Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

The chaos flowers grow

A Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States 2012

There are now 40.7 million foreign-born residents living in the USA. This makes foreigners the most populous “state” in the country; the total population of California is only 38.3 million. The top ten source countries:

  1. Mexico: 11,489,387
  2. India: 1,974,305
  3. Philippines: 1,861,996
  4. China: 1,719,819
  5. Vietnam: 1,264,188
  6. El Salvador: 1,254,501
  7. Cuba: 1,114,864
  8. Korea: 1,105,653
  9. Dominican Republic: 960,211
  10. Guatamala: 880,869

Of course, this doesn’t even begin to account for the “American” citizens who are foreigners born in the United States. The actual number of full or partial Mexicans legally resident in the USA, for example, is 34 million. A few observations:

  • The idea of “integration” and a “melting pot” at this scale is laughable. None of the people from the top 10 countries have any political tradition that is even remotely compatible with the Common Law and the concept of limited government. Integration no longer exists as there is no longer a WASP-standard to which the foreigners can be integrated.
  • The tribal battles for the levers of resource distribution are going to heat up once the Chinese and Indian populations exceed 3 million. Both populations tend to be more intelligent than the average, they are just as self-confidently tribal as the Jews, and they are totally unsusceptible to the Holocaust card.
  • African-Americans are rapidly becoming irrelevant. The black-white lens through which all American politics has been viewed for the last 50 years is very nearly outdated. The Obama administration likely represents the high water mark for African-America.
  • The observed decline of the USA as the premier global economic and military power will speed up as the nation becomes increasingly fragmented and its average IQ declines.
  • Since deportation is no longer physical practical, the political entity will necessarily break apart. Some level of ethnic cleansing will likely take place. Civil war is unlikely, as the central government will be hard-pressed to maintain order in the Northeast corridor.

I understand it is impossible for most people to imagine change. Most people are linear thinkers who can only extrapolate the present into the future for infinity. But history is cyclical, and it should be obvious that we are already 25 years into a negative cycle in which political entities all over the world are either breaking up or are coming under intense tribal pressure to break apart. Forget the doomed EU, the old alliances of England and Scotland, and Aragon and Castile, both of which predate the existence of the USA, are in jeopardy.

The seeds of chaos were sown in 1965 with the Immigration Act of that year, the plants have sprouted and grown, and soon they will begin to bloom.

Disnearations of civilization

And to think some have said that a society of women such as this are incapable of building, or maintaining, an advanced civilization. Here is a selection of quotes from two African women who won the U.S. national debate championship with an argument nominally concerning the War Powers Resolution:

They say the niggers always already queer, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that queer bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the niggers is not able to survive….

Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!

When the nigger, uh, sees these pains and suffering that he can only, uh, envision himself that he, uh, does not see another nigger that he, uh, can feel sympathy for or embrace, but rather, uh, that, a-bluh, that that otherness gets obliterated….

Uh, says that the the the way status co works is through, uh, whiteness allowing, uh, forcing other bodies to tell, uh, nearations of whiteness in, uh, the violences that whiteness does me, uh, say that that is the link that we will go for!

Convincing though it no doubt may be, this is not, I would submit, representative of a nearation of Western civilization. It’s the audio version of Mandela’s sign language guy or the pinkshirts’ SF/F: the poor cargo cultists have some idea what the magical thing is supposed to sound or look or read like, but they don’t fundamentally grasp its object.

It tends to remind one of McRacist reading from her latest novel.  Here is a fun new game: Debate Champion or Award-winning Writer?

  1. “The average American is bigoted as fuck.”
  2. “The niggers is not able to survive.”
  3. “The way status co works is through whiteness.”
  4. “Heinlein was racist as fuck…. Yeah, trust me, he was a full-blown racist.”
  5. “This is not a safe country for people of color.”
  6. “Otherness gets obliterated.”

Europe and the black-white game

An African-American discovers to her surprise that, unlike Americans, Europeans aren’t afraid of blacks:

I was going to the movies with a friend of mine from Yale who is black also. And there was a long line. And we were like, let’s jump the line. These white people, they’re going to be scared of us. We’ll just go and jump the line. We’ll get to the front of the line. So, of course, you know, we walked up to the front of the line, like, yeah, you want to try me? I’m black. That usually works in New York.

These people were ready to rip our hair out. And they were white. I couldn’t believe it. And they were like, in French, what are you doing? The line starts back there. You can’t just walk to the front of the line. They were, like, ready to kick our butts. I was shocked. I’m like, these are white people, and they’re not scared of us?

That’s when I realized I wasn’t in Kansas anymore. And I liked it. I mean, of course, it was kind of humiliating, because you know, we’re supposed to be the intimidating, scary ones. And then all these French bitches in high heels were threatening us. And they were in our faces. And it made me realize that the whole black-white game just doesn’t work outside of the United States.

Because white people aren’t afraid of you here. And at the same time, they don’t hate you, because that sort of goes together. So I’ll take it. I’ll wait on line. Now I don’t dare jump lines. So that opened my eyes.

It’s true, Europeans, especially Continentals, are much less inclined to kowtow to Africans than Americans are. This may be helpful in understanding an aspect of the divergence of my position from that of the white progressive non-athletes. It’s not that I hate blacks, it’s more that I’m not afraid of them and therefore don’t treat them like ticking time bombs. It’s not just that I’m a continental European myself these days either, because I’ve been burning black guy’s asses, talking smack with them, and forcing them back down since I was an 11th grade 100-meter sprinter competing in the city district against sprinters from Minneapolis North, Minneapolis South, Washburn, Edison, and Southwest.

If you know anything about men’s athletics, you’ll know that sprinters are the arrogant prima donnas of the sports world. Once you’ve faced down a big old branded Omega or a strutting member of the Disciples who is trying to intimidate everybody during warmups, calling out an overweight, overrated black woman with a big mouth is not exactly a challenge. The greater part of the black intimidation routine is nothing more than a front to mask deep insecurity. The whole performance, the eye-rolling, the neck-bobbing, the implied threats of violence, and the posturing, tends to fall completely apart when met with a sneer and a sarcastic word.

At one meet my senior year, there was a particularly unpleasant fellow who was getting in my face in the area behind the blocks while we were waiting for the race because I was the only non-black sprinter in the finals. He was going on about “white boy” this and “faggot” that and so forth. I didn’t say anything, I just reached into my bag and handed him a banana. (We always kept a few around to fight leg cramps). He looked at me in total disbelief, at which point I said: “You’ve been pounding your chest so much, I figured you’d probably want one of these.”

The other six guys just about sprained something laughing.

Paper Americans

Charles Blow laments that the resident aliens aren’t exercising their political muscle yet:

“In 1990, the U.S. had 19.8 million immigrants. That number rose to a record 40.7 million immigrants in 2012, among them 11.7 million unauthorized. Over this period, the number of immigrants in the U.S. increased more than five times as much as the U.S.-born population (106.1 percent versus 19.3 percent), according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data.”

It continues: “Today there are four states in which about one-in-five or more people are foreign born — California, New York, New Jersey and Florida. By contrast, in 1990, California was the only state to have more than a fifth of its population born outside the U.S.”

According to a September report from the Immigration Policy Center:

“In the 2014 elections, there will be approximately 9.3 million newly eligible voters. These include both people who were 16 or 17 years old at the time of the 2012 elections, as well as immigrants who become naturalized U.S. citizens between 2012 and 2014. Of these 9.3 million newly eligible voters, 1.8 million will be Asian or Latino. Another 1.4 million will be new U.S. citizens through naturalization. Together, these 3.2 million people will comprise 34 percent of the new electorate.”

And that is to say nothing of the surge in African-born immigrants. According to a 2011 article in the United Nations Dispatch:

“Over the last 30 years, the African born population has grown from just 200,000 people to 1.5 million. And while Africans still make up just 3.9 percent of the total foreign-born population, that share is growing fast. In 2010, for example, nearly 10 percent of new green card recipients were born in Africa.”

These immigrants aren’t Americans. And, thanks to the size of the influx and the century-long erosion of the American population, neither they nor their descendants ever will be. The previous waves of European immigration didn’t fully grasp the English Common Law or the vital concept of limited government even when both were still more or less in effect. These new groups of economic vultures are only arriving in time to fight for the less choice pickings from the corpse.

I find it telling that the same people who still consider me to be an American in some capacity simultaneously insist that these paper Americans are no longer Mexicans or Nigerians or Chinese, but through the magic of geographic relocation, have been transformed into something indistinguishable from your average White Anglo-Saxon Protestant circa 1950.

A nation of immigrants is not a nation at all.

Anti-race is anti-science

It should be interesting to see the likes of Jared Diamond attempt to explain away the undeniable genetic differences between the various human subspecies; his reference to the Flat Earth Society is as clear a case of emotional projection as one could hope to find. In a chapter entitled “The Human Experiment”, Nicholas Wade observes that criticism-averse biologists are playing a shell game that provides sociologists who don’t understand the relevant science with sufficient cover to deny the scientifically undeniable:

Many scholars like to make safe nods to multicultural orthodoxy by implying that human races do not exist. Race? Debunking a Scientific Myth is the title of a recent book by a physical anthropologist and a geneticist, though their text is not nearly so specific. “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis,” writes Craig Venter, who was the leading decoder of the human genome but has no known expertise in the relevant discipline of population genetics.

Only people capable of thinking the Earth is flat believe in the existence of human races, according to the geographer Jared Diamond. “The reality of human races is another commonsense ‘truth’ destined to follow the flat Earth into oblivion,” he asserts. For a subtler position, consider the following statement, which seems to say the same thing. “It is increasingly clear that there is no scientific basis for defining precise ethnic or racial boundaries,” writes Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in a review of the project’s implications. This form of words, commonly used by biologists to imply that they accept the orthodox political take on the nonexistence of race, means rather less than meets the eye. When a distinct boundary develops between races, they are no longer races but separate species. So to say there are no precise boundaries between races is like saying there are no square circles.

A few biologists have begun to agree that there are human races, but they hasten to add that the fact means very little. Races exist, but the implications are “not much,” says the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. Too bad—nature has performed this grand 50,000 year experiment, generating scores of fascinating variations on the human theme, only to have evolutionary biologists express disappointment at her efforts.

From biologists’ obfuscations on the subject of race, sociologists have incorrectly inferred that there is no biological basis for race, confirming their preference for regarding race as just a social construct. How did the academic world contrive to reach a position on race so far removed from reality and commonsense observation?

The politically driven distortion of scientific views about race can be traced to a sustained campaign from the 1950s onward by the anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who sought to make the word race taboo, at least when referring to people. Montagu, who was Jewish, grew up in the East End district of London, where he experienced considerable anti-Semitism. He was trained as a social anthropologist in London and New York, where he studied under Franz Boas, a champion of racial equality and the belief that culture alone shapes human behavior. He began to promote Boas’s ideas with more zeal than their author. Montagu developed passionate views on the evils of race. “Race is the witchcraft, the demonology of our time, the means by which we exorcise the imagined demoniacal powers among us,” he wrote. “It is the contemporary myth, humankind’s most dangerous myth, America’s Original Sin.”

In the postwar years, with the horror of the Holocaust weighing on people’s minds, Montagu found ready acceptance of his views. These were prominent in the influential UNESCO statement on race, first issued in 1950, which he helped draft. He believed that imperialism, racism and anti-Semitism were driven by notions of race and could be undermined by showing that races did not exist. However much one may sympathize with Montagu’s motives, it is perhaps simplistic to believe that an evil can be eliminated by banning the words that conceptualize it. But suppression of the word was Montagu’s goal, and to a remarkable extent he succeeded.

“The very word race is itself racist,” he wrote in his book Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. Many scholars who understood human races very well began to drop the use of the term rather than risk being ostracized as racists. In a survey taken in 1987, only 50% of physical anthropologists (researchers who deal with human bones) agreed that human races exist, and among social anthropologists (who deal with people) just 29% did so.

How unfortunate for the self-styled anti-racists that scientody is bound, in the end, punch right through the most firmly lodged dogmas of scientistry. It’s a bit ironic that a member of the most tribal people in human history, (and one of the most scientifically accomplished, for that matter), the Jews, should be responsible for this profoundly anti-scientific triumph of propaganda; imagine if Montagu had instead waged a similarly successful campaign against the fundamental evils of a belief in gravity.

Instead of marveling at the amazing coincidence of people being beaten to death in the wrong part of town, we would be wondering how it was possible that so many people were being mysteriously found dead on the floor of the Grand Canyon.

But the scientific fact is that race exists, it is a concept based on observable genetic differences that are the result of human microevolution, and those differences have a significant impact on human behavior. The Collins position, which is that while race exists, it does not matter, is weaselly, incorrect, and scientifically outdated.

Lewontin’s thesis immediately became the central genetic plank of
those who believe that denying the existence of race is an effective way
to combat racism. It is prominently cited in Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,
an influential book written by the anthropologist Ashley Montagu with
the aim of eliminating race from the political and scientific
vocabulary. Lewontin’s statement is quoted at the beginning of the
American Anthropological Association’s statement on race and is a
founding principle of the assertion by sociologists that race is a
social construct, not a biological one.

But despite all the
weight that continues to be placed on it, Lewontin’s statement is
incorrect. It’s not the basic finding that is wrong. Many other studies
have confirmed that roughly 85% of human variation is among individuals
and 15% between populations. This is just what would be expected, given
that each race has inherited its genetic patrimony from the same
ancestral population that existed in the comparatively recent past.

What
is in error is Lewontin’s assertion that the amount of variation
between populations is so small as to be negligible. In fact it’s quite
significant. Sewall Wright, an eminent population geneticist, said that a
fixation index of 5% to 15% indicates “moderate genetic
differentiation” and that even with an index of 5% or less,
“differentiation is by no means negligible.” If differences of 10 to 15%
were seen in any other than the human species they would be called
subspecies, in Wright’s view.

It is more than a little ironic that it is those who so loudly proclaim that they “fucking love science” are among the most terrified of the genetic science that touches most closely upon who and what they are. Perhaps it is because I am tri-racial that I don’t give a damn about the racial pieties; what do various pretensions to White supremacy or Asian supremacy or the intrinsic superiority of La Raza  mean to one who is all-of-the-above?

In matters of race, as in all things, the facts are what they are, not what anyone might wish them to be. And the sooner that we face those facts and begin to deal in terms of objective and scientific reality rather than wishful thinking, the sooner that our social and personal policies are likely to meet with success rather than inevitable and cataclysmic failure.

Genetic segregation

“The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago, in 2006. He looked for genes under selection in the three major races—Africans, East Asians and Europeans (or more exactly Caucasians, but European genetics are at present much better understood, so European populations are the usual subjects of study). Copious genetic data had been collected on each race as part of the HapMap, a project undertaken by the National Institutes of Health to explore the genetic roots of common disease. In each race Pritchard found about 200 genetic regions that showed a characteristic signature of having been under selection (206 in Africans, 185 in East Asians and 188 in Europeans). But in each race, a largely different set of genes was under selection, with only quite minor overlaps.”

The primary theme of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance is repeated over and over by Wade in the early chapters like a drumbeat, as if he knows the critical reader is not going to read very far into the book and will misrepresent what Wade is asserting: human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. It is also apparent that Wade knows why his words are likely to be twisted and attacked: “The fact that human evolution has been recent, copious and regional is not widely recognized, even though it has now been reported by many articles in the literature of genetics. The reason is in part that the knowledge is so new and in part because it raises awkward challenges to deeply held conventional wisdom.”

Genetic science has already exploded most of the equalitarian mantras. We are not all the same under the skin. Race is not a social construct. Race is not only skin-deep. The content of your character can, on average, be estimated by, if not necessarily the color of your skin, the sum total of your superficial features. Human evolution did not stop at some point in the distant past. Civilization is not magically bestowed by geographic location. Education is not the answer.

The reason even professional biologists are afraid to discuss the current scientific evidence coming out of the genetic laboratories is because it leads to one inescapable conclusion: all of the social policies based upon the idea of basic human equality are doomed to failure. And worse, when combined with other evidence from other disciplines, it leads to a second conclusion: most of the social policies designed to improve the lot of the so-called disadvantaged are not merely doomed to failure, but are intrinsically dyscivic in nature and are more likely to drag the genetically advantaged populations down into semi-barbarism than to help the genetically disadvantaged populations become fully civilized on average.

Not all of the specifics of these known genetic differences are known, much less the full extent of their effects on human behavior. Some of them are, of course, trivial. But they are not all insignificant. Consider, for example, the example of the MAO-A gene, which is connected to the control of aggression.

“As it happens, the promoter for MAO-A is quite variable in the human population. People may have two, three, four or five copies of it, and the more copies they have, the more of the MAO-A enzyme their cells produce. What difference does this make to a person’s behavior? Quite a lot, it turns out. People with three, four or five copies of the MAO-A promoter are normal but those with only two copies have a much higher level of delinquency…. He and his colleagues looked at the MAO-A promoters in African Americans. The subjects were the same 2,524 American youths in the study by Shih mentioned above. Of the African American men in the sample, 5% carried two MAO-A promoters, the condition that Shih had found to be associated with higher levels of delinquency. Members of the two-promoter group were significantly more likely to have been arrested and imprisoned than African Americans who carried three or four promoters. The same comparison could not be made in white, or Caucasian, males, the researchers report, because only 0.1% carry the two-promoter allele.”

Does this mean that all African-Americans are prone to violence? No, it proves the exact opposite. The vast majority are not. But it does mean that with regards to this single factor related to an individual’s ability to control his own aggression, an African-American male is 50 times more likely to have a genetic handicap in comparison with a white male. Therefore, social policies that blithely assume that African-American males have the same intrinsic ability to control their aggression as white males are not only unscientific, but can be reliably predicted to fail. That is just one significant genetic distinction that has been discovered. There will be more. There will be many more.

Equality is not merely unscientific, at this point it is now objectively antiscientific. The undeniable fact of human genetic segregation does not intrinsically justify the eugenic excesses and ethnic cleansings of the past. But sooner or later, as the science advances, it will force the eventual discussion of whether the costs of playing equalitarian make-believe are too high for Western civilization, if that civilization wishes to survive.

That was fast

Nicholas Wade, the author of the excellent A Troublesome Inheritance and science editor of the New York Times, is now still the FORMER science editor of the New York Times:

Nicholas Wade, a British-born science reporter and editor for more than 30 years with The New York Times, is no longer with the newspaper — just days after the release of his latest book, in which he depicts blacks with roots in sub-Saharan Africa as genetically less adapted to modern life than whites and Asians.

Was The New York Times uncomfortable with Wade’s science or his conclusions? It’s unclear. Neither Wade nor his former employer returned requests for comment.

Wade’s last Times article appeared April 24. His Penguin Press book “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” arrived in bookstores on Tuesday, May 6. In excerpts from his book posted by Time.com on Friday, he is identified as a “former science editor” of the Times. Until then, coverage of his book called him a current Times journalist.

Obviously he deserved it, as he undeniably implied black people are “differently evolved” when he wrote that only 45 of the 394 genes currently deemed to be under selection are the same genes in blacks and whites. In light of such an atrocity, he may as well have called someone a “half-savage”; clearly he must be lambasted and ritualistically assailed by every goodthinking individual. I wonder if it is still acceptable to the Left to describe the fine, upstanding gentlemen who belong to Boko Haram and are so eager to host teenage schoolgirls as “less than entirely civilized although otherwise totally equal to all individuals of both sexes of European descent in every way” or if that too is a purgeable offense?

The Left is more than uncomfortable with both science and the conclusions that logically follow from it. It is now openly and avowedly anti-science. What is fascinating is that most clueless Leftists still feverishly insist that they, and not the Right, are pro-science even as they reject it in favor of various nonexistent ideals. As I have repeatedly pointed out since last August, the time for tolerating the Left has passed. Your only choice now is to submit to them or to shatter them.

UPDATE: I’m not sure this proves that Wade was not “fired”, even if he had already stepped down as science editor. “Anyway, just heard from reliable source that Wade took a retirement
package a couple of years ago.  The deal was that he could continue to
make occasional contributions on a fee basis.”

If he continues to make occasional contributions, then we’ll know he wasn’t canned for his book. If his last contribution on a fee basis turns out to have been April 24th, well, that would not prove that he was fired, but it would tend to indicate that was the case.

UPDATE 2: Not so fast. Apparently the Daily Caller author let his imagination run away with him.

“I retired from the Times about two years ago. There’s a stupid story you may have seen in the blogosphere. It is completely untrue. The writer just made that up. The fact that he saw the words ‘former Science editor’ in the piece I did in Time. He assumed that I had been fired by the Times. There is nothing to the story at all. I myself wrote the word ‘former’ in because I saw that the Time editor in putting the tag line on had said that I was Science editor of the Times. Since that was some time in the past, and is no longer true, I inserted the word ‘former’ and the writer in the Daily Caller just made the story up out of thin air. He made absolutely no attempt to contact me and not a word of it is true.” 

Am I a racist?

Back when I first responded to NK Jemisin’s various attacks and lies in my inimitably calm and factual manner, the SFWA writers reacted with much the same combination of outrage and vitriol with which the Pink SF/Fers have met the news of the nomination of one of my works for the Hugo Award. However, when I invited them to attempt to prove that anything I said was a) false, or, b) racist, every single one of them tucked tail and ran away. Every single one of them.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden was nothing but talk. John Scalzi was nothing but talk. Stephen Gould was nothing but talk. Jason Sanford was nothing but talk. Teresa Nielsen Hayden was nothing but talk. Charles Stross was nothing but talk. Every single one of these self-proclaimed champions of the marginalized and the oppressed fell silent rather than defend their supposed principles.

This may be because they were afraid that I could make my case, or perhaps they simply feared to have their own secret racism exposed to their peers. It’s even possible they were sufficiently self-aware to realize how silly they would look if they attempted to define racism down to  “being insufficiently obsequious to an individual of predominantly sub-Saharan descent.”

So, perhaps the larger community of fen is capable of doing what the SFWA community was not, which is actually proving the truth of their oft-repeated charges. I’m therefore extending an invitation to publicly make the case for my supposed racism to anyone who has asserted that I am a racist on the basis of my statements concerning “the educated, but ignorant half-savage” NK Jemisin.

If you truly believe what you are asserting about me, then I invite you to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs here. It should be easy, after all, right? If my statements are so blatantly racist as you claim them to be, how could you not show it to all and sundry. I will not only post your argument here in its entirety, but am willing to honestly answer any questions you might have, without evasion, with the sole requirement that you must agree to honestly answer my questions, without evasion, until we mutually agree that no further discussion is possible.

And if no one steps forward, well, everyone will then know that these accusations of racism are spurious, those making them don’t truly believe what they are saying, and none of the accusers have the courage of their supposedly anti-racist convictions. The black community will know that for all their talk of inclusiveness and equality, not a single white individual in SF/F was willing to stand up and defend them. And let’s face it, if every single anti-racist in the community is afraid to publicly confront racists, then it should be readily apparent that the racists are going to win in the end.

I blame the anti-vaxxers

More benefits of vibrant immigration in the modern age:

E’ mistero sui circa quaranta ipotetici casi di Ebola registrati nella nostra Nazione. Il virus, diffuso soprattutto nel Continente africano – i casi “ufficiali” sono stati registrati in Senegal, Mali e Ghana – potrebbe essere arrivato il Italia “grazie” al massiccio esodo di immigrati sulle nostre coste. Un primo “campanello” d’ allarme era stato lanciato da Lampedusa. Secondo una notizia comparsa in rete (e subito rimossa per motivi di “sicurezza nazionale”) infatti, lo scorso 16 aprile sarebbe stato registrato un episodio epidemico sull’ isola, mai confermato, nè smentito dal nostro Ministero della Salute.

Un nuovo “SOS” circa la propagazione del virus dell’ Ebola nel Bel Paese viene, questa volta, dalla Toscana. Mezzo di diffusione della notizia choc è sempre la rete: blog, social network, siti dedicati hanno evidenziato il “curioso caso di San Rossore”, centro di accoglienza sito a Pisa, chiuso al pubblico a causa della presenza, all’ interno di esso, di quaranta cittadini extracomunitari che presenterebbero degli strani sintomi. Sandra Capuzzi, Assessore alle Politiche Sociali del Comune di Pisa, avrebbe liquidato gli allarmismi dei suoi concittadini, classificando le condizioni di salute dei profughi presenti nella struttura in questi termini: “Hanno solo un pò di febbre, causata dalle stressanti condizioni di viaggio alle quali i ragazzi sono stati sottoposti”. Sarà davvero così?

“It is a mystery concerning about 40 hypothetical cases of Ebola recorded in our Nation. The virus, mostly spread throughout the African continent – the official cases are recorded in Senegal, Mali, and Ghana – might have arrived in Italy thanks to the massive exodus of immigrants landing on our coast. A first alarm bell was sounded in Lampedusa. According to a news release that was quickly suppressed for national security reasons, on the 16th of April an episode of the epidemic was recorded on the island, although it was not confirmed or admitted by our Minister of Health.


“A new SOS concerning the propagation of the Ebola virus in the Beautiful Country then came, this time, out of Tuscany. The news spread through the Internet with evidence of “the curious case of San Rossore” the center of a housing site in Pisa closed to the public due to the presence of strange internal and external symptoms exhibited among 40 foreign nationals. Sandra Capuzzi, the Social Policy Director of the City of Pisa, tried to quench alarmism among the Pisan citizenry, classifying the condition of the health of the 40 foreigners in these terms: “They only have a little fever caused by the stressful conditions of their travel and living arragnements.” Is that really the case?”

I haven’t seen anything about it in the newspapers, although there is some whispering among the more conspiracy-minded sites. The rumor is that the failure of quarantine happened because the virus is a varient of the usual one that sometimes shows up as a false negative. One hopes this will turn out to be the usual nothing; it’s been a few days since this alarming report on containment being lost.

The outbreak of Ebola Virus in seven west African countries has broken through all containment efforts and is spreading like wildfire.  According to Christian Relief groups working in Guinea and Liberia, the number of confirmed infections jumped 15% in just the last 24 hours. In addition, 40 illegal alien migrant workers from the outbreak area, who came ashore in Pisa, Italy, are showing signs of Ebola infection and are being isolated in Pisa Italy because of fever and “conjunctivitis” (bloody around the eyes).  According to the World Health Organization, this strain of Ebola is entirely new and although it is close to the Zaire strain, it is different, thus accounting for false-negative test results . . . . . for weeks!

If only Jenny McCarthy hadn’t successfully convinced so many people not to get their ebola vaccinations! Forget Putin. Clearly she is the Hitler of our day.

The inevitability of segregation

Even the biggest champions of postracial fantasy are beginning to recognize the failure of desegregation:

To the extent that the word “desegregation” remains in our vocabulary, it describes an antique principle, not a current priority. Today, we are more likely to talk of diversity—but diversification and desegregation are not the same undertaking. To speak of diversity, in light of this country’s history of racial recidivism, is to focus on bringing ethnic variety to largely white institutions, rather than dismantling the structures that made them so white to begin with.

And so, sixty years after Brown, it is clear that the notion of segregation as a discrete phenomenon, an evil that could be flipped, like a switch, from on to off, by judicial edict, was deeply naïve. The intervening decades have shown, in large measure, the limits of what political efforts directed at desegregation alone could achieve, and the crumbling of both elements of “separate but equal” has left us at an ambivalent juncture. To the extent that desegregation becomes, once again, a pressing concern—and even that may be too grand a hope—it will have to involve the tax code, the minimum wage, and other efforts to redress income inequality. For the tragedy of this moment is not that black students still go to overwhelmingly black schools, long after segregation was banished by law, but that they do so for so many of the same reasons as in the days before Brown.

One hopes it won’t take another 60 years for them to figure out that diversity is inevitably doomed to failure too. The reason segregation is inevitable is because diversity+proximity=war. And the fact that it is inevitable is based on sound and impeccable logic.

All these diverse groups came from somewhere, right? And, for the most part, they once belonged to the same population group, right? So, the process of separation and eventual segregation occurred naturally and spontaneously through a combination of factors such as free association, sexual selection, and tribal mobility.

The current diversity and multiculturalism fad is nothing more than a short-term artificial artifact of wealth, peace, cheap international travel, and anti-national governments. Take away just one of those four supports and the entire edifice collapses in violence and bloodshed.

To talk about being pro-segregation or anti-segregation is a category error. It’s no different than claiming to be pro-biology or anti-gravity. It’s a normal human dynamic, and as such, it can be resisted with effort, but only for a short time from the historical perspective.