Home Invasion Survival Tips

Home Invasion Survival Tips

http://scumfuckinbabylon.blogspot.com/2012/04/home-invasion-survival-tips.html

Let me preface by saying that I am nobody high speed, just a dropout stoner from southern Indiana. But I wanted to bring up a little bit about no-knock defense to those who might be interested in the concept. Take my opinion with the requisite sodium dosage. This actually evolved from Codex Kalachnikova TTP’s because one of the Scum Lord’s major enemy groups favors these types of attacks.

Note that I’m not going to differentiate between a no knock raid and a home invasion. Why? Because there is no fucking difference, you moron.

So, we all know how a no knock goes down-door goes off the hinges or window gets break and raked, the entry team pours through the door with the breacher going last, everyone bolts out of the fatal funnel and they proceed room to room murdering you in a single, well organized group. They face forward to present their body armor, scream “SEARCH WARRANT-POLICE!” prone out any compliant victims and pump rounds into everyone else. Then they either steal your cash and electronics or haul the survivors off to jail, whatever fits the group’s MO.

So how do we engage this kind of attack? How do we recover Violence of Action in this scenario? I’ve thought of a couple of ways.

First off, it seems almost everything relies on an instantaneous entry. So hardening your entry points is your first step. If they can, they’ll get you before you can even open your eyes, so every second they have to waste dealing with your door or window is one of the most precious seconds of your life. There are a lot of ways to harden your entrances, but remember that no method is foolproof-an enemy that can’t come through the door can always come through the wall or ceiling. Nothing says “Fuck yo’ OODA loop” like not gaining entry. Of course, nothing else I’m going to talk about today applies if your ass doesn’t wake up when the hinges come off.

Also noteworthy: many times, they know the layout or have previous intel on the layout of your home. So one thing you can do to completely fuck them up is to alter the layout of your domain. Even something as simple as a hidden tripwire-not attached to a trap, just a strong piece of wire strung at knee level-can have gain you a half second stumble or even a full on clusterfuck if everyone tries to rush the same area at once. The enemy may have reconned your house with FLIR or what have you, but a scattering of ball bearings on the kitchen floor doesn’t show up in thermal and can righteously fuck up a bunch of tightly packed, adrenaline fueled thieves. In my particular case, I have a couple of large bookshelves right by the stairs that I can flip down as projectiles and obstacles to someone trying to rush my staircase. Nothing says “Fuck yo’ OODA loop” like a full wooden bookshelf dropping on your stack.

Finally, those tightly bunched groups are great for concentrating fire but also means the team is vulnerable to what I like to call “area effect spells.” Anything that covers a large area can hit every single member of the stack at once. Remember, these folks stick together at almost touching distance, so operational value increases for things like pepper spray foggers or molotov cocktails that affect multiple targets at once. Nothing says “Fuck yo’ OODA loop” like running around screaming on fire.

Finally, I want to say this, and this is really how The Scum Lord gets the better of the NYE PUDs in Codex; when you are being home invaded, you fucking attack. Criminals (legal and otherwise) do not expect to be attacked; they are eternally on the offensive, and they can be shocked by any sort of resistance. Even if you can’t get to your web gear, even if you can’t get to your rifle, even if you can’t get to your knife-FUCKING ATTACK. Get in the middle of their stack; they won’t shoot then, and you can do what damage you can. Maybe you won’t survive-getting home invaded is dangerous business-but I’d rather the coroner has to saw my thumbs off because they are stuck in some cocksucker’s stupid dead eyes instead of just finding me in the fetal position curled up under the covers. None of these fucks are expecting to be seriously attacked by someone who means it-so use it. Nothing says “Fuck yo’ OODA loop” like a butt nekkid dude leaping in the middle of your group to strangle you.

Hope this has been food for thought.

Why We Don’t Care

Why We Don’t Care

Obama and Trayvon Martin

The saying goes that generals fight the last war. Obama, and his allies, politically are stuck in the 1960s. Everything for them, is Bull Connor setting police dogs and hoses on peaceful Black civil rights marchers, live on the three networks! But like the Nazi army in late 1942, they seem headed for failure. Not because of the brilliance of their enemies, but because of the fatal but unseen flaws in their own organization.

For the German Army, it was the lack of any real ability to logistically support a mechanized army in the field for any considerable distance. THAT was the reason Adolf Hitler ultimately failed. He inherited a magnificent military machine, whose NCOs to General Staff were superb.

Obama has seemingly fixated on the sad case of a Mestizo man, born to a Peruvian mother, and adopted by a Jewish man in Florida, who shot a 17 year old Black boy in a town near Orlando Florida, in what police ruled self-defense. Latinos are on notice, when they get into conflicts with Blacks, they are “White” (which is to say, automatically guilty). The media is in a 24/7 Trayvon Martin frenzy, with old photos of Martin from age 12-13, not his more recent Facebook photos flashing gang signs, and old photos of George Zimmerman age 20, looking like a fat thug, not a leaner guy in a suit and tie. The media frenzy is to whip up Black violence, for its own sake, to intimidate and create fear among Whites, as emotional payback, and also to create an image of 1965 and Bull Connor. A failed attempt if ever there was one. President Barack Dinkins? Crown Heights?

Yes, that event is coming, somewhere, to a city near you.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is full of stories about brutal Black criminals. In the case of the prior link, one Tyrone Woodfork, brutally raping and beating to death 86 year old Nancy Strait, and critically injuring her 90 year old husband Bob, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge as a member of the 101st Airborne. Then there is the case the Daily Mail also reported on, two British tourists murdered in Sarasota Florida by a Black thug named Shawn Tyson.

Floating around the internet is the 2009 case of the 15 year old White boy set on fire in Deerfield Beach Florida, and the 13 year old White boy set on fire in Kansas City several weeks ago. Both were set on fire by Black “youths” as the links make clear (photos at the link of the accused). The boy in Florida nearly died, has massive burns, and faces a life with heart and kidney problems, as well as being permanently disfigured.

There is the “I will Kill the F*** out of you” video at the Daily Mail link here.

What is notable in the video are two things, which every thoughtful observer will have flagged immediately. First, the Black students are smirking and laughing, because they agree and endorse the sentiments of the Black woman having a melt-down, threatening her White Professor and White fellow students. Secondly, the angry passivity of the White students who have FEAR. FEAR of being the one charged, if they talk back to “fighting words,” FEAR if they retaliate for being shoved. FEAR of the entire legal and social system coming down upon them if they do anything but stare off into space with stony silence.

Such social FEAR is only really sustainable when good times are rolling. If money, and the things it brings comes in, people will put up with it. If not, they won’t. FEAR eventually turns into even more FEAR. The White students are not convinced of the holy goodness of all Black people. Merely reacting in FEAR to a physical threat backed up by a social system that takes the side of the aggressor and punishes them. That is not a healthy way to build society.

Now, the Daily Mail is in the business of delivering viewers to advertisers. It is the #1 Newspaper site according to comScore, surpassing the New York Times. The online edition (there is a special US version) appeals to Blue collar White women, offering celebrity gossip that takes the celebs down a peg or two, all sorts of true crime stories, unlike the US media clearly identifying Black suspects, and lifestyle stuff. Drudge Report does much the same, often linking to Daily Mail Online. Blue collar White women like the straight scoop on crime. After all, unlike their White collar sisters, they can’t escape it. They don’t live in gated communities, or security buildings. The Mail has plenty of White criminals featured (because their readers like reading about it), but does not shy away from portraying the reality of crime (mostly Black criminals in the US). As depressing as that may be for those searching for the Bonfire of the Vanities “Great White Defendant” or Law and Order re-runs.

White people are stuck. They cannot unlike say, those living in Detroit in the 1960′s, simply move. The housing market is down, people are underwater or nearly so in their mortgages, lenders are giving mortgages to only the best credit holders, and income and wages are down as prices go up. White flight is simply not possible in today’s economic environment.

Meanwhile, the White guilt such as it is, no longer exists. Bull Connor was nearly 50 years ago. Nobody cares anymore. The Civil Rights era is as distant to us as the end of WWI (47 years) was to the Civil Rights Era. No one in 1967 was really concerned with the fallout of the end of the Great War. No one today really cares, about the Edmund Pettis Bridge either. Too many OTHER things have happened since. The media blitzkrieg to replay the 1960′s civil rights movement is as doomed as the German occupation of Stalingrad or Rommel in North Africa in 1943.

Moreover, White people are reminded every day, that they will soon be (discriminated against) minorities in their own country. That’s entirely different from the carefully orchestrated story of peaceful, respectable Civil Rights marchers being beaten by Bull Connor. A population soon to be a minority, and one that will be second or third class at best, does not have a lot of give when it comes to attempts to bully and threaten.

But the most important difference between today and 1965, is the knowledge, the more powerful because it is seen only on the Daily Mail, and the internet (often in raw video from World Star Hip Hop), that Black on White violence is extensive and threatening. THAT is the problem Obama and company face in their own Stalingrad.

Martin Luther King Jr. did not merely choose non-violence because he was filled with moral goodness as a cardboard Jesus. To suggest that takes away from the man’s political genius and legacy as a political figure with no equal in the modern era. Rather, King knew that Whites would hunker down and fight, as they had when a decent, and good man, Homer Plessy challenged Segregation in the Supreme Court three generations prior, and lost. King leveraged the divisions between wealthy and middle class Northerners and Westerners, who lived nowhere near Blacks, and those of the “wrong sort of White people” among blue collar Catholic ethnics (Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, and Hungarians mainly) and Protestant Hillbillies who did live near them. King understood the Northern, elite Whites, having rubbed shoulders with them at Boston University. Non-violence was a political ploy, as a minority population sought acceptance through adherence to non-threatening behavior. No matter how gratifying intimidation and thuggery might be on an emotional level. Had King embraced violence and intimidation, as Malcolm X argued for, even the Northern and Western Whites who loathed the “wrong sort” of White people — ethnic Catholics (think Rick Santorum and how the elite react to HIM) and “hillbillies” (think the disdain for Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears) — would have opposed Civil Rights.

King used non-violence as political judo. It does not always work. But in that case, it did. Fighting a majority population with violence rarely works out well. Ask the Tamil Tigers, they fought harder and more ruthlessly than any. They still lost.

In King’s time, rising income, a robust property market, and a need to socially distinguish one’s self from “the wrong sort of White person” led to inexorably, a larger elite system with many, many hangers-on and those aspiring to that status. King’s political Judo worked, not the least of which was the social class of “Semi-New Englanders” or Post-Puritans or Semi-Scandinavians (the Puritans nearly all came from the Danelaw, as David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed” makes clear, and carried with them very Nordic cultural assumptions about well, everything) grew substantially. While those on the receiving end of Black violence shrunk. It was just so easy to sell out, leave historic neighborhoods, and move to the safe, NEW suburbs.

White Flight was the key component of the Civil Rights movement, as much as non-violence. White Flight not only helped create new “semi-elites” who felt “the wrong sort of White person” was the only one concerned about Black violence, it created therein a “virtuous circle” wherein more and more Whites moved to the suburbs. All predicated on cheap gas, easy credit, and booming markets in property.

However, King did not properly explain this political reality to Black leaders and more importantly, the people themselves. The ethnic cleansing of Detroit, 29% Black in 1960, 45% Black in 1970, 89% Black today, may have been satisfying and gained political control of the city, but produced no measurable increase in wealth among Blacks other than a few leaders, and permanent dependency upon the larger White population of the State and the US at large.

Black people are indeed angry. Angry that they have not attained financial success as they have embraced thuggery and ethnic cleansing of Whites out of their historic cities (Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, Gary Indiana, to name a few). Not understanding that is one thing to chase people away with violence, another to create wealth. Like the Visigoths and Vandals before them, futilely trying to emulate the Rome they destroyed, Black populations in cities they control are angry that Black control has not meant Black wealth. Other than what can be extorted in the Chicago model, from surrounding White areas.

The anger is however, counter-productive. The images on TV and newspapers of angry, threatening Black crowds angry and “out for justice” (implication violence), with Louis Farrakhan offering a bounty, and Jessie Jackson saying “Blacks are under attack” (they are, from other Blacks) It certainly is emotionally satisfying, to threaten and intimidate. That is why people do it, making people afraid of you creates the feeling of power.

Certainly, when Delrick Miller IV was shot in his home, at age 9 months, in Detroit, by AK-47 wielding attackers, no one cared. There was a fight, among the all-Black attendees at a baby shower. Two women felt offended they could not get seats:

”A woman got mad because she couldn’t find a seat, so she started knocking tables down, and it escalated from there,” Wilkins said. “My daughter and her friends left the club, but (a group of men and women) followed them to a gas station, and there was a fight with one of the guys who was at the shower with my daughter. Then, they followed them to the house.

“I think they came back the next day and shot up the house,” said Wilkins, who sobbed as she recounted the events. “They went to the shower to celebrate life; instead, a life was destroyed.”

Who kills a 9 month baby over a fight about seats at a baby shower? Who fights over seats at a baby shower anyway?

Where was Louis Farrakhan then? Or Jessie Jackson? Or Al Sharpton? No one cared. Because it was business as usual. The price of intimidating and scaring Whites, is Black on Black violence. So far, the Black community has not only tolerated it, but protected it. Since any reasonable measure to stop it: stop and frisk of Black men, imprisoning gang members, is resisted tooth and nail by Black leaders and Black voters. Obama did not comment on the murder of Delric Miller IV. Al Sharpton did not fly to Detroit to threaten the killers. Louis Farrakhan did not put out a bounty on the killers. The most innocent of all — a nine month old baby! And the reaction was … nothing.

No one among Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, and yes Barack Obama and the media really cares about Trayvon Martin. Any more than they cared about Delrick Miller IV. They just want to flex their political muscle and intimidate (mostly White) people as a reflexive response. It is so ingrained it is instinctual. The aim is to over-turn gun laws, and “stand your ground” so that there is no possibility of defense, as Whites are stuck in place, against young thuggish Black men. That is the whole purpose of the exercise, in the short term. Just as Hitler ordered Von Rundstedt to stand his ground in Stalingrad, eager to hold and destroy the city named for the man he hated the most. [Who in fact resembled him in a number of ways, and before Operation Barbarossa counted Hitler as a friend. Oddly enough.]

Long term, Obama and company want riots and violence and cities burning. This he thinks will win him votes, as this has been successful in Chicago for decades. Pay to make the mob go away. Again, with Whites in place, stuck, that just guarantees a fight. Probably as an ultimate back-up plan, Obama wants violence so he can if he loses the election, institute Martial Law and rule by decree. His recent executive order allowing him to seize basically anything including newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet is part of that ultimate back-up plan.

Unlike Bill Clinton, who stole everything that was not nailed down (particularly the corrupt deal with Haiti Teleco involving Joseph Kennedy and Bill Clinton), Obama did not steal wisely. Clinton made sure to involve not just Republicans, but Republican interest groups in corrupt deals. That’s why Bill Clinton did not spend a day in jail, and only lost his law license, not the Presidency. Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama has not kept the good times rolling either, for many in the elites and the people as a whole. As far as corrupt Presidency models go, the Arkansas version was better than the Chicago one.

Obama has made too many enemies: on Wall Street, among energy companies, among utilities, among Silicon Valley, among home builders, among mining companies, among almost everyone but a few favored cronies. That’s the downside of the Chicago Way, you make powerful enemies who know they must destroy you or be destroyed in turn. There is no easy good-time corruption ala the Arkansas model, where everyone is happy.

Ultimately, however, the idea that “evil White racists” are killing Black people is unsustainable even for the Blitzkrieg media. It just isn’t true, and people know it. David Duke lives in a trailer in Mississippi. Louis Farrakhan has a mansion bigger than Oprah’s, and with more goons too. All those threats turn off the Middle Class, White female voters who are the swing and thus the decisive votes in the 2012 elections. It is satisfying, and the default mode for Black politicians and people, to make threats and noise at the White population. For decades it has been rewarded. Going national makes pretty much every White homeowner, renter, and everyone else stuck in place, unable to flee, ready to fight.

Indeed, rising gas prices threaten the fundamental basis for American social peace: Blacks would have a free hand in self-ruled cities that they ethnically cleansed (White flight was flight because Whites FEARED Blacks not because they hated them). Meanwhile Whites would live as far away as possible from them, while refraining from mentioning Black dysfunction and economic failure and dependency (upon White wealth transfers). Being unwilling to rock the boat of rising income, later rising credit replacing income, and cheap electronic toys. Whites do not HATE Blacks, they’d hardly have endorsed decades of fictional Black Presidents on TV and in movies, made a billionaire of Oprah, every White woman’s imaginary Black Best Friend(tm Whiskey), or consumed Rap and the NBA, NFL, obsessively. Again that is why David Duke lives in a trailer in Mississippi. There is no money in White hate for Blacks. There certainly is for Black hate for Whites: look at Sharpton’s mansion, or Louis Farrakhan’s which is bigger than Oprah’s with more goons.

This is why Trayvon Martin is Obama’s Stalingrad. He’s fighting the last war, with the tools used two and a half generations ago. White people are not consumed with hatred for Black people. Rather, they FEAR them. Almost no one speaks this openly, but the taboo can be broken,and fairly rapidly. The internet, as an entry into the nation’s id, is a scary place. It is quite likely Obama will get his own Crown Heights, as Mayor Dinkins did in New York City. The result was not a coronation of his reign, but un-interrupted Republican (and semi-Republican in the case of Nanny Bloomberg) rule ever since. Even Upper East Siders finding the Black Panthers scary-fun thrills, don’t like property values crashing due to race-riots.

Ultimately Hitler failed because he failed to understand one simple truth. His magnificent military machine could not supply food, fuel, ammunition, and clothing to his men more than a few hundred miles before the supply line collapsed. When German forces got to Greece, they descended like starving locusts, because they were in fact, starving. The German army was not capable of even providing them with food!

Obama and his media allies, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and the like, enter this Trayvon Martin conflict, hampered by the lack of understanding that they cannot control the alternative media, that Whites are not bigoted but fearful (rationally so) of Black crime, and that White flight is simply impossible in today’s economy.

After all, what did Tyrone Woodfork get for raping and beating to death an elderly White woman, and (all likelihood given his age) killing her husband? A beat-up old car, 12 years old, and a few things ransacked from the house. The killer of the two British tourists got nothing — he killed them because they had no money to rob. That sort of crime is not only stupid, it is senseless. The killers were soon caught. Cold comfort to survivors and the victims.

Whitey Bulger may have been responsible, over his criminal career, for more than fifty deaths. But those sorts of White criminals, by and large don’t commit random crimes informed more by racial hatred, or sheer stupidity, than anything else. Nothing like the murder of the Straits, or Delric Miller IV, can be laid to his doorstep. No money in it, and the risk too high. He quite likely is a monster, but one society can survive, because that kind of monster does not kill 9 month old babies sleeping in their homes because there were not enough seats at a baby shower. Nor do they kill robbery victims because they had no cash. Nor set teen boys on fire for sheer racial hatred. Nor rape, rob, and murder elderly couples for a few bucks and an old car.

White swing voters cannot be made to care about Trayvon Martin, because they are scared, for the most part, even if they won’t admit it in public. Too much push and they’ll start admitting it. Too much reflexive intimidation, in the Chicago Way, and they’ll push back. Obama might plan a Self-Coup, but he’ll find if he goes that route, he’s no Fujimori.

The Asymmetry of America

The Asymmetry of America

John Derbyshire and the unNational nonReview

During Easter Christians like to remember the crucifixion of an innocent man for his words, so it was entirely appropriate that John Derbyshire was sacked at this time from the National Review for innocently writing an article for another magazine that intruded on America’s central taboo of race. But there was more to it than that. This case also helped to reveal some of the “uncomfortable truths” (notice how these two words increasingly go together) about America and the decline of the national discourse once represented by the likes of the National Review.

This wasn’t the first time Derbyshire had expressed “politically incorrect” views on race. In the past he has even admitted to being a “tolerant racist,” so one has to wonder about the timing of his dismissal. Perhaps it was because his latest article came too close to the canonization of America’s latest saint, Saint Trayvon of Sanford, the patron saint of Skittles, or perhaps it was the fact that Derbyshire’s face was an increasingly bad fit among the growing ranks of wet-behind-the-ears, multicultural, Israel-loving Neo-Cons who have now ‘occupied’ the National Review.

Probably it also had something to do with the fact that paying readers are no longer as important in terms of generating income as they once were, as Derbyshire seems to have been one of NR’s most popular writers. Magazines now increasingly rely on advertising income and online operations, which means that the puritanical PR demands of companies not to be associated with anything “offensive” become disproportionately important. This represents something of a challenge, because, in order to remain interesting, magazines have to skate pretty close to the thin ice of offensiveness to keep up interest. For several years, Derbyshire’s writing seemed to be a good fit for NR, being interesting without being needlessly offensive.

Whatever reasons lie behind his sacking, the event itself was notable for a several reasons. First, there was the concerted “shitstorm.” This started with reliably leftist heavyweight publications, like The Atlantic and The Guardian in the UK, flagging up the article in the lowly Taki’s e-zine. This was then followed by a massive surge of anti-Derbyshire comments at Taki’s and elsewhere denouncing Derbyshire’s “racism” from people who had obviously never visited the site before and seemed to be using cut-and-paste garbage from some liberal/ leftist trollbook.

Given the time in the canonical calendar, this was all a bit reminiscent of the mob baying for Jesus’s blood. Next, Judas-like, National Review colleagues started leaving little messages on the internet, distancing themselves from Derbyshire, one-by-one, followed up by a coup-de-grace at the hands of Caiaphas himself, Richard Lowry the National Review’s editor.

When the magazine was set up in the 1950s, the case could still be made that America was a nation, and that because it was a reasonably coherent entity, there was some sense in establishing a Conservative political magazine that sought to review it as a whole; hence the magazine’s dull but descriptive name. Reviewing, by the way, means to look at, examine, and analyze something so as to offer opinion, insight, and enlightenment. Something to bear in mind in the present age.

Over several decades, however, the nation that the magazine was set up to review changed so spectacularly that there is no longer any certainty that it is an actual nation with a unified culture and identity. The most obvious of the many divisions that have arisen is that Blacks are no longer held to the same standards as the rest of the country, with the result that a great many of them have simply given up trying to live in a way compatible with Whites. While some see this as a disaster for the “Black family,” it can also be seen as the rejection of what are essentially Northern European modes of behaviour, and the reassertion of the tribal and extended family patterns inherent in African populations.

The changes that America has undergone are not only significant in themselves, they also have severe journalistic repercussions. These have beeb clearly revealed in the Derbyshire case. While the old National Review could critique the nation as a whole and examine the most important issues, including race, with a degree of frankness and honesty, the present day mainstream media do so at their peril.

With the recent sacking of Pat Buchanan from MSNBC and now Derbyshire many will say we are moving into a zone of growing intolerance and political correctness. This is partially true, but the real reason is that the changing nature of America means it can no longer bear the strain of being honestly debated by its own mainstream media. To do this honestly and frankly, as Buchanan and Derbyshire did, emphasizes the fault lines and threatens to rip them apart.

This creates a major difficulty because you can’t understand America or any of its aspects without bringing a frank discussion of race into the picture. For example, in the case of education, how do you deal with the problem of a failing public school system without looking at the real problem, the inherently lower IQs of a significant part of the population? To understand an entity like America without addressing the issue of race is simply unthinkable, but to bring race into it also unleashes the kind of emotions that makes a sensible debate practically impossible. Catch 22!

But America is not the only multicultural or multiracial society. There are scores throughout the world, and the truth is that most of them handle race a lot better than America does. For example, Switzerland with four separate languages is clearly a multicultural country, but there the different cultural groups can deal with their differences and common interests without claiming that Romansch, German, French, or Italian are “social constructs” or resorting to stupid platitudes about the content of each man’s character.

Malaysia is a multiracial society with quite different racial groups, each with its own interests, but through an honest racial dialogue they have managed to create a society where the cleverness of the Chinese can be partially balanced by affirmative action that benefits the indigenous Malays and allows the two groups to create a reasonably effective symbiosis.

An examination of Spain, Lebanon, India, Russia, and Egypt will reveal countries that admit and deal with significant cultural and racial differences. It’s not always pretty and there are often problems, but in none of these countries is race consigned to the realm of taboos as it is in America.

Compared to these states, America has a special problem. These other countries are largely the result of “organic” historical processes that pushed their different populations together. America, by contrast, is much more the product of far-ranging economic processes, like Trans-Atlantic emigration from Europe and the African slave trade overlaid with modern mass immigration. Because of this different racial elements have been thrown together, and are much more disparate in character. This creates much greater ‘asymmetry’ in the differing racial characteristics, especially between Blacks and Whites.

In Switzerland the German Swiss and French Swiss are different but there is a rough equivalence that allows them to work together with mutual respect, deal with differences, and strike deals that are mutually acceptable. The same can be said for Castilians, Catalans, and Basques in Spain, and Hundus, Sikhs, Muslims, Gujaratis, and Bengalis in India. These groups are all different, but the differences are not so great or one-sided as to render them completely asymmetrical. Where goodwill exists, the different groups can represent their racial and cultural interests and address problems in a quid pro quo manner without denying race as the American establishment does.

Between Blacks and Whites in the USA, this is simply impossible, because whenever racial issues are addressed the enormous “racial asymmetry” instantly becomes an issue. But what does this “racial asymmetry” consist of? In concrete terms it refers to the entirely lopsided relationship between two races. In the case of Blacks and Whites in America it includes the fact that Blacks on the negative side of so many indices compared to Whites. They are much poorer, more criminal, imprisoned in much greater numbers, less educated, depend much more on welfare, have much less conventional family stability, and report much lower IQ rates than Whites. By all the standards that matter in a modern society, Blacks trail disastrously behind Whites. It is this asymmetry that makes an honest discussion about race an impossibility in modern America.

Instead we get a dishonest discussion about race: Back in the 1950s and 60s, round about the time the National Review was getting on its feet, nice, kind White liberals popularized an explanation for all the above phenomena that tied them all together in a series of causes and effects in a manner that was not overly insulting and offensive to Black people. Basically it said that Blacks were suffering from slavery and racism and that once racism was removed they would soon catch up with Whites.

Interestingly, this face-saving explanation of racial asymmetry, which I will call the “Face-Saving Racial Myth,” has now become the dominant racial narrative across the entire mainsteam media and most of the political spectrum, not because it is true. Indeed, everybody secretly knows it is untrue in the same way that everybody secretly gives their kids exactly the same kind of advice that John Derbyshire said he gave his. No, this Fairy Godmother explanation of racial asymmetry is favoured simply for reasons of short-term political and economic expediency because America is a political entity and collection of economic entities that all run on short-term political and economic expediency.

The basic racial asymmetry between Blacks and Whites means that the “Face-Saving Racial Myth” must never be challenged, for when it is the already tattered national fabric starts ripping apart. Wherever you have a marked racial asymmetry, honest discussion of it will do two things. First it will be immensely offensive to the disadvantaged race and those who claim to speak for them. This doesn’t mean that they are right, but they can’t help feeling the way they do. They will be well and truly pissed. This is not an argument to placate them. It is just a statement of fact.

The second thing that will happen is that White people, who have nothing but goodwill for Blacks, will notice that the longer they honestly and frankly discuss race the more they will end up sounding exactly like “White supremacists” and so-called hard-line “racists.” This is not because they have “inherent racism” as leftists like to imagine, it is simply because the facts of the debate will push them in that direction.

Derbyshire’s article is a perfect example of both of these effects. Far from being hateful or racist, the tone of the article was one of stoical regret that things had to be the way they are, but that, because of undeniable facts, certain precautions were advisable to safeguard one’s children. Writing with his usual honesty and thoroughness, it wasn’t long before he was unwittingly saying things that couldn’t help but be offensive to Blacks, while nevertheless being completely true.

The direction that the debate goes was revealed on the on-line comment boards at Taki’s and several other publications that got involved in the fight. Where these weren’t censored, the debates all served to highlight the great racial asymmetry between Blacks and Whites. After Black crimes rates were mentioned, the debate tended to move on to why Blacks commit so much more crime than Whites, leading to issues of poverty, low IQs, and the failure of Blacks to progress since “racism” ended. This then led to the corruption, chaos, and devastation of Black-run areas, with countless examples, usually mentioning Detroit and occasionally Haiti, as well as African countries.

Against a plethora of hard facts and hard experience all that the defenders of Blacks have is the “Face-Saving Racial Myth,” creaking, ragged, and ridiculous from constant overuse since the early 1960s, and a flood of Nazi, klan, and hillbilly jibes to cover up the vacuum where there arguments and evidence should be.

In short, the more that race is honestly discussed the more insulting it inevitably becomes for Blacks, and the more Whites will find themselves slipping unwittingly into “supremacist” language and attitudes, simply because of the underlying racial asymmetry. As for discussing, in a mutually polite and respectful way, topics like the 20-point IQ gap, Black-on-White crime (with stats and examples), and racial profiling. Forget it!

Personally I have no wish to bang on about White “supremacy,” and I’m sure that John Derbyshire didn’t either, but when you have a frank, open, and honest discussion about race in America this is one of the inevitable by-products, and this is exactly why the National Review has stopped reviewing the nation, and fired the last writer on its books capable of living up to the magazine’s title.

 

 

 

I Didn’t Ask For It

I didn’t ask for social security. Never asked for medicare. The thought of welfare never crossed my mind even in my poorest days. I never asked for an interstate highway system. Or for air traffic controllers. Never wanted a standing army. Or the FBI. CIA. Or any of those three letter agencies that were formed before I was even born.

The Department of Energy came to be when I was a toddler. The DHS when I was a young man with babies of my own. I watched those planes crash into the twin towers on live TV, but I never thought a DHS was the logical outcome from that event. Or the “Patriot” Act. I was never consulted. Never asked for my consent. Yet the majority of Americans expect me to fork over my hard earned money for these things, and many others which I never asked for or benefited from in any big way.

Yet they will look me straight in the eye and tell me I live in the land of the free. I do not live in the land of the free, I live in the land of the FEE. Money is extorted from me for things I don’t want, need, or use. Things which I find abhorrent. Things I have absolutely no use or desire for. But I am labelled “unpatriotic” because I don’t want to fork over my money for things I don’t want or need. I can be imprisoned for “failing” to fork over that money for things I don’t want or need.

I’ve said this many times over, in different ways. None of them effective. This will no doubt be equally ineffective. I will be attacked by people telling me I “benefit” from these things and should just shut the fuck up and pay. Really? I should pay for wars which I do not support? I should pay for an interstate highway system I can’t afford to use? I should pay for strangers’ retirement and healthcare? I should pay for groceries for crack whores and their tribe of illegitimate crack babies? I should subsidize failed businesses? I should give foreign aid to people half way across the globe who would sooner kill me than spit in my face? I should pay for “minorities” to go to school to take the jobs denied me due to “affirmative action?” I should subsidize products I neither use or want? I could go on…

I never asked for any of this, yet I am expected to pay for it. I am forced to pay for it. In the land of the free fee. Well I pledge no allegiance to a batch of thieves. The flag is an abomination now. Amerika ™ bears no resemblance to the land of promise and Freedom it once was. It was long gone well before my Grandparents were born. So I’m supposed to be financially responsible for idiotic decisions made decades before my birth? I’m supposed to pass these travesties on to my children? I don’t fuckin’ think so…