August 25, 2015 Steve Sailer: NYT Dumbfounded by Higher Suspension Rate of Black Students Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Steve Sailer: NYT Dumbfounded by Higher Suspension Rate of Black Students

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

* The idea that they’re not devoting enough time to raising awareness about racism at a school of education is gut-bustingly funny. My ex-wife described having to listen to hours and hours of lectures about racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, whatever-ism — there was very, very little actual discussion about “education.” She had one teacher who was radical lesbian who used to spend basically the entire class talking about how awful her life was trying to live as a lesbian. She’d break down and cry in class while talking about all the crazy lesbian drama in her life — the entire class was just a giant farce, an excuse for this crazy teacher to inflict her psychoses on a captive audience of students.

* The New York Times seems to gleefully point out that southern states have higher suspension rates. I bet most states with a substantial black population would show the same disparity. I included a link below that shows that in Minnesota 40 percent of suspensions are black students even though they are under ten percent of the population, and they are ten times as likely to be suspended as white students.

The big problem is that many school administrators and education officials have never been (or in the past 20 years) in a classroom and have no idea of the reality of dealing with unruly students. My mother was a teacher and was breaking up a fight between two black males, and was knocked to the floor pretty violently. amazingly enough, these two kids were not suspended because the district was complaining about black suspension rates. The principal later got an award for reducing black suspension rates even though the school was considerably less safe then before, but the important thing was that the school board could pat themselves on the back.

Posted in Blacks, Education | Comments Off

Is Donald Trump Cool?

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Rex Weiner wrote an article for High Times in the 1970s called “The ABCs of How to be Cool.” Here are excerpts of some of the attributes that fit Trump.

Attitude: If you’re absolutely convinced that what you’re doing is cool, then it’s cool. With the right attitude you can get away with anything.

Competent: Cool people are always competent (but not necessarily the other way around). The coolest way to take over a scene is to be better than everybody else.

Danger: Cool people are always dangerous because they take risks. Danger is cool because you know you’re not going to live forever, and knowing that let’s you relax. When people find out exactly how relaxed you are …when taking a controversial stand on some issue, they tend to give you the respect you deserve.

Energy: Cool people have a great deal of energy. . . They get everything done on time and always have about three or four things going on at once. [Trump sleeps four hours a night.]

Irrational: Get a reputation for being unpredictable and crazy. You’re the kind of person who’s likely to do anything anywhere anytime. But also gain a reputation for consistency. Paradox is the absolute essence of cool.

Jerks: Cool people always keep a few around, just to catch flak. [Jeb and Marco.]

Mainstream: Go against it. If everyone around you is busy being hip, be square. In a roomful of nervous people, be calm. Talk loudly in libraries. What the hell.

Opinions: Have lots of them. Like or dislike people immediately and don’t be afraid to say so. [Rosie, Megyn] Too many people go through life without ever deciding whether they want mustard or ketchup on their hamburgers.

Sex: If you’re cool, you’re sexy. [“Best sex I ever had!’ says former Trump girlfriend.]

Unique: Eminently cool people are always unlike anybody else. Nobody knows quite what makes them so, but they’ll spend hours trying to figure it out. What they come up with, often enough, is, “Boy, I sure hate that son of a bitch!” [see: Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Greg Gutfeld, etc.] Being hated is no less cool than being loved.

Work: Cool people are always busy. It’s cool to work. Cool people are always busy. But cool people never work up a sweat.

Extra: If you’re cool, you invariably ask for a little more, and if you’re cool, you invariably get it.

* What I’m finding fun to exam is how loyal Red Team members are slowly coming to realize that being on Red Team is not worth their time. It’s different than what we’re seeing with Blue Team, where the freak show is slowly breaking away from the main. Red Team has always defined itself in opposition to Blue Team. They are socialist and we are capitalists!

On Red Team, you see people suddenly confronting the fact that their team has always sort of hated them. At the same time, the old guard is struggling to figure out why the trouble makers appear to be mocking them, rather than fearing them. Calling Donald Trump a Nazi, for example, was met with laughter.

In Europe the realignment is easier and further advanced. You have existing parties into which dissidents can find refuge. if you have become fed up with Muslims in France, you the FN. In America, no such refuge exists. The fringe parties are nuts and the main parties are locked in a passionate embrace.

* Interesting comment at Hot Air:

Trump’s popularity is a mystery until you compare him to Putin.

Regular Americans feel emasculated, weak and disrespected in the world… and ignored/hated by their own elected officials.

Same way Russians felt crapped on and ignored (by Gorby) after the end of the Cold War.

As a backlash, they now have Putin. He might be a bully… but he’s their bully. Which is preferable to being under a wuss who cares more about the UN and world opinion than he cares about his own people. Everyone hates Putin… except for the 90% of Russians who love him.

It’s the same thing with the US today. People are tired about the President selling out to Iran. They’re mad at electing two houses of GOP Congressmen… who act like Democrats. They’re mad that their jobs are gone to Mexico and China. And they can’t figure out why the US military isn’t crushing ISIS in two weeks.

Trump is rude, crass and bombastic, but he knows his audience. And that audience would rather have a braggart, US-loving bully than another mom-jeans-wearing, UN-loving sellout.

Just watch. The more he acts like Putin, the more Americans will embrace him. It’s only natural given what they’ve been through.

* Fun guy, this Trump, but it won’t go anywhere.

This Mexico-bashing and China-bashing are ultimately meaningless since those nations have no direct control over the US.

Trump, like everyone else, is totally mum on the people with the real power. He doesn’t even have the guts to take on the homos.

In the end, it’s all about style. There is no real substance here.

And suppose Trump wins. Anyone who thinks he will make a difference is like the fools who thought ARNOLD could really change California.

Hasta La Vista, Baby.

* Trump’s parents attended Norman Vincent Peale’s church, which was part of the Reformed Church of America, which is, I think, kind of like Presbyterian but a little more liberal.

Peale was the author of the huge self-help bestseller The Power of Positive Thinking. I suspect there are all sorts of connections between the thinking of Peale and of Trump.

One interesting aspect is that Trump comes out of this pro-business power of positive thinking Protestant background, but without the Ned Flanders-style nicey-niceness that usually goes with it. Romney was kind of dragged down by his related Mormon nicey-niceness, and George H.W. Bush had to struggle with his.

Pat Buchanan survived for decades in an ideologically hostile media environment because he’s a wonderful individual who is deeply liked by most people who know him well.

* I remember being surprised when I read The Great Shark Hunt at how much Hunter Thompson liked Pat Buchanan–of all people.

* Steveosphere is a little bit behind the curve here.

Whether Trump is cool was hashed out over the past ten years on Apprentice. It’s all right there.

* Megan Kelly is Ailes/Murdoch PROXY. Wake the hell up. Fox tried to end Trump’s political career that night. There is no bigger opponent for Trump now. Exactly because Trump is an alpha with killer instinct is why he pursues his opponent relentlessly. Trump has the potential to do real damage to the Fox brand and Roger Ailes knows it.

* Trump and his family attended First Presbyterian in Jamaica, Queens before going to Peale’s Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan.

Peale’s positive thinking is definitely evident in Trump’s attitude and speaking style and presentation. Trump is relentless in applying positive thinking. Everything he says about himself and his projects and goals is unequivocally positive.

The positive thinking “philosophy” was very much a part of bourgeois, pro-business, Protestant American mainstream culture, but now largely persists among some evangelicals e.g. Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” and in a non-Christian, New Age context. The self-help tropes about having a positive attitude, thinking positive, waking up in the morning and staring at the mirror while repeating positive mantras about yourself to yourself every day, etc., derives from positive thinking. Mainline Protestants today find it declasse and are sort of embarrassed by it.

Part of the Ned Flanders nicey-niceness comes from positive thinking philosophy, whereby being effusively positive towards other people is believed to lead to positive outcomes, just as thinking and speaking positively about yourself is. Trump’s brashness and ego however adds a twist to this formula, and he won’t speak positively to or about someone and will put someone down if it leads to himself thinking, feeling, and looking more positive.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

Gay Rights & The State Department

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi writes: But even as the dust begins to settle the New York Times is reporting on a new existential crisis: same-sex marriages in the Foreign Service explored in an article entitled “State Department Fights for Rights of Gay Envoys.” Not that the Gray Lady is opposed to same-sex marriages for diplomats, quite the contrary. Its concern is that many highly qualified diplomats are turning down assignments because some benighted countries do not recognize same-sex unions and therefore do not accept that a man plus man or woman plus woman relationship actually qualifies as a diplomatic family. Which means that some Foreign Ministries are denying visas or accreditation for same-sex spouses. Worse still, as many countries regard homosexual behavior as a criminal offense, it suggests the possibility that some categories of Embassy and Consular family members not covered by full diplomatic immunity might find themselves arrested.

The Obama Administration is predictably outraged and is reported to be frantically working on the problem with the State Department making “securing the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people around the world a priority” (my emphasis). But to my mind the fundamental problem is not same-sex marriage per se, which most Americans now no longer oppose, but the failure to comprehend what Embassies and Consular posts are supposed to do coupled with a characteristic inability to understand that American principles and rules, such as they are, do not have universal applicability. This is particularly true in the case of gay marriage, which impacts on sincerely held religious views and which is still a bone of contention even in the relatively tolerant United States and Western Europe.

Government at the White House level frequently does not understand how the great federal bureaucracies actually work. Contrary to the Times headline, being part of a diplomatic mission is a privilege, not a universal right, and both by law and convention the host country pretty much sets the rules on who may enter and under what conditions.

The article quotes Michael Guest, a gay former ambassador to Romania, who said “It’s increasingly a problem, as some countries have wanted to take a stand on the issue of marriage equality that isn’t really theirs to take.” He is wrong. The Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations stipulates that any country can expel or refuse to accept the presence of a foreign diplomat without providing any reasons whatsoever. Article 9 includes “The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.” This is an option that the United States has exercised frequently in espionage cases as well as more recently in refusing to issue a visa to a proposed Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, for which the U.S. is the host nation.

The United States has also somewhat more questionably taken steps to restrict the travels of accredited diplomats with whom it is uncomfortable. Soviet era dips from Eastern Europe and Russia were generally required to get approval for traveling more than 25 miles outside of New York City or Washington and there have been similar restrictions on the movement of both Palestinian and Iranian representatives. So the host country is not obligated to accept anyone else’s standards and can in many respects set whatever rules it wishes within its sovereign territory…

It is indeed acceptable for a national government to urge greater tolerance as President Obama did on his recent trip to Africa but creating a bureaucracy to assert the global primacy of American values to include what constitutes a marriage benefits no one, least of all those being “protected,” as in many countries that would only serve to enable labeling the sexual dissidents as American agents. And the idea of punishing the families of diplomats from countries that see marriage differently is completely absurd as it will produce retaliation, damaging to genuine American interests and potentially threatening the security of U.S. diplomats overseas.

The entire feel good process of instructing others how to live derives from a peculiar American sense that we somehow understand important things better than anyone else and everyone should follow our lead. It is a dangerous conceit as it breeds resentment and inevitably leads to tit-for-tat responses that serve no purpose. The United States is already viewed negatively by a large part of the world. Adding fuel to the fire by complaining about others’ values while promoting marginal causes that inevitably will be controversial is not what most American citizens should expect from their government. Unfortunately it is all too often what we wind up getting.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

Has Israel’s Relationship With America Been Shaken Over The Iran Deal?

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Has Israel’s prime minister over-reached? Have certain Jews over-reached in protesting the Iran deal? Have they done irreparable damage to Israel’s security by damaging its relationship with America?

Uri Avnery writes: All Israelis agree that the one supreme asset Israel has is its special, unparalleled relationship with the US. It is unique.

Unique and priceless. In military terms, Israel gets the most up-to-date weapon systems, practically for nothing. No less important, Israel cannot conduct any war for more than a few days without an airlift of munitions and spare parts from the US.

But that is only a small element of our national security. Even more important is the knowledge that you cannot threaten Israel without confronting the entire might of the United States. This is a formidable umbrella, the envy of the world.

More than that, every country in the world knows that if you want something from Washington DC, and especially from the US Congress, you better pass through Jerusalem and pay a price. How much is that worth?

And then there is the veto. Not the little veto Obama will use to neutralise a Congress vote against the agreement, but the big veto, the one that blocks every single UN Security Council resolution to censure Israel, even for actions that cry to high heaven. A 49-year-old occupation. Hundreds of thousands of settlers who contravene international law. Almost daily killings.

Condemn Israel? Forget it. Sanctions against Israel? Don’t make us laugh. As long as the almighty US protects Israel, It can do whatever it wants.

All this is now put in question. Perhaps the damage has already been done, like hidden cracks in the foundations of a building. The scale of the damage may become apparent only in coming years.

Another hidden crack is the rift between Israel and a large part of the Jews around the world, especially in the US. Israel claims to be the “nation-state of the Jewish people”. All Jews throughout the world owe it unquestioning allegiance. A mighty apparatus of “Jewish organisations” is policing the vassals. Woe to the Jew who dares to object.

Not anymore. A rift has opened within world Jewry, that probably cannot be repaired. Commanded to choose between their president and Israel, many American Jews prefer their president, or just opt out.

Who is the anti-Semite who has managed to bring all this evil about? No other than the prime minister of Israel himself…

Yet there are great opportunities. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, as well as Egypt, are already hinting that they could cooperate with Israel. In deepest secrecy, of course. Nobody can shake hands openly with Israel as long as the Arab masses see every day on their TV sets the misdeeds of the settlers, the killings of the occupation army, the humiliation of the Palestinian brothers. Like a heavy weight tied to the leg of a swimmer, the occupation prevents us from reacting to the changes in the region.

Lately, there have been ever-stronger rumours about secret negotiations between Netanyahu and Hamas for an eight- or 10-year-long armistice, that would amount to an unofficial peace agreement. It would create a tiny Palestinian mini-state, while isolating even more Mahmoud Abbas and the main body of the Palestinian people, who are committed to the Arab peace plan.

All this for what? For enlarging the settlements and perhaps annexing another part of the West Bank (“Area C”).

So is the man shrewd or just foolish? A magician or just a magician’s apprentice?

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

LAT: Reports of sexual harassment by Metro commuters could hinder efforts to boost ridership

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Los Angeles Times: “Although six in 10 Metro passengers are Latino, black passengers reported the highest rates of indecent exposure, physical contact and harassment overall.”

I wonder how much of what happens on LA Metro mirrors the rest of life? Which groups of people disproportionately commit more crimes and more harassment and more rape?

NPR reports Nov. 1, 2014:

There’s a video that’s been circulating online since Tuesday, and it frames itself like this: a woman walks around New York City for 10 hours, with a camera secretly recording as she gets street-called 100 times by men.
The woman who does the walking is Shoshana Roberts. Most of the men who street-harass, call out and follow her are black and Latino. Noticeably absent from the video? White men.
It’s something a lot of people noted.
“The racial politics of the video are [f*****] up,” the author Roxane Gay commented on Twitter. “Like, she didn’t walk through any white neighborhoods?”
Slate’s Hanna Rosin noticed the same.
“The one dude who turns around and says, “Nice,” is white, but the guys who do the most egregious things—like the one who harangues her, “Somebody’s acknowledging you for being beautiful! You should say thank you more,” or the one who follows her down the street too closely for five whole minutes—are not.”
“Catcalling has always been an uncomfortable feminist issue because of the class and race dynamics involved,” Rosin said Friday in an interview with NPR’s Here & Now. “And that’s a much more difficult conversation to have than the straight forward one of look at this woman being harassed looking down the street.”
And Akiba Solomon at Colorlines echoed both Gay and Rosin’s concerns. But she also pointed out — albeit, a little tentatively — that the video “characterizes all of the men’s behavior as the same. So ‘hello,’ a demand for gratitude, and following the woman all carry the same weight.”
The video was created by an anti-harassment organization Hollaback! and Rob Bliss Creative, an ad agency. Rosin says that Bliss apologized on reddit — in a post that’s now deleted — for editing out white men. Bliss wrote “We got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing, or off camera.” That’s why Bliss said he had to edit them out. (Serious question: Weren’t most of the street harassers in the video interacting “in passing”?)
This isn’t the first time Bliss’ work has had some troubling portrayals of brown folks, Rosin writes. When he created a promotional video for Grand Rapids, Mich., Bliss reportedly minimized the city’s sizable minority population.

Steve Sailer writes:

Nationwide, according to the 2011 Obama Administration study “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008,” blacks were almost eight times more likely to be homicide offenders.
But, of course, noticing patterns and looking for simple explanations runs afoul of that dominant rule of 21st Century thought: Occam’s Racist.

Lawrence Auster wrote in 2007:

Like Ahab’s search for the Great White Whale, liberals’ search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley’s and Al Sharpton’s then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn’t matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men’s treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.
To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under “Victims and Offenders” download the pdf file for 2005.)
In Table 42, entitled “Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,” we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.
The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:
In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false:
Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit, noted, “There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen…. It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”
No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her. There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the gnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty.
Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, “a white woman was raped by black man.” Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women’s apartments on Manhattan’s Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media’s reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist.

Posted in Blacks, Rape, Traffic | Comments Off

The Merits Of The Free Market

Posted on August 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek: “Yes. And this is why whites who base their politics on free market economics have simply been digging their own graves for over a generation. Look at the ultra orthodox Jews of Brooklyn and environs. Do you imagine that any of their learned elders ever waste time debating the merits of free markets versus regulated ones?”

Roger Devlin: “Greg Johnson’s summation of Ron Paul’s program was perfectly apt: Paul wants to ensure that the little brown people who are taking our country from us will enjoy the benefits of a hard currency. This is the sort of confused priorities that come from having a narrowly economic view of the social good. Contrast Pat Buchanan’s view (quoting from memory) that “the economy is not the nation, and when what is good for the economy differs from what is good for the nation, the nation comes first.” My own ideal society would subordinate the economy to the good of the family as well as the nation…”

“Conflict is not due to any misunderstanding which might be corrected, but to the intrinsic nature of the two peoples. Of course, in politics we do not have the luxury of viewing conflict sub specie aeternitatis, and we must do what is best for our own people. This has nothing to do with harboring negative feelings toward Jews or anyone else, but only with perceiving our ethnopolitical situation accurately in order to act upon it rationally. I work with dissident Jews who are willing to work with me, but I do not foresee any time when the perceived self-interest of organized Jewry coincides with White self-interest.”

Chaim Amalek: “Whites are finished. You goyim should have been having this conversation in 1990 instead of spending all of your energies on saving every last zygote.”

Posted in Economics, Nationalism | Comments Off

The Muslims Next Door

Posted on August 24, 2015 by Luke Ford

Good liberal Jewish friends of mine are not happy about Muslims moving next door. My friends stand for same-sex marriage and tolerance and civil rights, but they’re not thrilled with Muslims because Muslims embody an anti-liberal attitude.

My friends say: I won’t be friendly. This is a Jewish street. Why would they even want to be here? So many other streets. They are taunting me.

Perhaps we need a Jewish version of the KKK to dress up in scary robes and light a menorah on their front yard?

Chaim Amalek: “We already have that. They are called Hasidim, and they even have their own paramilitary force patrolling the streets of their communities in Brooklyn: the Shomrim.”

Yaakov suggested we just stick to what works and put a burning cross on their lawn–let the Christians take blame for our prejudice.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Japan Struggles With A Lack Of Diversity

Posted on August 24, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Japan is also plagued by a lack of Islamic terrorism.

* A few years ago the United Nations Development Programme sponsored a study looking at which nations were expected to have the best improvement in their standard of living.

Japan is predicted to have the highest Human Development Index in 2030, up from 11th in 2010.

* The rape kit industry in Sweden is booming, I hear. Almost makes one wish to open a crime lab, too. It’s a bull market, you know.

* “Nearly lost among Unz’s stable of, to put it politely, “tireless critics of Zionism,””

Funny you mention that, because on the topic of Japan, there is one major thing that they don’t have that the Western nations do have.

* Life in Japan is generally awful.
-Castles and historical shrines all over the place
-Clean, safe public transportation
-Women under 30 usually wear bikinis to the beach
-Legal drinking in public

What a barren wasteland. Japan desperately needs some vibrant Muslim refugees.

* In some old National Geographic magazines Japan was described as being densely populated and overcrowded. Yet today some are claiming they should have more people, that population decline is bad. For the past twenty years or so they’ve been portrayed as collapsing, the economy tanking, the place just going downhill. Yet somehow they seem to be getting along. If things were really so bad wouldn’t more of them be trying to emigrate? There’s all these concern trolls everywhere pretending to be worried about the welfare of the Japanese, who like to stick their nose into Japanese affairs.
They’re smart enough to know what they’re doing and don’t need advice from foreigners whose own countries have major problems.

* Japan also has a problem with mass adult male virginity, despite Japan’s normal male-to-female sex ratio, the acceptability of premarital sexual relationships and Japan’s proximity to other Asian countries with sex tourism industries that Westerners like to visit:

Rise of Japan’s middle-aged virgins: a quarter of over-30s have never had sex.

Atheist bloggers write frequently about how sex-negative religious upbringings can result in sexually dysfunctional adults – they have beaten up a lot on the unfortunate Duggar family in Arkansas lately. But for some reason they don’t want to discuss adult male virginity as a secular social phenomenon, probably because they can’t blame it on religion. Instead the secular ideology of feminism plays a role in men’s sexual eviction, alienation and the MGTOW trend.

* The American public has shown no appetite for mass immigration, either. Nor has the European public, for that matter. No, what’s different about Japan is that the elite has shown no appetite for mass immigration.

And you can bet your arse if they ever do, it’ll be composed of populations that look a hell of a lot like the Japanese, and not Africans, Mestizos, or MENAs.

Immigration is the solution in up economies and down economies, in times of war or peace, of fat and lean. In sickness and in health, ’til death do us part. Immigration is a dessert topping and a floor wax. It’s like snake oil; it’s the cure for whatever ails you, and something certainly ails you.

Well, for white countries, anyway. But not in Israel, China, India, Japan, etc., for some strange reason.

* First, the discussion isn’t whether more immigration improves GDP growth per capita. It’s whether a country that chooses to stay ethnically/racially intact by rejecting immigration can have improving material living standards. Japan shows that the answer is a resounding “Yes.” And Japan’s example is all the more relevant given its declining workforce, which also proves that a white country with a declining population (and not just countries with internally growing populations) could enjoy improved living standards.

Second, as we all know, the impact of immigration on an economy (and the country as a whole) isn’t just a short-term affair. The immigrants become citizens, have children and grow old. It’s not hard to see how a poor Mexican immigrant could be a short-term plus for an economy but a long-term drag as he goes on disability due to a bad back and has children unwilling to work as farm laborers but unable to work in high-tech so they become welfare recipients. Therefore, for you to show a few years of slightly better numbers for Germany as compared to Japan as “proof” that immigration improves an economy is silly as best and disingenuous as worst.

Let’s see how those Muslim and black immigrants are helping Germany’s economy a generation or two from now.

* China could easily provide Israel with hundreds of thousands of citizens with IQs far higher than that of the vast majority of Israel’s current population. There are few economic sectors in Israel that they could not improve. Strangely, Israel doesn’t seem interested in this bounteous opportunity.

If you hate white people and diversity and want Germany to be more like Turkey, then Germany is on the path to great success.

* I see mass immigration as a form of national suicide. We tend not to view suicide with a cold eye, I fail to see why we should do so when the stakes are raised to the national level. Quite the opposite, in fact.

We assume people have gone off the deep end when they attempt suicide. We do our best to prevent them from harming themselves until they return to sanity.

I see no reason to do any less for white nations.

* BTW on this week’s McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan was making the point that prior to the Immigration Act of 1965 we were “united” as a nation in that 97% of Americans spoke English and that now we have kids in our schools speaking “over 200 languages.” The lovely Eleanor Cliff retorted with the claim that “having 200 languages in our schools is not a bad thing.” http://www.mclaughlin.com/ (at the 9:36 mark). What a clueless dingbat!

* Japan is one of the entities that just drives elites in the media up the wall. It’s clean, ordered without embracing many of the supposed beneficial tenets the West holds dear. They’ll complain about Japan not taking in immigrants or refugees and the doom it will cause. Yet Japan keeps chugging along.

* Libertarian’s individual-centrism means that there is no reason for a nation to militarily defend itself IF the new invading order guarantees individual liberty.

Suppose China is about to invade Japan. According to the rules of libertarianism, there is no need to fear China’s invasion as long as Chinese invaders allow Japanese individuals to indulge in their individual freedom of thrill-seeking, sex, gambling, video games, pop music, and travel.

According to libertarianism, one should defend one’s nation ONLY IF the invaders will take one’s individual liberty away.
If, on the other hand, the invaders may expand individual freedom, they should be welcomed even at the price of national sovereignty. So, never mind national independence and sovereignty. If invaders offer more individual freedom — pot smoking and gambling — , they should be welcomed.

Because of the cult of individualism in the West, there is no resistance to the massive invasion. Germans don’t see themselves as Germans above all and French don’t see themselves as French above all. They see themselves as modern individuals looking for fun. Europeans may be ‘socialist’(or social-democratic), but that too is about individualism since the idea is purely economic: it provides safety nets for individuals so that they can feel secure as individuals. It’s not like the conservative socialist idea of the European Right that stressed unity and cooperation in economic activity as a means of strengthening national bonds.

Since Europeans see themselves as individuals primarily, they tend to see the invaders as ‘individuals looking for a better life’, and why should any individual deny another individual a ‘right to a better life’? This is what happens when identity breaks down.

But there’s yet another problem. Even many of those who oppose the invasion do so on libertarian or individualist grounds, i.e. the newcomers “don’t share our attitudes and outlooks and ‘values’ of individual liberty.” And THAT is why the invasion should be stopped. But using this logic, any amount of invaders should be allowed IF they ‘shared western values’. So, if a 100 million Muslims and a 100 million black Africans were for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘feminism’, they should be allowed in.

A weak argument.

West should be defended because it is racially, culturally, territorially, and historically distinct from other peoples and civilizations. It’s really that simple.

If Westerners are individual-centric, they will not identify with other Westerners. There will be no unity of purpose and survival.
And they will see invaders not as another people but just some other individuals.

* Japan has also apparently been working less and its public sentiment has shifted towards prioritizing happiness over economic growth. This has been criticized by Western economists, who say Japanese salarymen should take fewer golf breaks and accept more immigration. This sounds like Jeb Bush’s economic policy: work more hours, golf less, and accept more immigration.

* If the Japanese population declines by 10 million in the next ten years, that means the Japanese will be better off and less crowded. The imbalance between the young and retirement age Japanese will also go away in about 30 years.

The idea the you should change the demographic nature of your country FOREVER to solve a short term labor shortage is some thing only a stupid Westerner could think of. The USA was the world leader in the is stupidity. They had a labor shortage in the American south and decided to “solve” it with African Slaves. How’d that work out for everyone?

* It seems obvious to me that when family formation becomes sufficiently affordable, families will be formed.

* Whole neighborhoods around Tel Aviv are inhabited by illegal sub-Saharan African migrants. Israel also had a home-grown population of hostiles that makes up a greater fraction of the Israel’s population than the French Muslims are of the French population.

Posted in Japan | Comments Off

Do White Girls Like Black Guys?

Posted on August 24, 2015 by Luke Ford

Asking girls questions like this is silly because they tend to say whatever they think will be popular with their peer group. Women aren’t usually known for their rugged non-conformity.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

1960s Black Activist Complains BLM Movement Lacks Discipline

Posted on August 24, 2015 by Luke Ford

The Civil Rights revolution in America in the 1960s set off a giant crime wave. Many of the 1960s activists may have been non-violent, but the reform they pushed destroyed black life and non-black life with rampant crime and dysfunction.

Black economist Walter Williams writes:

In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925,” reports, “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.
A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia found that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families (composed of two parents and children). What is significant, given today’s arguments that slavery and discrimination decimated the black family structure, is the fact that years ago, there were only slight differences in family structure among racial groups.
Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.
The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the “legacy of slavery” wait several generations to victimize today’s blacks?
The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 28.1 percent. A statistic that one never hears about is that the poverty rate among intact married black families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8.4 percent. Weak family structures not only spell poverty and dependency but also contribute to the social pathology seen in many black communities — for example, violence and predatory sex. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are also major victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault, rape and robbery.
To put this violence in perspective, black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (about 8,200) come to about 18,500, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. Young black males had a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.
The black academic achievement gap is a disaster. Often, black 12th-graders can read, write and deal with scientific and math problems at only the level of white sixth-graders. This doesn’t bode well for success in college or passing civil service exams.

Barbara Reynolds writes for the Washington Post today:

Trained in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., we were nonviolent activists who won hearts by conveying respectability and changed laws by delivering a message of love and unity. BLM seems intent on rejecting our proven methods. This movement is ignoring what our history has taught.
The baby boomers who drove the success of the civil rights movement want to get behind Black Lives Matter, but the group’s confrontational and divisive tactics make it difficult. In the 1960s, activists confronted white mobs and police with dignity and decorum, sometimes dressing in church clothes and kneeling in prayer during protests to make a clear distinction between who was evil and who was good.
But at protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, and guys with sagging pants that show their underwear. Even if the BLM activists aren’t the ones participating in the boorish language and dress, neither are they condemning it.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off