to “express my sorrow at having caused pain” and promised an “active commitment to equality” at Mozilla. “I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion,” he wrote.

But employees were unconvinced. Chris McAvoy, who leads Mozilla’s Open Badges project, took to Twitter last night to call for the new chief executive to stand down and said that he had been “disapointed” by his promotion. 

Eich is in over his head and clearly has no idea what he is dealing with here. He committed a major blunder with that statement; it’s rather like watching a gamma male shot down by a woman respond by supplicating even harder.

What he should have done is fired everyone who called upon him to resign and announced that anyone who would permit their political ideology to interfere with their work at Mozilla or Mozilla’s internal affairs would be fired. That would have brought the matter to a speedy close and prevented similar outbreaks of political insubordination. Instead, he poured gasoline on the fire by showing that he is vulnerable to ideological pressure.

When confronted by a pressure group, one should never apologize and never back down. Confront every challenger outside the organization and crush every challenger inside it. People respect strength and confidence in a leader, even when they disagree with him, because at least he shows that he is decisive and is capable of providing direction. Ironically, in his inept response to the attacks on him, Eich has shown that he is unfit for leadership because he is fundamentally a follower.

What he should have said is: “Like everyone else at Mozilla, I am free to donate to any political organization or cause I choose. It is no one’s business here to tell me to whom I can and cannot donate my money, in the past or in the future. I have donated another $10,000 to [some anti-homogamy outfit], fired Mr. McAvoy for cause, and I will fire any other Mozilla employee or volunteer who publicly demands that this organization to cater to his personal political or ideological beliefs instead of pursuing our corporate objectives.”