Tag: society

“Free the Land”

Black separatism in America:

Lumumba smiled and raised his right hand halfway, just a little above the podium, briefly showing the clenched fist of a Black Power salute.

“And I want to say, free the land!”

Applause rang out, bells chimed, wooden staffs rose up and people shouted back, “Free the land!” That’s the motto of the Republic of New Afrika (RNA), the movement formed in 1968 that sought to turn the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina into an independent black nation.

Jackson’s new mayor is a former vice president of the RNA and a co-founder of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM), a national group born in 1993 that seeks self-determination for African-Americans — whom it calls New Afrikans — “by any means necessary.” Like many shaped by the Black Power era, Lumumba long shunned formal politics, until a successful run for City Council in 2009. Now, as mayor, he is seeking to apply the tenets of the black radical tradition to the duties of running a city.

“Nowadays you’ve got to call yourself a ‘change agent’ or something, or else you’ll make people scared,” Lumumba told me when I visited Jackson in August. “But I am a revolutionary.”

While I’m skeptical about Jackson’s prospects, I’m all in favor of African-American self-determination and separatism. Regardless of how far along the civilizational scale they happen to be, black Americans have the same essential human right to self-government as everyone else. The natural desire for ethnic, cultural, and ideological segregation on the part of blacks, whites, yellows, and everyone else isn’t racist, it is human. To pretend otherwise requires literally years of brainwashing from an early age as well as rigid intellectual self-supervision to refuse to see and admit the obvious.

This is why, when white Americans seek exactly the same thing as Lumumba and as the Aztlan activists, they are criticized in a vicious way that the black separatists, the Hispanic separatists, and the Pacific Islander separatists are not.

History informs us that political separation and ethno-racial segregation will eventually take place, the only question is when. Both the USA and the EU have already reached the state of the many multi-ethnic empires that preceded it; no doubt many in the British and Soviet and Austro-Hungarian Empires couldn’t conceive that one day there would be many sovereign nations where one central government once reigned.

But the USA is not a single central state, it is a violence-imposed empire that consists of the several States. And, in time, it will go the way of all such empires, riven by the simple human desire to be among one’s own kind rather than those of alien ideologies and different levels of civilization.

Tattoos: the obviously poor choice

Sometimes Steve Sailer cracks me up:

Commenter slumber_j points to this New Yorker cartoon about “The subtext of all tattoos:” “Ask me about my parents’ divorce.”

A related subtext might be: “I come from a long line of rash
decisionmakers.” On women, tattoos often seem to imply: “Pay attention
to me because I, obviously, make poor choices, so you might get lucky.”

I have an instinctive liking for tattoos on women, mostly because I am a natural predator. They are like a shortcut; tattoos tended to mean I didn’t even need my highly developed talent for sensing insecurity and emotional instability in attractive women.  A dagger between your breasts or a panther on your back? You might as well hand me a remote control with your name on it.

However, I have an intellectual distaste for them. Unless you’re a) special forces, b) Navy, c) a biker, or d) a prostitute or seriously dedicated slut, you are well advised to skip the inking. There are few things more tedious than listening to some vacuous marketing assistant desperately try to come up with an explanation for the deeper “meaning” behind their various markings.


“I mean, the [butterfly, dolphin, flower] on my [ankle, shoulder, hip] is just, like, so meaningful to me, because I was going through a hard time and it was, like, an inspiration and it was so important to me, and it really helped me get through [a) my breakup with X, b) the death of my (friend, relative, favorite TV character), c) the last season of Friends.]”
– Every girl with a tattoo ever

Tattoos are little more than the mix tapes of the two thousand teens. As for men, tattoos don’t make you look hard.  Do you know what makes you look hard? Muscles and scars.  Maybe a shaved head. That’s pretty much it.

And the quotes? Don’t get me started on that. Think about how dumb your senior yearbook quote is. Then imagine it following you around for the rest of your life, advertising how your mind hasn’t improved since you were a teenager.

The increased popularity of tattoos and other forms of body decoration are visual reminders of the gradual decline of civilization in the West. Like music and art, personal decor is indicative of the long term societal trend. It’s more than a fad, it is a sign of the descent into savagery.

The decivilization of America

Fred Reed reminds us of the civilized society we have lost and explains why we lost it:

This is why as cultures break down, or mix with less civilized
cultures, more and more police become necessary. So do locks, bars,
alarms, cameras and, for the remaining virile, carry permits. Hello.

Here is one reason why multiculturalism seldom works.
Suppose that one culture has a strong work ethic, fairly strict sexual
morality, low illegitimacy, low crime, respect for study and proper use
of the national language. Suppose that another culture is precisely
opposite, or approximately opposite, as for example the Moslems in
France. If the first group is truly dominant, and imposes its
standards—you will do your homework, kid—the second group may
successfully assimilate.

But suppose that the dominant group isn´t really that
dominant and can´t, or won´t, impose its values. How—in a school,
say—do you mix the toilet-mouthed with the well-spoken, girls who
expect to marry before giving birth with fifteen year old single
mothers pushing strollers into class? Or if the courts have decided
that “motherfucker· is an entire language to itself, and that
eradication of the word would constitute imperial culture-abuse? The
effect will always be to lower the civilized group to the uncivilized.

This multi-generational societal devastation is the cost of giving in to the multiculturalist dogma of half-savages like Jemisin and fatherless, clueless hypocrites like Scalzi. McRacist and McRapey don’t understand that what they call racism and bigotry was the basic foundation of advanced civilization.  Civilization depends, it has always depended, upon keeping down the half-civilized, keeping out the barbarians, and preventing both the half-savages and full savages from infesting, infecting, and ultimately destroying the civilized aspects of a society.

Instead of gradually welcoming into society those exceptional Africans who followed the lead of blue-bottomed Brits and naked Germans in graduating from cannibalistic savagery and expecting from them the same rights and responsibilities of a civilized citizen, the Civil Rights movement insanely declared all humanity to be the same, thereby eliminating the all-important distinction between civilized human population groups and savage ones. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before the enwiggification of America took place.

The Civil Rights movement didn’t merely destroy Constitutional rights, but literally gave naked, albino-eating, baby-raping cannibals the same intrinsic legal rights as highly civilized, highly moral Christian Europeans and told the romantic equalitarian fools to expect even better results than before. The Greeks knew better than that. The Romans knew better than that. The Imperial British knew better than that. And America’s Founding Fathers knew better than that.

Was it an accident? Of course not. There have always been those with the will to power, those who wish to rule unopposed by the will of the people. The Ciceronian cycle predicts the rise of aristocracy across the democratic world, and that is precisely what we are seeing in the elevation of the international corporate executive class and their relative immunity to the laws to which the rest of the population are subject.

Seen from this perspective, multiculturalism and the subsequent decline into vibrant semi-barbarism is merely a demographic application of the ancient strategic principle: divide and conquer.

How “gay marriage” harms you

Remember when we were all assured that homogamy was about expanding human rights, not denying them?  Yeah, so it turns out that was a lie.

A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery
completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were
gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read “Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.”

So, we now know that in addition to being bad for marriage – in Britain a woman will soon no longer legally become a “wife” while in France women can no longer become “mothers” – we know that homogamy is bad for jobs and the economy. This is precisely why free association – or as its opponents call it, discrimination – is a Constitutional right.

It is a sign of considerable societal decline that such a fundamental human right is no longer recognized in the USA.

UPDATE: This isn’t a theoretical matter.  It is a dangerous anti-civilizational abuse of human rights quite literally sweeping the Western USA:

A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex
marriage violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to
take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, the state’s highest
court ruled unanimously Thursday. Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her
husband and is the business’s principal photographer, refused to
photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

The court held that “a commercial photography
business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its
visibility to potential clients” is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights
Act “and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves
opposite-sex couples.”

“Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to
photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony,” the court concluded, the
photographer “violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to
photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

This should make it clear that “anti-discrimination” laws are the foundation of human rights abuses.  They serve as justifiation for involuntary government-imposed servitude.

The legacy of slavery

It is informative to note that the black population in the UK, which is less racially mixed than the black population in the USA, commits violent crimes at an even higher rate than the latter:

The official figures, which examine the ethnicity of those accused of violent
offences in London, suggest the majority of men held responsible by police
for gun crimes, robberies and street crimes are black….

The data provide a breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who
police took action against for a range of violent and sexual offences in
London in 2009-10. They show that among those proceeded against for street crimes, 54 per cent
were black; for robbery, 59 per cent; and for gun crimes, 67 per cent.
Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob and snatching
property.

Just over 12 per cent of London’s 7.5 million population is black, including
those of mixed black and white parentage, while 69 per cent is white,
according to the Office for National Statistics….

On sex offences, black men made up 32 per cent of male suspects proceeded
against, and white men 49 per cent. The statistics also suggest that black
women are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime
committed by females. 

These UK statistics are likely to be useful when responding to those who attempt to blame the legacy of slavery for disproportionately criminal behavior among the American black community.  And remember, it is blacks who suffer disproportionately from criminal black predation, especially in the UK where they do not have the ability to defend themselves due to the absence of concealed carry and stand your ground laws.  Hiding this statistical data and refusing to take it into account when formulating policy will tend to harm more blacks than the individuals of any other race.

Since women are more prone to equalitarianism than men, I’ve found the most useful tactic when discussing the connection between race and crime is to appeal to their heightened fears of sex crime.  However, it is intriguing to observe that comparative sex crimes do not follow the pattern of violent crimes.  In the UK, the average black man is 275 percent more likely to commit a sex offense than the average white man, the comparable delta in the USA is 763 percent.  However, I suspect this is mostly an artifact of the larger and more segregated black population because 24 percent of all American sex offenses are black-on-black. The relevant delta for a white American woman is much closer to the overall UK figure at 334 percent.

Still, the fact that the average black man poses more than four times the sexual assault risk to a white woman than the average white man is not something that is taught to young American women despite the fact that most women’s studies programs spend a great deal of time discussing the sexual dangers posed by men.  Then again, math is hard….

I note that vaccines are declared to be safe on statistical grounds that are far less sound than the statistical correlations reliably observed between race and criminal behavior in various societies.  As usual, the merciless application of the facts across the board will tend to expose the attempt of the ideological left to conceal the truth through ignorance, deceit, and sophistry.

Science and statistics are gradually destroying the myth of equality, which is why we have now reached the point that many governments, including the US federal government, are being forced to resort to hiding statistics they once deemed necessary in order to continue justifying their false equalitarian dogma.  But the truth is what it is, whether we like it or not, and deceit that flies in the face of observable reality is eventually going to be exposed.

Losing the Cold Peace

I find it interesting that so many self-proclaimed devotees of science readily resort to sophistry in defense of imaginary homosexual rights:

Three months before Russia’s parliament unanimously passed a federal law banning the propaganda of “non-traditional relationships” — that is, same-sex ones — the bill’s sponsor went on the country’s most respected interview show to explain her reasoning.

“Analyzing all the circumstances, and the particularity of territorial Russia and her survival…I came to the conclusion that if today we want to resolve the demographic crisis, we need to, excuse me, tighten the belt on certain moral values and information, so that giving birth and raising children become fully valued,” lawmaker Yelena Mizulina told Vladimir Posner, Russia’s Charlie Rose.

Mizulina heads the Duma’s committee for family, women, and children and has become the stern face of Russia’s campaign against gays. But she would never call it that. Russia’s new laws — banning same-sex foreign couples from adopting Russian children in addition to banning LGBT advocacy — are part of the country’s very search for survival, according to her.

On the one hand, there’s its physical survival — Russia’s birthrate plummeted in the wake of the Soviet collapse and encouraging baby-making (through government grants as well as rhetoric) has been one of Vladimir Putin’s hallmarks. And then there’s its moral survival; if Russia is to survive as Russia it needs to reject the corrupting influences of the West.

The author claims that the first reason is “populist bluster” without bothering to offer any support for that position.  But, as anyone who has read Juvenal will recall, there is at least a partial correlation between societies that permit legal and open homosexuality and societies that are in a steep demographic decline.  This correlation doesn’t mean the relationship is causal, of course; I tend to believe that Ms Mizulina is correct in seeing homosexuality as a symptom of the larger problem, which is the abandonment of traditional values and moralities.

So, here is the interesting question.  Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality, which permitted men to marry men and women to marry women, which was not in steep demographic decline?  The history of homosexuality has never been an interest of mine, so I don’t actually know, but perhaps some of those who advocate homosexual rights have based their opinions on actual facts rather than feelings and can present some evidence in favor of their position.

Because, as it stands, most of the evidence of which I am aware is clearly in favor of the new Russian laws.  Note that the bans were unanimously adopted and are much more democratically popular than homogamy is in the United States. Regardless, the pendulum is clearly in the process of beginning to swing back, and if Russia’s nationalists manage to reverse the nation’s demographic decline, it will be a powerful argument against the sexual equalitarians, especially if the West whose corrupting influences it has rejected continues to decline.

The West won the Cold War because its economic values were in line with reality and the Soviet Union’s were not.  Perhaps having learned from past mistakes, Russia appears to be more likely to win the Cold Peace because its moral values are in line with reality and the West’s are not.

Mailvox: leaving the Scouts behind

DC is standing up for the now-defunct moral code of the late Boy Scouts of America:

I’ve pulled my three sons out of Scouting and brought them over to a church that sponsors an Outpost for Royal Rangers. See…I want my sons to learn to be strong Christian men with morals, not rainbow loving losers that have no fear of the God of the Angel Armies.

Since I’ve clearly stated that I’m doing this, and why, so far I’ve been called intolerant, angry, stupid, and seriously, even Christians (?) that I go to church with don’t agree with me! I was stunned at that one. But today my friend sent me an email saying this:

“I don’t think u should use being a Christian as an excuse to judge gay people.  I thought Christians believed in not judging people. You said you don’t consider it as “judging” but that is exactly what it is. “

I think I was ready to hear all sorts of things from people, but was most surprised by the responses from those directly surrounding me.

You want to know how I feel now?

I am even MORE firm with what I feel is right. I will NOT allow the World to dictate what is right and wrong, period.

My biggest reason is that the kids need to see the clear, defined limit of where Christianity Meets The World. I’m refusing to be part of an organization that has taken a stance regarding homosexuality that is in conflict with my Christian beliefs.

First, removing your children from a corrupt organization is not “judging” anyone.  Discernment is not judgment.  Second, Christians believe that people will be judged, they simply don’t believe it is their responsibility to do the judging.  And one of the things God has judged people for in the past is tolerance of what He has deemed to be wicked.

I doubt your friend would say you should not use being a Christian as an excuse to judge a rapist or a murderer if you were keeping your children away from them.  She’s simply rationalizing her decision to arrogate the line between Christian morality and immorality, which is ridiculous since she doesn’t sound as if she’s even a Christian. Non-Christians have neither the ability nor the right to determine what is correct according to Christian precepts.

DC is absolutely doing the right thing by pulling her sons out of the now-corrupted scouting organization.  Every God-fearing Christian parent should do likewise.

Stampeding the herd

Sarah Hoyt contemplates the bovine thinking that led to the SFWA’s recent “storm in a B-cup”.  After all, it’s hard for the older members of the herd to keep up:

I got very – as opposed to a bit – worried in the eighties when women
started claiming that men talking them into sex was “rape.”  The
reasoning seemed to be that men had awesome talking skills and a mere
woman could not defend herself against all those double-slick words.

I thought “OMG, they’re going Victorian.”

Since then we’ve gone to lookism (the ugly girl’s attempt to take
attention from the pretty one) and to a man even looking at a woman too
long, or asking for a date being considered “harassment.”

In fact, any man NOTICING another person is female is now harassment
(witness the offense at “ladies” in Barry and Mike’s article.)

I feel for Barry and Mike.  I’m sure they were full supporters of the
initial feminism which only wanted to give women access but assumed
that evolution was not going to be reversed in a generation, and if
women wanted to work alongside men, they’d have to endure men being…
male.  And if they used a little of female wiles to get what they
wanted… well, that’s how humans are and they go two by two.  This was a
somewhat rational idea, and if it had stopped there…
It didn’t.

Their articles were salutes of the women who made it in (at that time) a very hostile male environment.

Barry and Mike had no idea that the herd had changed step and that
the mooing signals from the top had changed.  Cattle are very stupid
animals.  They identify their herd by a series of not very rational
signals.  Fall out of step, and you risk being mistaken for an intruder
and gored.  And people who didn’t realize there was herd behavior going
on, and who got to their positions by rational thought, are more than
likely to get that treatment.  I know, it’s happened to me.

And meanwhile the herd of tough grrrl Victorian maidens, “don’t call
me slut” but “I’ll sleep with guys I’m not even interested in, and I’ll
call myself slut,”  “asking me on a date is sexism” and “I can’t
understand where all the good men have gone”, “we’re just as good as
men”, “it’s rape if a man talks a woman into sex because men have
awesome men neurons we can’t compete with” goes on its merry way
changing directions as the leaders change rationals and demanding more
government intervention to handicap men more, because otherwise, how can
they compete with wonderful male superpowers?  They who are fragile
flowers who get peristaltic disturbances because someone mentions most
top scientists aren’t female?

The irony is the lesson being taught to younger men who have watched the Resnick-Malzberg debacle is that my way is the right way.  Kowtowing to the feminist cows only leads to being trampled, but standing up to them, challenging them, and contemptuously exposing them for the pathetic intellectual frauds they are will send them stampeding away, mooing in distress, every single time.

Barry and Mike were full supporters of the initial feminism.  Most men of their age were. Having been steeped in it my entire life, I’m a full-fledged enemy of it.  And I’m very, very far from being alone in that regard.

The truth will out

Those lamenting the increased sound and fury of the gatekeepers of academia, media, and publishing as they attempt to kick out anyone and everyone who rejects the received dogma are failing to keep one very important thing in mind: No amount of credentials, social pressure, and financial carrots will suffice to prevent an honest man from understanding what he is seeing and experiencing:

If you take certain positions, you will be cast into outer darkness. Whether your statements are empirically accurate is irrelevant. Translation: truth doesn’t matter when ideology triumphs. White is black, day is night, there are no IQ differences among ethnic groups.

We are used to this sort of politically motivated mendacity in the university, where “diversity” has come to mean “conformity.” Murray merely states the obvious when he observes that “In academia, only the tenured can safely write on these topics. Assistant professors know that their chances of getting tenure will be close to zero if they publish politically incorrect findings on climate change, homosexuality, race differences, gender differences, or renewable energy. Their chances will not be much higher if they have published anything with a distinctly conservative perspective of any sort.”

That is bad enough. Here we have institutions, whose very raison d’être is the pursuit of truth, constrained to parrot politically-sanctioned untruth on a wide range of sensitive topics. Even worse is the metastasis of this freedom-and truth-blighting habit of mendacity. Increasingly, this sort of craven doublethink has oozed out of the academy and into the corridors of business, the media, and culture at large. Where will it end?

It will end when it always does; when reality squashes the lies with all the restraint and mercy of a semi running over a rabbit.  The most sincere diversity advocates suddenly lose their religion when vibrant thugs and rapists move in next door to them. The most heartfelt Keynesian feels seeds of doubt sprouting in his mind when the economy enters into a fourth year of declining employment despite trillions in stimulus.  And even the Vote Red/Vote Blue crowd is beginning to wonder how their votes can possibly make any difference at all as the first glimpses of the extent of the IRS and NSA scandals begin to take form.

The world is actively opposed to the Truth, so it should not be any surprise that its institutions are opposed to the truth as well as anyone bold enough to stand up for it.