Surplus Value Of Diversity

U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard University’s admission program was a Constitutional application of affirmative action. In other words, Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Whites and Asians was, according to the law, not discrimination against Whites and Asians. In addition to reaffirming the second-class status of Whites and Asians, she wrote, “It is somewhat axiomatic at this point that diversity of all sorts, including racial diversity, is an important aspect of education.”

Now, in general usage, an axiom is something that is self-evidently true, like the sky being blue or water being wet. More precise speakers will use the word to mean “tautology”, something that is true in every possible interpretation. To say, “It is somewhat axiomatic” is therefore a rather tortured assertion, but revealing. It is the sleight of hand we get from the kritarchy. Every alleged statement of fact is really just a form of hairsplitting intended to nibble away at any notion of truth.

That aside, it does bring up some interesting questions. How much diversity is a good thing and how much diversity is too much? There’s no doubt that someone like the judge in this case would reflexively respond that there can never be too much diversity, as diversity is an unalloyed good. There’s also no doubt that like every other diversity fanatic, the judge has organized her life to be around as little diversity as possible, with a special emphasis on avoiding vibrancy. Revealed preferences are real.

Clearly, even the people who say it is somewhat axiomatic that diversity is important think a lack of diversity is important too. Put another way, even the blubbering diversity fanatics assume some upper limit on how much diversity is tolerable, even though they focus on the lower bound in their proselytizing. Somewhere between complete diversity, a place with at least one of every flavor, in perfect proportion to their frequency on earth, and complete homogeneity is the sweet spot according to the advocates.

Arthur Laffer famously explained that there is a relationship between income tax rates and the resulting tax revenues. A 100% tax will result in zero revenue, as no one will voluntarily work without being paid. At the other end, where no tax is imposed on income, the net revenue is also zero, for obvious reasons. Using Rolle’s theorem, there is an optimum tax rate between those two end points. In theory, this should be calculable, so tax rates should be set at that point and left alone.

Now, we know the tax is not a continuous interval, so Rolle’s theorem would not apply in the case of these sorts of social taxes. Still, at one end, zero diversity and vibrancy, we get something less than maximum happiness. Universal homogeneity sounds good in theory, but in reality, people like to punch things up a bit. At the other end, the multicultural paradise ruled by the usual suspects, has nearly no social happiness for normal people. It does not exist, because no one would tolerate it.

The legendary empiricist, La Griffe du Lion, looked at the correlation between the black population in a city and the white victimization rates. The assumption is that blacks prefer to live around whites, as they always seek access to whites. On the other hand, whites are neutral on living near blacks, unless it has some impact on their well-being, which is where crime is a useful metric. Whites move from high crime areas to low crime areas faster than any group, having the least tolerance for crime.

What the numbers reveal is that as the percentage of black residents in a city increases, the white victimization rates begin to climb. At about 20% black population, the white victimization rate climbs rapidly. Blacks commit crimes against whites in this analysis at 64 times the rate of whites committing crimes against blacks. Other studies have found different rates, but it is axiomatic that black crime is vastly higher than white crime and it is axiomatic that blacks prefer white victims more than whites prefer blacks.

Now, it is not somewhat axiomatic, but a universal truth that when Progressives talk about diversity, they mean blacks. Therefore, we can now put the upper bound on diversity as 20% of the population being black. Any more than that and white crime victimization begins to soar and awareness of it begins to soar. This sets off a chain reaction known as white flight. Baltimore is a great example. Once its black population crossed the 25% level, it began a rapid decline into chaos.

This does not address the other issues of diversity. Since it is axiomatic that diversity is about blacks and whites, as demonstrated in that court case, the obvious question is how many white people are required to maintain the multicultural paradise? It is just assumed that whites must be exposed to diversity, so they are not only beneficiaries, but also a necessary ingredient. You cannot purify white people through the healing magic of diversity if they are not actually part of diversity.

As the examples of Rhodesia, Baltimore and now South Africa show, there is some minimum number of whites required to keep the lights on, so everyone can enjoy the wonderfulness of diversity. In the case of Rhodesia, the number fell below the minimum and it became Zimbabwe. In Baltimore, they have hovered along the critical number for decades, always ready to tilt into chaos, but saved by the state. South Africa staggers on, but they too are approaching the inflection point.

As Steve Sailer has pointed out, America schools are starting to run out of white kids to maintain the diversity is magic assertion. Once a school gets too diverse, no one wants to send their kids to it, not even the diverse, so diversity requires a certain threshold of white people to make it work. According to the data in that Sailer post, a good starting place seems to be 50%. Once the white population falls below 50%, the negatives of diversity increasingly outweigh the positives.

Another example seems to make the same point. This story about white flight from tackle football in America has some interesting numbers. Again, the 50% number appears to be a threshold. Peak football in America was when whites were 50% of the youth leagues, which eventually supply the NFL. The decline in play and interest in the NFL over the last few years also supports the observation. The NFL now has a diversity problem, created by their efforts to fix their diversity problem.

Taken together, the starting boundaries of diversity are no more than 20% black, with no lower limit definable, and no less than 50% white. The diversity sweet spot lies somewhere in that zone. Given the ethnocentrism of Jews and Asians, a hard limit on their numbers is certainly part of the formula. Hispanics, a group that is a social construct, should not be a consideration. Most likely, the right mix for maximum diversity benefits is something close to what America was like in 1965.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


The Madness Of Anti-Racism

Every liberal society must have a civic religion and it is fair to say that the prevailing religion of current year America is anti-racism. For sure, things like anti-sexism and anti-antisemitism are in the mix. On a regular basis people are condemned for not liking homosexuals or people of mysterious origins. The list of “bads” is very long. All of these other “isms” that make up the set of official “bads” all have the same root as anti-racism. That is, they are twisted around the pole of biological reality.

The place to start is with the dictionary definition of racism. According to Merriam-Webster, the first definition of racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” Dictionary.com defines racism as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

Now, within living memory, racism was an act. A racists was someone who would not hire people of a certain race or would deny people of a certain race access to goods and services. Then the definition shifted to include words. If one said disparaging things about someone of another race, they could be a racist. The assumption being that to think poorly of another race must inevitably lead to acting poorly toward people of another race. Racism was now a state of mind.

Of course, this is now true of all the bads. If one is not sufficiently worshipful of homosexuals, for example, it is assumed you must be homophobic. The days of “hate the sin, but love the sinner” are long gone in our secular theology, assuming such sophistication ever existed or was even possible. With all of the bads, one’s virtue on these matters is an A-B test. You’re either sufficiently worshipful of the protected group or you are an apostate, possibly a heretic, who must be condemned.

The thing is, racism is not empirically verifiable. In fact, it is not something people thought much about until recent. The best one can do, as far as making an empirical claim about racism, is that it is verifiable under a set of logical rules. If someone believes these things, then they are racist. Those rules, however, are cognitively meaningless. That is, they are not true in and of themselves. Those rules exist because the people in charge have wished them into existence.

That’s the truth of all moral codes. They don’t exist naturally. They may arise from observation of nature or as a result of some qualities of man. People do not want to be killed, for example, so human societies have evolved moral codes against killing people inside the society. The moral codes of a society may have evolved in response to universal or particular facts facing the people, but they had to be conjured into existence by the people in charge of society. Therefore, racism is a social construct.

There is a slow shift going on with the definition of racism. The first part of those common definitions now says something like “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race.” In other words, the moral codes that define racism now include an assertion of fact. That is, race does not exist. After all, to say that people have shared traits that define them as a people is what is considered the primary definition of racism. To be a racist is to acknowledge race.

Racism is well on its way to becoming a form of magic. The racist mind is now one that perceives things that are not real, like sub-Saharan Africans having dark skin. The epicanthic fold not only cannot exist, noticing it suggests the person seeing it is possessed by the demon of racism. There really is no other way to interpret the emerging definition of racism. In order to resolve the conflict between the definition and nature, they must introduce some supernatural element.

The problem, of course, is that there are characteristics and abilities specific to race, ethnicity and sex. People are not amorphous blobs that can be shaped into whatever the ruling class favors at the moment. In fact, it is impossible to maintain a functioning society without accepting biological reality. Otherwise, the differences in outcome, for example blacks in sports or Jews in business, can only be explained by theories of nefarious forces operating in the shadows at the expense of your group.

Now, in fairness, they still tag on the old modifiers about superiority. That’s the thing though, those modifiers are now in the back. Given the behavior of science deniers in the mass media, it is not going to be long before those modifiers about superiority are dropped entirely. One has only to look at the conflation of the terms “white nationalist” and white supremacist.” The ruling cult now uses them interchangeably. To notice that whites are different from other groups is to be evil by definition.

Even if they figure out that those modifiers must be maintained in order for the definition of racism to have coherence, there are those differences between the races. It is an undeniably truth that sub-Saharan Africans perform differently in physical competitions than other races. In fact, they are superior at sprinting and at extreme long distance running events. These differences are rooted in those common traits. For people to be different, it means they must be better or worse at various quantifiable things.

In the fullness of time, anti-racism, and the whole basket of bads that come along with it, will be viewed as a madness that took possession of the ruling classes. The need to see all people as equal, a requirement of democracy, has led the ruling elites of the West down a dark journey into a madness. The denial of physical reality can only be tolerated for so long. Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it. Soon, reality shall return and wash the madness away.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


Civic Anti-Racism

In modern America, there are two things that are on display simultaneously in the realm of public debate. One is the celebration of the fact that white people and the interests of white people are in sharp decline. The other is a growing fear of white people. It is a strange combination at first glance, as this should be a time for the coalition of the ascendant to celebrate their looming hegemony. Instead, they endlessly talk about themselves, but in the context of a prophesized white backlash.

The root of this is the strange obsession with racism that has become a religion of its own over the last two decades. The anointing of Obama as the completion of the Second Founding, the event that was supposed to wash the stains of slavery, segregation and racism from America, instead ushered in an era of race panic. The Left is in a near frenzy over racism, which they now see everywhere. It is an obsession to the point where even the so-called Right is infected by it.

The recent outbreak of hysteria over white supremacists allegedly plotting a violent revolution is a good starting point. This post at Reason Magazine, after the El Paso shooting, is a good example. The libertarians used to take a pass on the race issue, preferring instead to obsess over weed and sexual deviance. They avoided it because preaching about free association regarding race would get them in trouble. Today, they are right there with Left hooting about white supremacy.

Now, libertarianism was always just a Progressive heresy, but it attracted a lot of conservatives. Operations like Reason had to pretend to be on the Right. That’s no longer the case, as actual conservatives have abandoned libertarianism for dissident politics. Perhaps they now feel free to let their guard down. The Koch Brothers have abandoned the GOP and are now backing left-wing candidates, so maybe this is part of their scheme. Still, the turn to berserk anti-racism is notable.

The so-called conservatives are not being left out of the panic. Right-wing goblin Ben Shapiro has been all over the white supremacy scare. He is working his tiny little fingers raw explaining why his grift has nothing in common with those really bad people to his Right. As is always the case with this guy, he takes the latest Progressive bogeyman and assigns it to his competition on the Right, so his motives always suspect. Even so, it feeds into the general hysteria over race.

Confidence men like Shapiro may not be the best examples, but it is clear that unhinged anti-racism is becoming a conservative principle. A rising star among conservatives is a guy calling himself Joshua Tait, a doctoral candidate at North Carolina, who is fashioning himself as a historian of conservatism. He turns up all over posting articles about various aspects of conservative intellectual history. Of course, he is an enthusiastic anti-racist and obsessed with those bad people to his Right.

That’s the remarkable thing about his writing. It is infected with a weird obsession about race that used to be cringe inducing when done on the Left. This piece reads like a panic attack over Amy Wax noticing the realities of immigration at the National Conservatism conference. This piece reads like a sobbing apology for the fact that people on the Right used to hold sensible opinions about race. The fact they have been proved correct over the last few generations goes unnoticed.

Now, to most readers, Joshua Tait is an unknown, but he is being groomed to be the next generation of so-called conservative intellectuals. Like we see with the more pedestrian stuff from Ben Shapiro, the so-called smart conservatives will be every bit as hysterical about race. The religion of anti-racism will be a core conservative value. Put another way, a rhetorical trick to rally the tribes of the Democrat coalition is quickly being turned into the organizing ethos of the new political class.

An interesting aspect of this new civic religion of anti-racism is it is mostly built on the assumption that whites, at any minute, will go bonkers and start attacking black bodies, while erecting old statues. The anti-racism of Joshua Tait is not rooted in something practical like greed, as in the case of Ben Shapiro. It’s not the product of cowardice, as you see with the Reason Magazine crowd. It’s a genuine sense that whites are a ticking time bomb that have to be monitored.

In this sense, the new anti-racism is like the old communist obsession with opponents of the revolution. With commies, the opponents of the revolution did not have to exist, but they must be made to exist. That is, if they could not find real counter-revolutionaries, they invented them. Something similar is going on with the anti-racists. They can’t find actual white supremacists, at least not in quantity, so they hunt for signs of it, like an evil spirit lurking on the fringes. The price of anti-racism is eternal vigilance.

It is tempting to think that this all about rallying the tribes of the Left, but it is probably the symptom of a different problem. What’s happening is white people are disengaging from the ruling Left. The old game of Team Blue fighting Team Red, where whites cheered for Team Red, is falling part. The cheering section of Team Red is shrinking. The over-the-top anti-racism is an effort to draw those disaffected fans of Team Red back into the game in order to maintain the old dynamic.

The problem, of course, is that Team Red has been designed to keep as little space between themselves and Team Blue as possible. They are children that can never be out of sight of their mother. As Team Blue races shrieking into the darkness of multicultural fanaticism, Team Red is racing after them. The old political arrangements, animated by hyper-anti-racism is a civic religion of the ruling class that is based on a hatred of sixty percent of the people over whom they rule.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


A Book Of Contradictions

When reading Yoram Hazony’s book, The Virtue of Nationalism, the image that keeps coming to mind is of a man working a puzzle, only to keep arriving at an unsatisfactory conclusion. There’s the period where it feels like it is all coming together, then that moment when he realizes the emerging answer is all wrong. Not factually wrong, but unacceptably wrong. After a brief moment of terror, he then throws his work into the fireplace and begins again with a fresh sheet of paper.

The point of the book is to make the case for nationalism, but not just any old form of nationalism. Hazony sets out to craft a new definition of nationalism that is essentially Zionism, without the overtly Jewish attributes. It is a nationalism that any people can embrace, but not every people can have. He then compares this form of nationalism with the alternative, making the case that this form of nationalism is superior. In the process he makes some interesting claims that are worth exploring.

The book starts with the rather interesting claim that imperialism is a political system that “seeks to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind, as much as possible, under a single political regime.” This a curious way to describe empire that makes imperialism sound like a hippy movement from the 1960’s. While it is true that empires grow from a desire to create peace for the conqueror, the prosperity and happiness of the conquered is never a concern.

This odd way of defining imperialism is a part of his rhetorical sleight of hand. What he seeks to do is redefine imperialism away from its biological and material motivations, to something that is ideological. The empire is not about putting one tribe ahead of all others or the material benefit of the emperor. It is about imposing a politics and culture on all people. The reason this is important is it allows Harzony to claim that Nazism is imperialistic, not nationalistic, in its fundamental nature.

Few scholars of fascism would agree with this, even though they would acknowledge that Nazism was expansionist and probably necessarily so. This is the result of the geopolitics of the period, not the inherent logic of fascism. That’s not the point. What Harzony is doing is inoculating himself and Zionism against the charge that is always leveled at nationalism. That is, it the logical endpoint of it is Nazism and that inevitably leads to war, genocide and barbarism.

That is the real argument of the book. Harzony puts no effort into explaining how his conception of nationalism could be applied in Europe or America. Instead, his argument is that Zionism, Jewish nationalism, is both the pure form of nationalism and the best form of human organization. It allows a people to chart their own destiny, but also prevents one nation from meddling in the affairs of another. A world composed of naturally occurring nation-states would be peaceful and prosperous.

He is not wrong. Judaism is the purist expression of nationalism. On the one hand, you have a collection of people, who not only share a language, history and religion, they share a common ancestor, hand-picked by God. Not only that, the Lord picked a land for his chosen people. To be a Jew is to be a member of a timeless tribe with an unrivaled link to the heavens and an unrivaled claim on the land. It is a sense of nation that transcends time, place and boundaries.

This is where Hazony reaches that point where the emerging answer to the puzzle he is working terrifies him. If a nation is a people with a common language, customs, history, territory and ancestors, then how is it wrong for a nation to not accept foreigners into their ranks? If France is for the French, they should have the right to deport the non-French from their lands? More precisely, would they not have a duty to deport these people, as their patriotic duty is to preserve the nation for future generations?

To get around these obvious difficulties, Hazony compares the nation to a family with lots of adopted children. Some reviewers think this sort of equivocating is a bow to the ideological realities of this age, but a closer reading suggests he is concerned with a different part of his audience. If a nation can decide who it allows in, based on its own internal logic and customs, then there can be no moral basis for opposing racism or antisemitism, as both are just natural extensions of nationalism.

Of course, the other problem with nationalism for the Zionist is the case of the Arab minorities in the Levant. If a nation is defined as a people with a common language, history and territory, then why can’t the Palestinians have a country? Why are their claims against Israel not valid? In chapter 17 Harzony resolves this by refining his definition of nationalism to limit it only to those who can attain a nation. In other words, everyone can have a nation, if they can get it and keep it.

In chapter nine we get another one of those moments where you can imagine him pulling up short as he realizes the implication of what he is writing. He starts out making the case for the biological underpinning of human society, then realizes where that is headed and swerves into the guardrail of civic nationalism. Then in the following two chapters, he makes the dissident case against social contract theory and the case against the materialist view of society peddled by libertarians.

If you can ignore the whiplash, the book has some excellent points to make that dissidents would be wise to read. In chapter 15 he carefully explains how federalism cannot work, using the case of America leading to the Civil War. He then compares that to the internationalist dream of a world controlled by supranational bodies arbitrating disputes between states. In the following chapter, he eviscerates the arguments of Ben Shapiro, without actually naming him.

Chapter 16 is his best chapter and one of the strongest arguments for ethno-nationalism you will find, outside of dissident circles. That chapter would not look out of place in Greg Johnson’s White Nationalist Manifesto. It is both an argument against multiculturalism and an argument in favor of ethno-nationalism. He is careful to avoid directly mentioning the biological aspect of nationalism, but no rational person can read that chapter and no think Hazony assumes a biological root to nationalism.

The last section of the book, which most reviewers apparently skipped, offers some very interesting insights into Zionism. In chapter 22 he writes about the shame Jews feel over not having fought back against the Nazis and how this is integral to Jewish nationalism and national identity. Instead of Jews being a people whose men and women stood helplessly as their children were murdered by the Nazis, Israel is a nation of armed men and women defending their children.

Similarly, chapter 24 offers insight into why Jews see criticism of Israel as a form of racism and antisemitism. On the one hand, they see the West adopting the Kantian model of nations, which holds white nations to a higher standard that non-white nations, like the Arab countries surrounding Israel. That’s the racism. On the other hand, the imperialist opposition to nationalism, which is what defines the Jewish people, is a hostility only aimed at Israel. That’s the antisemitism.

As is to be expected with polemical book, The Virtue of Nationalism will drive the pedant mad at times. Hazony makes some odd claims about the Thirty Years War. His view of Catholicism is weird and comes close to bigotry. As stated at the beginning, his definition of imperialism is hard to accept. Of course, the equivocation on the biological foundations of nationalism, especially Jewish nationalism, will strike a certain type of reader as predictable. That said, it is a good read for the dissident.

Finally, something that is not touched on by Hazony, but is implied in all Zionist discussions of nationalism, is this basic reality. For Israel to exist as currently constructed, it needs a robust relationship with a robust America. That America can only exist as a majority white and chauvinistically white. This inevitably puts the Zionist on the same side as the white nationalist. It turns out that the great irony of this age is that the fate of the West may ride on ancient enemies finding common ground.


Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!


The Party Of Hate

The Left in America has always been adept at playing identity politics. While it is a useful way to build coalitions, identity politics fits naturally with radicalism. The Left in the West starts with the assumption that human society is like a watch. Each component interacts with other components to make the whole thing go. It is not a big leap from there to seeing society as a collection of parts. Appealing to those parts on narrow grounds is simply the logical way to go about politics for the Left.

This worked pretty well after the Second World War, because America was 90% white, so the Left could sure up their numbers, without ceding power to these auxiliary forces they bribed into their coalition. They could promise blacks whatever was needed, as there was never a fear of blacks taking over the party. If any of these auxiliary groups got mad the people in charge, there was not much they could do about, other than complain and ask for a better deal next time.

As America becomes majority-minority that old formula can no longer work. In the current Democrat party, blacks make up a majority of primary votes in some states. It’s not enough for candidates to promise them free stuff. More important, the loyalty of those tribes to the whole is transactional. Their first loyalty is to their tribe and their loyalty to the cause of the party is conditional. That means identity politics within the party is an endless negotiation to redress of past grievances.

You see this in how poor old creepy Joe Biden is being treated by the coalition of the ascendant. He made the rather valid and sensible point that he has found a way to work with all sports of people in his career, even segregationists. They were, for a long time, a key part of the Democrat party. He is being pilloried for this, not because it is good for the party in anyway, but it is good for the blacks. Kamala Harris is running as a black, so calling Biden a bigot is good for her, as it boosts her credibility with blacks.

That’s where the tribal loyalty comes in. Michelle Obama, who spent more than eight years around Biden, is also piling on poor old Joe. Even though Biden was a loyal toady to her husband, helping him get into the White House, Michelle can’t come to his aid, because she’s black and he’s white. Her tribal loyalty comes before her loyalty to the party. This, despite the fact Harris is backed by the Clinton machine. For blacks like Michelle Obama, hatred of white people is who she is, above all else.

Within the domain of group identity, there are two types of identity. One is the positive identity that is rooted in the attributes of the group. The other is a negative identity that is rooted in some outside force or group. Icelandic, for example, is a positive identity as it is rooted in genetic qualities of the people of Iceland. African-American, in contrast, is a negative identity, because it is based entirely on the negative relationship between the decedents of America slaves and white people in America.

In the case of the people of Iceland, they would continue to be Icelandic, even if every other type of human on earth died tomorrow. If those people then migrated off their island and took up residence in what is now England, they would still be Icelandic, at least until evolution worked its magic on them. Given enough time, the people living on what is now England, would develop traits that are unique to them. They would create a shared history that is different from their ancestors in Iceland.

On the other hand, African-Americans are entirely dependent upon white people for their identity. If every white person moved to Canada, blacks would move to Canada, as they need to be near whites in order to maintain their sense of identity. If all other humans on earth died tomorrow, the African-American population would lose its identity and devolve into some new identity or identities. Evolution and their innate qualities would no doubt make them into tribes of hunter-gatherers.

This is the problem Democrats will face as they elevate blacks and other non-whites in their party. When you’re defined by your hatreds, there can be no limit placed on that hatred, as it is the celebration of self. That’s why the anti-white campaign is rapidly accelerating on the Left. In the quest to reach a new limit of self-affirmation, they must find some new way to hate white people. The result will be something like then ANC, where the only white faces will be Jews and some females.


Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!


Chasing The Black Unicorn

For at least thirty years and maybe longer, conservatives have dreamed of turning the black vote against the Left. Few projects have consumed more of their energy and few have been as fruitless. The herculean efforts put into convincing American blacks to vote Republican and support conservative causes have made things worse, but they keep trying. In fact, the whole topic is now one of those idiot tests. If you are a conservative who thinks it is possible to get some of the black vote, you’re an idiot.

Conservatives courting the black vote is one of those things that suggest the Official Right really is a controlled opposition, deliberately playing into the hands of the Left. Nixon, who hated the Left on personal and ideological grounds, was the guy who came up with the Southern strategy, supposedly a secret racist scheme to win white votes. He managed to get 32% of the black vote in 1968. Ronald Reagan, who actually did a lot to help black people in America, simply by being competent, never cracked the 10% line.

In fact, the Republicans have been unable to break through that 10% barrier for the last forty years, despite investing billions into burnishing their anti-racist credentials. They have worked so tirelessly to win black support, that the meme DR3 is now a hoary chestnut on social media. Yet, look in the comments of a post like this about Candace Owens and you can’t help but wonder if something is being put into the water of middle-aged white people, causing them to turn into DR3 zombies.

The strange way in which older whites seem to be hypnotized by the race issue is not lost on our Progressive rulers. The Washington Post is now running puff pieces on Candace Owens and her Blexit racket. The Left needs conservative fanaticism on the anti-racism stuff in order for it to remain a useful weapon. The Owens racket reinforces the argument that racism is the worst thing ever. All of those dopey white people crying and clapping at her antics are a barrier between orthodoxy and realism.

Reading through those comments in that Breitbart post, it’s tempting to think they are mostly fake, as they read like the sorts of things alt-right people post to mock Baby Boomers. Given the age in which we live, it is entirely possible Breitbart is seeding these Owens stories with fake comments. America is a no-trust society now, so it is always prudent to assume what is being presented is false in some way. Breitbart used to employ Ben Shapiro, who is now an established pen for hire, so anything is possible.

The fact is, the black vote itself is slowly becoming irrelevant. The official narrative says Obama won on the strength of the black vote in 2008, but in reality he won because conservative whites couldn’t stomach that nut McCain and Progressive whites were over the moon in love with the magical black stranger from over the horizon. White liberals were so giddy about Obama, they held Obama parties on election day. Rank and file liberals really thought he was the messiah. That’s why he won in a landslide.

In 2016, Trump got just 6% of the black vote, but he got a lot of white people to vote, who had thrown in the towel on Conservative Inc. Hillary chased that black unicorn around the country, hoping to get blacks out in decent numbers. While she was doing that, she was ignoring those Bernie Bros, many of whom switched teams in the general. What 2016 demonstrated is that the black vote is not worthless, but the cost of increasing your share of it exceeds the value of it. Courting the black vote is a net negative.

You can see this in the numbers from the last election. Steve Sailer long ago pointed out that the better investment for Republicans was to court the missing white share. This is probably even truer for Democrats. There are millions of ignored votes sitting at home every election, waiting for someone to court them. Yet, both parties are allergic to the idea of going after these voters. Even Trump has now decided to abandon these voters, the very people who put him over the top, in order to chase the unicorn.

Anti-racism has become the opiate of the masses. One hit of it and the user falls into a self-righteous, self-satisfied stupor. That’s what these Candace Owens performances are for the attendees. It’s like an opium den for middle-class Baby Boomers. They come in, get a strong hit of the black unicorn and suddenly feel free. They are no longer burdened by the blood guilt of racism. Owens is a shrewd grifter, who used to mock these people, but then she learned there was more money in selling them the black unicorn.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Secular messiahs have to deliver the goods at some point. Blacks started to lose interest in Obama when it became clear he was not going to deliver the good. Owens will never be able to deliver the absolution her fans crave, so it stands to reason they will eventually figure out they are being had. On the other hand, the unicorn works best on the weakest minds. It may be that they can never break free of it. They will find a new dealer when Owens moves onto something else.

From the perspective of the Dissident Right, it’s probably best to treat anti-racism like methamphetamine. It’s just a thing that is out there, that must be avoided. There’s no eradicating it, but you can warn normies about the danger. At the same time, when a friend takes a hit and starts off on a life chasing the black unicorn, you cut ties and hope they come to a peaceful end. There’s no point in trying to help them or get them into a facility, as there is no way back from chasing the black unicorn.

The American Jizya

It used to be that social reformers would talk about the day when racism has been eliminated from society. They would quote Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, suggesting the goal was a colorblind society. The only people to say this today are clueless civic nationalists and so-called conservative pundits. The former are always behind the times and the latter is here to run cover for the Left. In the game of racism, the caravan has moved onto a new wave, the third wave of anti-racism.

Like feminism, anti-racism has reinvented itself to meet the challenges of the multicultural age, particularly in light of the new demographics. Blacks griping about whites is not of much use when you have varieties of Hispanic, Muslims, Asians, Jews and lifestyle degenerates. The new challenges of the majority-minority empire require a new kind of anti-racism and a new kind of racism for it to oppose. The new racism is exotic and mysterious, while the anti-racist is fighting a spiritual fight, not a legal one.

Eric Hoffer made the observation that people involved in causes never reach a point where they say the cause has achieved its goals and therefore can disband and cease its activities. For example, anti-smoking zealots have accomplished all that can be accomplished, yet they persist. The same is true of drunk driving activists. Short of martial law, there is not much left to do about drunk driving and smoking. Yet, the pressure groups behind these causes still raise money and agitate for attention.

The same thing has happened with the various causes of Progressivism. Something like environmentalism has evolved into a weird nature cult, with apocalyptic predictions backed by flimsy science. Feminism is pretty much a nonsensical collection of tantrums sporting bizarre lingo and outfits. Anti-racism has moved from demands for equity before the law and mitigation for past racism, to a semi-permanent regime that includes groups, who voluntarily left their home lands for the white nations they now despise.

As a practical matter, so-called “third wave anti-racism” is really just a demand by non-whites that whites mitigate the realities of biology. They can’t say that so they have to use weird language and comical neologisms. The demand is that whites exhaust themselves maintaining a white bourgeois society, so that non-whites can enjoy first world comfort, without actually having to maintain it themselves. The new white man’s burden is whites living as despised helots in the societies they created.

For example, whites are supposed to solve the black crime problem, but not notice that black men commit a lot of crime. No one is supposed to mention that blacks don’t cooperate with police. The justification for the former is the history of racism, while the latter is excused as blacks not wanting to attract attention to the black community. Whites are supposed to work around the realities of the black community, while mitigating the realities of the black community. This is impossible and unreasonable.

Another example is how non-whites expect to be allowed into elite schools. In the name of diversity, the elite colleges decorate each class with vibrancy. The professors are expected to make sure these students graduate and never mention that they make up the bottom third of the class. Once out in the world, the process starts over as law firms hoover up non-whites to meet their diversity quota. Of course, no one is supposed to notice that these lawyers are not very good at being lawyers.

Then you have the central tenet of third wave anti-racism, which is that whites, just by being white, are a burden on non-whites. Because whites want the best for their kids and want to live in safe neighborhoods, it means they live in places without convenient bus service. This is a burden on non-whites, as they don’t have easy access to whites and the societies they create. This is so-called white privilege. The only way to eliminate this is to eliminate white behavior, which would end the modern society.

Instead, the new anti-racism regime is one where every white person is born guilty, tainted by the original sin of white racism. Therefore, just as man was condemned to toil outside of the Garden of Eden for eternity, whites are now condemned to pay the jizya in order to keep non-whites in comfortable modern lifestyles. That means open borders for formerly white countries and a metastasizing set of rules to govern the thoughts and speech of whites. The American jizya is about keeping non-whites happy.

That’s the core argument of Ta-Nahesi Coates. In his jeremiad in favor of reparations, you’ll note he never actually puts a number on it. Reparations are, by definition, about making the other party whole. Coates rejects that such a number exists, because what he means by reparations is actually a recitation. He demands an endless recitation of the crimes committed by whites against blacks. This is to both punish whites in a material sense and to remind them that they are now in the inferior position.

In order to understand the social justice movement, one must first replace the word “justice” with the word “vengeance.” It’s not about settling the books or making anyone whole. It is about establishing a new hierarchy in which whites are the infidels of the new multicultural empire, forever paying the jizya to keep modern society rolling. The point of the tax is not just to finance the system, but to lock in the moral relationships of the new multicultural empire, because it cannot exist without the jizya.

The Pale Man’s Burden

Georgia is one of the places to watch if you want to get a partial glimpse into the future, as it is 61% white, but a growing portion of its white population is from outside the south. The Atlanta area has grown like a weed and much of the growth has come from attracting outsiders. A big chunk of those outsiders are Hispanics, so the state has a little bit of everything, as far as demographic challenges. As a result, it will be one of the first states to realize democracy cannot work in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

This story from the past election is a good example of something that pale-folk will come to realize all over the country. That is, you can run out of places to hide. Georgia “solved” the problems of Atlanta by allowing the better parts to secede from the city proper, thus avoiding the challenges of being pale in a diverse city. This concept was applied to other areas that found themselves with a pale tax base, governed by a vibrant majority. Instead the residents fleeing the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction fled the people, so to speak.

As is the case with all such schemes, the Left soon figures out how to defeat them and that seems to be the case with this latest proposal. The author of that piece is an anti-white, so he is a useful example of the attitudes the pale-folk will face in the future, as they seek out new ways to maintain their own communities. The hostile tone masks an important assumption among the diverse. That is, It’s not that they oppose free association. It’s that the diverse have a right to be in close proximity to pale-folk.

It is a strange alteration in the dynamics of race relations that goes unremarked, because the people in charge are still locked in another era. They frame everything as a fight over denying the diverse the same access as the pale. That shipped sailed a long time ago, as the diverse now have greater access than the pale. Even new arrivals from lands over the horizon have special access. Every federal government IT contractor is from South Asia for a reason. That’s right, Indians have a special door just like blacks.

There are so many special doors now, all of which reading “no white men may pass” that it has become a racket in itself. There are firms around Washington that exist just to provide diversity to the government contractor. They are not explicit, but it is the thing everyone knows, but no one says. After generations of this stuff, no one thinks about it anymore. The only people fighting it are East Asians at Harvard, who are basically squabbling with other diverse people over how to slice up the pie. Otherwise, anti-white is the norm.

The new reality that has gone unremarked is something you get a glimpse of in that story out of Georgia. The diverse now demand access to the pale. Even if the pale find some way to carve out their own places, but remain within the law, the diverse will find some way to force their way inside. In other words, the Danegeld of the Civil Rights Movement, which was affirmative action, was not enough. It turns out Kipling was right about the Danegeld. Once you have paid the diverse, you never get rid of the diverse.

That’s what makes Georgia an interesting case to follow. In other jurisdiction, the pale simply keep moving. In Lagos on the Chesapeake, the pale first decamped to the first suburbs, just on the edge of the city. Pale-folk could still bus into jobs in the city, but avoid being killed on their own streets at night. But then the the diverse could take the same buses out to the suburbs, so the pale moved further away. Those inner suburbs decayed and many are now dumping grounds for Hispanics and Africans.

As we saw in the Obama  years, the people in charge are plotting to solve this problem with housing laws. The usual suspects have been hard at work on this for a couple of decades at least. The Obama Administration plan called Affirmative Housing or some such nonsense, was basically an effort to compel pale-folk to live among the diverse, by forcing them to have the diverse in their areas. In other words, the same logic they use to diversify schools would be applied to pale areas in order to make them vibrant.

The underlying assumption to all of this is that the diverse have a natural right to access to the pale. We’ve gone from a mindset that says the diverse should have the same rules as the pale, a sensible thing on the surface, to a mindset that treats the pale-folk as a public good, to which the diverse have a natural right. Given the use of disparate impact law, it is not going to be long before the pale will be responsible for making sure they make themselves available to the diverse. They will have to prove they are accessible.

The Civil Rights Movement was always about the pale people. The usual suspects just used blacks as a weapon in their war on pale people. Most people get that, but still cling to the old pale ideas about equality of access and so forth. Those habits of mind that make pale society so successful, make pale societies vulnerable. As long as pale-folk have had a place to run, they have preferred to hold onto those old pale ideals, rather than face the reality of what’s happening. Disorganized retreat before dishonor!

As we see in Georgia and other places, the trap is slamming shut and the pale will no longer have the luxury of heading off for paler pastures. That’s part of what sparked the emergence of the alt-right. It was suburban pale boys suddenly facing the reality of diversity. They found out that libertarianism is no match for organized vibrancy and that dropped the scales from their eyes. The pale man’s burden is an unsustainable Danegled that just makes the final resolution that much more costly.

Black Friday

Steve Sailer likes to draw comparisons between this age and what happened when the 1960’s counter-culture turned toxic in the the 1970’s. The Civil Rights Movement had curdled into militant black power and the hippy movement had soured into roving gangs of militants like the Weather Underground. It’s not a bad comparison, because then as now, the cause of the turmoil was an incoherent radicalism. What did the Black Panthers want, other than access to white women? What was the point of the BLM violence?

A key difference between then and now is the issue of race. In the 1960’s, America was 85% white and whites just assumed blacks were a poor fit for modern society. Today, America is 60% white and everyone has spent their lives indoctrinated in a cult that worships blacks. Fifty years ago when blacks turned violent, everyone sort of expected it, so no one was really surprised. Today, black violence is a mystery to the beautiful people and they insist everyone else pretend that it is a mystery or caused by whites.

That’s what makes the Ferguson Effect an interesting topic, even after the consequences are slowly starting to fade. Prior to the Black Lives Matter stuff and the liberal tub thumping over events like Travon Martin, crime in general, and black crime in particular, had faded from the public’s consciousness. Then all of a sudden the blacks were angry and murder rates in certain cities began to shoot up again. In 2011 Baltimore had 211 murders. In 2015, the year of Freddy Gray, the city recorded 342 homicides.

White liberals, broadly speaking, have argued the Ferguson Effect is the result of black rage in response to police brutality and racism. The reason blacks in Baltimore, for example, started murdering one another at a record clip, was over anger at the police department’s rough justice in the ghetto. It’s an argument that assumes blacks have no agency of their own and are simply controlled by the behavior of whites. This is a gratuitous assertion by people with an anti-white agenda, but it is the prevailing opinion.

Blacks, on the other hand, have never accepted this line of argument. Instead, they prefer to dismiss the whole thing as an baffling anomaly. The prevailing argument from black activists is that there is no such this as the Ferguson Effect. This piece in City Lab, the urban subsidiary of The Atlantic, is a good example. It has become an article of faith among blacks that the Ferguson Effect is just another effort to explain away the real causes of black crime. Namely, to hide the institutional racism in modern America.

There is, of course, something to it. Blacks seem to get that the underlying assumption of the Ferguson Effect is that left to their own devices, black society would quickly devolve into something pre-modern and violent. Without the constraints of white society, blacks are simply unable to achieve anything above the neolithic. If whites come to accept this again, then all of the concessions and benefits that came out of the Civil Rights Movement no longer make any sense. The whole project unravels in the face of biological reality.

Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it. Race relations in America, with regards to blacks, have always been about a series of gates. Blacks who can behave themselves pass through the gate from the ghetto to the suburbs. Blacks with something on the ball can enter into the managerial class, assuming they are willing to accept their symbolic role in the system. The violent and stupid, in contrast, cannot pass through those gates, so they are penned up in urban reservations guarded by the police.

Whites in America, have come to terms with this by never thinking about it. Liberal whites invest their time in fantasies like structural racism and white privilege, while normal whites just ignore it. Blacks, on the other hand, are keenly aware of this reality. For those able to pass through those gates, there is a need to obscure this reality, but also a deep resentment for it. You’ll note that black anger at white America comes from those able to pass through the gates, because they know the underlying assumptions are true.

This is why middle-class black anger at white America is visceral and incoherent. You see it at the end of that posted article, when the writer celebrates pointless protest. “If the word “Ferguson” was permanently and exclusively attached back to its original meaning, we might find evidence of an “effect” when it comes to a number of recent, inspiring events: the bringing down of Confederate monuments, the ousting of Chicago’s police chief, or the recent Chicago protests that forced Donald Trump to cancel a rally.”

The truth is, black crime rates went up in areas where Black Lives Matter was active, because the white cops were simply unwilling to do the job that was necessary to control the ghettos. Many simply moved to other jobs, while the supply of new recruits dried up, leaving these police departments woefully undermanned. On the other hand, the blacks who have made it through the gates are reminded of the reality of their situation. They know that in order to avoid this, they must accept this. That’s the source of their anger.

There Will Be Blood

In a healthy and orderly society, the ruling class maintains a set of rules for arbitrating disputes, allocating power and disciplining transgressors. The rules governing the ruling class are intended to defend the ruling class from internal threats, as well as external ones. On the one hand, the rules make sure that people entering the ruling elite are the sort who will improve and defend the system that preserves the ruling class. It also protects those new members, by giving them an orderly path up through the hierarchy.

Imagine if it was OK in the Senate for a back bencher to murder his rivals in order to gain a senior position in the Senate. That could be tempting to an upstart, but then again, killing off newcomers would suddenly make sense for those already in power. Having rules against murdering rivals protects all concerned, and by extension, the ruling class as a while. An orderly system of distributing power and promoting new people up the hierarchy encourages everyone in the ruling class to defend the ruling class system.

It’s why we always see so-called conservatives, for example, rushing to the nearest microphone to disavow challenges from their right. They always frame it is a choice between reasonable compromise versus unreasonable extremism. Their calls for civility are essentially a defense of the current order. The rules work for them, as it allows them to enjoy a one percent lifestyle as the in-house opposition to the Left. While not as gratuitous, Progressives will also call for civility when they sense a threat from their Left.

That’s what makes the debate on the Left about tactics, interesting to anyone on this side of the great divide. From the perspective of dissidents, politics is a spectator sport. There is no one speaking for our issues in the halls of power. Immigration patriots, race realists, populists and nationalists are all excluded from the political debate. On the other hand, the most radical Progressive crazies get at least an audience with the people in charge. This Atlantic piece gives a little hint that maybe the moderate middle is about to collapse.

American politics is today a brutal boxing match of harassing confrontations. The disagreements renew two enduring questions: one philosophical, one historical. Is political harassment civil? And do the ugly political confrontations signal a sharp departure, or have they always existed in the United States of America?

Moderates in both major political parties have long argued no on both fronts. Their political brand is unity. They pursue the absence of tension. That has meant avoiding confrontations through building political bridges high above the audible river of children crying in detention facilities, in police cars and cells, in abandoned schools, in abuse-infested homes, in rat-infested apartments, in searches for incarcerated and deported parents, in funeral homes over closed caskets, in plantation shacks after their first whipping, and in slave auctions fearing their new harassers.

These political moderates classify as uncivil those, like Donald Trump, who would toss children into those crying spaces. They classify as uncivil those, like Maxine Waters, who run down into those crying spaces and call for the all-out harassment of the harassers. They look down on both the Trumps and the Waters’ from the heights of their self-styled civility. They look down on those crying children—and their comatose or raging defenders—and counsel patience, preaching a religious belief in the American political process.

Now, you have to put aside the fact that the author of that piece is a ridiculous person with a fake name. His lack of authenticity is part of the act that gets him a place in the prevailing orthodoxy. The angry black man routine allows him to play the part of house anti-white among the ruling class Progressives. If he had stuck with his birth name, he would be forced to play a different role, as no one is going to take seriously a guy playing the Malcolm X part with the name “Mister Rogers” and sporting a cardigan.

What matters is his argument that justice requires the just to be uncivil, by which he means overthrowing the rules. After all, incivility is by definition the rejection of the rules of discourse. Radicals have always been attracted to this formulation, as they always imagine themselves as the righteous underdog fighting the powerful system. In the last century, this was at least plausible, if not entirely accurate. Communist revolutionaries wanted a new system. The New Left was in revolt against the previous generation.

Today, the Progressives are in total control of American life. If you doubt this, name a left-wing web site that has been banned from the internet. The terrorist group Antifa is allowed to operate on Twitter and Facebook. Post FBI crime stats on social media and you risk being doxxed by a Huffington Post writer and losing your job. In other words, the people in total control of the system are now losing faith in the system, because they don’t think it is effective enough at crushing their enemies. Ibram X. Kendi wants more blood.

This is not surprising. From Robespierre through Marxism, into the multiculturalism of today, the Left has always been a spiritual cause, because all of their schemes require a certain type of person, a certain moral understanding. Ultimately what is required for their society to work is a certain moral order that can only be imposed. As Progressivism has curdled into an anti-white ascendancy, it means erasing all traces of whiteness, which is going to mean erasing white people. You can’t do that and remain civil.

What we are seeing is that the anti-white ascendancy that was birthed by cultural Marxism, brings with it the same defects as Marxism. That is, it lacks a limiting principle, so it inevitably proceeds to the most extreme expression of its core beliefs. There was no end to radical intolerance in 20th century Marxism. There will be no end to the racial blood-lust by anti-white radicals. It is why anti-whites are offended by calls to civility. The inevitable end point of their ideology is unrestrained vengeance against whites.

A dozen years ago, Mark Steyn made the point that the history of ruling elites reforming themselves is not very encouraging. That was in the context of immigration. All these years on and we see that our ruling classes have done nothing to stem the flood of migrants into the West. Therefore, it is hard to imagine them standing up to the anti-white radicals they have cultivated the last few decades. Guys like Ibram X. Kendi exist to hate whitey and they will not be restrained by calls for civility or compromise.