Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

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.

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.