Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

Diversity in action

Diversity has been defined as “chasing down the last white”. Seems fitting these days.

Perhaps the only thing that is funny about the situation is that white liberals think they’ll be spared, because goodthink. But what they don’t understand is that once identity politics take hold, your skin and your appearance is your uniform.

The young white man didn’t understand that you never run from vibrants. Few things embolden them like seeing someone break and run.

I used to wonder why the original SA was formed; one would read about street battles between them and the German communists, but that tended to create an impression of the Jets and the Sharks meeting somewhere at the appointed hour. Now, it is starting to make a little more sense.

Affirmative action in action

This sort of affirmative-action-related meltdown happens far more often at the better schools than anyone would credit:

Throughout elementary, middle and high school, Kidd’s talent for science showed. She was accepted into the highly competitive Thacher School, a private boarding high school in California where she promptly earned the nickname “The Science Girl.”

The teachers loved her and lavished her with praise, Kidd wrote, using her homework as an example for other students. When she was a sophomore, her chemistry teachers announced before 240 classmates that Kidd had garnered the highest score in a national chemistry competition.

These accolades only fueled Kidd’s drive to succeed, and it culminated in her acceptance to an Ivy League university.

“The ultimate climax was when I got into Columbia,” Kidd wrote. “Because it’s such a prestigious school, it made me feel like I had proven to myself, and everyone around me, that I made it.”

When she got on campus, she decided, naturally, that she would study science. But things didn’t go smoothly.

The day she moved in was her birthday. “I felt really alienated and alone and didn’t find the Columbia students very welcoming,” Kidd wrote. “During my freshman year, I quickly went from star student to slacker.”

In contrast to the tight-knit community at Thacher, Kidd said, “at Columbia I was lucky if a teacher talked to me.” The lack of close connections with her teachers discouraged her from engaging with her schoolwork.

“Even though I was wired to be a good student,” Kidd said, “I didn’t feel inspired. I got through the year, getting B’s and C’s, but I didn’t care. I was just happy the summer arrived.”

Upon her return to classes in September, Kidd signed up for computer-science classes and “hated every minute of it.”

One morning in April, she woke up and realized she needed to make a change and “started plotting [her] escape.”

She probably would have been a star at a second-tier school. But it’s not only unreasonable, it is cruel to be throwing kids like this into situations where mediocrity is the best possible outcome and failure is the most probable one.

Anyhow, she’s better off doing what she actually wants to do than what everyone else expects of her. It’s neither right nor fair to put the weight of a race on one young kid who happens to be an outlier.

Diversity, discovered

White American left-liberals at the Washington Post belatedly discover that the Indians and the Chinese aren’t exactly fond of Africans, despite them all being “minorities”:

China and India have a huge problem with racism toward black people

Just minutes before his birthday, Masonda Ketanda Olivier was beaten to death. The Congolese national was confronted by a mob of men late at night last Friday in New Delhi and killed. Police said the incident was a dispute over the hiring of an autorickshaw; Olivier’s friend, an Ivorian national, said it was a clear hate crime, with racial epithets repeatedly invoked.

This week, irate African diplomats in the Indian capital pointed to Olivier’s murder as evidence of wider discrimination and bigotry against black people who visit and live in India. Olivier, who reports indicate was about to turn 24, was teaching French.

“The Indian government is strongly enjoined to take urgent steps to guarantee the safety of Africans in India including appropriate programmes of public awareness that will address the problem of racism and Afro-phobia in India,” Alem Tsehage, the Eritrean ambassador and the diplomat representing other African envoys in New Delhi, said in a statement. They also warned against new batches of African students enrolling in Indian universities.

On the same day, on the other side of the Himalayas, an ad for a Chinese laundry detergent went viral. It is shockingly racist: The video, which you can watch above, shows a fetching Chinese woman lure a paint-stained, lascivious African man toward her. She briefly toys with him before shoving a detergent capsule into his mouth and him into the machine. Out emerges a fresh-faced Chinese man, looking sparkling white and clean.

I’m looking forward to the American Left’s reaction when they finally discover that Hispanics in general, and Mexicans in particular, despise blacks more than the KKK ever did. White progressives really are that stupid, and that ignorant, about the minorities they love to champion.

When I lived in Japan, the Japanese openly referred to blacks as “monkeys” and made it clear that they were not even “gaijin”. And the Chinese superiority complex is considerably more entrenched than any of the European ones ever were; they still consider Europeans to be technologically advanced barbarians. Remember, both Japanese and Chinese cultures knowingly turned their backs on technological advancement in the name of societal stability, and there are certainly some increasingly strong arguments on that score.

In light of the observably deleterious consequences of the US and European wars on racism, I’d be very surprised if the Indians and Chinese didn’t come to the conclusions that even the most virulent racism is considerably better than having your nation invaded by Africans.

What society do you think functions better, a racist, ethnically homogeneous society with intact families or a diverse, ethnically heterogeneous society with the vast majority children being born illegitimate and raised without fathers? Which society do you prefer?

Those are the options presently on offer.

The rise of the white tribe

David Marcus is about a decade too late, but his observation that the Left and the various non-white American tribes have created a growing white tribal consciousness is correct, even though he foolishly laments it rather than celebrates it:

White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.

A big part of the reason white Americans have been willing to go along with policies that are prejudicial on their face, such as affirmative action, is that they do not view themselves as a tribe. Given the inequality of resources favoring whites in our society, it is a good thing that white people view themselves as the ones without an accent. Should that change, white privilege (whatever one views that to be) will not be eviscerated—it will be entrenched.

All of this comes at a time when the last immigrants from the great wave of white immigration from 1850-1920 have died off. In the past, most whites identified with their European ethnicity: Irish, Italian, German, etc. As white people gravitate away from such identities, many see themselves as a neutral, “non racial” population. The Left criticizes this refusal to see themselves as “white,” but it is far preferable to the alternative: an American white population that views itself as a special-interest group.

There is no “white nationalism” in Europe. The EU was an attempt to create a merely continental consciousness – as opposed to the white racial consciousness of the white nationalists – and it has utterly failed. The various European nationalists consider each other allies against the continental globalists and the Arab and African invaders, of course, but there is no confusing the Soldiers of Odin with UKIP or La Lega Nord. Italian nationalism is very different than German or Swedish nationalism.

However, due to the replacement of European identities with a generic American one, combined with the anti-white tribalism of the blacks, Asians, Jews, Mexicans, and other self-identified tribes, a white tribal consciousness has been created. It falls well short of nationalism per se, but it has strong historical roots, as in fact, no other tribe has any historical claim to call itself American.

Let me repeat that: with two partial exceptions, American Indians belonging to Federally-recognized tribes and black slaves, no non-white tribe has any historical claim to be American. Americans are white, and this is a long-established matter of historical and legal record.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character.

Moreover, this remained the rule of American citizenship for more than half of the country’s history. As the Supreme Court unanimously declared in 1922 in TAKAO OZAWA v. United States, to be American was to be white.

In all of the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1906 the privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons [260 U.S. 178, 193], although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always the same. If Congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and so long established it may be assumed that its purpose would have been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in unmistakable terms….

If it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation ‘white’ were Negroes and Indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. It is not important in construing their words to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge or whether they thought that under the statute the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be Negroes and Indians. It is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include and having ascertained that it follows, as a necessary corollary, that all others are to be excluded.

Now, you can argue “progress” and “things have changed” and “dual nationalities” and so forth. But that way lies incoherence and madness, to say nothing of the obvious fact that what has changed can be changed again. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are not white, your nationality is not American and you are not part of the posterity for whom the Constitution was written. (Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.)

You may be a United States citizen, you may be a resident of the United States, and you may be part-American in the sense that many individuals are part-German or part-Dutch, but you are not an American in any legitimate sense of the word, regardless of what ideas and ideals and propositions you happen to hold in your heart at the moment.

You may now commence the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Do try to keep two things in mind. First, your argument is not with me, it is with history. The facts are what they are. It’s not my problem if you find them uncomfortable. Second, yes, I recognize that I am only part-American and I have absolutely no problem with that.

Tribalism begets tribalism. The rise of white nationalism, and eventually, white separatism, became inevitable once the minority population of the United States rose beyond a modest level. Once whites realize they have become a minority, they will rapidly become every bit as tribal as every other minority competing for wealth and political power. But neither white nationalism nor white separatism are synonymous with white supremacism, and anyone who attempts to equate the former two with the latter is, at best disingenuous.

Of extinction and diversity

Rhinos are being sent to Australia to save them from Africans:

Eighty South African rhinos may soon be on their way to Australia in part of an ambitious effort to establish an ‘insurance population for the world.’ The Australian Rhino Project, spearheaded by South Africa-native Ray Dearlove, plans to fly 20 rhinos per year between 2016 and 2019 to Australia, where they will make up a breeding herd to protect against possible extinction.

The number of rhinoceros is rapidly declining with figures estimating that one is poached every eight hours in South Africa, according to the organization. The animals are tracked and killed and their horns are cut off for illegal trade, primarily to Asia, where they’re sold for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram….

Ultimately, Australia is serving as a secure place for the animals to live and breed – for now. If and when Africa becomes safe for rhinos again, the animals will be repatriated to their homeland – a feat that may not occur for generations, Dearlove believes.

The non-profit is awaiting various clearances before the first rhino is airlifted overseas, but the organization continues to raise money.

Some of the biggest expenses include the numerous 6,500-mile cargo flights which will transport the 2-ton animals over the next four years.

Apparently it is not only humans who must engage in white flight for survival. It’s all about time preferences in the end. In the case of the rhino, the demand for its horns is not going to go away, but the way in which that demand is met makes all the difference between survival and extinction.

With the revival of safe spaces, it has taken 60 years for progressives to come around on the issue of segregation. But the freedom to segregate is both an unalienable right and a prerequisite of maintaining a functioning society as well as a civilization. No one likes this, but it is reality and an observable fact of history. To destroy a society or an organization, integrate it, either forcibly or by removing the right of free association.

And one cannot integrate a nation. One can only dilute and subsume it, as we have seen with the increasingly defunct American nation as well as the many dead and dying Indian nations.

Consider this. If present trends hold, the future will no more consider your descendants to be Americans than many of my critics consider me to be an American Indian.

Importing disease

Tell us again how immigrants are beneficial to the native population, even when they are literally disease-infested:

One of every five refugees resettled in Minnesota by the federal government tested positive for latent tuberculosis in 2014, according to the state’s Department of Health.

Only 4 percent of the general population in the United States tested positive for latent tuberculosis in the most recent report provided by the Centers for Disease Control.

The April 2016 edition of the Refugee Health Quarterly, published by the Minnesota Department of Health reports that:

Minnesota had 150 cases of TB in 2015, compared to 147 cases in 2014 (a 2 percent increase). The most common risk factor for TB cases in Minnesota is being from a country where TB is common. TB screening is offered to all refugees during the domestic refugee health exam.

In 2014, 22 percent of refugees screened tested positive for LTBI (latent tuberculosis infection).

26 percent of all foreign born cases of tuberculosis in Minnesota were from people born in Somalia. Somalians almost exclusively enter the state through the refugee resettlement program.

Meanwhile, we’re simultaneously told by the same government that is importing disease-ridden aliens that if you don’t VACCINATE YOUR INFANT, you are practically committing murder.

Shades of infected blankets for the natives.

No room for refugees

Pitying poor refugees and granting them sanctuary in large numbers is always a mistake. Wikipedia on the Gothic War of 376-382.

In the summer of 376, a massive number of Goths arrived on the Danube River, the border of the Roman Empire, requesting asylum from the Huns. They came in two distinct groups: the Thervings led by Fritigern and Alavivus, and the Greuthungi led by Alatheus and Saphrax. Eunapius states their number as 200,000 including civilians, but Peter Heather estimates that the Thervings may have had only 10,000 warriors and 50,000 people in total, with the Greuthungi about the same size. The Cambridge Ancient History places modern estimates at around 90,000 people total.

The Goths sent ambassadors to the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens requesting permission to settle their people inside the Empire….

Many Goths inside Roman territory joined Fritigern, as did assorted slaves, miners, and prisoners. Roman garrisons in fortified towns held out, but those outside of them were easy prey. The Goths created a vast wagon train to hold all the loot and supplies pillaged from the Roman countryside, and they had much rage against the Roman population for what they had endured. Those who had started as starving refugees had transformed into a powerful army.

34 years later, Rome was sacked by Alaric. The same thing is going to happen to various cities in the USA and Europe if the “poor refugees” are not expelled from the West within the next 15-20 years.

But if your society collapses amidst ethnic violence, at least you can console yourselves with the knowledge that no one called you racist.

The case for separation

Fred Reed asks Black Lives Matter if they prefer integration and being subject to the white man’s laws or separation and freedom to live as they see fit?

In reading the endless complaints by blacks about shootings by the police, I usually find it hard to know what really happened. As far as I am aware, the media never allow an unedited interview, or any interview, with the police charged with the shootings but allow endless commentary by people who weren’t there.

I am also often puzzled by the motivation of the cops. Do they confer in the morning and say, “Hey, let’s shoot some totally innocent black guy in front of witnesses who probably have cell phones?” And why are cops not brutalizing Latinos, only blacks, especially in LA, which provides a target-rich environment?

If I could, I would speak to BLM as follows:

I cannot determine what you want. There seems to be a great deal of anger but little clarity. Discussion usually wanders off into demands for justice, but without specifics.

Since I am looking for practical recommendations, let us begin by acknowledging the circumstances we face. You say that white cops mistreat blacks, sometimes brutally. This is true. I have seen some of it, and know of more. White cops seldom like blacks, nor blacks, white cops. The cultures are irreconcilably different. On the other hand, beatings of whites, Latinos, and Asians by gangs of blacks are far outnumber beatings of blacks by white cops. In sum, no love is lost and I do not see a lot of moral high ground. So:

Do you want white policemen excluded from black neighborhoods?

The available answers are “yes,” and “no.” I do not mean to be abrupt about this, but vague considerations of abstract justice, alleged discrimination, and racism do not provide usable answers. So, do you want white cops pulled from black neighborhoods, or not? It’s one or the other.

Personally I think it wiser not to have whites policing blacks. I don’t want to see white cops raped in media circuses. Nor do I want blacks to be mistreated by white cops. It seems to me that BLM should support segregation of police as it would eliminate any possibility of racist behavior.

Speaking as a historically aware Red Segregationist, the eventual and ultimate solution will be segregation, war, and ethnic cleansing. The homogenous nations have always come out of heterogeneous nations, they are not the result of geography. The great sin of apartheid was not that it separated South Africa’s blacks and whites, but rather, that it kept them together in an immoral manner that permitted South Africa’s whites to economically prey upon South Africa’s blacks.

And if you say that you oppose segregation, then I ask you this: do you seriously support stealing more American Indian land by eliminating our reservations? Or is it merely a matter of moral posturing rather than principle?

DNA is destiny. Even those of us who are of mixed race are ultimately forced by everyone else into one tribe or another; look at those who deny science, heritage, and family alike by declaring that I am, regardless of my self-identification, a “white” – whatever that might be; precisely what nation is that? – by virtue of nothing more than my physical appearance.

Diversity kills community

The same negative effect of diversity on community discovered – and initially buried – by Robert Putnam in the United States is replicated in the United Kingdom by a study entitled Does Ethnic Diversity Have a Negative Effect on Attitudes towards the Community? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Causal Claims within the Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion Debate:

We observe that as a community becomes more diverse around an individual, they are likely to become less attached to their community. This is a strict test of the causal impact of diversity, minimizing unobserved heterogeneity and eliminating selection bias. Importantly, neither indicator of disadvantage is significantly associated with attachment.

Model 2 shows the same analysis among movers. Diversity is again significant and negative, suggesting that individuals who move from more diverse to less diverse communities are likely to become more attached (and vice versa).

Like calls to like. Most people prefer to live among their own. Segregation is not only the right of free association in action, it is a community imperative. This is further evidence that the increasingly diverse United States will not survive because it cannot survive. It is not a nation.

Homeschool or Die: 2016 edition

Now even the girls are killing each other in the public schools:

A 16-year-old girl died Thursday after fighting with other girls in a bathroom at Howard High School of Technology in Wilmington, Delaware, authorities said.

“There was an altercation that initially started between two people, and my understanding is that additional individuals joined in against the one person,” said Gary Fullman, chief of staff to the Wilmington mayor.

The student was badly injured and transported by helicopter to A.I. DuPont Hospital for Children, where she died, Fullman said.

Any bets on the races involved?