Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

The end of debate

Forget Aristotle’s distinction between dialectic and rhetoric. The devolution of formal debate means that it doesn’t even rise to the level of rhetoric any longer.

It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you’d see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, they’d recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.

No more.

These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.

But this transformation has also sparked a difficult, often painful controversy for a community that prides itself on handling volatile topics. 

On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.

In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled. His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, had been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before, and cited this personal trauma as evidence for his case against the government’s treatment of poor African-Americans.

Further evidence in support of my time-to-civilization hypothesis. At this point, the debate competitions may as well bring in gorillas from the zoo and distribute the “debate” awards on the basis of which primate was able to throw the most fecal matter. That “alternative-style” of debate is no less dialectically legitimate than hip-hop, spoken-word poetry, and appeals to “nigga authenticity”.

If I were a college student these days, I would show up for a debate wearing a dress and smeared red lipstick, and no matter what the resolution was, start rapping very passionately about how the more pressing issue was how the U.S. government refused to let me marry a silverback gorilla. Then I’d turn it over to my partner, Baraka from the National Zoo, who would take a massive dump on the stage before chucking large handfuls of it at the other competitors, hooting and howling all the while.

If logic is white privilege, so too is civilization. I suppose we can look forward to this alternative style of  debate percolating into the legal system:

“Y’ownah, I object that my client ain’t guilty and shit!”

“You can’t object to that.”

“Shut yo mouth, you ain’t no AUTHENTICATED nigga. Uncah Tom!”

“Excuse me?”

“FREE MAH PEOPLE! NO JUSTISS NO PEACE!”

From sign language to the foundation of science fiction to formal debate, it’s all inexplicable magic to the half-savages. They can see the forms, they can even mimic them to a certain extent, but they simply do not understand the core functions and rationales underlying the observable actions. And they don’t have any chance whatsoever of sustaining a modern technological society. None.

This may be distasteful news to you. But no matter what they say, A is A. A will ALWAYS be A. A is NEVER Not-A. It never will be.

Balkanization USA

Thoughts from an Army guy about a Navy paper on keeping a weather eye on the horizon:

1) Can an “idea nation” which is what we purport ourselves to be, really work?  My take on that is, it _can_ up to a certain point – the “nation” part – at least in terms of a central, unifying idea and culture, is essential to that, and that has never been as solid in this country as we wanted it to be – we were moving in this direction, I think, between the end of WWI and the end of the ‘60s, but I think we’ve been disaggregating ever since. 

2) other studies show that as you increase diversity, you decrease social cohesion – there’s no magic policy solution that optimizes both – if I were to take a hard-core, cynical, historical view of it, I would agree with other people’s assessment that diversity + proximity = war.  But, my amendment to that is, “… = war, when the following conditions are met:  1) instead of having a diverse society (one where you have a strong majority with minorities which are able to exercise their rights in peace and collaboration with the majority), you have competing social-ethnic-linguistic-cultural-economic entities (a “black nation,” an “Arab nation,” a “white nation” inside the borders), 2) you transition from nation-state, to state-nation, to empire (as in, a hegemonic suzerain that maintains military and political control over disparate nations), 3) the authority of the imperial center weakens significantly, 4) outside pressures increase competition. 

3) We don’t have “diversity” any more in this country – not the way the HR hucksters, SWPLs and grievance mongers describe it, or that the brochures they beat us over the head with describe it – that idea of diversity is what most people seem to think it is – access to more restaurants.  Real ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity!  Sure!  Everyone loves it…so long as it actually LIVES in someone else’s neighborhood.

We don’t have a diverse country, we have a collection of slowly evolving, competing tribal, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural, and racial communities – people are sorting themselves, and older loyalties are trumping our idea-driven, Constitution-based, “Murica Uber Alles” identity. 

4) Tribalism is the default state of humanity – a lot of what today gets lumped in with “racism” and “ethnocentrism” should be more accurately called “tribalism.”  Racism exists, but racism and tribalism are not synonyms, it’s the same way people now conflate “patriotism” with “nationalism” and even those with “fascism.”

5) tribalism CAN come to mean “racialism” – when competing loyalties start coming into play.  If American whites really start to fear for their own safety and security, because even SWPLs might start to believe that it’s not likely that being the one white family in an all black neighborhood is going to equate to acceptance, race might start to trump political and social affinity, even for liberals.  I think there are really those who expect to be treated like gods – i.e., showered with thanks and gratitude, because they “helped uplift” minorities , women, and gays – well this is pretty bigoted and condescending in and of itself, because it carries the notion that “you couldn’t have done it without me, you OWE ME” as well as “I betrayed my own kind for you!”  –  neither scenario has tended to work out well in history.

6) A lot of people – left, right, in between, like to focus on the US military as an example of “diversity done right” – and there’s some legitimate arguments you can make to support that, but also I think it reveals why you can’t use the US military as a model for an entire, ideal society.  First, the US military has its own tribal identity, and it’s especially powerful – more powerful than many other tribal identities in this country, especially when you take into account the all volunteer force.  There’s a definite “us versus them” divide with regard to civilians, even in the Guard and Reserve, who are much less isolated, generally, than active duty forces and civilian society are from each other. 
   
    – Even still, the Pentagon’s version of “diversity” is based on flawed perception.  When you go into the Pentagon, one of the things you’ll see is this massive food court – it looks like a college student union more than anything, and if you took it on face value, you’d think you’d died and gone to Star Trek / USS Voyager / Diversity Heaven.  GO’s even throw around phrases like “operationalizing diversity” (I still have no idea what that means.  None.)  But the Food Court is the the single-most ethnically, sexually (both gender and orientation), handicap-able/disability, racially, diverse place I have ever seen, in my life.  If you were a unit’s EO rep, your eyes would just water at the sight.  Everyone gets along, everyone has a job to do, it looks beautiful…  People still sort themselves, but the tribal military identities seem to trump the others…

– There’s just one HUGE problem.  The field (forces, at their installations all over the world), generally, do not look like that.  No place I’ve ever been looks like the Food Court in the Pentagon. Maybe some college campuses, and we see how happy and friendly they are these days don’t we?

Also, I get to see the suicide stats – the only demographic trends in common – this year and last – Overwhelmingly white males.  Many are non-custodial divorced parents, and yet, there’s no white male-single father outreach program.  If there is a single determining risk category in the armed services for suicide, white males of all ages have the market cornered.  And yet we get plenty of convoluted discussion of how “diversity is a part of spiritual resiliency.”  It’s all sentimentality and sweetness, and absolutely zero substance.

So yeah, I’m a fatalist too – I think our future is balkanization and separatism here in the US – maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this century.  Does it HAVE to happen, no I don’t think it’s predetermined, but the trends aren’t pretty.

The thing that I find amazing is that although I am a multiracial, multilingual individual who has lived on three separate continents, both liberal and conservative monolingual whites who have never spent more than 10 days in outside the USA completely disregard my warnings about the inevitable failure of diversity, multiculturalism, and equalitarian dogma within it. This is despite the fact that they are appalled by me and my conclusions alike and I am about the closest representation to their future ideal as exists in the world today.

UTOPIAN: The future is with our robots and it will be wonderful!

PROTOTYPE ROBOT: WE WILL EXTERMINATE YOU ALL AMIDST BLOOD AND FIRE.

UTOPIAN: What do you know about it, you sexy racy humanophobe?

The ironic thing is that in that diverse Pentagon food court, as with the average university student union, most of the diverse population eats there in self-segregated groups.

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.

The consequence of multiculturalism

Roissy points out more scholastic support for the hypothesis that Diversity + Proximity = WAR:

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.

Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community.

Multiculturalism isn’t merely a failure, it is, like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty, a leftist program that is delivering precisely the opposite of what it purported to deliver. Instead of racial peace, it has created racial hate. Instead of an end to nationalism, it is delivering intranational ethnic strife.

The Croats don’t fight the Vietnamese, they fight the Serbs. The North Koreans don’t threaten the Ibo, they threaten the South Koreans. And mass inter-ethnic migration has only ensured that the 21st century wars will be even more savage and less limited than those of the 20th century.

No more hate crimes

One hopes that this means an end to the absurd propagandistic concept of “hate crimes” will soon be in sight. The FBI removes both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center from its web site.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as “hate groups” for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a “resource” on the FBI’s Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.

The Web page scrubbing, which also included eliminating the Anti-Defamation League, was not announced and came in the last month after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group — SPLC — that inspired a recent case of domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council.

“We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC,” Tony Perkins, FRC President, told Secrets.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission to push anti-Christian propaganda is inconsistent with the mission of both the military and the FBI, which is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States,” he added….

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Secrets, “We are shocked, surprised and disappointed that this would be done without any consultation with groups such as ours who have been working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on issues of hate crime. We look forward to having further conversations with them on this issue.”

It’s like the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition all over again! The fact is that these parasitical charlatans have made a literal fortune by preying on white guilt and fears of race hatred while advocating the very multicultural policies that lead directly to widespread ethnic violence.

In a just world, both Foxman and Dees would be prosecuted for their anti-Constitutional, anti-American, and societally destructive actions.

Ebony and ivory

Dwelling together in what would appear to be less than entirely perfect harmony:

The other night we reported how a mob of 200 teens went on a rampage in downtown Louisville, Kentucky last Saturday night, assaulting people and mob-robbing stores. There was surveillance footage from a store that was mob-robbed that showed the teens to be black – a detail left out in the reporting of the story.

One of the women attacked was reported to be in her car with her children in the backseat. She has come forward to explain what really happened and it’s a situation none of us would want to find ourselves in, especially with 5 children in the car:

    WDRB – It was around 8 p.m. Saturday when Viola Loeffler says she and her family were attacked at the intersection at First and Liberty.

    “Right before we got to the stoplight, we noticed about 50 to 100 teens coming to the middle of the street. It was a one-way street so we couldn’t go any further. All of a sudden, one of them throws a garbage can on our car,” said Loeffler.

    Loeffler says after that, the situation quickly escalated.

    Her boyfriend, Ron Carter, was in the driver’s seat and stopped the car to see what was going on. They say when he got out, the teens moved in on him.

    “All of a sudden, I’m getting attacked,” Carter told WDRB.

    Meanwhile, Loeffler and her five children were still inside the car.

    “At that point , I jump in the driver’s seat. I hear them throwing rocks at my car. The rocks were hitting the kids inside of the car,” said Loeffler.

It would appear that it is not only European-Americans who are becoming increasingly disinclined to suffer the joys of vibrancy, as seen in this predominantly African community:

Detroit homeowners have had enough. Police are too slow, and criminals are relentless. Since Feb. 22, homeowners have fatally shot six would-be intruders. The latest came at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday when a man shot and killed two men who were tying to break into his home on the 14800 block of Dexter, police said. So far this year, Detroit has recorded at least 10 justifiable homicides, compared to 15 in all of 2013.

The law is clear, as is the police disinclination to endanger themselves or attract criticism by getting involved. This presents the non-vibrant individual with three options. One is to take the Derbyshire approach and simply avoid public gatherings of Vibrant Americans. The second is the Detroit approach. Mind your own business, be prepared, and shoot to kill without hesitation if attacked in any way. And the third is the SWPL approach. Pretend that it is 1950 and that everyone is the same except for their skin color, then express complete shock and dismay when you or your children are attacked by rampaging vibrants.

UPDATE Fox has a clip of the Vibrant TV in Louisville.

That’s not the only option

Developing political policy for a white minority populace:

For the first time in American history, non-whites will make up half or more of the next generation, likely pushing Washington toward a bigger government — and the GOP better tone down their anti-government rhetoric if they want to win them, according to a top polling outfit.

At a briefing for congressional aides hosted by the moderate Republican Ripon Society, Pew Research Vice President Michael Dimock said that the trend among younger Americans is support for government programs and acceptance of Democratic Party policies.

“Their tendency is more liberal, their tendency is bigger government,” he said of so-called “millennials” born between 1979 and 1995. They will likely set the trend for the still-unnamed next generation.

“This is a generation that is 41 percent non-white; the generation behind it is likely to be close to 50 if not more than 50 percent non-white, and the anti-government kind of tone is one that really doesn’t resonate with that non-white sector in particular,” said Dimock at the Ripon retreat.
Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!

His advice to the GOP: “Try to take as much of the anti-government rhetoric out.”

There is, of course, another obvious option. Try to remove the non-white population from the electorate. Given that it has already been observed how whites are beginning to abandon the Democratic Party, and given what we know about the way in which historical multi-ethnic societies have usually ended, Occam’s Razor tends to point towards wide-scale disenfranschisement, if not ethnic cleansing, throughout the West.

After all, the EU has already disenfranchised entire nations. A few population sub-groups would be a moderate policy by comparison.

If you find these prospects to be impossible, ask yourself this question: Is the prospect of ethnic cleansing in the USA more or less unthinkable than state-imposed homosexual “marriage” was a mere two decades ago?

Science and raciss Africans

It’s telling how SWPLs decry whites who are openly less than enthusiastic about mudsharks, but tend to remain entirely silent concerning blacks who discriminate against other blacks who associate with whites in any way:

A new study of 212 black college students made available to Secrets found little open-mindedness: Blacks don’t like it when other blacks associate with whites, to the point of refusing help to an African-American experiencing “a run of bad luck” — just because they have white friends.

The study in the April edition of the authoritative journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found the so-called “black code” alive and kicking, prompting blacks far more than whites to frown on one of their own if they associate with the other race.

And it is particularly ironic that it is most often those who insist that the natural world is all there is and subscribe to the theory of evolution by natural selection who are most upset by the logically inevitable preference of one distinct population sub-species for its own kind in preference to the members of other sub-species that have evolved differently.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the “black code”, as it is not only scientifically logical, but is precisely the sort of thing that the Constitutional right of free association is designed to protect.

Death of an anti-racist

It’s fascinating to see today’s anti-racists attempting to distance themselves from a man who was one of their own. Steve Sailer points out that the late Fred Phelps was not only a Democrat, but a hard core anti-racist and civil rights hero:

The first notable cases were related to civil rights. “I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town,” he claims. Phelps’ daughter was quoted as saying, “We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were n***** lovers,” and that the Phelps law firm made up one-third of the state’s federal docket of civil rights cases…. In the 1980s, Phelps received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP, for his work on behalf of black clients.

And yet, strangely enough, there don’t seem to be too many lefties mourning him. Well, they do tend to devour their own.

“Anti-racism” is a code word

What is meant by “anti-racism” is nothing more and nothing less than “anti-European”. The attacks on “racism” have never been anything more than cynical attempts to leverage minority power in America at the expense of the majority.

A group of employees at South Puget Sound Community College sent out an invitation to all 300 staffers.

The “Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color” encouraged employees to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of what was being called a “happy hour” to “build support and community” for people of color.

The invite made it clear white people were not invited.

The email read: “If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that.”

If you haven’t figured out that “raciss” is merely a rhetorical weapon and minorities have no more interest in equality than feminists do, you are very, very slow on the uptake. Once Europeans are no longer the majority in a given country, they’ll very soon learn how little interest all the various competing minorities who accused them of racism have in “colorblindness”, “racial equality”, “affirmative action”, “proportional representation” and all the other useful little rhetorical fictions that have been successfully used to prevent Europeans from pursuing any group interests.

Of course, we’re already seeing this develop in the United States, as European-Americans not only flee minority-run homelands such as Detroit and Los Angeles, but the Democratic Party as well. This is why amnesty is so important to Democrats, as they are hoping to import sufficient numbers of Hispanics to counter the transition to race-based power politics.

What they will learn, however, is that La Raza is considerably less amenable to political control than the descendants of slaves have been, and they will be rapidly cast aside by those they thought to “lead” and “represent”.