Tag: Vibrancy is our strength

I find the behavior of some white readers here to be tremendously informative with regards to the way in which they react to the occasional “Vibrancy is our strength” posts. What is quite clear to me is that despite the evidence of some 40+ years of affirmative action and forced integration achieving little more than exchanging segregated neighborhoods for segregated schools and the highest incarceration rate on the planet, many white Americans, even conservative white Americans, are so afraid of being called raciss that they will bury their heads in the sand rather than recognize the readily observable realities of their multi-ethnic society.

Now, it’s important to first understand that social homogeneity has been considered to be a vital aspect of civilization for more than a thousand years before the Northern Europeans were civilized. Consider Karl Popper’s summary of Plato:

“Plato’s theory was a form of the organic theory of the state, even if he had not sometimes spoken of the state as an organism. But since he did this, there can be no doubt left that he must be described as an exponent, or rather, as one of the originators, of this theory. His version of this theory may be characterized as a personalist or psychological one, since he describes the state not in a general way as similar to some organism or other, but as analogous to the human individual, and more specifically to the human soul. Especially the disease of the state, the dissolution of its unity, corresponds to the disease of the human soul, of human nature. In fact, the disease of the state is not only correlated with, but is directly produced by, the corruption of human nature, more especially of the members of the ruling class. Every single one of the typical stages in the degeneration of the state is brought about by a corresponding stage in the degeneration of the human soul, of human nature, of the human race. And since this moral degeneration is interpreted as based upon racial degeneration, we might say that the biological element in Plato’s naturalism turns out, in the end, to have the most important part in the foundation of his historicism. For the history of the downfall of the first or perfect state is nothing but the history of the biological degeneration of the race of men.”

Now, I am an anti-Platonist and anti-idealist, so please don’t confuse his arguments with mine. My object in quoting that passage from The Open Society and Its Enemies is merely to point out that the connection between a heterogeneous population and the degeneration and ultimate downfall of the state has been understood for more than 2,360 years. I note that it is tremendously ironic that so many of the stated objectives of modern left-liberals have their roots in Plato’s political philosophy even though those objectives are structurally undermined by the left’s simultaneous rejection of Plato’s core postulates as well as the structural basis of his ideal state. As Popper points out, Plato is the ultimate reactionary; his philosophy is not so much conservative or reactionary as literally prehistoric, and those progressives who look to his utopian ideals as a guide are attempting to progress to an imaginary prehistory.

But that doesn’t mean all of his social observations are incorrect, to the contrary, we have seen the pattern play out over and over again. The ongoing breakdown of the European Union can be seen as a straightforward application of the inevitable degeneration of the multi-ethnic state, in that the Germans are unwilling to make the same sacrifices for the Greeks, the Italians, and the Spanish that the West Germans were willing to make on behalf of the East Germans only twenty years ago.

Now, I think Plato observed the symptoms and correctly diagnosed the disease, but came up with an insane plan of treatment to place the patient in a permanent induced coma. Multi-ethnicity is, when viewed through the lens of the organic theory of the state, a societal cancer. Like cancer, it will either be excised or the state will die. The proponents of universal equalitarianism and diversity have not only rejected this long-recognized principle, but have made a fundamental error in grasping the difficulty of civilizing human populations. They believe that civilization is a pure accident of geography, that if one takes a highly civilized group of people from an advanced civilization and places them in a barbarian culture, within three generations that group will turn into barbarians behaving in a manner identical to the barbarians around them, and that if one takes a wholly uncivilized group of people from an barbarian culture and places them in a highly civilized culture, within three generations that group will turn into highly civilized people behaving in a manner identical to the highly civilized people around them. It’s little more than replacing Plato with William Golding, and works about as well as replacing the most influential philosopher in human history with a petty novelist would lead you to expect.

In light of this juxtaposition of Plato with Golding, consider the following news report from the UK:

A gang of 20 hooded youths stormed a pub after the Champions League final before dragging away a 25-year old man and stabbing him to death in scenes ‘like a horror film’, friends said today. ‘True gent’ Luke Fitzpatrick was killed and his father Bernard, who threw himself on top of his son in a desperate attempt to shield him, remains in a critical condition in hospital after being stabbed four times. The pair were attacked when a gang armed with bats and knives stormed the north London pub after father and son had watched Chelsea win the cup together at on Saturday…. ‘There were about 20 young black guys all with their hoods up armed with sticks and bats and knives. They just ran in the pub and started trying to attack people. It was really frightening. But it should not have happened to Luke, it shouldn’t have happened to anyone, but he was a complete innocent.’

Now, had this happened in the USA, it would be blamed on the legacy of American slavery. Of course, there is no black legacy of slavery in England; the “youfs” are most likely descended from Africans who immigrated to the UK from the Caribbean as the 1948 Windrush generation, or directly from Africa in more recent years. There are at least 200 years separating the Afro-Caribbeans of the UK from the African American population, possibly as much as 340 years in the Western hemisphere alone. And yet, the similar behavior of both African populations, particularly in the predilection of young male Africans for committing crude and violent mob attacks on innocent non-Africans minding their own business, is readily observable and gives the lie to the diversity crew’s theory that civilization is vicinity-based and can be successfully installed in a population in a few generations or less.

This isn’t to say any one race or population group is necessarily any more or less capable of civilization than another; remember that it took more than 1,200 years for the white Northern Europeans to become civilized despite their close contact with Roman civilization. The challenge is that since it obviously takes more than the 360 years that the African population has been exposed to European civilization for a people to become fully civilized, the societies of the West are not merely betting their civilizations on the correctness of the fictional Golding theory, they are doing so in the face of more than 2,500 years of historical evidence. Now, if one wishes to dismiss all of philosophy dating back to Plato, all of the criminal statistics compiled by the various national police forces, and the entire written historical record in favor of crying raciss, that’s perfectly fine. MPAI. But don’t do so in the belief that your position is a serious one that is intellectually credible in any way, shape, or form.

History doesn’t care how it makes anyone feel. The objective truth cannot, by definition, be defined, let alone influenced, by subjective or dynamic elements. If one wishes to contest facts and observations, that’s intellectually legitimate, but it is the very singular reliance upon the rhetoric of racism that should be one’s first clue that the multiculturalists and diversity advocates know they have nothing.

Jonathan Frost chronicles the tragic tale of three vibrant young fun-lovers victimized by an objectively raciss police force:

Events occurred in the neighbourhood of White Oaks, Michigan last week, when a jolly squad of mischief-making troubadours came upon a Whole Foods at 9:18pm on Tuesday of last week and allegedly caused eighteen shoppers to no longer be alive. According to testimony by the one surviving shopper, who managed to conceal herself behind an upright display of locally-sourced quinoa bread, the trio of mischief-makers brandished firearms as they made their way into the store, secured the exits, and ordered the shoppers to fall to their knees in a line, calling them childish names throughout.

The silly teens then slowly went from one shopper to the next, demanding apologies for the brutal, unprovoked, cold-blooded murder of Trayvon Martin, pictured below, by George Zimmerman, a privileged white male who is white. The apologies were apparently not sincere enough for the impish rascals, as they ended the spectacle by executing each of the alleged victims with a double-tap to the base of the skull. The puckish rapscallions then fled the store, but they were apprehended later that night after having immediately uploaded pictures and videos to their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WorldStarHipHop accounts.

It is, of course, overtly and exceedingly raciss for the northern chapter of the KKK also known as “the Michigan police” to arrest these three fine and otherwise upstanding young knuckleheads for the mere exuberance of their vibrancy, and it is an outrage that these itty, bitty babies of color, of whom it has been justly said, “ain’t never gwan be hurt nobody nohow” should find themselves facing the dreadful prospect of as much as four years in jail for the incidental and wholly unintentional life-ending of eighteen raciss descendants of slave-owners who were not only privileged and white, but knowingly shopped at Whole Foods, which everyone knows is the very epitome of stuff white people like.

Free Trayvon, De’Andre, and Sparckle!

Breivik happens:

Nearly every time I read something Breivik has said about Europe’s “Islamification” being enabled by the Euro left’s ideology of multiculturalism I find myself thinking: “He’s right.”

This defines me instantly as a “right-wing racist extremist” and therefore both “insane” and “evil.”

I am not alone in my insane and evil right-wing racist extremist thoughts. I reckon that most Europeans think exactly the same way as me. It is merely that they are too afraid, or not allowed, to say so. But I am also certain that neither I nor the majority in Europe are right-wing racist extremists, nor are we insane or evil.

We are simply normal. It’s multiculturalism that is abnormal.

I live in Europe and I’m not sure that I know anyone, left or right, who still genuinely believes multiculturalism is viable. I know some very left-wing people who wish that it was, and who would vehemently oppose any attempt to fix the problems they reluctantly admit, but even they will confess, when pressed, that they don’t hold out any hope of Muslim and African integration, much less the happy vibrancy promised by the multiculturalists. They mostly don’t want to think about it and prefer to hope that the problems somehow goes away on their own.

But they won’t. And in the absence of thought or action by people of generally good faith, action by the more extreme and violent is assured.

I note that the French election results tend to support my assertion, in the immediate aftermath of the Utoya shootings, that Breivik’s actions would be seen as an early harbinger of popular nationalism rather than a tactical blunder that increased popular support for the multiculturalists.

It is, of course, simply outrageous and reprehensibly raciss to notice that large groups of young Africans fail to behave like civilized people on a regular basis:

There’s outrage in Norfolk, Va., today after a white couple was attacked by a group of 100 black teenagers, and the local newspaper did not report on the incident for two weeks, despite the victims being employees of the paper. Even today, the Virginian-Pilot did not cover the crime as news, but rather as an opinion piece by columnist Michelle Washington.

“Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim,” Washington wrote, describing the onslaught that began when Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami stopped at a red light while driving home from a show on a Saturday night.

“Rostami locked her car door. Someone threw a rock at her window. Forster got out to confront the rock-thrower, and that’s when the beating began. …

One wonders who these media folk think they’re fooling. Attempting to bury black-on-white crime isn’t going to reduce racial tensions, instead, it’s only going to make it worse when white Americans finally realize that their institutions are working against their interests and cannot be trusted. Today’s lesson is: don’t confront if you don’t carry.

Although, let’s face it, the attack likely could not have happened to a more deserving pair. The beaten white pair were reporters… and their own newspaper didn’t hesitate to throw them under the bus in the interest of burying black crime. (The fact that the idiot was unarmed and still got out of the car to confront an African mob pretty much guarantees that he’s a left-liberal.) One wonders if they are still the same smug, left-liberal anti-racists that they most likely were prior to the mob attack. It should be noted that the black teenagers obviously weren’t trying to seriously hurt the couple, they were just having fun. But, of course, that’s precisely the problem.

In discussing the attack on Twitter, one young gentleman declared “do it for trayvon martin”. It does not appear to have occurred to him that all “doing it” is going to accomplish is assuring that more young Africans end up like Trayvon Martin.

I tend to doubt that this interesting aspect of immigration is often taken into account when the pro-immigration theoreticians claim that immigration is always a net positive for society:

A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin. The Times of India affirmed that “this is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” The BBC’s research also discovered that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births in Britain, they accounted for 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. It is not a surprise, therefore, that, in response to this evidence, a Labour Party MP has called for a ban on first-cousin marriage.

It is estimated that one third of all handicapped people in Copenhagen have a foreign background. Sixty four percent of school children in Denmark with Arabic parents are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The same study concludes that in reading ability, mathematics, and science, the pattern is the same: “The bilingual (largely Muslim) immigrants’ skills are exceedingly poor compared to their Danish classmates.” These problems within Islam bring many detriments to Western countries. Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants, for instance, severely drain the budgets and resources of our societies. Look at Denmark, for example: one third of the budget for the country’s schools is spent on children with special needs. Muslim children are grossly overrepresented among these children. More than half of all children in schools for children with mental and physical handicaps in Copenhagen are foreigners — of whom Muslims are by far the largest group. One study concludes that “foreigners inbreeding costs our municipalities millions” because of the many handicapped children and adults.

The problem, of course, is that the transformative effect of immigration goes both ways. The host culture is effected by the immigrant culture, so it is as reasonable to expect that first cousin marriage will be not only legalized, but adopted by segments of the native population as well, as it is to assume it will be banned. So, while this may be good news for those of you who have highly attractive cousins, it’s yet another example of how what passes for progress is actually regressive and detrimental to society. After all, if the host culture cannot be deemed superior to the immigrant culture, it has no grounds for denying immigrants, and everyone else, any cultural tradition they practice. And one need not be a social darwinist to doubt the benefit to any civilized society of importing masses of people guaranteed to be disproportionately mentally and physically handicapped.

Excuse me. Of course, I mean disproportionately mentally and physically handicapable.

The NRO crew provides some striking profiles in intellectual courage:

“Does @NRO want to be associated with someone who publishes racist trash like this? I know I don’t”
– Ramesh Ponnuru

“For the record, I find my colleague John Derbyshire’s piece fundamentally indefensible and offensive. I wish he hadn’t written it.”
– Jonah Goldberg

“Needless to say, no one at National Review shares Derb’s appalling view of what parents supposedly should tell their kids about blacks in this instantly notorious piece here.”
– Rich Lowry

“Why National Review must fire John Derbyshire“
– Josh Barro

Apparently these various National Review writers want Americans to remain trapped in the same clueless, post-racial, Orwellian delusion they have inhabited for the last fifty years. And yet, John Derbyshire’s article that has inspired such rabid ritual denunciation is little more than a calm and perfectly reasonable collection of observable realities of race in America:

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations.

This isn’t the first time I’ve been pleased that I write for WND and not NRO. Now, in the past, I have been urged by some to abandon what they errantly consider to be my “support for segregation”. What they fail to understand is that I don’t support segregation per se. I don’t actually have a position on it, any more than I have a position on gravity or oxygen. There is nothing to support, there is only an observation to be made: Humanity is intrinsically and naturally self-segregating. It is desegregation that is unnatural, that requires the imposition of force to maintain for even brief periods, and which is both inherently unstable and antithetical to the collective will of every people on the planet.

My own perspective should be perfectly clear, but I shall elucidate it anyhow. Due to past desegregation imposed by force of one kind or another, be it private action or government policy, rapid large scale segregation is going to take place because the vast majority of people on every possible side find it to be desirable. That future segregation is going to be either voluntary or involuntary, and will be either violent or non-violent. Therefore, government policies should, to the greatest extent possible, be strongly biased towards voluntary, non-violent, and gradual segregation in order to reduce the risk of rapidly destabilizing multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies.

Multiculturalism is dead. Desegregation is dead. MLK’s dream is dead, and more importantly, it was never more than wishful thinking anyhow. Racial equality is the same failed myth as every other aspect of human equality, none of which have ever been shown to exist in any tangible form. And all that dropping weak-kneed to one’s fainting couch or clinging to the oft-disproven canards of the racial equalitarians will achieve is to increase the level of violence and amount of involuntary cooperation that will eventually be required to recreate the historic balances that were originally brought about by the natural processes of group behavior. The American black/white situation is only one, and one of the smaller and less problematic, of the resegregations that should probably be anticipated in the medium term.

Ponnuru, Goldberg, Lowry, and Barro have humiliated themselves with their craven responses. John Derbyshire is not merely right, but it is not even remotely reasonable to pretend that he is incorrect in any significant detail. The truth is what it is, and it will usually come out in the end no matter how desperately the children try to cling to their fairy tales. Pointing and shrieking “RACISS” is the modern equivalent of crying “WITCH” at the height of the Salem witch trials… and is not going to change the probable course of future events in the least.