Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

Genetics vs Geographics

Mexifornia arrives as the grand experiment in replacing Anglos with Aztecs continues apace:

California’s Hispanic population is slated to become the state’s majority ethnicity by the end of this year according to a new report by the governor’s office. New ethnicity trends outlined in Gov Jerry Brown’s 2013-14 budget proposal revealed the state’s expected new majority while reasoning the state’s declining birth rates and increasing migration as causes.As early as July Hispanics are expected to be equal in size to non-Hispanic whites before outpacing them, according to the report, with both demographics in that month reaching 39 per cent of the population.

Now, if the Left’s Geographic theory that human behavior is predominantly determined by the physical location of the human being is correct, California should prosper and its economy should boom with all of these hardworking immigrants seeking the prosperity and opportunity afforded them by the environment and infrastructure there.  If, on the other hand, the Genetic theory is correct and the Aztecs are qualitatively inferior to the declining Anglos in some capacity, we should expect to see California continue to rapidly decline by a broad panoply of metrics and the infrastructure break down as the political preferences of the majority Hispanic population, which has no connection whatsoever to the historic Constitution, traditional American ideology, and the Rights of Englishmen upon which the United States was originally founded.

I’m just curious what it will take for advocates of the Geographic theory to give it up.  California declaring bankruptcy?  The complete elimination of the white race from the state?  California seceding and joining Mexico?  The construction of pyramids and resumption of human sacrifice?  Or is your faith in it simply unshakeable by evidence?

Race and guns: part 1

David Cole of the New York Times argues that young urban blacks pay the cost for the right to bear arms:

Gun rights defenders argue that gun laws don’t reduce violence, noting
that many cities with high gun violence already have strict gun laws.
But this ignores the ease with which urban residents can evade local
laws by obtaining guns from dealers outside their cities or states.
Effective gun regulation requires a nationally coordinated response. 
A cynic might propose resurrecting the Black Panthers to heighten white
anxiety as the swiftest route to breaking the logjam on gun reform. I
hope we are better than that. If the nation were to view the everyday
tragedies that befall young black and Latino men in the inner cities
with the same sympathy that it has shown for the Newtown victims, there
would be a groundswell of support not just for gun law reform, but for
much broader measures. 
If we are to reduce the inequitable costs of gun rights, it’s not enough
to tighten licensing requirements, expand background checks to private
gun sales or ban assault weapons. In addition to such national measures,
meaningful reform must include initiatives directed to where gun
violence is worst: the inner cities. Aggressive interventions by police
and social workers focused on gang gun violence, coupled with economic
investment, better schools and more after-school and job training
programs, are all necessary if we are to reduce the violence that gun
rights entail. 
To tweak the National Rifle Association’s refrain, “guns don’t kill
people; indifference to poverty kills people.” We can’t in good
conscience keep making young black men pay the cost of our right to bear
arms. 
However, Cole assumes a causation that simply is not supported by the facts at hand.  Below is a chart I prepared based on the state-by-state offense rates, per 100k population, comparing black homicide to non-black homicide.  The source was the commenter Silver’s comment on a recent Steve Sailer post, derived from a 2009 FBI report.  The average state homicide rate is 17.3 per 100k for the black population and 2.5 per 100k for the non-black population.

As Silver notes, the FBI information cannot be used to directly compare black and white homicide rates, since the non-black rate combines the white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian rates.  I will attempt to sort out some of those rates in the next post on this subject, but even a casual glance will suffice to show that the states with the highest non-black homicide rates, the District of Columbia (9.1), Nevada (5.2), Arizona (4.4), and California (4.3) tends to coincide with higher levels of Hispanic population.

If Cole’s thesis was correct, we would have to find that gun ownership and poverty are vastly higher among the black population than among the other U.S. populations.  But this is clearly not the case with regards to gun ownership, since 44% of whites own guns compared to 27% of blacks, and the Hispanic poverty rate is 26.6%, nearly equal to the black poverty rate of 27.4%.  Therefore, we can not only refute his argument that gun rights entail violence by comparing international crime statistics, but also conclusively show that his “necessary” recommendations for reducing violence are unrelated to the causal problem at hand, and as a result, extremely unlikely to reduce it in any substantive manner.

That’s a bold move, Obsidian

Let’s see how it works out for him.  Obsidian takes exception to the way I am The Man keeping the Black man down by utilizing the blatantly raciss tactic of citing international crime and gun ownership statistics in response to the media stampede for more gun control:

The reason why 26 WHITE Women and children died last week; the reason why dozens of largely WHITE people died earlier this year at a movie theatre in Colorado; and the reason why upwards of 100 WHITE teenagers met a bloodsoaked end in Olso, was all due to having too many guntoting Darkies in White Lands.

Now, before anyone out there starts sending my hatemail, no one is more aware of gun violence on the streets of urban America more than me. Thus far, no one – not me, not anyone else in the media, not President Obama himself – has ever denied that urban gun violence isn’t a problem, and a huge one at that.

But isn’t it just a weebit fascinating that the Alt-Right, when they can get up the gumption to address the clearly depraved monsters in their midst (read: White Males With Problems), just happen to do it in a manner that would be identified, rightly, as deeply intellectually dishonest and highly disengenuous in any other context? Of the more than 60 mass shootings over the past three decades, some 44 of them have been committed by White Males – and when you have ads like these marketed to said White Males (name me all the gangbangers who use Bushmasters as their go-to weapon of choice? I’ll wait…), well, it all just makes one go, Hmm…

That’s an amusing attempt at rhetorical bluster, but I would be remiss if I did not inform Obsidian that demonstrating a complete failure of reading comprehension is not the ideal way to convince those one suspects of a belief in white superiority that they are incorrect.

But since he clearly did not understand what I was writing about in my recent posts, I will clarify the matter for him.  The reason people died in Connecticut and Colorado in the two mass shootings had absolutely nothing to do with gun-toting Darkies, much less their quantity or location.  Given the Oslo shooter’s confessed rationale, the situation there was caused by the presence of too many Darkies (for various definitions of “Darky”) in Norway, but had nothing to do with their toting of guns.  However, I was not addressing any of these specific situations, (especially not the Norwegian one, as I have no interest in or knowledge of Norwegian gun control laws), I was addressing one of the primary arguments for gun control that has been repeatedly made in the wake of the Connecticut shootings, namely, the idea that the moderate US firearms homicide rate is caused by the very high number of guns per capita in the United States.

There is nothing “deeply intellectually dishonest and highly disengenuous” about pointing out that the difference between the low firearms homicide rate of Canada and the Western European nations and the moderate firearms homicide rate in the USA is not related to the number of guns per capita in the population, but rather is a consequence of the racial makeup of the population.  In fact, it is absolutely necessary to point this out, because reviewing the differences between the various countries with low rates, moderate rates, and high rates clearly demonstrates that the proposed solution to the higher US firearms homicide rate will not, and cannot, be solved by European-style gun control.

Moreover, Obsidian fails to realize that mass shooting statistics he cites make perfect sense.  Why would it make him go hmmmm to realize that 73 percent of the mass shootings of the past 30 years were committed by members of a race that made up a similar percentage of the population over that time.  Is statistically proportional representation truly a deep mystery to him?

There are real problems to discuss with regards to why young white men commit acts of mass murder.  But they are completely unrelated to the arguments that the pro-gun control forces have presented, and to which I have responded.

Bringing nothing but rhetoric to a dialectical discourse is rather like
bringing a knife to a gun fight, then defiantly slitting your own
throat.  But that is what Obsidian is purposefully doing here, as he admits that he has no interest in actual debate.  He is simply trying to shut it down and prevent these straightforward and undeniable facts from being considered.

Here’s that intrepid White Man Blogger, Vox Day, advising his fellow WND readers on how to respond to calls of reason with regard to getting Bushmasters out of the hands of depraved White Guys:

“Don’t give them an inch. Cut them no slack. Punch back twice as hard. When they bring the knife of emotional blackmail to the argument, draw your .50 caliber Desert Eagle of facts, logic and history and blow them away without mercy.”

And they wonder why the Manosphere is regarded as a bunch of f*cking loons?

Really?

A number of my readers, online and off, have asked me: Obsidian, why do you waste so much time and energy on people who clearly have a disengenuous agenda? This is a very good question, and here’s my response:

Because history has shown us, again and again – that Evil – or in this case, downright Foolishness – can only exist, when Good Men, do nothing. By chin-checking these fools in the public square, I am letting them know that their days of just being able to say ridiculous crap with impunity are over. They sh*t all over our cherished freedoms in the name of “keepin’ it real” – yea, like Chris Rock said, keepin’ it real DUMB. These knuckleheads aren’t the next George Washingtons or Patrick Henrys; shoot, they can barely get laid and make a life for themselves, let alone be the standard bearers of freedom or liberty. They are not fit to participate in reasoned and intellectually honest discussion of the issues of the day, and should be roundly shouted down until they sitdown and STFU.

The idea that a man who claims my agenda is “disengenuous” and lacks the most basic reading comprehension skills can declare, with a straight face, that I am “not fit to participate in reasoned and intellectually honest discussion” is incredibly amusing.  The fact that his ancestors were once forced to ride at the back of the bus is no excuse for Obsidian to voluntarily ride on a metaphorical short one.

Obsidian isn’t chin-checking anyone in the public square except himself.  This is like watching a pudgy little kid walk up to Lebron James and threaten to dunk on him; it would be pathetic if it weren’t so damned funny.  He can whine and bluster and cry raciss all he likes, but no amount of the conventional African-American histrionics will alter the international statistics or the clear and undeniable conclusions that logic necessarily draws from them.

Hispanic firearms homicide rate

This statistical beast is somewhat elusive thanks to the FBI’s resolute determination to lump all Hispanics in with whites.  However, it is possible to work out a reasonable approximation of what the statistics would be if the FBI bothered to report them accurately.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 20-year gun homicide rate is 41.9% “white” and
56.4% black.  The “white” rate is lower than reported by the FBI for 2010, which, if I am correct, reduces the known black share from 56.4% to 49% due to the rising Hispanic population.  But since there are plenty of cases that are unknown, we will use the 20-year rate in order to avoid the possibility of a single year outlier while considering the 9,146 gun homicides concerned.

We will assume, for the sake of argument, that Hispanic victims are synonymous with Hispanic killers. The BJS supports this assumption, reporting that from 1976 to 2005, 86% of white victims were killed by whites and 94% of black victims were killed by black.  A CDC report states: “Homicide rates in 2010 among non-Hispanic, African-American males 10-24 years of age (51.5 per 100,000) exceeded those of Hispanic males (13.5 per 100,000) and non-Hispanic, White males in the same age group (2.9 per 100,000).”

We’re not concerned with the black homicide rate since we already know that.  What interests us is how the remaining 4,116 gun homicides are divided between whites and Hispanics.  The distribution indicated by the CDC report shows that 3,388 were Hispanic and only 728 were white.  This may be a little skewed by the focus on young males, but nevertheless provides a very credible estimate of 6.8 per 100k population, which would put the US-Latin firearms homicide rate in between Nicaragua at 5.9 and Paraguay at 7.4.  It would also indicate that the US-White homicide rate is 0.32 per 100k population, a per capita rate very close to The Netherlands at 0.33 although still higher than France, Germany, or the UK.

The chart above compares the three primary US racial populations and the rates at which they commit firearms homicide per 100k population, then pairs them with what is more or less their international equivalent.  The interesting thing is that regardless of whether it is the prevalence of firearms or the proximity to a majority white population that is responsible, it is readily observable that the US-Latin and US-Black rates of firearms homicide are much LOWER than the rates at which firearms homicide is committed by non-US Latins and non-US Africans, despite the greater access of the US-based populations to firearms.

Why US gun deaths are high

One of the questions often asked by those supporting gun control and those who are merely uninformed alike is why the US has so many gun deaths, especially in comparison with other Western, industrialized countries.

The first reason is obvious.  There are nearly five times more people in the United States than there are in the largest European countries.  This may seem ludicrously obvious, but most people really are that stupid and don’t take population sizes into account. The fact that the news media covers all the crimes across the country it deems noteworthy means that the 310 million people in the USA are going to produce about five times more big crime stories than the 63 million in the UK.

The second reason is also related to demographics.  The specific question that was asked was why the USA has a higher rate of gun homicides, 2.97 per 100,000 population than Canada, at only 0.51 per 100,000.  After all, the USA and Canada are very similar countries, are they not?  No, they are not.  Only 3.5 percent of the Canadian population is African and Latin American.  28.9 percent of the US population is African and Latin American.  Does this make a difference?  The chart below demonstrates that this demographic difference is not only significant, but conclusive.

As per The Guardian article of July 12, 2012, the USA had 9,146 gun homicides, the fourth-most of the reporting countries.  That was considerably more than Canada or any of the European nations; Canada had only 173.  Even if one accounts for the much smaller Canadian population, it is obvious that Canadians were much less likely to shoot and kill other Canadians.  Was this because there are fewer guns in Canada, only 30.8 percent compared to the 88.8 percent in the United States?  No, it was because there are fewer African-Canadians and Latin-Canadians, as should be obvious from looking at the chart.

There were even fewer guns per capita in the two Latin countries, 11.5 percent, and in the two African countries, 8.3 percent, than Canada’s 30.8 percent, France’s 31.2 percent, or Germany’s 30.3 percent.  And yet, the gun deaths per capita in all four African and Latin countries were much higher than either Canada or the USA; on average, they were four times higher than the US rate despite there being far fewer guns, and guns per capita, in all of them.  Nor did I cherry-pick any outliers; most African nations don’t even report these figures, and based on the news reports, countries such as Congo and Nigeria are even more murderously violent than South Africa and Zimbabwe.  In Latin America alone, there are six countries with higher per capita gun death rates than Brazil, which is six times higher than the USA.

The low rate of gun ownership in these violent countries not only make it clear that the prevalence of guns cannot possibly explain the relatively high US gun death rate in comparison with other European countries, they clearly indicate that gun deaths are a predominantly racial and/or cultural phenomenon.  Since the US is on the track to become a European minority country, it should be readily apparent that as it becomes browner and blacker, it will also become more violent, naturally reflecting the more violent tendencies of the nations from whence the post-1965 immigrants have come instead of those of the European nations who originally populated the country.

If lower gun death rates are a goal, it is clear that reducing the amount of guns will not help, and may even make the matter considerably worse by disarming the law-abiding population and rendering it helpless against the lawless population.  The only way to significantly reduce the amount of gun deaths is to repatriate the immigrants who come from countries where people are disproportionately inclined to shoot other people dead.  Since most Americans presently appear to prefer higher violent crime rates to stopping immigration, much less reducing the percentage of the non-European/Asian/Arab population through deportation, logic dictates that if gun control proponents are successful in their attempts to reduce the guns per capita rate, the gun homicides per capita rate will rise in proportion to the percentage of the African/Latin population in the general population.

Feminism ends in the brothel

Back in 2006, I think it was, I wrote about how the combination of feminism,  immigration, and post-Christianity would lead inevitably towards reducing women’s choices to the brothel or the burqah.  That point is rapidly arriving in both Holland and the UK:

Anything-goes Amsterdam has long been hailed as a sex mecca. The red-light district attracts thousands of customers, many of them tourists, who walk through alleys where half-naked prostitutes prance in the windows of some 300 brothels illuminated with scarlet bulbs.

A century ago, the brothels were banned to stop the exploitation of women by criminal gangs of Dutch men. But gradually the sex establishments crept back, with the authorities turning a blind eye.

In 2000, after pressure from prostitutes (demanding recognition as sex workers with employment rights) and Holland’s liberal intelligentsia (championing the choice of women to do what they wished with their bodies), the brothels were legalised. The working girls got permits, medical care, and now there are 5,000 in the red-light district.

But things went badly wrong. Holland’s newly legal sex industry was quickly infiltrated by street-grooming gangs with one target: the under-age girl virgin who can be sold for sex.

The men in the gangs are dubbed — incongruously — ‘lover boys’, because of their distinct modus operandi of making girls fall in love with them before forcing them into prostitution at private flats or houses all over Holland, and in the window brothels. The lover boy phenomenon has appalled Dutch society, not least because of the sheer numbers of girls involved.

Holland hopes the rot will be halted. Last year, 242 lover boy crimes were investigated by police, half of them involving the forced prostitution of girls under 18. Campaigner Anita de Wit says this is a fraction — ‘one per cent’ — of the true number. ‘There are thousands of girls being preyed on by male gangs in Holland,’ she says.  Anita visits schools to warn girls exactly what a lover boy looks like, and makes no bones of the fact that most of the gangs are operated by Dutch-born Moroccan and Turkish men.

‘I am not politically correct. I am not afraid of being called a racist, which would be untrue. I tell the girls that lover boys are young, dark-skinned and very good looking. They will have lots of money and bling as well as a big car. They will give out cigarettes and vodka. They will tell a girl that she is beautiful.

‘The gangs know who to pick out: the girl with the confidence problems, with the glasses, or who looks overweight. They flatter her and seem like the “knight in shining armour”. She is drawn to her new boyfriend like a magnet.’

There has never been a society that survived the loss of its religion and its children.  The end game for secularism, equalitarianism, and multiculturalism is not the shiny, sexy, It’s A Small World scientopia of post-religious dreams, it is what is already being witnessed in present-day Amsterdam.  This is not progress, this is a return to the pagan world that was defeated with the passing of Julian the Apostate and Diocletian.

The problem isn’t that the feminist revolution “backfired’, the problem is that it was a revolution of 180 degrees that marked a return to ancient societal patterns.

675,000 secessionists

That’s a lot more Americans than fought the original Revolutionary War.  Of course, it’s easy to sign a digital petition and rather less easy to spend a hungry winter at Valley Forge, but the size and speed of the response does indicate how Americans feel about Obama’s “America”:

Less than a week after a New Orleans suburbanite petitioned the White House to allow Louisiana to secede from the United States, petitions from seven states have collected enough signatures to trigger a promised review from the Obama administration.

By 6:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, more than 675,000 digital signatures appeared on 69 separate secession petitions covering all 50 states, according to a Daily Caller analysis of requests lodged with the White House’s “We the People” online petition system.

Nothing will come of these PR-stunt petitions.  But they are an early sign of the secessionist struggles to come over the next two decades until the final dissolution in the 2033 timeframe.  Americans don’t want to live in Mexico, Asia, or the Middle East, nor do they want to live in a post-America under Mexican, Asian, and Middle Eastern government.  Nor should they, as evidenced by the millions of immigrants who are, ironically but predictably, attempting to turn their new country into the same sort of place they left in the first place.

This is just what immigrants do if they are allowed to invade in sufficient numbers.  One Muslim immigrates, he eventually integrates, converts, and joins a church.  One hundred Muslims immigrate, they build a mosque and their own Muslim community that grows over time.  The Melting Pot isn’t merely a myth, it is a idealistic fantasy about as relevant to historic human behavioral patterns as Star Trek.

I am a little surprised, however, as I expected the first serious secession talk to come out of the Aztecs of Aztlan.  The reaction to the election is remarkable because, as we all know, Romney wasn’t going to govern much differently than Obama.  But it appears the symbolism of white Americans being deprived of their choice of president by an alliance of aliens has finally forced millions of Americans to realize that if things don’t change drastically, they will eventually find themselves living in Detroit writ large.

I wonder if the United Nations will be as interested in helping those seeking the right to self-determination in Texas and Louisiana as they are in so many other countries around the world?  It will also be interesting to see if the Obama administration will continue to argue that Libyan and Syrian separatists need to be armed even as it wonders if it dares try to disarm American separatists.

The diversity dilemma

Thomas Friedman can be a clueless buffoon at times, but the one thing he does know about is the Middle East.  What I find fascinating about his nightmare scenario is the way it shows how left-liberals who clearly recognize the structural problems in other countries can nevertheless turn around and advocate the continuing construction of the same sort of problems in the United States:

Ever since the start of the Syrian uprising/civil war, I’ve cautioned
that while Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Tunisia implode, Syria would
explode if a political resolution was not found quickly. That is exactly what’s happening.  The reason Syria explodes is because its borders are particularly
artificial, and all its communities — Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Kurds,
Druze and Christians — are linked to brethren in nearby countries and
are trying to draw them in for help.

 That’s an astute observation, Tom.  Now, guess what’s going to happen when the various communities inside the United States, the Mexicans, the Colombians, the Muslims, the Chinese, and the Jews, can’t make any more headway in collecting resources from the central government and start battling it out amongst themselves as is already taking place in places like south central LA, which the Aztecs have 65 percent ethnically cleansed already.

Now, why isn’t all that diversity making Syria stronger?

Mailvox: homeschool or die!

A longtime reader writes:

That school in Victorville where they’re having the riots is where my kids would go if we didn’t homeschool.  So, thanks again.

Happy to help.  And what a succinct response to the inevitable raising of the “socialization” issue that family now possesses.  Although, I suppose it could reasonably be argued that given the current demographic trends, white American children should be educated to expect violent struggles, both political and literal, between the black and brown portions of the population.

Harbinger

The future of the 21st century USA, encapsulated:

Students at a high school in Victorville said violent fights have
been breaking out between African-Americans and Latinos for the past two
days. Rafael Muñoz said a group of people started the fights at Silverado High on Wednesday, which have poured out into the streets.

Forget Somali jihadists in Minneapolis, what really blows the mind is the fact that Compton is now 65 percent Hispanic.  It’s remarkable that academia and the media are still caught up with an increasingly outdated monochrome fixation when the most intense societal fracture lines look to be between the black and brown communities.