Pluralism finally separates the majority from the anti-majoritarians

Pluralism finally separates the majority from the anti-majoritarians

Watching the great Western experiment with democracy wind down, it now becomes clear how pluralism — the idea that we all agree to disagree, and have many groups disagreeing peacefully with each other in the name of a collage of diverse and interesting viewpoints — has run down and ultimately left us with two groups: the majority, and the anti-majoritarians.

In simple terms, the majority are those indigenous or native to a nation, and who need no “ideology” other than their own culture and interest in perpetuating themselves. The anti-majoritarians are those who don’t fit in, or want to fit in but on their own terms, and so wish to dissolve this majority and replace it with the pluralistic herd.

At first, they pitch this to us as the idea that many groups of different interests exist simultaneously. The majority likes this because it means they get to keep being themselves, only society adds some exciting layers. In reality, every layer represents a displacement, and the end result of the displacement is the creation of a permanent Other who hate the majority for being well-adjusted.

This other takes a negative form, meaning it is defined by what it is not. It is not of a culture, or heritage. It is not of a values system. It is not of a group — it is an anarchistic mass of individuals. But it even destroys that notion. Anarchy does not provide what it ultimately wants, which is for society to be forced to accept it and, as part of that, be forced to subsidize it.

With the Obama election the pluralist anti-majoritarians promised us that race relations would improve, we’d be “post-racial,” and in our new enlightenment we’d live in peace. Once in power, they did nothing but race to replace the majority with imported citizens, a new elite of government and private non-profit liberal ideologues, and new neurotic generations of kids raised on government propaganda in schools.

This event was seen as the culmination of the promise of the work of many generations, starting back a decade after our nation was formed. These groups saw the majority as bad, and exclusive, and so agitated for the inclusion of at first those close to the majority, all the way out to those totally alien to them. This liberal horde has agitated for successive additions to and dilution of the majority.

And now, with the Obama II election, the agenda has become clear. All those who want to think they’re dispossessed, which usually means those with either too much money and nothing to do, or too little money and no will to change their behaviors thus a need for government subsidy, are gathering with him. Their goal is simple: crush the majority once and for all.

All of the West is watching this election. It is a symbolic choice, more than anything. It comes down to a binary measurement: do we want something more like conservatism, or more like liberalism? All those who claim that the two parties are the same are missing the point, since these two similar parties each suggest which direction things will go after the election. The momentum will increase and that which is 10% conservative or liberal today will be 50% of the same four years later, just as it was with Obama.

Whoever wins will carry a mandate to expand upon the relatively mild policies discussed during election time, and to go farther toward the ideal that each side represents — much as elections in Europe do. The conservatives stand for the policies that benefit the majority, and the liberals stand for everyone else and the crushing of the majority. Whose side are you on?

Pushing back against the hivemind

They make one exception: any human notion that rejects the above is not protected.

This hive-mind is massively popular because you cannot resist it without incurring guilt, scorn and disapproval from others. If you don’t want confrontation, it’s best to just go along with it. And thus it became a trend, then an obligation, and now finally it is the de facto law of the land, 200 years past its real acceleration.

But the pushback is occurring: realists are recognizing that appeasement does no good, nor does pretending that our policies would be liberal, and it’s better to just attack the difference than to emphasize similarities.

We don’t need to agree with these men fully or even much at all. What’s more important is the principle: push back against anti-realists by pointing out the big deviations they make from reality, and the bad consequences of that, and thus don’t try to “fix” their broken programs, but demand another direction entirely.

“Far right” to rally this weekend in Europa

(CNN) — Far-right groups from across Europe are gathering in Denmark on Saturday for a rally they say is meant to make their governments act against the threat of Islamic extremism.
Those attending want to send a “clear message to the leaders of Europe,” according to the English Defence League (EDL), one of the organizers of the event.

The rally is due to take place in the port city of Aarhus, with speeches from a dozen speakers.

“Our governments and our media behave as if Islamic extremism exists only in the head of a few extremists, and claim that it is unfair to make the connection between Islam and extremism,” an online EDL statement says.

“This is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to claim that anyone who criticizes Islam must be an extremist in their own right. We believe in fair criticism of Islam and in the defence of our cultures, our nations, and the rights and freedoms that they have long protected.”

Memo From Middle America | Zimmerman Lynch Mob Exposes “Hispanic” Paper Tiger

The MSM “narrative” of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman tragedy shooting—White Man shoots Black Teenager!—was barely changed by the revelation that the shooter can technically be classified as “Hispanic”. (His mother is Peruvian).

Zimmerman is also a registered Democrat, for what that’s worth. And Zimmerman is sometimes a Jewish name, as in the case of his father’s namesake “Robert Zimmerman” a.k.a. Bob Dylan, but a post over on Tablet Mag (which describes itself as a “daily online magazine of Jewish news, ideas, and culture.”) reassures the readers that “Zimmerman, Trayvon Martins Killer is not Jewish” [By Marc Tracy, March 21, 2012]. Apparently, George Zimmerman was raised Catholic, even serving as an altar boy.

The only effect of the revelation of Zimmerman’s ethnicity: the MSM switched to calling him a “white Hispanic”—a term, as Ellison Lodge pointed out last night, that a Google search shows was previously almost unknown.

The lynch mob continues to assemble—incited by none other than the President of the United States.

Which leads to the next question. Are Hispanics, especially the numerous self-appointed professional Hispanic  noise-makers, defending George Zimmerman? And if not, why not?

The National Council of La Raza did issue a statement by its CEO Janet Murguia, A Complete Investigation is Vital for Justice in Trayvon Martin Case

Well, I’m sure we could all agree on that. But the statement was hardly a ringing endorsement:

Later, Rush Limbaugh actually pointed out that La Raza wasn’t defending Zimmerman. La Raza spokeswoman Lisa Navarrete responded with “We really regret people trying to use this to divide blacks and Latinos. It’s disturbing to us that Rush Limbaugh has this theory. The only time he apparently cares about what happens to a Latino is when they may have happened to kill a young African-American man.”

La Raza says it’s Not ignoring Trayvon Martin Case, by Nick Valencia, CNN, March 28, 2012

The folks over at LULAC, League of Latin American Citizens don’t appear to be defending Zimmerman either. I checked out the LULAC website, League of Latin American Citizens, and didn’t find anything.

Nor is La Opinion, a leading Spanish-language Los Angeles newspaper. In fact its articles just seem to follow the Leftist party line. Its front page story on March 29, 2012 is Visten sudaderas por Trayvon, about California legislators dressing in hoodies (!) for a press conference.

The Mexican media, from what I’ve seen, don’t seem real interested in the story either. This March 24 article   didn’t even mention the Hispanic angle. [“De tener un hijo, sería como Trayvon” | Obama exige aclarar asesinato de joven afroestadounidense]

Of course, this is a big contrast to how the Mexican media goes on and on about issues related to illegal alien Mexicans in the U.S.

Florida is full of Cubans, but the Spanish-language media there has nothing particular to say.

It occurred to me, though, how about the Peruvian media? After all, George Zimmerman’s mother was Peruvian.

Sure enough, this connection was acknowledged in the Peruvian media. But I found no ringing defense of George Zimmerman there either. For example:

George Zimmerman, el hombre de raíces peruanas odiado en EE.UU. (George Zimmerman, the man of Peruvian roots hated in the U.S.) El Comercio, March 24, 2012

This was followed up with Peruano-estadounidense mató a joven negro en defensa propia (“Peruvian-American Kills Young Black Man in Self-Defense”) El Comercio, March 26, 2012

There was some discussion of Zimmerman on this Peruvian forum. But opinion was divided, and it didn’t seem that hot of a topic.

Most of these Latin American pieces on Zimmerman pretty much follow the American Mainstream Media, without much original reporting.

Basically, what seems have happened is that the U.S. Left set the agenda through its control of the MSM, and professional Hispanics, and Spanish-language journalists, are following along.

But it may not be working. A white Panamanian-American writer by the name of Carlos Harrison [Email him] looked at the Hispanic-Black angle in an article entitled Trayvon Martin Shooting Does Not Incite Hispanic-Black Tension, Focus Remains On Police, (Huffington Post, March 22, 2012). Harrison writes that

“The tension that the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon has exposed, residents and community leaders say, is not between blacks and Latinos, or blacks and whites. It’s a fresh gash in the festering rancor between the community’s blacks and its police…..But community members say that the ire over Martin’s death has not been directed at Latinos.”

There’s also a Spanish-language version of the Harrison article, entitled Caso Trayvon Martin:¿Afroamericanos vs. hispanos? (“Trayvon Martin Case: African-Americans vs. Hispanics?” AOL Latino, March 24, 2012). It’s just a translation of the same article with its feel-good treatment of Hispanic-Black relations.

However, when you scroll down to the comments section, all in Spanish, it’s another story entirely. Grassroots Hispanics aren’t buying all this happy talk.

Here are a few excerpts that I have translated:

  • Sandra: “Of course there is racism between Hispanics and blacks. Blacks have never liked us because we work more and better than them. And let’s be honest, we don’t like them either….”
  • Rocam: “Last January a young Honduran was shot to death…in Miami, by Afroamericans. This happens frequently….They rob you and kill you for one dollar. Nobody weeps, nobody protests when many die daily at the hands of the Afroamericans. It seems like only they have a license to kill. Who knows if Obama…makes a presidential decree, granting them the power of life and death over the rest of the society. …
  • David “… we all know that the majority of the crimes committed in this country are committed by blacks. At least here in Florida, in these past few months there has been an escalation of crimes and murders…committed by young blacks of 16, 17 and 18 years old like this one (Trayvon). They haven’t arrived to adulthood and they are already career criminals. …Of all the armed robberies that happen here almost daily, the vast majority are committed by blacks always against whites and Hispanics. …

And so it goes. There is plenty of evidence that, at the grassroots level, Hispanics understand the reality of black crime—a subject which our leaders (of both parties) fear to deal with or even mention.

As Brenda Walker has pointed out, this is not always a one-way street. She has reported ethnic cleansing of American blacks by Hispanic gangs in California.

Despite what the Civil Rights Establishment may tell us, there is a great deal of friction between blacks and Hispanics. As the demographics change, this is liable to get worse.

Indeed, in late 2007 a New American Media poll revealed that of the three principal minorities—blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans—each group trusted white Americans more than they did the other minority groups. [US minorities don’t trust each other (AFP) December 12, 2007]

So how does that bode for a future in which, if present trends continue, whites become a minority?

For that matter, Hispanics (defined as broadly as possible by the Census as a result of political pressure) have already passed blacks as the largest minority. Theoretically, if immigration policy continues on its current mad course, the U.S. could be on track to becoming a majority Hispanic country.

Black Americans are going to rue that day. They will have lost their special position in American society as the “favored minority”. Hispanics simply don’t walk around with a guilt complex about black people the way white Americans do.

So what does the Zimmerman lynch frenzy tell us?

  • Hispanics—make that “Hispanics”—simply lack solidarity. As a political force, they exist only in the dreams of ambitious ethnic entrepreneurs and the nightmares of persecuted Census bureaucrats. Mexicans don’t care about Puerto Ricans, Cubans care only about Cubans, and nobody at all cares about Peruvians who, unfortunately for George Zimmerman, have not invaded in sufficient numbers to constitute a lobby (yet).
  • Professional Hispanics—the LULACS and La Razas—are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the American Left. That’s who pays them, and they’re not going to bite the mano that feeds them by disrupting the Left coalition. Of course, pretty much the same can be said for feminists (why didn’t they welcome Sara Palin?) and African Americans (why don’t they resist their people’s displacement though immigration?)
  • “Hispanics” (as Steve Sailer has repeatedly said) simply don’t care that much about politics.

Sailer has also repeatedly pointed out that the long-predicted Hispanicization of American politics and culture seems to be a suspiciously long time showing up.

The lynching of poor George Zimmerman proves the point: Hispanic power, to adapt Chairman Mao, is a paper tiger.

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.

Sarkozy: Too Many Foreigners

Sarkozy: Too Many Foreigners

The BBC reports that Nicolas Sarkozy was filmed in a televised debate stating that France has too many foreigners and that the system for integrating them is not working.

And the stunning declarations did not end there. Apparently, Sarkozy’s solution to the problem is equally radical: he has promised that if he is elected next month he will cut the number of new arrivals in half.

Right. So on the one hand there are too many foreigners, but on the other the solution is to bring more in.

This reminds me of the logic Western democratic politicians have employed in their efforts to understand the still unfolding economic crisis—a logic that sees the incurring of more debt as the solution to a problem that was caused by too much debt.

And of course this emerges in the context of an election campaign afflicted by voter apathy, where opinion polls give Sarkozy’s socialist opponent a clear lead.

Consider also that Sarkozy has been president of France for five years, and that before that he was—twice—Minister of Interior. If he now thinks France has too many foreigners, what is he telling us about his record of achievements in political office?

Sarkozy was one of three European politicians who some time ago declaimed that multiculturalism had failed.

David Cameron was another of them, Cameron being also a conservative politician who promised his voters drastically to cut the number of new arrivals in the United Kingdom.

Cameron’s record so far: net immigration at record high since he took office two years ago, and a call for ‘muscular’ liberalism.

Detroit’s Received More Than a Trillion in Aid Since the Inception of Black-Rule in 1973

Detroit Mayor David Bing to ask for $150 million in aid; Detroit’s Received More Than a Trillion in Aid Since the Inception of Black-Rule in 1973

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

 

“Detroit, the place where capitalism failed.”
63 Alfred Street: Built by white people 130 plus years ago

This quote comes from the book 63 Alfred Street: Where Capitalism Failed by John Kossik, which blames the failures on Detroit for the inability of capitalism to work in a city where the immutable laws of the Visible Black of Economics have been at work for decades.

Kossik focuses his thesis on the tragic ruins of a Venetian Gothic mansion, built more than 130 years ago when white people were more than 99 percent of population there.
Capitalism didn’t fail Detroit, for it is capitalism that has allowed the lily-white suburbs to thrive, courtesy of the ingenuity of the people living there to innovate and produce something of wealth and value. Their labor is rewarded; in Detroit, the exact opposite is on display, courtesy of the Black population (89 percent of the city) found there.
Though it is not formal yet, Detroit’s beleaguered mayor is going to do what the first Black mayor of Detroit – Coleman Young – did so well: beg, plead, and pray for federal grants, federal aid, and or a loan to help keep the city moving forward. The Detroit News reported:

Mayor Dave Bing is seeking $125 million to $150 million in a short-term loan from the state to help fix the city’s fiscal crisis, Bing’s office confirmed Thursday night.

Bing’s request follows his State of the City speech Wednesday night where he vowed to keep an emergency manager out of the city and called for “tangible support” from the state, including financial and operational support.

 To stave off the collapse of the city – the Detroit School System has already been taken over by the state, a system that spends $15,000+ per pupil but produces the lowest big city standardized test scores in all of America and a population that is nearly 50 percent illiterate – and the implementation of an emergency manager to assume control of the city’s finances, Mayor Bing is resorting to playing the role Coleman Young made famous: Demand more money, and have absolute no return on investment to show for the federal aid, federal grant, or money borrowed to help Detroit move forward.
Same building today: Neglected under Black-rule in Detroit

Wilbur Rich’s book Coleman Young and Detroit Politics: From Social Activist to Power Broker was basically a running apology for the mismanagement of federal aid that Young was able to convince the government to keep sending Detroit’s way.

Between 2009 – 2011 alone, Detroit Public Schools snagged $200 million in federal stimulus money (the largest amount given to any school system in the state of Michigan). The test scores and graduation rate produced by these Black scholars (96 percent of the K-12 student body in Detroit is Black) didn’t magically go up, though the drop-out rate did. Worse, Wayne County – home to Detroit – received a total of $2.4 billion in stimulus dollars between that same time.
Where did that money go?

The same place that the $11 million grant to help low-income job seekers enrich their wardrobes with appropriate attire for interviews (of which only two people were helped). The same place where the $50 million that is sent each year by the federal government for Head Start went:

Following complaints that the Detroit Human Services Department fostered an environment of nepotism, reckless spending and corruption to the detriment of the early childhood education program Head Start, the federal government plans to stop sending $50 million a year to the city to fund the program, the Free Press learned Thursday.

Head Start has been declared a failure, by the way. Meaning that the $50 million given to Detroit each year for more than 30 years has been a monumental waste of taxpayer money.
In July of 2011, the Detroit Free Press reported on another city department mismanaging $75 million in federal funds:

The FBI is investigating the city’s Human Services Department over misspent tax dollars and its handling of $100 million in federal grants.There’s been a continuing police investigation into how the city’s Department of Health and Wellness Promotion has handled about $75 million in state and federal funds. And Detroit Mayor Dave Bing fired the department’s director, Yvonne Anthony, in May.

More than 25 of Bing’s top appointees have left the city in the last two years, and Bing has pleaded with Detroit’s corporate community to be more active in helping to revitalize the city.

Federal grants are needed to keep the police on the streets, even though they’ve stopped responding to 911 calls; federal grants are needed to keep firefighters employed. Indeed, federal grants to the tune of millions of dollars are even needed to keep neighborhoods stabilized, though no evidence for stability exists.
There is no tax-base in Detroit anymore. The wealth producers (i.e. white people) fled when the threat of criminality – almost entirely by Black people – became too great in the late 1960s.  Those Black people who are in the middle-to-upper-middle class in Detroit are there because of intense affirmative action in the city’s government (and in the distribution of contracts to private contractors).
Fitting that Lyndon B. Johnson designated Detroit a “Model City” in the early 1960s, where hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into The Motor City to help alleviate poverty and help the growing Black population get off their knees and onto their feet.
By helping them on their knees with hundreds of millions of aid, Detroit’s progressive white Mayor Jerry Cavanagh could only watch in horror as Black people engaged in the most destructive riot in American history, burning significant parts of the city, helping convince hundreds of thousands of white people to move into the suburbs immediately.  The New York Times reported in 1997, 30 years after those devastating riots that Detroit never recovered from, that the misery of Black-rule in Detroit was still better than what they had rioted against:

There were nearly four dozen riots and more than 100 smaller cases of civil unrest in the United States in 1967, but Detroit’s riots were the deadliest. A Presidential commission later attributed most of the 43 deaths to police officers and National Guardsmen who, in the commission’s view, had gone out of control.The long-simmering anger of black residents at an abusive, mostly white police force erupted here in the early morning hours of July 23, 1967, and lasted five days. The flash point was a raid by white police officers on an after-hours drinking and gambling club at the corner of 12th and Clairmount Streets, in a heavily black neighborhood. By the time the smoke cleared almost a week later, 683 buildings across the city had been damaged or destroyed and tanks had rolled through the streets. But the riots exacerbated demographic shifts that had begun a decade before in many big cities. Around 1940, many Southern blacks, like various immigrant groups before them, moved to Detroit for the work in the automobile factories. The city’s population at the time of the riots was one-third black, and by 1990 that percentage had grown to 76 percent.Even before the riots, many middle-class Detroit residents, particularly whites, had begun moving to the newly built suburbs, commuting to work on the broad highways being built. But the riots turned the steady stream of people moving to the suburbs into a torrent. Businesses followed their customers. Thousands of houses were abandoned as the city’s population plunged to 992,000 from 1.6 million at the time of the riots. Even today, some black residents refer to the upheaval here 30 years ago as a rebellion against racist white authority rather than a riot. The site where the troubles began, 12th Street, was renamed Rosa Parks Boulevard in 1976, after the civil rights heroine from Montgomery, Ala., who refused to give up her bus seat to a white man and who later moved to Detroit.

What happened in Detroit is a strangely mirrors what happened in South Africa. The Great Migration of Blacks from the South in the early decades of the 20th century eventually overwhelmed the white population of Detroit. Black people had nothing to do with building Detroit; but they have had everything to do with destroying it.
Same goes with South Africa.
Since 1973, when the city was roughly 50 percent white and 50 percent Black (and boasting a population almost double– of which 89 percent are Black today – the 770,000 it is today), the various – all have been Black – mayors of Detroit have had to rely on grants, borrowing funds, and federal aid to keep the city going.
Fitting that the white residents of Detroit in 1973 – before packing their bags and heading to the suburbs to thrive – tried to save the city via the ballot box. Charles M. Carey’s African-America Political Leaders tells us this about the year Young was first elected:

In 1973 Young declared his candidacy for mayor of Detroit. His opponent was John F. Nichols, the white commissioner of the police who was running on a “law and order” platform. Young stole his thunder by promising to get rid of all kinds of crime, including police brutality. The polls indicated that more than 90 percent of whites favored Nichols, while more than 90 percent of the blacks favored Young. Since African Americans barely outnumbered white in Detroit, Young won by a few thousand votes.

Young didn’t get rid of crime, with Detroit instantly becoming one of the most dangerous cities in the world, known as the “Murder Capital” of America in the 1970s. Today, the police don’t even report – nor respond to 911 calls – the crime rate.
The floodgates for hiring Black people to get back at whitey began, with Young hiring more Black officers, firefighters, and municipal clerks. No longer could city employees live in the suburbs, they were forced to live in the city.
According to The Quotations of Coleman A. Young, this employment of affirmative action hiring policies had a purpose, with the newly elected Young saying:

 “Some people say affirmative action is discrimination in reverse. You’re damned right. The only way to handle discrimination is to reverse it.”

The past is never past. The lesson of Detroit is the lesson for America; once in power, the presumed inequities of the past will be rectified. In the case of The Motor City, the lingering – dwindling – white population was severely discriminated against, and yet they were asked to pay the bill for their own dispossession.
They deserve no pity. The citizens of Detroit deserve no mercy.
The state of Michigan has created 16 “Michigan Renaissance Zones” in Detroit, which are virtually free of any taxation. The whole concept of “enterprise zones” is that instantly – without government intrusion through taxes – capitalism should flourish.
But capitalism hasn’t flourished. It would not be far fetched to state that trillions of taxpayer money (via federal loans, grants, and stimulus aid) over a span of fifty-sixty years has poured into Detroit. Whether it was to fight poverty, improve the test scores and graduation of primarily Black students, fight crime, maintain infrastructure, stimulate economic growth, or just pay city bills, the aid has been a waste.
Elliot Washington in 2008 wrote these words about Detroit, with have no basis in reality:

Since the early 1930s and FDR, Detroit has had a tragic love affair with liberalism, the consequences of which have to a degree been comparable to the sieges by the cruel superpowers of antiquity – Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, the Huns, the Mongols. True, in Detroit there are no siege works here, no boiling oil, flaming arrows, catapults or battering rams, yet the barbarian hoards are not only at the gates, but are within the city gates, and these people, infected by a stubborn liberal mindset, are surely killing this town.

The white citizens of Detroit left, after being electorally defeated in a true racial election in 1973. This was after most had left because of the Black riot in 1967 and the high rates of Black crime that white citizens encountered in Detroit.

They built flourishing suburbs wherever they went, leaving behind a city they built to be ruled by Coleman Young and his Black friends.
Liberalism didn’t destroy Detroit anymore than capitalism did. It has been the ingenuity of others and the wealth they have created, which has been taxed by a government dedicated to the advancement of Black-Run America (BRA), and sent as federal aid and federal grants that have kept the city of Detroit going to this day.
In the Batman story No Man’s Land, Gotham City is hit with a massive earthquake that destroys the city. The cost of rebuilding is so great, the United States government decides to blow up every bridge out of Gotham and build a wall around the city, with 24/7 armed guards keeping everyone in the city (via huge walls) and preventing anyone from entering.  Even members of the clergy and philanthropic organizations are barred from entering.
This could be one of the solutions to the Detroit problem.
Or, like the plan in Robocop, a private company could bailout the city, privatizing all of the agencies (police, fire department, waste, public transit, etc.) there in the process.
Knowing that neither of these two options would ever be implemented, it must be stated that Detroit must never be bailed out again.
Taxpayer money shouldn’t continue to support a city built on reversing the perceived racism of the past, blaming whitey for every problem that Black people encounter along the way.
It’s time Black people take responsibility for their actions. In this case, we are talking about the demise of one of the great American cities. Scratch that, one of the great cities of the world.
Black people forced white people out of Detroit, who in turn rebuilt the city in their image in the surrounding lily-white suburbs.
Commerce, innovation, and economic activity flourish there.
Detroit? Regression to the mean.
The Visible Black Hand of Economics on display for the world to see. Pumped with a continuous infusion of federal grants and federal aid (your taxpayer money that could have gone to space exploration or cancer research), Detroit has continued to deteriorate under Black rule.
Mayor Bing must be told “no” when he formally requests the $150 million in aid. For the sake of all Americans – Black and white, Hispanic and Asian – the citizens of Detroit must be told why the answer is “no” as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbsgLcV4o1k&feature=player_embedded

Why Conservatives Always Lose

Why Conservatives Always Lose

In our modern Western societies, liberals do all the laughing, and conservatives do all the crying. Liberals may find this an extraordinary assertion, given that over the past century their preferred political parties have spent more time out of power than their conservative rivals, and, indeed, no radical Left party has ever held a parliamentary or congressional majority. Yet, this view is only possible if one regards a Labour or a Democratic party as ‘the Left’, and a Conservative or a Republican party as ‘the Right’—that is, if one considers politics to be limited to liberal politics, and regards the negation of liberalism as a negation of politics. The reality is that in modern Western societies, both ‘the Left’ and ‘the Right’ consist of liberals, only they come in two flavours: radical and less radical. And whether one is called liberal or conservative is simply a matter of degree, not of having a fundamentally different worldview. The result has been that the dominant political outlook in the West has drifted ever ‘Leftwards’. It has been only the speed of the drift that has changed from time to time.

This is not to deny the existence of conservatism. Conservatism is real. This is to say that conservatism, even in its most extreme forms, operates against, and is inevitably dragged along by, this Leftward-drifting background. And this is crucial if we are to have a true understanding of modern conservatism and why conservatives are always losing, even when electoral victories create the illusion that conservatives are frequently winning.

It would be wrong, however, to attribute the endless defeat of conservatism entirely to the Leftward drift of the modern political cosmos. That would an abrogation of conservatives’ responsibility for their own defeats. Conservatives are responsible for their own defeats. The causes stem less from liberalism’s dominance, than from the very premise of conservatism. Triumphant liberalism is made possible by conservatism, while triumphant conservatism leads eventually to liberalism. Anyone dreaming of ‘taking back his country’ by supporting the conservative movement, and baffled by its inability to stop the march of liberalism, has yet to understand the nature of his cause. The brutal truth: he is wasting his time.

Defeating liberalism requires acceptance of two fundamental statements.

  • Traditionalism is not conservatism.
  • Liberal defeat implies conservative defeat.

Much of our ongoing conversation about the future of Western society has focused on the deconstruction of liberalism. Not much of it has focused on a deconstruction of conservatism. Most deconstructions of conservatism have come from the Left, and, as we will see, there is good reason for this. It is time conservatism be deconstructed from outside the Left (and therefore also the Right). I say ‘also’ because neither conservatism nor traditionalism I class as ‘the Right’. Neither do I accept that ‘Right wing’ is the opposite of ‘Left wing’; ‘the Right’ is predicated on ‘the Left’, and is therefore not independent of ‘the Left’. Consequently, any use of the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ coming from this camp is and has always been expedient; I expect such terms to disappear from current usage once the political paradigm has fundamentally changed.

Below I describe eight salient traits that define conservatism, explain the long-term pattern of conservative defeats, and show how liberalism and conservatism are complementary and mutually reinforcing partners, rather than contrasting enemies.

Anatomy of Conservatism

Fear

Proponents of the radical Left like to describe the politics of the Right as ‘the politics of fear’. Leftist propaganda may be full of invidious characterisations, false dichotomies, and outright lies, but this is one observation that, when applied to conservatism, is entirely correct. The reason conservatives conserve and are suspicious of youth and innovation is that they fear change. Conservatives prefer order, fixity, stability, and predictable outcomes. One of their favourite refrains is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. There is some wisdom in that, and there are, indeed, advantages to this view, since it requires less effort, permits forward planning, and reduces the likelihood of stressful situations. Once a successful business or living formula is found, one can settle quite comfortably into a reassuring routine in a slow world of certainties, which at best allows for gradual and tightly controlled evolution. Change ends the routine, breaks the formula, disrupts plans, and lead to stressful situations that demand effort and speed, cause stress and uncertainty, and may have unpredictable outcomes. Conserving is therefore an avoidance strategy by risk-averse individuals who do not enjoy the challenge of thinking creatively and adapting to new situations. For conservatives change is an evil to be feared.

No answers

We can deduce then that the reason conservatives fear change is that they are not very creative. Creativity, after all, involves breaking the mould, startling associations, unpredictability. Conservatives are disturbed by change because they generally know not how to respond. This is the primary reason why, when change does occur, as it inevitably does, their response tends to be slow and to focus on managing symptoms rather than addressing causes. This is also the primary reason why they either plan well ahead against every imaginable contingency or remain in a state of denial until faced with immediate unavoidable danger. Conservatives are first motivated by fear and then paralysed by it.

Defensive

Unfortunately for conservatives, the world is ever changing, the universe runs in cycles, and anything alive is always subject to unpredictable changes in state. Because they generally have no answers, this puts conservatives always on the defensive. The only time conservatives take aggressive action is when planning against possible disruptions to their placid life. They are the last to show initiative in anything else because being a pioneer is risky, fraught with stress and uncertainties. Thus, conservatism is always a resistance movement, a movement permanently on the back foot, fighting a tide that keeps on coming. The conservatives’ main preoccupation is holding on to their positions, and ensuring that, when retreat becomes inevitable, their new position is as close as possible to their old one. Once settled into a new position, any lull in the tide becomes an opportunity to recover the previous position. However, because lulls do not last long enough and recovering lost positions is difficult, the recovery is at best partial, never wholly successful. Conservatives are consequently always seen as failures and sell-outs, since eventually they are always forced to compromise.

Necrophiles

Their lack of creativity leads conservatives to look for answers in the past. This goes beyond learning the lessons from history. Averse to risk, they mistrust novelty, which makes their present merely a continuation of the past. In this they contrast against both liberals and traditionalists: for the former the present is a delay of the future, for the latter it is a moment between what was and will be. At the same time, conservatives resemble the liberals, and contrast against traditionalists more than they think. One reason is that they confuse tradition with conservation, overlooking that tradition involves cyclical renewal rather than museological restoration. Museological restoration is what conservatives are about. Their domain is the domain of the dead, embalmed or kept alive artificially with systems of life support. Another reason is that both liberals and conservatives are obsessed with the past: because they love it much, conservatives complain that things of the past are dying out; because they hate it much, liberals complain that things of the past are not dying out soon enough! One is necrophile, the other a murderer. Both are about death. In contrast, traditionalism is about life, for life is a cycle of birth, growth, maturity, death, and renewal.

Boring

Fear, resistance to change, lack of creativity, and an infatuation with dead things makes conservatives boring. Dead things can be interesting, of course, and in our modern throwaway society, dead things can have the appeal of the exotic, particularly since they belong to a time when the emphasis was on quality rather than quantity. Quality, understood both as high quality and possessing qualities, is linked to rarity or uniqueness, excitement or surprise, and, therefore, creativity or unpredictability. Conservatives, however, conserve because they long for a world of certainties—slow, secure, comfortable, and with predictable outcomes. Granted: such an existence can be pleasant given optimal conditions, and it may indeed be recommended in a variety of situations, but it is not exciting. Excitement involves precisely the conditions and altered states that conservatives fear and seek to avoid. It thus becomes difficult to get excited about anything conservative.

Old

There are good reasons why conservatism is associated with old age. As a person grows old he loses his taste for excitement; his constitution is less robust, he has less energy, he has fewer reserves, he has rigidified in mind and body, and he is less capable of the rapid, flexible responses demanded by intense situations and sudden shocks. It makes sense for a person to become more conservative as he grows old, but this is hardly a process relished by anyone. Once old enough to be taken seriously, the desire is always to remain young and delay the signs of old age. Expressing boredom by saying that something ‘got old’ implies a periodic need for change. Conservatives oppose change, so they get old very fast.

Irrelevant

Preoccupation with the past, resistance to change, and mistrust of novelty eventually makes conservatives irrelevant. This is particularly the case in a world predicated on the desirability of progress and constant innovation. Conservatives end up becoming political antiquarians, rather than effective powerbrokers: they operate not as leaders of men, but as curators in a museum.

Losers

Sooner of later, through their refusal to adapt until they become irrelevant, conservatives are constantly left behind, waving a fist at the world with angry incomprehension. Because eventually survival necessitates periodic surrenders and regroupings at positions further to the Left, conservatives come to be seen as spineless, as people always in retreat, as, in short, losers. The effective function of a conservative in present-day society is to organise surrender, to ensure retreats are orderly, to keep up vain hopes or a restoration, so that there is never risk of a revolutionary uprising.

Liberalism’s Best Ally

With the above in mind, it is hard not to see conservatism as liberalism’s own controlled opposition: it may not be that way, but the effect is certainly the same. Conservatism provides periodic respite after a bout of liberalism, allowing citizens to adapt and grow accustomed to its effects before the next wave of liberalisation. Worse still, conservative causes, because they eventually always become irrelevant, provide a rationale for liberalism, supplying proof for the Left of why it is and should remain the only game in town. Liberals love conservatives.

Conservatism and Tradition

Conservatism does not have to be liberalism’s best ally: conservatism can be the best ally of any anti-establishment movement, since it always comes to represent the boring alternative. Conservatives defend the familiar, but familiarity breeds contempt, so over time people lose respect for what is and grow willing to experience some turbulence—results may be unpredictable and may indeed turn out to be negative, but at least the turbulence makes people feel alive, like there is something they can be actively involved in. In the age of liberalism, conservatism is fundamentally liberal: it does not defend tradition, since liberalism has caused it to be forgotten for the most part, but an earlier version of liberalism. In an age of tradition, conservatism could well be the best ally of a rival tradition, since conservatism always stagnates what is, thus increasing receptivity over time to any kind of change. Thus conservatism sets the conditions for destructive forms of change.

By contrast, tradition is evolution, and so long as it avoids the trap of conservatism (stagnation), those within the tradition remain engaged with it. This is not to say that traditions are immune from self-destructive events and should never be abandoned: hypertely, maladaption, or pathological evolution, for example, can destroy a tradition from within. However, that is outside our scope here.

Confusion of Tradition and Conservation

In the age of liberalism, because it has forgotten tradition, tradition is confused with conservation. Thus some conservatives describe themselves as traditionalists, even though they are just archaic liberals. Some self-described traditionalists may erroneously adopt conservative traits, perhaps out of a confused desire to reject liberalism’s notions of progress. Tradition and conservation are distinct and separate processes. Liberalism may contain its own traditions. Liberalism may also become conservative in its rejection of tradition. Likewise for conservatism, except that it rejects liberalism and does so only ostensibly, not in practice.

End of Liberalism

Ending liberalism requires an end to conservatism. We should never call ourselves conservatives. The distinction between tradition and conservation must always be made, for transcending the present ‘Left’-‘Right’ paradigm of modern democratic politics in the West demands a great sorting of what is traditional from what is conservative, so that the former can be rediscovered, and the latter discarded as part of the liberal apparatus.

In doing so we must be alert to the trap of reaction. Reactionaries are defined by their enemies, and thus become trapped in their enemies’ constructions, false dichotomies, and unspoken assumptions. Rather than rejection, the key word is transcendence. The end of liberalism is achieved through its transcendence, its relegation into irrelevance.

Given the confusion of our times, it must be stressed that tradition is not about returning to an imagined past, or about reviving a practice that was forgotten so that it may be continued exactly as it was when it was abandoned. There may have been a valid reason for abandoning a particular practice, and the institution of a new practice may have been required in order for the tradition successfully to continue. A tradition, once rediscovered, must be carried forward. Continuation is not endless replication.

After Liberalism

The measure of our success in this enterprise will be seen in the language.

We know liberalism has been successful because many of us ended up defining ourselves as a negation of everything that defined liberalism. Many of the words used to describe our political positions are prefixed with ‘anti-‘. This represented an adoption by ‘anti-liberals’ of negative identities manufactured by liberals for purposes of affirming themselves in ways that suited their convenience and flattered their vanity.

Ending liberalism implies, therefore, the development of a terminology that transcends liberalism’s constructions. Only when they begin describing themselves as a negation of what we are will we know we have been successful, for their lack of an affirmative, positive vocabulary will be indicative that their identity has been fully deconstructed and is then socially, morally, and philosophically beyond the pale.

Developing such a vocabulary, however, is a function of our determining once again who we are and what we are about. Without a metaphysics to define the tradition and drive it forward, any attempt at a cultural revolution will fail. A people need a metaphysics if they are to tell their story. If the story of who we are and where we are going cannot be told for lack of a defining metaphysic, any attempt at a cultural revolution will need to rely on former stories, will therefore lapse into conservatism, and thus into tedium and irrelevance.

After Conservatism

One cannot be for Western culture if one is not for the things that define Western culture. A metaphysics, and therefore ‘our story’, is defined through art. Art, in the broadest possible sense, gives expression to values, ideals, and sentiments that a people share and feel in the core of their beings, but which often cannot be articulated in words. Therefore, the battle for Western identity is waged at this level, not in the political field, even if identity is a political matter. Similarly, any attempt to use art for political purposes fails, because politics, being merely the art of the possible, is defined by culture, not the other way around.

In the search for ‘our story’, we must not confuse art with craft. Craftmanship may be defined by tradition, and a tradition may find expression in crafts, making them ‘traditional’, but the two are not synonymous. Similarly, craftsmanship may improve art, but craft is not art anymore than art is craft. Art explores and defines. Craft reproduces and perpetuates. Thus, art is to tradition what craft is to conservatism. This is why contemporary art, being an extreme expression of liberal ideals, is without craftsmanship, and why art with craftsmanship is considered conservative, illustration, or ‘outsider’.

Those concerned with the continuity of the West often treat reading strictly non-fiction and classics as proof of their seriousness and dedication, but ironically it will be when they start reading fiction and making new fiction that they will be at their most serious and dedicated. If tradition implies continuity and not simple replication, then it also implies ongoing creation and not simple preservation.

After Tradition

No tradition has eternal life. Ours will some day end. Liberalism sees its fulfilment as the end of history, but that is their cosmology, not ours. Therefore, liberalism does not—and should never—indicate to us that we have reached the end of the line. The degeneration of the West is tied to the degeneration of liberalism. The West will be renewed when the liberals come crashing down. They will be reduced to an obsolete and irrelevant subculture living off memories and preoccupied with conserving whatever they have left. Once regenerated, the West will continue until its tradition self-destructs or is replaced by another. Whatever tradition replaces ours may be autochthonous, but it could well be the tradition of another race. If that proves so, that will be the end of our race. Thus, so long as our race remains vibrant, able to give birth to new metaphysics when old ones die, we may live on, and be masters of our destiny.

Hate Crime? What Hate Crime?

Hate Crime?   What Hate Crime?

by Jeff Davis

One of the most poorly kept secrets in American jurisprudence is the fact that blacks and other minorities are effectively immune from prosecution for hate crimes no matter how obvious such attacks may be.

An article on Philly.com reports: “Three juveniles” (read huge
muscular black male animals) “accused of assaulting a
cabdriver and his passenger in Center City Saturday night while
shouting racial slurs will not be charged with a hate crime, the
District Attorney’s Office said yesterday. The teens, who are
black, were not charged with hate crimes because there was no
evidence that the assault had been motivated by the race of the
victims, who are white, said (black) Tasha Jamerson, D.A.
spokeswoman. Just shouting racial epithets during the
commission of a crime doesn’t rise to the level of ethnic
intimidation, she said.”

Oh, yeah? And if Whites had done it while whupping up on a
black, does anyone think that it would not be used as “proof” of
a hate crime?

Philly.com goes on: “However, the three teens – two of whom
are 17 and one who is 15 – have all been hit with additional
counts of aggravated assault, since the passenger in the cab,
Brian Goldman, came forward Monday.”

So one of the “Whites” assaulted was in fact a Jew. If that hadn’t
been the case, I wonder if the cops in black-run Philadelphia
probably would even have bothered with an arrest.

The article notes “About 8:30 p.m. Saturday, Goldman was in a
cab that was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets
when he and his 53-year-old cabdriver were assaulted at
random. Goldman escaped. The cabbie, whom police have not
identified, was able to flag down officers who nabbed the
attackers. Goldman said that he hadn’t heard any of the
attackers make racial comments, but police said that the cabbie
heard them.”

The litmus test for these things is simple: Reverse the races of
attackers and victims, and decide whether hate crime charges
would have been made in that case.

The truth is that the government assumes that almost 100
percent of attacks on Blacks by Whites are hate crimes, not
drunken brawls or anything else. If that’s the criteria for hate
crimes by Whites, then the government should assume that ALL
attacks by one race on a different race are hate crimes. Instead,
the government assumes that 0 percent of attacks by Blacks on
Whites are hate crimes and 100 percent of White attacks on
Blacks are hate crimes.

In reality, virtually all attacks by Blacks on Whites are hate
crimes. Even property crimes and thefts can be hate crimes by
Blacks against Whites. Black teenagers will frequently “key” a
new car with a nice paint job, especially if they think that a
White person owns the car. Most Blacks have a deep hatred for
White people which is often encouraged by the Jewish media.
The obvious solution would be to abolish the idea of the “hate
crime” since it involves the state reading the mind of the
perpetrator to see if there was a racist motivation. The Jews
have introduced the idea of hate crimes for political reasons.
Eventually hate crime laws will punish mere thoughts with
criminal penalties unless we put a stop to this. Applying these
laws in an equal manner to Blacks, who clearly hate Whites, was
never intended by the Jews and the courts show this bias.