The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Racial Separation—or Freedom of Association?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
AirBnbRacism

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Several listeners to last week’s podcast took exception to my casual dismissing of the idea of racial separation—see “Taking A Knee”—Is Racial Separation The Answer?

I had said that separation is no more feasible now than it was in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln urged it on the freedmen leaders he’d invited to the White House. [Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, Abraham Lincoln, August 14, 1862]. “We must struggle on forward as best we can, white and black alike,” I concluded.

I think those listeners had been watching American Renaissance Editor Jared Taylor’s recent video titled How to Achieve Racial Separation. Jared makes the case that we can peacefully separate into monoracial regions.

Some samples from Jared’s video, which you can find at AmRen or on their YouTube channel. First sample:

“For blacks, the only way they can be free of the menace of what they believe to be racism and white supremacy is for them to live independently of us, and to take responsibility for their own successes and failures.”

Second sample:

Don’t forget: Hardly anyone predicted the breakup of the Soviet Union, or of Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia. And all three countries separated along national and ethnic lines. And people who once had to live together are happier living apart.

How to Achieve Racial Separation Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 3, 2017

Now, Jared has no greater admirer than me. As I have told him myself: If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day.

I’m sorry, though, guy: This just won’t fly.

Take that first clip I just played: “For blacks to live independently of us …” But blacks can’t live independently of us. They don’t have the human capital to live independently of us.

There is some black human capital: brilliant, high-minded, public-spirited blacks. They are just too few among their own people. Google “Smart Fraction Theory,” or see What Brought Down Detroit from the transcript of my July 27th, 2013 podcast. For a society to function well, to be stable and prosperous, you need a certain threshold proportion of smart people. If your population’s smart fraction is below that threshold, the society won’t work.

I’ll quote myself here, if you don’t mind; from a VDARE.com column three years ago:

Think of it like this: A man is walking along dragging a sack behind him. If the man is large and the sack small, it’s a nuisance but he can make progress. A small man dragging a large sack is, however, severely encumbered.

White populations of course have members with low scores on behavior, intelligence, and personality, but not so many that the more capable whites can’t “carry” them. Smart and well-socialized blacks, by contrast, are numerically far fewer in proportion to the great sullen lumpen-negretariat they drag behind them.

Kicking The Stone: The Hard Reality of Race Relations, November 6, 2014

ORDER IT NOW

Of that fraction of blacks with something on the ball, all but the most saintly and self-sacrificing will decamp to the nearest nonblack area, as you see happening today across the Mediterranean. Jared’s white enclaves are going to need some very serious border control. His proposed multicultural enclave, where people who want diversity can enjoy it, will get way less diverse really fast. It’ll just turn black.

There is simply no stable solution here. Whites don’t need blacks, but blacks need whites, if they are to have any kind of civilized life.

Jared’s second clip is similarly flawed, even setting aside the mayhem that attended the breakup of Yugoslavia. The racial gap in what was formerly Soviet Central Asia is nowhere near the size it is between American blacks and nonblacks.

So, sorry to Jared and those of his followers who emailed in, but on the matter of separation: no sale.

I do, though, fully agree with Jared on the desirability of striking down all legal constraints on private freedom of association. Forced racial integration is an outrageous assault on our liberties.

With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.

2010-12-24dl[1] John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, VDare Archives 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anarchyst says:

    As much as I admire Jared Taylor, he still refuses to name the “900 pound elephant in the room”. As a result, I have been banned from American Renaissance for pointing this out. It is my humble opinion that American Renaissance is part of the “controlled opposition” movement. I wish that Jared Taylor would see through the “fog”. American Renaissance would be much better for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    What did jew think jew would accomplish by posting a comment like yours? Did jew think that your name won't go into the little black book just because jew used the phrase "900 pound elephant"? Why don't jew just come out and say what jew mean? I mean, Jesus Christ man, god himself couldn't make headway with them, what did jew expect from a mere mortal like Taylor?
    , @Jack Cade
    Jared seems to want to carefully craft his message so as not to antagonize very powerful groups such as the women's lobby and the (((nameless ones))), who have no power nor agency, no sirree! So I used to think he had blind spots, but I now doubt that, he just has his own sphere, and sticks to it. It allows him to continue mol unmolested. For now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/racial-separation-or-freedom-of-association/#comment-2039288
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.

    But isn’t your conclusion flawed for the same reason that Taylor’s conclusion is flawed: Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks – and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians – will decamp for your area.

    Whites do their best to separate and live on their own. We’ve been doing it since the 1940s. Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour. And the cycle begins again. Our mostly open borders policy ensures that more blacks and Hispanics will follow.

    Currently, freedom of association mostly means that wealthy whites can price out blacks and Hispanics, though not NE Asians. But this means that we also price out lower-middle class and working-class whites, leaving them to fend for themselves with expected results (see Coming Apart).

    True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes. Let’s put it this way, assume that you had a club that was created by some sect of Presbyterians but was open to public for free. Now, let’s assume that this club offered free food, free childcare, a nice community center, a great private school and lots of cute girls. Let’s also say that this club was next to some black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Do you think that the blacks and Hispanics would respect the sect’s freedom of association and not partake in that club?

    I’m not saying that you’re wrong about Mr. Taylor in this case, but freedom of association is no panacea. It works to protect wealthy whites and that’s all.

    That being said, if whites have any chance of surviving this period in history (and it’s an open question that the majority of us want to survive as a people), a version of freedom of association is our best bet. (Sorry, kids, there will be no civil race war where white create Euroland in the Northwest.) The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups.

    Use your money and organizations to influence politics, media, businesses and academia. And most of all punish those who go after your group. Sue them. Attack them in the media. Threaten their employers.

    Sadly, whites as a group are utterly unsuited for this. We’ve been on top for so long, we can’t even think this way, much less put it into action. Luckily, some of us do think like the Jews. I have tremendous respect for them and how they fight. They are the adults in the room. The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that’s an open question.

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn’t enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.

    Read More
    • Agree: SMK
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Good comment and good advice for whites, but, like you, I'm not sure that they're capable of following it. My only caveat is that while whites may be willing to carry blacks indefinitely, whites as a portion of the population are diminishing, and Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks and there may simply not be enough whites to buffer the conflict.
    , @SMK
    "If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day"? What do you mean by survive? I'm sure our republic will survive (whatever that means exactly) for who knows how long after the United States is transformed into a nonwhite-majority country in which European-Americans are an increasingly dispossessed and persecuted minority -with the exception, largely and for who knows how long, of the rich and affluent.

    Statues to Jared in a nonwhite-majority country?! If Jared lives until the age of 80, he'll probably die in prison after hate-speech laws are enacted and imposed after Kamala Harris or another leftist, surely a black of either sex or a white female, is elected president in 2020 or 2024, probably murdered by blacks unless he's enslaved in protective-custody, 23-hours a day in a toilet with bars.

    Fox won't even allow him to appear on Tucker Carlson. Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear Jared debate Tucker on average negro intelligence, pandemic black criminality, black-on-white violence. etc.But it will never happen.

    , @Chris Mallory

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn’t enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.
     
    Freedom of Association implicitly includes the right to not associate or as you put it the "right to exclude".
    , @Corvinus
    "Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks – and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians – will decamp for your area."

    Assuming that most whites believe that racial borders are required and mechanisms put in place to ensure that non-whites will avoid "decamping".

    "Whites do their best to separate and live on their own."

    SOME whites prefer this lifestyle.

    "Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour."

    Considering that black and Hispanic citizens in our nation have the liberty to move where they are able to afford, of course they will "follow".

    "Currently, freedom of association..."

    means that people can live where they prefer and how they prefer.

    "True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes."

    This ability to exclude has been effectively neutered, thanks to southrons who couldn't even adhere to the tenets of the Plessy case.

    "The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups."

    What happens if white people prefer to live among non-white people where they currently reside? Why should they move or be forced to move? Are you not denying their freedom of association?

    "The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that’s an open question."

    Do you mean "good whites"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @anarchyst
    As much as I admire Jared Taylor, he still refuses to name the "900 pound elephant in the room". As a result, I have been banned from American Renaissance for pointing this out. It is my humble opinion that American Renaissance is part of the "controlled opposition" movement. I wish that Jared Taylor would see through the "fog". American Renaissance would be much better for it.

    What did jew think jew would accomplish by posting a comment like yours? Did jew think that your name won’t go into the little black book just because jew used the phrase “900 pound elephant”? Why don’t jew just come out and say what jew mean? I mean, Jesus Christ man, god himself couldn’t make headway with them, what did jew expect from a mere mortal like Taylor?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You like talking about IQ, and then when you realize you're behind, you ramble about people who score better. What's the difference between you and blacks? Less resistance to skin cancer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
     
    But isn't your conclusion flawed for the same reason that Taylor's conclusion is flawed: Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks - and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians - will decamp for your area.

    Whites do their best to separate and live on their own. We've been doing it since the 1940s. Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour. And the cycle begins again. Our mostly open borders policy ensures that more blacks and Hispanics will follow.

    Currently, freedom of association mostly means that wealthy whites can price out blacks and Hispanics, though not NE Asians. But this means that we also price out lower-middle class and working-class whites, leaving them to fend for themselves with expected results (see Coming Apart).

    True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes. Let's put it this way, assume that you had a club that was created by some sect of Presbyterians but was open to public for free. Now, let's assume that this club offered free food, free childcare, a nice community center, a great private school and lots of cute girls. Let's also say that this club was next to some black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Do you think that the blacks and Hispanics would respect the sect's freedom of association and not partake in that club?

    I'm not saying that you're wrong about Mr. Taylor in this case, but freedom of association is no panacea. It works to protect wealthy whites and that's all.

    That being said, if whites have any chance of surviving this period in history (and it's an open question that the majority of us want to survive as a people), a version of freedom of association is our best bet. (Sorry, kids, there will be no civil race war where white create Euroland in the Northwest.) The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups.

    Use your money and organizations to influence politics, media, businesses and academia. And most of all punish those who go after your group. Sue them. Attack them in the media. Threaten their employers.

    Sadly, whites as a group are utterly unsuited for this. We've been on top for so long, we can't even think this way, much less put it into action. Luckily, some of us do think like the Jews. I have tremendous respect for them and how they fight. They are the adults in the room. The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that's an open question.

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn't enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.

    Good comment and good advice for whites, but, like you, I’m not sure that they’re capable of following it. My only caveat is that while whites may be willing to carry blacks indefinitely, whites as a portion of the population are diminishing, and Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks and there may simply not be enough whites to buffer the conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joef

    Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks
     
    This is correct, for many hispanics have no respect for afro americans, and will not be willing to maintain an economic parasitical relationship with them. They will even be less willing to suffer violence from afros (as many liberal whites demand), responding instead with swift retribution. And if things really got bad, Hispanics will not be shy in committing acts of genocide against afro americans. Afro americans intuitively know this, and that is why they try to force this 'people of color' label upon them. Hispanics generally do not want to be included in this 'people of color' coalition because they recognize that their agendas as competing. Further, after observing how afros have no loyalty to the Whites that sustain them, they would never truly trust a political coalition with afros. Finally, Hispanics, who want employment opportunities, know that this is provided by Whites, not afros. You are already seeing these divisions starting to manifest themselves in southern California. Hispanics are unwilling to be burdened by afros, that they regard as useless.
    , @Corvinus
    "I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black."

    You mean IF it comes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ThreeCranes
    What did jew think jew would accomplish by posting a comment like yours? Did jew think that your name won't go into the little black book just because jew used the phrase "900 pound elephant"? Why don't jew just come out and say what jew mean? I mean, Jesus Christ man, god himself couldn't make headway with them, what did jew expect from a mere mortal like Taylor?

    You like talking about IQ, and then when you realize you’re behind, you ramble about people who score better. What’s the difference between you and blacks? Less resistance to skin cancer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "What’s the difference between you and blacks?....."

    And yet, and yet.....It's the Jew who has aligned himself with blacks for the last 100 years. The Jew who, like the black, shares a gift for gab, both being artists of rap wherein rhetoric trumps Logic (albeit one as a lawyer and one as a misogynist droner). The Jew who, like the black, bemoans his condition as eternal victim and uses this as a crutch with which to beat those whom he hallucinates to be his tormentors.

    Whereas I am a creative builder; one who can take a pile of sticks and make a cultural artifact that is both useful and beautiful, expressing intelligent design. I see little of this capacity in either the Jew or black.

    So, if you are going to array people along a spectrum, then between blacks and I stands the Jew.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. SMK says: • Website
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
     
    But isn't your conclusion flawed for the same reason that Taylor's conclusion is flawed: Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks - and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians - will decamp for your area.

    Whites do their best to separate and live on their own. We've been doing it since the 1940s. Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour. And the cycle begins again. Our mostly open borders policy ensures that more blacks and Hispanics will follow.

    Currently, freedom of association mostly means that wealthy whites can price out blacks and Hispanics, though not NE Asians. But this means that we also price out lower-middle class and working-class whites, leaving them to fend for themselves with expected results (see Coming Apart).

    True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes. Let's put it this way, assume that you had a club that was created by some sect of Presbyterians but was open to public for free. Now, let's assume that this club offered free food, free childcare, a nice community center, a great private school and lots of cute girls. Let's also say that this club was next to some black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Do you think that the blacks and Hispanics would respect the sect's freedom of association and not partake in that club?

    I'm not saying that you're wrong about Mr. Taylor in this case, but freedom of association is no panacea. It works to protect wealthy whites and that's all.

    That being said, if whites have any chance of surviving this period in history (and it's an open question that the majority of us want to survive as a people), a version of freedom of association is our best bet. (Sorry, kids, there will be no civil race war where white create Euroland in the Northwest.) The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups.

    Use your money and organizations to influence politics, media, businesses and academia. And most of all punish those who go after your group. Sue them. Attack them in the media. Threaten their employers.

    Sadly, whites as a group are utterly unsuited for this. We've been on top for so long, we can't even think this way, much less put it into action. Luckily, some of us do think like the Jews. I have tremendous respect for them and how they fight. They are the adults in the room. The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that's an open question.

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn't enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.

    “If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day”? What do you mean by survive? I’m sure our republic will survive (whatever that means exactly) for who knows how long after the United States is transformed into a nonwhite-majority country in which European-Americans are an increasingly dispossessed and persecuted minority -with the exception, largely and for who knows how long, of the rich and affluent.

    Statues to Jared in a nonwhite-majority country?! If Jared lives until the age of 80, he’ll probably die in prison after hate-speech laws are enacted and imposed after Kamala Harris or another leftist, surely a black of either sex or a white female, is elected president in 2020 or 2024, probably murdered by blacks unless he’s enslaved in protective-custody, 23-hours a day in a toilet with bars.

    Fox won’t even allow him to appear on Tucker Carlson. Wouldn’t it be fascinating to hear Jared debate Tucker on average negro intelligence, pandemic black criminality, black-on-white violence. etc.But it will never happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
     
    But isn't your conclusion flawed for the same reason that Taylor's conclusion is flawed: Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks - and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians - will decamp for your area.

    Whites do their best to separate and live on their own. We've been doing it since the 1940s. Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour. And the cycle begins again. Our mostly open borders policy ensures that more blacks and Hispanics will follow.

    Currently, freedom of association mostly means that wealthy whites can price out blacks and Hispanics, though not NE Asians. But this means that we also price out lower-middle class and working-class whites, leaving them to fend for themselves with expected results (see Coming Apart).

    True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes. Let's put it this way, assume that you had a club that was created by some sect of Presbyterians but was open to public for free. Now, let's assume that this club offered free food, free childcare, a nice community center, a great private school and lots of cute girls. Let's also say that this club was next to some black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Do you think that the blacks and Hispanics would respect the sect's freedom of association and not partake in that club?

    I'm not saying that you're wrong about Mr. Taylor in this case, but freedom of association is no panacea. It works to protect wealthy whites and that's all.

    That being said, if whites have any chance of surviving this period in history (and it's an open question that the majority of us want to survive as a people), a version of freedom of association is our best bet. (Sorry, kids, there will be no civil race war where white create Euroland in the Northwest.) The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups.

    Use your money and organizations to influence politics, media, businesses and academia. And most of all punish those who go after your group. Sue them. Attack them in the media. Threaten their employers.

    Sadly, whites as a group are utterly unsuited for this. We've been on top for so long, we can't even think this way, much less put it into action. Luckily, some of us do think like the Jews. I have tremendous respect for them and how they fight. They are the adults in the room. The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that's an open question.

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn't enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn’t enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.

    Freedom of Association implicitly includes the right to not associate or as you put it the “right to exclude”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, I get what you're saying, but in the context of what Derbyshire is talking about (or, at least, what I think that he's talking about), it's more about freedom to live in your own neighborhoods, and, in that regard, allowing white to live around one another doesn't matter because you can't exclude other people from living in those areas.

    We have no right to create a "whites-only" neighborhood or school. I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it.

    While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I'm pretty sure it no longer does - at least for whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Chris Mallory

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn’t enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.
     
    Freedom of Association implicitly includes the right to not associate or as you put it the "right to exclude".

    Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but in the context of what Derbyshire is talking about (or, at least, what I think that he’s talking about), it’s more about freedom to live in your own neighborhoods, and, in that regard, allowing white to live around one another doesn’t matter because you can’t exclude other people from living in those areas.

    We have no right to create a “whites-only” neighborhood or school. I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it.

    While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I’m pretty sure it no longer does – at least for whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    Sorry, you can't justify the right to exclude among citizens of the United States. The best you can push for, and something which I support are 1) speaking out against PC, 2) freedom of speech and freedom of association, and 3) citizens first American nationalism.

    Most people tend to self segregate to a non-trivial extent in terms of who their close social circles are or perhaps where they choose to live. However, in terms of work and school and going about our daily affairs, we've become far too integrated for racial separatism to ever be practical, moral justifications aside. I'm amazed that anyone thinks this is a serious conversation worth having.
    , @MBlanc46
    It used to mean the right to exclude. Restrictive covenants, Jim Crow, etc. I can mean that again if we’re willing to fight for it.
    , @Corvinus
    "We have no right to create a “whites-only” neighborhood or school."

    Of course you have that liberty. There are a number of places you can go here in the States that meet your racial utopia.

    "I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it."

    Considering most white Americans do not refer to themselves as "European-American", I would surmise that such an enterprise would be other than successful.

    "While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I’m pretty sure it no longer does – at least for whites."

    That is because southrons ruined it for everyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. SMK says: • Website

    “We must struggle on forward as best we can, white and black alike.” Yes, black criminals, gangsters, demagogues, hatemongers, politicians, celebrities, professional athletes who protest the mythical evils of systemic “racism” and “police brutality” by kneeling or raising their fists during national anthem, anti-American, white-hating black racialist, “cultural Marxist” pseudo-intellectuals, the Obamas, Al Sharpton, TT ha ha, he-he Coates, ad nauseam, and their anti-white, pro-black white/Jewish sycophants, apologists, and enablers will see to that. And ad Mestizos-Ameridians (including “native Americans) and Muslims to the noxious and inevitably suicidal mix.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Truth says:

    I do, though, fully agree with Jared on the desirability of striking down all legal constraints on private freedom of association.

    What constraints on freedom of association are there? Every American can live anywhere he wants, providing he can afford it. Every American can (theoretically) use every institution. The institutions benefit from taxes which none of us can avoid in their entirety, therefore telling Americans that they cannot use institutions for which they are taxed is taxation without representation, and we already KICKED DERB’S GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDADDY’S BUTT OVER THAT ONE!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    Yeah by and large there are no real constraints on freedom of association in the United States. You can hang out with whoever you want and live wherever you want, provided you can afford it as you've pointed out.

    Now there are edge cases where someone renting out their home isn't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or the likes, but for the most part I think it's relatively uncontroversial that in this country you have freedom of association. What people like Jared Taylor really want is the right to exclude and or the right to form mono-racial sub-regions within America. The question is, who would actually want to live in those areas? I've already provided what I think is the answer. Basically only the racial extremists. The rest of us would happily go about with our lives.

    I'm surprised that men as smart as Derbyshire or Taylor still seriously entertain these sorts of Utopian notions. I've long stated that the current crop of WNs in America would do well to learn from the enormous practicality of someone like Lee Kuan Yew.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Truth says:

    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    They can leave the old man and come live with the Asian community

    Question for you: What's a fine black man like yourself doing on Unz? These white folks are gonna hate you no matter what you say, you know.
    , @SMK
    Only a lunatic would object to John's Chinese wife and half-Chinese son and Daughter.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?
     
    I think JD divides the world into blacks and non-blacks. So this would be an all-non-black community.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Jack Cade says:
    @anarchyst
    As much as I admire Jared Taylor, he still refuses to name the "900 pound elephant in the room". As a result, I have been banned from American Renaissance for pointing this out. It is my humble opinion that American Renaissance is part of the "controlled opposition" movement. I wish that Jared Taylor would see through the "fog". American Renaissance would be much better for it.

    Jared seems to want to carefully craft his message so as not to antagonize very powerful groups such as the women’s lobby and the (((nameless ones))), who have no power nor agency, no sirree! So I used to think he had blind spots, but I now doubt that, he just has his own sphere, and sticks to it. It allows him to continue mol unmolested. For now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Kinda like Pat Buchannan and a few others who cautiously skirt around sensitive issues to avoid being thrown off the Establishment bus?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Anonymous
    You like talking about IQ, and then when you realize you're behind, you ramble about people who score better. What's the difference between you and blacks? Less resistance to skin cancer.

    “What’s the difference between you and blacks?…..”

    And yet, and yet…..It’s the Jew who has aligned himself with blacks for the last 100 years. The Jew who, like the black, shares a gift for gab, both being artists of rap wherein rhetoric trumps Logic (albeit one as a lawyer and one as a misogynist droner). The Jew who, like the black, bemoans his condition as eternal victim and uses this as a crutch with which to beat those whom he hallucinates to be his tormentors.

    Whereas I am a creative builder; one who can take a pile of sticks and make a cultural artifact that is both useful and beautiful, expressing intelligent design. I see little of this capacity in either the Jew or black.

    So, if you are going to array people along a spectrum, then between blacks and I stands the Jew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. KenH says:

    Freedom of association and freedom to disassociate/exclude should go hand in hand, so the gibsmedat people would be unable to follow us. And if this were allowed it would have the same effect as racial separation if there are large numbers of contiguous white communities instead of scattered and isolated enclaves throughout the disunited states although there will still be some in or very near large metropolitan areas currently dominated by non-whites.

    I may me misunderstanding Derb, but he seems concerned with the welfare of blacks if separation were allowed. He shouldn’t be at all because they aren’t concerned for the welfare of he and his. They only care about guilt tripping us and extracting our wealth. So they’re on their own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Jason Liu says:

    Basically it’s freedom of association if a minority does it because western society places moral authority on the “little guy” while stable societies do the exact opposite

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Jason Liu says:
    @Truth
    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?

    They can leave the old man and come live with the Asian community

    Question for you: What’s a fine black man like yourself doing on Unz? These white folks are gonna hate you no matter what you say, you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Hey man, what fun is preaching to the choir? Besides, they all seem to hate each other anyway, so I don't feel left out.
    , @joef

    Question for you: What’s a fine black man like yourself doing on Unz? These white folks are gonna hate you no matter what you say, you know.
     
    ???? Just because some of us strongly disagree with "Truth" does not mean we have to hate him. And its not like your side of the argument is without hate, so stop acting so sanctimonious. Despite it being true that some white nationalist indiscriminately hate everybody, most other white nationalist are simply protecting their rational self interest from Afros/Liberals/Leftist, that hate, and consistently attack, Whites. They became white nationalist by reacting to the other sides proactive enmity. I consider myself a paleocon (and a little bit Reagan Democrat), not a White Nationalist, but I definitely can see why this movement is growing. Saying it is all because of hate is a myopic assessment. The growth of White Nationalist is a response to growing grievances that were created, and ignored, over the last 50 years. It is mostly a defensive movement, not an offensive movement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. SMK says: • Website
    @Truth
    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?

    Only a lunatic would object to John’s Chinese wife and half-Chinese son and Daughter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    A lunatic, or, what's that other thing that would object called?

    Oh yeah, a white NATIONalist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. SMK says: • Website

    Blacks “live independently of us” in Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa.” As a group as opposed to individuals, they don’t have the “human capital” to live well independently of whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. SMK says: • Website

    Forced racial integration in jails and prisons is the most hellish -for whites. In a sane and just and humane and rational country, with governing-classes and ruling-elites who cared more about whites than blacks, forced racial integration in jails and prisons would be viewed and banned as “cruel and unusual punishment” -for whites. So, too, with public schools in cities with large negro populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Right, forced racial integration should have been cause for revolt a long time ago. It's a death sentence for white kids to be forced into majority black schools. They tell us it's so wonderful but you'll find a lot of white kids are psychologically marred by the experience and suffer from symptoms of PTSD.

    The conservatives, or what some like to call cucks, don't have any better answers than the loony liberals. They just think that a little more trickle down economics or tinkering with economic policy and a little less political correctness will lead to multiracial harmony.

    In the 50's and 60's conservatives generally did not believe in racial integration and racial equality. Goes to show how far they've moved to the left on racial issues especially since they now celebrate MLK and the civil rights movement when they bitterly opposed both in the 1960's.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
     
    But isn't your conclusion flawed for the same reason that Taylor's conclusion is flawed: Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks - and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians - will decamp for your area.

    Whites do their best to separate and live on their own. We've been doing it since the 1940s. Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour. And the cycle begins again. Our mostly open borders policy ensures that more blacks and Hispanics will follow.

    Currently, freedom of association mostly means that wealthy whites can price out blacks and Hispanics, though not NE Asians. But this means that we also price out lower-middle class and working-class whites, leaving them to fend for themselves with expected results (see Coming Apart).

    True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes. Let's put it this way, assume that you had a club that was created by some sect of Presbyterians but was open to public for free. Now, let's assume that this club offered free food, free childcare, a nice community center, a great private school and lots of cute girls. Let's also say that this club was next to some black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Do you think that the blacks and Hispanics would respect the sect's freedom of association and not partake in that club?

    I'm not saying that you're wrong about Mr. Taylor in this case, but freedom of association is no panacea. It works to protect wealthy whites and that's all.

    That being said, if whites have any chance of surviving this period in history (and it's an open question that the majority of us want to survive as a people), a version of freedom of association is our best bet. (Sorry, kids, there will be no civil race war where white create Euroland in the Northwest.) The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups.

    Use your money and organizations to influence politics, media, businesses and academia. And most of all punish those who go after your group. Sue them. Attack them in the media. Threaten their employers.

    Sadly, whites as a group are utterly unsuited for this. We've been on top for so long, we can't even think this way, much less put it into action. Luckily, some of us do think like the Jews. I have tremendous respect for them and how they fight. They are the adults in the room. The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that's an open question.

    Regardless, freedom of association probably isn't enough. You also need the freedom to exclude.

    “Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks – and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians – will decamp for your area.”

    Assuming that most whites believe that racial borders are required and mechanisms put in place to ensure that non-whites will avoid “decamping”.

    “Whites do their best to separate and live on their own.”

    SOME whites prefer this lifestyle.

    “Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour.”

    Considering that black and Hispanic citizens in our nation have the liberty to move where they are able to afford, of course they will “follow”.

    “Currently, freedom of association…”

    means that people can live where they prefer and how they prefer.

    “True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes.”

    This ability to exclude has been effectively neutered, thanks to southrons who couldn’t even adhere to the tenets of the Plessy case.

    “The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups.”

    What happens if white people prefer to live among non-white people where they currently reside? Why should they move or be forced to move? Are you not denying their freedom of association?

    “The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that’s an open question.”

    Do you mean “good whites”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "What happens if white people prefer to live among non-white people where they currently reside? Why should they move or be forced to move? "

    They can stay where they are as long as they like. Well as long as the people they are living among find it convenient.

    Actually I think the rub would be if they decided they wanted to move to majority white areas - and found that they were excluded.

    I think if it were possible to deny Californians the right to move to your state, more than you personally think would do it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Yan Shen says:

    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there’s already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it’s hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today’s highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there’s still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor’s suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth… All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren’t nearly as great as he had imagined they would be…

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, "

    Actually I'd say both of those regions aren't "productive." Rather they are distributive - to themselves.

    The rest of America would be better off without them. Nationalize Google, Ebay, Amazon. Use whatever alternative China could ramp up quickly. Or set up some from scratch.

    As for being "cognitive elites" well:

    1) I'm not terribly sure these are the most "elite" elites the world has ever seen.

    2) If their existence doesn't benefit you in any way, and is actually demonstrably harmful, then you are better off without them.

    As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not so sure you don't have your percentages juxtaposed.

    It should be 95% "others," with 5% of what you would call "normal" Americans. Though no one would really be an American anymore, if they are now.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    In no point in your ramble did I see any part which explained why people should be denied freedom of association. Let them associate, or not associate, with whomever they wish.

    Sheesh. Its not complicated.
    , @ThreeCranes
    "I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people."

    That's the very point, dummy. We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Far from ignoring your "cognitive elites" as being "a tribe of sorts" etc, we crow this from the rooftops. We want to get away from your smarmy, self important "tribe". We prefer cognitive elites who build things, like chemists, engineers and such. Anglo Saxons are builders and inventors. You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren't a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.

    The issue is not race per se. It's a matter of baggage. If other races or religions living among us only want to gripe and complain then let them leave. Or we will. But if we do, then they can't follow. We just can't keep carrying the parasitic toxic load of deadbeat whiners and critics who stab us in the back and undermine our productivity. It's especially galling that while they wave the banners of equality and justice, they pad their own nests with unmerited booty.

    Your post is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with?
     
    How many whites have ever been allowed to even think such a thought? None of us have any real idea what whites think because whites are hit with unending anti-white propaganda from day one. Lift that fog and allow whites to consider this without threatening hell and damnation and you might be surprised.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups.
     
    This is true to an extent. But I'd counter that one ethnic group stay loyal to their tribe - as they should.

    The real question is what happens in 50 years when the U.S. is much more like Brazil, where the buffer between rich and poor is razor thin. In addition, what keeps a country together when the various groups have no shared genetics or culture? I'm not saying anything will happen. I'm just saying that our future looks vulnerable whatever race you are.
    , @Chris Mallory
    You might have US citizenship, but you are NOT an American.
    , @renfro
    ''What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians?

    *Nothing would happen

    ''The real rub though is that WNs have no self awareness of just how fringe a minority group they are in this country. Most people, if they were unhappy with the way this country was evolving, would be more against the things I mentioned earlier, i.e. political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association.''

    *Evidently you cant make the connection between americans uphappy about political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association. and the election of Trump.

    ''It’s not my fault that a handful of Chinese in this country are able to exert a disproportionate academic and economic influence. I’ve tried to make this more palatable to my fellow white Americans by pointing out that at least Chinese Americans tend to be disproportionately skewed towards value creation.''

    *Asians have had no academic or economic influence on the US.

    ''The fact of the matter is, given today’s increasingly globalized economy and in particular given the prominence of East Asian global tech and manufacturing supply chains, you would be hard pressed to only buy American or even European. Unless you never want to use another piece of modern day electronics again and live like the Amish, I suspect you’re unlikely to accomplish what you just laid out.''

    * Where have I heard that before?...oh yeah..the Jews tell us that without Israel we wouldnt have computers, phones or cherry tomatoes.

    ''What’s interesting is that a number of the Chinese who come here to the US for undergrad, as opposed to grad school, are actually people who couldn’t test into the very best undergrad universities in China, i.e. the Peking and Tsinghuas of the country. I’ve heard some sentiment along those lines, that in America, especially in quantitative areas, you end up being more competitive than you would be back home. So there’s probably more than a kernel of truth to what you’re speculating.''

    *Thats odd considering that US and European universities outrank Asian Universities.
    Look at the rankings.
    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/shanghai-ranking-academic-ranking-world-universities-2016-results-announced

    So doesnt make sense that Asians flock to the US and European universities that are higher ranked than Asian because Asian are harder to get into? ...because they are superior? I would call this claim bullshit.

    With China leading the pack, foreign students flock to US, hitting record in 2013
    By Renee Schoof - McClatchy Washington Bureau
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24776371.html#storylink=cpy

    You think too highly of your Asian-nesss....while it is typical of minorities to toot their own horn in an effort to elevate their worth....it has the oposite effect on those you are trying to impress. Your tech world is a 'service industry' to the actual 'builders' of the world who in turn create the consumers Silicon Valley depends on to exist.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Sunbeam says:
    @Yan Shen
    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there's already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it's hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today's highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there's still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America's most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor's suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth... All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren't nearly as great as he had imagined they would be...

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual...

    “What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, ”

    Actually I’d say both of those regions aren’t “productive.” Rather they are distributive – to themselves.

    The rest of America would be better off without them. Nationalize Google, Ebay, Amazon. Use whatever alternative China could ramp up quickly. Or set up some from scratch.

    As for being “cognitive elites” well:

    1) I’m not terribly sure these are the most “elite” elites the world has ever seen.

    2) If their existence doesn’t benefit you in any way, and is actually demonstrably harmful, then you are better off without them.

    As for the rest of what you wrote, I’m not so sure you don’t have your percentages juxtaposed.

    It should be 95% “others,” with 5% of what you would call “normal” Americans. Though no one would really be an American anymore, if they are now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Additionally, Russia has freedom of association and it has yet to explode into a pit of incapability given the fact that they can launch people to the ISS and the USA can't at this point.
    , @Yan Shen
    I'm pretty sure you vastly overestimate the percentage of Americans who think that racial separatism is the way to go for this country. Even within the white nationalist blogosphere, it's a minority viewpoint that people like Derbyshire or Sailer would be against.

    Anyone who advocates for racial separatism is just plain dumb. The moral justifications aside, it's an enormously unpractical idea that none of its proponents have adequately thought through. What happens to Silicon Valley or Wall Street? Or for that matter what happens to basically any elite college or university today? Given how integrated we've become in terms of work and school, it's mind boggling that anyone would think racial separatism is a good idea.

    The real rub though is that WNs have no self awareness of just how fringe a minority group they are in this country. Most people, if they were unhappy with the way this country was evolving, would be more against the things I mentioned earlier, i.e. political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association. If allowed a mono-racial white region of the country, I'm fairly certain the only kinds of people who would choose to live there would be Charlottesville style rednecks, with a handful of Jared Taylors or Richard Spencers as shepherds to the flock, so to speak. I imagine that Jared Taylor spends most of his time associating with people in the upper middle to upper socioeconomic statuses, so his new milieu might prove to be a bit of a shock compared to what he was expecting.

    The bottom line is that people like Jared Taylor live in a delusional fantasy land. He could be preaching something at least half-way attainable and morally defensible, such as speaking out against the rampant culture of political correctness in this country, defending a citizens first brand of American nationalism, and arguing for the right of voluntary self-association. Instead he preaches something that will never happen in a million years and that even John Derbyshire, the white Ta Nehisi Coates, thinks can't be morally justified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Sunbeam says:
    @Corvinus
    "Without control of your border (country or neighborhood), blacks – and every other non-white group except perhaps NE Asians – will decamp for your area."

    Assuming that most whites believe that racial borders are required and mechanisms put in place to ensure that non-whites will avoid "decamping".

    "Whites do their best to separate and live on their own."

    SOME whites prefer this lifestyle.

    "Everywhere we go, blacks and Hispanics follow, eventually causing previously pleasant (and white) suburbs to sour."

    Considering that black and Hispanic citizens in our nation have the liberty to move where they are able to afford, of course they will "follow".

    "Currently, freedom of association..."

    means that people can live where they prefer and how they prefer.

    "True freedom of association means having the ability to exclude, much like a church or a Jewish group is as much defined by whom it allows as members as whom it excludes."

    This ability to exclude has been effectively neutered, thanks to southrons who couldn't even adhere to the tenets of the Plessy case.

    "The best model for whites in this country is laid by out the Jews. Form tight-knit communities within the society. Use those communities to create community centers (ones that know how to keep out non-members), schools, business groups and lobby groups."

    What happens if white people prefer to live among non-white people where they currently reside? Why should they move or be forced to move? Are you not denying their freedom of association?

    "The real question is whether enough whites will realize what needs to be done and care enough to do it. Like I said, that’s an open question."

    Do you mean "good whites"?

    “What happens if white people prefer to live among non-white people where they currently reside? Why should they move or be forced to move? ”

    They can stay where they are as long as they like. Well as long as the people they are living among find it convenient.

    Actually I think the rub would be if they decided they wanted to move to majority white areas – and found that they were excluded.

    I think if it were possible to deny Californians the right to move to your state, more than you personally think would do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I think if it were possible to deny Californians the right to move to your state, more than you personally think would do it."

    Assuming that whites generally have a disdain for Californians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Truth says:
    @Jason Liu
    They can leave the old man and come live with the Asian community

    Question for you: What's a fine black man like yourself doing on Unz? These white folks are gonna hate you no matter what you say, you know.

    Hey man, what fun is preaching to the choir? Besides, they all seem to hate each other anyway, so I don’t feel left out.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Truth says:
    @SMK
    Only a lunatic would object to John's Chinese wife and half-Chinese son and Daughter.

    A lunatic, or, what’s that other thing that would object called?

    Oh yeah, a white NATIONalist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Yan Shen
    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there's already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it's hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today's highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there's still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America's most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor's suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth... All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren't nearly as great as he had imagined they would be...

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual...

    In no point in your ramble did I see any part which explained why people should be denied freedom of association. Let them associate, or not associate, with whomever they wish.

    Sheesh. Its not complicated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    You can, right now, in 2017, associate with whomever YOU want to.

    You can not, on the other hand, deny any other American the opportunity to associate with whom HE wants to.

    What's complicated?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Sunbeam
    "What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, "

    Actually I'd say both of those regions aren't "productive." Rather they are distributive - to themselves.

    The rest of America would be better off without them. Nationalize Google, Ebay, Amazon. Use whatever alternative China could ramp up quickly. Or set up some from scratch.

    As for being "cognitive elites" well:

    1) I'm not terribly sure these are the most "elite" elites the world has ever seen.

    2) If their existence doesn't benefit you in any way, and is actually demonstrably harmful, then you are better off without them.

    As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not so sure you don't have your percentages juxtaposed.

    It should be 95% "others," with 5% of what you would call "normal" Americans. Though no one would really be an American anymore, if they are now.

    Additionally, Russia has freedom of association and it has yet to explode into a pit of incapability given the fact that they can launch people to the ISS and the USA can’t at this point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Yan Shen
    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there's already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it's hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today's highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there's still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America's most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor's suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth... All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren't nearly as great as he had imagined they would be...

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual...

    “I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people.”

    That’s the very point, dummy. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. Far from ignoring your “cognitive elites” as being “a tribe of sorts” etc, we crow this from the rooftops. We want to get away from your smarmy, self important “tribe”. We prefer cognitive elites who build things, like chemists, engineers and such. Anglo Saxons are builders and inventors. You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren’t a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.

    The issue is not race per se. It’s a matter of baggage. If other races or religions living among us only want to gripe and complain then let them leave. Or we will. But if we do, then they can’t follow. We just can’t keep carrying the parasitic toxic load of deadbeat whiners and critics who stab us in the back and undermine our productivity. It’s especially galling that while they wave the banners of equality and justice, they pad their own nests with unmerited booty.

    Your post is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yan Shen

    You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren’t a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.
     
    Random aside. Interestingly enough, one of the most obvious facts of modern day economics is that East Asian economies tend to be heavily skewed towards hardware and advanced manufacturing, while Western economies to be skewed more towards software and services. This fact has been noted by various people such as Ron Unz, Eamonn Fingleton, etc but perhaps hasn't been adequately explained. I've pointed out that most likely this is the result of the East Asian skew towards math and away from verbal. The blogger Lion of the Blogosphere was one of the first people to popularize the meme that while mathematical ability is conducive to value creation, verbal ability is conducive to value transference.

    To address your actual post, I think you're missing the point here. The race hustlers and extremists are the only ones complaining by and large! And so the only people who will want to live in these mono-racial regions will be the Black Lives Matter crowd, the Charlottesville rednecks, etc. The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are.

    Most of us who don't drink the liberal Kool-Aid are aiming for more realistic and defensible goals such as speaking out against political correctness, defending freedom of speech and freedom of association, and advocating for citizens first American nationalism. If John Derbyshire is the white Ta Nehisi Coates, then uh maybe Jared Taylor is a white Marcus Garvey or the likes? Not sure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Northern Ireland has effective segregation. I’m surprised Derb doesn’t mention it. Both communities respect ethnic boundaries. Nobody wants to live in the other side’s neighborhoods because they know next time there’s a riot or other disturbance in the area their home will be burned to ground.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Yan Shen says:
    @Sunbeam
    "What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, "

    Actually I'd say both of those regions aren't "productive." Rather they are distributive - to themselves.

    The rest of America would be better off without them. Nationalize Google, Ebay, Amazon. Use whatever alternative China could ramp up quickly. Or set up some from scratch.

    As for being "cognitive elites" well:

    1) I'm not terribly sure these are the most "elite" elites the world has ever seen.

    2) If their existence doesn't benefit you in any way, and is actually demonstrably harmful, then you are better off without them.

    As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not so sure you don't have your percentages juxtaposed.

    It should be 95% "others," with 5% of what you would call "normal" Americans. Though no one would really be an American anymore, if they are now.

    I’m pretty sure you vastly overestimate the percentage of Americans who think that racial separatism is the way to go for this country. Even within the white nationalist blogosphere, it’s a minority viewpoint that people like Derbyshire or Sailer would be against.

    Anyone who advocates for racial separatism is just plain dumb. The moral justifications aside, it’s an enormously unpractical idea that none of its proponents have adequately thought through. What happens to Silicon Valley or Wall Street? Or for that matter what happens to basically any elite college or university today? Given how integrated we’ve become in terms of work and school, it’s mind boggling that anyone would think racial separatism is a good idea.

    The real rub though is that WNs have no self awareness of just how fringe a minority group they are in this country. Most people, if they were unhappy with the way this country was evolving, would be more against the things I mentioned earlier, i.e. political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association. If allowed a mono-racial white region of the country, I’m fairly certain the only kinds of people who would choose to live there would be Charlottesville style rednecks, with a handful of Jared Taylors or Richard Spencers as shepherds to the flock, so to speak. I imagine that Jared Taylor spends most of his time associating with people in the upper middle to upper socioeconomic statuses, so his new milieu might prove to be a bit of a shock compared to what he was expecting.

    The bottom line is that people like Jared Taylor live in a delusional fantasy land. He could be preaching something at least half-way attainable and morally defensible, such as speaking out against the rampant culture of political correctness in this country, defending a citizens first brand of American nationalism, and arguing for the right of voluntary self-association. Instead he preaches something that will never happen in a million years and that even John Derbyshire, the white Ta Nehisi Coates, thinks can’t be morally justified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Seems to have worked for the Chinese in Singapore. They are obviously safer and more prosperous than if they lived in Malaysia. Oh, I grant you Singapore isn't mono-ethnic, but they'd hardly be less prosperous, saving possible geopolitical concerns, if it was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Yan Shen says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, I get what you're saying, but in the context of what Derbyshire is talking about (or, at least, what I think that he's talking about), it's more about freedom to live in your own neighborhoods, and, in that regard, allowing white to live around one another doesn't matter because you can't exclude other people from living in those areas.

    We have no right to create a "whites-only" neighborhood or school. I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it.

    While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I'm pretty sure it no longer does - at least for whites.

    Sorry, you can’t justify the right to exclude among citizens of the United States. The best you can push for, and something which I support are 1) speaking out against PC, 2) freedom of speech and freedom of association, and 3) citizens first American nationalism.

    Most people tend to self segregate to a non-trivial extent in terms of who their close social circles are or perhaps where they choose to live. However, in terms of work and school and going about our daily affairs, we’ve become far too integrated for racial separatism to ever be practical, moral justifications aside. I’m amazed that anyone thinks this is a serious conversation worth having.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Oh, I agree with what you say. My point was simply that in such a heterogeneous society, freedom of association has its limits.

    With regards to any racial/ethnic/religious group, the best that can be hoped for in this society would be akin to what Jews, Muslims and Mormons do, namely create sub-societies within the larger society.

    That all being said, history hasn't been kind to the type of society that has now emerged in the United States. Perhaps we'll be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps modern wealth will be enough to keep various groups from going after one another, i.e. you don't need to kill the other to feed your family. Either way, I would be utterly stunned if anything dramatic happened in my lifetime and wouldn't be surprised (indeed, I almost expect it) if we just drift toward a Brazil-like future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Yan Shen says:
    @Truth

    I do, though, fully agree with Jared on the desirability of striking down all legal constraints on private freedom of association.
     
    What constraints on freedom of association are there? Every American can live anywhere he wants, providing he can afford it. Every American can (theoretically) use every institution. The institutions benefit from taxes which none of us can avoid in their entirety, therefore telling Americans that they cannot use institutions for which they are taxed is taxation without representation, and we already KICKED DERB'S GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDADDY'S BUTT OVER THAT ONE!

    Yeah by and large there are no real constraints on freedom of association in the United States. You can hang out with whoever you want and live wherever you want, provided you can afford it as you’ve pointed out.

    Now there are edge cases where someone renting out their home isn’t allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or the likes, but for the most part I think it’s relatively uncontroversial that in this country you have freedom of association. What people like Jared Taylor really want is the right to exclude and or the right to form mono-racial sub-regions within America. The question is, who would actually want to live in those areas? I’ve already provided what I think is the answer. Basically only the racial extremists. The rest of us would happily go about with our lives.

    I’m surprised that men as smart as Derbyshire or Taylor still seriously entertain these sorts of Utopian notions. I’ve long stated that the current crop of WNs in America would do well to learn from the enormous practicality of someone like Lee Kuan Yew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Now there are edge cases where someone renting out their home isn’t allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or the likes, but for the most part I think it’s relatively uncontroversial that in this country you have freedom of association. What people like Jared Taylor really want is the right to exclude and or the right to form mono-racial sub-regions within America. The question is, who would actually want to live in those areas? I’ve already provided what I think is the answer. Basically only the racial extremists. The rest of us would happily go about with our lives.
     
    Yup, and I watched Jared Taylor's video above: The guy always sounds like a 9-year old dreaming and doodling on his civics notebook. As I said earlier, if you have a neighborhood which Derb wants "no blacks", and his neighbor a "real" white man wants "only whites", should Derb have to pack his ass up and move beyond the city limits with his wife and kids?

    If you are a real intellectual you think about these things, posers like Taylor don't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Yan Shen says:

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.

    But by and large there currently isn’t any denial of freedom of association in this country Derb. I noticed you put up a picture of a Slate article on Airbnb, hence why I mentioned that there were some edge case areas here and there, such as who you’re allowed to rent out your property to, etc. But this for the most part doesn’t contradict my claim that in general you’re allowed to hang out with whoever you want and live whenever you want, provided you can afford it. Now maybe my life experiences are different from those of others, but I’ve never felt that in this country I was ever prevented from doing either one of those 2 things.

    I generally don’t disagree with your observations about blacks, but given that no one is getting deported from this country who are citizens and given that you can simply choose not to live in heavily black areas, I wonder if there are perhaps more constructive approaches towards struggling onward as best we can, white and black alike, as you’ve so aptly put it. I haven’t thought this through that thoroughly, but I think where you and I differ is that even though I embrace race realism, I don’t shout from the top of my lungs at every given opportunity to anyone who’ll listen that blacks are basically less intelligent, more violent, and incapable of sustaining civilization, not because I think it’s false, but because I’m skeptical that it’ll constructively move us towards anything meaningful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    But by and large there currently isn’t any denial of freedom of association in this country Derb. I noticed you put up a picture of a Slate article on Airbnb, hence why I mentioned that there were some edge case areas here and there, such as who you’re allowed to rent out your property to, etc. But this for the most part doesn’t contradict my claim that in general you’re allowed to hang out with whoever you want and live whenever you want, provided you can afford it.
    ------------------------------------
    Is this an argument for or against anti-discrimination laws?
    , @epochehusserl
    I generally don’t disagree with your observations about blacks, but given that no one is getting deported from this country who are citizens and given that you can simply choose not to live in heavily black areas, I wonder if there are perhaps more constructive approaches towards struggling onward as best we can, white and black alike, as you’ve so aptly put it. I haven’t thought this through that thoroughly, but I think where you and I differ is that even though I embrace race realism, I don’t shout from the top of my lungs at every given opportunity to anyone who’ll listen that blacks are basically less intelligent, more violent, and incapable of sustaining civilization, not because I think it’s false, but because I’m skeptical that it’ll constructively move us towards anything meaningful.
    ------------------------
    Most of the people here dont like to shout race realism at the top of our lungs but we have do gooders shouting racism at us if we object to anything based upon reality. The number one reality that is ignored is:
    1. Property really only has value insofar as the threshold of blacks in the local school district is kept below a certain percentage.
    People both Asians and Whites plan their lives upon this reality. Most people DO NOT WANT TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO A MAJORITY BLACK SCHOOL. Liberal white women who are the biggest agitators for white racial guilt do not want to send their kids to a majority blacks school. People ignore this reality at their own peril.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Yan Shen says:
    @ThreeCranes
    "I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people."

    That's the very point, dummy. We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Far from ignoring your "cognitive elites" as being "a tribe of sorts" etc, we crow this from the rooftops. We want to get away from your smarmy, self important "tribe". We prefer cognitive elites who build things, like chemists, engineers and such. Anglo Saxons are builders and inventors. You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren't a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.

    The issue is not race per se. It's a matter of baggage. If other races or religions living among us only want to gripe and complain then let them leave. Or we will. But if we do, then they can't follow. We just can't keep carrying the parasitic toxic load of deadbeat whiners and critics who stab us in the back and undermine our productivity. It's especially galling that while they wave the banners of equality and justice, they pad their own nests with unmerited booty.

    Your post is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

    You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren’t a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.

    Random aside. Interestingly enough, one of the most obvious facts of modern day economics is that East Asian economies tend to be heavily skewed towards hardware and advanced manufacturing, while Western economies to be skewed more towards software and services. This fact has been noted by various people such as Ron Unz, Eamonn Fingleton, etc but perhaps hasn’t been adequately explained. I’ve pointed out that most likely this is the result of the East Asian skew towards math and away from verbal. The blogger Lion of the Blogosphere was one of the first people to popularize the meme that while mathematical ability is conducive to value creation, verbal ability is conducive to value transference.

    To address your actual post, I think you’re missing the point here. The race hustlers and extremists are the only ones complaining by and large! And so the only people who will want to live in these mono-racial regions will be the Black Lives Matter crowd, the Charlottesville rednecks, etc. The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are.

    Most of us who don’t drink the liberal Kool-Aid are aiming for more realistic and defensible goals such as speaking out against political correctness, defending freedom of speech and freedom of association, and advocating for citizens first American nationalism. If John Derbyshire is the white Ta Nehisi Coates, then uh maybe Jared Taylor is a white Marcus Garvey or the likes? Not sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Good points. As a math top-heavy guy myself I have always agreed with Fingleton and his mentor, Thorstein Veblen. And, for what it's worth, I personally have always liked Japanese and Korean people, admire their skills and orderly lifestyles. As you say, they are compatible with the West though the USA cannot become the overflow valve for China without becoming something very different than the USA of yesterday and today. Our coastal "elites" don't mind being crowded into ghettos but we Anglos like our patch of green, love to wander in fields and woods.
    , @Carroll Price

    The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are
     
    .

    Wrong. White people don't live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood. Same thing applies to public schools. The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it's forced on the American people at the point of bayonets. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Did the Soviet Union break up along ethnic and national lines? It sure looks to me like it broke up along arbitrary Soviet provincial lines, and the disparity between that and ethnicity has been afflicting the whole region ever since…

    Which raises the question, precisely where would you draw the borders if you were to break up the US? Cutting along state lines would be pretty atrocious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. KenH says:
    @SMK
    Forced racial integration in jails and prisons is the most hellish -for whites. In a sane and just and humane and rational country, with governing-classes and ruling-elites who cared more about whites than blacks, forced racial integration in jails and prisons would be viewed and banned as "cruel and unusual punishment" -for whites. So, too, with public schools in cities with large negro populations.

    Right, forced racial integration should have been cause for revolt a long time ago. It’s a death sentence for white kids to be forced into majority black schools. They tell us it’s so wonderful but you’ll find a lot of white kids are psychologically marred by the experience and suffer from symptoms of PTSD.

    The conservatives, or what some like to call cucks, don’t have any better answers than the loony liberals. They just think that a little more trickle down economics or tinkering with economic policy and a little less political correctness will lead to multiracial harmony.

    In the 50′s and 60′s conservatives generally did not believe in racial integration and racial equality. Goes to show how far they’ve moved to the left on racial issues especially since they now celebrate MLK and the civil rights movement when they bitterly opposed both in the 1960′s.

    Read More
    • Agree: joef
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Corvinus says:
    @Sunbeam
    "What happens if white people prefer to live among non-white people where they currently reside? Why should they move or be forced to move? "

    They can stay where they are as long as they like. Well as long as the people they are living among find it convenient.

    Actually I think the rub would be if they decided they wanted to move to majority white areas - and found that they were excluded.

    I think if it were possible to deny Californians the right to move to your state, more than you personally think would do it.

    “I think if it were possible to deny Californians the right to move to your state, more than you personally think would do it.”

    Assuming that whites generally have a disdain for Californians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. TheJester says:

    We already have racial segregation of a sort. Blacks tend to self-segregate, even as they attend prestigious white universities or live in the suburbs. You know, the need for ethnic solidarity and “safe spaces” free of white oppression and privilege. At universities, blacks are increasingly pressing for their own dorms and other segregated amenities where they can live and study among their own kind. Indeed, blacks even have their own curriculum that only they can major in … Black Studies. (BTW: Michelle Obama minored in African American Studies at Princeton (ref. Wiki).

    The problem with large-scale racial segregation that consolidates different racial and cultural group in geographically-defined stand-alone countries is that we already have an incredibly large numbers of “Bantustans” spread throughout the country with no practical way to separate them from the neighboring white communities that subsidize them nor create the infrastructure necessary for them to live by themselves.

    The best option is to return to the segregation found in pre-integration days … they have their neighborhoods and we have ours; they have their institutions and we have ours. Since integration has been a dismal failure (either blacks cannot or do not want to integrate as evidenced by their expressed desire for their own national, racial, and cultural identity separate from white society), the re-segregation of American society is inevitable. Indeed, it is already occurring from its own dynamic. Washington D.C. is a case in point.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The best option is to return to the segregation found in pre-integration days … they have their neighborhoods and we have ours; they have their institutions and we have ours.
     
    Again, Freedom of Association would not be enough to allow this to happen. White neighborhoods and institutions would be far superior to black and Hispanics ones, causing blacks and Hispanics to move to white areas.

    In pre-integration days, whites had the freedom to exclude as well as the freedom of association. It's the only way it works.

    Washington D.C. is a case in point.

     

    Yes, for higher income whites. What about blue collar whites. They can't price blacks and Hispanics out of their neighborhoods. I know DC. How many blue collar whites live in DC or Arlington or Bethesda. Practically none. They've been pushed out along with the blacks and Hispanics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. songbird says:
    @Yan Shen
    I'm pretty sure you vastly overestimate the percentage of Americans who think that racial separatism is the way to go for this country. Even within the white nationalist blogosphere, it's a minority viewpoint that people like Derbyshire or Sailer would be against.

    Anyone who advocates for racial separatism is just plain dumb. The moral justifications aside, it's an enormously unpractical idea that none of its proponents have adequately thought through. What happens to Silicon Valley or Wall Street? Or for that matter what happens to basically any elite college or university today? Given how integrated we've become in terms of work and school, it's mind boggling that anyone would think racial separatism is a good idea.

    The real rub though is that WNs have no self awareness of just how fringe a minority group they are in this country. Most people, if they were unhappy with the way this country was evolving, would be more against the things I mentioned earlier, i.e. political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association. If allowed a mono-racial white region of the country, I'm fairly certain the only kinds of people who would choose to live there would be Charlottesville style rednecks, with a handful of Jared Taylors or Richard Spencers as shepherds to the flock, so to speak. I imagine that Jared Taylor spends most of his time associating with people in the upper middle to upper socioeconomic statuses, so his new milieu might prove to be a bit of a shock compared to what he was expecting.

    The bottom line is that people like Jared Taylor live in a delusional fantasy land. He could be preaching something at least half-way attainable and morally defensible, such as speaking out against the rampant culture of political correctness in this country, defending a citizens first brand of American nationalism, and arguing for the right of voluntary self-association. Instead he preaches something that will never happen in a million years and that even John Derbyshire, the white Ta Nehisi Coates, thinks can't be morally justified.

    Seems to have worked for the Chinese in Singapore. They are obviously safer and more prosperous than if they lived in Malaysia. Oh, I grant you Singapore isn’t mono-ethnic, but they’d hardly be less prosperous, saving possible geopolitical concerns, if it was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. anarchyst says:

    We have not had “freedom of association” since the so-called “Civil-rights act of 1964″ was enacted. Although enacted in (somewhat) “good faith”, it has degenerated into a “racial spoils” system.

    From businesses being sued (and put out of business) for refusing to abandon their religious principles to “civil-rights” protections not applying to whites (especially white males), this whole “civil-rights” situation is a sham.

    The “civil-rights division” of the U S Justice Department (actually “just us”) stated that “civil-rights” protections do not apply to whites, but only to “people of color” who “cannot be racist”. According to them, only whites can be “racist”.

    Since the “civil-rights” protections do not apply to whites, I see no reason to abide by their dictates. As far as I am concerned, constitutional rights trump “civil-rights” every time…

    The “pushback” is already starting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. anarchyst says:

    “Racism” is a word that was invented by communists in order to destabilize non-communist cultures and societies.
    True “racism” does not connote either superiority or inferiority of ANY race, but merely reinforces the commonality of like-minded individuals of any particular race or culture. It is not “racist” for wanting to interact with those “of your own kind”. It is not “racist” to express preferences for those that are like you. It is not “racist” for desiring the ability to form organizations for those of your own race.
    Every race (but whites) has organizations that promote their respective cultures and celebrates the cohesiveness and cultural insularity that races (other than white) find so desirable.
    Blacks have the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the ADL and $PLC. All three of these races are complimented for their “racial solidarity” and encouraged to support their respective race-based organizations.
    It is only whites that are marginalized (and made to feel inferior, and even criminal) for attempting to promote their own racial solidarity and insularity. WHY??
    Whites are of the only race in human history that has put the interests of other races ahead of its own. Outward-directed altruism by whites has resulted in so-called “civil-rights” laws and statutes, “affirmative action” (for “people of color” only), “contract “set-asides” and preferences (available only to “people of color”), special scholarships,loans and grants and the abolition of “freedom of association” (applicable only to whites) replaced by forced “public accommodation” (applicable only to whites)–other races can refuse services to whites with impunity.
    Whites have bent over backwards in order to assure “fair treatment” (actually preferential treatment) for “people of color”.
    It is only a matter of time before whites are a distinct “minority” in the United States of America, although, on a worldwide basis, whites have ALWAYS been a distinct minority.
    You can bet that, in a few years, when the “tables are turned” and whites become a minority in the USA, the same special “civil-rights” considerations given to “people of color” will NOT be available to minority whites.
    This misplaced externalized “white altruism” must be abolished and replaced with inward-placed altruism that promotes white interests.
    Multiculturalism and diversity are recipes for marginalization and ultimate destruction of the white race.
    Recently, a group of minority students was asked “what would happen if all whites disappeared from the face of the earth?” After serious soul-searching by the group, one student stood up and remarked “we’d be screwed”. Despite denials by those of every other race, it is whites that have made it possible for today’s first-world societies to exist and prosper, benefiting people of ALL races.
    Multiculturalism and diversity are recipes for white genocide…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Agreed. One need look only to The Republic of South Africa and Zimbabwe (formally Rhodesia) to see what happens when white rule is replaced by black rule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Yan Shen

    You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren’t a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.
     
    Random aside. Interestingly enough, one of the most obvious facts of modern day economics is that East Asian economies tend to be heavily skewed towards hardware and advanced manufacturing, while Western economies to be skewed more towards software and services. This fact has been noted by various people such as Ron Unz, Eamonn Fingleton, etc but perhaps hasn't been adequately explained. I've pointed out that most likely this is the result of the East Asian skew towards math and away from verbal. The blogger Lion of the Blogosphere was one of the first people to popularize the meme that while mathematical ability is conducive to value creation, verbal ability is conducive to value transference.

    To address your actual post, I think you're missing the point here. The race hustlers and extremists are the only ones complaining by and large! And so the only people who will want to live in these mono-racial regions will be the Black Lives Matter crowd, the Charlottesville rednecks, etc. The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are.

    Most of us who don't drink the liberal Kool-Aid are aiming for more realistic and defensible goals such as speaking out against political correctness, defending freedom of speech and freedom of association, and advocating for citizens first American nationalism. If John Derbyshire is the white Ta Nehisi Coates, then uh maybe Jared Taylor is a white Marcus Garvey or the likes? Not sure.

    Good points. As a math top-heavy guy myself I have always agreed with Fingleton and his mentor, Thorstein Veblen. And, for what it’s worth, I personally have always liked Japanese and Korean people, admire their skills and orderly lifestyles. As you say, they are compatible with the West though the USA cannot become the overflow valve for China without becoming something very different than the USA of yesterday and today. Our coastal “elites” don’t mind being crowded into ghettos but we Anglos like our patch of green, love to wander in fields and woods.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Yan Shen
    Sorry, you can't justify the right to exclude among citizens of the United States. The best you can push for, and something which I support are 1) speaking out against PC, 2) freedom of speech and freedom of association, and 3) citizens first American nationalism.

    Most people tend to self segregate to a non-trivial extent in terms of who their close social circles are or perhaps where they choose to live. However, in terms of work and school and going about our daily affairs, we've become far too integrated for racial separatism to ever be practical, moral justifications aside. I'm amazed that anyone thinks this is a serious conversation worth having.

    Oh, I agree with what you say. My point was simply that in such a heterogeneous society, freedom of association has its limits.

    With regards to any racial/ethnic/religious group, the best that can be hoped for in this society would be akin to what Jews, Muslims and Mormons do, namely create sub-societies within the larger society.

    That all being said, history hasn’t been kind to the type of society that has now emerged in the United States. Perhaps we’ll be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps modern wealth will be enough to keep various groups from going after one another, i.e. you don’t need to kill the other to feed your family. Either way, I would be utterly stunned if anything dramatic happened in my lifetime and wouldn’t be surprised (indeed, I almost expect it) if we just drift toward a Brazil-like future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Truth says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    In no point in your ramble did I see any part which explained why people should be denied freedom of association. Let them associate, or not associate, with whomever they wish.

    Sheesh. Its not complicated.

    You can, right now, in 2017, associate with whomever YOU want to.

    You can not, on the other hand, deny any other American the opportunity to associate with whom HE wants to.

    What’s complicated?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You can't exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances, which matters immeasureably. Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone? Why do you have to welcome everyone into your suburb?

    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to. If that's what they want, I have no reason to impose myself upon them.

    Likely most whites wouldn't go so exclusive, much like in Russia where despite the fact that you can ban people from your apartment complex, most landlords don't go for it. But I don't see why you shouldn't give people the option.

    I do think it'll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren't part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.

    , @Carroll Price
    It is true that you are free to associate with whomever you want to, but also true that you can be and often are forced to associate with those whom you do not want to associate. As far as I can determine, no one is attempting to bar anyone from associating with those they choose to associate, but instead would like to not be forced to associate with those they had rather not associate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Truth says:
    @Yan Shen
    Yeah by and large there are no real constraints on freedom of association in the United States. You can hang out with whoever you want and live wherever you want, provided you can afford it as you've pointed out.

    Now there are edge cases where someone renting out their home isn't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or the likes, but for the most part I think it's relatively uncontroversial that in this country you have freedom of association. What people like Jared Taylor really want is the right to exclude and or the right to form mono-racial sub-regions within America. The question is, who would actually want to live in those areas? I've already provided what I think is the answer. Basically only the racial extremists. The rest of us would happily go about with our lives.

    I'm surprised that men as smart as Derbyshire or Taylor still seriously entertain these sorts of Utopian notions. I've long stated that the current crop of WNs in America would do well to learn from the enormous practicality of someone like Lee Kuan Yew.

    Now there are edge cases where someone renting out their home isn’t allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or the likes, but for the most part I think it’s relatively uncontroversial that in this country you have freedom of association. What people like Jared Taylor really want is the right to exclude and or the right to form mono-racial sub-regions within America. The question is, who would actually want to live in those areas? I’ve already provided what I think is the answer. Basically only the racial extremists. The rest of us would happily go about with our lives.

    Yup, and I watched Jared Taylor’s video above: The guy always sounds like a 9-year old dreaming and doodling on his civics notebook. As I said earlier, if you have a neighborhood which Derb wants “no blacks”, and his neighbor a “real” white man wants “only whites”, should Derb have to pack his ass up and move beyond the city limits with his wife and kids?

    If you are a real intellectual you think about these things, posers like Taylor don’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @TheJester
    We already have racial segregation of a sort. Blacks tend to self-segregate, even as they attend prestigious white universities or live in the suburbs. You know, the need for ethnic solidarity and "safe spaces" free of white oppression and privilege. At universities, blacks are increasingly pressing for their own dorms and other segregated amenities where they can live and study among their own kind. Indeed, blacks even have their own curriculum that only they can major in ... Black Studies. (BTW: Michelle Obama minored in African American Studies at Princeton (ref. Wiki).

    The problem with large-scale racial segregation that consolidates different racial and cultural group in geographically-defined stand-alone countries is that we already have an incredibly large numbers of "Bantustans" spread throughout the country with no practical way to separate them from the neighboring white communities that subsidize them nor create the infrastructure necessary for them to live by themselves.

    The best option is to return to the segregation found in pre-integration days ... they have their neighborhoods and we have ours; they have their institutions and we have ours. Since integration has been a dismal failure (either blacks cannot or do not want to integrate as evidenced by their expressed desire for their own national, racial, and cultural identity separate from white society), the re-segregation of American society is inevitable. Indeed, it is already occurring from its own dynamic. Washington D.C. is a case in point.

    The best option is to return to the segregation found in pre-integration days … they have their neighborhoods and we have ours; they have their institutions and we have ours.

    Again, Freedom of Association would not be enough to allow this to happen. White neighborhoods and institutions would be far superior to black and Hispanics ones, causing blacks and Hispanics to move to white areas.

    In pre-integration days, whites had the freedom to exclude as well as the freedom of association. It’s the only way it works.

    Washington D.C. is a case in point.

    Yes, for higher income whites. What about blue collar whites. They can’t price blacks and Hispanics out of their neighborhoods. I know DC. How many blue collar whites live in DC or Arlington or Bethesda. Practically none. They’ve been pushed out along with the blacks and Hispanics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Yan Shen
    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there's already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it's hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today's highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there's still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America's most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor's suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth... All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren't nearly as great as he had imagined they would be...

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual...

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with?

    How many whites have ever been allowed to even think such a thought? None of us have any real idea what whites think because whites are hit with unending anti-white propaganda from day one. Lift that fog and allow whites to consider this without threatening hell and damnation and you might be surprised.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups.

    This is true to an extent. But I’d counter that one ethnic group stay loyal to their tribe – as they should.

    The real question is what happens in 50 years when the U.S. is much more like Brazil, where the buffer between rich and poor is razor thin. In addition, what keeps a country together when the various groups have no shared genetics or culture? I’m not saying anything will happen. I’m just saying that our future looks vulnerable whatever race you are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. “…causing blacks and Hispanics to move to white areas.”

    In reality, the middle-class white pays for his own dispossession because his tax dollar goes to ne’er-do-wells’ Section 8 housing which relocates them into middle class neighborhoods. This is the point Truth and others above gloss over. Since American’s savings is largely in their home equity, any devaluation of neighborhood is catastrophic for their life planning.

    Truth and Corvinus are incorrigible liars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    In reality, the middle-class white pays for his own dispossession
     
    No Sport, you are absolutely right. In this and everything else, the middle-class white pays the wealthy white for his own dispossession.

    I'm glad you have figured this out. Now DO SOMETHING TO YOUR ENEMY ABOUT IT.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Truth
    You can, right now, in 2017, associate with whomever YOU want to.

    You can not, on the other hand, deny any other American the opportunity to associate with whom HE wants to.

    What's complicated?

    You can’t exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances, which matters immeasureably. Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone? Why do you have to welcome everyone into your suburb?

    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to. If that’s what they want, I have no reason to impose myself upon them.

    Likely most whites wouldn’t go so exclusive, much like in Russia where despite the fact that you can ban people from your apartment complex, most landlords don’t go for it. But I don’t see why you shouldn’t give people the option.

    I do think it’ll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren’t part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Truth

    You can’t exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances,
     
    Is there some law, that I am unaware of, that forces you to play Grand Theft Auto with black dudes?

    Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone?
     

    I have explained this multiple times, but here goes again: We ALL pay taxes of one sort or another, property, income, social security, sales, etc. Taxes are paid for the COMMON GOOD of the community. We don't get to say exactly were the %6 we pay on our television set goes, but we realize that it goes to our city, county, state or country for the projects that the people that we have elected, have earkmarked, FOR OUR GOOD.

    If you have a restaurant, you take advantage of the sewers, trash pickup, electricity, water, police and fire protection and the like that I have paid for, so how can you exclude me from using MY facilities.

    It really doesn't take a genius, Danny.


    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to.
     
    Well that's really big of you. What if they want to exclude you and your kids but not your wife. What if they change the rules in your neighborhood because they want you to leave? This is the right Jared Taylor is arguing for above. Are you going to be a good-little Chinese Boy, and just say "yessir, yessir I will be out tomorrow sir" and move into the Chinese neighborhood? What the hell did you leave China for in that case?
    , @Truth

    I do think it’ll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren’t part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.
     
    Oh, I didn't read all the way down before I posted, Sorry.

    Hey man, it's all good, the white folks will always need Hop Sings...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EJebBY-Yk0
    , @epochehusserl
    I agree with you but...

    Let's start off small, let's prohibit racial quotas in hiring first. Before you can fly you have walk, before you can walk you have to crawl. Therefore,

    Let's work on get rid of disparate impact. Let's pass laws stating any judge imposing racial quotas should be disbarred.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. The crux of the problem is that “elite” whites promulgate anti-white racism with an almost religious zealotry.

    You begin with the premise that “racism” — now defined as making ethnic jokes or even noticing differences in aptitudes or crime rates between different racial groups — is the original sin in our post-Christian civic religion.

    Next, understand how promulgation of dubious “racism” rackets is a win-win proposition for the white elites, who I will concede are often very clever, hard-working and accomplished.

    Win: You get to feel good about yourself by denouncing racism. There are undoubtedly issues of projection or transference here: Transferring the guilt you feel over looking for a house in a “nice neighborhood” onto less refined classes of people.

    Win: Affirmative action means less qualified competition for you, whether in the workplace or academia. Once you get in, keep everybody else out.

    Collect enough of the “talented tenth” around you to act as an amulet (to steal Derb’s word) against charges of your own “racism.”

    Where’s the cost to you, personally? Sure, you may be wrecking your civilization and screwing over your grandkids, but, meh, who can afford kids anyway?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. If you are forced to associate, then you do not have Freedom to Associate. Without the Right to Discriminate, there is no free association.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If you are forced to associate, then you do not have Freedom to Associate. Without the Right to Discriminate, there is no free association."

    Except you are other than forced to associate. You have the liberty to live among your own kind. Just do not expect some of your kind who live among you to be forced to discriminate merely because you say I must. In other words, if I lived in your neighborhood, and chose to rent my upper flat to a darkie, you have no right to intercede. Furthermore, freedom of association does not mean unfettered freedom of association. Freedom of association in our society has legalities behind it. Damn those southrons who had outright refused to adhere to the basic tenets as espoused in the Plessy case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Yan Shen
    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there's already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it's hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today's highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there's still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America's most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor's suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth... All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren't nearly as great as he had imagined they would be...

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual...

    You might have US citizenship, but you are NOT an American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Freedom of association implies freedom to do business with whom you want and freedom to reside in communities that reflect your ethnic character.

    Sadly, the diversity schemers won’t allow freedom of association for everyone because it might allow a white Christian minority to thrive and prosper.

    Diversity schemers demonize and marginalize and compel the federal government to discriminate against a white Christian minority, and they’ve been very successful doing it so far.

    Diversity schemers won’t stop their scheming based on moral or rational arguments, so political and physical separation may be the answer.

    Their diversity utopia is a idiocracy and de-evolution.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Truth says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    You can't exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances, which matters immeasureably. Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone? Why do you have to welcome everyone into your suburb?

    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to. If that's what they want, I have no reason to impose myself upon them.

    Likely most whites wouldn't go so exclusive, much like in Russia where despite the fact that you can ban people from your apartment complex, most landlords don't go for it. But I don't see why you shouldn't give people the option.

    I do think it'll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren't part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.

    You can’t exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances,

    Is there some law, that I am unaware of, that forces you to play Grand Theft Auto with black dudes?

    Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone?

    I have explained this multiple times, but here goes again: We ALL pay taxes of one sort or another, property, income, social security, sales, etc. Taxes are paid for the COMMON GOOD of the community. We don’t get to say exactly were the %6 we pay on our television set goes, but we realize that it goes to our city, county, state or country for the projects that the people that we have elected, have earkmarked, FOR OUR GOOD.

    If you have a restaurant, you take advantage of the sewers, trash pickup, electricity, water, police and fire protection and the like that I have paid for, so how can you exclude me from using MY facilities.

    It really doesn’t take a genius, Danny.

    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to.

    Well that’s really big of you. What if they want to exclude you and your kids but not your wife. What if they change the rules in your neighborhood because they want you to leave? This is the right Jared Taylor is arguing for above. Are you going to be a good-little Chinese Boy, and just say “yessir, yessir I will be out tomorrow sir” and move into the Chinese neighborhood? What the hell did you leave China for in that case?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You've become a lot better writer, Truth, but just more duplicitous.

    I've got a one word answer to your incorrect comment:

    DETROIT
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Truth says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    You can't exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances, which matters immeasureably. Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone? Why do you have to welcome everyone into your suburb?

    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to. If that's what they want, I have no reason to impose myself upon them.

    Likely most whites wouldn't go so exclusive, much like in Russia where despite the fact that you can ban people from your apartment complex, most landlords don't go for it. But I don't see why you shouldn't give people the option.

    I do think it'll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren't part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.

    I do think it’ll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren’t part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.

    Oh, I didn’t read all the way down before I posted, Sorry.

    Hey man, it’s all good, the white folks will always need Hop Sings…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. renfro says:
    @Yan Shen
    Racial separation just seems like a dumb idea for the US. First, there's already self-segregation to a non-trivial extent in this country right? Generally speaking, people tend to be prefer to be around others of their own ethnic group. But the idea that we could somehow splinter off into distinct mono-racial regions is just plain dumb.

    How many people in this country, other than a tiny fringe minority of white nationalists, would want such a thing to begin with? Most people would much rather prefer a clampdown on political correctness, more stringent immigration control, and freedom of association. But it would be naive to assume that this would naturally result in the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor seems to be such a huge proponent of. Although race certainly is a salient dimension of tribal affiliation, it's hardly the only one, especially in a country as multicultural as the United States. Other factors such as intelligence or ideology have become increasingly more relevant as markers of self identity in today's highly globalized economy.

    I argued before that the fallacy of white nationalism was in ignoring the fact that the cognitive elites in this country probably feel more in common with one another than with the bottom halves of the bell curves of their respective ethnic groups. Silicon Valley is a great example of this. You can almost think of it as a tribe of sorts, albeit one formed on the basis of intellectual aptitude and commonality of interests. The Bay Area is highly multi-ethnic and tech in general is made up of smart, technically oriented people who enjoy being around and working with other smart and technically oriented people. Of course, there's still non-trivial self-segregation given that you have Asian American enclaves in certain places in the Bay Area and you have white American enclaves in certain other areas, etc. However, the idea that any large contiguous region of the country would want to become entirely mono-racial just seems like an utter delusion. What would happen to some of America's most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians? My guess is almost none of the cognitive elites in this country would support the kind of racial separatism that Jared Taylor is advocating for.

    What would happen is that if we took Mr. Taylor's suggestion and created mono-racial regions for those who believed in racial separatism, the only kinds of people who would choose to live in those areas would be the extremists. So the Black Lives Matter crowd would flee to the black region, along with the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country. The white region would by and large be comprised of blue collar Charlottesville style rednecks, along with a handful of Jared Taylors and Richard Spencers or the likes. The Hispanic region would be comprised of the La Raza and reconqusita folks. And so on and so forth... All of a sudden, Mr. Taylor would realize that his next door neighbors weren't nearly as great as he had imagined they would be...

    Meanwhile for the remaining 95%+ of us normal Americans, life would go on as usual...

    ”What would happen to some of America’s most productive regions such as Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc. that have a highly diverse mix of whites, Jews, East Asians and South Asians?

    *Nothing would happen

    ”The real rub though is that WNs have no self awareness of just how fringe a minority group they are in this country. Most people, if they were unhappy with the way this country was evolving, would be more against the things I mentioned earlier, i.e. political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association.”

    *Evidently you cant make the connection between americans uphappy about political correctness, unbridled immigration, being denied freedom of association. and the election of Trump.

    ”It’s not my fault that a handful of Chinese in this country are able to exert a disproportionate academic and economic influence. I’ve tried to make this more palatable to my fellow white Americans by pointing out that at least Chinese Americans tend to be disproportionately skewed towards value creation.”

    *Asians have had no academic or economic influence on the US.

    ”The fact of the matter is, given today’s increasingly globalized economy and in particular given the prominence of East Asian global tech and manufacturing supply chains, you would be hard pressed to only buy American or even European. Unless you never want to use another piece of modern day electronics again and live like the Amish, I suspect you’re unlikely to accomplish what you just laid out.”

    * Where have I heard that before?…oh yeah..the Jews tell us that without Israel we wouldnt have computers, phones or cherry tomatoes.

    ”What’s interesting is that a number of the Chinese who come here to the US for undergrad, as opposed to grad school, are actually people who couldn’t test into the very best undergrad universities in China, i.e. the Peking and Tsinghuas of the country. I’ve heard some sentiment along those lines, that in America, especially in quantitative areas, you end up being more competitive than you would be back home. So there’s probably more than a kernel of truth to what you’re speculating.”

    *Thats odd considering that US and European universities outrank Asian Universities.
    Look at the rankings.

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/shanghai-ranking-academic-ranking-world-universities-2016-results-announced

    So doesnt make sense that Asians flock to the US and European universities that are higher ranked than Asian because Asian are harder to get into? …because they are superior? I would call this claim bullshit.

    With China leading the pack, foreign students flock to US, hitting record in 2013
    By Renee Schoof – McClatchy Washington Bureau
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24776371.html#storylink=cpy

    You think too highly of your Asian-nesss….while it is typical of minorities to toot their own horn in an effort to elevate their worth….it has the oposite effect on those you are trying to impress. Your tech world is a ‘service industry’ to the actual ‘builders’ of the world who in turn create the consumers Silicon Valley depends on to exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Truth

    You can’t exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances,
     
    Is there some law, that I am unaware of, that forces you to play Grand Theft Auto with black dudes?

    Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone?
     

    I have explained this multiple times, but here goes again: We ALL pay taxes of one sort or another, property, income, social security, sales, etc. Taxes are paid for the COMMON GOOD of the community. We don't get to say exactly were the %6 we pay on our television set goes, but we realize that it goes to our city, county, state or country for the projects that the people that we have elected, have earkmarked, FOR OUR GOOD.

    If you have a restaurant, you take advantage of the sewers, trash pickup, electricity, water, police and fire protection and the like that I have paid for, so how can you exclude me from using MY facilities.

    It really doesn't take a genius, Danny.


    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to.
     
    Well that's really big of you. What if they want to exclude you and your kids but not your wife. What if they change the rules in your neighborhood because they want you to leave? This is the right Jared Taylor is arguing for above. Are you going to be a good-little Chinese Boy, and just say "yessir, yessir I will be out tomorrow sir" and move into the Chinese neighborhood? What the hell did you leave China for in that case?

    You’ve become a lot better writer, Truth, but just more duplicitous.

    I’ve got a one word answer to your incorrect comment:

    DETROIT

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    There is no law that prevents you from moving there. Be my guest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. MBlanc46 says:

    1. Correct. Blacks will always be dependent on whites. We’ll have to provide them with a lot of support. The price for that support should be living apart from them. 2. No one ever said that no mayhem will accompany the separation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    1. Correct. Blacks will always be dependent on whites.

    "Always" goes both ways, ole buddy...

    https://moorishsociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lewashington3.jpeg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. MBlanc46 says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, I get what you're saying, but in the context of what Derbyshire is talking about (or, at least, what I think that he's talking about), it's more about freedom to live in your own neighborhoods, and, in that regard, allowing white to live around one another doesn't matter because you can't exclude other people from living in those areas.

    We have no right to create a "whites-only" neighborhood or school. I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it.

    While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I'm pretty sure it no longer does - at least for whites.

    It used to mean the right to exclude. Restrictive covenants, Jim Crow, etc. I can mean that again if we’re willing to fight for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Truth
    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?

    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?

    I think JD divides the world into blacks and non-blacks. So this would be an all-non-black community.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    "I think JD divides the world into blacks and non-blacks. So this would be an all-non-black community."

    Sir Harry Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser's creation, had a much finer grading system than does JD. He said "there are only three races: Englishman, Frenchman, and n*&&ers"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Daniel Chieh
    You can't exclude anyone from your circle of acquaintances, which matters immeasureably. Its like saying that you have to let anyone into your house, which in itself would seem ridiculous. But writ slightly larger, why do you have to serve everyone? Why do you have to welcome everyone into your suburb?

    I, for one, would have no problems whatever with restaurants or suburbs banning all of my kind if they want to. If that's what they want, I have no reason to impose myself upon them.

    Likely most whites wouldn't go so exclusive, much like in Russia where despite the fact that you can ban people from your apartment complex, most landlords don't go for it. But I don't see why you shouldn't give people the option.

    I do think it'll be a little annoying if I get booted out of a suburb where I already live in because the deeds change and force me to leave, but such is life when you aren't part of the founding class of people. Some things should be accepted.

    I agree with you but…

    Let’s start off small, let’s prohibit racial quotas in hiring first. Before you can fly you have walk, before you can walk you have to crawl. Therefore,

    Let’s work on get rid of disparate impact. Let’s pass laws stating any judge imposing racial quotas should be disbarred.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, I get what you're saying, but in the context of what Derbyshire is talking about (or, at least, what I think that he's talking about), it's more about freedom to live in your own neighborhoods, and, in that regard, allowing white to live around one another doesn't matter because you can't exclude other people from living in those areas.

    We have no right to create a "whites-only" neighborhood or school. I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it.

    While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I'm pretty sure it no longer does - at least for whites.

    “We have no right to create a “whites-only” neighborhood or school.”

    Of course you have that liberty. There are a number of places you can go here in the States that meet your racial utopia.

    “I suppose that a group of people could create a European-American Community Center but would they have the right to reject someone for having no or not enough European ancestry? I doubt it.”

    Considering most white Americans do not refer to themselves as “European-American”, I would surmise that such an enterprise would be other than successful.

    “While Freedom of Association may had implied the right to exclude in the past, I’m pretty sure it no longer does – at least for whites.”

    That is because southrons ruined it for everyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Yan Shen

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
     
    But by and large there currently isn't any denial of freedom of association in this country Derb. I noticed you put up a picture of a Slate article on Airbnb, hence why I mentioned that there were some edge case areas here and there, such as who you're allowed to rent out your property to, etc. But this for the most part doesn't contradict my claim that in general you're allowed to hang out with whoever you want and live whenever you want, provided you can afford it. Now maybe my life experiences are different from those of others, but I've never felt that in this country I was ever prevented from doing either one of those 2 things.

    I generally don't disagree with your observations about blacks, but given that no one is getting deported from this country who are citizens and given that you can simply choose not to live in heavily black areas, I wonder if there are perhaps more constructive approaches towards struggling onward as best we can, white and black alike, as you've so aptly put it. I haven't thought this through that thoroughly, but I think where you and I differ is that even though I embrace race realism, I don't shout from the top of my lungs at every given opportunity to anyone who'll listen that blacks are basically less intelligent, more violent, and incapable of sustaining civilization, not because I think it's false, but because I'm skeptical that it'll constructively move us towards anything meaningful.

    But by and large there currently isn’t any denial of freedom of association in this country Derb. I noticed you put up a picture of a Slate article on Airbnb, hence why I mentioned that there were some edge case areas here and there, such as who you’re allowed to rent out your property to, etc. But this for the most part doesn’t contradict my claim that in general you’re allowed to hang out with whoever you want and live whenever you want, provided you can afford it.
    ————————————
    Is this an argument for or against anti-discrimination laws?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Jack Cade
    Jared seems to want to carefully craft his message so as not to antagonize very powerful groups such as the women's lobby and the (((nameless ones))), who have no power nor agency, no sirree! So I used to think he had blind spots, but I now doubt that, he just has his own sphere, and sticks to it. It allows him to continue mol unmolested. For now.

    Kinda like Pat Buchannan and a few others who cautiously skirt around sensitive issues to avoid being thrown off the Establishment bus?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Yan Shen

    You can keep your overvalued startups and investment bank financial shenanigans; they aren’t a substitute for a real economy in which people actually turn raw materials into finished goods.
     
    Random aside. Interestingly enough, one of the most obvious facts of modern day economics is that East Asian economies tend to be heavily skewed towards hardware and advanced manufacturing, while Western economies to be skewed more towards software and services. This fact has been noted by various people such as Ron Unz, Eamonn Fingleton, etc but perhaps hasn't been adequately explained. I've pointed out that most likely this is the result of the East Asian skew towards math and away from verbal. The blogger Lion of the Blogosphere was one of the first people to popularize the meme that while mathematical ability is conducive to value creation, verbal ability is conducive to value transference.

    To address your actual post, I think you're missing the point here. The race hustlers and extremists are the only ones complaining by and large! And so the only people who will want to live in these mono-racial regions will be the Black Lives Matter crowd, the Charlottesville rednecks, etc. The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are.

    Most of us who don't drink the liberal Kool-Aid are aiming for more realistic and defensible goals such as speaking out against political correctness, defending freedom of speech and freedom of association, and advocating for citizens first American nationalism. If John Derbyshire is the white Ta Nehisi Coates, then uh maybe Jared Taylor is a white Marcus Garvey or the likes? Not sure.

    The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are

    .

    Wrong. White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood. Same thing applies to public schools. The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it’s forced on the American people at the point of bayonets. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    Wrong. White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods a
     
    Oh, is that why Montana and Idaho are so overcrowded?
    , @Corvinus
    "White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it."

    You are wrong. They LOVE it.

    "A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood."

    You speak for yourself, not every white who chooses to live among their own kind, however they personally define it.

    "The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it’s forced on the American people at the point of bayonets."

    Actually, the reason behind it is because southrons refused to abide by "separate but equal". Clearly, they violated what was specified in the Plessy case with "separate and unequal". I thought southrons take ownership for their mistakes. And, remember, there were a number of white southerners who desired to treat blacks on their own terms--even marry them--but were denied their freedom to associate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Yan Shen

    With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
     
    But by and large there currently isn't any denial of freedom of association in this country Derb. I noticed you put up a picture of a Slate article on Airbnb, hence why I mentioned that there were some edge case areas here and there, such as who you're allowed to rent out your property to, etc. But this for the most part doesn't contradict my claim that in general you're allowed to hang out with whoever you want and live whenever you want, provided you can afford it. Now maybe my life experiences are different from those of others, but I've never felt that in this country I was ever prevented from doing either one of those 2 things.

    I generally don't disagree with your observations about blacks, but given that no one is getting deported from this country who are citizens and given that you can simply choose not to live in heavily black areas, I wonder if there are perhaps more constructive approaches towards struggling onward as best we can, white and black alike, as you've so aptly put it. I haven't thought this through that thoroughly, but I think where you and I differ is that even though I embrace race realism, I don't shout from the top of my lungs at every given opportunity to anyone who'll listen that blacks are basically less intelligent, more violent, and incapable of sustaining civilization, not because I think it's false, but because I'm skeptical that it'll constructively move us towards anything meaningful.

    I generally don’t disagree with your observations about blacks, but given that no one is getting deported from this country who are citizens and given that you can simply choose not to live in heavily black areas, I wonder if there are perhaps more constructive approaches towards struggling onward as best we can, white and black alike, as you’ve so aptly put it. I haven’t thought this through that thoroughly, but I think where you and I differ is that even though I embrace race realism, I don’t shout from the top of my lungs at every given opportunity to anyone who’ll listen that blacks are basically less intelligent, more violent, and incapable of sustaining civilization, not because I think it’s false, but because I’m skeptical that it’ll constructively move us towards anything meaningful.
    ————————
    Most of the people here dont like to shout race realism at the top of our lungs but we have do gooders shouting racism at us if we object to anything based upon reality. The number one reality that is ignored is:
    1. Property really only has value insofar as the threshold of blacks in the local school district is kept below a certain percentage.
    People both Asians and Whites plan their lives upon this reality. Most people DO NOT WANT TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO A MAJORITY BLACK SCHOOL. Liberal white women who are the biggest agitators for white racial guilt do not want to send their kids to a majority blacks school. People ignore this reality at their own peril.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "1. Property really only has value insofar as the threshold of blacks in the local school district is kept below a certain percentage."

    I'd like to see this statement's implications analyzed statistically.

    It really is true. I'd like to see a graph of property values vs. percent black population in the school district. And I'd like to see it analyzed going back to the 50's say, though with computers, if we have decent data, why not go back further?

    I constantly see and hear people talking about socialism, communists, statists, etc.

    I think they are nuts. There is a bull in a china shop rampaging, and people obsess over political or ecnomic ideologies?

    Here's a question: what in this country, what pattern of behavior, living arrangement, financial situation, for a large number of people can't be analyzed in terms of the consequences of blacks?

    Whether it's politics, budgets gone to hell, street crime, the bizarre fact that people decided they wanted to commute 60 miles to work, failed schools...

    What doesn't come back to them in the end somehow?

    This situation is utterly insane. And everyone knows it. I think even the SJW true believers know it. They might never say it, never write it, but they know it. Because if you look at them through the "Watch what they do, not what they say they do" lens, they sure seem as "woke" as anyone on here.

    I think it is the key to understanding our current time, heck it's the key to understanding anything about America since about 1920 (I'll date the impact really starting with the Great Migration, before it just didn't exist outside the South for the most part).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Truth says:
    @ThreeCranes
    "...causing blacks and Hispanics to move to white areas."

    In reality, the middle-class white pays for his own dispossession because his tax dollar goes to ne'er-do-wells' Section 8 housing which relocates them into middle class neighborhoods. This is the point Truth and others above gloss over. Since American's savings is largely in their home equity, any devaluation of neighborhood is catastrophic for their life planning.

    Truth and Corvinus are incorrigible liars.

    In reality, the middle-class white pays for his own dispossession

    No Sport, you are absolutely right. In this and everything else, the middle-class white pays the wealthy white for his own dispossession.

    I’m glad you have figured this out. Now DO SOMETHING TO YOUR ENEMY ABOUT IT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Truth says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    You've become a lot better writer, Truth, but just more duplicitous.

    I've got a one word answer to your incorrect comment:

    DETROIT

    There is no law that prevents you from moving there. Be my guest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Nope, that wasn't the point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Truth says:
    @MBlanc46
    1. Correct. Blacks will always be dependent on whites. We’ll have to provide them with a lot of support. The price for that support should be living apart from them. 2. No one ever said that no mayhem will accompany the separation.

    1. Correct. Blacks will always be dependent on whites.

    “Always” goes both ways, ole buddy…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Truth says:
    @Carroll Price

    The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are
     
    .

    Wrong. White people don't live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood. Same thing applies to public schools. The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it's forced on the American people at the point of bayonets. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit.

    Wrong. White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods a

    Oh, is that why Montana and Idaho are so overcrowded?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Disregarding economic factors like job opportunities, there's absolutely no guarantee that if you were move to Montana or Idaho, a black family wouldn't move-in beside you the very next day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @anarchyst
    "Racism" is a word that was invented by communists in order to destabilize non-communist cultures and societies.
    True "racism" does not connote either superiority or inferiority of ANY race, but merely reinforces the commonality of like-minded individuals of any particular race or culture. It is not "racist" for wanting to interact with those "of your own kind". It is not "racist" to express preferences for those that are like you. It is not "racist" for desiring the ability to form organizations for those of your own race.
    Every race (but whites) has organizations that promote their respective cultures and celebrates the cohesiveness and cultural insularity that races (other than white) find so desirable.
    Blacks have the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the ADL and $PLC. All three of these races are complimented for their "racial solidarity" and encouraged to support their respective race-based organizations.
    It is only whites that are marginalized (and made to feel inferior, and even criminal) for attempting to promote their own racial solidarity and insularity. WHY??
    Whites are of the only race in human history that has put the interests of other races ahead of its own. Outward-directed altruism by whites has resulted in so-called "civil-rights" laws and statutes, "affirmative action" (for "people of color" only), "contract "set-asides" and preferences (available only to "people of color"), special scholarships,loans and grants and the abolition of "freedom of association" (applicable only to whites) replaced by forced "public accommodation" (applicable only to whites)--other races can refuse services to whites with impunity.
    Whites have bent over backwards in order to assure "fair treatment" (actually preferential treatment) for "people of color".
    It is only a matter of time before whites are a distinct "minority" in the United States of America, although, on a worldwide basis, whites have ALWAYS been a distinct minority.
    You can bet that, in a few years, when the "tables are turned" and whites become a minority in the USA, the same special "civil-rights" considerations given to "people of color" will NOT be available to minority whites.
    This misplaced externalized "white altruism" must be abolished and replaced with inward-placed altruism that promotes white interests.
    Multiculturalism and diversity are recipes for marginalization and ultimate destruction of the white race.
    Recently, a group of minority students was asked "what would happen if all whites disappeared from the face of the earth?" After serious soul-searching by the group, one student stood up and remarked "we'd be screwed". Despite denials by those of every other race, it is whites that have made it possible for today's first-world societies to exist and prosper, benefiting people of ALL races.
    Multiculturalism and diversity are recipes for white genocide...

    Agreed. One need look only to The Republic of South Africa and Zimbabwe (formally Rhodesia) to see what happens when white rule is replaced by black rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Truth
    You can, right now, in 2017, associate with whomever YOU want to.

    You can not, on the other hand, deny any other American the opportunity to associate with whom HE wants to.

    What's complicated?

    It is true that you are free to associate with whomever you want to, but also true that you can be and often are forced to associate with those whom you do not want to associate. As far as I can determine, no one is attempting to bar anyone from associating with those they choose to associate, but instead would like to not be forced to associate with those they had rather not associate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    When did anyone ever force you to do anything?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Truth



    Wrong. White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods a
     
    Oh, is that why Montana and Idaho are so overcrowded?

    Disregarding economic factors like job opportunities, there’s absolutely no guarantee that if you were move to Montana or Idaho, a black family wouldn’t move-in beside you the very next day.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Truth
    1. If its so white, why can't they create jobs?

    2. Ain't no guarantee the sky won't fall, do you spend your life walking around with a trowel?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. joef says:

    There is simply no stable solution here. Whites don’t need blacks, but blacks need whites, if they are to have any kind of civilized life.

    We have a quagmire here composed of these elements:
    >Afro american culture is hostile to it’s dominant culture that provides them benefits;
    > Afro americans generally hate whitey without cause;
    > They act out this hostility through the unremorseful use of violence;
    > Afro americans culture contains antisocial attributes that dominates their behavior patterns;
    > Afro americans refuse to reform themselves, prefering to blame whitey for all their own self created problems;
    > Afro americans believe in an economic free lunch concept;
    > Govt, at all levels, biggest budget outlay is the welfare state (especially since States and municipalities do not have a national defense budget);
    > The majority of the welfare state’s entitlement spending goes to subsidizing afro americans;
    > This is placing enormous budgetary stress upon state and local governments, with many facing the future prospect of default;
    > There will be further spending cuts to traditional government services (Police/Firefighters/Sanitation/Roads/Transit/water/sewage/utilities/prisons/hospitals etc in order to maintain the political quid pro quo relationship between afro american votes and entitlement spending).
    > Our budget deficits (public and private) are such high levels (larger than our GDP) that it will never be paid back … that will eventually lead to a major economic decline with resultant scarcity;
    > Between the balkanization and economic scarcity, we will see large scale unrest, and possible devolution in this nation … this may lead us into becoming a failed state (at least regionally).

    Compared to this, racial separation is preferable, especially since racial balkanization is already occurring. But this politically incorrect idea will never be allowed to happen. The best solution, of afro americans reforming their antisocial ways, will not happen either because progressives provide rationalizations that disincentives this outcome. Thus, unless I missed something, we are back to racial balkanization plus economic scarcity equals an eventual failed state. The ability to sustain the economic costs will not outlast the liberal pandering and White mea culpas. And when it falls apart, and the welfare entitlement checks stop, the remaining liberal pandering will become totally ineffective in keeping the peace. And that is where we are at as a society today (and I do not see it getting better, only worse).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. joef says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Good comment and good advice for whites, but, like you, I'm not sure that they're capable of following it. My only caveat is that while whites may be willing to carry blacks indefinitely, whites as a portion of the population are diminishing, and Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks and there may simply not be enough whites to buffer the conflict.

    Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks

    This is correct, for many hispanics have no respect for afro americans, and will not be willing to maintain an economic parasitical relationship with them. They will even be less willing to suffer violence from afros (as many liberal whites demand), responding instead with swift retribution. And if things really got bad, Hispanics will not be shy in committing acts of genocide against afro americans. Afro americans intuitively know this, and that is why they try to force this ‘people of color’ label upon them. Hispanics generally do not want to be included in this ‘people of color’ coalition because they recognize that their agendas as competing. Further, after observing how afros have no loyalty to the Whites that sustain them, they would never truly trust a political coalition with afros. Finally, Hispanics, who want employment opportunities, know that this is provided by Whites, not afros. You are already seeing these divisions starting to manifest themselves in southern California. Hispanics are unwilling to be burdened by afros, that they regard as useless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep, Mexicans have taken over many formerly black neighborhoods with awesomely ruthless methods. That all happened in a generation.

    Despite what some here think, things can change rather quickly.

    Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won't change for a long time - if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That's nature folks.

    ("But, but, but," sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, "look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods" without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter. Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It's never happened. Not once. If you want to know what whites would do if free look at the demographics of churches.)

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so. And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over.

    What's more, the next generation would view the situation with much less propagandized eyes and that would be the end. (That's right, the future is not your's. I'm not sure that it's mine either, but some happy multi-culti Coke commercial it will not be.)

    Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening. But as I've said many times, I'm quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization. I'll simply tell the truth, which is there are already identical organizations for Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians so why not one for European Americans.

    I don't give a shit if only two other people join the group. (They will because I will have discussed it with them already.) Once it's formed and acts perfectly normal, just trying to help young or poor whites and not some KKK meetting, it will slowly be seen as just another group. More whites will start to join and we're on our way.

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life. If that sounds small, you're mistaken. It's the first step in a long jouney, but at least, the journey will have begun. The terribly constructed damn will have a little crack that will slowly grow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Truth
    There is no law that prevents you from moving there. Be my guest.

    Nope, that wasn’t the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Please enlighten me then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory
    If you are forced to associate, then you do not have Freedom to Associate. Without the Right to Discriminate, there is no free association.

    “If you are forced to associate, then you do not have Freedom to Associate. Without the Right to Discriminate, there is no free association.”

    Except you are other than forced to associate. You have the liberty to live among your own kind. Just do not expect some of your kind who live among you to be forced to discriminate merely because you say I must. In other words, if I lived in your neighborhood, and chose to rent my upper flat to a darkie, you have no right to intercede. Furthermore, freedom of association does not mean unfettered freedom of association. Freedom of association in our society has legalities behind it. Damn those southrons who had outright refused to adhere to the basic tenets as espoused in the Plessy case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Truth says:
    @Carroll Price
    It is true that you are free to associate with whomever you want to, but also true that you can be and often are forced to associate with those whom you do not want to associate. As far as I can determine, no one is attempting to bar anyone from associating with those they choose to associate, but instead would like to not be forced to associate with those they had rather not associate.

    When did anyone ever force you to do anything?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price

    The other 95% of Americans will probably be fine where they are
     
    .

    Wrong. White people don't live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it. A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood. Same thing applies to public schools. The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it's forced on the American people at the point of bayonets. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit.

    “White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it.”

    You are wrong. They LOVE it.

    “A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood.”

    You speak for yourself, not every white who chooses to live among their own kind, however they personally define it.

    “The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it’s forced on the American people at the point of bayonets.”

    Actually, the reason behind it is because southrons refused to abide by “separate but equal”. Clearly, they violated what was specified in the Plessy case with “separate and unequal”. I thought southrons take ownership for their mistakes. And, remember, there were a number of white southerners who desired to treat blacks on their own terms–even marry them–but were denied their freedom to associate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Actually, the reason behind it is because southrons refused to abide by “separate but equal”. Clearly, they violated what was specified in the Plessy case with “separate and unequal”. I thought southrons take ownership for their mistakes. And, remember, there were a number of white southerners who desired to treat blacks on their own terms–even marry them–but were denied their freedom to associate.
    ------------------------
    Blacks still cannot abide by white standards, which is why the EEOC exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Truth says:
    @Carroll Price
    Disregarding economic factors like job opportunities, there's absolutely no guarantee that if you were move to Montana or Idaho, a black family wouldn't move-in beside you the very next day.

    1. If its so white, why can’t they create jobs?

    2. Ain’t no guarantee the sky won’t fall, do you spend your life walking around with a trowel?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Truth says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Nope, that wasn't the point.

    Please enlighten me then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. anarchyst says:

    A “double standard” exists in this country–not just between whites and blacks, but between jews and all others. Thee are communities in New York state that are “for jews only”. This extends to real estate “restrictive covenants” (which are outlawed for the rest of us) as well as school districts “for jews only”. Let a gentile try to purchase a house in Kiryas Joel or other all-jewish community and send his gentile children to a school in that community, and he will be “shown the door”. When it comes to jews, exclusivity and “restrictive covenants” are the norm…
    You see, although jews were at the forefront of the so-called “civil-rights” movement, they have always reserved exclusivity, cultural and social insularity, and true “freedom of association ONLY FOR THEMSELVES. Having endured the so-called “civil-rights” movement, we used to have a saying: “Behind every Negro, there is a jew”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well my friend, If I were you I would contact a lawyer and then go buy a house in Kiryas Joel. Make sure they have no excuse not to give it to you though. IF they reject you you will make a few hundred grand, easy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @joef

    Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks
     
    This is correct, for many hispanics have no respect for afro americans, and will not be willing to maintain an economic parasitical relationship with them. They will even be less willing to suffer violence from afros (as many liberal whites demand), responding instead with swift retribution. And if things really got bad, Hispanics will not be shy in committing acts of genocide against afro americans. Afro americans intuitively know this, and that is why they try to force this 'people of color' label upon them. Hispanics generally do not want to be included in this 'people of color' coalition because they recognize that their agendas as competing. Further, after observing how afros have no loyalty to the Whites that sustain them, they would never truly trust a political coalition with afros. Finally, Hispanics, who want employment opportunities, know that this is provided by Whites, not afros. You are already seeing these divisions starting to manifest themselves in southern California. Hispanics are unwilling to be burdened by afros, that they regard as useless.

    Yep, Mexicans have taken over many formerly black neighborhoods with awesomely ruthless methods. That all happened in a generation.

    Despite what some here think, things can change rather quickly.

    Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won’t change for a long time – if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That’s nature folks.

    (“But, but, but,” sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, “look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods” without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter. Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It’s never happened. Not once. If you want to know what whites would do if free look at the demographics of churches.)

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so. And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over.

    What’s more, the next generation would view the situation with much less propagandized eyes and that would be the end. (That’s right, the future is not your’s. I’m not sure that it’s mine either, but some happy multi-culti Coke commercial it will not be.)

    Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening. But as I’ve said many times, I’m quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization. I’ll simply tell the truth, which is there are already identical organizations for Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians so why not one for European Americans.

    I don’t give a shit if only two other people join the group. (They will because I will have discussed it with them already.) Once it’s formed and acts perfectly normal, just trying to help young or poor whites and not some KKK meetting, it will slowly be seen as just another group. More whites will start to join and we’re on our way.

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life. If that sounds small, you’re mistaken. It’s the first step in a long jouney, but at least, the journey will have begun. The terribly constructed damn will have a little crack that will slowly grow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR83G9KgF8c


    As I have said numerous times, there is no law stopping you or any other proud white man from moving to Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Idaho and being in a white neighborhood. You, (and Derbyshire, and Charles Murray, and Sailer and the rest) live around blacks because that is what you like, and these are the most sparsely populated states in the union because white people do not move there.

    It really isn't complicated.
    , @Corvinus
    "Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won’t change for a long time – if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That’s nature folks."

    In reality, whites are acutely aware of race and cultural matters, and it befuddles you when they do not conform to your standards. Indeed, people do want to live among people who are like them, however they personally and collectively define it.

    (“But, but, but,” sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, “look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods” without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter.)"

    You are a fool. Of course whites had a choice in this matter.

    "Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It’s never happened. Not once."

    Regardless if black and white middle class individuals are moving into "old" neighborhoods to make them "cool", you still have a mix of different people residing there and improving upon the conditions, no different than when Eastern and Southern Europeans moved into the dilapidated neighborhoods of the Irish and Germans who left for greener pastures and who made these places their own.

    “There’s a lot of new housing to allow people to come into the area without displacing people there,” said Joshua S. Bauchner, who moved to a Harlem town house in 2007 and is the only white member of Community Board 10 in central Harlem. “In Manhattan, there are only so many directions you can go. North to Harlem is one of the last options.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

    "What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so."

    The truth is that you want to desperately believe that if given the complete freedom to deny non-whites housing and job opportunities, then most whites would jump on board. Of course some would do so, but not as many as you think? Why? We are civilized.

    "And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over."

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    "Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening."

    You constantly teeter on the brink of anti-white statements. Whites are NEVER "pussies". They are strong, viral, and intelligent who made everything good and holy in this world. Why must you denigrate your own kind?

    "But as I’ve said many times, I’m quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization."

    Outstanding. Good luck in your endeavor.
    , @joef

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life.
     
    The no race war part is not really up to us... It is up to the afro americans. They have an absolute expectation that a free lunch economy can provide perpetually increasing entitlements. Of course this cannot be sustained indefinitely (despite liberal obfuscations to the contrary). Once those welfare checks start to get reduced, afros obsessive racial hatred of whites will propel them into a de facto declaration of race war against the rest of us (including Black uncle toms). The formula for this national disaster is simple: racial balkanization plus economic decline will equal race war.

    The only thing that would prevent this is either a) we do not allow it to happen by imposing standards, or b) afro americans repudiate their radical antisocial (& anti white) agenda. I do not believe either one will realistically happen. If this keeps going in our current social/economic trajectory, we will see a race war by the afros (if you continuously head in a certain direction, you will eventually arrive at the destination, like it or not). The paradox is that the afros will end up becoming the biggest loser from their own initiated race war.

    [I remember a person replied to one of my past comments asking if I wanted this to happen... the answer is of course not ... but I do not want wars/famines/pandemics/hurricanes/floods/earthquakes/recessions to happen either, but that never prevented one from occurring].

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Sunbeam says:
    @epochehusserl
    I generally don’t disagree with your observations about blacks, but given that no one is getting deported from this country who are citizens and given that you can simply choose not to live in heavily black areas, I wonder if there are perhaps more constructive approaches towards struggling onward as best we can, white and black alike, as you’ve so aptly put it. I haven’t thought this through that thoroughly, but I think where you and I differ is that even though I embrace race realism, I don’t shout from the top of my lungs at every given opportunity to anyone who’ll listen that blacks are basically less intelligent, more violent, and incapable of sustaining civilization, not because I think it’s false, but because I’m skeptical that it’ll constructively move us towards anything meaningful.
    ------------------------
    Most of the people here dont like to shout race realism at the top of our lungs but we have do gooders shouting racism at us if we object to anything based upon reality. The number one reality that is ignored is:
    1. Property really only has value insofar as the threshold of blacks in the local school district is kept below a certain percentage.
    People both Asians and Whites plan their lives upon this reality. Most people DO NOT WANT TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO A MAJORITY BLACK SCHOOL. Liberal white women who are the biggest agitators for white racial guilt do not want to send their kids to a majority blacks school. People ignore this reality at their own peril.

    “1. Property really only has value insofar as the threshold of blacks in the local school district is kept below a certain percentage.”

    I’d like to see this statement’s implications analyzed statistically.

    It really is true. I’d like to see a graph of property values vs. percent black population in the school district. And I’d like to see it analyzed going back to the 50′s say, though with computers, if we have decent data, why not go back further?

    I constantly see and hear people talking about socialism, communists, statists, etc.

    I think they are nuts. There is a bull in a china shop rampaging, and people obsess over political or ecnomic ideologies?

    Here’s a question: what in this country, what pattern of behavior, living arrangement, financial situation, for a large number of people can’t be analyzed in terms of the consequences of blacks?

    Whether it’s politics, budgets gone to hell, street crime, the bizarre fact that people decided they wanted to commute 60 miles to work, failed schools…

    What doesn’t come back to them in the end somehow?

    This situation is utterly insane. And everyone knows it. I think even the SJW true believers know it. They might never say it, never write it, but they know it. Because if you look at them through the “Watch what they do, not what they say they do” lens, they sure seem as “woke” as anyone on here.

    I think it is the key to understanding our current time, heck it’s the key to understanding anything about America since about 1920 (I’ll date the impact really starting with the Great Migration, before it just didn’t exist outside the South for the most part).

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    You are correct. A number of years ago (decades?) Sixty Minutes ran a story on two identical upper-class neighborhoods in the Atlanta area, one white and one black. Interviews of residents of the black neighborhood showed that they would have no problem if whites chose to live there, attempting to nullify the stereotype that whites had no desire to live among a black majority. It was only at the end of the story that the commentator noted that identical housing in the black neighborhood was considerably less expensive than that of housing in the white neighborhood. Property values drop in majority black and "mixed" neighborhoods...FACT.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. anarchyst says:
    @Sunbeam
    "1. Property really only has value insofar as the threshold of blacks in the local school district is kept below a certain percentage."

    I'd like to see this statement's implications analyzed statistically.

    It really is true. I'd like to see a graph of property values vs. percent black population in the school district. And I'd like to see it analyzed going back to the 50's say, though with computers, if we have decent data, why not go back further?

    I constantly see and hear people talking about socialism, communists, statists, etc.

    I think they are nuts. There is a bull in a china shop rampaging, and people obsess over political or ecnomic ideologies?

    Here's a question: what in this country, what pattern of behavior, living arrangement, financial situation, for a large number of people can't be analyzed in terms of the consequences of blacks?

    Whether it's politics, budgets gone to hell, street crime, the bizarre fact that people decided they wanted to commute 60 miles to work, failed schools...

    What doesn't come back to them in the end somehow?

    This situation is utterly insane. And everyone knows it. I think even the SJW true believers know it. They might never say it, never write it, but they know it. Because if you look at them through the "Watch what they do, not what they say they do" lens, they sure seem as "woke" as anyone on here.

    I think it is the key to understanding our current time, heck it's the key to understanding anything about America since about 1920 (I'll date the impact really starting with the Great Migration, before it just didn't exist outside the South for the most part).

    You are correct. A number of years ago (decades?) Sixty Minutes ran a story on two identical upper-class neighborhoods in the Atlanta area, one white and one black. Interviews of residents of the black neighborhood showed that they would have no problem if whites chose to live there, attempting to nullify the stereotype that whites had no desire to live among a black majority. It was only at the end of the story that the commentator noted that identical housing in the black neighborhood was considerably less expensive than that of housing in the white neighborhood. Property values drop in majority black and “mixed” neighborhoods…FACT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Truth says:
    @anarchyst
    A "double standard" exists in this country--not just between whites and blacks, but between jews and all others. Thee are communities in New York state that are "for jews only". This extends to real estate "restrictive covenants" (which are outlawed for the rest of us) as well as school districts "for jews only". Let a gentile try to purchase a house in Kiryas Joel or other all-jewish community and send his gentile children to a school in that community, and he will be "shown the door". When it comes to jews, exclusivity and "restrictive covenants" are the norm...
    You see, although jews were at the forefront of the so-called "civil-rights" movement, they have always reserved exclusivity, cultural and social insularity, and true "freedom of association ONLY FOR THEMSELVES. Having endured the so-called "civil-rights" movement, we used to have a saying: "Behind every Negro, there is a jew"...

    Well my friend, If I were you I would contact a lawyer and then go buy a house in Kiryas Joel. Make sure they have no excuse not to give it to you though. IF they reject you you will make a few hundred grand, easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Don't bet on it...these jews are so insular, they network informally and will find any excuse to keep the "goyim" out.
    Regards,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Truth says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep, Mexicans have taken over many formerly black neighborhoods with awesomely ruthless methods. That all happened in a generation.

    Despite what some here think, things can change rather quickly.

    Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won't change for a long time - if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That's nature folks.

    ("But, but, but," sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, "look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods" without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter. Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It's never happened. Not once. If you want to know what whites would do if free look at the demographics of churches.)

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so. And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over.

    What's more, the next generation would view the situation with much less propagandized eyes and that would be the end. (That's right, the future is not your's. I'm not sure that it's mine either, but some happy multi-culti Coke commercial it will not be.)

    Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening. But as I've said many times, I'm quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization. I'll simply tell the truth, which is there are already identical organizations for Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians so why not one for European Americans.

    I don't give a shit if only two other people join the group. (They will because I will have discussed it with them already.) Once it's formed and acts perfectly normal, just trying to help young or poor whites and not some KKK meetting, it will slowly be seen as just another group. More whites will start to join and we're on our way.

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life. If that sounds small, you're mistaken. It's the first step in a long jouney, but at least, the journey will have begun. The terribly constructed damn will have a little crack that will slowly grow.

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so.

    As I have said numerous times, there is no law stopping you or any other proud white man from moving to Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Idaho and being in a white neighborhood. You, (and Derbyshire, and Charles Murray, and Sailer and the rest) live around blacks because that is what you like, and these are the most sparsely populated states in the union because white people do not move there.

    It really isn’t complicated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    When have white people ever moved toward blacks, except to gentrify, i.e. get rid of blacks, neighborhoods because they have nice buildings and are close to the city?

    If we do live around blacks, it's because they followed us to those areas or because the government stuck them there (Section 8).

    What planet do you live on where white actually move to black areas because they want to live around blacks. Our whole housing history since the 1960s have been one long run and chase routine with whites running from blacks only to have them chase after us because their own neighborhoods collapse.

    Btw, my area has basically no blacks except those put there by the government. Oddly, I have lots of very "I-don't-see-color" types - like you, I guess - living around me. All them moved from more vibrant neighborhoods. Funny that.

    Face it. Blacks as a group are utterly incapable of maintaining anything remotely close to a civilization. Not there fault. They simply didn't evolve for that. It's sad, really. They're being placed in an environment where they're guaranteed to fail. No wonder they (and people like yourself) can't face that reality. It's tough to admit that you can't ever achieve something that you really want.

    I mean, every other group can say, "Well, we might not be as good those guys but we can at least create a functioning socieity." Not blacks.

    The reality is that blacks are living on borrowed time. They're the favorite, unruly pet of an owner who is either going to die soon or go broke. Either way, they're going to be on their own and back to nature because nobody else is going to take care of them.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It really isn’t complicated.
     
    Whites move to where the jobs are . . . and then find the whitest neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn't complicated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Truth

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR83G9KgF8c


    As I have said numerous times, there is no law stopping you or any other proud white man from moving to Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Idaho and being in a white neighborhood. You, (and Derbyshire, and Charles Murray, and Sailer and the rest) live around blacks because that is what you like, and these are the most sparsely populated states in the union because white people do not move there.

    It really isn't complicated.

    When have white people ever moved toward blacks, except to gentrify, i.e. get rid of blacks, neighborhoods because they have nice buildings and are close to the city?

    If we do live around blacks, it’s because they followed us to those areas or because the government stuck them there (Section 8).

    What planet do you live on where white actually move to black areas because they want to live around blacks. Our whole housing history since the 1960s have been one long run and chase routine with whites running from blacks only to have them chase after us because their own neighborhoods collapse.

    Btw, my area has basically no blacks except those put there by the government. Oddly, I have lots of very “I-don’t-see-color” types – like you, I guess – living around me. All them moved from more vibrant neighborhoods. Funny that.

    Face it. Blacks as a group are utterly incapable of maintaining anything remotely close to a civilization. Not there fault. They simply didn’t evolve for that. It’s sad, really. They’re being placed in an environment where they’re guaranteed to fail. No wonder they (and people like yourself) can’t face that reality. It’s tough to admit that you can’t ever achieve something that you really want.

    I mean, every other group can say, “Well, we might not be as good those guys but we can at least create a functioning socieity.” Not blacks.

    The reality is that blacks are living on borrowed time. They’re the favorite, unruly pet of an owner who is either going to die soon or go broke. Either way, they’re going to be on their own and back to nature because nobody else is going to take care of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    When have white people ever moved toward blacks, except to gentrify
     
    Yuppie #1:

    "Yup honey, here we are in Harlem, the first ones! 20 years from now when our newborn son is entering NYU after graduating from Harlem High School, other whites will move in and we'll be in a nice, beautiful, white neighborhood!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. I’m puzzled, but perhaps that’s because I’m English and have only spent 7 weeks in the USA.

    The stats show that blacks are stupid, violent, lazy parasites, and black women are hideous.

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    We don't.

    Even the leftiest, most "openminded" and "non-bigoted" white or Asian American parent typically expends whatever money, time, and effort they have, getting his or her child into a school or school district that does NOT have many Africans.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    We don't.

    They follow us wherever we go and turn the neighborhood to shit. We leave for a new suburb. They follow and turn the neighborhood to shit. Rinse and repeat.

    Every once in a while, gay and hipster whites move back to parts of a city that were formerly a nice white area turned to shit by blacks and slowly price out the blacks. But that only goes so far. Families never move into those areas because the schools still have black kids from other areas, so, of course, the schools are shit.

    We are cursed with blacks. I don't hate them. They simply evolved differently than whites and other races. I don't get angry with a breed of dog because it doesn't act like another breed of dog. But blacks do turn everything to shit. It's just what they do in anything other than very small numbers.
    , @joef

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?
     
    Well its not as much as we want to be around them, as they want to around us. Because after all, despite their obsessive hatred of whitey, they still ungratefully want:
    > White generated electricity;
    > White maintained roads;
    > White built hospitals;
    > White built bridges;
    > White built subways;
    > White built refrigerators;
    > White built housing;
    > White provided medicine;
    > White grown food;
    > White indoor plumbing;
    > White designed automobiles/airplanes;
    > White tax subsidized welfare checks;
    > White telephone systems;
    > White clean water supply;
    > White sewage treatment;
    > White sanitation;
    > White firefighting;
    > White broadcast TV & radio;
    > White liberal pandering;
    > White invented computer internet;
    > White shipping/trucking;
    > White ... etc etc etc;
    Wow, all this when they claim we gave them nothing! And what exactly are we getting in return?? They are living large on our dime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Truth

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR83G9KgF8c


    As I have said numerous times, there is no law stopping you or any other proud white man from moving to Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Idaho and being in a white neighborhood. You, (and Derbyshire, and Charles Murray, and Sailer and the rest) live around blacks because that is what you like, and these are the most sparsely populated states in the union because white people do not move there.

    It really isn't complicated.

    It really isn’t complicated.

    Whites move to where the jobs are . . . and then find the whitest neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn’t complicated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Exactly.
    , @Truth
    But again, if you have a bunch of brilliant white folks there, and no Knee-grows to drag them down, why aren't there jobs there already?
    , @Corvinus
    In reality, whites move to where the jobs are...and then find a neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn't complicated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. anarchyst says:
    @Truth
    Well my friend, If I were you I would contact a lawyer and then go buy a house in Kiryas Joel. Make sure they have no excuse not to give it to you though. IF they reject you you will make a few hundred grand, easy.

    Don’t bet on it…these jews are so insular, they network informally and will find any excuse to keep the “goyim” out.
    Regards,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Dude, I just put an easy $100,000-300,000 in your pocket and you won't reach out and take it?

    I mean, take it just for the revenge potential. Do it just to say F-U to those evil kikes everywhere and donate the money to white coal miners or something, Jeez. Step up, Son! Opportunities like this don't come along too often.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. There is so much I could say in rebuttal to this column (and in fairness, John Derbyshire is a courageous man even to go as far as he does), but I’ll limit myself to this:

    Whites don’t need blacks, but blacks need whites, if they are to have any kind of civilized life.

    No. Whites don’t need blacks if whites are to have any kind of civilized life.

    After 50 years of doing everything possible — and impossible — to bring blacks into the mainstream, and finding that they they just revert to type, whites shouldn’t care what blacks do except ensure they don’t do it to whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. @Johann Ricke

    Hey I have a question though, Derb; what if you get the all-white community that you desire and someone objects to your wife and kids?
     
    I think JD divides the world into blacks and non-blacks. So this would be an all-non-black community.

    “I think JD divides the world into blacks and non-blacks. So this would be an all-non-black community.”

    Sir Harry Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser’s creation, had a much finer grading system than does JD. He said “there are only three races: Englishman, Frenchman, and n*&&ers”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Sir Harry Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser’s creation, had a much finer grading system than does JD. He said “there are only three races: Englishman, Frenchman, and n*&&ers”
     
    It was once said of Churchill that he believed the wogs began at Calais.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep, Mexicans have taken over many formerly black neighborhoods with awesomely ruthless methods. That all happened in a generation.

    Despite what some here think, things can change rather quickly.

    Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won't change for a long time - if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That's nature folks.

    ("But, but, but," sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, "look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods" without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter. Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It's never happened. Not once. If you want to know what whites would do if free look at the demographics of churches.)

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so. And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over.

    What's more, the next generation would view the situation with much less propagandized eyes and that would be the end. (That's right, the future is not your's. I'm not sure that it's mine either, but some happy multi-culti Coke commercial it will not be.)

    Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening. But as I've said many times, I'm quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization. I'll simply tell the truth, which is there are already identical organizations for Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians so why not one for European Americans.

    I don't give a shit if only two other people join the group. (They will because I will have discussed it with them already.) Once it's formed and acts perfectly normal, just trying to help young or poor whites and not some KKK meetting, it will slowly be seen as just another group. More whites will start to join and we're on our way.

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life. If that sounds small, you're mistaken. It's the first step in a long jouney, but at least, the journey will have begun. The terribly constructed damn will have a little crack that will slowly grow.

    “Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won’t change for a long time – if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That’s nature folks.”

    In reality, whites are acutely aware of race and cultural matters, and it befuddles you when they do not conform to your standards. Indeed, people do want to live among people who are like them, however they personally and collectively define it.

    (“But, but, but,” sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, “look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods” without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter.)”

    You are a fool. Of course whites had a choice in this matter.

    “Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It’s never happened. Not once.”

    Regardless if black and white middle class individuals are moving into “old” neighborhoods to make them “cool”, you still have a mix of different people residing there and improving upon the conditions, no different than when Eastern and Southern Europeans moved into the dilapidated neighborhoods of the Irish and Germans who left for greener pastures and who made these places their own.

    “There’s a lot of new housing to allow people to come into the area without displacing people there,” said Joshua S. Bauchner, who moved to a Harlem town house in 2007 and is the only white member of Community Board 10 in central Harlem. “In Manhattan, there are only so many directions you can go. North to Harlem is one of the last options.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

    “What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so.”

    The truth is that you want to desperately believe that if given the complete freedom to deny non-whites housing and job opportunities, then most whites would jump on board. Of course some would do so, but not as many as you think? Why? We are civilized.

    “And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over.”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    “Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening.”

    You constantly teeter on the brink of anti-white statements. Whites are NEVER “pussies”. They are strong, viral, and intelligent who made everything good and holy in this world. Why must you denigrate your own kind?

    “But as I’ve said many times, I’m quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization.”

    Outstanding. Good luck in your endeavor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Martin Spencer
    I'm puzzled, but perhaps that's because I'm English and have only spent 7 weeks in the USA.

    The stats show that blacks are stupid, violent, lazy parasites, and black women are hideous.

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?

    We don’t.

    Even the leftiest, most “openminded” and “non-bigoted” white or Asian American parent typically expends whatever money, time, and effort they have, getting his or her child into a school or school district that does NOT have many Africans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It really isn’t complicated.
     
    Whites move to where the jobs are . . . and then find the whitest neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn't complicated.

    Exactly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Martin Spencer
    I'm puzzled, but perhaps that's because I'm English and have only spent 7 weeks in the USA.

    The stats show that blacks are stupid, violent, lazy parasites, and black women are hideous.

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?

    We don’t.

    They follow us wherever we go and turn the neighborhood to shit. We leave for a new suburb. They follow and turn the neighborhood to shit. Rinse and repeat.

    Every once in a while, gay and hipster whites move back to parts of a city that were formerly a nice white area turned to shit by blacks and slowly price out the blacks. But that only goes so far. Families never move into those areas because the schools still have black kids from other areas, so, of course, the schools are shit.

    We are cursed with blacks. I don’t hate them. They simply evolved differently than whites and other races. I don’t get angry with a breed of dog because it doesn’t act like another breed of dog. But blacks do turn everything to shit. It’s just what they do in anything other than very small numbers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Truth says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    When have white people ever moved toward blacks, except to gentrify, i.e. get rid of blacks, neighborhoods because they have nice buildings and are close to the city?

    If we do live around blacks, it's because they followed us to those areas or because the government stuck them there (Section 8).

    What planet do you live on where white actually move to black areas because they want to live around blacks. Our whole housing history since the 1960s have been one long run and chase routine with whites running from blacks only to have them chase after us because their own neighborhoods collapse.

    Btw, my area has basically no blacks except those put there by the government. Oddly, I have lots of very "I-don't-see-color" types - like you, I guess - living around me. All them moved from more vibrant neighborhoods. Funny that.

    Face it. Blacks as a group are utterly incapable of maintaining anything remotely close to a civilization. Not there fault. They simply didn't evolve for that. It's sad, really. They're being placed in an environment where they're guaranteed to fail. No wonder they (and people like yourself) can't face that reality. It's tough to admit that you can't ever achieve something that you really want.

    I mean, every other group can say, "Well, we might not be as good those guys but we can at least create a functioning socieity." Not blacks.

    The reality is that blacks are living on borrowed time. They're the favorite, unruly pet of an owner who is either going to die soon or go broke. Either way, they're going to be on their own and back to nature because nobody else is going to take care of them.

    When have white people ever moved toward blacks, except to gentrify

    Yuppie #1:

    “Yup honey, here we are in Harlem, the first ones! 20 years from now when our newborn son is entering NYU after graduating from Harlem High School, other whites will move in and we’ll be in a nice, beautiful, white neighborhood!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Get out of the dorm room sometime kid.

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks. They just wanted to live in the city. They all choose to live in the whitest area that they could afford. They hung out with whites (and Asians). Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were.

    Guess what happened when they had kids? That's right, they moved to white suburbs. No one takes a chance with their kids - and sending your kid to a heavily black schools is taking a huge chance.

    I don't know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish.

    Now, you could argue that whites don't mind so much living around Hispanics. I might somewhat disagree but it's a reasonable argument. You definitely could argue that whites don't mind living around NE Asians. Given the intermarriage rates of well-educated whites and Asians, that's a very good argument.

    Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody - not even blacks - want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it.

    You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Truth says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It really isn’t complicated.
     
    Whites move to where the jobs are . . . and then find the whitest neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn't complicated.

    But again, if you have a bunch of brilliant white folks there, and no Knee-grows to drag them down, why aren’t there jobs there already?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Man, you really don't like those states - or the whites who live in them.

    Btw, I grew up in one of those areas. People move mostly because they have to, even with the bad weather. I can tell you one thing: Not a single one of them says, "I need to leave North Dakota to live around those awesome blacks."

    Nobody wants to live around blacks, even blacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Truth says:
    @anarchyst
    Don't bet on it...these jews are so insular, they network informally and will find any excuse to keep the "goyim" out.
    Regards,

    Dude, I just put an easy $100,000-300,000 in your pocket and you won’t reach out and take it?

    I mean, take it just for the revenge potential. Do it just to say F-U to those evil kikes everywhere and donate the money to white coal miners or something, Jeez. Step up, Son! Opportunities like this don’t come along too often.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Corvinus
    "White people don’t live in mixed neighborhoods because they they like it."

    You are wrong. They LOVE it.

    "A full 99.9% would jump at the chance to live in all-white neighborhoods and would make great sacrifices to do so if they could be assured no blacks would ever be allowed in the new neighborhood."

    You speak for yourself, not every white who chooses to live among their own kind, however they personally define it.

    "The only reason racial integration exist in this country is because it’s forced on the American people at the point of bayonets."

    Actually, the reason behind it is because southrons refused to abide by "separate but equal". Clearly, they violated what was specified in the Plessy case with "separate and unequal". I thought southrons take ownership for their mistakes. And, remember, there were a number of white southerners who desired to treat blacks on their own terms--even marry them--but were denied their freedom to associate.

    Actually, the reason behind it is because southrons refused to abide by “separate but equal”. Clearly, they violated what was specified in the Plessy case with “separate and unequal”. I thought southrons take ownership for their mistakes. And, remember, there were a number of white southerners who desired to treat blacks on their own terms–even marry them–but were denied their freedom to associate.
    ————————
    Blacks still cannot abide by white standards, which is why the EEOC exists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Let's get back to something that you left hanging in the wind.

    You said, “That’s not what the EEOC’s website says.”

    What does the EEOC say about race/color discrimination? Here it is.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm

    I’m not finding exactly where “testing blacks for literacy is not OK but that testing whites for literacy is OK”. Perhaps you can direct me EXACTLY where is this phrase or where is a similar phrase found on the EEOC website.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Truth
    But again, if you have a bunch of brilliant white folks there, and no Knee-grows to drag them down, why aren't there jobs there already?

    Man, you really don’t like those states – or the whites who live in them.

    Btw, I grew up in one of those areas. People move mostly because they have to, even with the bad weather. I can tell you one thing: Not a single one of them says, “I need to leave North Dakota to live around those awesome blacks.”

    Nobody wants to live around blacks, even blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth


    Man, you really don’t like those states – or the whites who live in them.
     
    Apparently, neither do you.

    Btw, I grew up in one of those areas. People move mostly because they have to, even with the bad weather.

     

    Oh, I get it. the gestapo came by and kicked your door in and forced you onto the railroad to Auschwitz.

    I can tell you one thing: Not a single one of them says, “I need to leave North Dakota to live around those awesome blacks.”
     
    Actions speak louder than words, Old Sport:

    A: You live around more blacks now than you did where you grew up.
    B: Nothing is stopping you to move back to your hometwon.
    C: You are AT LEAST fairly neutral about blacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Truth

    When have white people ever moved toward blacks, except to gentrify
     
    Yuppie #1:

    "Yup honey, here we are in Harlem, the first ones! 20 years from now when our newborn son is entering NYU after graduating from Harlem High School, other whites will move in and we'll be in a nice, beautiful, white neighborhood!"

    Get out of the dorm room sometime kid.

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks. They just wanted to live in the city. They all choose to live in the whitest area that they could afford. They hung out with whites (and Asians). Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were.

    Guess what happened when they had kids? That’s right, they moved to white suburbs. No one takes a chance with their kids – and sending your kid to a heavily black schools is taking a huge chance.

    I don’t know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish.

    Now, you could argue that whites don’t mind so much living around Hispanics. I might somewhat disagree but it’s a reasonable argument. You definitely could argue that whites don’t mind living around NE Asians. Given the intermarriage rates of well-educated whites and Asians, that’s a very good argument.

    Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody – not even blacks – want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it.

    You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks."

    It's possible you are telling the truth. It's also possible that you hiding something important here.

    "Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were."

    No.

    "I don’t know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish."

    If whites and Hispanics are moving into historically black areas, and living side by side with them, your assertion is definitively proven to be false.

    "Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody – not even blacks – want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it."

    YOU believe it to be true in desperate fashion.

    "You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks."

    And you should focus more on being human and loving humanity.
    , @Truth

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks.
     
    Hey, I have something in common with them. I live in Hawaii, but I don't want to be around salt water.
    , @Corvinus
    "Nobody wants to live around blacks, even blacks."

    You look foolish when you use such absolutes as "nobody" or "everyone" or "all of the time".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Corvinus says:
    @epochehusserl
    Actually, the reason behind it is because southrons refused to abide by “separate but equal”. Clearly, they violated what was specified in the Plessy case with “separate and unequal”. I thought southrons take ownership for their mistakes. And, remember, there were a number of white southerners who desired to treat blacks on their own terms–even marry them–but were denied their freedom to associate.
    ------------------------
    Blacks still cannot abide by white standards, which is why the EEOC exists.

    Let’s get back to something that you left hanging in the wind.

    You said, “That’s not what the EEOC’s website says.”

    What does the EEOC say about race/color discrimination? Here it is.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm

    I’m not finding exactly where “testing blacks for literacy is not OK but that testing whites for literacy is OK”. Perhaps you can direct me EXACTLY where is this phrase or where is a similar phrase found on the EEOC website.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    Actually, I will admit that I was wrong. I misread the EEOC's website. The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like, it doesnt yet require that blacks and whites take different tests. You win. It doesnt invalidate my point that blacks are incapable of adhering to basic anglo-saxon norms.

    You blame all of this on the southrons. but if all of this mess was created by the southrons then why does the entire anglosphere contain anti-discrimination laws? the anti-discrimination brigade was drawn up by the left as a way of attacking the west and its legitimacy after WW2. Canada, the UK, Australia, NZ, Belgium, Holland, Scandanavian countries all have had anti-discrimination movements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Get out of the dorm room sometime kid.

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks. They just wanted to live in the city. They all choose to live in the whitest area that they could afford. They hung out with whites (and Asians). Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were.

    Guess what happened when they had kids? That's right, they moved to white suburbs. No one takes a chance with their kids - and sending your kid to a heavily black schools is taking a huge chance.

    I don't know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish.

    Now, you could argue that whites don't mind so much living around Hispanics. I might somewhat disagree but it's a reasonable argument. You definitely could argue that whites don't mind living around NE Asians. Given the intermarriage rates of well-educated whites and Asians, that's a very good argument.

    Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody - not even blacks - want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it.

    You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks.

    “Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks.”

    It’s possible you are telling the truth. It’s also possible that you hiding something important here.

    “Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were.”

    No.

    “I don’t know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish.”

    If whites and Hispanics are moving into historically black areas, and living side by side with them, your assertion is definitively proven to be false.

    “Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody – not even blacks – want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it.”

    YOU believe it to be true in desperate fashion.

    “You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks.”

    And you should focus more on being human and loving humanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Truth says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Man, you really don't like those states - or the whites who live in them.

    Btw, I grew up in one of those areas. People move mostly because they have to, even with the bad weather. I can tell you one thing: Not a single one of them says, "I need to leave North Dakota to live around those awesome blacks."

    Nobody wants to live around blacks, even blacks.

    Man, you really don’t like those states – or the whites who live in them.

    Apparently, neither do you.

    Btw, I grew up in one of those areas. People move mostly because they have to, even with the bad weather.

    Oh, I get it. the gestapo came by and kicked your door in and forced you onto the railroad to Auschwitz.

    I can tell you one thing: Not a single one of them says, “I need to leave North Dakota to live around those awesome blacks.”

    Actions speak louder than words, Old Sport:

    A: You live around more blacks now than you did where you grew up.
    B: Nothing is stopping you to move back to your hometwon.
    C: You are AT LEAST fairly neutral about blacks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Truth says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Get out of the dorm room sometime kid.

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks. They just wanted to live in the city. They all choose to live in the whitest area that they could afford. They hung out with whites (and Asians). Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were.

    Guess what happened when they had kids? That's right, they moved to white suburbs. No one takes a chance with their kids - and sending your kid to a heavily black schools is taking a huge chance.

    I don't know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish.

    Now, you could argue that whites don't mind so much living around Hispanics. I might somewhat disagree but it's a reasonable argument. You definitely could argue that whites don't mind living around NE Asians. Given the intermarriage rates of well-educated whites and Asians, that's a very good argument.

    Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody - not even blacks - want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it.

    You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks.

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks.

    Hey, I have something in common with them. I live in Hawaii, but I don’t want to be around salt water.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Corvinus
    Let's get back to something that you left hanging in the wind.

    You said, “That’s not what the EEOC’s website says.”

    What does the EEOC say about race/color discrimination? Here it is.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm

    I’m not finding exactly where “testing blacks for literacy is not OK but that testing whites for literacy is OK”. Perhaps you can direct me EXACTLY where is this phrase or where is a similar phrase found on the EEOC website.

    Actually, I will admit that I was wrong. I misread the EEOC’s website. The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like, it doesnt yet require that blacks and whites take different tests. You win. It doesnt invalidate my point that blacks are incapable of adhering to basic anglo-saxon norms.

    You blame all of this on the southrons. but if all of this mess was created by the southrons then why does the entire anglosphere contain anti-discrimination laws? the anti-discrimination brigade was drawn up by the left as a way of attacking the west and its legitimacy after WW2. Canada, the UK, Australia, NZ, Belgium, Holland, Scandanavian countries all have had anti-discrimination movements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    It does say this? Where specifically?

    "It doesnt invalidate my point that blacks are incapable of adhering to basic anglo-saxon norms."

    Your point is invalid, since our nation is based on American norms. You do realize, of course, that Anglo-Saxon norms is a mix of the Angles, Britons, Danes, Fresians, Romans, Saxons, Normans, and Celts. Diversity in action.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Truth says:

    Actually, I will admit that I was wrong. I misread the EEOC’s website. The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like, it doesnt yet require that blacks and whites take different tests.

    LOL, wow, what an epiphany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. @William Badwhite
    "I think JD divides the world into blacks and non-blacks. So this would be an all-non-black community."

    Sir Harry Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser's creation, had a much finer grading system than does JD. He said "there are only three races: Englishman, Frenchman, and n*&&ers"

    Sir Harry Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser’s creation, had a much finer grading system than does JD. He said “there are only three races: Englishman, Frenchman, and n*&&ers”

    It was once said of Churchill that he believed the wogs began at Calais.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    Jared is right about seperation -as a solution for whites who'd like to live in regions with few if any "African-Americans," Mestizos/Amerindians, Muslims from North African and the Middle-East, immigrants from Haiti and black African, including Somalis who are black and Muslim. There are now more Somalis in the "Twin-Cities," mostly in Minneapolis, than in any city in Somalia with the exception of Mogadishu.

    But, alas, JD is right in arguing, in fact knowing, that it will never happen. First, the governing-classes and ruling elites who support an invasion of tens of millions of aliens from the Third-World -not only because many of them want an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor to further enrich themselves but also because, far more crucially, virtually all of them want to "elect a new people" and turn the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country or are too craven and feckless to oppose this nation-destroying transformation- would never allow that creation of all-white or nearly all-white regions.

    And even if, hypothetically, they allowed it, legally, how could such regions be created and sustained in practice? The only two regions of the country that are still over 90% white are in the frigid North: Minnesota west of the Twin-Cities and St. Cloud to east of Washington State and, secondly, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. How many millions of whites could these regions support? What percentage of the white population? And people would have to quit their jobs and leave their homes and sell their houses and move hundreds or 1000-3000 miles to move to these all-white or nearly all-white regions. Yes, it will never happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. SMK says: • Website
    @Johann Ricke

    Sir Harry Flashman, George Macdonald Fraser’s creation, had a much finer grading system than does JD. He said “there are only three races: Englishman, Frenchman, and n*&&ers”
     
    It was once said of Churchill that he believed the wogs began at Calais.

    Jared is right about seperation -as a solution for whites who’d like to live in regions with few if any “African-Americans,” Mestizos/Amerindians, Muslims from North African and the Middle-East, immigrants from Haiti and black African, including Somalis who are black and Muslim. There are now more Somalis in the “Twin-Cities,” mostly in Minneapolis, than in any city in Somalia with the exception of Mogadishu.

    But, alas, JD is right in arguing, in fact knowing, that it will never happen. First, the governing-classes and ruling elites who support an invasion of tens of millions of aliens from the Third-World -not only because many of them want an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor to further enrich themselves but also because, far more crucially, virtually all of them want to “elect a new people” and turn the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country or are too craven and feckless to oppose this nation-destroying transformation- would never allow that creation of all-white or nearly all-white regions.

    And even if, hypothetically, they allowed it, legally, how could such regions be created and sustained in practice? The only two regions of the country that are still over 90% white are in the frigid North: Minnesota west of the Twin-Cities and St. Cloud to east of Washington State and, secondly, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. How many millions of whites could these regions support? What percentage of the white population? And people would have to quit their jobs and leave their homes and sell their houses and move hundreds or 1000-3000 miles to move to these all-white or nearly all-white regions. Yes, it will never happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Jared is right about seperation -as a solution for whites who’d like to live in regions with few if any “African-Americans,” Mestizos/Amerindians, Muslims from North African and the Middle-East, immigrants from Haiti and black African, including Somalis who are black and Muslim."

    There is the solution for those certain whites today--they live in great numbers in segregated areas.

    "There are now more Somalis in the “Twin-Cities,” mostly in Minneapolis, than in any city in Somalia with the exception of Mogadishu."

    The same phenomenon occurred when the Irish move to eastern cities in the 1850's and when the Italians moved there in the 1890's. There was a similar sentiment by nativists.

    'First, the governing-classes and ruling elites who support an invasion of tens of millions of aliens from the Third-World -not only because many of them want an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor to further enrich themselves but also because, far more crucially, virtually all of them want to “elect a new people” and turn the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country or are too craven and feckless to oppose this nation-destroying transformation- would never allow that creation of all-white or nearly all-white regions."

    There is no "invasion".

    The "governing classes and ruling elites" are citizens of America who have the liberty to secure their own future. Now, how do you propose to curb their ability to craft legislation that benefit their interests? You do realize you are no different than these groups in this regard, right?

    And, of course, they do not want to "elect a new people" and "change our nation to a non-white majority". That is Fake News at its finest.

    "How many millions of whites could these regions support? What percentage of the white population? And people would have to quit their jobs and leave their homes and sell their houses and move hundreds or 1000-3000 miles to move to these all-white or nearly all-white regions. Yes, it will never happen."

    Now you are finally making some sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. This article is fromThe Baltimore Sun which is definitely not known as a conservative newspaper. It is surprising that it got published.

    The Black Dilemma
    For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

    The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

    The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

    Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

    [MORE]

    Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

    Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

    Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

    Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

    But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

    But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country’s violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

    The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others – but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

    Our leaders don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.”

    “You can’t legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don’t have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

    Ian Duncan
    The Baltimore Sun

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Corvinus says:
    @Epochehusserl
    Actually, I will admit that I was wrong. I misread the EEOC's website. The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like, it doesnt yet require that blacks and whites take different tests. You win. It doesnt invalidate my point that blacks are incapable of adhering to basic anglo-saxon norms.

    You blame all of this on the southrons. but if all of this mess was created by the southrons then why does the entire anglosphere contain anti-discrimination laws? the anti-discrimination brigade was drawn up by the left as a way of attacking the west and its legitimacy after WW2. Canada, the UK, Australia, NZ, Belgium, Holland, Scandanavian countries all have had anti-discrimination movements.

    “The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like…”

    It does say this? Where specifically?

    “It doesnt invalidate my point that blacks are incapable of adhering to basic anglo-saxon norms.”

    Your point is invalid, since our nation is based on American norms. You do realize, of course, that Anglo-Saxon norms is a mix of the Angles, Britons, Danes, Fresians, Romans, Saxons, Normans, and Celts. Diversity in action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    The phrase American norms doesn't mean anything other than the America being a geospatial entity. The original idea of civil rights arose after the civil war and it was to grant blacks the rights and responsibilities pertaining to contract, an idea which the EEOC has turned on its head. The was the strategy of gramscian Marxists after ww2. These ideas exist throughout the Anglo sphere not just in the south or even the us. None of those other diversities you mention required anti~discrimination laws. Some diversities are better than others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Corvinus says:
    @SMK
    Jared is right about seperation -as a solution for whites who'd like to live in regions with few if any "African-Americans," Mestizos/Amerindians, Muslims from North African and the Middle-East, immigrants from Haiti and black African, including Somalis who are black and Muslim. There are now more Somalis in the "Twin-Cities," mostly in Minneapolis, than in any city in Somalia with the exception of Mogadishu.

    But, alas, JD is right in arguing, in fact knowing, that it will never happen. First, the governing-classes and ruling elites who support an invasion of tens of millions of aliens from the Third-World -not only because many of them want an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor to further enrich themselves but also because, far more crucially, virtually all of them want to "elect a new people" and turn the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country or are too craven and feckless to oppose this nation-destroying transformation- would never allow that creation of all-white or nearly all-white regions.

    And even if, hypothetically, they allowed it, legally, how could such regions be created and sustained in practice? The only two regions of the country that are still over 90% white are in the frigid North: Minnesota west of the Twin-Cities and St. Cloud to east of Washington State and, secondly, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. How many millions of whites could these regions support? What percentage of the white population? And people would have to quit their jobs and leave their homes and sell their houses and move hundreds or 1000-3000 miles to move to these all-white or nearly all-white regions. Yes, it will never happen.

    “Jared is right about seperation -as a solution for whites who’d like to live in regions with few if any “African-Americans,” Mestizos/Amerindians, Muslims from North African and the Middle-East, immigrants from Haiti and black African, including Somalis who are black and Muslim.”

    There is the solution for those certain whites today–they live in great numbers in segregated areas.

    “There are now more Somalis in the “Twin-Cities,” mostly in Minneapolis, than in any city in Somalia with the exception of Mogadishu.”

    The same phenomenon occurred when the Irish move to eastern cities in the 1850′s and when the Italians moved there in the 1890′s. There was a similar sentiment by nativists.

    ‘First, the governing-classes and ruling elites who support an invasion of tens of millions of aliens from the Third-World -not only because many of them want an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor to further enrich themselves but also because, far more crucially, virtually all of them want to “elect a new people” and turn the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country or are too craven and feckless to oppose this nation-destroying transformation- would never allow that creation of all-white or nearly all-white regions.”

    There is no “invasion”.

    The “governing classes and ruling elites” are citizens of America who have the liberty to secure their own future. Now, how do you propose to curb their ability to craft legislation that benefit their interests? You do realize you are no different than these groups in this regard, right?

    And, of course, they do not want to “elect a new people” and “change our nation to a non-white majority”. That is Fake News at its finest.

    “How many millions of whites could these regions support? What percentage of the white population? And people would have to quit their jobs and leave their homes and sell their houses and move hundreds or 1000-3000 miles to move to these all-white or nearly all-white regions. Yes, it will never happen.”

    Now you are finally making some sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    It's futile to try to argue with someone who equates the Irish with Somalis. The Irish in general are almost identical in appearance and essentially as intelligent as other Northern Europeans: the English, the Scots, the Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, etc. The average IQ of Somalis is 67! The majority of Somalis are retarded. And they are distinct in appearance, glaringly distinct from the Irish and all other Europeans, and even distinct from West Africans.

    Blacks have been here for 400 years. Slavery was abolished over 150 years ago and segregation was abolished over have a century ago and Negroes have benefited from "affirmative-action," racial quotas, "set-asides, double-standards, and preferential treatment since the 1960s. And blacks as a group have still not assimilated, largely and essentially, because of average low intelligence, greater impulsiveness, high-levels of testosterone, and a coterie of "leaders" who are liars and hatemongers, constantly demonizing whites and blaming all inequalities (except for sports) and all the self-inflicted maladies and "problems" of Negroes on "systematic and institutional racism" -in a country in which blacks don't have equal but superior rights and the media conceals the realities of black violence and criminality and much else- and the "legacy of slavery and segregation."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It really isn’t complicated.
     
    Whites move to where the jobs are . . . and then find the whitest neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn't complicated.

    In reality, whites move to where the jobs are…and then find a neighborhood that they can afford.

    It really isn’t complicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Corvinus
    "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    It does say this? Where specifically?

    "It doesnt invalidate my point that blacks are incapable of adhering to basic anglo-saxon norms."

    Your point is invalid, since our nation is based on American norms. You do realize, of course, that Anglo-Saxon norms is a mix of the Angles, Britons, Danes, Fresians, Romans, Saxons, Normans, and Celts. Diversity in action.

    The phrase American norms doesn’t mean anything other than the America being a geospatial entity. The original idea of civil rights arose after the civil war and it was to grant blacks the rights and responsibilities pertaining to contract, an idea which the EEOC has turned on its head. The was the strategy of gramscian Marxists after ww2. These ideas exist throughout the Anglo sphere not just in the south or even the us. None of those other diversities you mention required anti~discrimination laws. Some diversities are better than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The phrase American norms doesn’t mean anything other than the America being a geospatial entity."

    No, American norms refers specifically those those norms created by citizens of a nation who call the United States their home.

    "The original idea of civil rights arose after the civil war and it was to grant blacks the rights and responsibilities pertaining to contract, an idea which the EEOC has turned on its head."

    Actually, the concept of civil rights is derived from John Locke's natural rights, which is an integral part of our Constitution.

    "None of those other diversities you mention required anti~discrimination laws."

    Which is entirely a red herring on your part.

    "Some diversities are better than others."

    What metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. joef says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep, Mexicans have taken over many formerly black neighborhoods with awesomely ruthless methods. That all happened in a generation.

    Despite what some here think, things can change rather quickly.

    Whites seem utterly clueless at the moment due to generations of propaganda and that likely won't change for a long time - if ever. But the simply truth is that people want to live around people who look and act like themselves. That's nature folks.

    ("But, but, but," sputters the actor known as Corvinus as he hits his macro to say the same thing yet again, "look at all the harmonious multi-racial neighborhoods" without acknowledging that whites had no choice in the matter. Please Corvinus, show me all the examples of whites moving to black neighborhoods except to gentrify them. It's never happened. Not once. If you want to know what whites would do if free look at the demographics of churches.)

    What terrifies people like Truth and Corvinus is a crack in the damn. They want to keep the idea of whites segregating themselves from other groups utterly unthinkable because they rightly suspect that if whites ever had the chance to do so without getting fired from their jobs and harassed by the establishment, a good many would do so. And once some started to break, the other whites would quickly see what the white community looked like and what the now less white community look like and would start to come over.

    What's more, the next generation would view the situation with much less propagandized eyes and that would be the end. (That's right, the future is not your's. I'm not sure that it's mine either, but some happy multi-culti Coke commercial it will not be.)

    Granted, whites are pussies at the moment so none of this has much chance of happening. But as I've said many times, I'm quietly working to get involved in business and civic groups to someday broach the subject of forming a European (or white) business or community organization. I'll simply tell the truth, which is there are already identical organizations for Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians so why not one for European Americans.

    I don't give a shit if only two other people join the group. (They will because I will have discussed it with them already.) Once it's formed and acts perfectly normal, just trying to help young or poor whites and not some KKK meetting, it will slowly be seen as just another group. More whites will start to join and we're on our way.

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life. If that sounds small, you're mistaken. It's the first step in a long jouney, but at least, the journey will have begun. The terribly constructed damn will have a little crack that will slowly grow.

    No race war. No white nationalism rally. Just a simple European American business or community group designed to help young/poor whites enter adulthood and excel in life.

    The no race war part is not really up to us… It is up to the afro americans. They have an absolute expectation that a free lunch economy can provide perpetually increasing entitlements. Of course this cannot be sustained indefinitely (despite liberal obfuscations to the contrary). Once those welfare checks start to get reduced, afros obsessive racial hatred of whites will propel them into a de facto declaration of race war against the rest of us (including Black uncle toms). The formula for this national disaster is simple: racial balkanization plus economic decline will equal race war.

    The only thing that would prevent this is either a) we do not allow it to happen by imposing standards, or b) afro americans repudiate their radical antisocial (& anti white) agenda. I do not believe either one will realistically happen. If this keeps going in our current social/economic trajectory, we will see a race war by the afros (if you continuously head in a certain direction, you will eventually arrive at the destination, like it or not). The paradox is that the afros will end up becoming the biggest loser from their own initiated race war.

    [I remember a person replied to one of my past comments asking if I wanted this to happen... the answer is of course not ... but I do not want wars/famines/pandemics/hurricanes/floods/earthquakes/recessions to happen either, but that never prevented one from occurring].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. joef says:
    @Martin Spencer
    I'm puzzled, but perhaps that's because I'm English and have only spent 7 weeks in the USA.

    The stats show that blacks are stupid, violent, lazy parasites, and black women are hideous.

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?

    Well its not as much as we want to be around them, as they want to around us. Because after all, despite their obsessive hatred of whitey, they still ungratefully want:
    > White generated electricity;
    > White maintained roads;
    > White built hospitals;
    > White built bridges;
    > White built subways;
    > White built refrigerators;
    > White built housing;
    > White provided medicine;
    > White grown food;
    > White indoor plumbing;
    > White designed automobiles/airplanes;
    > White tax subsidized welfare checks;
    > White telephone systems;
    > White clean water supply;
    > White sewage treatment;
    > White sanitation;
    > White firefighting;
    > White broadcast TV & radio;
    > White liberal pandering;
    > White invented computer internet;
    > White shipping/trucking;
    > White … etc etc etc;
    Wow, all this when they claim we gave them nothing! And what exactly are we getting in return?? They are living large on our dime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You desperately want an entire race to take credit for discoveries that, in reality, were conceived first and foremost by people who were of "x" or "y" ethnicity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. joef says:
    @Jason Liu
    They can leave the old man and come live with the Asian community

    Question for you: What's a fine black man like yourself doing on Unz? These white folks are gonna hate you no matter what you say, you know.

    Question for you: What’s a fine black man like yourself doing on Unz? These white folks are gonna hate you no matter what you say, you know.

    ???? Just because some of us strongly disagree with “Truth” does not mean we have to hate him. And its not like your side of the argument is without hate, so stop acting so sanctimonious. Despite it being true that some white nationalist indiscriminately hate everybody, most other white nationalist are simply protecting their rational self interest from Afros/Liberals/Leftist, that hate, and consistently attack, Whites. They became white nationalist by reacting to the other sides proactive enmity. I consider myself a paleocon (and a little bit Reagan Democrat), not a White Nationalist, but I definitely can see why this movement is growing. Saying it is all because of hate is a myopic assessment. The growth of White Nationalist is a response to growing grievances that were created, and ignored, over the last 50 years. It is mostly a defensive movement, not an offensive movement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. SMK says: • Website
    @Corvinus
    "Jared is right about seperation -as a solution for whites who’d like to live in regions with few if any “African-Americans,” Mestizos/Amerindians, Muslims from North African and the Middle-East, immigrants from Haiti and black African, including Somalis who are black and Muslim."

    There is the solution for those certain whites today--they live in great numbers in segregated areas.

    "There are now more Somalis in the “Twin-Cities,” mostly in Minneapolis, than in any city in Somalia with the exception of Mogadishu."

    The same phenomenon occurred when the Irish move to eastern cities in the 1850's and when the Italians moved there in the 1890's. There was a similar sentiment by nativists.

    'First, the governing-classes and ruling elites who support an invasion of tens of millions of aliens from the Third-World -not only because many of them want an endless supply of cheap and cheaper labor to further enrich themselves but also because, far more crucially, virtually all of them want to “elect a new people” and turn the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country or are too craven and feckless to oppose this nation-destroying transformation- would never allow that creation of all-white or nearly all-white regions."

    There is no "invasion".

    The "governing classes and ruling elites" are citizens of America who have the liberty to secure their own future. Now, how do you propose to curb their ability to craft legislation that benefit their interests? You do realize you are no different than these groups in this regard, right?

    And, of course, they do not want to "elect a new people" and "change our nation to a non-white majority". That is Fake News at its finest.

    "How many millions of whites could these regions support? What percentage of the white population? And people would have to quit their jobs and leave their homes and sell their houses and move hundreds or 1000-3000 miles to move to these all-white or nearly all-white regions. Yes, it will never happen."

    Now you are finally making some sense.

    It’s futile to try to argue with someone who equates the Irish with Somalis. The Irish in general are almost identical in appearance and essentially as intelligent as other Northern Europeans: the English, the Scots, the Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, etc. The average IQ of Somalis is 67! The majority of Somalis are retarded. And they are distinct in appearance, glaringly distinct from the Irish and all other Europeans, and even distinct from West Africans.

    Blacks have been here for 400 years. Slavery was abolished over 150 years ago and segregation was abolished over have a century ago and Negroes have benefited from “affirmative-action,” racial quotas, “set-asides, double-standards, and preferential treatment since the 1960s. And blacks as a group have still not assimilated, largely and essentially, because of average low intelligence, greater impulsiveness, high-levels of testosterone, and a coterie of “leaders” who are liars and hatemongers, constantly demonizing whites and blaming all inequalities (except for sports) and all the self-inflicted maladies and “problems” of Negroes on “systematic and institutional racism” -in a country in which blacks don’t have equal but superior rights and the media conceals the realities of black violence and criminality and much else- and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.”

    Read More
    • Agree: joef
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It’s futile to try to argue with someone who equates the Irish with Somalis."

    Both are human beings. That is most important here.

    "The Irish in general are almost identical in appearance and essentially as intelligent as other Northern Europeans: the English, the Scots, the Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, etc."

    The nativists in the 1850's and 1860's felt otherwise.

    "The average IQ of Somalis is 67! The majority of Somalis are retarded."

    Assuming IQ is the end all and be all and assuming that the work done by Lynn and Vanhanen is accurate.

    "Blacks have been here for 400 years. Slavery was abolished over 150 years ago and segregation was abolished over have a century ago and Negroes have benefited from “affirmative-action,” racial quotas, “set-asides, double-standards, and preferential treatment since the 1960s."

    Indeed, there have been measures in place to rectify 400 years of perpetual discrimination. Progress has been made regarding black-white relations.

    "And blacks as a group have still not assimilated, largely and essentially, because of average low intelligence..."

    Of course blacks have assimilated. Regarding IQ, it is in large part due to environmental factors.

    "greater impulsiveness, high-levels of testosterone, and a coterie of “leaders” who are liars and hatemongers..."

    Actually, that would represent white elites who are trying to destroy you. Boo!

    "constantly demonizing whites and blaming all inequalities (except for sports) and all the self-inflicted maladies and “problems” of Negroes on “systematic and institutional racism”

    Not demonizing, but merely point out long-standing issues that remain prominent today.

    "in a country in which blacks don’t have equal but superior rights and the media conceals the realities of black violence and criminality and much else- and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.”

    Blacks don't have superior rights, just rights. And the extreme liberal and conservative media equally is guilty for distorting reality regarding blacks and whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Corvinus says:
    @SMK
    It's futile to try to argue with someone who equates the Irish with Somalis. The Irish in general are almost identical in appearance and essentially as intelligent as other Northern Europeans: the English, the Scots, the Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, etc. The average IQ of Somalis is 67! The majority of Somalis are retarded. And they are distinct in appearance, glaringly distinct from the Irish and all other Europeans, and even distinct from West Africans.

    Blacks have been here for 400 years. Slavery was abolished over 150 years ago and segregation was abolished over have a century ago and Negroes have benefited from "affirmative-action," racial quotas, "set-asides, double-standards, and preferential treatment since the 1960s. And blacks as a group have still not assimilated, largely and essentially, because of average low intelligence, greater impulsiveness, high-levels of testosterone, and a coterie of "leaders" who are liars and hatemongers, constantly demonizing whites and blaming all inequalities (except for sports) and all the self-inflicted maladies and "problems" of Negroes on "systematic and institutional racism" -in a country in which blacks don't have equal but superior rights and the media conceals the realities of black violence and criminality and much else- and the "legacy of slavery and segregation."

    “It’s futile to try to argue with someone who equates the Irish with Somalis.”

    Both are human beings. That is most important here.

    “The Irish in general are almost identical in appearance and essentially as intelligent as other Northern Europeans: the English, the Scots, the Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, etc.”

    The nativists in the 1850′s and 1860′s felt otherwise.

    “The average IQ of Somalis is 67! The majority of Somalis are retarded.”

    Assuming IQ is the end all and be all and assuming that the work done by Lynn and Vanhanen is accurate.

    “Blacks have been here for 400 years. Slavery was abolished over 150 years ago and segregation was abolished over have a century ago and Negroes have benefited from “affirmative-action,” racial quotas, “set-asides, double-standards, and preferential treatment since the 1960s.”

    Indeed, there have been measures in place to rectify 400 years of perpetual discrimination. Progress has been made regarding black-white relations.

    “And blacks as a group have still not assimilated, largely and essentially, because of average low intelligence…”

    Of course blacks have assimilated. Regarding IQ, it is in large part due to environmental factors.

    “greater impulsiveness, high-levels of testosterone, and a coterie of “leaders” who are liars and hatemongers…”

    Actually, that would represent white elites who are trying to destroy you. Boo!

    “constantly demonizing whites and blaming all inequalities (except for sports) and all the self-inflicted maladies and “problems” of Negroes on “systematic and institutional racism”

    Not demonizing, but merely point out long-standing issues that remain prominent today.

    “in a country in which blacks don’t have equal but superior rights and the media conceals the realities of black violence and criminality and much else- and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.”

    Blacks don’t have superior rights, just rights. And the extreme liberal and conservative media equally is guilty for distorting reality regarding blacks and whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Corvinus says:
    @joef

    Why exactly do whites want to live around blacks?
     
    Well its not as much as we want to be around them, as they want to around us. Because after all, despite their obsessive hatred of whitey, they still ungratefully want:
    > White generated electricity;
    > White maintained roads;
    > White built hospitals;
    > White built bridges;
    > White built subways;
    > White built refrigerators;
    > White built housing;
    > White provided medicine;
    > White grown food;
    > White indoor plumbing;
    > White designed automobiles/airplanes;
    > White tax subsidized welfare checks;
    > White telephone systems;
    > White clean water supply;
    > White sewage treatment;
    > White sanitation;
    > White firefighting;
    > White broadcast TV & radio;
    > White liberal pandering;
    > White invented computer internet;
    > White shipping/trucking;
    > White ... etc etc etc;
    Wow, all this when they claim we gave them nothing! And what exactly are we getting in return?? They are living large on our dime.

    You desperately want an entire race to take credit for discoveries that, in reality, were conceived first and foremost by people who were of “x” or “y” ethnicity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joef
    Yeah I forgot that Asians are currently helping perfect these inventions, and Hispanics are contributing their sweat equity to the system, so afros can live large on their dime too. And in return we all get violent crime, chronic complaining, and demands for more. Not exactly a recipe for peaceful coexistence (to which afro americans never blame themselves for the problems they cause).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Corvinus says:
    @Epochehusserl
    The phrase American norms doesn't mean anything other than the America being a geospatial entity. The original idea of civil rights arose after the civil war and it was to grant blacks the rights and responsibilities pertaining to contract, an idea which the EEOC has turned on its head. The was the strategy of gramscian Marxists after ww2. These ideas exist throughout the Anglo sphere not just in the south or even the us. None of those other diversities you mention required anti~discrimination laws. Some diversities are better than others.

    “The phrase American norms doesn’t mean anything other than the America being a geospatial entity.”

    No, American norms refers specifically those those norms created by citizens of a nation who call the United States their home.

    “The original idea of civil rights arose after the civil war and it was to grant blacks the rights and responsibilities pertaining to contract, an idea which the EEOC has turned on its head.”

    Actually, the concept of civil rights is derived from John Locke’s natural rights, which is an integral part of our Constitution.

    “None of those other diversities you mention required anti~discrimination laws.”

    Which is entirely a red herring on your part.

    “Some diversities are better than others.”

    What metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that “The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like…”

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    The civil rights norms were created by the courts not the American people. No democratically elected piece of legislation ever condoned or accepted racial quotas Corvinus, we had this discussion before. You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability. Ford was sued 10 years ago for using a validated test. Only black people require these special rules for accommodation. Name dropping "John Locke" doesnt invalidate what I have wrote. Liberty of contract and property were Lockean ideals that have been turned on their head. Locke was the philosopher of contractual liberty not group rights. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you this much of a liar? The idea that there should be protected groups of people is the opposite of everything that Locke espoused.

    -------------------------------
    The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours. People who dont like each other dont cooperate with each other.
    -----------------------------
    You want to blame all of this on the Southrons but you never addressed why these movements have taken place all over the Anglosphere and post-Christian European civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Get out of the dorm room sometime kid.

    Look, I know many people who moved into DC. Not one of them wanted to be around blacks. They just wanted to live in the city. They all choose to live in the whitest area that they could afford. They hung out with whites (and Asians). Even the most liberal We are the World types would admit how dangerous the blacks were.

    Guess what happened when they had kids? That's right, they moved to white suburbs. No one takes a chance with their kids - and sending your kid to a heavily black schools is taking a huge chance.

    I don't know why you and the actor known as Corvinus keep insisting that whites have any desire to live around blacks. It makes you look foolish.

    Now, you could argue that whites don't mind so much living around Hispanics. I might somewhat disagree but it's a reasonable argument. You definitely could argue that whites don't mind living around NE Asians. Given the intermarriage rates of well-educated whites and Asians, that's a very good argument.

    Instead, you focus on blacks, which is laughable. Nobody - not even blacks - want to live around blacks. Everybody knows it.

    You should at least switch your arguments away from blacks.

    “Nobody wants to live around blacks, even blacks.”

    You look foolish when you use such absolutes as “nobody” or “everyone” or “all of the time”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Corvinus
    "The phrase American norms doesn’t mean anything other than the America being a geospatial entity."

    No, American norms refers specifically those those norms created by citizens of a nation who call the United States their home.

    "The original idea of civil rights arose after the civil war and it was to grant blacks the rights and responsibilities pertaining to contract, an idea which the EEOC has turned on its head."

    Actually, the concept of civil rights is derived from John Locke's natural rights, which is an integral part of our Constitution.

    "None of those other diversities you mention required anti~discrimination laws."

    Which is entirely a red herring on your part.

    "Some diversities are better than others."

    What metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    The civil rights norms were created by the courts not the American people. No democratically elected piece of legislation ever condoned or accepted racial quotas Corvinus, we had this discussion before. You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability. Ford was sued 10 years ago for using a validated test. Only black people require these special rules for accommodation. Name dropping “John Locke” doesnt invalidate what I have wrote. Liberty of contract and property were Lockean ideals that have been turned on their head. Locke was the philosopher of contractual liberty not group rights. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you this much of a liar? The idea that there should be protected groups of people is the opposite of everything that Locke espoused.

    ——————————-
    The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours. People who dont like each other dont cooperate with each other.
    —————————–
    You want to blame all of this on the Southrons but you never addressed why these movements have taken place all over the Anglosphere and post-Christian European civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The civil rights norms were created by the courts not the American people."

    The civil rights norms were created by the American people. The courts clarified those rights.

    "No democratically elected piece of legislation ever condoned or accepted racial quotas Corvinus, we had this discussion before."

    Legislation, as reflected by the will of the people, was created to put into place affirmative action.

    "You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability."

    Please show me where I specifically made that claim.

    "Ford was sued 10 years ago for using a validated test.'

    The test was determined to not meet specific criteria. Ford had been sued two years prior and promised to make changes. It neglected to make the appropriate changes. As a result, Ford was sued again, and agreed to settle.

    "Liberty of contract and property were Lockean ideals that have been turned on their head. Locke was the philosopher of contractual liberty not group rights."

    Locke insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. He defined individual liberties and clearly stated that people as a collective may seek the redress of their grievances.

    "The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours."

    False comparison on top of a red herring. Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    "You want to blame all of this on the Southrons but you never addressed why these movements have taken place all over the Anglosphere and post-Christian European civilization."

    The movement for civil rights by labor groups, for women, and for non-whites stemmed from injustice. For African-Americans, it originated when Southrons clearly violated the Plessy ruling--separate but equal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. joef says:
    @Corvinus
    You desperately want an entire race to take credit for discoveries that, in reality, were conceived first and foremost by people who were of "x" or "y" ethnicity.

    Yeah I forgot that Asians are currently helping perfect these inventions, and Hispanics are contributing their sweat equity to the system, so afros can live large on their dime too. And in return we all get violent crime, chronic complaining, and demands for more. Not exactly a recipe for peaceful coexistence (to which afro americans never blame themselves for the problems they cause).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Corvinus says:
    @Epochehusserl
    The civil rights norms were created by the courts not the American people. No democratically elected piece of legislation ever condoned or accepted racial quotas Corvinus, we had this discussion before. You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability. Ford was sued 10 years ago for using a validated test. Only black people require these special rules for accommodation. Name dropping "John Locke" doesnt invalidate what I have wrote. Liberty of contract and property were Lockean ideals that have been turned on their head. Locke was the philosopher of contractual liberty not group rights. Do you really believe what you are saying? Are you this much of a liar? The idea that there should be protected groups of people is the opposite of everything that Locke espoused.

    -------------------------------
    The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours. People who dont like each other dont cooperate with each other.
    -----------------------------
    You want to blame all of this on the Southrons but you never addressed why these movements have taken place all over the Anglosphere and post-Christian European civilization.

    “The civil rights norms were created by the courts not the American people.”

    The civil rights norms were created by the American people. The courts clarified those rights.

    “No democratically elected piece of legislation ever condoned or accepted racial quotas Corvinus, we had this discussion before.”

    Legislation, as reflected by the will of the people, was created to put into place affirmative action.

    “You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability.”

    Please show me where I specifically made that claim.

    “Ford was sued 10 years ago for using a validated test.’

    The test was determined to not meet specific criteria. Ford had been sued two years prior and promised to make changes. It neglected to make the appropriate changes. As a result, Ford was sued again, and agreed to settle.

    “Liberty of contract and property were Lockean ideals that have been turned on their head. Locke was the philosopher of contractual liberty not group rights.”

    Locke insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. He defined individual liberties and clearly stated that people as a collective may seek the redress of their grievances.

    “The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours.”

    False comparison on top of a red herring. Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that “The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like…”

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    “You want to blame all of this on the Southrons but you never addressed why these movements have taken place all over the Anglosphere and post-Christian European civilization.”

    The movement for civil rights by labor groups, for women, and for non-whites stemmed from injustice. For African-Americans, it originated when Southrons clearly violated the Plessy ruling–separate but equal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    The civil rights laws that were passed originally explicitly prohibited racial quotas. So much for the will of the people. They were imposed by bureaucrats later on. Can you tell me where any piece of legislation explicitly condones racial quotas that was democratically passed? If the alt right were not so disorganized it could merely demand an end to any racial quota system immediately and would probably pass if properly worded and advocated for. Affirmative action was taking affirmative steps to recruit disadvantaged groups, it never condoned or advanced racial quotas. We went over this Corvinus already. You are trying to resurrect arguments that you already conceded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Corvinus
    "The civil rights norms were created by the courts not the American people."

    The civil rights norms were created by the American people. The courts clarified those rights.

    "No democratically elected piece of legislation ever condoned or accepted racial quotas Corvinus, we had this discussion before."

    Legislation, as reflected by the will of the people, was created to put into place affirmative action.

    "You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability."

    Please show me where I specifically made that claim.

    "Ford was sued 10 years ago for using a validated test.'

    The test was determined to not meet specific criteria. Ford had been sued two years prior and promised to make changes. It neglected to make the appropriate changes. As a result, Ford was sued again, and agreed to settle.

    "Liberty of contract and property were Lockean ideals that have been turned on their head. Locke was the philosopher of contractual liberty not group rights."

    Locke insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel. He defined individual liberties and clearly stated that people as a collective may seek the redress of their grievances.

    "The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours."

    False comparison on top of a red herring. Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    "You want to blame all of this on the Southrons but you never addressed why these movements have taken place all over the Anglosphere and post-Christian European civilization."

    The movement for civil rights by labor groups, for women, and for non-whites stemmed from injustice. For African-Americans, it originated when Southrons clearly violated the Plessy ruling--separate but equal.

    The civil rights laws that were passed originally explicitly prohibited racial quotas. So much for the will of the people. They were imposed by bureaucrats later on. Can you tell me where any piece of legislation explicitly condones racial quotas that was democratically passed? If the alt right were not so disorganized it could merely demand an end to any racial quota system immediately and would probably pass if properly worded and advocated for. Affirmative action was taking affirmative steps to recruit disadvantaged groups, it never condoned or advanced racial quotas. We went over this Corvinus already. You are trying to resurrect arguments that you already conceded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "We went over this Corvinus already. You are trying to resurrect arguments that you already conceded."

    I did no such thing as "concede". Stay on point here.

    "You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability."

    Please show me where I specifically made that claim.

    "The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours."

    Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Corvinus says:
    @Epochehusserl
    The civil rights laws that were passed originally explicitly prohibited racial quotas. So much for the will of the people. They were imposed by bureaucrats later on. Can you tell me where any piece of legislation explicitly condones racial quotas that was democratically passed? If the alt right were not so disorganized it could merely demand an end to any racial quota system immediately and would probably pass if properly worded and advocated for. Affirmative action was taking affirmative steps to recruit disadvantaged groups, it never condoned or advanced racial quotas. We went over this Corvinus already. You are trying to resurrect arguments that you already conceded.

    “We went over this Corvinus already. You are trying to resurrect arguments that you already conceded.”

    I did no such thing as “concede”. Stay on point here.

    “You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability.”

    Please show me where I specifically made that claim.

    “The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours.”

    Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that “The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like…”

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    I am on point Corvinus you are lying. I showed you the exact section of title 7 that prohibited racial quotas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Corvinus
    "We went over this Corvinus already. You are trying to resurrect arguments that you already conceded."

    I did no such thing as "concede". Stay on point here.

    "You even admitted there is no way for anyone to know ahead of time if their organization is guilty of disparate impact liability."

    Please show me where I specifically made that claim.

    "The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours."

    Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    I am on point Corvinus you are lying. I showed you the exact section of title 7 that prohibited racial quotas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I am on point Corvinus you are lying. I showed you the exact section of title 7 that prohibited racial quotas."

    On a past thread, you said "Title 7 section 703 j explicitly prohibits quotas Corvinus. Tell me what legislation or body of work contradicts what MLK himself helped pass: “Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.”

    I had responded "You haven't been paying close attention. The citation only states "preferential treatment", NOT quotas. One could reasonably assume that preferential treatment could lead to racial quotas, but the Supreme Court in the Bakke case made racial quotas unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s voter-approved law that banned the use of racial criteria in college admissions and found in favor of white firefighters who challenged racial quotas in Ricci v. DeStefano."

    You also had said "You explained to me that bureaucrats have the right to impose quotas on private organizations through their own statutory interpretation of law in contradiction to democratically elected law."

    My response? "Strawman. That is NOT my argument. Here is the thread that clearly outlines my thought process. Try to pay attention. I'm not going down your rabbit hole."

    https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/

    The more that you avoid the following pertinent questions, the more you tell me that you are yet again caught between a rock and a hard place. So stay on point.

    "The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours."

    Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that "The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like..."

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.
    , @joef
    Good luck with trying to get racially motivated leftist to admit they are lying. They will always obfuscate the truth, because that is the only argument they have. And how do we negotiate with a people who are always willing to lie about their positions, in order to gain more entitlements.

    We are trapped in an untenable situation, where we can expect no self reform coming from the majority of afro americans. If this continues indefinitely, the future is going to full of major racial conflict and economic scarcity (and many many municipalities will end up looking like failed states). There is no real solution that will be politically allowed, thus only a bad outcome will finally remain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Corvinus says:
    @Epochehusserl
    I am on point Corvinus you are lying. I showed you the exact section of title 7 that prohibited racial quotas.

    “I am on point Corvinus you are lying. I showed you the exact section of title 7 that prohibited racial quotas.”

    On a past thread, you said “Title 7 section 703 j explicitly prohibits quotas Corvinus. Tell me what legislation or body of work contradicts what MLK himself helped pass: “Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.”

    I had responded “You haven’t been paying close attention. The citation only states “preferential treatment”, NOT quotas. One could reasonably assume that preferential treatment could lead to racial quotas, but the Supreme Court in the Bakke case made racial quotas unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s voter-approved law that banned the use of racial criteria in college admissions and found in favor of white firefighters who challenged racial quotas in Ricci v. DeStefano.”

    You also had said “You explained to me that bureaucrats have the right to impose quotas on private organizations through their own statutory interpretation of law in contradiction to democratically elected law.”

    My response? “Strawman. That is NOT my argument. Here is the thread that clearly outlines my thought process. Try to pay attention. I’m not going down your rabbit hole.”

    https://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/vox-charles-murray-is-once-again-peddling-junk-science-about/

    The more that you avoid the following pertinent questions, the more you tell me that you are yet again caught between a rock and a hard place. So stay on point.

    “The fact that laws didnt have to be passed to have diversity when the Angles met the Saxons proves that their diversity is better than ours.”

    Again, what metrics are you employing here? How do you measure how (x) diversity is better than (y) diversity? Because you appear to be tacitly endorsing diversity, which I thought is a big no-no around these parts. You are risking your white card.

    Also, you stated that “The EEOC merely demands that employers toss out the results that it doesnt like…”

    Again, it says this? Where specifically? Please show me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. joef says:
    @Epochehusserl
    I am on point Corvinus you are lying. I showed you the exact section of title 7 that prohibited racial quotas.

    Good luck with trying to get racially motivated leftist to admit they are lying. They will always obfuscate the truth, because that is the only argument they have. And how do we negotiate with a people who are always willing to lie about their positions, in order to gain more entitlements.

    We are trapped in an untenable situation, where we can expect no self reform coming from the majority of afro americans. If this continues indefinitely, the future is going to full of major racial conflict and economic scarcity (and many many municipalities will end up looking like failed states). There is no real solution that will be politically allowed, thus only a bad outcome will finally remain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    I am still uncertain whether or not Corvinus states that the civil rights act allows for racial quotas to be imposed or not.
    --------------------------
    Once in awhile it is possible to get leftists to admit they are lying. But for the most part they are determined to go down with the ship and take us along with them. I dont see any way out except for violence. I am uncertain as to their motives.
    , @Corvinus
    "Good luck with trying to get racially motivated leftist to admit they are lying. They will always obfuscate the truth, because that is the only argument they have."

    Projection here is strong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @joef
    Good luck with trying to get racially motivated leftist to admit they are lying. They will always obfuscate the truth, because that is the only argument they have. And how do we negotiate with a people who are always willing to lie about their positions, in order to gain more entitlements.

    We are trapped in an untenable situation, where we can expect no self reform coming from the majority of afro americans. If this continues indefinitely, the future is going to full of major racial conflict and economic scarcity (and many many municipalities will end up looking like failed states). There is no real solution that will be politically allowed, thus only a bad outcome will finally remain.

    I am still uncertain whether or not Corvinus states that the civil rights act allows for racial quotas to be imposed or not.
    ————————–
    Once in awhile it is possible to get leftists to admit they are lying. But for the most part they are determined to go down with the ship and take us along with them. I dont see any way out except for violence. I am uncertain as to their motives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joef

    I dont see any way out except for violence. I am uncertain as to their motives.
     
    Yes their obfuscating ways causes much confusion in what their true motives are. I sometimes believe that leftist are confused about their own motives. But whatever their motives, the damaged caused is the same. Yet leftist also believe that the damage they are causing against traditional society, will lead to a great future socialist paradise. This delusion will result in chaos after this nation has been economically strip mined, in a desperate attempt to support the unsustainable. After that, the violence will probably follow. This leftist conceit will bring down this nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. joef says:
    @Epochehusserl
    I am still uncertain whether or not Corvinus states that the civil rights act allows for racial quotas to be imposed or not.
    --------------------------
    Once in awhile it is possible to get leftists to admit they are lying. But for the most part they are determined to go down with the ship and take us along with them. I dont see any way out except for violence. I am uncertain as to their motives.

    I dont see any way out except for violence. I am uncertain as to their motives.

    Yes their obfuscating ways causes much confusion in what their true motives are. I sometimes believe that leftist are confused about their own motives. But whatever their motives, the damaged caused is the same. Yet leftist also believe that the damage they are causing against traditional society, will lead to a great future socialist paradise. This delusion will result in chaos after this nation has been economically strip mined, in a desperate attempt to support the unsustainable. After that, the violence will probably follow. This leftist conceit will bring down this nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    I can somewhat understand why single women would support leftism. Women are compassionate and caring and are interested less in truth and more interested in security. I cannot understand why otherwise healthy straight white men would support this nonsense though. It seems like it is more important to put Archie Bunker in his place for a lot of people than to have a competently running country. I think they will be very unhappy when Islam becomes more prominent in the West as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Good comment and good advice for whites, but, like you, I'm not sure that they're capable of following it. My only caveat is that while whites may be willing to carry blacks indefinitely, whites as a portion of the population are diminishing, and Hispanics and Asians have quite different views about their (lack of) obligations vis-a-vis blacks. I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black. Hispanics will have no hesitation about excluding blacks and there may simply not be enough whites to buffer the conflict.

    “I think the racial civil war, when it comes, will be mostly brown on black.”

    You mean IF it comes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @joef

    I dont see any way out except for violence. I am uncertain as to their motives.
     
    Yes their obfuscating ways causes much confusion in what their true motives are. I sometimes believe that leftist are confused about their own motives. But whatever their motives, the damaged caused is the same. Yet leftist also believe that the damage they are causing against traditional society, will lead to a great future socialist paradise. This delusion will result in chaos after this nation has been economically strip mined, in a desperate attempt to support the unsustainable. After that, the violence will probably follow. This leftist conceit will bring down this nation.

    I can somewhat understand why single women would support leftism. Women are compassionate and caring and are interested less in truth and more interested in security. I cannot understand why otherwise healthy straight white men would support this nonsense though. It seems like it is more important to put Archie Bunker in his place for a lot of people than to have a competently running country. I think they will be very unhappy when Islam becomes more prominent in the West as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. joef says:

    I think they will be very unhappy when Islam becomes more prominent in the West as well.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. As the dominant American culture becomes more & more unable to keep order & stability, Islam will become more attractive to people… and like Hispanics, Arab Moslems are not exactly going to be tolerant of afro american burden & chronic complaining.

    It seems like it is more important to put Archie Bunker in his place for a lot of people than to have a competently running country.

    I even noticed when in argument with elitist liberal academic types, they desperately dispute your actual true life experiences, so they do not have to confront unwanted reality. Even the average White person, who is not a liberal racial panderer, has ‘its not on my doorstep mentality’. And this denial of racial reality is one of the main causes in our vacuum in leadership. These people will become willing victims, form afro violence, by implied consent (and demand we do the same).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. Corvinus says:
    @joef
    Good luck with trying to get racially motivated leftist to admit they are lying. They will always obfuscate the truth, because that is the only argument they have. And how do we negotiate with a people who are always willing to lie about their positions, in order to gain more entitlements.

    We are trapped in an untenable situation, where we can expect no self reform coming from the majority of afro americans. If this continues indefinitely, the future is going to full of major racial conflict and economic scarcity (and many many municipalities will end up looking like failed states). There is no real solution that will be politically allowed, thus only a bad outcome will finally remain.

    “Good luck with trying to get racially motivated leftist to admit they are lying. They will always obfuscate the truth, because that is the only argument they have.”

    Projection here is strong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering