PBS: Bill Kristol’s Son-in-law Denounces “Alt-right” Nobodies Because They “Believe in Hierarchies”

Posted on August 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: … Continetti, like all respectable conservatives, hates the very idea of hierarchies. Look at how Continetti’s father-in-law, William Kristol, came up the hard way from the ground up without a privilege in the world, what with being the son of Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, getting hired by Dan Quayle, and having Rupert Murdoch give him millions to start a magazine…

284335-1_m

The next thing these pathetic freaks will be telling you is that men and women should ease off waging the War of the Genders against each other because they are happier when they are fraternizing with the enemy.

But that’s just sick…

It’s almost as if 25 years ago Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, and Pat Buchanan noticed the Cold War had ended and therefore it was time for some new ideas.

But real Americans know that the eternal enemy is the Czar…

Why don’t Americans just shut up and do as they are told? What’s with all this critical thinking lately?

…The little people in the conservative ranks must drop all this fringe, marginal nonsense about “hierarchies” and go back to obeying their betters, like in the good old days when Bill Buckley and Bill Kristol told them what they could think and who they could read, and they didn’t have the impudence to give the Bills any lip.

When the Bills had M.J. Sobran banned, conservatives let Joe go off and die in poverty.

Now that was respect!

What’s wrong with this country today? Why don’t commoners listen to their natural superiors anymore?

…Those bastards. Why isn’t there deference anymore toward the legitimate dynasties of Conservatism Inc., the Kristol-Continettis, the Podhoretzes? Why have people stopped reading Commentary? Just because the editor is an ill-tempered idiot shouldn’t stop conservatives from doing their duty and reading his bad magazine. Look, JPod is the editor of Commentary because he’s Norman Podhoretz’s son. Doesn’t that mean anything to you people anymore?

Not letting yourself be bullied by John Podhoretz is like voting for George Washington instead of submitting to King George III.

It’s un-American.

COMMENTS:

* I knew Weigel a bit when we were both teenagers. I liked him, he’s smart and honest in a friendly aspie-awkward way. It does not surprise me he’s basically the only MSM journalist who is willing to give an honest, non-shrieking description of the alt-right. How many others have even bothered once to note our opposition to all the Bush/Clinton/Obama stupid foreign wars?

I think everyone supporting Trump needs to make the point, wherever we can, that we believe in free speech and free exchange of ideas. Hillary Clinton in her speech did not engage with the ideas of the alt-right, she simply denounced it.

One of the things Hillary did was list various politically incorrect Breitbart headlines, and ascribe them to Trump. So what, Trump is responsible now for every word on a large multi-author website that one of his employees manages?

The Islamic/left coalition runs terror operations against those whose ideas it disagrees with. The Islamic end murders Theo Van Gough, the left end murders Pim Fortyn. What Hillary wants is for Steve Bannon not to lose to her in an exchange of ideas, but be silenced and run off any respectable job.

* I got the feeling that a lot of what Weigel said on Journolist was to fit in with the “cool kids” like Ezra. You could tell even five or so years ago that he was interested in Sailer and Alt Rightish ideas, even if he doesn’t agree with them. He is smarter than the average journo for sure.

* What’s the joke Murray Rothbard used to tell…there are only 12 neoconservatives in America, and 11 of them are syndicated columnists?

* Here is my list of top neo-conservatives, ranked in official order. Yes, they are hierarchical.

1. Dick Cheney – Official War Starter, Official Provider of Big Oil and Military Contractor Funding, Black Éminence grise

2. William Kristol – Chief of Staff, Chief of Ideological Enforcement Division (Hereditary Position, inherited from father Irving)

3. John Bolton – Chief Envoy to the Hard Right

3. Jeffrey Goldberg – Chief Envoy to Liberal Democrats

5. Robert Kagan – Chief of Kagans

6. John McCain – Official Senator

* Don’t know about the Kristol family situation, but it reminds me of David Brooks’ now-ex-wife. When he married her, she converted (from Baptist?) to Brooks’ Judaism, and, to mix metaphors, became more papal than the Pope, as the Germans put it. The full Monty of Orthodox observance, including mikvah baths (don’t know if it was the same DC synagogue where the rabbi turned out to be a peeping tom at the mikvah). Now that Brooks has kicked her to the curb, I have to wonder what her bearings are now.

Ezra Klein is I think the only straight Journolister to have *not* married a shiksa.

* I mean I’m all for equality before the law and a reasonable attempt to provide equality of opportunity.

This is the egalitarian idea that I can support. Of course the well known problem of inequality of outcomes will come to the fore. At that point it will break down because it is very difficult to divine whether the inequality of outcomes was not in some way tilted by inequality of opportunity. If you are HBD-woke then you know that we will have unequal outcomes, but that wokeness will not let you definitively understand or parse the equality of opportunity questions. The second part is that by knowing we will have unequal outcomes, regardless of whether we have starting equality, what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?

* Spencer seems to have been fairly effective at starting something. He’s been more successful at giving air to dissident (but true) ideas than any number of other young intellectuals who have gone to man the megaphone at NRO (an appropriately, tasteful and and conservatively down-sized megaphone, mind you). He’s been more effective at standing up for something that might actually be called “conservative” than, for example, Matthew Continetti.

* I don’t think that he really meant hierarchy in the sense that the left still believes that armies should not have ranks, orchestras should not have conductors, etc. – that was abandoned by pretty much everyone a long time ago (especially since the left, once it gained power, became even MORE hierarchical than the right).

Rather, he was trying to come up with a different word for “racist” and “sexist” since those words have pretty much been stripped of all meaning. So belief in “hierarchy” in his sense means opposition to the leftist meme that all humans have exactly same potential in every field of endeavor, or “anti-blank slatist”. You could say that there is a “hierarchy” of natural talent in sprinting, where West African Blacks stand at the top and Ashkenazi Jews rank near the bottom. Or, and this is where it gets dangerous, a hierarchy of talent in physics that runs the other way. Or a “sexual hierarchy” where men make better firefighters and masons than women due to upper body strength, etc. and women make better kindergarten teachers.

Now the “hierarchical” view has the advantage of actually conforming with reality, but humans often prefer fantasy to reality. If we could only believe in things that had a basis in reality, where would this leave religion? Now you could say that basing your entire political system on a religious belief that doesn’t correspond with reality is a really bad idea, but our society is not the first time this has been tried.

* “what if anything should we do to ameliorate the harsher conditions of the outcomes?”

Exactly what is already being done: handouts.

The bottom line is that a people who had not risen to a certain stage of civilization, dependent on selection pressures and technological momentum encountered only on the Eurasian landmass, were dragged into that stage by merchants. They cannot be brought up to speed for the simple fact that they have not been selected for the drives which eventuated in that civilization. They are absolute dead-weight by necessity.

Natural selection obtains or it doesn’t. If one is “HBD-woke”, one should bear well in mind that different groups means different drives, impulses, instincts, or whatever you wish to call it, from which a certain threshold of society proceeds given local conditions. The error isn’t Democratic policies; it’s assuming that there is a solution at all to the Völkerchaos other than waiting for it to collapse from the weight of its own unprecedented squandering of resources.

Note: I am not a fetishist of Western civilization. I believe it is absolutely doomed, obviously, and am much more at home among “lower” stages of society mocked by white nationalists. A people still scraping by in straw huts in the middle of some huge national preserve have it much better than we do, in my opinion. But they’re doomed too, of course.

* I can’t speak to the history of Richard Spencer, but he is much more articular and philosophically grounded than any other person I’ve read on the Alt Right (excluding Steve).

I enjoy reading/watching many of the articles on his website Radix.com.

Let’s cut him some slack… the guy has guts – he’s been banned in over a dozen countries for publicly speaking out for the Alt Right. I wish there were more people on the Alt Right like him.

* Of course, some of the basic themes of the alt-right or alt-* (though henceforth I’ll just use “alt-right” as the generic) movement have been kicked around, and to a good degree implemented, in previous decades and eras. Nationalism in many forms has flourished in the past, which presents many potential models.

But in fact the basic ideas of the alt-right have just begun to be worked through at this stage. There are indeed a great many incompatible approaches that have already been floated.

Among the approaches:

–Citizenism, as suggested by Steve

–Rejection of a “proposition nation” in favor of a nation built upon a specific culture

–Some form of “white nationalism” which recognizes the interests of whites as being appropriate to organize around and identify with

Even a moment’s reflection on these different approaches suggests vastly different principles and policies as outcomes.

Personally, I like the idea of citizenism. It has the most clarity, is minimally disruptive, seems most fair to all, and deals most directly with the facts on the ground in any given nation: if you’re a citizen, we all have to deal with you, and you have to deal with all of us.

* This is what intrigues me about Donald Trump. While I don’t see Trump identifying himself with Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran and others of the “alt-right” (I’ve always just heard them called “paleoconservatives” to distinguish them from the “neoconservatives” who made up this discussion), and certainly not Ron Paul, it is clear Trump’s opponents in the GOP identify them with him. And it is that which they object to about Donald Trump, not his overinflated ego, his narcissism, his childish name-calling, which have repulsed most of the nation. They are not afraid of Donald Trump, the TV personality, who is perfectly at home with them in the world of the Clintons, the Giulianis, the Christies, and the others of “New York values”. They are afraid of his ideological values or goals, or rather the goals with which he identifies himself in his pursuit of election, because Trump holds no ideological values.

And while Weigel is accurate in describing the origins of today’s current “anti-intervention”, “anti-government” movement in the 2007 opening of Ron Paul’s first Presidential campaign (the December “moneybomb” timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, and hence the use of the term “Tea Party” to represent this movement), and the work of Buchanan and Sobran which laid the foundation and led people like me to Ron Paul, they are wrong to try to separate this movement from the likes of Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. While Buckley separated himself from Sobran and Buchanan in the late 80′s and 90′s, particularly at the end of the Cold War (which he came to regret near the end of his life, in the midst of the neo-cons’ “Global War on Terror”) it was he, Reagan, and Barry Goldwater who represented everything which attracts the “alt-Right” today. It was their anti-leveling impulse, their opposition to “egalitarianism” which led all these men to oppose the Civil Rights Acts of the 60′s, not racism (and Buckley, for one, was always adamant in separating himself from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and the like), which bound us together in what were the formative years of my political worldview. In the perpetual struggle (at least since the French and American Revolutions) between the libertarian and the egalitarian we recognized the pendulum in America had swung too far to the latter. When asked to describe myself in College Republican circles I chose not “libertarian” but “anti-egalitarian”. We were supporters of the Cold War, zealous anti-Communists, because Communism was then the most powerful form taken by egalitarianism. Most of the political left in America then, the “pinkos”, the “fellow travelers”, the socialists, the anti-anti-Communists, the Communists in everything but name only, were avowed egalitarians. We knew they were the enemy.

Today, the Goldwater-Reagan Republican, the anti-Communist, the anti-egalitarian, knows that Russia ceased to be America’s enemy when Russia ceased to be Communist. If it is excessively authoritarian (and the U.S. government is today far more authoritarian – anti-libertarian – than it was in the 60′s), suppressive of “human rights” (many of which are egalitarian inventions), well, that is par for the course among the many anti-communist foreign governments we supported during the Cold War. If we no longer support these “right wing” regimes around the world, there is neither any reason for us to oppose them. It is not for America to reform the world to our liking (or, rather, the egalitarians’ liking). It is for Americans to perfect respect for and enforcement of Americans’ liberties in our own country, and hold our example up to the rest of the world. And then we protect ourselves from foreign incursions, invasions of spirit as well as of body. Nothing more.

If the issue in the Fall campaign is not whether Donald Trump, for all that he is and says, will win or lose, but rather, should the political movement which has succeeded to that of Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan, Buchanan, and Ron Paul lose, then the imperative for their followers is not only that Hillary Clinton must lose, but that Trump, loathsome and inconsistent as he is, must win.

* White Nationalism used to be called “Americanism” and was as American as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, who both espoused it. Americanism celebrates American culture as mostly Anglo-Celtic, with a minor key of Africans, Hispanics, and Amerindians; with big dose of Catholic and Jewish immigrants offering variations on Anglo-Celtic themes.

White Identity is not a reaction to the failed Conservatives, but the increasingly stridently anti-White identity movements of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians etc. Don’t want White Identity, don’t make Whites a discriminated minority with every other racial group embracing Identity spoils politics aimed directly at Whites and White Men especially.

Hillary, Bill, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, all created White Identity.

If King wanted White support for AA he should have made sure poor Whites were in on the party. Not just Blacks/Hispanics.

* Having a safety net creates a “moral hazard” (this is the insurance term for the risk that you’ll burn your own building down to collect the insurance). Scandinavia is an extreme example but we see the same thing in the US. Scandinavians are hard working but have an elaborate safety net so that you can stay home if you are injured, elderly, caring for a newborn, etc. Part of the social compact of the locals is “I will work hard and contribute my share whenever I can, but if I can’t then the society will take care of me.” This is exactly the kind of arrangement that you speak about in your post – society as in effect a giant extended family.

Now you introduce into that society say Somalis, who have no Calvinist tradition of hard work or loyalty to anyone beside their immediate family. And for whom life on the dole in Stockholm is far richer than they could achieve working back home. The result is that they act as parasites on their host society. They are glad to be on the receiving end of the social compact but don’t buy into the giving end at all. And this is even before you take into account that due to lower levels of skill, education, IQ, etc. they are in no position to contribute much even if they wanted to, which they don’t.

So this is how you end up with Merkel’s Boner – she sees a million able bodied young men who will prop up the German social welfare system as it fills with the aged, but the reality is that these young men will take whatever they can get – free gropes on New Year’s Eve, free everything, but contribute little.

* Defining/arguing about a standard definition of alt-right is a silly exercise. It’s not a prescriptive ideology, it’s an attitude, a perspective that is an alternative to what’s pejoratively called Conservatism, Inc., and the GOPe. The iSteve formulation of opposition to “invade the world, invite the world” policies seems the connective tissue.

The rest is an attempt to pigeon-hole folks into categories that are not politically correct, as beyond reputable discussion by the use of ad hominem. It is the same exclusionary tactic deployed by the prog-left to command the language.

* In a “multicultural” society, there will almost certainly be groups who are a net plus, and those who are a net minus, from the standpoint of need of governmental services. How do nations cope with the expectations and potential resentments these disparities create, given that the disparities are effectively intractable? Obviously, the fewer disparities and the fewer number of those caught up in them, the better.

But nations are effectively, and at best, pretty much stuck with the demographics and disparities that already exist, even if cutting down on immigration will prevent their worsening. What kind of social system suits these situations? Is a more “socialistic” society the right solution for a homogeneous one, and a more “individualistic” society the right solution for one riddled with disparities?

This problem becomes especially poignant when one considers nations like South Africa. How can that nation ever be made to work, given the parties and numbers involved?

There are really deep and genuine problems here — problems all masked by the “egalitarian” dogma of our day, which assumes that these problems will just go away when the “racism” goes away.

If we had political and philosophical and social thinkers worthy of the name, these would be the issues they would attempt to address.

We have, instead, of course, blind, sermonizing, preening poseurs.

Posted in Alt Right, Neoconservatives | Comments Off on PBS: Bill Kristol’s Son-in-law Denounces “Alt-right” Nobodies Because They “Believe in Hierarchies”

Hillary: Trump Would Ban 1.5 Billion Muslims from Entering the U.S.

Posted on August 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

Screenshot-2016-08-26-02.36.53

Hillary takes skepticism about Muslim immigration very personally. To Hillary, American immigration policy is, first and foremost, all about her Huma.

195616_5_

COMMENTS:

* They make a lovely couple. Both are officially “married” to pervert/sex offenders, but they found true love in each other’s arms. A heartwarming tale of an elderly matriarch and her comely Arab mistress.

* If Crooked Hildabeast becomes president, Huma Abedin will be America’s first Muslim first lady. You just know Hilda is tapping that.

Hildabeast is J. Edgar Hoover and Huma Abedin is Clyde Anderson Tolson.

* Matching shirts for couple, clearly the one on the right is butch.

* Is that Chelsea in the background between the two of them? Can’t help but wonder how she feels about having two pervert parents.

* 1.5 billion Muslims includes a lot of Somalians.

Here’s a lady who “back-talked” a couple of heckling Somalians who were randomly passing by her house when she was in her front yard. It got really shitty, really fast. In too many places where Obama’s Somali’s are planted, episodes like this transpire.
This isn’t the America I want to know:

* Has anyone with the Trump campaign attempted to reach out to immigrant groups like Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh & Christian South Asians, Burmese, Thais and Middle Easterners who all have very negative memories of Islam from their homelands.

Living on the far Southside of Indianapolis where we have many recent Christian Burmese, (mostly Chin), Sikhs and Naga people (Christian Indians from Nagaland) immigrants I can tell you Hillary’s project to flood Indianapolis in particular with “Syrian” and Somali “refugees” is unpopular in the extreme not just with us Hoosiers but with our new neighbors as well.

* Huma is a security threat, probably passing on tidbits to her family members who in turn pass it on. Along with her private server Clinton has been a security disaster. According to Wikipedia Bill Clinton performed the wedding ceremony for her marriage to Anthony Weiner. Both women are married to sexual degenerates, a very weird situation but perhaps that fits the picture of women with lesbian tendencies who find men to marry but therefore have to make compromises in their special arrangements.

* Mainstream politicians in Australia are calling for a muslim ban. A breakfast TV host, who was a model, also called for it. Watch her clumsily defend the position.

None of this would have happened if trump hadn’t called for it. And as you said a few days ago, trump just stumbled upon it. The part ‘luck’ plays in history is the timing of events. Trump jump-started events which were bound to happen.

* Huma Weiner so obviously banked on Carlos Danger easily climbing the political ranks and affording her a lifetime of taxpayer-funded luxury, just like ol’ Hillary and Bill. You would have to be either braindead or a true sociopath to be okay with Bill Clinton officiating at your wedding, and yet it seems that the toxic brew of personality disorders and greed afflicted not only the Clintons but both Huma and Carlos as well. These qualities most likely cemented their early spiritual and psychological bond with the Clintons…and what a lifelong bond it is…

Alas! (((Carlos))) was but a mere rat-faced intellectual mediocrity and narcissistic, lackluster pol, preferring to indulge his sex addiction come what may. He and wife were not afforded the total North Korea-style propaganda whitewashing of his crimes (again, a la Bill and Hillary) in the mainstream press, and the harsh truths of the Internet laid bare the depravities of the Weiners for all to see. And what a depraved world it was…

Their gravy train was derailed! So now he’s taking care of the kid while Huma fulfills the feminist working-woman fantasy of carrying Hillary’s bags, scheduling granny naptime, disposing of various criminal evidence – and all the while printing out Sid Blumenthal’s emails.

What a heartbreaking story of Carlos and Huma Weiner – grifters that were never quite able to grift like their mentors….

Weiner political dynasty, R.I.P.!

* Isn’t Huma Abedin the real Manchurian candidate? How can someone be so close to (someone who is likely to become) the most powerful person in the world and at the very least have questionable connections to Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood? I just don’t understand it.

Then again I still don’t understand how someone named “Barack Hussein Obama” could be elected president of the United States just seven years after a massive Islamist terrorist attack on the U.S. That’s like someone named “Hiroshi Sato” defeating Truman in 1948.

* Can someone ask Mrs. Clinton (or her surrogates): What are we getting from Muslim immigration that offsets the increased risk of terrorism? Are we importing a bunch of Muslim Einsteins and Edisons along with the Omar Mateens and Syed Farooks (or their parents, in any case)? Why can’t we do a simple cost-benefit analysis? Can’t someone at least raise the question?

* I’ve come to appreciate the importance that the Empire of Inclusion and Diversity places on Hillary’s election. For a moment, think of the pokemon points that she can win for the Empire:

1. Hillary is a (suspected) woman.
2. Hillary is a (suspected) lesbian.
3. Hillary is at least a 2nd-wave feminist who was impregnated by someone to “have one for the experience”.
4. Hillary will try to fake a southern accent when talking to southern “rednecks”.
5. Hillary will try to speak ebonics when talking to Afro-Americans. She is also willing to share the “in your face” aspects of female African culture.
6. Hillary is equally at ease with the Wolves on Wall Street.
7. Like Obama, there is a special place in her heart for 1.5 billion potential Muslim immigrants (does her special relationship with Huma have anything to do with this?).
8. She is married to a beta male who manifests a degree of masochism on account of his troubled relationship with an over-dominant mother. Bill also has a felt need to overcome feelings in inadequacy due to that relationship by raping and sexually abusing women … everyone but Hillary who perhaps represents the “mother figure” in his life. In short, Bill and Hillary have sadomasochism covered.
9. She gets pokemon points for running for President at her age (the retired community needs representation).
10. She gets pokemon points for being physically handicapped (the physically handicapped community needs representation).
11. She gets pokemon points for being mentally handicapped (think of the community support she can get on this one).
12. Finally, Hillary gets pokemon point for being emotional handicapped. Hillary has manifested the behaviors of a sociopath since her college days (but for some reason the DSM-5 prefers to call this the Borderline Personality Disorder).

There you have it. Hillary is the perfect candidate for the Empire of Inclusion and Diversity. She can cover the gamut of perhaps almost every abnormal condition, social deviancy, and physical handicap that exists in the contemporary world. She is indeed the perfect candidate to represent the troubled people in our troubled world, although I am less enthusiastic about her ability to do anything about the troubles.

* She’s alright, marriageable if she had a great personality.

“You’re comely enough, Huma.”

* I’ve wondered if Hillary thought Bill’s demise would help her win the election, how long would it take her to exchange those horrid blue outfits for some widow’s weeds. And how far Huma would go to help her.

* Can you blame Weiner for seeking alternative outlets for his sex drive while being but a beard to the ugly lesbian concubine of Hillary? Carlos Danger I feel your pain!

* Bacha Bazi is the name of the venerable tradition where Muslim men force a pre-pubescent boy into sexual slavery. The boy learns to dance and sing like a quasi-woman for the entertainment of men, and services them to varying degrees. It is practiced widely among Pashtuns and other groups.

* I’m not a believer in the whole Hillary-Huma romance thing. I doubt Hillary would have married Bill if she’d been lesbian. I suspect that for Hillary, lackeys are more important than lovers, especially this late in her life. I leaned a lot when I heard the story about how Hillary would snap the word ‘gum’ at Huma, and instantly, Huma would have the gum out, all ready for Hillary to chew. That sort of sycophancy is freakish. It did explain why Huma has stuck it out with Anthony Weiner. She’s a trad Muslim masochistic female. It’s recently emerged that Huma has authored articles in defense of traditional Muslims families and lifestyles. However, this makes it more likely that she’s not liberated at all, but a sympathizer with the Islamic radicals in her family.

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Islam | Comments Off on Hillary: Trump Would Ban 1.5 Billion Muslims from Entering the U.S.

Where Are the Black Rudy Giulianies?

Posted on August 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Robert Weissberg writes:

Reaction to the recent Milwaukee riot has followed a predictable script and for liberals this requires insisting that that blacks themselves are largely blameless for the “uprising.” But, even if liberals admit that some Milwaukee residents were guilty, they will nevertheless claim that these miscreants, typically unemployed school dropouts, are only a minuscule element in an otherwise law-abiding, peaceful population. In other words, we should not smear an entire community by the actions of a tiny untypical handful.

This “only a few bad apples” view is factually incorrect—the pathologies are far more extensive than a few attention-getting rioters. To be sure, thousands of Milwaukee inner-city residents did not take to the streets and a few residents did denounce the mayhem. Nevertheless, the penchant for disorderly behavior, and this includes criminality, is more deeply ingrained in these black neighborhoods than the liberal-dominated mainstream media admits.

This unflattering assessment rests on a dog that does not bark: if the overwhelming majority of ordinary ghetto residents—as liberals usually claim– are so opposed to the thuggery punctuated by occasional rioting, where are the ambitious local politicians anxious to capitalize on this supposed thirsting for law and order? After all, it is rare office-seeker who will shun any type of pandering almost guaranteeing electoral victory.

Indeed, if, as many liberals allege, the trouble-makers are exclusively poorly educated youngsters who almost never vote, why would black office-seekers pay them any attention? Why should elected black officials traffic in responsibility escaping justification—white racism, oppression, rotten schools, years of financial neglect, bigoted cops—when, supposedly, thousands of law-abiding residents dread neighborhood predators? How many votes can Black Lives Matter deliver? If economic self-interest motivated voters, the Hobbesian inner-city should be the ideal place for a black Rudi Giuliani. It would not take much for this black Rudy to woo ghetto residents with the benefits of tough policing: more tax-paying businesses, more convenient shopping, more jobs, safer public parks and, most of all, enhanced personal freedom. Why don’t all those African American preachers who organize anti-violence rallies run for office? If the bad guys are just a small minority, surely these Reverends would win in a landslide.

Why the absence of black law and order Giulianis? Let me hypothesize two probably over-lapping possibilities, both of which, if true, bode poorly for future efforts at reducing criminality and rioting. First, and most obviously, is the ghetto culture that permeates black neighborhoods in cities like Milwaukee. This culture rejects anything “white” and nothing is more quintessentially “white” than law and order. In fact, the very phrase “law and order” and “crime” have now widely viewed by self-designated community spokesmen as the code word for racism.

This aversion even applies to the small stuff like eliminating graffiti or cracking down on public drinking. In an electoral contest between a fire-breathing black nationalist (a good “race man” to use an older terminology) who denounces white privilege as the root of black misery and a mild- mannered rival who modestly calls for making parks drug-free, the firebrand will almost always win. Hard to even imagine a black Rudy Giuliani campaigning in the Hood. Recall the long successful career of Washington DC’s Marion Berry, a dissolute crackhead whose popularity among blacks totally baffled law-and-order whites.

A second explanation is more rational: even many upright inner-city blacks personally have more to lose than to gain by electing a black Giuliani. Though it is impossible to admit in public, many inner-city blacks at least occasionally engage in petty drug dealing, prostitution, public intoxication, shoplifting, misusing EBT cards, fencing stolen goods (including guns), small-time gambling, and similar unsavory behaviors. Strict law and order will thus invariably restore mass incarceration which in practice means imprisoning family members (especially teenage children), boyfriends/girlfriends and neighbors, a situation that many whites find unimaginable given their minimal contact with criminals. Put another way, a “broken windows” campaign is perhaps the most disparate policy imaginable and a costly one, too, given fines and lawyer fees. In a sense, the damage done by the corner drug dealers or burning down the local CVS pharmacy (as occurred in the Baltimore riot) is a tolerable alternative to locking up these miscreants, all of whom are blood relatives of other community residents. Again, this trade-off is unthinkable to middle class whites watching the mayhem on TV.

Taken together, this bodes poorly for government-based efforts to ameliorate black slums of Milwaukee, East St. Louis, Detroit and Camden, NJ and elsewhere. It is delusional to believe that millions of black inner-city residents are silently waiting to be rescued by a black Giuliani who refuses to be intimidates by Black Lives Matter and street gangs. After all, these cities have been festering for decades, more than sufficient time for a black law and order Messiah to arrive. Read on.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Where Are the Black Rudy Giulianies?

Are Black Neighborhoods ‘Segregated’?

Posted on August 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: We’re always being told that white flight occurred because whites succumb to irrational Stereotypes about blacks being crime prone, so, logically, these black families are saving a bundle by living by in safe yet low rent neighborhoods. You could, for example, save your money on housing and send your kids to private school.

I guess, however, because the NYT describes black neighborhoods as “segregated” it mean it’s a bad thing. “Segregated” is the mirror image of “diverse,” which is a good thing. NFL starting cornerbacks are “diverse,” while East St. Louis is “segregated.”…

For example, there’s no quality housing in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side of Chicago. It’s been falling apart ever since blacks started moving in 49 years ago.

Sure, the original housing stock in Austin wasn’t all that different from across the Austin Avenue in Oak Park, but that’s not what we mean by “quality.” What we mean by “quality” is that the people living in the housing have enough wealth and determination to be able to get away from poor people. The working definition of a poor person in modern America is somebody who can’t afford to get away from other poor people.

In Oak Park, they stayed away from poor people, so that’s “quality.” In Austin they didn’t so that’s “not quality.”

…In other words, blacks tend to be bad for property values, just like all those horrible racists told my in-laws in the Austin neighborhood in 1967. They didn’t believe them, but when they finally moved out in 1970 after three felonies against their family, losing half their net worth, they admitted that maybe the bigots had had a point…

White Flight is the main form of ethnic cleansing in which we all agree to blame the victims…

Milwaukee itself, which is nearly two-thirds nonwhite, has never elected a black mayor.

Whereas cities that elected a long stream of black mayors, like Detroit and New Orleans, have worked out well for blacks.

“At school, the Sabir children have heard a teacher play down slavery, and classmates stereotype black neighborhoods as bad and drug infested. On their block, where the sidewalks are cracked and some empty lots have been turned into gardens, they occasionally see drugs and fights.”

In other words, the stereotypes are truthful, which just makes them more hateful hate-filled.

Truth Is Hate.

Thus, as our Presidential frontrunner explains in her ongoing Conversation, it is the duty of all good Americans to hate the truth.

COMMENTS:

* One hears a lot about how residents in Ferguson righteously rioted in response to systemic injustices like racking up lots of civil fines (could have a point) to the black majority failing to elected very many blacks to the school board and town council (so what). Same thing with Milwaukee , Baltimore and elsewhere.

Unmentioned is that the behavior of these young revolutionaries destroyed what little appeal their neighborhoods had to start with and millions of dollars of whatever homeowner equity existed. Therefore there are thousands of people who cannot sell their properties at a price that makes sense so the option is to stay and try and ride it out or leave and rent elsewhere and rent out their homes to people willing to live in a high crime/high social dysfunction neighborhood.

This process has played out much more slowly in urban areas across the country – the societal tolerance of cultural dysfunction in black neighborhoods that is unlike any other segment of society means that high concentrations of working to lower class blacks means property values will drop off a cliff as surely as the sun sets in the west. The left has for decades demanded non-judgment of dysfunctional behavior from its most treasured part of its base, and we can see the results. Now they are trying to peddle the narrative that it’s a collection of racist policies that haven’t existed for half a century or more that has made black neighborhoods hellholes, but even the most ardent black political voices (TNC, Spike Lee) don’t want to live in “real” black neighborhoods either if they can help it.

* Money does not mean successful real estate investments. Black athletes and the homes they build are a case in point. Michael Jordan’s 56,000 sq.ft estate in Chicago featured wrought iron gates with his uniform number embedded in them, an indoor basketball court, a beauty salon and 19 bathrooms but had to be auctioned off.

Michael Vick spent $5 million on his Atlanta mansion and it sold for $500,000 at his bankruptcy auction.

In St. Petersburg, a retired NFL players home had to torn down as its vintage early 1990′s accoutrements made it unsaleable at any price.

The homes of black superstars may have been impressive to hoodrats but what a hoodrat finds impressive and in good taste and what other luxury housing buyers do may not be the same. You can’t buy class.

* The problem with Michael Jordan’s mansion is that he made it so much about Michael Jordan that, when he decided to sell it, he was shocked to discover that there wasn’t another Michael Jordan to buy it at the price that Michael Jordan wanted to sell it for.

* My most liberal friends have never lived in a black neighborhood in their lives and witnessed what goes on day to day, and they would never consider it. They are very proud of their “solidarity” or “allyship” with oppressed minorities, though.

I did have one liberal couple I am friends with get randomly assaulted by some justice-involved youth downtown once – they couldn’t seem to understand why these young black males decided to beat up a hip white couple and not even try to take their money or iPhones. “Why” indeed.

* The Talented Tenth want to live lives separate from Negro trash, in elite Talented Tenth neighborhoods, with elite Talented Tenth clubs and schools and service organizations. They don’t want to be dragged back down into the steaming hot mess of Negro dysfunction. But they also don’t want to live surrounded by white middle class and upper middle class folks.

Milwaukee has no Talented Tenth neighborhoods, clubs, or organizations. It has been unable to create, whole cloth, Talented Tenth neighborhoods that are both segregated from Negro trash AND from white folks as well..

Young Talented Tenths move to Atlanta, Chicago and LA instead. There is no solutions to the Milwaukee Problem. White folks can’t solve it and black folks with talent and ability don’t want to.

* The reality is that there has never been a better time in America for blacks to be successful. If you have a reasonable level of reliability and presentability and decent language skills, all you need is a Bachelor’s degree from a mid-tier school in something marketable — finance, marketing, accounting, “management” — and you will have all the major U.S. corporations fighting one another to give you a job. Similarly, you can get a gig at a city/state/federal bureaucracy with no problem. If you prefer to get a degree in say history or literature, you will find the most lilly white suburban school districts desperate to hire you as a teacher. Publishing companies, magazines, etc. will also push you to the front of the list, to say nothing of media companies like Vox.

Simply put, it’s dead simple to get a well paying, middle class job as a black person in America in this year, thanks to massive reverse-discrimination, codified into law and company hiring policies everywhere. Yet it still doesn’t happen at scale. Journalists of America, I invite you to explore why this is the case.

* I personally witnessed Negro influxes destroy two beautiful residential areas in New Jersey; East Orange in the mid 1970s and Trenton’s many White ethnic neighborhoods a decade later. It starts with a few “middle-class” Negro households; they are seldom families in the traditional sense. These harbingers usually bring with them obnoxious habits, e.g., destruction of foliage, failure to maintain property, noise and loitering until nearly dawn, etc., and an ever-changing retinue of thuggish relatives and acquaintances.

As a result life becomes intolerable for their White neighbors. Then the less savory Negro element starts replacing the first White refugees. The escalating levels of theft, vandalism, and violence soon cause local businesses to shut down and eventually drive out any remaining Whites families and individuals who can afford to leave. Even those who can’t eventually are in such fear for their lives that they leave regardless of the cost.

In East Orange I saw the process from beginning to end. In my particular neighborhood it played out over the course of a year. In Trenton the process was just as inevitable but took several years. Those who haven’t observed or experienced the process cannot imagine the horror its brutal inevitability instills in those who have.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Are Black Neighborhoods ‘Segregated’?

Hillary’s Alt-Right Speech

Posted on August 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* NBC’s First Read

What does the “Alt Right” mean?

At 3:00 pm ET, Hillary Clinton will deliver remarks from Reno, NV tying Donald Trump to the conservative ‘Alt Right” movement. But what does the Alt Right mean? We surveyed some Republicans and journalists and organizations who’ve observed the movement:
…….

•The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel, who has written about the movement: “Conservatives opposed to the philosophy of ‘invade the world, invite the world.’”

* The anti-Alt-Right stuff by Hillary is not aimed at Jewish donors; Big Money including Jewish donors are hard for her already, figuring she’s the favorite. Don’t want to be left out in the cold not donating to the Clinton Foundation Stash for Cash Dash do we?

Its aimed at White women, White professional women in particular. Hillary! neither wants nor needs White men supporters. Like all “Mean Girls” her politics is aimed at excluding people and demonizing large segments of the population, not an inclusive spoils politics for everyone. She’s not a Happy Warrior; rather the nasty Witch of the East.

Her speech no doubt is aimed at painting Trump Male Supporters as icky, awful, “racist” beta males who no woman worth anything sexually or socially would have anything to do with. Its more “social status” messaging and is likely to be powerful. Heartiste detects some PUA guy helping her campaign and this seems part of it.

Face it, Hillary! being the personification of angry, man-hating Lesbianism is not going to get much in the way of White Male votes. But she is quite likely to get over 70% of the White female vote among the Professional classes the way things are going.

Trump better respond with “Hillary will provoke a War with Russia that gets young women drafted and killed” ad.

* The left has a hard time grasping the idea that there exists a bunch of internet Trolls without wealthy donors funding and organizing them. It would be hard to find someone big (rich) enough to point fingers at when taking on the aspect of the Alt-Right that drives the big shoe activists and media the most nuts. Can anyone actually see Hillary holding up some picture of a cartoon frog avatar with a bad pun for a name and calling them a public enemy? I think she will call Breitbart a hate site, give some choice quotes from there ‘bout the blacks, and focus on Trumps campaign manager running it while mean commentary happened. She could end it with a tearful recounting of the Ghostbusters black lady star being bullied and hacked though. Probably call for Trump to disavow his stained shirts on Twitter. I doubt we will see specific HBD nerds, pickup artists, discussion board dads and Trolls denounced beyond that Breitbart guy, so everyone needs to curb their enthusiasm that this is going to launch their hate career into the mainstream.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Hillary’s Alt-Right Speech