The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
College Students Oppose Affirmative Action
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

These 12 College Students Don’t Like the System They’re In

For those Americans who assume that college students today are left-wing activists who aren’t in touch with the real world, our latest focus group will be especially eye-opening. Rarely have we been as surprised by a focus group as when we asked this racially and socioeconomically diverse group of 12 students whether they supported affirmative action in college admissions. Just one person said yes. Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action. “It creates your identity for you,” one Black participant said.

It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory. Pollsters seldom if ever ask this question, so I can’t prove that most Americans are ignorant of the fact that African Americans are not intelligent enough on average to be terribly competitive in quantitative terms in cognitively elite institutions and careers, but it sure seems like few Americans are cognizant of the cognitive realities.

The one set of people who seem to be uniformly aware of the numbers are liberal college presidents. I wonder if when they make you president of an Ivy League college, is there a National Treasure: Book of Secrets moment where they unlock the drawer in the presidents’ desk and pull out the college’s top-secret copy of The Bell Curve with the special added customized chapter about how few blacks would get in to your school without racial quotas?

 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT

    • Thanks: SINCERITY.net
  2. The same thing happens when people are elected to school boards and see, first hand, the data on suspensions, expulsions, test scores, drop outs, etc. Any school board member of a large school district has to know reality but cannot discuss it in public.

    Also, many universities also use fire walls to protect themselves from their own affirmative action decisions. But because a student is admitted to UT-Austin, UC-Berkeley, or Michigan based on affirmative action does not mean the student automatically get to major in engineering, physics, or even business. Many highly selective universities admitted lesser qualified affirmative action beneficiaries and then push them off into majors designed for lesser qualified students.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  3. Anonymous[305] • Disclaimer says:

    It should really be quite simple to realize how much affirmative action is required. Just look at various academic competitions to see how few blacks and Hispanics are involved to see how much of a boost is required. I’m not even talking about just the winners, but all of the participants. Or walk into any advanced placement class in any “integrated school.”

    • Replies: @ornei
    @Anonymous

    It's almost comical how stark the racial makeups were at my high school were that was approximately 25% white and 50% black. I remember the AP physics class I took didn't have a single black and the AP calculus class had only a single one. There was also the quiz bowl team (academic trivia competitions between schools) which was 100% white out of ~15 people. Then you get to college admissions and a black guy who didn't take calculus because it's too hard gets into Harvard.

  4. You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @SFG

    "You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history."

    Ask yourself: Did negroes do better with your implied definition of "systemic racism", or are they doing better without it?*

    *Systemic racial/ethnic preferences (racism is a fake word) have existed for the entirety of US history. For the entirety of human history. That's because it is fundamentally natural for an individual, race or species to prefer to be among its own kind. Back to the US: The System merely switched from forcing segregation to forcing integration. Ask yourself again: How is forced integration somehow more moral than forced segregation? I would argue forced integration is much less moral because it denies the individual's right to freely associate.

    , @interesting
    @SFG

    And still does in many parts of the world. Like the "Japanese only signs" in Japan.

    , @anonymous
    @SFG


    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history.
     
    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression. Unless you believe that Jewish apartness practices and in-group favoritism are tantamount to systemic racism against non-Jews.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Art Deco

    , @Muggles
    @SFG


    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.
     
    Virtually all human populations are "racist" when they compare their group to those who look or act differently then they do.

    "Anti Racism" like "climate stasis" is a modern Woke mythology promoted mainly by leftist Whites and grifter/opportunist POCs.

    Before you wail about Siberian American immigrants to the Western Hemisphere, take a close look at their ancestral cousins still living in Russian Siberia. Or somewhat related groups of minority ethnics in Japan, Korea and China. The ones in Russia are horribly alcoholic and barely surviving.

    Even the reindeer herders have largely been eliminated via Communist repression, disease and alcohol.

    Hunting-gathering in the modern world is a largely unsuccessful lifestyle. Exists only at remote margins. Groups with no distant history of brewing or making fermented drinks are highly susceptible to alcoholism. So genetics probably plays a role.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Curle
    @SFG

    How would you you tease out group performance differences based on natural average differences combined with hive mind effect from distinctions driven by animus or decisions driven by caution informed by knowledge of native differences?

    Replies: @SFG

  5. @isteve, you know that race realism is totally taboo.

    I just read Wikipedia about “racism”: They affirm, on their authority, that “scientific racism” has been totally discredited.

    People are totally brainwashed, and we are ready for Ibraim X Kendi’s amendment to the US constitution that totally outlaws “racist” explanations for any gaps.

    The untruth has won. Actually they won 50 years ago.

    It might be too late to fight back, for the right to speak racist facts and true speech about black crime. You cannot do this in acceptable society, only in “right wing fringe” discussions, as here. Until they refuse domain hosting and site hosting to these sites and send them off to the dark web.

    Give us some optimism!?

  6. @SFG
    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @interesting, @anonymous, @Muggles, @Curle

    “You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history.”

    Ask yourself: Did negroes do better with your implied definition of “systemic racism”, or are they doing better without it?*

    *Systemic racial/ethnic preferences (racism is a fake word) have existed for the entirety of US history. For the entirety of human history. That’s because it is fundamentally natural for an individual, race or species to prefer to be among its own kind. Back to the US: The System merely switched from forcing segregation to forcing integration. Ask yourself again: How is forced integration somehow more moral than forced segregation? I would argue forced integration is much less moral because it denies the individual’s right to freely associate.

  7. That one student is quite right. With AA around, that’s the assumption I’ve got to make for black (and now lots of other) people that I don’t know well.

    I’m pleasantly surprised by the result*. The question still remains, are you for it or against it?

    It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory.

    Put another way, are you one of these Nice White People or not?

    .

    * That was one focus group of 12 “diverse” people – how many were Oriental, I wonder?

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field, they aren’t concerned that AA is lowering standards and depriving more talented students of opportunity. That fact just doesn’t register with them.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Eddie the swarthy rat cellar, @AnotherDad

    , @nokangaroos
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Note that the Black! participant did not object to AA per se but
    only resented that dey/deyz peers knew (it would be somewhat harder to hide
    from prospective employers but to what avail? They are hired at gunpoint anyway).
    It is enough to point out that colorblind equilibrium Black! enrollment
    (assuming a lower cutoff IQ of 115) would be in the single-digit per mil.

    , @Moses
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That was one focus group of 12 “diverse” people
     
    Just use "non-White" instead of "diverse."

    Everyone knows that "diverse" is just fancy code for "non-White."

    "More diversity" = "fewer White people, preferably none."

    "Not diverse" = too many White people.

    Etc etc.

    Language matters.
  8. @Achmed E. Newman
    That one student is quite right. With AA around, that's the assumption I've got to make for black (and now lots of other) people that I don't know well.

    I'm pleasantly surprised by the result*. The question still remains, are you for it or against it?

    It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory.
     
    Put another way, are you one of these Nice White People or not?

    .


    * That was one focus group of 12 "diverse" people - how many were Oriental, I wonder?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @nokangaroos, @Moses

    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field, they aren’t concerned that AA is lowering standards and depriving more talented students of opportunity. That fact just doesn’t register with them.

    • Thanks: SiNCERITY.net
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I'm pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that'd be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It's been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It's unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it's unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin - fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw - was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    Replies: @Redman, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Reg Cæsar, @animalogic, @JackOH

    , @Eddie the swarthy rat cellar
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Most ppl on this site don't realize how dumb normies are

    , @AnotherDad
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field,
     
    Mostly what I get is that college students just aren't very smart/knowledgeable about the world. Which isn't really surprising
    a) They are kids.
    b) They have been pickled in nonsense their whole lives.

    One white girl from Georgia is worried about the fundies. Seriously.

    A white guy thinks he's privileged in admissions for being a white guy. Though in fairness he seems to root that in economics. He's not very bright and needed ACT math tutor.

    Another black gal when to a charter school and was oppressed because she had to work the system a bit before she got private SAT tutoring.

    (It is true that first Kaplan, but now the Asians have screwed up the whole admissions testing thing with their test prep obsession. A deadweight loss of time and resources for every HS kid in America. We just skipped it.)

    Basically, all of them--except the Asian girl--are feeling oppressed or overwhelmed or something or another going to college. C'mon.


    The one bright note of sanity was a number of them were annoyed with their professors jamming their politics into the classroom. I assume that's even worse than when I was in school.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

  9. Pretending to be smart has been a lucrative gig for college administrators, and they’re just trying to spread the wealth.

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.

    When actual smart people ran the country, they naturally generated ways for the non-smart to be actually productive, by shoveling coal and such. Now, the clever non-smart parade around with a B.A. in psychology, sending out emails on HIPAA compliance and knocking off early every Friday. The non-clever non-smart still have to do productive things like deliver parcels.

    • Replies: @Cato
    @Faraday's Bobcat


    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.
     
    That's true -- in most service sector work (particularly government work) outcomes are too fuzzy to measure. If you can't measure the output, then you can't calculate productivity. And it seems that clearly measurable outputs are found only toward the bottom of the labor market. Last spring I asked the Amazon delivery guy how many packages he delivered per day and learned that he needed to deliver 200 in order to keep his job.
    , @Supply and Demand
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    No one takes tradies seriously, and they're about the only type of person I'd ever bar my daughters from marrying. I'm saving them from a lifetime of wife-beating and humiliation from their social peers.

    Replies: @Graveldips

    , @James Speaks
    @Faraday's Bobcat


    Pretending to be smart has been a lucrative gig for college administrators, and they’re just trying to spread the wealth.

     

    Admissions Departments must supply the different colleges students capable of doing the work and upholding the prestige of the institution. Else, the institution fails.

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.
     
    Cargo cult

    When actual smart people ran the country, they naturally generated ways for the non-smart to be actually productive, by shoveling coal and such. Now, the clever non-smart parade around with a B.A. in psychology, sending out emails on HIPAA compliance and knocking off early every Friday. (snip)
     
    They probably could not change a flat tire.
  10. Back in the 90s or 2000s the Manhattan Institute posted a paper on their website about school busing citing a study finding that white students exposed to blacks through busing had an lower opinion of their scholastic abilities as a group than did those not exposed in such a way which roughly correlated to those not exposed to blacks at all in any meaningful sense. The study claimed the results led some black academics to withdraw their support for busing.

    I’ve searched the internet in vain for that report and the study reference. No luck so far.

    • Replies: @guest007
    @Curle

    If one wants to see sheer terror in the fact of academic, propose studying white students who attend majority black or majority Hispanic schools. The academics know that any publish result would end their careers.

    , @Bill Jones
    @Curle

    So the more you know them, the more you know about them and the less you believe what you're told about them?
    And that's a surprise?

    Replies: @Curle

  11. Admit it, Steve. You got the National Treasure angle from American Dad!

  12. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field, they aren’t concerned that AA is lowering standards and depriving more talented students of opportunity. That fact just doesn’t register with them.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Eddie the swarthy rat cellar, @AnotherDad

    I’m pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that’d be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It’s been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It’s unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it’s unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin – fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw – was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    • Replies: @Redman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In addition, the largest ethnicity of current American whites is German. The German-Americans AFAIK had nothing to do with slavery. Not too many modern DOS blacks with Germanic sounding names.

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @ADL Pyramid of Hate, @anon, @Tony

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    AA is neither right nor wrong per se. Don't fall into CivNat trap.

    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races. AA is just one way to keep this multi-everything bazaar from blowing up.

    In a multiracial society, tribe comes first. You first divvy up the pie among the various competing factions and then move on to other business. AA is part of that process.

    Clinging to muh Constitution is silly. Words on a piece of paper written by long-dead white guys isn't going to save us.

    AA isn't wrong because it's unconstitutional; it's wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That's what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society. Time for whites to wake up to that reality.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Moses

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!
     
    Private affirmative action comes under "freedom of association". The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing. My own college was also clearly biased toward its founding ethnic group, of which I was not one. That's part of the reason I chose it!

    in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers...
     
    Huh? If Peyton doesn't get into Harvard, he gets into Tufts, Clark, Holy Cross, BC, BU, or Northeastern. If not Dartmouth, then (Steve's fave, for all those Paul Rudolph buildings) U Mass-Dartmouth.

    admission to better schools
     
    For many, the "better schools" would be trade schools. Which leave one better prepared for real life. And much sooner debt-free.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @AnotherDad

    , @animalogic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin – fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw – was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG."
    Interesting - the OT would sheet sin & punishment back 7 generations. However, our current guilt mongers have no such limitation. How many generations is it back to 1619 (or is it 1690? - doesn't matter - they'll go as far back as they like).
    The whole concept of "guilt" for the actions of the dead, the actions of others, is profoundly distasteful & immoral.
    Using "guilt" against others is a low, shameful act.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @anonymous

    , @JackOH
    @Achmed E. Newman

    FWIW--a week ago I commented under another article:


    " . . . [A]t my local Podunk Tech there are vague hints from ordinary conversations that the preferential hiring of Blacks and women is regarded as some sort of “proof” that White male candidates had never been all that talented and had merely relied on “White privilege” to get “over-represented” in certain fields."

    "Completely ignored, of course, is that preferential hiring is preferential for ideological and juridical reasons, and that a lot of institutions can indeed get by with a “good enough” candidate with the right skin tone and genital package."

    "It’s distressing, and I agree, there’s not much one can do."
     
    I agree with you that AA is wrong, and its consequences for able White guys has likely been catastrophic. (I'm pretty sure AA--the White women-preferred flavor--blocked me from a decent-paying Fortune 1000 sales career, and kicked me down to sales manager at a crappy-paying ad sales outfit.)

    The damned thing about AA is that employers are indeed okay with "good-enough" AA hires who are delighted with relatively fat paychecks, titles, and invites to golf outings and business awards' dinners.

    Likewise, as I mentioned, those AA hires by now have talked themselves into believing those juridically overlooked able White guys weren't so able after all, and relied on "White privilege" for their cushy jobs. (In some cases, as in ethnic patronage hiring for government jobs, there was and still is "ethnic privilege".)

    For shits and tickles, I imagine the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon mission as full-bore AA programs. There'd be some sort of "atomic device" maybe in late 1946, and some sort of lunar mission by the early 1970s. Both would be touted as AA success stories, and nobody would be the wiser that in an alternate world, fission bombs were delivered in 1945, and two men successfully landed on the moon and returned in 1969.

    (BTW--I know my illustration is self-serving. Likewise, I'm aware of the contributions made by women physicists--Curie, Meitner, Noddack. Likewise, I'm aware of the apparently qualified Black astronaut candidate who was hounded from Mercury because of, it seems, racial animus inflamed by top-down political demands for a Black astronaut.)

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Achmed E. Newman

  13. @Achmed E. Newman
    That one student is quite right. With AA around, that's the assumption I've got to make for black (and now lots of other) people that I don't know well.

    I'm pleasantly surprised by the result*. The question still remains, are you for it or against it?

    It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory.
     
    Put another way, are you one of these Nice White People or not?

    .


    * That was one focus group of 12 "diverse" people - how many were Oriental, I wonder?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @nokangaroos, @Moses

    Note that the Black! participant did not object to AA per se but
    only resented that dey/deyz peers knew (it would be somewhat harder to hide
    from prospective employers but to what avail? They are hired at gunpoint anyway).
    It is enough to point out that colorblind equilibrium Black! enrollment
    (assuming a lower cutoff IQ of 115) would be in the single-digit per mil.

  14. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I'm pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that'd be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It's been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It's unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it's unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin - fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw - was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    Replies: @Redman, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Reg Cæsar, @animalogic, @JackOH

    In addition, the largest ethnicity of current American whites is German. The German-Americans AFAIK had nothing to do with slavery. Not too many modern DOS blacks with Germanic sounding names.

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @Redman

    Plenty of Germans (and Scots-Irish) went south when the flatter parts of Pennsylvania got crowded in the mid 1700s. Some bought slaves but they didn't have huge plantations like the English on the coastal plain, so they had a lot fewer.

    , @ADL Pyramid of Hate
    @Redman

    The Deutschtexaners of the Texas Hill Country (many "Forty-Eighters," refugees from the failed 1848 rabble-rousing back in the fatherland) were Unionists during the Late Unpleasantness; Harry Wurzbach, out of the Hill Country's TX-14, was the only Republican elected to Congress from Texas during the first 50 years of the 20th century.

    Now, as you say, their descendants (and no, before some of you start, they were ethnic Germans) are just as despised as the most Southron huwhitey; heck, a lot of them are happy with this state of affairs and ask for more browbeating.

    -

    Regarding the main topic, the most amusing part of that NY Slimes article was one Black woman's explanation for why she didn't raise her hand for affirmative action:


    I think the biggest issue with affirmative action is that it implies that people of color wouldn’t be able to get that position on their own. What we need is maybe a blanket way of admitting students that doesn’t have anything to do with race. If a straight white man was competing against me and we had the same test scores and they had to choose, what’s happened more often than not, in history, is that they’ll choose the white man. And the thing about it is, we do have the test scores, and we do have the people who want to compete and who are competitive. There’s plenty of us who will make it. We just need you to give us the space to do so.

     

    Yeah, aight den. October 31st (oral arguments in SFFA v. UNC and SFFA v. Harvard) can't come soon enough.
    , @anon
    @Redman


    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.
     
    Blacks benefited from so-called slavery. The black “slaves” enjoyed a higher standard of living than most people in Europe at the time. The arrangement gave them access to the bounties of a continent and of a talented other race that they never could have obtained on their own. They got a head start on other non-Whites in living in advanced Western societies, learning the language, customs, and some of the other technologies. Besides, if we are to believe White admixture statistics, contemporary blacks would literally not exist today if it weren’t for slavery.

    If anyone owes blacks reparations or support, it is German- and Scandinavian-descended Americans who did nothing of the above to benefit blacks.
    , @Tony
    @Redman

    Dont matter. You be white, they gonna make your wallet light.

  15. “levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory”

    Maybe opinions have changed over time, but whites have never believed affirmative action is a moral issue. It’s was a pragmatic solution to keep the country together. It is a solution to Madison’s problem of faction.

    Blacks were getting militarized in the 60s. Promoting the smartest blacks into the upper middle class was a way to tamp that down. People with something to lose rarely are willing to risk it all to fight the power.

    Rome did this quite effectively. They would give the local elites cushy jobs in the Roman bureaucracy but required the local elites to adopt Roman styles of dress, culture and religion. Roman culture then trickled down to the local underclasses who emulated their elites.

    A Harvard degree and a useless middle management job at IBM for the smartest blacks is America’s way to Romanize the blacks.

  16. So when is the next big AA case coming to the Supreme Court? I can’t see this court upholding AA any longer.

    My belief is that AA was the seed that’s grown into the hyper-woke AA-on-steroids culture we’re seeing today.

    If you watch TV commercials now you’d think the U.S. was 80% black.

    Saw Top Gun: Maverick last night. Of course the elite crew of fighter pilots, the “best of the best”, looked like a United Colors of Benetton ad.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Spud Boy


    If you watch TV commercials now you’d think the U.S. was 80% black.
     
    Although I don't watch TV, I do know that online advertising has found a purpose for white kids, and even the occasional asian.

    https://i.ibb.co/4RPR5LC/schools-public-2.jpg

    Look at those girls, bullying the poor black kid. Just like in real life!

    And white boys? They start all the fights.

    Schools would be so much better without these troublesome white kids.

  17. College students pushing back against the Commies?

    Bravo!

  18. @Curle
    Back in the 90s or 2000s the Manhattan Institute posted a paper on their website about school busing citing a study finding that white students exposed to blacks through busing had an lower opinion of their scholastic abilities as a group than did those not exposed in such a way which roughly correlated to those not exposed to blacks at all in any meaningful sense. The study claimed the results led some black academics to withdraw their support for busing.

    I’ve searched the internet in vain for that report and the study reference. No luck so far.

    Replies: @guest007, @Bill Jones

    If one wants to see sheer terror in the fact of academic, propose studying white students who attend majority black or majority Hispanic schools. The academics know that any publish result would end their careers.

  19. If you teemed it ‘anti-white discrimination’ how many would have been in favour?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Henry's Cat

    'If you teemed it ‘anti-white discrimination’ how many would have been in favour?'

    This is one of the Left's more irritating cons: winning the argument by loading the language.

    'Gender affirming' surgery. It is, of course, just the opposite. The victim's gender is not being 'affirmed,' it's being changed.

    'The homeless' rather than 'vagrants.' The implication, of course, is that their problem is simply the lack of a place to live. Give them that place, and they'll be fine. If only...

    'Undocumented immigrants.' Like the immigrants just forgot their green card or something. They're not 'undocumented,' they're illegal. While we're on the subject, another game is 'migrants' rather than immigrants. They're storks or something, and they'll fly back the other way in the Fall.

    It's cute. They win the argument as soon as you accept their terms.

  20. When do they do such a survey in corporate America or government agencies. We are suppsoed to believe the entirety of the job force is overjoyed watching un hum black females being ridiculously overpromoted to meet some real or unspoken quota. Sadly looks like the daily embarrassment that is Kamala Harris has not slowed this stupidity.

    On network TV this very week, you have diabetic Queen Latifa being a superhero in “The Equalizer”; a 40 something black lady running her mouth nonstop as a rookie FBI agent; and a black lady being an obnoxious NYPD precinct commander. 6.5% of the population, but 100% of all that is good.Based on some other statistics, doing a very poor job of raising their children. But it’s how we got to the moon, none of that Werner Von Braun stuff. Wonder why they have to sell it so hard if it’s so evident.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I'm pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that'd be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It's been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It's unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it's unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin - fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw - was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    Replies: @Redman, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Reg Cæsar, @animalogic, @JackOH

    AA is neither right nor wrong per se. Don’t fall into CivNat trap.

    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races. AA is just one way to keep this multi-everything bazaar from blowing up.

    In a multiracial society, tribe comes first. You first divvy up the pie among the various competing factions and then move on to other business. AA is part of that process.

    Clinging to muh Constitution is silly. Words on a piece of paper written by long-dead white guys isn’t going to save us.

    AA isn’t wrong because it’s unconstitutional; it’s wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That’s what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society. Time for whites to wake up to that reality.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    No, it's very obviously WRONG. If you don't get that, you've got a lack of integrity. Same for Steve Sailer, who never answers the question, and even Ann Coulter.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Muggles
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races.
     
    Sitting Bull and Geronimo said the same thing.

    Didn't work for them either.

    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.

    Instead, you are merely looking at your five (white) fingers and think, "this is what God's chosen" looks like. No history, no clue...

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Moses
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    AA isn’t wrong because it’s unconstitutional; it’s wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That’s what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society.
     
    Yes, but is it good for us Jews? Everyone knows that is the only question that matters. Ask the ADL.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  22. Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action.

    I remember a black college classmate of mine explaining his vehement opposition to AA in exactly these terms back in the day. This would have been in I’d guess 1986…

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    @slumber_j

    I wonder how many black students today would echo that sentiment? In the 34 years since then the educational system, media, pop culture, and politics have saturated the environment with the same message: Black people are a super race, physically, mentally, sexually, morally and culturally superior to everyone else and to whites in particular. Also, based on popular entertainment, they constitute 50% of the US population, therefore the only explanation for why they seem to underperform in real life is because they are being brutalized and held down by the white minority who still somehow cling to power through treachery and a head start.
    I would think that most black people today would therefore, understandably, believe that they need affirmative to offset the white man’s knee on the neck that is trying keep them down and, will accept AA as simply what they are due in order to overcome this oppression and assume their rightful place.
    Or, alternatively, they know the truth, but don’t care how they get what they want or what anyone else thinks of them, as long as they get it.
    Equity+.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @anonymous

    , @Polistra
    @slumber_j

    According to this small and doubtless cherry-picked sample, American college students oppose affirmative action. BFD! It's also true that Americans opposed increased immigration, and by wide margins. A thorough saturation with MSM propaganda changed that. We can fix this too, and probably will.

  23. Asians may be somewhat opposed to affirmative action now that it hurts them. Not for any principled reason. In the past they’ve been fine with a mix of schemes that net-net gave them advantages while shafting whitey.

    The tragedy in China playing out now is what happens when the Chinese are left to their own. As someone said, they’re a nation of autistic hypochondriacs. Chine also revert to extreme obedience to the Leader. They aren’t a long term threat to the USA. They may become a joke nation.

    Have you noticed that no high IQ Asians are coming to rescue of Whitey and America. That’s a silly fantasy. If you haven’t noticed, they’re not looking to join any of your political schemes for the future.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Good piece in the WSJ about racial gerrymandering. So far we're still stuck in the year 1965, dividing up the spoils between blacks and whites. Asians and Latinos need not apply.

    But that doesn't stop inconvenient questions from arising:


    What distinguishes a district favoring black voters, who happen to be Democrats, from a district favoring Democrats, who happen to be black?
     

    “Few devices could be better designed to exacerbate racial tensions than the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 1994. He predicted it would “deepen racial divisions by destroying any need for voters or candidates to build bridges between racial groups or to form voting coalitions.” How right he has been.
     

    https://archive.ph/GpIbV
  24. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field, they aren’t concerned that AA is lowering standards and depriving more talented students of opportunity. That fact just doesn’t register with them.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Eddie the swarthy rat cellar, @AnotherDad

    Most ppl on this site don’t realize how dumb normies are

    • Agree: HammerJack
  25. It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory.

    I’m beginning to wonder if in our wretched era it isn’t time to invert the old trope ” Never explain by malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I’m starting to believe that “Never explain by stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice (or more likely cowardice)” is much more accurate.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @kaganovitch

    Stupid and evil is the worst combination. That's when things get really bad, like Ceausescu-tier bad. Once the stupid-evils are in charge there's no reasoning, no debating, and no voting your way out of the mess. Your only hope is a coup or secession.

    And that's where we are now. The US is run by stupid, evil people. They believe incredible, deranged things and they are increasingly incapable of things like a clean water supply, a decent civil order, and nuclear power. We are looking at a long, slow grind down to Lebanon-levels of stupidity, corruption and sectarianism.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  26. @slumber_j

    Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action.
     
    I remember a black college classmate of mine explaining his vehement opposition to AA in exactly these terms back in the day. This would have been in I'd guess 1986...

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Polistra

    I wonder how many black students today would echo that sentiment? In the 34 years since then the educational system, media, pop culture, and politics have saturated the environment with the same message: Black people are a super race, physically, mentally, sexually, morally and culturally superior to everyone else and to whites in particular. Also, based on popular entertainment, they constitute 50% of the US population, therefore the only explanation for why they seem to underperform in real life is because they are being brutalized and held down by the white minority who still somehow cling to power through treachery and a head start.
    I would think that most black people today would therefore, understandably, believe that they need affirmative to offset the white man’s knee on the neck that is trying keep them down and, will accept AA as simply what they are due in order to overcome this oppression and assume their rightful place.
    Or, alternatively, they know the truth, but don’t care how they get what they want or what anyone else thinks of them, as long as they get it.
    Equity+.

    • Agree: Polistra, HammerJack
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Alfa158

    Yes, that's fairly accurate.

    When a black student says, "I don't want my presence on campus attributed to Affirmative Action," it should be read as, "I want (and deserve, and demand) to benefit from Affirmative Action but I also want to forbid you from thinking that I am in any way inferior, and crminalize you and punish you if you do."

    This was the intended result of all the Civil Rights legislation. It was not to redress historical grievances or level the playing field. It was to enthrone black entitlement as a proposition that must be held "come what may," no matter what injustice and devastation it inflicts upon the rest of society.

    As I have formally noted, black entitlement plays the same role in America's moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity. Can mass be believed? Can energy be believed? Are space and time themselves reliable? No, throw them all out the window! The speed of light is the new constant, and it must remain the same come what may! The rest of the universe can bend and warp around it, but this you are not allowed to alter.

    As to what entitles the speed of light to this sacrosanct position, the theory does not exactly explain. It is an assertion we are expected to accept without reservation. The fact that it's absurd seems to make no difference. Likewise, in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil, @International Jew

    , @anonymous
    @Alfa158

    Right. In other words, the survey somehow failed to include Walgreen’s visitors.

  27. There are all sorts of mechanisms in so many of the societies of the West, that ignorance is pretty much guaranteed.

    Emile Kirkegaard, who, as you might guess is a Dane looks at this sort of thing in the Scandi countries.

    If you poke around his site, as one should, there’s a great piece on the difference in topics of men’s conversation versus those of women.
    As you might expect it’s a hoot.

    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/

    • Thanks: Kylie
    • Replies: @CharleszMartel
    @Bill Jones

    Thanks for the link to what seems to be a very interesting blog.

    Is "Comments on Linguistic Anthropology (Laura Ahearn)" the article you are referring to?

  28. Every single black American is in over his head. If one is a good janitor, they make him head of maintenance and the hallways get dirty. If another is a good salesman, they make him sales manager and sales go down. If one does a good job servicing Chicago’s elite in its bathhouses, they make him president. I wouldn’t hire one, not just because they’ll sue you for discrimination when you fire them for incompetence, but because you know that they were pushed through any school they “graduated” from and their former boss is giving them a fake reference just to unload hom on you.

  29. Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action.

    You can call it ‘affirmative action,’ but it still amounts to tokenism.

    …our latest focus group will be especially eye-opening. Rarely have we been as surprised by a focus group as when we asked…

    Who’s surprised it’s the NYT who “are left-wing activists who aren’t in touch with the real world”?

  30. @Curle
    Back in the 90s or 2000s the Manhattan Institute posted a paper on their website about school busing citing a study finding that white students exposed to blacks through busing had an lower opinion of their scholastic abilities as a group than did those not exposed in such a way which roughly correlated to those not exposed to blacks at all in any meaningful sense. The study claimed the results led some black academics to withdraw their support for busing.

    I’ve searched the internet in vain for that report and the study reference. No luck so far.

    Replies: @guest007, @Bill Jones

    So the more you know them, the more you know about them and the less you believe what you’re told about them?
    And that’s a surprise?

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Bill Jones

    No but I’d like to find the study again. I contend that whites who were bused become based at an earlier age and that perhaps, for that reason alone, it isn’t a bad thing.

  31. Affirmative action and illegal immigration are two issues in which a pretty strong majority of the public opposes the policies inflicted by the overclass, yet the GOP doesn’t have the balls to run on them. Overturning both would presumably benefit the right long term as well, so it’s a question of whether the failure to go after them both is from cowardice/political malpractice or a strategic decision to not oppose them because they don’t want to get crossways with important financial interests. Either way, of the most frustrating aspects of being right of center is the lack of a right of center political party that takes on issues that actually matter. The GOP is so useless.

    • Agree: Bugg, Mr. Anon
    • Replies: @SFG
    @Arclight

    Let’s see what the Supreme Court does with SFA vs Harvard and UNC.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  32. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I'm pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that'd be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It's been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It's unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it's unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin - fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw - was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    Replies: @Redman, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Reg Cæsar, @animalogic, @JackOH

    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    Private affirmative action comes under “freedom of association”. The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing. My own college was also clearly biased toward its founding ethnic group, of which I was not one. That’s part of the reason I chose it!

    in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers…

    Huh? If Peyton doesn’t get into Harvard, he gets into Tufts, Clark, Holy Cross, BC, BU, or Northeastern. If not Dartmouth, then (Steve’s fave, for all those Paul Rudolph buildings) U Mass-Dartmouth.

    admission to better schools

    For many, the “better schools” would be trade schools. Which leave one better prepared for real life. And much sooner debt-free.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Reg Cæsar

    I was kind of hoping my son would be interested in UMass Dartmouth—just as a excuse for me to view the campus.

    Instead, he opted for a campus filled with students of whom even the residents of Martha’s Vineyard would be happy to welcome into their community.

    Demographics, demographics, demographics.

    Replies: @Muggles

    , @anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t understand this response, Reg. If in 2000 a woman manager at AT&T told Scott Adams, “I don’t see myself promoting any white males anytime soon,” why wouldn’t you assume the same attitude has been rampant throughout corporate America since then?

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Reg Cæsar

    By "Affirmative Action", of course I didn't meant private discrimination and association, Reg. The US Feral Gov't has been using the term a long time, and it means direct Federal Law when it involves government jobs and the military, and indirect Federal Law that dictates what private business must do in its hiring.

    As for your last paragraph, I hesitated about writing about the schools, because I agree with your sentiments exactly on that. My Dad knew connections and networking are not the be-all-to-end-all in life, as I could have gone to one of these (money being another story), and I feel the same way.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Reg Cæsar



    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!
     
    Private affirmative action comes under “freedom of association”. The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing.
     
    Agree a lot--maybe most?--of Americas colleges were founded by various Protestant sects--and then later the Catholics--for educating their children. If they weren't discriminating for their people, they really weren't doing their job.

    In an actually free society, people discriminate as they will. And in doing so they determine what norms are appropriate and will be enforced in their particular organic communities.

    America took a wrong turn with Brown's "must have integration!" reasoning. A simple decision saying the government should not be in the racial discrimination business would have set us on a better path. Southern states could have explicitly privatized education--vouchers for parents--if they really wanted to maintain segregation. Turns out that would have been a huge net benefit to society. But even without that we could have been spared the whole busing and affirmative action--explicit racialism--pushed and enforced by the government. And most of all spared the hideous totalitarianism of the government busy-bodying the hell out every decision every American makes about anything.

    ~~

    And the truth is now, we're probably doomed. Multi-ethnic societies inherently end up with ethnic political allocation. Either it's one group on top, or in countries with elected governments, some sort of ethnic spoils system.

    If you're expecting the government to go in enforce some sort of actual "fairness" ... LOL.

    If you want "meritocracy" you better have a something akin to a "one people nation" where no one's getting all butt-hurt.
  33. @Arclight
    Affirmative action and illegal immigration are two issues in which a pretty strong majority of the public opposes the policies inflicted by the overclass, yet the GOP doesn't have the balls to run on them. Overturning both would presumably benefit the right long term as well, so it's a question of whether the failure to go after them both is from cowardice/political malpractice or a strategic decision to not oppose them because they don't want to get crossways with important financial interests. Either way, of the most frustrating aspects of being right of center is the lack of a right of center political party that takes on issues that actually matter. The GOP is so useless.

    Replies: @SFG

    Let’s see what the Supreme Court does with SFA vs Harvard and UNC.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @SFG


    Let’s see what the Supreme Court does with SFA vs Harvard and UNC.
     
    Why? Cheap entertainment?

    If the Supreme's "outlaw" AA--and what exactly is the justification for telling Harvard (private) who they must admit?--

    a) there will be "massive resistance"

    and

    b) once all the current open borders immivaders are duly citizenized and voting you'll have a future set of Supreme's toss this set of Supreme's ruling in the round file.

    Basically, you're talking about reshuffling a few kids among various colleges for maybe a couple decades. At best. Big deal.

    The "Civil Rights" police state looking over the should of every decision of every person--at least every deplorable person--in America isn't going away.

    And the real "existential damage" of minoritarianism has been demographic. The US simply is not a nation anymore. (Though the American nation still exists underneath somewhere.) So we aren't going to have nice one-white-people-nation things anymore.
  34. @Alfa158
    @slumber_j

    I wonder how many black students today would echo that sentiment? In the 34 years since then the educational system, media, pop culture, and politics have saturated the environment with the same message: Black people are a super race, physically, mentally, sexually, morally and culturally superior to everyone else and to whites in particular. Also, based on popular entertainment, they constitute 50% of the US population, therefore the only explanation for why they seem to underperform in real life is because they are being brutalized and held down by the white minority who still somehow cling to power through treachery and a head start.
    I would think that most black people today would therefore, understandably, believe that they need affirmative to offset the white man’s knee on the neck that is trying keep them down and, will accept AA as simply what they are due in order to overcome this oppression and assume their rightful place.
    Or, alternatively, they know the truth, but don’t care how they get what they want or what anyone else thinks of them, as long as they get it.
    Equity+.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @anonymous

    Yes, that’s fairly accurate.

    When a black student says, “I don’t want my presence on campus attributed to Affirmative Action,” it should be read as, “I want (and deserve, and demand) to benefit from Affirmative Action but I also want to forbid you from thinking that I am in any way inferior, and crminalize you and punish you if you do.”

    This was the intended result of all the Civil Rights legislation. It was not to redress historical grievances or level the playing field. It was to enthrone black entitlement as a proposition that must be held “come what may,” no matter what injustice and devastation it inflicts upon the rest of society.

    As I have formally noted, black entitlement plays the same role in America’s moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity. Can mass be believed? Can energy be believed? Are space and time themselves reliable? No, throw them all out the window! The speed of light is the new constant, and it must remain the same come what may! The rest of the universe can bend and warp around it, but this you are not allowed to alter.

    As to what entitles the speed of light to this sacrosanct position, the theory does not exactly explain. It is an assertion we are expected to accept without reservation. The fact that it’s absurd seems to make no difference. Likewise, in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity.

    • Agree: Moses
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Maxwell's equations showed that the speed of light is constant. The value can be calculated using purely classical physics. In particular, Maxwell showed that light is a wave with a speed determined by the strength of the electric and magnetic fields (which are really two sides of the same coin).

    If you assume that the speed of light is in fact not constant, and can instead change with an observer's relative motion, then the field strengths must also vary. However, if that were the case, then any relative motion would change the chemical properties of your observer and it would blow up, according to a stationary reference frame. However, that same observer (seeing himself as stationary) would see his own chemistry remain the same and the reference frame would blow up instead. This logical paradox is what led to the discarding of the Luminiferous Ether theory (which was orthodox at the time) and paved the way for Lorentz and Einstein's work.

    , @vinteuil
    @Intelligent Dasein


    ...in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity...
     
    Wow.
    , @International Jew
    @Intelligent Dasein


    black entitlement plays the same role in America’s moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity.
     
    I like that. I'd put it just a bit differently: black behavioral and intellectual equality is like the speed of light.
  35. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!
     
    Private affirmative action comes under "freedom of association". The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing. My own college was also clearly biased toward its founding ethnic group, of which I was not one. That's part of the reason I chose it!

    in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers...
     
    Huh? If Peyton doesn't get into Harvard, he gets into Tufts, Clark, Holy Cross, BC, BU, or Northeastern. If not Dartmouth, then (Steve's fave, for all those Paul Rudolph buildings) U Mass-Dartmouth.

    admission to better schools
     
    For many, the "better schools" would be trade schools. Which leave one better prepared for real life. And much sooner debt-free.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @AnotherDad

    I was kind of hoping my son would be interested in UMass Dartmouth—just as a excuse for me to view the campus.

    Instead, he opted for a campus filled with students of whom even the residents of Martha’s Vineyard would be happy to welcome into their community.

    Demographics, demographics, demographics.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Coemgen


    Instead, he opted for a campus filled with students of whom even the residents of Martha’s Vineyard would be happy to welcome into their community.
     
    Venezuelans?

    So your son will be soon shipping out to a National Guard camp?

    Good for him. The discipline might do him some good...
  36. “Extreme Inequality” Entrenched in Academic Hiring: Study

    The United States gets roughly an eighth of its tenure-track professors from just five institutions, according to an analysis of nearly 300,000 faculty.

    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/extreme-inequality-entrenched-in-academic-hiring-study-70542

    Like intellectual potential in the population and among demographic groups, the intellectual potential of graduate students (i.e., future faculty candidates) among universities is not uniformly distributed.

    Up until now, most university faculty search committees recognize this. But in the future?

    The grift rot of AA feeds the career self-interest of countless others, hence AA’s durability, and the increasing erosion of merit-based hiring throughout academia. Everyone is forced to lie about it to each other and themselves.

  37. @Alfa158
    @slumber_j

    I wonder how many black students today would echo that sentiment? In the 34 years since then the educational system, media, pop culture, and politics have saturated the environment with the same message: Black people are a super race, physically, mentally, sexually, morally and culturally superior to everyone else and to whites in particular. Also, based on popular entertainment, they constitute 50% of the US population, therefore the only explanation for why they seem to underperform in real life is because they are being brutalized and held down by the white minority who still somehow cling to power through treachery and a head start.
    I would think that most black people today would therefore, understandably, believe that they need affirmative to offset the white man’s knee on the neck that is trying keep them down and, will accept AA as simply what they are due in order to overcome this oppression and assume their rightful place.
    Or, alternatively, they know the truth, but don’t care how they get what they want or what anyone else thinks of them, as long as they get it.
    Equity+.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @anonymous

    Right. In other words, the survey somehow failed to include Walgreen’s visitors.

  38. The one and only negroes (I have known two) I have ever met who were competent engineers–who had to take a bunch of calculus and physics classes–hate affirmative action even though it has made them a bunch of money. People who don’t know any better quite rightly assume they are not real engineers and they would gladly sacrifice all the dough their skin color has made them to not have to cope with this prejudice. Which is correct 98 or 99% of the time but is false in their two black swan examples.

    It undermines the self-made man myth which is a precious and doomed social archetype.

  39. @slumber_j

    Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action.
     
    I remember a black college classmate of mine explaining his vehement opposition to AA in exactly these terms back in the day. This would have been in I'd guess 1986...

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Polistra

    According to this small and doubtless cherry-picked sample, American college students oppose affirmative action. BFD! It’s also true that Americans opposed increased immigration, and by wide margins. A thorough saturation with MSM propaganda changed that. We can fix this too, and probably will.

  40. Universities – whatever – what’s the point. Decaying institutions that are decaying.

    I’m more concerned that a Jerry Bruckheimer movie is considered to be a “Classic”. It’s fifteen years old. And – more importantly – it’s a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

  41. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!
     
    Private affirmative action comes under "freedom of association". The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing. My own college was also clearly biased toward its founding ethnic group, of which I was not one. That's part of the reason I chose it!

    in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers...
     
    Huh? If Peyton doesn't get into Harvard, he gets into Tufts, Clark, Holy Cross, BC, BU, or Northeastern. If not Dartmouth, then (Steve's fave, for all those Paul Rudolph buildings) U Mass-Dartmouth.

    admission to better schools
     
    For many, the "better schools" would be trade schools. Which leave one better prepared for real life. And much sooner debt-free.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @AnotherDad

    I don’t understand this response, Reg. If in 2000 a woman manager at AT&T told Scott Adams, “I don’t see myself promoting any white males anytime soon,” why wouldn’t you assume the same attitude has been rampant throughout corporate America since then?

  42. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field, they aren’t concerned that AA is lowering standards and depriving more talented students of opportunity. That fact just doesn’t register with them.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Eddie the swarthy rat cellar, @AnotherDad

    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field,

    Mostly what I get is that college students just aren’t very smart/knowledgeable about the world. Which isn’t really surprising
    a) They are kids.
    b) They have been pickled in nonsense their whole lives.

    One white girl from Georgia is worried about the fundies. Seriously.

    A white guy thinks he’s privileged in admissions for being a white guy. Though in fairness he seems to root that in economics. He’s not very bright and needed ACT math tutor.

    Another black gal when to a charter school and was oppressed because she had to work the system a bit before she got private SAT tutoring.

    (It is true that first Kaplan, but now the Asians have screwed up the whole admissions testing thing with their test prep obsession. A deadweight loss of time and resources for every HS kid in America. We just skipped it.)

    Basically, all of them–except the Asian girl–are feeling oppressed or overwhelmed or something or another going to college. C’mon.

    The one bright note of sanity was a number of them were annoyed with their professors jamming their politics into the classroom. I assume that’s even worse than when I was in school.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @AnotherDad

    I used to be friends with this hot Black chick who came from a very good family and went to a pretty decent college. After a few years of working post-grad dead-end office jobs, she got sick of things and decided to become a lawyer, and so she asked me to help her out with her law-school application. So I sat down with her and looked at her application essay. It was really quite good, so I just helped her with some minor stylistic points, and she was good to go.

    But then, just to be on the safe side, she hired an outside application consultant. This person said, "Your essay is really very good, but to be honest, if you really want to ace this thing, just write another essay about how you're a down-trodden oppressed !Black! woman in a systemically racist world, and that will get you right through the door."

    So she did, and it did, and now she's a successful prosecutor in a big city.

  43. Steve – I keep waiting for your analysis of the self incrimination the Rice Board of Trustees did leading to the new president and dean being chosen to increase equity.

  44. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Pretending to be smart has been a lucrative gig for college administrators, and they're just trying to spread the wealth.

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.

    When actual smart people ran the country, they naturally generated ways for the non-smart to be actually productive, by shoveling coal and such. Now, the clever non-smart parade around with a B.A. in psychology, sending out emails on HIPAA compliance and knocking off early every Friday. The non-clever non-smart still have to do productive things like deliver parcels.

    Replies: @Cato, @Supply and Demand, @James Speaks

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.

    That’s true — in most service sector work (particularly government work) outcomes are too fuzzy to measure. If you can’t measure the output, then you can’t calculate productivity. And it seems that clearly measurable outputs are found only toward the bottom of the labor market. Last spring I asked the Amazon delivery guy how many packages he delivered per day and learned that he needed to deliver 200 in order to keep his job.

  45. Another harm whites receive from affirmative action putting so many blacks in college is that blacks, especially black females, are much more likely to end up with unpaid student loans which will eventually have to be paid for by white taxpayers. Black women may be the group that most overwhelmingly votes for Democrats, with 95% of them doing so. When Democrats want to cancel student debt this is to pay back their political supporters for their support.

  46. Anonymous[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    @Alfa158

    Yes, that's fairly accurate.

    When a black student says, "I don't want my presence on campus attributed to Affirmative Action," it should be read as, "I want (and deserve, and demand) to benefit from Affirmative Action but I also want to forbid you from thinking that I am in any way inferior, and crminalize you and punish you if you do."

    This was the intended result of all the Civil Rights legislation. It was not to redress historical grievances or level the playing field. It was to enthrone black entitlement as a proposition that must be held "come what may," no matter what injustice and devastation it inflicts upon the rest of society.

    As I have formally noted, black entitlement plays the same role in America's moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity. Can mass be believed? Can energy be believed? Are space and time themselves reliable? No, throw them all out the window! The speed of light is the new constant, and it must remain the same come what may! The rest of the universe can bend and warp around it, but this you are not allowed to alter.

    As to what entitles the speed of light to this sacrosanct position, the theory does not exactly explain. It is an assertion we are expected to accept without reservation. The fact that it's absurd seems to make no difference. Likewise, in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil, @International Jew

    Maxwell’s equations showed that the speed of light is constant. The value can be calculated using purely classical physics. In particular, Maxwell showed that light is a wave with a speed determined by the strength of the electric and magnetic fields (which are really two sides of the same coin).

    If you assume that the speed of light is in fact not constant, and can instead change with an observer’s relative motion, then the field strengths must also vary. However, if that were the case, then any relative motion would change the chemical properties of your observer and it would blow up, according to a stationary reference frame. However, that same observer (seeing himself as stationary) would see his own chemistry remain the same and the reference frame would blow up instead. This logical paradox is what led to the discarding of the Luminiferous Ether theory (which was orthodox at the time) and paved the way for Lorentz and Einstein’s work.

  47. @SFG
    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @interesting, @anonymous, @Muggles, @Curle

    And still does in many parts of the world. Like the “Japanese only signs” in Japan.

  48. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!
     
    Private affirmative action comes under "freedom of association". The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing. My own college was also clearly biased toward its founding ethnic group, of which I was not one. That's part of the reason I chose it!

    in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers...
     
    Huh? If Peyton doesn't get into Harvard, he gets into Tufts, Clark, Holy Cross, BC, BU, or Northeastern. If not Dartmouth, then (Steve's fave, for all those Paul Rudolph buildings) U Mass-Dartmouth.

    admission to better schools
     
    For many, the "better schools" would be trade schools. Which leave one better prepared for real life. And much sooner debt-free.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @AnotherDad

    By “Affirmative Action”, of course I didn’t meant private discrimination and association, Reg. The US Feral Gov’t has been using the term a long time, and it means direct Federal Law when it involves government jobs and the military, and indirect Federal Law that dictates what private business must do in its hiring.

    As for your last paragraph, I hesitated about writing about the schools, because I agree with your sentiments exactly on that. My Dad knew connections and networking are not the be-all-to-end-all in life, as I could have gone to one of these (money being another story), and I feel the same way.

  49. “Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action.”

    Especially now, since many blacks who go to college are the result of generations of assortative mating by blacks (and whites*) who went to college, and are actually of average intelligence or are bright normal by white standards.

    *Just wait until blacks demand genetic equity.

  50. OT but perhaps of interest: Quanta Magazine is a very respectable online pop science magazine with articles that are often well worth reading. This recent article, What We Know About Monkeypox, in particular caught my eye, in large part because of the subtitle: Even though we’ve learned a lot about this relative of smallpox, some mysteries remain due to a lack of political will.

    OK I thought, let’s see what those mysteries might be! Well one mystery that remains at the end of the article is exactly who is getting and spreading the virus. Not a clue is offered. Not one. I guess we’ll never know…

  51. @Redman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In addition, the largest ethnicity of current American whites is German. The German-Americans AFAIK had nothing to do with slavery. Not too many modern DOS blacks with Germanic sounding names.

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @ADL Pyramid of Hate, @anon, @Tony

    Plenty of Germans (and Scots-Irish) went south when the flatter parts of Pennsylvania got crowded in the mid 1700s. Some bought slaves but they didn’t have huge plantations like the English on the coastal plain, so they had a lot fewer.

  52. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    AA is neither right nor wrong per se. Don't fall into CivNat trap.

    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races. AA is just one way to keep this multi-everything bazaar from blowing up.

    In a multiracial society, tribe comes first. You first divvy up the pie among the various competing factions and then move on to other business. AA is part of that process.

    Clinging to muh Constitution is silly. Words on a piece of paper written by long-dead white guys isn't going to save us.

    AA isn't wrong because it's unconstitutional; it's wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That's what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society. Time for whites to wake up to that reality.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Moses

    No, it’s very obviously WRONG. If you don’t get that, you’ve got a lack of integrity. Same for Steve Sailer, who never answers the question, and even Ann Coulter.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why is it wrong?

    It's a policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Is it wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race? Well, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Koreans, etc., discriminate on the basis of race with their immigration policy. Indeed, I'd very much like to discriminate on the basis of race in US immigration policy. Why is that wrong?

    Why is it wrong to defend one's own people? Or do you have a problem with acknowledging having a people?

    What exactly is your problem with AA? Saying that it's "wrong" is childish.

    Dingbat CivNats - like Steve - say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that's because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren't so callous. They're fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)

    What's your excuse?

    Replies: @Anon, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman

  53. kind of annoying that the only argument against affirmative action is that people hate it that other people might assume they got what the got because of affirmative action.

  54. @Henry's Cat
    If you teemed it 'anti-white discrimination' how many would have been in favour?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘If you teemed it ‘anti-white discrimination’ how many would have been in favour?’

    This is one of the Left’s more irritating cons: winning the argument by loading the language.

    ‘Gender affirming’ surgery. It is, of course, just the opposite. The victim’s gender is not being ‘affirmed,’ it’s being changed.

    ‘The homeless’ rather than ‘vagrants.’ The implication, of course, is that their problem is simply the lack of a place to live. Give them that place, and they’ll be fine. If only…

    ‘Undocumented immigrants.’ Like the immigrants just forgot their green card or something. They’re not ‘undocumented,’ they’re illegal. While we’re on the subject, another game is ‘migrants’ rather than immigrants. They’re storks or something, and they’ll fly back the other way in the Fall.

    It’s cute. They win the argument as soon as you accept their terms.

    • Agree: Moses, Kylie
  55. @Redman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In addition, the largest ethnicity of current American whites is German. The German-Americans AFAIK had nothing to do with slavery. Not too many modern DOS blacks with Germanic sounding names.

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @ADL Pyramid of Hate, @anon, @Tony

    The Deutschtexaners of the Texas Hill Country (many “Forty-Eighters,” refugees from the failed 1848 rabble-rousing back in the fatherland) were Unionists during the Late Unpleasantness; Harry Wurzbach, out of the Hill Country’s TX-14, was the only Republican elected to Congress from Texas during the first 50 years of the 20th century.

    Now, as you say, their descendants (and no, before some of you start, they were ethnic Germans) are just as despised as the most Southron huwhitey; heck, a lot of them are happy with this state of affairs and ask for more browbeating.

    Regarding the main topic, the most amusing part of that NY Slimes article was one Black woman’s explanation for why she didn’t raise her hand for affirmative action:

    I think the biggest issue with affirmative action is that it implies that people of color wouldn’t be able to get that position on their own. What we need is maybe a blanket way of admitting students that doesn’t have anything to do with race. If a straight white man was competing against me and we had the same test scores and they had to choose, what’s happened more often than not, in history, is that they’ll choose the white man. And the thing about it is, we do have the test scores, and we do have the people who want to compete and who are competitive. There’s plenty of us who will make it. We just need you to give us the space to do so.

    Yeah, aight den. October 31st (oral arguments in SFFA v. UNC and SFFA v. Harvard) can’t come soon enough.

  56. @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!
     
    Private affirmative action comes under "freedom of association". The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing. My own college was also clearly biased toward its founding ethnic group, of which I was not one. That's part of the reason I chose it!

    in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers...
     
    Huh? If Peyton doesn't get into Harvard, he gets into Tufts, Clark, Holy Cross, BC, BU, or Northeastern. If not Dartmouth, then (Steve's fave, for all those Paul Rudolph buildings) U Mass-Dartmouth.

    admission to better schools
     
    For many, the "better schools" would be trade schools. Which leave one better prepared for real life. And much sooner debt-free.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @AnotherDad

    Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    Private affirmative action comes under “freedom of association”. The Puritan-stock administrators employed it for years in the schools their ancestors founded, and were justified in so doing.

    Agree a lot–maybe most?–of Americas colleges were founded by various Protestant sects–and then later the Catholics–for educating their children. If they weren’t discriminating for their people, they really weren’t doing their job.

    In an actually free society, people discriminate as they will. And in doing so they determine what norms are appropriate and will be enforced in their particular organic communities.

    America took a wrong turn with Brown’s “must have integration!” reasoning. A simple decision saying the government should not be in the racial discrimination business would have set us on a better path. Southern states could have explicitly privatized education–vouchers for parents–if they really wanted to maintain segregation. Turns out that would have been a huge net benefit to society. But even without that we could have been spared the whole busing and affirmative action–explicit racialism–pushed and enforced by the government. And most of all spared the hideous totalitarianism of the government busy-bodying the hell out every decision every American makes about anything.

    ~~

    And the truth is now, we’re probably doomed. Multi-ethnic societies inherently end up with ethnic political allocation. Either it’s one group on top, or in countries with elected governments, some sort of ethnic spoils system.

    If you’re expecting the government to go in enforce some sort of actual “fairness” … LOL.

    If you want “meritocracy” you better have a something akin to a “one people nation” where no one’s getting all butt-hurt.

  57. anon[593] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In addition, the largest ethnicity of current American whites is German. The German-Americans AFAIK had nothing to do with slavery. Not too many modern DOS blacks with Germanic sounding names.

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @ADL Pyramid of Hate, @anon, @Tony

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    Blacks benefited from so-called slavery. The black “slaves” enjoyed a higher standard of living than most people in Europe at the time. The arrangement gave them access to the bounties of a continent and of a talented other race that they never could have obtained on their own. They got a head start on other non-Whites in living in advanced Western societies, learning the language, customs, and some of the other technologies. Besides, if we are to believe White admixture statistics, contemporary blacks would literally not exist today if it weren’t for slavery.

    If anyone owes blacks reparations or support, it is German- and Scandinavian-descended Americans who did nothing of the above to benefit blacks.

  58. @SFG
    @Arclight

    Let’s see what the Supreme Court does with SFA vs Harvard and UNC.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Let’s see what the Supreme Court does with SFA vs Harvard and UNC.

    Why? Cheap entertainment?

    If the Supreme’s “outlaw” AA–and what exactly is the justification for telling Harvard (private) who they must admit?–

    a) there will be “massive resistance”

    and

    b) once all the current open borders immivaders are duly citizenized and voting you’ll have a future set of Supreme’s toss this set of Supreme’s ruling in the round file.

    Basically, you’re talking about reshuffling a few kids among various colleges for maybe a couple decades. At best. Big deal.

    The “Civil Rights” police state looking over the should of every decision of every person–at least every deplorable person–in America isn’t going away.

    And the real “existential damage” of minoritarianism has been demographic. The US simply is not a nation anymore. (Though the American nation still exists underneath somewhere.) So we aren’t going to have nice one-white-people-nation things anymore.

  59. In the public and private sector, everyone has to deal with black colleagues and occasionally sit on hiring committees where black candidates are considered. Many of them have degrees from elite college, but wherever they work in the white collar world, black employees are rarely productive and constantly in need assistance from non-black colleagues. They never know anything in detail, and they always have personal reasons for missing deadlines or producing shoddy work. But this often doesnt prevent them from failing their way up to positions of top management.

    As examples of black managerial incompetence, consider big city mayors Lori Lightfoot, Catherine Pugh, Muriel Bowser, and Keisha Bottoms: all seem to fail in the same way despite their prestigious education credentials. They fail to understand the complexities of managing a city and hire their idiotic black friends to run the schools, law enforcement, sanitation, and procurement in constant crisis mode. The crises result in frequent political purges launched from the mayors office to deal with any regime critics. This simply accelerates the race to the bottom, and raising taxes is the city’s only solution to the problems created by the mayors terrible management.

    Elite universities know about black cognitive deficiencies, but they are there to play the role of the Wizard of Oz awarding a diploma to the tin-man to prove that, not only does he have a brain, but he is a genius. Like Harvard Law School admitting Barack Obama, it was a cynical ploy to advance the career of a polarizing politician. By the way, good luck ever getting to see Obama’s grades or test scores. You’ll have to wait for the barbarians to sack the admissions department of Harvard and Columbia University.

    • Agree: Rich
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @JimB

    Lori Lightfoot, Catherine Pugh, Muriel Bowser, and Keisha Bottoms: all seem to fail in the same way despite their prestigious education credentials.

    Three of these four people attended common and garden schools. Only Lori Lightfoot attended prestige schools.

    It's a reasonable wager that if you polled the faculty at those prestige schools, maybe one in five would endorse a sensible program to improve the quality of life in any given core city.

    , @JimB
    @JimB


    Elite universities know about black cognitive deficiencies, but they are there to play the role of the Wizard of Oz awarding a diploma to the tin-man…
     
    My mistake. The Wiz gives the diploma to the scarecrow.
  60. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Alfa158

    Yes, that's fairly accurate.

    When a black student says, "I don't want my presence on campus attributed to Affirmative Action," it should be read as, "I want (and deserve, and demand) to benefit from Affirmative Action but I also want to forbid you from thinking that I am in any way inferior, and crminalize you and punish you if you do."

    This was the intended result of all the Civil Rights legislation. It was not to redress historical grievances or level the playing field. It was to enthrone black entitlement as a proposition that must be held "come what may," no matter what injustice and devastation it inflicts upon the rest of society.

    As I have formally noted, black entitlement plays the same role in America's moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity. Can mass be believed? Can energy be believed? Are space and time themselves reliable? No, throw them all out the window! The speed of light is the new constant, and it must remain the same come what may! The rest of the universe can bend and warp around it, but this you are not allowed to alter.

    As to what entitles the speed of light to this sacrosanct position, the theory does not exactly explain. It is an assertion we are expected to accept without reservation. The fact that it's absurd seems to make no difference. Likewise, in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil, @International Jew

    …in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity…

    Wow.

  61. “As to what entitles the speed of light to this sacrosanct position, the theory does not exactly explain. It is an assertion we are expected to accept without reservation. The fact that it’s absurd seems to make no difference.”

    The constancy of the speed of light wasn’t accepted until experimental observations confirmed it was true. What’s absurd about something that’s been verified by experiment every single time?

  62. @SFG
    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @interesting, @anonymous, @Muggles, @Curle

    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history.

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression. Unless you believe that Jewish apartness practices and in-group favoritism are tantamount to systemic racism against non-Jews.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @anonymous


    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.
     
    In situations where blacks were limited to menial jobs and not allowed to apply for better paying jobs in competition with whites that was oppression. In situations where blacks wanted to visit a restaurant or other business and the owners were willing to have them as customers and the blacks were not legally allowed to do so, that was oppression. The solution was to adopt freedom of association. People can hire who they want, can have who they want as customers, can marry who they want and so on. Any interference with freedom of association in situations like these is immoral.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

  63. @SFG
    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @interesting, @anonymous, @Muggles, @Curle

    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Virtually all human populations are “racist” when they compare their group to those who look or act differently then they do.

    “Anti Racism” like “climate stasis” is a modern Woke mythology promoted mainly by leftist Whites and grifter/opportunist POCs.

    Before you wail about Siberian American immigrants to the Western Hemisphere, take a close look at their ancestral cousins still living in Russian Siberia. Or somewhat related groups of minority ethnics in Japan, Korea and China. The ones in Russia are horribly alcoholic and barely surviving.

    Even the reindeer herders have largely been eliminated via Communist repression, disease and alcohol.

    Hunting-gathering in the modern world is a largely unsuccessful lifestyle. Exists only at remote margins. Groups with no distant history of brewing or making fermented drinks are highly susceptible to alcoholism. So genetics probably plays a role.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Muggles

    https://www.twitter.com/17cShyteposter/status/1574655119521505281

  64. @Muggles
    @SFG


    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.
     
    Virtually all human populations are "racist" when they compare their group to those who look or act differently then they do.

    "Anti Racism" like "climate stasis" is a modern Woke mythology promoted mainly by leftist Whites and grifter/opportunist POCs.

    Before you wail about Siberian American immigrants to the Western Hemisphere, take a close look at their ancestral cousins still living in Russian Siberia. Or somewhat related groups of minority ethnics in Japan, Korea and China. The ones in Russia are horribly alcoholic and barely surviving.

    Even the reindeer herders have largely been eliminated via Communist repression, disease and alcohol.

    Hunting-gathering in the modern world is a largely unsuccessful lifestyle. Exists only at remote margins. Groups with no distant history of brewing or making fermented drinks are highly susceptible to alcoholism. So genetics probably plays a role.

    Replies: @Anon

  65. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    AA is neither right nor wrong per se. Don't fall into CivNat trap.

    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races. AA is just one way to keep this multi-everything bazaar from blowing up.

    In a multiracial society, tribe comes first. You first divvy up the pie among the various competing factions and then move on to other business. AA is part of that process.

    Clinging to muh Constitution is silly. Words on a piece of paper written by long-dead white guys isn't going to save us.

    AA isn't wrong because it's unconstitutional; it's wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That's what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society. Time for whites to wake up to that reality.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Moses

    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races.

    Sitting Bull and Geronimo said the same thing.

    Didn’t work for them either.

    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.

    Instead, you are merely looking at your five (white) fingers and think, “this is what God’s chosen” looks like. No history, no clue…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Muggles


    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.
     
    The US is a country that specifically forbids establishment of religion, and yet it is amazing how little Christianity is taken into account when it comes to multiracial societies, even when a surprisingly high percentage of people still claim to believe in God. The US remains a highly tribalized nation.

    Of course Columbus felt that it was a good idea to have natives converted to Christianity so that they would make good slaves--and one can see his point--but Christianity evolved over the centuries and reached the conclusion that all humans were to be regarded as equals, and the question "Am I my brother's keeper?", (originally asked by Cain when read his Miranda Rights after the disappearance of his brother Abel) was supposed to be answered: "Yes, and by the way, you killed him didn't you?".

    The Christian notion of the highest virtue being self-sacrifice on behalf of one's fellow man seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago and today is regarded as a rather quaint relic. Almost as quaint as the Good Samaritan.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Muggles

    Lay back and think of Civic Nationalism.

    Great plan.

    Whites (or our various sub-tribes) need to learn how to build our own communities. Jews have the right idea - but you know that, don't you. I'll follow their plan. You do what you want. Whites will either become helots or be erased as a people. I might lose but at least, I tried.

    What's your plan?

    Replies: @Muggles

  66. @Coemgen
    @Reg Cæsar

    I was kind of hoping my son would be interested in UMass Dartmouth—just as a excuse for me to view the campus.

    Instead, he opted for a campus filled with students of whom even the residents of Martha’s Vineyard would be happy to welcome into their community.

    Demographics, demographics, demographics.

    Replies: @Muggles

    Instead, he opted for a campus filled with students of whom even the residents of Martha’s Vineyard would be happy to welcome into their community.

    Venezuelans?

    So your son will be soon shipping out to a National Guard camp?

    Good for him. The discipline might do him some good…

  67. On this weekend’s WSJ Editorial Report, guest Ilya Shapiro briefly assessed the upcoming Scotus Harvard AA case. Paul Gigot then mused, in and unguarded moment: If Harvard loses, would Harvard just go on doing it anyway? Shapiro punted. I am sure the answer is yes. It then follows that everyone will go on doing it anyway.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @SafeNow

    If Harvard loses, would Harvard just go on doing it anyway? Shapiro punted. I am sure the answer is yes. It then follows that everyone will go on doing it anyway.

    On the other hand Harvard has a 50 billion dollar endowment. While the trial attorneys of the USA are a very liberal left demographic, in a struggle between their conscience (such as it is) and their greed it would be prudent to bet on the latter.

  68. From the article: “Minority students in the focus groups said they don’t want others to assume they are on campus only because of affirmative action.”

    Lol! As Detective McPherson says in the movie,”Laura”: “What other assumption is possible?”

    Lower intelligence combined with higher self-esteem is a recipe for disaster. This is true, regardless of sex, skin color, race, ethnicity or station in life.

    The dim ginger and his disgraced uncle spring to mind.

  69. OT: Looking forward to your review of “Till,” which caught me unawares. Foolish me.

  70. @Muggles
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races.
     
    Sitting Bull and Geronimo said the same thing.

    Didn't work for them either.

    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.

    Instead, you are merely looking at your five (white) fingers and think, "this is what God's chosen" looks like. No history, no clue...

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.

    The US is a country that specifically forbids establishment of religion, and yet it is amazing how little Christianity is taken into account when it comes to multiracial societies, even when a surprisingly high percentage of people still claim to believe in God. The US remains a highly tribalized nation.

    Of course Columbus felt that it was a good idea to have natives converted to Christianity so that they would make good slaves–and one can see his point–but Christianity evolved over the centuries and reached the conclusion that all humans were to be regarded as equals, and the question “Am I my brother’s keeper?”, (originally asked by Cain when read his Miranda Rights after the disappearance of his brother Abel) was supposed to be answered: “Yes, and by the way, you killed him didn’t you?”.

    The Christian notion of the highest virtue being self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s fellow man seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago and today is regarded as a rather quaint relic. Almost as quaint as the Good Samaritan.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Jonathan Mason


    The Christian notion of the highest virtue being self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s fellow man seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago and today is regarded as a rather quaint relic.
     
    That is not what Christianity says. The highest virtue is charity, which is first and foremost the intellectual love of God for His own sake, and secondarily the love of one's neighbor as oneself for the sake of God. It is not some dopey "self-sacrifice on behalf of one's fellow man." That is Albert Schweitzer, not Christianity.

    If you can't get that much right, then just shut up about the subject in the future.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  71. @SafeNow
    On this weekend’s WSJ Editorial Report, guest Ilya Shapiro briefly assessed the upcoming Scotus Harvard AA case. Paul Gigot then mused, in and unguarded moment: If Harvard loses, would Harvard just go on doing it anyway? Shapiro punted. I am sure the answer is yes. It then follows that everyone will go on doing it anyway.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    If Harvard loses, would Harvard just go on doing it anyway? Shapiro punted. I am sure the answer is yes. It then follows that everyone will go on doing it anyway.

    On the other hand Harvard has a 50 billion dollar endowment. While the trial attorneys of the USA are a very liberal left demographic, in a struggle between their conscience (such as it is) and their greed it would be prudent to bet on the latter.

  72. @Bill Jones
    There are all sorts of mechanisms in so many of the societies of the West, that ignorance is pretty much guaranteed.

    Emile Kirkegaard, who, as you might guess is a Dane looks at this sort of thing in the Scandi countries.

    If you poke around his site, as one should, there's a great piece on the difference in topics of men's conversation versus those of women.
    As you might expect it's a hoot.


    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/

    Replies: @CharleszMartel

    Thanks for the link to what seems to be a very interesting blog.

    Is “Comments on Linguistic Anthropology (Laura Ahearn)” the article you are referring to?

  73. @Jonathan Mason
    @Muggles


    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.
     
    The US is a country that specifically forbids establishment of religion, and yet it is amazing how little Christianity is taken into account when it comes to multiracial societies, even when a surprisingly high percentage of people still claim to believe in God. The US remains a highly tribalized nation.

    Of course Columbus felt that it was a good idea to have natives converted to Christianity so that they would make good slaves--and one can see his point--but Christianity evolved over the centuries and reached the conclusion that all humans were to be regarded as equals, and the question "Am I my brother's keeper?", (originally asked by Cain when read his Miranda Rights after the disappearance of his brother Abel) was supposed to be answered: "Yes, and by the way, you killed him didn't you?".

    The Christian notion of the highest virtue being self-sacrifice on behalf of one's fellow man seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago and today is regarded as a rather quaint relic. Almost as quaint as the Good Samaritan.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    The Christian notion of the highest virtue being self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s fellow man seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago and today is regarded as a rather quaint relic.

    That is not what Christianity says. The highest virtue is charity, which is first and foremost the intellectual love of God for His own sake, and secondarily the love of one’s neighbor as oneself for the sake of God. It is not some dopey “self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s fellow man.” That is Albert Schweitzer, not Christianity.

    If you can’t get that much right, then just shut up about the subject in the future.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Luke 9:23 and following verses.

    Replies: @Matt Buckalew

  74. @Spud Boy
    So when is the next big AA case coming to the Supreme Court? I can't see this court upholding AA any longer.

    My belief is that AA was the seed that's grown into the hyper-woke AA-on-steroids culture we're seeing today.

    If you watch TV commercials now you'd think the U.S. was 80% black.

    Saw Top Gun: Maverick last night. Of course the elite crew of fighter pilots, the "best of the best", looked like a United Colors of Benetton ad.

    Replies: @HammerJack

    If you watch TV commercials now you’d think the U.S. was 80% black.

    Although I don’t watch TV, I do know that online advertising has found a purpose for white kids, and even the occasional asian.

    Look at those girls, bullying the poor black kid. Just like in real life!

    And white boys? They start all the fights.

    Schools would be so much better without these troublesome white kids.

  75. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    Asians may be somewhat opposed to affirmative action now that it hurts them. Not for any principled reason. In the past they've been fine with a mix of schemes that net-net gave them advantages while shafting whitey.

    The tragedy in China playing out now is what happens when the Chinese are left to their own. As someone said, they're a nation of autistic hypochondriacs. Chine also revert to extreme obedience to the Leader. They aren't a long term threat to the USA. They may become a joke nation.

    Have you noticed that no high IQ Asians are coming to rescue of Whitey and America. That's a silly fantasy. If you haven't noticed, they're not looking to join any of your political schemes for the future.

    Replies: @HammerJack

    Good piece in the WSJ about racial gerrymandering. So far we’re still stuck in the year 1965, dividing up the spoils between blacks and whites. Asians and Latinos need not apply.

    But that doesn’t stop inconvenient questions from arising:

    What distinguishes a district favoring black voters, who happen to be Democrats, from a district favoring Democrats, who happen to be black?

    [MORE]

    “Few devices could be better designed to exacerbate racial tensions than the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 1994. He predicted it would “deepen racial divisions by destroying any need for voters or candidates to build bridges between racial groups or to form voting coalitions.” How right he has been.

    https://archive.ph/GpIbV

  76. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Jonathan Mason


    The Christian notion of the highest virtue being self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s fellow man seems to have fallen by the wayside a long time ago and today is regarded as a rather quaint relic.
     
    That is not what Christianity says. The highest virtue is charity, which is first and foremost the intellectual love of God for His own sake, and secondarily the love of one's neighbor as oneself for the sake of God. It is not some dopey "self-sacrifice on behalf of one's fellow man." That is Albert Schweitzer, not Christianity.

    If you can't get that much right, then just shut up about the subject in the future.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Luke 9:23 and following verses.

    • Replies: @Matt Buckalew
    @Jonathan Mason

    Lmao wait did you get confused with John 15:13. I know the font on this Soros issued cheat sheets can be awful small especially with that glare from the lamination. Your verse describes exactly what he said self- abnegation as an outflowing of love for God. It’s also a specific rebuke to your sappy racial spoils system. Never mind that it stands in poignantly in rebuke of the greedy black Christians who can’t even give up his unearned benefit to his smarter, harder working fellow man- much less their own life. The second you use that verse as a rhetorical weapon you stand condemned- you can’t even exercise the self-abnegation of not using a religion you don’t believe in to try and score points.

    The cynical self aggrandizement you are demonstrating is almost comical. I mean lol you are literally using this verse to defend a system that exists entirely to bolster the status and wealth of specific groups of people. The first thing a true Christian would say is fuck the rat race the person that insists on a rat race rigged in their favor is so far from God it’s hard to countenance. You don’t even think blacks can take up the burden of a level playing field who are you to demand anyone take up the Cross.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  77. Pollsters seldom if ever ask this question, so I can’t prove that most Americans are ignorant of the fact that African Americans are not intelligent enough on average to be terribly competitive in quantitative terms in cognitively elite institutions and careers, but it sure seems like few Americans are cognizant of the cognitive realities.

    I suspect what non-Whites really want is preferences with gaslighting so everyone believes they got there purely on merit and it’s an unspeakable crime to suspect they didn’t.

    NB: “Minority” is an outdated, old-fashioned term that makes it sound like non-Whites just a tiny marginalized number. It’s false. Whites just 40% of CA, 40% of NYC, 41% of DC. Whites be a “minority” now. Use “non-Whites”. It’s more accurate, reflects reality more clearly.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Moses


    Whites just 40% of CA, 40% of NYC, 41% of DC.
     
    Whites are growing as a % of DC, and may soon be a majority. What better time, what better excuse, to repeal the 23rd Amendment?

    Replies: @Moses

  78. @anonymous
    @SFG


    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history.
     
    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression. Unless you believe that Jewish apartness practices and in-group favoritism are tantamount to systemic racism against non-Jews.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Art Deco

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    In situations where blacks were limited to menial jobs and not allowed to apply for better paying jobs in competition with whites that was oppression. In situations where blacks wanted to visit a restaurant or other business and the owners were willing to have them as customers and the blacks were not legally allowed to do so, that was oppression. The solution was to adopt freedom of association. People can hire who they want, can have who they want as customers, can marry who they want and so on. Any interference with freedom of association in situations like these is immoral.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Mark G.


    In situations where blacks were limited to menial jobs and not allowed to apply for better paying jobs in competition with whites that was oppression.
     
    Not really. Blacks aren’t entitled to jobs created by Whites. They can obtain like jobs in the Black community. Each group can maintain and thrive in their own communities.

    In situations where blacks wanted to visit a restaurant or other business and the owners were willing to have them as customers and the blacks were not legally allowed to do so, that was oppression. The solution was to adopt freedom of association. People can hire who they want, can have who they want as customers, can marry who they want and so on. Any interference with freedom of association in situations like these is immoral.
     
    All norms and laws entail some restriction on “freedom.” If that is “oppression,” every norm and law is oppressive and immoral. Is a society possibly without laws and norms?

    The norms in the situations you describe are conducive, possibly even necessary, to the security, welfare, and continuity of the White people. That isn’t oppression. It is self-defense and self-preservation.

    Is Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy immoral? Similar restrictions on freedom of association as those under discussion.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  79. @JimB
    In the public and private sector, everyone has to deal with black colleagues and occasionally sit on hiring committees where black candidates are considered. Many of them have degrees from elite college, but wherever they work in the white collar world, black employees are rarely productive and constantly in need assistance from non-black colleagues. They never know anything in detail, and they always have personal reasons for missing deadlines or producing shoddy work. But this often doesnt prevent them from failing their way up to positions of top management.

    As examples of black managerial incompetence, consider big city mayors Lori Lightfoot, Catherine Pugh, Muriel Bowser, and Keisha Bottoms: all seem to fail in the same way despite their prestigious education credentials. They fail to understand the complexities of managing a city and hire their idiotic black friends to run the schools, law enforcement, sanitation, and procurement in constant crisis mode. The crises result in frequent political purges launched from the mayors office to deal with any regime critics. This simply accelerates the race to the bottom, and raising taxes is the city’s only solution to the problems created by the mayors terrible management.

    Elite universities know about black cognitive deficiencies, but they are there to play the role of the Wizard of Oz awarding a diploma to the tin-man to prove that, not only does he have a brain, but he is a genius. Like Harvard Law School admitting Barack Obama, it was a cynical ploy to advance the career of a polarizing politician. By the way, good luck ever getting to see Obama’s grades or test scores. You’ll have to wait for the barbarians to sack the admissions department of Harvard and Columbia University.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @JimB

    Lori Lightfoot, Catherine Pugh, Muriel Bowser, and Keisha Bottoms: all seem to fail in the same way despite their prestigious education credentials.

    Three of these four people attended common and garden schools. Only Lori Lightfoot attended prestige schools.

    It’s a reasonable wager that if you polled the faculty at those prestige schools, maybe one in five would endorse a sensible program to improve the quality of life in any given core city.

  80. @anonymous
    @SFG


    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history.
     
    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression. Unless you believe that Jewish apartness practices and in-group favoritism are tantamount to systemic racism against non-Jews.

    Replies: @Mark G., @Art Deco

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Art Deco


    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.
     
    No it isn’t. Are property rights abuse? Is the US-Mexico border abuse? Do you consider Jewish exclusivism to be an abuse of non-Jews?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @HammerJack
    @Art Deco


    Separation is abuse.
     
    Forced integration is abuse. Separation happens naturally, in nature, all the time—and for good reason. Forced integration, in nature, often results in mass slaughter.

    There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.
     
    Abuses have happened at various times and in various places throughout human history. Current practitioners insist that their abuses somehow rectify real or imagined abuses from the past.
    , @Moses
    @Art Deco


    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.
     
    Tikkun olam to that, brother. Everyone knows that all non-White races are entitled to live next to Whites (and White wimminz).
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Art Deco


    Separation is abuse.
     
    Then wouldn't it be so for both sides?

    There were many abuses in the ancien régime in the South.
     
    Which could only happen if they were together. Not a problem in New Hampshire or the UP.
    , @Muggles
    @Art Deco


    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.
     
    Man, you are behind the times.

    "Separation" is the new Mantra, for Them, not you.

    Just like slinging around that "horrid" N-word. For Them, song and dance. For you, a hate crime.

    AA students are now demanding separate dorms and social (get high) areas on campus. For Them, not you. (Well maybe Jews, if there are enough of them...)

    "Gentrification" is now "racist" since too many of you are buying property in their low rent 'hoods.

    So is "separation" abuse or not?

    There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the North as well. But as you say, "ancien" is long gone.

    Segregation is now rampant for Negroes and other POCs. They have special TV channels and practically every Awards Show has a non White segregated analogue. You are not invited. We're not supposed to notice. And they squawk if They don't get a generous Plus Sized Quota of awards and supposedly non racial open Awards.

    So see, separation isn't "abuse."

    Of course double standards are hypocritical. But that has never been applied to Them and their White comrade "allies."

    It's just that some have "noticed" and don't like living in Your Clown World.

    Replies: @anarchyst

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    No it's not. Different people need different countries: Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, Taiwan-China, North Korea-South Korea, Serbia-Croatia, Germany-Austria, Iraq-Kuwait, the Sioux Nation-Anglo/America, Greek Cyprus-Turkish Cyprus, Haiti-Dominican Republic, Kurdistan-everybody. How many examples do you need? All of human history is people drawing lines around themselves to keep the Other out.

    The multi-ethnic US worked, to the extent it ever did, because of freedom of association and de-centralized government and minimal public welfare. Once you start doling out transfer payments and centralizing government, then ethnic diversity becomes a very big problem, such a big problem that you have to enact shelves of civil rights laws and regulations and deliberately abolish the ethnic super-majority. Otherwise different people do what different people do wherever and whenever they're allowed: they separate.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Art Deco

  81. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    No it isn’t. Are property rights abuse? Is the US-Mexico border abuse? Do you consider Jewish exclusivism to be an abuse of non-Jews?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Property rights are not abuse. Southern segregation ordinances covered public spaces and were coercive upon commercial vendors. While we're at it, law enforcement and the courts stank on ice.

  82. • Replies: @JackOH
    @Anon


    "Kick the dog until it bites, then shoot it"

    Curtis Yarvin describing the strategy and morality of the West
     

    Yep. Provocateurship or diplomatic "animal-baiting" seems to me among the nastiest and most dishonest tools used by the strong against the weak to keep the strong strong and the weak weak. It's a schoolyard bully's tactic, and I just don't like it when my country uses it.
    , @Art Deco
    @Anon

    An oil embargo is an act of war only in that man's imagination.

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @Anon

    H. H. Kung, one of the most venal man in China, sucking up to Hitler in order to get support for war against Japan. Berchtesgaden 1937.
    https://i.postimg.cc/XvMRrKgX/person-hitler130.jpg

    Photographs of supposed Japanese atrocities against Chinese-- left photo, on the back reads clearly in Chinese 槍決漢奸 "execute Han traitor". Its KMT troops doing the execution.
    https://twitter.com/EdwardJHiggins/status/1499717903452712970?s=20&t=7459RTntm8lxaxWdsGlaSQ

  83. This week’s Steve Sailer discussion on Red Scare:

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/72706286?pr=true (go to 14:40 or so)

    Sorry, Matt Yglesias. “The arc of the moral universe is long and it bends towards Sailer.”

    Dasha showing more intelligence than most people by saying, “I just think whatever Glenn Greenwald thinks. He’s way smarter than me, way better informed, and doesn’t lie….he does like to own the libs, though.” Honestly, most people talking about most things would be better off not being confident in their own opinions.

  84. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Separation is abuse.

    Forced integration is abuse. Separation happens naturally, in nature, all the time—and for good reason. Forced integration, in nature, often results in mass slaughter.

    There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Abuses have happened at various times and in various places throughout human history. Current practitioners insist that their abuses somehow rectify real or imagined abuses from the past.

    • Thanks: Charon
  85. @Jonathan Mason
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Luke 9:23 and following verses.

    Replies: @Matt Buckalew

    Lmao wait did you get confused with John 15:13. I know the font on this Soros issued cheat sheets can be awful small especially with that glare from the lamination. Your verse describes exactly what he said self- abnegation as an outflowing of love for God. It’s also a specific rebuke to your sappy racial spoils system. Never mind that it stands in poignantly in rebuke of the greedy black Christians who can’t even give up his unearned benefit to his smarter, harder working fellow man- much less their own life. The second you use that verse as a rhetorical weapon you stand condemned- you can’t even exercise the self-abnegation of not using a religion you don’t believe in to try and score points.

    The cynical self aggrandizement you are demonstrating is almost comical. I mean lol you are literally using this verse to defend a system that exists entirely to bolster the status and wealth of specific groups of people. The first thing a true Christian would say is fuck the rat race the person that insists on a rat race rigged in their favor is so far from God it’s hard to countenance. You don’t even think blacks can take up the burden of a level playing field who are you to demand anyone take up the Cross.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Matt Buckalew

    Word salad. Tossed.

    Okay, look at it from another angle. Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man's burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    Is there a moral obligation and duty of care towards those "lesser breeds" to raise them up, or is the right thing to do simply to build walled communities, walled cities, walled states for whites and only allow blacks and browns to enter under supervision to do the cleaning, cooking, and maintenance ? Kind of like Israel.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Matt Buckalew

  86. @Achmed E. Newman
    That one student is quite right. With AA around, that's the assumption I've got to make for black (and now lots of other) people that I don't know well.

    I'm pleasantly surprised by the result*. The question still remains, are you for it or against it?

    It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory.
     
    Put another way, are you one of these Nice White People or not?

    .


    * That was one focus group of 12 "diverse" people - how many were Oriental, I wonder?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @nokangaroos, @Moses

    That was one focus group of 12 “diverse” people

    Just use “non-White” instead of “diverse.”

    Everyone knows that “diverse” is just fancy code for “non-White.”

    “More diversity” = “fewer White people, preferably none.”

    “Not diverse” = too many White people.

    Etc etc.

    Language matters.

  87. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Tikkun olam to that, brother. Everyone knows that all non-White races are entitled to live next to Whites (and White wimminz).

    • Thanks: Charon
    • LOL: JimB
  88. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    AA is neither right nor wrong per se. Don't fall into CivNat trap.

    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races. AA is just one way to keep this multi-everything bazaar from blowing up.

    In a multiracial society, tribe comes first. You first divvy up the pie among the various competing factions and then move on to other business. AA is part of that process.

    Clinging to muh Constitution is silly. Words on a piece of paper written by long-dead white guys isn't going to save us.

    AA isn't wrong because it's unconstitutional; it's wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That's what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society. Time for whites to wake up to that reality.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Muggles, @Moses

    AA isn’t wrong because it’s unconstitutional; it’s wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That’s what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society.

    Yes, but is it good for us Jews? Everyone knows that is the only question that matters. Ask the ADL.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Moses

    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?

    Steve hates the idea of whites thinking as a group, and, heaven forbid, asking that question. Steve is a fool. (Nice guy, smart, but a fool who lives in a time that has long past.)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

  89. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Separation is abuse.

    Then wouldn’t it be so for both sides?

    There were many abuses in the ancien régime in the South.

    Which could only happen if they were together. Not a problem in New Hampshire or the UP.

  90. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Man, you are behind the times.

    “Separation” is the new Mantra, for Them, not you.

    Just like slinging around that “horrid” N-word. For Them, song and dance. For you, a hate crime.

    AA students are now demanding separate dorms and social (get high) areas on campus. For Them, not you. (Well maybe Jews, if there are enough of them…)

    “Gentrification” is now “racist” since too many of you are buying property in their low rent ‘hoods.

    So is “separation” abuse or not?

    There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the North as well. But as you say, “ancien” is long gone.

    Segregation is now rampant for Negroes and other POCs. They have special TV channels and practically every Awards Show has a non White segregated analogue. You are not invited. We’re not supposed to notice. And they squawk if They don’t get a generous Plus Sized Quota of awards and supposedly non racial open Awards.

    So see, separation isn’t “abuse.”

    Of course double standards are hypocritical. But that has never been applied to Them and their White comrade “allies.”

    It’s just that some have “noticed” and don’t like living in Your Clown World.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Muggles

    The old time segregationists were right, all along. Coming of age in the era of (forced) “civil-rights (for some)”, I predicted what the results would be decades and generations down the road.
    I KNEW that government-backed and forced integration would not last. I expected government-forced and backed integration to be over by now, but was off by a few decades. Finally, there are cracks forming in the integration movement–a good sign.
    Of course, most whites have been brainwashed by the “civil-rights (for some)” movement for generations and still insist that voluntary segregation should be “illegal”.
    When I see these well-meaning, but misguided whites complain about segregated college dorms, meetings and other spaces and events deemed “for people of color (only)”, I think to myself, “what the hell is wrong with you?”
    Voluntary segregation should not only be tolerated, but encouraged FOR ALL.
    If voluntary segregation was the norm, us whites could be properly warned about businesses, institutions, and even areas where we are not welcome. “People of color” would actually be doing us whites a favor by letting us know where we are not wanted. Of course, us whites could reciprocate and inform certain “people of color” where ((they)) are not welcome, as well.
    Present-day examples exist today, although unwittingly…Most whites are aware that any street, avenue, or boulevard names after “Martin Luther (Michael) King” are areas for whites to stay away from.
    That being said, whether governments or (jew civil-rights troublemakers) want it or not, racial segregation IS the wave of the future.

  91. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    No, it's very obviously WRONG. If you don't get that, you've got a lack of integrity. Same for Steve Sailer, who never answers the question, and even Ann Coulter.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Why is it wrong?

    It’s a policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Is it wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race? Well, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Koreans, etc., discriminate on the basis of race with their immigration policy. Indeed, I’d very much like to discriminate on the basis of race in US immigration policy. Why is that wrong?

    Why is it wrong to defend one’s own people? Or do you have a problem with acknowledging having a people?

    What exactly is your problem with AA? Saying that it’s “wrong” is childish.

    Dingbat CivNats – like Steve – say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that’s because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren’t so callous. They’re fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)

    What’s your excuse?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Dingbat CivNats – like Steve – say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that’s because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren’t so callous. They’re fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)
     
    The most important thing is to put a stop to immigration. Civic nationalism is the most politically viable strategy for doing that.

    If you value White continuity, the next most important thing is White family formation. Raising awareness of HBD may be the single most viable and effective way to encourage that.

    Unwittingly, Steve is advancing the two smartest strategies for achieving your goals.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Sorry for the late reply, CoaSC, but I wanted to take the time to address your point properly. This, and any, nation is a lot better when rule of law is upheld. As Reg C. wrote somewhere below, it seems to take White men to do this properly, people like this country's Founders.

    These Founders indeed didn't consider treating black people the same, as they were quite the opposite from being US Citizens. The Founders rightly cared about their own people and posterity. Large scale immigration changed who many of the people and posterity were even before the (2nd-greatest) wave from 1880 to 1920. They were all White people with not so very different cultures, and on lots and lots of land, so it all worked.

    That big wave next contained people that, though White, were not of the same culture and had antagonistic political views. (Jewish - too much flat-out Communism, Italian and Irish - tribal and not so into the Rule of Law, not men) 50 years of that assimilation, and it was still not the same, but workable.

    Now, let's talk the South after the Reconstruction occupation and the Amendments XIV and XV. They had to deal with this crap for 100 years, and the Jim Crow, Sundown Laws what have you, were the way they dealt with it. In all of that, I don't seen ANYTHING that was egregious and wrong like AA. Was there any government policy of any State that mandated hiring of Whites specifically? Sure, people did what they wanted - as government rightly still upheld freedom of association (Amendment I of Muh Constitution). That included excluding black people from all kinds of things. Even all that was not the same as Affirmative Action. It's purely wrong.

    After the Civil Rites laws 55-6 years ago overturned much of the US Constitution, it all went bad, slowly, then quickly, Maybe you aren't interested in the Constitution, CoaSC, but the Constitution is interested in YOU (as a White man)

    I'll write more...

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    About Citizenism, maybe that IS me too. Let me put what I think is right and workable below:

    - All illegal immigrants - you're OUT.
    - Children of illegal immigrants (by the bogus Anchor-Baby loophole). If you're still a child, you go back, to avoid that family separation thing (haha)
    - Even grown-up children of illegal immigrants who aren't participating as citizens (paperwork, etc), you're OUT.
    - With certain exceptions (marriages, etc.) green card holder will all be vetted, and most go back.
    - Immigration near-moratorium starts, with exceptions that don't give numbers over 50,000 or so and preferably White people (maybe an exception from the 50,000 for White S. Africans).

    Regarding the elephant that has been in the room for 4 centuries.

    - No more welfare. (This matters a lot!)
    - 1st Amendment restored by courts.
    - A repatriation to Africa plan in place for those who have a problem with any of that.

    Now, CoaSC, you'll likely say that the last 3 things are unworkable. That's why separation in some form is necessary. "Over here, this all applies!" Fed-Gov doesn't like it? That's where the fights start. The only solution to peaceful separation along decent lines is Federalism. (That's why I especially like Ron DeSantis, as he understands the concept.) The Feral Gov't must be made weaker (or let to be) during the coming Financial SHTF. If it goes the other way, toward China-style Totalitarianism, we're screwed.

    So, you can keep on saying "muh Constitution", but the idea is for people to still understand the concepts - written and understood by White men mostly - or we are truly screwed.

    Thanks for reading, anyway.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  92. @Muggles
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    We allowed what was our country to be taken over by other races.
     
    Sitting Bull and Geronimo said the same thing.

    Didn't work for them either.

    Clinging to an imaginary racial purist vision is pretty weak. You try to project your views as some deep oracular insight.

    Instead, you are merely looking at your five (white) fingers and think, "this is what God's chosen" looks like. No history, no clue...

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Lay back and think of Civic Nationalism.

    Great plan.

    Whites (or our various sub-tribes) need to learn how to build our own communities. Jews have the right idea – but you know that, don’t you. I’ll follow their plan. You do what you want. Whites will either become helots or be erased as a people. I might lose but at least, I tried.

    What’s your plan?

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    What’s your plan?
     
    So how is your "plan" going?

    Probably about the same as my "plan" to be worth a billion dollars by the time I was 25.

    Pipe dreams aren't plans. Especially when such plans require millions of people to follow your directions to the letter.

    Better to avoid such plans than to waste time spouting off about them.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  93. @Moses
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    AA isn’t wrong because it’s unconstitutional; it’s wrong (for me) because it hurts whites. Of course, for blacks, AA is right because it helps their people.

    That’s what defines right and wrong in a multiracial society.
     
    Yes, but is it good for us Jews? Everyone knows that is the only question that matters. Ask the ADL.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?

    Steve hates the idea of whites thinking as a group, and, heaven forbid, asking that question. Steve is a fool. (Nice guy, smart, but a fool who lives in a time that has long past.)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?
     
    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Amoral familism has ruined places like the Middle East. Using Steve's biogeometry of races as families writ large, how is your proposed policy of amoral racialism any better than what the towelheads have now?

    You don't even understand your own race. We are wired to take ethics and morals seriously. Saying that nothing is a crime as long as you do it to another race is bound to rub people-- our people-- the wrong way. The rule of law, which you mock as "civic nationalism", is important to us.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  94. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Pretending to be smart has been a lucrative gig for college administrators, and they're just trying to spread the wealth.

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.

    When actual smart people ran the country, they naturally generated ways for the non-smart to be actually productive, by shoveling coal and such. Now, the clever non-smart parade around with a B.A. in psychology, sending out emails on HIPAA compliance and knocking off early every Friday. The non-clever non-smart still have to do productive things like deliver parcels.

    Replies: @Cato, @Supply and Demand, @James Speaks

    No one takes tradies seriously, and they’re about the only type of person I’d ever bar my daughters from marrying. I’m saving them from a lifetime of wife-beating and humiliation from their social peers.

    • Replies: @Graveldips
    @Supply and Demand

    Hopefully your daughter will cohabit with a Negro with a degree and a no-show desk job, and be the envy of her social peers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  95. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Pretending to be smart has been a lucrative gig for college administrators, and they're just trying to spread the wealth.

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.

    When actual smart people ran the country, they naturally generated ways for the non-smart to be actually productive, by shoveling coal and such. Now, the clever non-smart parade around with a B.A. in psychology, sending out emails on HIPAA compliance and knocking off early every Friday. The non-clever non-smart still have to do productive things like deliver parcels.

    Replies: @Cato, @Supply and Demand, @James Speaks

    Pretending to be smart has been a lucrative gig for college administrators, and they’re just trying to spread the wealth.

    Admissions Departments must supply the different colleges students capable of doing the work and upholding the prestige of the institution. Else, the institution fails.

    Most college-educated people have bullshit jobs with no measure of productivity, where you can succeed by just showing up and acting the part.

    Cargo cult

    When actual smart people ran the country, they naturally generated ways for the non-smart to be actually productive, by shoveling coal and such. Now, the clever non-smart parade around with a B.A. in psychology, sending out emails on HIPAA compliance and knocking off early every Friday. (snip)

    They probably could not change a flat tire.

  96. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Alfa158

    Yes, that's fairly accurate.

    When a black student says, "I don't want my presence on campus attributed to Affirmative Action," it should be read as, "I want (and deserve, and demand) to benefit from Affirmative Action but I also want to forbid you from thinking that I am in any way inferior, and crminalize you and punish you if you do."

    This was the intended result of all the Civil Rights legislation. It was not to redress historical grievances or level the playing field. It was to enthrone black entitlement as a proposition that must be held "come what may," no matter what injustice and devastation it inflicts upon the rest of society.

    As I have formally noted, black entitlement plays the same role in America's moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity. Can mass be believed? Can energy be believed? Are space and time themselves reliable? No, throw them all out the window! The speed of light is the new constant, and it must remain the same come what may! The rest of the universe can bend and warp around it, but this you are not allowed to alter.

    As to what entitles the speed of light to this sacrosanct position, the theory does not exactly explain. It is an assertion we are expected to accept without reservation. The fact that it's absurd seems to make no difference. Likewise, in the progressive Special Theory of Equality, the speed of darkness is a universal invariant, resulting in black holes of dysfunction and singularities of stupidity.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil, @International Jew

    black entitlement plays the same role in America’s moral architecture as the speed of light plays in Special Relativity.

    I like that. I’d put it just a bit differently: black behavioral and intellectual equality is like the speed of light.

  97. @For what it's worth
    I was in a conversation with the president of a prestigious university. The conversation turned to why a certain state had such high standardized test scores. The university president answered, "Because they don't have minorities." That frank about it. No one else in the conversation responded or even acknowledged the remark. Like it wasn't even said.

    @Steve, if you want to know the details, feel free to email me.

    Replies: @For what it's worth

    @Steve, I just posted about a conversation I had with a past acquaintance. I would prefer to share that just with you, not as a public blog post. Would you mind not approving that post/removing it? I should have tried some other way of communicating that anecdote to you. Thank you.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @For what it's worth

    Thanks, I read it and deleted it.

  98. @kaganovitch
    It’s striking how much of a secret it is in modern America that affirmative action is mathematically necessary to achieve the levels of diversity that Nice White People think are morally mandatory.

    I'm beginning to wonder if in our wretched era it isn't time to invert the old trope " Never explain by malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I'm starting to believe that "Never explain by stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice (or more likely cowardice)" is much more accurate.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Stupid and evil is the worst combination. That’s when things get really bad, like Ceausescu-tier bad. Once the stupid-evils are in charge there’s no reasoning, no debating, and no voting your way out of the mess. Your only hope is a coup or secession.

    And that’s where we are now. The US is run by stupid, evil people. They believe incredible, deranged things and they are increasingly incapable of things like a clean water supply, a decent civil order, and nuclear power. We are looking at a long, slow grind down to Lebanon-levels of stupidity, corruption and sectarianism.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    We are looking at a long, slow grind down to Lebanon-levels of stupidity, corruption and sectarianism.
     
    It won’t be noticeable to a degree that would cause a reaction of any significance. People are able to live fulfilling lives in Lebanon. Indeed, many people there are able to live quite well.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  99. @For what it's worth
    @For what it's worth

    @Steve, I just posted about a conversation I had with a past acquaintance. I would prefer to share that just with you, not as a public blog post. Would you mind not approving that post/removing it? I should have tried some other way of communicating that anecdote to you. Thank you.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Thanks, I read it and deleted it.

  100. @Moses

    Pollsters seldom if ever ask this question, so I can’t prove that most Americans are ignorant of the fact that African Americans are not intelligent enough on average to be terribly competitive in quantitative terms in cognitively elite institutions and careers, but it sure seems like few Americans are cognizant of the cognitive realities.
     
    I suspect what non-Whites really want is preferences with gaslighting so everyone believes they got there purely on merit and it's an unspeakable crime to suspect they didn't.

    NB: "Minority" is an outdated, old-fashioned term that makes it sound like non-Whites just a tiny marginalized number. It's false. Whites just 40% of CA, 40% of NYC, 41% of DC. Whites be a "minority" now. Use "non-Whites". It's more accurate, reflects reality more clearly.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Whites just 40% of CA, 40% of NYC, 41% of DC.

    Whites are growing as a % of DC, and may soon be a majority. What better time, what better excuse, to repeal the 23rd Amendment?

    • Replies: @Moses
    @Reg Cæsar


    Whites are growing as a % of DC, and may soon be a majority.
     
    Erm, yeah....What color is the sky on your planet?

    Too many of my fellow Jews think America becoming majority non-White is great. I don't share their assessment. Supermajority White America is the best deal we Jews ever had.

  101. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Moses

    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?

    Steve hates the idea of whites thinking as a group, and, heaven forbid, asking that question. Steve is a fool. (Nice guy, smart, but a fool who lives in a time that has long past.)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?

    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Reg Cæsar


    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.
     
    As a non-Anglo white guy, I have long felt that all this "Our Nation" stuff you Stevites are flogging was simply talking past me. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  102. Anonymous[384] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark G.
    @anonymous


    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.
     
    In situations where blacks were limited to menial jobs and not allowed to apply for better paying jobs in competition with whites that was oppression. In situations where blacks wanted to visit a restaurant or other business and the owners were willing to have them as customers and the blacks were not legally allowed to do so, that was oppression. The solution was to adopt freedom of association. People can hire who they want, can have who they want as customers, can marry who they want and so on. Any interference with freedom of association in situations like these is immoral.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    In situations where blacks were limited to menial jobs and not allowed to apply for better paying jobs in competition with whites that was oppression.

    Not really. Blacks aren’t entitled to jobs created by Whites. They can obtain like jobs in the Black community. Each group can maintain and thrive in their own communities.

    In situations where blacks wanted to visit a restaurant or other business and the owners were willing to have them as customers and the blacks were not legally allowed to do so, that was oppression. The solution was to adopt freedom of association. People can hire who they want, can have who they want as customers, can marry who they want and so on. Any interference with freedom of association in situations like these is immoral.

    All norms and laws entail some restriction on “freedom.” If that is “oppression,” every norm and law is oppressive and immoral. Is a society possibly without laws and norms?

    The norms in the situations you describe are conducive, possibly even necessary, to the security, welfare, and continuity of the White people. That isn’t oppression. It is self-defense and self-preservation.

    Is Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy immoral? Similar restrictions on freedom of association as those under discussion.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Anonymous


    Not really. Blacks aren’t entitled to jobs created by Whites.
     
    If you are a white person, you are not entitled to a job if a white business owner would rather hire a black than you. You are advocating the use of force to benefit yourself at the expense of others.

    All norms and laws entail some restriction on “freedom.” If that is “oppression,” every norm and law is oppressive and immoral. Is a society possibly without laws and norms?

     

    There is such a thing as a just law and unjust law. Just laws prevent people from initiating force against others. Voluntary relations between people are what makes society possible. Business owners should decide who they have as a customer or hire as an employee. People should not be restricted from marrying or having other peaceful voluntary social relationships with those of another race. If you are using force to prevent that you are morally wrong.

    Replies: @Anon

  103. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    @kaganovitch

    Stupid and evil is the worst combination. That's when things get really bad, like Ceausescu-tier bad. Once the stupid-evils are in charge there's no reasoning, no debating, and no voting your way out of the mess. Your only hope is a coup or secession.

    And that's where we are now. The US is run by stupid, evil people. They believe incredible, deranged things and they are increasingly incapable of things like a clean water supply, a decent civil order, and nuclear power. We are looking at a long, slow grind down to Lebanon-levels of stupidity, corruption and sectarianism.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    We are looking at a long, slow grind down to Lebanon-levels of stupidity, corruption and sectarianism.

    It won’t be noticeable to a degree that would cause a reaction of any significance. People are able to live fulfilling lives in Lebanon. Indeed, many people there are able to live quite well.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Anonymous

    Point taken, but decent living in Lebanon requires constant application of the right money and connections, large diesel generator, bottled water, high tolerance for pollution, keeping away from a wholly parasitic political class, and ability to overlook shocking squalor. It's the sort of existence that middle class people find depressing and exhausting, which is why most Lebanese live outside of Lebanon.

    For now the US has a (mostly) reliable power grid and (mostly) sanitary water supply.

  104. @Supply and Demand
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    No one takes tradies seriously, and they're about the only type of person I'd ever bar my daughters from marrying. I'm saving them from a lifetime of wife-beating and humiliation from their social peers.

    Replies: @Graveldips

    Hopefully your daughter will cohabit with a Negro with a degree and a no-show desk job, and be the envy of her social peers.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Graveldips

    He's safely in China. A second Cultural Revolution is a greater threat.

  105. Anon[239] • Disclaimer says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why is it wrong?

    It's a policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Is it wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race? Well, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Koreans, etc., discriminate on the basis of race with their immigration policy. Indeed, I'd very much like to discriminate on the basis of race in US immigration policy. Why is that wrong?

    Why is it wrong to defend one's own people? Or do you have a problem with acknowledging having a people?

    What exactly is your problem with AA? Saying that it's "wrong" is childish.

    Dingbat CivNats - like Steve - say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that's because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren't so callous. They're fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)

    What's your excuse?

    Replies: @Anon, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman

    Dingbat CivNats – like Steve – say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that’s because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren’t so callous. They’re fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)

    The most important thing is to put a stop to immigration. Civic nationalism is the most politically viable strategy for doing that.

    If you value White continuity, the next most important thing is White family formation. Raising awareness of HBD may be the single most viable and effective way to encourage that.

    Unwittingly, Steve is advancing the two smartest strategies for achieving your goals.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    Wrong. This was always Steve's argument: Citizenism is a palatable way to get whites to back a significant reduction - maybe even a ban - on immigration.

    But the fact that this strategy has completely failed for 20 years ought to tell you something. Regardless, we're past the point of no return anyway. Whites will be a minority soon. Citizenism's last chance was probably the 1990s.

    The Coalition of the Fringes will soon be the majority. We will be the fringe.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Corvinus

  106. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.

    Replies: @anonymous, @HammerJack, @Moses, @Reg Cæsar, @Muggles, @The Anti-Gnostic

    No it’s not. Different people need different countries: Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, Taiwan-China, North Korea-South Korea, Serbia-Croatia, Germany-Austria, Iraq-Kuwait, the Sioux Nation-Anglo/America, Greek Cyprus-Turkish Cyprus, Haiti-Dominican Republic, Kurdistan-everybody. How many examples do you need? All of human history is people drawing lines around themselves to keep the Other out.

    The multi-ethnic US worked, to the extent it ever did, because of freedom of association and de-centralized government and minimal public welfare. Once you start doling out transfer payments and centralizing government, then ethnic diversity becomes a very big problem, such a big problem that you have to enact shelves of civil rights laws and regulations and deliberately abolish the ethnic super-majority. Otherwise different people do what different people do wherever and whenever they’re allowed: they separate.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    What's supposed to make America work is the broad tent of prosperity, freedom, and Christianity. We're slowly erasing all of those common lamp posts and hoping that our huge government can make everything perfect. I don't see it. All I see is a poorer and sadder nation with only false idols to worship.

    , @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Different people need different countries:

    The blacks you've been running away from in metro Atlanta have to go back about eight generations to reach a point where half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  107. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Moses

    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?

    Steve hates the idea of whites thinking as a group, and, heaven forbid, asking that question. Steve is a fool. (Nice guy, smart, but a fool who lives in a time that has long past.)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar

    Amoral familism has ruined places like the Middle East. Using Steve’s biogeometry of races as families writ large, how is your proposed policy of amoral racialism any better than what the towelheads have now?

    You don’t even understand your own race. We are wired to take ethics and morals seriously. Saying that nothing is a crime as long as you do it to another race is bound to rub people– our people– the wrong way. The rule of law, which you mock as “civic nationalism”, is important to us.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Reg Cæsar

    The old commenter Baloo used to point out that people like to talk in broad terms about the American proposition. But nobody mentions the ethnicity that dreamed up the proposition and fought for it.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    First, interesting that you leave out examples of ethnocentrism that work just fine, such as Japan, Korea, China, and, of course, the Jews.

    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race - even the various European races - and how different races behaved. They also showed preference for their own people. We were never meant to be a colorblind paradise.

    Finally, on a more practical note, colorblind civic nationalism has utterly failed whites for the past 50 years. If whites continue on this path, we deserve what we'll get.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Moses

  108. @Graveldips
    @Supply and Demand

    Hopefully your daughter will cohabit with a Negro with a degree and a no-show desk job, and be the envy of her social peers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    He’s safely in China. A second Cultural Revolution is a greater threat.

  109. @Anonymous
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    We are looking at a long, slow grind down to Lebanon-levels of stupidity, corruption and sectarianism.
     
    It won’t be noticeable to a degree that would cause a reaction of any significance. People are able to live fulfilling lives in Lebanon. Indeed, many people there are able to live quite well.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Point taken, but decent living in Lebanon requires constant application of the right money and connections, large diesel generator, bottled water, high tolerance for pollution, keeping away from a wholly parasitic political class, and ability to overlook shocking squalor. It’s the sort of existence that middle class people find depressing and exhausting, which is why most Lebanese live outside of Lebanon.

    For now the US has a (mostly) reliable power grid and (mostly) sanitary water supply.

  110. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Amoral familism has ruined places like the Middle East. Using Steve's biogeometry of races as families writ large, how is your proposed policy of amoral racialism any better than what the towelheads have now?

    You don't even understand your own race. We are wired to take ethics and morals seriously. Saying that nothing is a crime as long as you do it to another race is bound to rub people-- our people-- the wrong way. The rule of law, which you mock as "civic nationalism", is important to us.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The old commenter Baloo used to point out that people like to talk in broad terms about the American proposition. But nobody mentions the ethnicity that dreamed up the proposition and fought for it.

    • Thanks: Charon
  111. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I'm pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that'd be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It's been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It's unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it's unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin - fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw - was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    Replies: @Redman, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Reg Cæsar, @animalogic, @JackOH

    “Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin – fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw – was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.”
    Interesting – the OT would sheet sin & punishment back 7 generations. However, our current guilt mongers have no such limitation. How many generations is it back to 1619 (or is it 1690? – doesn’t matter – they’ll go as far back as they like).
    The whole concept of “guilt” for the actions of the dead, the actions of others, is profoundly distasteful & immoral.
    Using “guilt” against others is a low, shameful act.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @animalogic

    A generation is 20 years. 1619 was 20 generations ago.

    , @anonymous
    @animalogic


    The whole concept of “guilt” for the actions of the dead, the actions of others, is profoundly distasteful & immoral.
     
    Not really. It’s even in the Old Testament.

    Your problem is that you’ve bought into the premise that blacks were harmed by whites in some kind of exceptional way in the first place. Once you’ve done that, you are fighting an uphill battle against society giving blacks some kind of compensation.
  112. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I'm pleased with the result (were it a serious sample, that'd be even more so), Peter, because, no matter how wrong their reasons for opposing it are, Affirmative Action is WRONG, PERIOD!

    It's been nearly 60 years of this shit, in which White Men have been deliberately kept from better jobs, better careers, admission to better schools, and so on. It's unConstitutional, but that aside, everyone knows it's unfair. Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin - fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw - was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG.

    Replies: @Redman, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Reg Cæsar, @animalogic, @JackOH

    FWIW–a week ago I commented under another article:

    ” . . . [A]t my local Podunk Tech there are vague hints from ordinary conversations that the preferential hiring of Blacks and women is regarded as some sort of “proof” that White male candidates had never been all that talented and had merely relied on “White privilege” to get “over-represented” in certain fields.”

    “Completely ignored, of course, is that preferential hiring is preferential for ideological and juridical reasons, and that a lot of institutions can indeed get by with a “good enough” candidate with the right skin tone and genital package.”

    “It’s distressing, and I agree, there’s not much one can do.”

    I agree with you that AA is wrong, and its consequences for able White guys has likely been catastrophic. (I’m pretty sure AA–the White women-preferred flavor–blocked me from a decent-paying Fortune 1000 sales career, and kicked me down to sales manager at a crappy-paying ad sales outfit.)

    The damned thing about AA is that employers are indeed okay with “good-enough” AA hires who are delighted with relatively fat paychecks, titles, and invites to golf outings and business awards’ dinners.

    Likewise, as I mentioned, those AA hires by now have talked themselves into believing those juridically overlooked able White guys weren’t so able after all, and relied on “White privilege” for their cushy jobs. (In some cases, as in ethnic patronage hiring for government jobs, there was and still is “ethnic privilege”.)

    For shits and tickles, I imagine the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon mission as full-bore AA programs. There’d be some sort of “atomic device” maybe in late 1946, and some sort of lunar mission by the early 1970s. Both would be touted as AA success stories, and nobody would be the wiser that in an alternate world, fission bombs were delivered in 1945, and two men successfully landed on the moon and returned in 1969.

    (BTW–I know my illustration is self-serving. Likewise, I’m aware of the contributions made by women physicists–Curie, Meitner, Noddack. Likewise, I’m aware of the apparently qualified Black astronaut candidate who was hounded from Mercury because of, it seems, racial animus inflamed by top-down political demands for a Black astronaut.)

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @JackOH


    Likewise, I’m aware of the apparently qualified Black astronaut candidate who was hounded from Mercury because of, it seems, racial animus inflamed by top-down political demands for a Black astronaut.)
     
    The black astronaut was bounced because, even after tons of extra help, Chuck Yeager said he wasn't good enough and Curtis LeMay backed him up to the intense displeasure of the Kennedy brothers who pushed the whole thing in the first place. The black guy then sued for discrimination.

    Chuck Yeager flew with black pilots in Europe and didn't give a damn about race. All he cared about was your ability to fly.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @JackOH

    Thanks for the reply, Jack. I agree with you, but were AA taken pretty seriously back then I'd set that timetable later in years by about 25, not just a few years.

    I've got a blog post coming on AA bearing its fruit (in the way you explain here) right now. The demographics have changed, and it's not just the 1 out of 20 black guys anymore and a few women to do this and that. It is a significant factor in killing the economy at this point.

    Replies: @JackOH

  113. 100 comments and no or little mention of the group that vastly benefits the most from AA: women.

    Conservatives are OK with women getting AA because their wives and daughters directly benefit from it.

    This proves the objection to AA for blacks to be racist.

    AA is OK for women but not minorities.

    Explain yourselves, especially considering for every black getting the gibs of AA there are 100 women.

    • Replies: @guest007
    @Blodgie

    Women no longer benefit from affirmative action. Any campus that is 50% male/50% female is actually giving men the affirmative action since women have higher GPAs, text scores, and fuller academic resumes that almost all male students.

    Replies: @Blodgie

  114. @Anon
    https://www.twitter.com/noxraptus/status/1576680346741276674

    https://www.twitter.com/KhalkeionGenos/status/1576727845162070021

    https://www.twitter.com/torinmccabe/status/1576683805192368130

    Replies: @JackOH, @Art Deco, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    “Kick the dog until it bites, then shoot it”

    Curtis Yarvin describing the strategy and morality of the West

    Yep. Provocateurship or diplomatic “animal-baiting” seems to me among the nastiest and most dishonest tools used by the strong against the weak to keep the strong strong and the weak weak. It’s a schoolyard bully’s tactic, and I just don’t like it when my country uses it.

  115. Steve,

    Since you are covering college campuses, then you should look at how the gains of women in college have turned men on campus into being more sexism.

    https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/10/sex-ratio-college-campuses-hookup-culture-friends-with-benefits.html

  116. @Blodgie
    100 comments and no or little mention of the group that vastly benefits the most from AA: women.

    Conservatives are OK with women getting AA because their wives and daughters directly benefit from it.

    This proves the objection to AA for blacks to be racist.

    AA is OK for women but not minorities.

    Explain yourselves, especially considering for every black getting the gibs of AA there are 100 women.

    Replies: @guest007

    Women no longer benefit from affirmative action. Any campus that is 50% male/50% female is actually giving men the affirmative action since women have higher GPAs, text scores, and fuller academic resumes that almost all male students.

    • Replies: @Blodgie
    @guest007

    Please.

    Let’s see some evidence of this.

    AA for white women at the direct expense of white men is rampant in academia, non profits and corporate America.

    Replies: @guest007

  117. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Amoral familism has ruined places like the Middle East. Using Steve's biogeometry of races as families writ large, how is your proposed policy of amoral racialism any better than what the towelheads have now?

    You don't even understand your own race. We are wired to take ethics and morals seriously. Saying that nothing is a crime as long as you do it to another race is bound to rub people-- our people-- the wrong way. The rule of law, which you mock as "civic nationalism", is important to us.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    First, interesting that you leave out examples of ethnocentrism that work just fine, such as Japan, Korea, China, and, of course, the Jews.

    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race – even the various European races – and how different races behaved. They also showed preference for their own people. We were never meant to be a colorblind paradise.

    Finally, on a more practical note, colorblind civic nationalism has utterly failed whites for the past 50 years. If whites continue on this path, we deserve what we’ll get.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race – even the various European races – and how different races behaved.
     
    Yes. But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons. You never see that in, say, Islam, or China. (Well, maybe recently in China, to speak to the international Left.)

    They also showed preference for their own people.
     
    Not in hiring:


    https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/map1_resize.jpg

    https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/map2.jpg

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle

    , @Moses
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    First, interesting that you leave out examples of ethnocentrism that work just fine, such as Japan, Korea, China, and, of course, the Jews.
     
    Hey hey, cool it with the anti-semitism please.
  118. stillCARealist [AKA "ForeverCARealist"] says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    No it's not. Different people need different countries: Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, Taiwan-China, North Korea-South Korea, Serbia-Croatia, Germany-Austria, Iraq-Kuwait, the Sioux Nation-Anglo/America, Greek Cyprus-Turkish Cyprus, Haiti-Dominican Republic, Kurdistan-everybody. How many examples do you need? All of human history is people drawing lines around themselves to keep the Other out.

    The multi-ethnic US worked, to the extent it ever did, because of freedom of association and de-centralized government and minimal public welfare. Once you start doling out transfer payments and centralizing government, then ethnic diversity becomes a very big problem, such a big problem that you have to enact shelves of civil rights laws and regulations and deliberately abolish the ethnic super-majority. Otherwise different people do what different people do wherever and whenever they're allowed: they separate.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Art Deco

    What’s supposed to make America work is the broad tent of prosperity, freedom, and Christianity. We’re slowly erasing all of those common lamp posts and hoping that our huge government can make everything perfect. I don’t see it. All I see is a poorer and sadder nation with only false idols to worship.

  119. @guest007
    @Blodgie

    Women no longer benefit from affirmative action. Any campus that is 50% male/50% female is actually giving men the affirmative action since women have higher GPAs, text scores, and fuller academic resumes that almost all male students.

    Replies: @Blodgie

    Please.

    Let’s see some evidence of this.

    AA for white women at the direct expense of white men is rampant in academia, non profits and corporate America.

    • Replies: @guest007
    @Blodgie

    One can look up the points system that the University of Michigan was using for undergraduate admission in 2003.

    https://www.cir-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/mich_index.gif

    There are points for being black, Hispanic, or from the upper peninsula but there are no points for being female.

    Also see the Federalist Society article

    https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/affirmative-action-for-men-strange-silences-and-strange-bedfellows-in-the-public-debate-over-discrimination-against-women-in-college-admissions

    And from yahoo News https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/court-prepares-affirmative-action-decision-softer-standards-men-182205509.html

    "The University of Richmond, a private liberal arts school, acknowledged in 2009 that it attempts to keep its gender balance at about 50-50, which meant women's admit rate was about 13 percentage points lower than men's over the previous 10 years. Admissions officer Marilyn Hesser told CBS that men and women had about the same standardized test scores, but that male applicants' GPA was lower on average. (The college's admission rate suddenly became more gender neutral the following year, in 2010-2011, when men's acceptance rate was only 3 percentage points higher than women's.)"

    Now, please provide a cite that shows that women are given affirmative action for admission to any university. Women did get affirmative action in the 1970's after being discriminated against but that affirmative action is long over.

  120. @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Dingbat CivNats – like Steve – say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that’s because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren’t so callous. They’re fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)
     
    The most important thing is to put a stop to immigration. Civic nationalism is the most politically viable strategy for doing that.

    If you value White continuity, the next most important thing is White family formation. Raising awareness of HBD may be the single most viable and effective way to encourage that.

    Unwittingly, Steve is advancing the two smartest strategies for achieving your goals.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Wrong. This was always Steve’s argument: Citizenism is a palatable way to get whites to back a significant reduction – maybe even a ban – on immigration.

    But the fact that this strategy has completely failed for 20 years ought to tell you something. Regardless, we’re past the point of no return anyway. Whites will be a minority soon. Citizenism’s last chance was probably the 1990s.

    The Coalition of the Fringes will soon be the majority. We will be the fringe.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    But the fact that this strategy has completely failed for 20 years ought to tell you something.
     
    That you believe anyone of significance in political life has even tried this strategy over the last twenty years with the possible exception of Trump six years ago shows how loopy you are.
    , @Corvinus
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The sure fire way to limit immigration is for the gummint to arrest business owners who employ illegals. Trump has his chance to be a hero in this reward. He blew it. And the GOP especially doesn’t want to go down that road.

  121. @animalogic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin – fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw – was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG."
    Interesting - the OT would sheet sin & punishment back 7 generations. However, our current guilt mongers have no such limitation. How many generations is it back to 1619 (or is it 1690? - doesn't matter - they'll go as far back as they like).
    The whole concept of "guilt" for the actions of the dead, the actions of others, is profoundly distasteful & immoral.
    Using "guilt" against others is a low, shameful act.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @anonymous

    A generation is 20 years. 1619 was 20 generations ago.

  122. @Matt Buckalew
    @Jonathan Mason

    Lmao wait did you get confused with John 15:13. I know the font on this Soros issued cheat sheets can be awful small especially with that glare from the lamination. Your verse describes exactly what he said self- abnegation as an outflowing of love for God. It’s also a specific rebuke to your sappy racial spoils system. Never mind that it stands in poignantly in rebuke of the greedy black Christians who can’t even give up his unearned benefit to his smarter, harder working fellow man- much less their own life. The second you use that verse as a rhetorical weapon you stand condemned- you can’t even exercise the self-abnegation of not using a religion you don’t believe in to try and score points.

    The cynical self aggrandizement you are demonstrating is almost comical. I mean lol you are literally using this verse to defend a system that exists entirely to bolster the status and wealth of specific groups of people. The first thing a true Christian would say is fuck the rat race the person that insists on a rat race rigged in their favor is so far from God it’s hard to countenance. You don’t even think blacks can take up the burden of a level playing field who are you to demand anyone take up the Cross.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Word salad. Tossed.

    Okay, look at it from another angle. Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man’s burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    Is there a moral obligation and duty of care towards those “lesser breeds” to raise them up, or is the right thing to do simply to build walled communities, walled cities, walled states for whites and only allow blacks and browns to enter under supervision to do the cleaning, cooking, and maintenance ? Kind of like Israel.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man’s burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don't require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige. Of course, this dynamic means that whites owe transfer payments to blacks just by virtue of being white which would be -- racist. It's also a permanent Danegeld for blacks which whites, most of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, naturally resent.

    The problem transcends race in fact, as any individual at sub-90 IQ is going to be mostly a creature of impulse and incapable of obtaining decent living conditions in a complex society without support. The proper attitude is in fact paternalism which requires a strong ethnic bond.

    All of which is to say, this is what separate countries are for. Black elites can run black countries and take care of downscale blacks, and white elites can run white countries and take care of downscale whites. And Jews, Koreans, Mexicans, Saudis, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    , @Matt Buckalew
    @Jonathan Mason

    Lol just eat that L like it’s government cheese.

  123. Negroes should be admitted to various government and corporate entry jobs on the basis of their successful stay, graduation and fellowship at Negro U, i.e., prison. The fact is that not only has an African-American far more chance to end up in such an institution than in any other kind of graduate school but also that in most American Black communities one enjoys far more prestige for having been a successful felon before and through prison life than for having “played white” as a graduate student. In many black communities one is just not considered an adult man if he has gone through prison life. Not admitting such people into affirmative action jobs is an insult to black culture in the US. Let’s consider the matter frankly : without a criminal past no one is fit for political life, no one is even worth consideration for the hustings.

  124. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    That needs to become our question: Is it good for whites?
     
    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.

    As a non-Anglo white guy, I have long felt that all this “Our Nation” stuff you Stevites are flogging was simply talking past me. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Intelligent Dasein

    What have you got against common law? Or English orthography?

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The ancient Greeks were a varied people. An Athenian saw himself as an Athenian, not a Greek. But the Persians saw Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, etc., as one people. So, the Greeks temporarily put aside their differences to fight back.

    Americans whites are in a very similar situation. There's no such things as "white nationalism" because there's no such thing as white. We are many tribes. But non-whites see us only as white so we must think of ourselves as white until we have enough control over our own lives to embrace our differences.

  125. ““The White liberal is the worst enemy to America and the worst enemy to the Black man….”
    Malcom X
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11115124-the-white-liberal-is-the-worst-enemy-to-america-and

  126. anonymous[167] • Disclaimer says:
    @animalogic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "Punishing every White guy (and more and more ladies now) for the small, or often non-existent, possibility that some sin – fully condoned through the whole Old Testament, btw – was committed by his great-great-great-great-Grandfather on behalf of people who have suffered NONE from it, is WRONG."
    Interesting - the OT would sheet sin & punishment back 7 generations. However, our current guilt mongers have no such limitation. How many generations is it back to 1619 (or is it 1690? - doesn't matter - they'll go as far back as they like).
    The whole concept of "guilt" for the actions of the dead, the actions of others, is profoundly distasteful & immoral.
    Using "guilt" against others is a low, shameful act.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @anonymous

    The whole concept of “guilt” for the actions of the dead, the actions of others, is profoundly distasteful & immoral.

    Not really. It’s even in the Old Testament.

    Your problem is that you’ve bought into the premise that blacks were harmed by whites in some kind of exceptional way in the first place. Once you’ve done that, you are fighting an uphill battle against society giving blacks some kind of compensation.

  127. @Anonymous
    It should really be quite simple to realize how much affirmative action is required. Just look at various academic competitions to see how few blacks and Hispanics are involved to see how much of a boost is required. I’m not even talking about just the winners, but all of the participants. Or walk into any advanced placement class in any “integrated school.”

    Replies: @ornei

    It’s almost comical how stark the racial makeups were at my high school were that was approximately 25% white and 50% black. I remember the AP physics class I took didn’t have a single black and the AP calculus class had only a single one. There was also the quiz bowl team (academic trivia competitions between schools) which was 100% white out of ~15 people. Then you get to college admissions and a black guy who didn’t take calculus because it’s too hard gets into Harvard.

  128. @AnotherDad
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Why are you pleased by the result? As Steve points out, students are against affirmative action because they actually believe blacks can compete on a level playing field,
     
    Mostly what I get is that college students just aren't very smart/knowledgeable about the world. Which isn't really surprising
    a) They are kids.
    b) They have been pickled in nonsense their whole lives.

    One white girl from Georgia is worried about the fundies. Seriously.

    A white guy thinks he's privileged in admissions for being a white guy. Though in fairness he seems to root that in economics. He's not very bright and needed ACT math tutor.

    Another black gal when to a charter school and was oppressed because she had to work the system a bit before she got private SAT tutoring.

    (It is true that first Kaplan, but now the Asians have screwed up the whole admissions testing thing with their test prep obsession. A deadweight loss of time and resources for every HS kid in America. We just skipped it.)

    Basically, all of them--except the Asian girl--are feeling oppressed or overwhelmed or something or another going to college. C'mon.


    The one bright note of sanity was a number of them were annoyed with their professors jamming their politics into the classroom. I assume that's even worse than when I was in school.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I used to be friends with this hot Black chick who came from a very good family and went to a pretty decent college. After a few years of working post-grad dead-end office jobs, she got sick of things and decided to become a lawyer, and so she asked me to help her out with her law-school application. So I sat down with her and looked at her application essay. It was really quite good, so I just helped her with some minor stylistic points, and she was good to go.

    But then, just to be on the safe side, she hired an outside application consultant. This person said, “Your essay is really very good, but to be honest, if you really want to ace this thing, just write another essay about how you’re a down-trodden oppressed !Black! woman in a systemically racist world, and that will get you right through the door.”

    So she did, and it did, and now she’s a successful prosecutor in a big city.

  129. @Blodgie
    @guest007

    Please.

    Let’s see some evidence of this.

    AA for white women at the direct expense of white men is rampant in academia, non profits and corporate America.

    Replies: @guest007

    One can look up the points system that the University of Michigan was using for undergraduate admission in 2003.

    There are points for being black, Hispanic, or from the upper peninsula but there are no points for being female.

    Also see the Federalist Society article

    https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/affirmative-action-for-men-strange-silences-and-strange-bedfellows-in-the-public-debate-over-discrimination-against-women-in-college-admissions

    And from yahoo News https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/court-prepares-affirmative-action-decision-softer-standards-men-182205509.html

    “The University of Richmond, a private liberal arts school, acknowledged in 2009 that it attempts to keep its gender balance at about 50-50, which meant women’s admit rate was about 13 percentage points lower than men’s over the previous 10 years. Admissions officer Marilyn Hesser told CBS that men and women had about the same standardized test scores, but that male applicants’ GPA was lower on average. (The college’s admission rate suddenly became more gender neutral the following year, in 2010-2011, when men’s acceptance rate was only 3 percentage points higher than women’s.)”

    Now, please provide a cite that shows that women are given affirmative action for admission to any university. Women did get affirmative action in the 1970’s after being discriminated against but that affirmative action is long over.

  130. @anonymous
    @Art Deco


    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.
     
    No it isn’t. Are property rights abuse? Is the US-Mexico border abuse? Do you consider Jewish exclusivism to be an abuse of non-Jews?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Property rights are not abuse. Southern segregation ordinances covered public spaces and were coercive upon commercial vendors. While we’re at it, law enforcement and the courts stank on ice.

  131. @Anon
    https://www.twitter.com/noxraptus/status/1576680346741276674

    https://www.twitter.com/KhalkeionGenos/status/1576727845162070021

    https://www.twitter.com/torinmccabe/status/1576683805192368130

    Replies: @JackOH, @Art Deco, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    An oil embargo is an act of war only in that man’s imagination.

  132. @Jonathan Mason
    @Matt Buckalew

    Word salad. Tossed.

    Okay, look at it from another angle. Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man's burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    Is there a moral obligation and duty of care towards those "lesser breeds" to raise them up, or is the right thing to do simply to build walled communities, walled cities, walled states for whites and only allow blacks and browns to enter under supervision to do the cleaning, cooking, and maintenance ? Kind of like Israel.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Matt Buckalew

    Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man’s burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don’t require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige. Of course, this dynamic means that whites owe transfer payments to blacks just by virtue of being white which would be — racist. It’s also a permanent Danegeld for blacks which whites, most of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, naturally resent.

    The problem transcends race in fact, as any individual at sub-90 IQ is going to be mostly a creature of impulse and incapable of obtaining decent living conditions in a complex society without support. The proper attitude is in fact paternalism which requires a strong ethnic bond.

    All of which is to say, this is what separate countries are for. Black elites can run black countries and take care of downscale blacks, and white elites can run white countries and take care of downscale whites. And Jews, Koreans, Mexicans, Saudis, etc.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don’t require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige.
     
    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average, so I want to know what is the morally correct amendment to the US Constitution according to the Bible of biodiversity.

    Do we want to gradually introduce some kind of apartheid? Or resettle everybody who is not of European descent in Liberia or Patagonia? Or break the US up into tribal homelands, perhaps with each state being divided into various ethnic zones, each of which would elect its own local governments and send representatives to the state capital.

    What would Jesus do?

    Replies: @anarchyst, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Moses

  133. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    No it's not. Different people need different countries: Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, Taiwan-China, North Korea-South Korea, Serbia-Croatia, Germany-Austria, Iraq-Kuwait, the Sioux Nation-Anglo/America, Greek Cyprus-Turkish Cyprus, Haiti-Dominican Republic, Kurdistan-everybody. How many examples do you need? All of human history is people drawing lines around themselves to keep the Other out.

    The multi-ethnic US worked, to the extent it ever did, because of freedom of association and de-centralized government and minimal public welfare. Once you start doling out transfer payments and centralizing government, then ethnic diversity becomes a very big problem, such a big problem that you have to enact shelves of civil rights laws and regulations and deliberately abolish the ethnic super-majority. Otherwise different people do what different people do wherever and whenever they're allowed: they separate.

    Replies: @stillCARealist, @Art Deco

    Different people need different countries:

    The blacks you’ve been running away from in metro Atlanta have to go back about eight generations to reach a point where half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    That doesn't change the fact that different people need different countries.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  134. @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Different people need different countries:

    The blacks you've been running away from in metro Atlanta have to go back about eight generations to reach a point where half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    That doesn’t change the fact that different people need different countries.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Affirmed by Coronavirus, an immiscible Ellis Island-American.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  135. @Anonymous
    @Mark G.


    In situations where blacks were limited to menial jobs and not allowed to apply for better paying jobs in competition with whites that was oppression.
     
    Not really. Blacks aren’t entitled to jobs created by Whites. They can obtain like jobs in the Black community. Each group can maintain and thrive in their own communities.

    In situations where blacks wanted to visit a restaurant or other business and the owners were willing to have them as customers and the blacks were not legally allowed to do so, that was oppression. The solution was to adopt freedom of association. People can hire who they want, can have who they want as customers, can marry who they want and so on. Any interference with freedom of association in situations like these is immoral.
     
    All norms and laws entail some restriction on “freedom.” If that is “oppression,” every norm and law is oppressive and immoral. Is a society possibly without laws and norms?

    The norms in the situations you describe are conducive, possibly even necessary, to the security, welfare, and continuity of the White people. That isn’t oppression. It is self-defense and self-preservation.

    Is Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy immoral? Similar restrictions on freedom of association as those under discussion.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Not really. Blacks aren’t entitled to jobs created by Whites.

    If you are a white person, you are not entitled to a job if a white business owner would rather hire a black than you. You are advocating the use of force to benefit yourself at the expense of others.

    All norms and laws entail some restriction on “freedom.” If that is “oppression,” every norm and law is oppressive and immoral. Is a society possibly without laws and norms?

    There is such a thing as a just law and unjust law. Just laws prevent people from initiating force against others. Voluntary relations between people are what makes society possible. Business owners should decide who they have as a customer or hire as an employee. People should not be restricted from marrying or having other peaceful voluntary social relationships with those of another race. If you are using force to prevent that you are morally wrong.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Mark G.


    Voluntary relations between people are what makes society possible. Business owners should decide who they have as a customer or hire as an employee. People should not be restricted from marrying or having other peaceful voluntary social relationships with those of another race. If you are using force to prevent that you are morally wrong.
     
    Limitations on any individual doing whatever the hell he wants to are what make society possible. If those limitations are conducive to the peaceful coexistence and continuity of different peoples then they are presumptive moral and attempts (like yours) to destroy them are profoundly immoral.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  136. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why is it wrong?

    It's a policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Is it wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race? Well, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Koreans, etc., discriminate on the basis of race with their immigration policy. Indeed, I'd very much like to discriminate on the basis of race in US immigration policy. Why is that wrong?

    Why is it wrong to defend one's own people? Or do you have a problem with acknowledging having a people?

    What exactly is your problem with AA? Saying that it's "wrong" is childish.

    Dingbat CivNats - like Steve - say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that's because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren't so callous. They're fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)

    What's your excuse?

    Replies: @Anon, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry for the late reply, CoaSC, but I wanted to take the time to address your point properly. This, and any, nation is a lot better when rule of law is upheld. As Reg C. wrote somewhere below, it seems to take White men to do this properly, people like this country’s Founders.

    These Founders indeed didn’t consider treating black people the same, as they were quite the opposite from being US Citizens. The Founders rightly cared about their own people and posterity. Large scale immigration changed who many of the people and posterity were even before the (2nd-greatest) wave from 1880 to 1920. They were all White people with not so very different cultures, and on lots and lots of land, so it all worked.

    That big wave next contained people that, though White, were not of the same culture and had antagonistic political views. (Jewish – too much flat-out Communism, Italian and Irish – tribal and not so into the Rule of Law, not men) 50 years of that assimilation, and it was still not the same, but workable.

    Now, let’s talk the South after the Reconstruction occupation and the Amendments XIV and XV. They had to deal with this crap for 100 years, and the Jim Crow, Sundown Laws what have you, were the way they dealt with it. In all of that, I don’t seen ANYTHING that was egregious and wrong like AA. Was there any government policy of any State that mandated hiring of Whites specifically? Sure, people did what they wanted – as government rightly still upheld freedom of association (Amendment I of Muh Constitution). That included excluding black people from all kinds of things. Even all that was not the same as Affirmative Action. It’s purely wrong.

    After the Civil Rites laws 55-6 years ago overturned much of the US Constitution, it all went bad, slowly, then quickly, Maybe you aren’t interested in the Constitution, CoaSC, but the Constitution is interested in YOU (as a White man)

    I’ll write more…

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The Constitution is one of the greatest political documents ever written. But it's not magical. It's doesn't protect us against what's coming. You can see how nonwhites and Jews view the Constitution. The Constitution is a "white guy" thing.

    Culture is downstream from biology. It's as simple as that.

    Anglo-American culture pretty well survived into the 20th century because the immigration was from European peoples who were similar enough to be (mostly) integrated. But as you note, it took a very long time and, indeed, wasn't completely successful even for the Irish and Italians. Jews never really did come around, or, at least, not a lot of powerful Jews.

    But, in the end, at some point, you have to start bringing race into the discussion in a multi-racial society. Even if you couch it in "anti-racist" terms, you have to start mentioned whites as a group. Colorblind CivNats refuse to do this. They find it abhorrent. Even as every other group brings up race, CivNats refuse. It's insane.

    If other groups won't adopt colorblind civic nationalism, whites will need to abandon it as well or they'll get steamrollered. I'm not sure what people don't understand about this simple fact. Other groups don't accept "equality under the law" because they believe that law is based on a systemic racism. Tribe comes first for them. "White laws" don't apply to them because they're not white.

    That's why colorblind civic nationalism doesn't work in a multi-racial society. Whites see the law as providing for a fair and orderly society. Non-whites see it as a form of oppression.

  137. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Why is it wrong?

    It's a policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Is it wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race? Well, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Koreans, etc., discriminate on the basis of race with their immigration policy. Indeed, I'd very much like to discriminate on the basis of race in US immigration policy. Why is that wrong?

    Why is it wrong to defend one's own people? Or do you have a problem with acknowledging having a people?

    What exactly is your problem with AA? Saying that it's "wrong" is childish.

    Dingbat CivNats - like Steve - say that AA is wrong because it discriminates on the basis of race, but, of course, that's because they have no loyalty to their own race or any other, stunningly ignoring the fact that other races aren't so callous. They're fools, of course. (Steve reminds me of the priests as the Vikings raided.)

    What's your excuse?

    Replies: @Anon, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman

    About Citizenism, maybe that IS me too. Let me put what I think is right and workable below:

    – All illegal immigrants – you’re OUT.
    – Children of illegal immigrants (by the bogus Anchor-Baby loophole). If you’re still a child, you go back, to avoid that family separation thing (haha)
    – Even grown-up children of illegal immigrants who aren’t participating as citizens (paperwork, etc), you’re OUT.
    – With certain exceptions (marriages, etc.) green card holder will all be vetted, and most go back.
    – Immigration near-moratorium starts, with exceptions that don’t give numbers over 50,000 or so and preferably White people (maybe an exception from the 50,000 for White S. Africans).

    Regarding the elephant that has been in the room for 4 centuries.

    – No more welfare. (This matters a lot!)
    – 1st Amendment restored by courts.
    – A repatriation to Africa plan in place for those who have a problem with any of that.

    Now, CoaSC, you’ll likely say that the last 3 things are unworkable. That’s why separation in some form is necessary. “Over here, this all applies!” Fed-Gov doesn’t like it? That’s where the fights start. The only solution to peaceful separation along decent lines is Federalism. (That’s why I especially like Ron DeSantis, as he understands the concept.) The Feral Gov’t must be made weaker (or let to be) during the coming Financial SHTF. If it goes the other way, toward China-style Totalitarianism, we’re screwed.

    So, you can keep on saying “muh Constitution”, but the idea is for people to still understand the concepts – written and understood by White men mostly – or we are truly screwed.

    Thanks for reading, anyway.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I agree that separation is our only hope. I also understand that American whites - at least for now - aren't ready for an openly racial push for separation. My only hope is that get whites to at least start thinking of themselves as a group and a group worth saving. If they do that, the rest will follow in time.

    But, yes, your plan is actually what I think would work best at this stage. Different parts of the country that just happen to be the whitest parts start to push at a local or state level for much of what you discuss.

    Imagine a Tennessee saying:

    - No illegal immigrants will be allowed to work or live in this state. Their kids can't go to school and they won't get healthcare. Employers will get a $50k fine for every illegal immigrant that they hire.

    - Landlords that rent to illegal immigrants pay a $20k fine.

    - We're also abolishing welfare.

    - We're dramatically increasing police and prison sentences.

    - We also will not allow any transgender changes for kids

    - We also ban affirmative action

    Etc.

    Now, none of that mentions race outside of AA and that is only saying no racial discrimination. And that's all well and good and gets us a long way home - and would bring down the wrath of the Feds and GAE. But in time, even that would fail if they don't protect the white core. Eventually, Tennessee would be hugely successful and would get lots of Hispanics and Goodwhites moving in and they'd kill the system like they killed Colorado and other states.

    At some point, you have to point in something that keeps conservative whites as the large majority of the population. Otherwise, you're right back to where we are.

    So, yes, your plan is the most practical, but at some point, it has to turn racial because culture is downstream from biology.

  138. @JackOH
    @Achmed E. Newman

    FWIW--a week ago I commented under another article:


    " . . . [A]t my local Podunk Tech there are vague hints from ordinary conversations that the preferential hiring of Blacks and women is regarded as some sort of “proof” that White male candidates had never been all that talented and had merely relied on “White privilege” to get “over-represented” in certain fields."

    "Completely ignored, of course, is that preferential hiring is preferential for ideological and juridical reasons, and that a lot of institutions can indeed get by with a “good enough” candidate with the right skin tone and genital package."

    "It’s distressing, and I agree, there’s not much one can do."
     
    I agree with you that AA is wrong, and its consequences for able White guys has likely been catastrophic. (I'm pretty sure AA--the White women-preferred flavor--blocked me from a decent-paying Fortune 1000 sales career, and kicked me down to sales manager at a crappy-paying ad sales outfit.)

    The damned thing about AA is that employers are indeed okay with "good-enough" AA hires who are delighted with relatively fat paychecks, titles, and invites to golf outings and business awards' dinners.

    Likewise, as I mentioned, those AA hires by now have talked themselves into believing those juridically overlooked able White guys weren't so able after all, and relied on "White privilege" for their cushy jobs. (In some cases, as in ethnic patronage hiring for government jobs, there was and still is "ethnic privilege".)

    For shits and tickles, I imagine the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon mission as full-bore AA programs. There'd be some sort of "atomic device" maybe in late 1946, and some sort of lunar mission by the early 1970s. Both would be touted as AA success stories, and nobody would be the wiser that in an alternate world, fission bombs were delivered in 1945, and two men successfully landed on the moon and returned in 1969.

    (BTW--I know my illustration is self-serving. Likewise, I'm aware of the contributions made by women physicists--Curie, Meitner, Noddack. Likewise, I'm aware of the apparently qualified Black astronaut candidate who was hounded from Mercury because of, it seems, racial animus inflamed by top-down political demands for a Black astronaut.)

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Achmed E. Newman

    Likewise, I’m aware of the apparently qualified Black astronaut candidate who was hounded from Mercury because of, it seems, racial animus inflamed by top-down political demands for a Black astronaut.)

    The black astronaut was bounced because, even after tons of extra help, Chuck Yeager said he wasn’t good enough and Curtis LeMay backed him up to the intense displeasure of the Kennedy brothers who pushed the whole thing in the first place. The black guy then sued for discrimination.

    Chuck Yeager flew with black pilots in Europe and didn’t give a damn about race. All he cared about was your ability to fly.

    • Thanks: JackOH
  139. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    First, interesting that you leave out examples of ethnocentrism that work just fine, such as Japan, Korea, China, and, of course, the Jews.

    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race - even the various European races - and how different races behaved. They also showed preference for their own people. We were never meant to be a colorblind paradise.

    Finally, on a more practical note, colorblind civic nationalism has utterly failed whites for the past 50 years. If whites continue on this path, we deserve what we'll get.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Moses

    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race – even the various European races – and how different races behaved.

    Yes. But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons. You never see that in, say, Islam, or China. (Well, maybe recently in China, to speak to the international Left.)

    They also showed preference for their own people.

    Not in hiring:

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    You guys are so good at distraction and avoiding the questions asked.

    And, yes, Southerners made a huge mistake, a mistake that we're paying for. Thanks for proving my point.

    , @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    “But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons.”

    They do?

    Defenders of the Old South usually argue ‘not your business’ as opposed to moral oneupsmanship.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  140. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Reg Cæsar


    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.
     
    As a non-Anglo white guy, I have long felt that all this "Our Nation" stuff you Stevites are flogging was simply talking past me. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    What have you got against common law? Or English orthography?

  141. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Muggles

    Lay back and think of Civic Nationalism.

    Great plan.

    Whites (or our various sub-tribes) need to learn how to build our own communities. Jews have the right idea - but you know that, don't you. I'll follow their plan. You do what you want. Whites will either become helots or be erased as a people. I might lose but at least, I tried.

    What's your plan?

    Replies: @Muggles

    What’s your plan?

    So how is your “plan” going?

    Probably about the same as my “plan” to be worth a billion dollars by the time I was 25.

    Pipe dreams aren’t plans. Especially when such plans require millions of people to follow your directions to the letter.

    Better to avoid such plans than to waste time spouting off about them.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Muggles

    Yeah, thinking and organizing as a people and defending that people has been so unsuccessful. Just as the Jews or the Mormons or the Japanese . . .

    And just look at the massive success of colorblind civic nationalism in our multi-racial country over the past 50 years. Yep, no one even talks about race anymore, and whites are treated ever so fairly.

    Face it, colorblind civic nationalism has failed. My hope to get whites to start think and organizing as a group MAY fail, but Citizenism HAS failed. I'll take my chances with a plan adopted from other successful groups.

  142. The alt-right chose to ignore anti-white discrimination as an issue and focus on immigration and black crime instead.

  143. @Muggles
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    What’s your plan?
     
    So how is your "plan" going?

    Probably about the same as my "plan" to be worth a billion dollars by the time I was 25.

    Pipe dreams aren't plans. Especially when such plans require millions of people to follow your directions to the letter.

    Better to avoid such plans than to waste time spouting off about them.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yeah, thinking and organizing as a people and defending that people has been so unsuccessful. Just as the Jews or the Mormons or the Japanese . . .

    And just look at the massive success of colorblind civic nationalism in our multi-racial country over the past 50 years. Yep, no one even talks about race anymore, and whites are treated ever so fairly.

    Face it, colorblind civic nationalism has failed. My hope to get whites to start think and organizing as a group MAY fail, but Citizenism HAS failed. I’ll take my chances with a plan adopted from other successful groups.

  144. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race – even the various European races – and how different races behaved.
     
    Yes. But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons. You never see that in, say, Islam, or China. (Well, maybe recently in China, to speak to the international Left.)

    They also showed preference for their own people.
     
    Not in hiring:


    https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/map1_resize.jpg

    https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/map2.jpg

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle

    You guys are so good at distraction and avoiding the questions asked.

    And, yes, Southerners made a huge mistake, a mistake that we’re paying for. Thanks for proving my point.

  145. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    About Citizenism, maybe that IS me too. Let me put what I think is right and workable below:

    - All illegal immigrants - you're OUT.
    - Children of illegal immigrants (by the bogus Anchor-Baby loophole). If you're still a child, you go back, to avoid that family separation thing (haha)
    - Even grown-up children of illegal immigrants who aren't participating as citizens (paperwork, etc), you're OUT.
    - With certain exceptions (marriages, etc.) green card holder will all be vetted, and most go back.
    - Immigration near-moratorium starts, with exceptions that don't give numbers over 50,000 or so and preferably White people (maybe an exception from the 50,000 for White S. Africans).

    Regarding the elephant that has been in the room for 4 centuries.

    - No more welfare. (This matters a lot!)
    - 1st Amendment restored by courts.
    - A repatriation to Africa plan in place for those who have a problem with any of that.

    Now, CoaSC, you'll likely say that the last 3 things are unworkable. That's why separation in some form is necessary. "Over here, this all applies!" Fed-Gov doesn't like it? That's where the fights start. The only solution to peaceful separation along decent lines is Federalism. (That's why I especially like Ron DeSantis, as he understands the concept.) The Feral Gov't must be made weaker (or let to be) during the coming Financial SHTF. If it goes the other way, toward China-style Totalitarianism, we're screwed.

    So, you can keep on saying "muh Constitution", but the idea is for people to still understand the concepts - written and understood by White men mostly - or we are truly screwed.

    Thanks for reading, anyway.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I agree that separation is our only hope. I also understand that American whites – at least for now – aren’t ready for an openly racial push for separation. My only hope is that get whites to at least start thinking of themselves as a group and a group worth saving. If they do that, the rest will follow in time.

    But, yes, your plan is actually what I think would work best at this stage. Different parts of the country that just happen to be the whitest parts start to push at a local or state level for much of what you discuss.

    Imagine a Tennessee saying:

    – No illegal immigrants will be allowed to work or live in this state. Their kids can’t go to school and they won’t get healthcare. Employers will get a $50k fine for every illegal immigrant that they hire.

    – Landlords that rent to illegal immigrants pay a $20k fine.

    – We’re also abolishing welfare.

    – We’re dramatically increasing police and prison sentences.

    – We also will not allow any transgender changes for kids

    – We also ban affirmative action

    Etc.

    Now, none of that mentions race outside of AA and that is only saying no racial discrimination. And that’s all well and good and gets us a long way home – and would bring down the wrath of the Feds and GAE. But in time, even that would fail if they don’t protect the white core. Eventually, Tennessee would be hugely successful and would get lots of Hispanics and Goodwhites moving in and they’d kill the system like they killed Colorado and other states.

    At some point, you have to point in something that keeps conservative whites as the large majority of the population. Otherwise, you’re right back to where we are.

    So, yes, your plan is the most practical, but at some point, it has to turn racial because culture is downstream from biology.

  146. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Sorry for the late reply, CoaSC, but I wanted to take the time to address your point properly. This, and any, nation is a lot better when rule of law is upheld. As Reg C. wrote somewhere below, it seems to take White men to do this properly, people like this country's Founders.

    These Founders indeed didn't consider treating black people the same, as they were quite the opposite from being US Citizens. The Founders rightly cared about their own people and posterity. Large scale immigration changed who many of the people and posterity were even before the (2nd-greatest) wave from 1880 to 1920. They were all White people with not so very different cultures, and on lots and lots of land, so it all worked.

    That big wave next contained people that, though White, were not of the same culture and had antagonistic political views. (Jewish - too much flat-out Communism, Italian and Irish - tribal and not so into the Rule of Law, not men) 50 years of that assimilation, and it was still not the same, but workable.

    Now, let's talk the South after the Reconstruction occupation and the Amendments XIV and XV. They had to deal with this crap for 100 years, and the Jim Crow, Sundown Laws what have you, were the way they dealt with it. In all of that, I don't seen ANYTHING that was egregious and wrong like AA. Was there any government policy of any State that mandated hiring of Whites specifically? Sure, people did what they wanted - as government rightly still upheld freedom of association (Amendment I of Muh Constitution). That included excluding black people from all kinds of things. Even all that was not the same as Affirmative Action. It's purely wrong.

    After the Civil Rites laws 55-6 years ago overturned much of the US Constitution, it all went bad, slowly, then quickly, Maybe you aren't interested in the Constitution, CoaSC, but the Constitution is interested in YOU (as a White man)

    I'll write more...

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The Constitution is one of the greatest political documents ever written. But it’s not magical. It’s doesn’t protect us against what’s coming. You can see how nonwhites and Jews view the Constitution. The Constitution is a “white guy” thing.

    Culture is downstream from biology. It’s as simple as that.

    Anglo-American culture pretty well survived into the 20th century because the immigration was from European peoples who were similar enough to be (mostly) integrated. But as you note, it took a very long time and, indeed, wasn’t completely successful even for the Irish and Italians. Jews never really did come around, or, at least, not a lot of powerful Jews.

    But, in the end, at some point, you have to start bringing race into the discussion in a multi-racial society. Even if you couch it in “anti-racist” terms, you have to start mentioned whites as a group. Colorblind CivNats refuse to do this. They find it abhorrent. Even as every other group brings up race, CivNats refuse. It’s insane.

    If other groups won’t adopt colorblind civic nationalism, whites will need to abandon it as well or they’ll get steamrollered. I’m not sure what people don’t understand about this simple fact. Other groups don’t accept “equality under the law” because they believe that law is based on a systemic racism. Tribe comes first for them. “White laws” don’t apply to them because they’re not white.

    That’s why colorblind civic nationalism doesn’t work in a multi-racial society. Whites see the law as providing for a fair and orderly society. Non-whites see it as a form of oppression.

  147. @SFG
    You blame it on systemic racism, which really did exist for most of the country’s history. Amerindians aren’t doing too great either, but they are more rural so it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @interesting, @anonymous, @Muggles, @Curle

    How would you you tease out group performance differences based on natural average differences combined with hive mind effect from distinctions driven by animus or decisions driven by caution informed by knowledge of native differences?

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Curle

    I wouldn’t try. The question is how to explain the failure of affirmative action if you are a liberal or progressive. Others can admit the truth.

    Replies: @Curle

  148. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Reg Cæsar


    Is it good for Anglo-Saxons? Prussians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Portuguese can fend for themselves.
     
    As a non-Anglo white guy, I have long felt that all this "Our Nation" stuff you Stevites are flogging was simply talking past me. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The ancient Greeks were a varied people. An Athenian saw himself as an Athenian, not a Greek. But the Persians saw Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, etc., as one people. So, the Greeks temporarily put aside their differences to fight back.

    Americans whites are in a very similar situation. There’s no such things as “white nationalism” because there’s no such thing as white. We are many tribes. But non-whites see us only as white so we must think of ourselves as white until we have enough control over our own lives to embrace our differences.

  149. @Bill Jones
    @Curle

    So the more you know them, the more you know about them and the less you believe what you're told about them?
    And that's a surprise?

    Replies: @Curle

    No but I’d like to find the study again. I contend that whites who were bused become based at an earlier age and that perhaps, for that reason alone, it isn’t a bad thing.

  150. @JackOH
    @Achmed E. Newman

    FWIW--a week ago I commented under another article:


    " . . . [A]t my local Podunk Tech there are vague hints from ordinary conversations that the preferential hiring of Blacks and women is regarded as some sort of “proof” that White male candidates had never been all that talented and had merely relied on “White privilege” to get “over-represented” in certain fields."

    "Completely ignored, of course, is that preferential hiring is preferential for ideological and juridical reasons, and that a lot of institutions can indeed get by with a “good enough” candidate with the right skin tone and genital package."

    "It’s distressing, and I agree, there’s not much one can do."
     
    I agree with you that AA is wrong, and its consequences for able White guys has likely been catastrophic. (I'm pretty sure AA--the White women-preferred flavor--blocked me from a decent-paying Fortune 1000 sales career, and kicked me down to sales manager at a crappy-paying ad sales outfit.)

    The damned thing about AA is that employers are indeed okay with "good-enough" AA hires who are delighted with relatively fat paychecks, titles, and invites to golf outings and business awards' dinners.

    Likewise, as I mentioned, those AA hires by now have talked themselves into believing those juridically overlooked able White guys weren't so able after all, and relied on "White privilege" for their cushy jobs. (In some cases, as in ethnic patronage hiring for government jobs, there was and still is "ethnic privilege".)

    For shits and tickles, I imagine the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon mission as full-bore AA programs. There'd be some sort of "atomic device" maybe in late 1946, and some sort of lunar mission by the early 1970s. Both would be touted as AA success stories, and nobody would be the wiser that in an alternate world, fission bombs were delivered in 1945, and two men successfully landed on the moon and returned in 1969.

    (BTW--I know my illustration is self-serving. Likewise, I'm aware of the contributions made by women physicists--Curie, Meitner, Noddack. Likewise, I'm aware of the apparently qualified Black astronaut candidate who was hounded from Mercury because of, it seems, racial animus inflamed by top-down political demands for a Black astronaut.)

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Achmed E. Newman

    Thanks for the reply, Jack. I agree with you, but were AA taken pretty seriously back then I’d set that timetable later in years by about 25, not just a few years.

    I’ve got a blog post coming on AA bearing its fruit (in the way you explain here) right now. The demographics have changed, and it’s not just the 1 out of 20 black guys anymore and a few women to do this and that. It is a significant factor in killing the economy at this point.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Achmed, thanks.

    It's just a rotten business for our government---with its police powers and juridical authority---to create deplorables and praiseworthies out of, respectively, innocents and the undeserving.

  151. @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race – even the various European races – and how different races behaved.
     
    Yes. But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons. You never see that in, say, Islam, or China. (Well, maybe recently in China, to speak to the international Left.)

    They also showed preference for their own people.
     
    Not in hiring:


    https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/map1_resize.jpg

    https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/map2.jpg

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Curle

    “But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons.”

    They do?

    Defenders of the Old South usually argue ‘not your business’ as opposed to moral oneupsmanship.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    Defenders of the Old South usually argue ‘not your business’ as opposed to moral oneupsmanship.
     
    They insist that their treatment of their charges was mostly benign. The morality in this is implicit, not explicit. Still, why bother? Other cultures wouldn't.

    There is also the resort to Biblical and other Christian concerns.
  152. @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    “But defenders of the Old South always bring up moralistic reasons.”

    They do?

    Defenders of the Old South usually argue ‘not your business’ as opposed to moral oneupsmanship.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Defenders of the Old South usually argue ‘not your business’ as opposed to moral oneupsmanship.

    They insist that their treatment of their charges was mostly benign. The morality in this is implicit, not explicit. Still, why bother? Other cultures wouldn’t.

    There is also the resort to Biblical and other Christian concerns.

  153. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man’s burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don't require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige. Of course, this dynamic means that whites owe transfer payments to blacks just by virtue of being white which would be -- racist. It's also a permanent Danegeld for blacks which whites, most of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, naturally resent.

    The problem transcends race in fact, as any individual at sub-90 IQ is going to be mostly a creature of impulse and incapable of obtaining decent living conditions in a complex society without support. The proper attitude is in fact paternalism which requires a strong ethnic bond.

    All of which is to say, this is what separate countries are for. Black elites can run black countries and take care of downscale blacks, and white elites can run white countries and take care of downscale whites. And Jews, Koreans, Mexicans, Saudis, etc.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don’t require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige.

    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average, so I want to know what is the morally correct amendment to the US Constitution according to the Bible of biodiversity.

    Do we want to gradually introduce some kind of apartheid? Or resettle everybody who is not of European descent in Liberia or Patagonia? Or break the US up into tribal homelands, perhaps with each state being divided into various ethnic zones, each of which would elect its own local governments and send representatives to the state capital.

    What would Jesus do?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Jonathan Mason

    The solution is simple...
    Abolish ALL "civil-rights (for some)" laws and restore true "freedom of association" for ALL.
    Separate might not be “equal”, but no person is “equal” to anyone else. The so-called civil-rights laws and their enforcement should have been limited to blacks dealing with government–not the destruction of “freedom of association” (but only for whites) that the “civil-rights” laws have destroyed.
    When a Christian baker can be forced to bake a cake for homosexuals, but moslem bakery owners are not, THAT is a problem. THAT is but proof that the “equal accommodations” laws are used against whites and conservatives which much greater frequency than that of certain minorities.
    It is true that blacks were denied hotel accommodations in the past, but so what? In the day, whites were also denied hotel accommodations in black-run establishments, as well.
    If I am told that I am not welcome in a private establishment, I will simply go and take my business elsewhere. It is their loss.
    Using military troops to enforce “civil-rights” statutes against whites was in itself not only unconstitutional, but did much to set back the cause of TRUE civil-rights.
    Blacks were coming into their own, many of them adopting white culture and behavior. Those that conform to white societal norms were and are more than welcome. Sadly, there is a substantial black “underclass” that insists on following its own path of criminality and dysfunctional behavior. All one has to do is look at the urban public schools, which spend twice as much as suburban and rural school systems while delivering dismal results. You see, excelling at education is considered “acting white”; those blacks who attempt to excel are not looked upon highly by most of their black peers.
    We have come full-circle, with blacks demanding blacks-only segregated facilities, black teachers and professors, and other blacks-only preferences, but only by their own kind.
    Self-imposed segregation is a good thing for both blacks and whites. As long as voluntary segregation is not enforced by any governmental body, there is nothing wrong with it. I cringe when I hear well-meaning whites protest against blacks and people of color wanting their own "safe spaces". If blacks can have their own "safe spaces", so can us whites. We would be better off…

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    The 14th Amendment did not displace freedom of association. Individuals and businesses could discriminate on whatever basis and property owners could incorporate racial restrictive covenants in their deeds.

    Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do; the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism. Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.

    Solution? Abolish Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and every Constitutional amendment after the Tenth. Otherwise the eventual course is for Americans to gravitate toward geographic regions that more accurately reflect their ethnic preferences and there will be lots of violence along the way (blacks already murder whites disproportionately). The market already prices white and black neighbors accordingly.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Art Deco, @Corvinus, @Curle

    , @Moses
    @Jonathan Mason


    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average
     
    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What's your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren't supermajority White, are they? Lol.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  154. @Achmed E. Newman
    @JackOH

    Thanks for the reply, Jack. I agree with you, but were AA taken pretty seriously back then I'd set that timetable later in years by about 25, not just a few years.

    I've got a blog post coming on AA bearing its fruit (in the way you explain here) right now. The demographics have changed, and it's not just the 1 out of 20 black guys anymore and a few women to do this and that. It is a significant factor in killing the economy at this point.

    Replies: @JackOH

    Achmed, thanks.

    It’s just a rotten business for our government—with its police powers and juridical authority—to create deplorables and praiseworthies out of, respectively, innocents and the undeserving.

  155. @Anon
    https://www.twitter.com/noxraptus/status/1576680346741276674

    https://www.twitter.com/KhalkeionGenos/status/1576727845162070021

    https://www.twitter.com/torinmccabe/status/1576683805192368130

    Replies: @JackOH, @Art Deco, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    H. H. Kung, one of the most venal man in China, sucking up to Hitler in order to get support for war against Japan. Berchtesgaden 1937.

    Photographs of supposed Japanese atrocities against Chinese– left photo, on the back reads clearly in Chinese 槍決漢奸 “execute Han traitor”. Its KMT troops doing the execution.
    https://twitter.com/EdwardJHiggins/status/1499717903452712970?s=20&t=7459RTntm8lxaxWdsGlaSQ

  156. @Jonathan Mason
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don’t require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige.
     
    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average, so I want to know what is the morally correct amendment to the US Constitution according to the Bible of biodiversity.

    Do we want to gradually introduce some kind of apartheid? Or resettle everybody who is not of European descent in Liberia or Patagonia? Or break the US up into tribal homelands, perhaps with each state being divided into various ethnic zones, each of which would elect its own local governments and send representatives to the state capital.

    What would Jesus do?

    Replies: @anarchyst, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Moses

    The solution is simple…
    Abolish ALL “civil-rights (for some)” laws and restore true “freedom of association” for ALL.
    Separate might not be “equal”, but no person is “equal” to anyone else. The so-called civil-rights laws and their enforcement should have been limited to blacks dealing with government–not the destruction of “freedom of association” (but only for whites) that the “civil-rights” laws have destroyed.
    When a Christian baker can be forced to bake a cake for homosexuals, but moslem bakery owners are not, THAT is a problem. THAT is but proof that the “equal accommodations” laws are used against whites and conservatives which much greater frequency than that of certain minorities.
    It is true that blacks were denied hotel accommodations in the past, but so what? In the day, whites were also denied hotel accommodations in black-run establishments, as well.
    If I am told that I am not welcome in a private establishment, I will simply go and take my business elsewhere. It is their loss.
    Using military troops to enforce “civil-rights” statutes against whites was in itself not only unconstitutional, but did much to set back the cause of TRUE civil-rights.
    Blacks were coming into their own, many of them adopting white culture and behavior. Those that conform to white societal norms were and are more than welcome. Sadly, there is a substantial black “underclass” that insists on following its own path of criminality and dysfunctional behavior. All one has to do is look at the urban public schools, which spend twice as much as suburban and rural school systems while delivering dismal results. You see, excelling at education is considered “acting white”; those blacks who attempt to excel are not looked upon highly by most of their black peers.
    We have come full-circle, with blacks demanding blacks-only segregated facilities, black teachers and professors, and other blacks-only preferences, but only by their own kind.
    Self-imposed segregation is a good thing for both blacks and whites. As long as voluntary segregation is not enforced by any governmental body, there is nothing wrong with it. I cringe when I hear well-meaning whites protest against blacks and people of color wanting their own “safe spaces”. If blacks can have their own “safe spaces”, so can us whites. We would be better off…

  157. @Jonathan Mason
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don’t require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige.
     
    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average, so I want to know what is the morally correct amendment to the US Constitution according to the Bible of biodiversity.

    Do we want to gradually introduce some kind of apartheid? Or resettle everybody who is not of European descent in Liberia or Patagonia? Or break the US up into tribal homelands, perhaps with each state being divided into various ethnic zones, each of which would elect its own local governments and send representatives to the state capital.

    What would Jesus do?

    Replies: @anarchyst, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Moses

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    The 14th Amendment did not displace freedom of association. Individuals and businesses could discriminate on whatever basis and property owners could incorporate racial restrictive covenants in their deeds.

    Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do; the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism. Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.

    Solution? Abolish Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and every Constitutional amendment after the Tenth. Otherwise the eventual course is for Americans to gravitate toward geographic regions that more accurately reflect their ethnic preferences and there will be lots of violence along the way (blacks already murder whites disproportionately). The market already prices white and black neighbors accordingly.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Actually the southern states wanted slaves to be counted as "whole" persons. It is the northern states that wanted to dilute the political power of the south by counting slaves as three-fifths of a "whole" person.

    , @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    That was a compromise to split the difference between two contending positions. There was no principle behind it. One side wanted slaves counted for purposes of representation in Congress but not for apportioning direct taxes. The other side wanted the converse.

    , @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do;”

    We do. Go to church. Ask your spiritual leader.

    “”the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism.”

    You mean people used that Good Book as justification for these white created evils.

    “Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.”

    Christians fought to end it.

    “Solution?”

    You mean wish list.

    Listen, if and when this shooting starts, you’re going to be cowering in your comfy redoubt in Virginia.

    , @Curle
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “Slavery ended because of economics”

    Slavery ending was an side effect of total war and total conquest following a war fought over whether the North would dominate an continental Empire or only part of the continent.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  158. @Redman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In addition, the largest ethnicity of current American whites is German. The German-Americans AFAIK had nothing to do with slavery. Not too many modern DOS blacks with Germanic sounding names.

    German and Scandinavian-Americans’ great-great-great grandparents can’t be blamed for slavery even by the left’s current standard.

    Replies: @Ralph L, @ADL Pyramid of Hate, @anon, @Tony

    Dont matter. You be white, they gonna make your wallet light.

  159. I figured out blacks were less intelligent than whites in elementry school. No advanced degrees necessary.

    • Agree: Curle
  160. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Reg Cæsar

    First, interesting that you leave out examples of ethnocentrism that work just fine, such as Japan, Korea, China, and, of course, the Jews.

    Second, out people may have taken morals and ethics seriously, but the Founding Fathers and all whites back then were acutely aware of race - even the various European races - and how different races behaved. They also showed preference for their own people. We were never meant to be a colorblind paradise.

    Finally, on a more practical note, colorblind civic nationalism has utterly failed whites for the past 50 years. If whites continue on this path, we deserve what we'll get.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Moses

    First, interesting that you leave out examples of ethnocentrism that work just fine, such as Japan, Korea, China, and, of course, the Jews.

    Hey hey, cool it with the anti-semitism please.

  161. @Reg Cæsar
    @Moses


    Whites just 40% of CA, 40% of NYC, 41% of DC.
     
    Whites are growing as a % of DC, and may soon be a majority. What better time, what better excuse, to repeal the 23rd Amendment?

    Replies: @Moses

    Whites are growing as a % of DC, and may soon be a majority.

    Erm, yeah….What color is the sky on your planet?

    Too many of my fellow Jews think America becoming majority non-White is great. I don’t share their assessment. Supermajority White America is the best deal we Jews ever had.

  162. Chemistry is hard.

    At N.Y.U., Students Were Failing Organic Chemistry. Who Was to Blame?

    Maitland Jones Jr., a respected professor, defended his standards. But students started a petition, and the university dismissed him.

    https://archive.ph/y0Q1v

    • Replies: @Moses
    @Mr. Anon

    Would be interesting to know the racial composition of the students who signed the petition. Somehow I doubt there are many East Asians in there lol.

    https://media.tenor.com/Y61UTpCft0EAAAAd/hey-this-is-library-hey.gif

  163. @Jonathan Mason
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    The premise of American democracy is that blacks are not in fact inferior to whites and therefore blacks don’t require white paternalism and subsidies; rather, such remedies are no more than redress for systemic racism and not noblesse oblige.
     
    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average, so I want to know what is the morally correct amendment to the US Constitution according to the Bible of biodiversity.

    Do we want to gradually introduce some kind of apartheid? Or resettle everybody who is not of European descent in Liberia or Patagonia? Or break the US up into tribal homelands, perhaps with each state being divided into various ethnic zones, each of which would elect its own local governments and send representatives to the state capital.

    What would Jesus do?

    Replies: @anarchyst, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Moses

    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average

    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What’s your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren’t supermajority White, are they? Lol.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Moses


    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What’s your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren’t supermajority White, are they? Lol.
     
    My position would be that all members of a nation should have a reasonable expectation of a share of the national wealth, technology, and natural resources regardless of their IQ, IF THE NATION CAN AFFORD IT.

    For example, if a nation collectively can afford competent and scientifically based prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care for mothers and babies, then it should be equally available for all mothers and babies regardless of IQ or marital status and without prejudice.

    For example, if the primary export product of a country is oil from underground or from under its ocean shelf, then the income from that oil should be distributed in a manner so that all citizens get equal benefits regardless of their IQ.


    (The United States has created a remarkable system by which almost 50% of all births--more than 50% in some states--are paid for by Medicaid, the government system that pays for health care for poor people, but to qualify for this the mother usually has to be unmarried. The end result is to economically discourage marriage and the creation of families, because the cost of birthing is so expensive and may include taking on thousands of dollars worth of debt. At the same time the US is moving strongly towards abolishing a right to abortion, or making abortion very expensive due to out of state travel costs, and forcing people into expensive birthing costs.)

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Moses

  164. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    That doesn't change the fact that different people need different countries.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Affirmed by Coronavirus, an immiscible Ellis Island-American.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    There’s millions of us white folks whose ancestors came from Ellis Island, especially in your wife’s side. And yet you cause great consternation by dividing U.S.

  165. @Mr. Anon
    Chemistry is hard.

    At N.Y.U., Students Were Failing Organic Chemistry. Who Was to Blame?

    Maitland Jones Jr., a respected professor, defended his standards. But students started a petition, and the university dismissed him.

    https://archive.ph/y0Q1v
     

    Replies: @Moses

    Would be interesting to know the racial composition of the students who signed the petition. Somehow I doubt there are many East Asians in there lol.

  166. Anon[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark G.
    @Anonymous


    Not really. Blacks aren’t entitled to jobs created by Whites.
     
    If you are a white person, you are not entitled to a job if a white business owner would rather hire a black than you. You are advocating the use of force to benefit yourself at the expense of others.

    All norms and laws entail some restriction on “freedom.” If that is “oppression,” every norm and law is oppressive and immoral. Is a society possibly without laws and norms?

     

    There is such a thing as a just law and unjust law. Just laws prevent people from initiating force against others. Voluntary relations between people are what makes society possible. Business owners should decide who they have as a customer or hire as an employee. People should not be restricted from marrying or having other peaceful voluntary social relationships with those of another race. If you are using force to prevent that you are morally wrong.

    Replies: @Anon

    Voluntary relations between people are what makes society possible. Business owners should decide who they have as a customer or hire as an employee. People should not be restricted from marrying or having other peaceful voluntary social relationships with those of another race. If you are using force to prevent that you are morally wrong.

    Limitations on any individual doing whatever the hell he wants to are what make society possible. If those limitations are conducive to the peaceful coexistence and continuity of different peoples then they are presumptive moral and attempts (like yours) to destroy them are profoundly immoral.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Anon


    Limitations on any individual doing whatever the hell he wants to are what make society possible.
     
    I didn't say an individual can do whatever the hell he wants. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you trying to set up a straw man you can knock down? If you are setting up a straw man, are you such a mental dullard that you don't think any intelligent person will immediately see that?

    If those limitations are conducive to the peaceful coexistence and continuity of different peoples then they are presumptive moral and attempts (like yours) to destroy them are profoundly immoral.
     
    Moving to the idea of freedom of association and voluntary relationships will lead to the peaceful coexistence of people. Starting a race war, trying to force blacks back into slavery or returning to the Jim Crow era won't. I'm sorry but I see blacks as fellow human beings and I am not going to be on the side of someone who advocates mistreating them. You are going to have to find other allies.
  167. @Curle
    @SFG

    How would you you tease out group performance differences based on natural average differences combined with hive mind effect from distinctions driven by animus or decisions driven by caution informed by knowledge of native differences?

    Replies: @SFG

    I wouldn’t try. The question is how to explain the failure of affirmative action if you are a liberal or progressive. Others can admit the truth.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @SFG

    We know the answer to that, control the messaging institutions and make dissent dangerous. Affirmative action failed because ghost in the machine, i.e., racism.

  168. @Moses
    @Jonathan Mason


    Yup. But the premise of this blog is that people of African or native American descent are in fact inferior, or at least inferior on average
     
    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What's your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren't supermajority White, are they? Lol.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What’s your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren’t supermajority White, are they? Lol.

    My position would be that all members of a nation should have a reasonable expectation of a share of the national wealth, technology, and natural resources regardless of their IQ, IF THE NATION CAN AFFORD IT.

    For example, if a nation collectively can afford competent and scientifically based prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care for mothers and babies, then it should be equally available for all mothers and babies regardless of IQ or marital status and without prejudice.

    For example, if the primary export product of a country is oil from underground or from under its ocean shelf, then the income from that oil should be distributed in a manner so that all citizens get equal benefits regardless of their IQ.

    (The United States has created a remarkable system by which almost 50% of all births–more than 50% in some states–are paid for by Medicaid, the government system that pays for health care for poor people, but to qualify for this the mother usually has to be unmarried. The end result is to economically discourage marriage and the creation of families, because the cost of birthing is so expensive and may include taking on thousands of dollars worth of debt. At the same time the US is moving strongly towards abolishing a right to abortion, or making abortion very expensive due to out of state travel costs, and forcing people into expensive birthing costs.)

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jonathan Mason

    , but to qualify for this the mother usually has to be unmarried.

    No. I think your proportions are off as well.

    , @Moses
    @Jonathan Mason


    My position would be that all members of a nation should have a reasonable expectation of a share of the national wealth, technology, and natural resources regardless of their IQ, IF THE NATION CAN AFFORD IT.
     
    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" eh?

    By the way Jon, I assume you are a man of means. You seem to have a strong belief about this. How much of your own wealth are you allocating to less privileged members of the nation? I mean, you wouldn't hold such a virtuous position without backing it up with personal contributions, would you?

  169. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    The 14th Amendment did not displace freedom of association. Individuals and businesses could discriminate on whatever basis and property owners could incorporate racial restrictive covenants in their deeds.

    Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do; the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism. Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.

    Solution? Abolish Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and every Constitutional amendment after the Tenth. Otherwise the eventual course is for Americans to gravitate toward geographic regions that more accurately reflect their ethnic preferences and there will be lots of violence along the way (blacks already murder whites disproportionately). The market already prices white and black neighbors accordingly.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Art Deco, @Corvinus, @Curle

    Actually the southern states wanted slaves to be counted as “whole” persons. It is the northern states that wanted to dilute the political power of the south by counting slaves as three-fifths of a “whole” person.

  170. @Muggles
    @Art Deco


    Blacks weren’t oppressed. Separation is not oppression.

    Separation is abuse. There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the South.
     
    Man, you are behind the times.

    "Separation" is the new Mantra, for Them, not you.

    Just like slinging around that "horrid" N-word. For Them, song and dance. For you, a hate crime.

    AA students are now demanding separate dorms and social (get high) areas on campus. For Them, not you. (Well maybe Jews, if there are enough of them...)

    "Gentrification" is now "racist" since too many of you are buying property in their low rent 'hoods.

    So is "separation" abuse or not?

    There were many abuses in the ancien regime in the North as well. But as you say, "ancien" is long gone.

    Segregation is now rampant for Negroes and other POCs. They have special TV channels and practically every Awards Show has a non White segregated analogue. You are not invited. We're not supposed to notice. And they squawk if They don't get a generous Plus Sized Quota of awards and supposedly non racial open Awards.

    So see, separation isn't "abuse."

    Of course double standards are hypocritical. But that has never been applied to Them and their White comrade "allies."

    It's just that some have "noticed" and don't like living in Your Clown World.

    Replies: @anarchyst

    The old time segregationists were right, all along. Coming of age in the era of (forced) “civil-rights (for some)”, I predicted what the results would be decades and generations down the road.
    I KNEW that government-backed and forced integration would not last. I expected government-forced and backed integration to be over by now, but was off by a few decades. Finally, there are cracks forming in the integration movement–a good sign.
    Of course, most whites have been brainwashed by the “civil-rights (for some)” movement for generations and still insist that voluntary segregation should be “illegal”.
    When I see these well-meaning, but misguided whites complain about segregated college dorms, meetings and other spaces and events deemed “for people of color (only)”, I think to myself, “what the hell is wrong with you?”
    Voluntary segregation should not only be tolerated, but encouraged FOR ALL.
    If voluntary segregation was the norm, us whites could be properly warned about businesses, institutions, and even areas where we are not welcome. “People of color” would actually be doing us whites a favor by letting us know where we are not wanted. Of course, us whites could reciprocate and inform certain “people of color” where ((they)) are not welcome, as well.
    Present-day examples exist today, although unwittingly…Most whites are aware that any street, avenue, or boulevard names after “Martin Luther (Michael) King” are areas for whites to stay away from.
    That being said, whether governments or (jew civil-rights troublemakers) want it or not, racial segregation IS the wave of the future.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  171. @SFG
    @Curle

    I wouldn’t try. The question is how to explain the failure of affirmative action if you are a liberal or progressive. Others can admit the truth.

    Replies: @Curle

    We know the answer to that, control the messaging institutions and make dissent dangerous. Affirmative action failed because ghost in the machine, i.e., racism.

  172. @Anon
    @Mark G.


    Voluntary relations between people are what makes society possible. Business owners should decide who they have as a customer or hire as an employee. People should not be restricted from marrying or having other peaceful voluntary social relationships with those of another race. If you are using force to prevent that you are morally wrong.
     
    Limitations on any individual doing whatever the hell he wants to are what make society possible. If those limitations are conducive to the peaceful coexistence and continuity of different peoples then they are presumptive moral and attempts (like yours) to destroy them are profoundly immoral.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Limitations on any individual doing whatever the hell he wants to are what make society possible.

    I didn’t say an individual can do whatever the hell he wants. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you trying to set up a straw man you can knock down? If you are setting up a straw man, are you such a mental dullard that you don’t think any intelligent person will immediately see that?

    If those limitations are conducive to the peaceful coexistence and continuity of different peoples then they are presumptive moral and attempts (like yours) to destroy them are profoundly immoral.

    Moving to the idea of freedom of association and voluntary relationships will lead to the peaceful coexistence of people. Starting a race war, trying to force blacks back into slavery or returning to the Jim Crow era won’t. I’m sorry but I see blacks as fellow human beings and I am not going to be on the side of someone who advocates mistreating them. You are going to have to find other allies.

  173. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    The 14th Amendment did not displace freedom of association. Individuals and businesses could discriminate on whatever basis and property owners could incorporate racial restrictive covenants in their deeds.

    Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do; the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism. Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.

    Solution? Abolish Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and every Constitutional amendment after the Tenth. Otherwise the eventual course is for Americans to gravitate toward geographic regions that more accurately reflect their ethnic preferences and there will be lots of violence along the way (blacks already murder whites disproportionately). The market already prices white and black neighbors accordingly.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Art Deco, @Corvinus, @Curle

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    That was a compromise to split the difference between two contending positions. There was no principle behind it. One side wanted slaves counted for purposes of representation in Congress but not for apportioning direct taxes. The other side wanted the converse.

    • Agree: Curle
  174. @Jonathan Mason
    @Moses


    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What’s your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren’t supermajority White, are they? Lol.
     
    My position would be that all members of a nation should have a reasonable expectation of a share of the national wealth, technology, and natural resources regardless of their IQ, IF THE NATION CAN AFFORD IT.

    For example, if a nation collectively can afford competent and scientifically based prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care for mothers and babies, then it should be equally available for all mothers and babies regardless of IQ or marital status and without prejudice.

    For example, if the primary export product of a country is oil from underground or from under its ocean shelf, then the income from that oil should be distributed in a manner so that all citizens get equal benefits regardless of their IQ.


    (The United States has created a remarkable system by which almost 50% of all births--more than 50% in some states--are paid for by Medicaid, the government system that pays for health care for poor people, but to qualify for this the mother usually has to be unmarried. The end result is to economically discourage marriage and the creation of families, because the cost of birthing is so expensive and may include taking on thousands of dollars worth of debt. At the same time the US is moving strongly towards abolishing a right to abortion, or making abortion very expensive due to out of state travel costs, and forcing people into expensive birthing costs.)

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Moses

    , but to qualify for this the mother usually has to be unmarried.

    No. I think your proportions are off as well.

  175. @Jonathan Mason
    @Matt Buckalew

    Word salad. Tossed.

    Okay, look at it from another angle. Nobody ever discusses the racial problems of the US in terms of The White Man's burden, or of noblesse oblige.

    Is there a moral obligation and duty of care towards those "lesser breeds" to raise them up, or is the right thing to do simply to build walled communities, walled cities, walled states for whites and only allow blacks and browns to enter under supervision to do the cleaning, cooking, and maintenance ? Kind of like Israel.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Matt Buckalew

    Lol just eat that L like it’s government cheese.

  176. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    Wrong. This was always Steve's argument: Citizenism is a palatable way to get whites to back a significant reduction - maybe even a ban - on immigration.

    But the fact that this strategy has completely failed for 20 years ought to tell you something. Regardless, we're past the point of no return anyway. Whites will be a minority soon. Citizenism's last chance was probably the 1990s.

    The Coalition of the Fringes will soon be the majority. We will be the fringe.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Corvinus

    But the fact that this strategy has completely failed for 20 years ought to tell you something.

    That you believe anyone of significance in political life has even tried this strategy over the last twenty years with the possible exception of Trump six years ago shows how loopy you are.

    • Agree: Curle
  177. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Affirmed by Coronavirus, an immiscible Ellis Island-American.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    There’s millions of us white folks whose ancestors came from Ellis Island, especially in your wife’s side. And yet you cause great consternation by dividing U.S.

  178. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    The 14th Amendment did not displace freedom of association. Individuals and businesses could discriminate on whatever basis and property owners could incorporate racial restrictive covenants in their deeds.

    Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do; the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism. Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.

    Solution? Abolish Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and every Constitutional amendment after the Tenth. Otherwise the eventual course is for Americans to gravitate toward geographic regions that more accurately reflect their ethnic preferences and there will be lots of violence along the way (blacks already murder whites disproportionately). The market already prices white and black neighbors accordingly.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Art Deco, @Corvinus, @Curle

    “Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do;”

    We do. Go to church. Ask your spiritual leader.

    “”the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism.”

    You mean people used that Good Book as justification for these white created evils.

    “Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.”

    Christians fought to end it.

    “Solution?”

    You mean wish list.

    Listen, if and when this shooting starts, you’re going to be cowering in your comfy redoubt in Virginia.

  179. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    Wrong. This was always Steve's argument: Citizenism is a palatable way to get whites to back a significant reduction - maybe even a ban - on immigration.

    But the fact that this strategy has completely failed for 20 years ought to tell you something. Regardless, we're past the point of no return anyway. Whites will be a minority soon. Citizenism's last chance was probably the 1990s.

    The Coalition of the Fringes will soon be the majority. We will be the fringe.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Corvinus

    The sure fire way to limit immigration is for the gummint to arrest business owners who employ illegals. Trump has his chance to be a hero in this reward. He blew it. And the GOP especially doesn’t want to go down that road.

  180. @Jonathan Mason
    @Moses


    A premise abundantly supported by 100 years of data showing African IQ ~1 standard deviation below Whites. And East Asian IQ consistently higher than White (although not for creativity).

    What’s your position? And the demographics of your zip code aren’t supermajority White, are they? Lol.
     
    My position would be that all members of a nation should have a reasonable expectation of a share of the national wealth, technology, and natural resources regardless of their IQ, IF THE NATION CAN AFFORD IT.

    For example, if a nation collectively can afford competent and scientifically based prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care for mothers and babies, then it should be equally available for all mothers and babies regardless of IQ or marital status and without prejudice.

    For example, if the primary export product of a country is oil from underground or from under its ocean shelf, then the income from that oil should be distributed in a manner so that all citizens get equal benefits regardless of their IQ.


    (The United States has created a remarkable system by which almost 50% of all births--more than 50% in some states--are paid for by Medicaid, the government system that pays for health care for poor people, but to qualify for this the mother usually has to be unmarried. The end result is to economically discourage marriage and the creation of families, because the cost of birthing is so expensive and may include taking on thousands of dollars worth of debt. At the same time the US is moving strongly towards abolishing a right to abortion, or making abortion very expensive due to out of state travel costs, and forcing people into expensive birthing costs.)

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Moses

    My position would be that all members of a nation should have a reasonable expectation of a share of the national wealth, technology, and natural resources regardless of their IQ, IF THE NATION CAN AFFORD IT.

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” eh?

    By the way Jon, I assume you are a man of means. You seem to have a strong belief about this. How much of your own wealth are you allocating to less privileged members of the nation? I mean, you wouldn’t hold such a virtuous position without backing it up with personal contributions, would you?

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  181. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jonathan Mason

    The moral of the US Constitution was that slavery was legal and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

    The 14th Amendment did not displace freedom of association. Individuals and businesses could discriminate on whatever basis and property owners could incorporate racial restrictive covenants in their deeds.

    Nobody has any idea what Jesus would do; the Christian Bible permits slavery and imperialism. Slavery ended because of economics (the most expensive farm tools ever) not Christian ethics.

    Solution? Abolish Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and every Constitutional amendment after the Tenth. Otherwise the eventual course is for Americans to gravitate toward geographic regions that more accurately reflect their ethnic preferences and there will be lots of violence along the way (blacks already murder whites disproportionately). The market already prices white and black neighbors accordingly.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Art Deco, @Corvinus, @Curle

    “Slavery ended because of economics”

    Slavery ending was an side effect of total war and total conquest following a war fought over whether the North would dominate an continental Empire or only part of the continent.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Curle


    “Slavery ended because of economics”
     
    I don't think the British abolished the Atlantic slave trade because of economics. It was rather profitable.

    And the British government paid huge compensation to slave owners when the empire abolished slavery in 1833, so presumably the slave owners were able to argue that the slaves they owned were still of economic value, just like horses still had a market value.

    Certainly the industrial revolution automated many processes which made slavery less valuable in many industries, but it wasn't the only factor.
  182. @Curle
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “Slavery ended because of economics”

    Slavery ending was an side effect of total war and total conquest following a war fought over whether the North would dominate an continental Empire or only part of the continent.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    “Slavery ended because of economics”

    I don’t think the British abolished the Atlantic slave trade because of economics. It was rather profitable.

    And the British government paid huge compensation to slave owners when the empire abolished slavery in 1833, so presumably the slave owners were able to argue that the slaves they owned were still of economic value, just like horses still had a market value.

    Certainly the industrial revolution automated many processes which made slavery less valuable in many industries, but it wasn’t the only factor.

  183. Forcing people to work for you for little or no pay will never be ‘uneconomic’. It will happen wherever it’s permitted to happen.

  184. We added the ignorance about affirmative action to our list of Society’s brainwashing questionnaire questions.
    https://truthrevolution.net/police-killings/

    There we demonstrate how

    Willful media manipulation, as described in Sincerity.net4, achieves the goal of implanting false Leftist narratives in people’s mind.

    and how this brainwashing can be quantified
    https://truthrevolution.net/percent-brainwashed/

  185. @JimB
    In the public and private sector, everyone has to deal with black colleagues and occasionally sit on hiring committees where black candidates are considered. Many of them have degrees from elite college, but wherever they work in the white collar world, black employees are rarely productive and constantly in need assistance from non-black colleagues. They never know anything in detail, and they always have personal reasons for missing deadlines or producing shoddy work. But this often doesnt prevent them from failing their way up to positions of top management.

    As examples of black managerial incompetence, consider big city mayors Lori Lightfoot, Catherine Pugh, Muriel Bowser, and Keisha Bottoms: all seem to fail in the same way despite their prestigious education credentials. They fail to understand the complexities of managing a city and hire their idiotic black friends to run the schools, law enforcement, sanitation, and procurement in constant crisis mode. The crises result in frequent political purges launched from the mayors office to deal with any regime critics. This simply accelerates the race to the bottom, and raising taxes is the city’s only solution to the problems created by the mayors terrible management.

    Elite universities know about black cognitive deficiencies, but they are there to play the role of the Wizard of Oz awarding a diploma to the tin-man to prove that, not only does he have a brain, but he is a genius. Like Harvard Law School admitting Barack Obama, it was a cynical ploy to advance the career of a polarizing politician. By the way, good luck ever getting to see Obama’s grades or test scores. You’ll have to wait for the barbarians to sack the admissions department of Harvard and Columbia University.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @JimB

    Elite universities know about black cognitive deficiencies, but they are there to play the role of the Wizard of Oz awarding a diploma to the tin-man…

    My mistake. The Wiz gives the diploma to the scarecrow.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World