The politically correct account of the inner cities is that white people made them into shitholes in order to hurt black people.
But, if you look at the ruins, there are a bunch of really nice buildings which were obviously once inhabited by the better sort of people, middle class whites, upper class whites.
What happened of course, is that in the 1950s and 1960s, the Warren Court period, whites were dispossessed, ethnically cleansed out of the inner cities, by black racial violence, violence supported by the state, in that whites were denied the right of collective self defense. A few Jewish communities remained, because Jews, in an unprincipled exception, were allowed collective self defense.
The current state of Detroit, and what is happening to Johannesburg, tells us that were it not for whites, blacks would be living in the jungle, carrying pointy sticks, and eating each other. Blacks can be civilized, but only if subject to firm, and substantially white, authority. America lacks the hard hand necessary to keep black people from reverting to their natural condition.
With America close to a nonwhite majority, and single women, as always, voting for the victors, there is no natural stopping point for the latest round of ethnic cleansing short of complete removal of whites from everything they have built that is worth having.
Resistance to this process is fundamentally incompatible with democracy with universal franchise. If it does not happen in this coming round of movement ever leftwards, will happen in the next or the one after that. If you oppose this outcome, you have to reject democracy with universal franchise. If you reject democracy with universal franchise, have to deny that all men were created, and that women are equal to men. The eradication of white people was inherent in the enlightenment, and our continued existence has only been possible by one unprincipled exception to the enlightenment after another. In the end, unprincipled exceptions always yield to superior holiness.
You may have heard that there are over a million poor stateless victimized Rohingya that our do gooders want to move into first world countries to vote for more leftism.
And indeed it is true that they are poor stateless and victimized. But a big part of the reason that they are poor, stateless, and victimized, is that they believe that Muslims should live under Muslim rule, and to this end they tried to carve a Muslim state out of Burma. To my surprise, they do not want to go to a first world country, such as America. They want to go to a Muslim ruled state, such as Malaysia. A few days ago, America legally accepted its first batch of Rohingya from a refugee camp in Thailand. Thai military attempted to move them to the US, Rohingya refugees refused and rioted, seeking the opportunity to set sail to a Muslim country.
These guys take their religion seriously. And their religion says that Islam should rule, and they should be ruled by Islam. They are reasonably happy to be ruled by moderate Islam, you cannot get much more moderate than their favorite destination, Malaysia, but Islam it has to be.
If brought to America or Australia, they will be in America very much against their will, and therefore will likely attempt to create a Muslim ruled state inside America as they attempted to create a Muslim ruled state inside Burma.
The Bangladeshi refugees who are intermingled with the Rohingya refugees, who speak the same language as the Rohingya refugees, who look like the Rohingya refugees, are economic refugees, seeking a better life. They want to go to first world states such as America and Australia. Maybe many of the Rohingya refugees are economic refugees also. But they are primarily religious refugees, seeking, not freedom to practice their religion, but freedom to persecute anyone who does not practice their religion. They don’t want to go to the first world. They want to go to Dar al Islam.
If I had my way, we would ship them all to Islamic State.
The definition of psychopathy combines traits that are unlikely to be correlated, for example
1: the ability to endure stress and danger calmly, and the propensity to lie casually without regard to the long term consequences.
2: the propensity to act vigorously and competently in pursuit of goals and the lack of realistic, long-term goals
The concept of psychopathy defines manliness as bad, and men as irresponsible and childlike.
A psychopath is defined as someone who is not a reliable friend, yet I am pretty sure that calmness under stress and danger is a good indication of a reliable friend.
The word “psychopath”, like “racist” is a twentieth century invention. If there were such natural kinds as “racist” or “psychopath”, there would have been words for them in biblical times. Such twentieth century coinages do not cut reality at the joints, but are intended to manipulate and destroy.
For example Pinker complacently observes that the Victorians were shocked and horrified by a crime wave, but neglects to observe that this crime wave consisted of one mugging in London every few months – which crime wave never went away, but instead people got used to it, and then it got vastly worse, and people got used to it again, and then it got vastly worse still, and people attempted to abandon much of their cities to savages, and then the crime wave followed them, and there is now no safe area in London. The idea of the inner city as some kind of jungle is new, starting in the late nineteen forties, early fifties. Early in the twentieth century, the idea that the affluent and respectable might have to abandon vast expanses of wealth and property, of huge, beautiful and high status buildings where once the wealthy and fashionable lived, to the vandalism and depravity of savages would have been as unimaginable as wolves and bears prowling the streets of London to devour passers by.
My criticism of his argument on war is that war is a bursty phenomenon, sometimes there are a lot of mighty big wars, and sometimes, when one hegemon has the upper hand, or several hegemons remember the last big war too well, not many wars. This peace lasts until the dominant hegemon weakens, or people forget how bad the last big war was, forget how easy it is to start wars, and how hard it is to stop them, whereupon they go at it again. And the generation that remembers the last big war is now mostly dead.
Taleb, arguably the worlds leading expert on the statistics of bursty phenomena, makes the same argument in a more scientific fashion backed by statistics. War follows a power law with an exponent substantially less than one and substantially greater than zero, rather than a normal distribution, meaning that risk is dominated by large rare events – the risk of losing life and property in a big war is far greater than the risk of losing life and property in a small war, even though small wars are common and big wars are rare.
Pinker tells us.
wars between great powers and developed nations have fallen to historically unprecedented levels. This empirical fact has been repeatedly noted with astonishment by many military historians and international relations scholars…
Taleb tells us that because war follows a power law rather than a normal distribution, if one analyzes the level of warfare using statistics appropriate to a normal distribution, at any given time, chances are it has either fallen to historically unprecedented levels, or a great war has broken out and one is too busy trying to stay alive to do statistics.
With a power law phenomenon, recent experience almost always massively under estimates the risk of large rare events, recent experience is almost always nicer than experience over a longer period. Until it is not.
Twenty two out of twenty three Harvard grads could not explain why the earth gets hotter in summer and cooler in winter.
So I asked my cleaning lady, who has received no science education whatsoever, and very little education. She replied that the days were longer in summer and shorter in winter. I then prompted her “Why are they longer in summer and shorter in winter?”, to which she correctly replied that the earth is tilted with respect to its orbit around the sun.
To be strictly correct she should have said the earth’s axis is tilted with respect to the earth’s orbit, but since she already got “days” correct, unlike the Harvard grads, axis is implied.
The author of this video suggests we need improved science education, but I think that no amount of education can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse, that what we need is considerably less education, about as much education as my cleaning lady has.
Harvard does not, for the most part, teach anything that matters to anyone other than how to hate whitey. Universities have been dumbing down since 1870. They want to be more inclusive, and then adjust their course material to make those included feel more at home. Which makes them useless.
Ferguson looks at measured elite IQs, concludes that our ruling elite is around IQ 120, and that everyone above IQ 140 is pretty much toast. “inappropriately excluded”. It looks to me that the situation is worsening over time, that older members of our elite are generally substantially smarter than recent members of our elite, though all my evidence on this is anecdotal, and people dispute it.
Our elite is being stupidified by avoiding disparate impact. Anything that filters for smarts has disparate impact on women and blacks. Also, smart people tend to mansplain – give those affirmative actioned into jobs beyond their competence instructions and advice that they are incapable of following. Wasenlightened denies this. I accuse him of false consciousness. The level of fear at Google seems excessive if Wasenlightened perceptions are accurate. In an environment where one has a large number of female affirmative action employees, filtering for political correctness is going to filter for stupidity since smart people will be perceived as discriminating against the less smart.
Our universities have been dumbed down so that they no longer teach what high school used to teach.
Academic credentials are not indicators that one has learned anything useful, or indeed learned anything at all, rather they are filters for intelligence and diligence, and, due to degree inflation and the inclusion of women and blacks, very poor filters at the upper end.
Used to be that graduating high school proved you were pretty smart. Now, graduating Harvard does not show you are smart.
I propose degree deflation:
Smart kids can learn in high school maths to calculus and trig, science to special relativity, how to calculate pi from first principles, geography, history of western civilization, and can absorb the western culture and western civilization that university no longer teaches.
I propose that the lower two thirds, pretty much everyone below IQ 106, fails to get a school leaving certificate and leaves school at the start of puberty. The somewhat smarter and more diligent people, IQ 106 to IQ 120, about a quarter of the population, also leave school at the start of puberty, but with a school leaving certificate. The smart people, 120 and up, the top ten percent, graduate high school. Ten percent of that ten percent, the top one percent, people 135 and up, take a two year university course.
Attempting to use academic credentials to filter to smarter than the top one percent is unlikely to succeed, because of demand for lengthy recreational degrees. If we try to get an elite smarter than 135, going to need some new filtering mechanism. Also, using academic credentials as a filter means you are up against the bureaucratic imperative to expand. If one is supposedly in the business of educating people, one is naturally inclined to claim that the education is beneficial, and can benefit everyone, rather than acting as a filter. Thus academic institutions have an incentive to subvert their filter function, and thus an incentive to stupidify the elite.
We used to have a public service exam, a requirement for government employment in functions likely to exercise power, that was IQ heavy, though it also tested for diligence by requiring you to memorize a lot of useless nonsense. Unfortunately, this, of course, had disparate impact. Simply re-instituting the exam would dramatically improve elite function, and one could simply make it a substantially tougher exam for anyone in the system at a level likely to make policy. On the other hand, the Chinese mandarinate tried this and it worked extremely badly. The mandarins were not all that smart. It is hard to make a filter that works when everyone is trying to game the system. But it is not as hard as making a filter that works when you are trying to be inclusive.
Economic leftism, workers against capitalists, died with the Soviet Union. Now it is women and nonwhites against white heterosexual males.
American Hindus have extremely high incomes and are extremely reliable Democrat voters. Hindus are the opposite end of income and education spectrum to Mexicans, yet vote the same.
Old fashioned economic leftism doesn’t explain this.
And yet there is the sense that something is being redistributed.
The country itself is being redistributed from white heterosexual males to a coalition of almost everybody else. And it makes sense for any ambitious newcomer to try and get a piece of the action. Because they can.
Resentment isn’t required, but no one wants to consciously think he is just joining the looter coalition. So resentment is required, and is speedily manufactured.
And since each white wants to be last to be fed to the crocodiles, the whites in the ruling coalition will echo that resentment with double the enthusiasm, and will each be twice as keen on feeding other whites in the ruling coalition to the crocodiles. The situation of white heterosexual males in the ruling elite is similar to that of Jews in the Bolshevik party or intellectuals in the Khmer Rouge. The Bolshevik party was pretty much all Jewish, and the Khmer Rouge pretty much all intellectuals, but the climate of hostility and suspicion directed at Jews among the Bolsheviks, and at intellectuals amongst the Khmer Rouge, was such that they were busily purging each other, until none were left.
Parts of this post cheerfully stolen from Handle’s member’s only post. As usual, anything really horrifying is probably my revisions and not in Handle’s original.
I have not been watching Game of Thrones since they killed off every character I cared about, but the recent fuss about rape caused me to watch the latest episode. To see the controversy, fast forward to the end. All the rest is people you don’t know or care about talking about things you do not understand, apart from a scene where the youngest Stark kid gets the beating she has long deserved.
Game of thrones piously promotes the Victorian myth that women don’t like sex.
Nah, women don’t like sex with you.
They really like sex with the manliest man around. Fertile age women are ten times as horny as men. Because of the immense risk and hazards of pregnancy in the ancestral environment, if women were not extremely keen on sex, human race would have become extinct shortly after women figured out the connection between penis in vagina sex and pregnancy. Trouble is that the manliest man around is usually the guy in a romance book or a romance movie, who is ten times as manly as any real life person around. Or perhaps the man she is pining for is a real person who dropped a load into her in a five minute meeting in the executive toilet, and she has been pining for that man ever since, what Roissy calls alpha widowhood, as for example Monica Lewinsky pining for Bill Clinton.
Since the manliest man in the Game of Thrones universe, as women measure manliness, is undoubtedly her husband, realistically Sansa Stark would have started tearing his clothes off with her teeth before he got a chance to bring her to the wedding.
We need to ban romance novels where there is a ridiculous disparity between the attractiveness of the male protagonist and the female protagonist. Such a ban would bring our fertility rate right up. Ugly fat forty year old women with kids divorce their husbands because they expect to marry a handsome billionaire athlete. Happens all the time in books.
In an environment of casual sex where family formation is generally failing, we would expect any female past fertile age to get no attention, any female approaching the reduced fertility age to get substantially reduced attention, and any physically fit man to get about the same attention regardless of age, though old physically fit men are considerably less common than young physically fit men.
And that is biology. Old women do not score old men. (Unless they married them when both were young, and were good wives all their years)
And in an environment of family formation, we would expect considerably greater emphasis on female youth and virginity – in such an environment, older male movie starts would be discriminated against, but older female movie stars much more discriminated against, female movie stars would be washed up and over the hill at twenty, so a common movie scenario would be an older long established male romantic lead, with a bunch of successful movies under his belt, forty years old playing a thirty five year old, romances a character played by a seventeen year old actress, whereas in our current environment of casual sex without family formation, there is no reason why Sean Connery could not romance twenty year olds till he drops, except for feminist meltdown.
Obama is of course a Muslim, progressive, and anticolonialist who hates America and wishes to see America defeated, but allowing Ramadi, and indeed Iraq, to be lost was pretty sensible.
The underlying Bush theory was that Iraq would become a well run democracy, like Switzerland, where the Shia majority elected nice moderate progressives, thereby counterbalancing the dangerous influence of the Shia religious crazies in Iran. The middle east would become moderate progressive, rather than Muslim.
As it worked out the elected government Shia government in Iraq was oppressive and intolerant, its primary function being to distribute goodies to voting blocks. The populace conspicuously failed to throw flowers at our troops. The Sunni murderously hated us for removing them from power. The Shia hated us for revealing to the world their incapacity to rule. The influence of Iran keeps them saner – well, less insane – than they would otherwise be.
Progressives, including Obama, misremembered Bush as saying “We will go in to steal their oil”, and so believed that when they were running things, instead of Bush, then the locals would throw flowers at us and elect nice moderate progressives. Thus, “Arab Spring”, which was Bush on steroids with double the already grating optimism. They then discovered that the Iraqi willingness to elect moderate progressives was proportional to US willingness to kick ass, and the locals figured the progressives had no will to kick ass.
Tunisia is perhaps proceeding to democratic progressivism, as originally envisaged in Arab Spring. Morocco is undemocratically proceeding to progressivism because the King commands progressivism. The rest of the countries of the Arab spring were disasters.
The past history of progressive kings is that usually King gets violently overthrown, is remembered as an incredibly brutal reactionary, and is replaced by a horrifying tyranny, but so far Tunisia and Morroco are working out OK – for progressives. Rest of the progressive plan is going to hell.
Since Tony Abbot has been elected prime minister of Australia, no one is known to have successfully illegally immigrated to Australia. Their boat goes back, or if they are unusually stubborn and persistent, they wind up in a military run prison camp in a third world hell hole. From time to time progressives complain about the conditions in these camps. As far as is known, no one has yet wound up in Davey Jones locker, though some have come close.
It looks like one hundred percent successful enforcement and if it is not, it is mighty close to one hundred percent.
Illegal immigration can be stopped. Completely. You have to break a few eggs, and maybe set a few boats on fire. There are underage orphans in those prison camps (and if there are not, the Australian government says that there are so that no one thinks that they can successfully play the pity card), but you don’t have to drown or shoot anyone.
Under international pressure, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia have agreed to accept the illegal immigrants for up to a year, in return for first world promises that the illegals will then go to some first world country – presumably Australia. The Australian government has other ideas. Presumably the pressure will escalate on Australia, while simultaneously, with a deal guaranteeing illegal migrants unspecified first world residence, we can expect a gigantic flood of illegals piling up in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
The flood is going to rapidly grow to spectacular and alarming proportions, so either Thailand and Malaysia are going to get screwed (which I think is the most likely outcome), or Europe and America is going to take this lot (second most likely outcome), or Australia yields, which I think is the least likely outcome, because Tony Abbot has balls.
The plan, however, is that Australia will take them. As illegals pile up in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, pressure will increase on Australia.
This growing pile of illegals will be the camp of the Saints. The plan was probably to rewrite history that Australia had implicitly agreed to take them, and then shame Australia for failing to live up to this implicit and unstated promise, but Tony Abbot’s swift application of a flamethrower has made that rewrite difficult. Anyone joining the camp is expecting an airlift to Europe or the United States, not Australia.