The Diversity Cult

Posted on June 6, 2024 by thezman

The 2023 Irish action thriller, In the Land of Saints and Sinners, is one of those films that offers some insight into the machinations of our cultural overlords. It is one of those small budget adult dramas that does not get a ton of attention but does well on the streaming services after its initial release. It is not that these are bad films, but they are not expected to pack the theaters. These are the new version of the B-Movie that fill up the spaces between the heavily hyped, big budget films.

Anyway, the film is set in Ireland during the Troubles because every movie about Ireland is set during the Troubles. It stars Liam Neeson, who plays Finbar Murphy, a hired assassin who lives in a quiet coastal town. It is not all that clear who is assigning the hits, but they come through a local businessman who gets the assignments and hands them out to men like Finbar. This local businessman is not connected to the Troubles and makes sure to not get involved in politics.

The story arc for Finbar starts during his final assignment when the guy he is about to kill gives him some advice rather than beg for his life. Finbar’s habit is to grab his target off the street and take him out to the woods, where he makes the guy dig his own grave before shooting him with a shotgun. He then plants a tree on the grave. This target is a former contract killer, who urges Finbar to make something of the rest of his life before he ends up in the same place as him.

This leads Finbar to have a crisis of conscience and he decides to retire. Meanwhile, some IRA terrorists have come into town to hide out after having set off a bomb in Belfast that killed some children. They are staying with a relative who lives in the town and that relative just happens to have a run in with Finbar. Of course, Finbar solves the problem by taking the guy out to his favorite killing field. Thus, we have the central conflict of the film as the terrorists face off against Finbar.

This all sounds like the basis for a good old-fashioned thriller. You get some Irish history as a backdrop, and you get to see Liam Neeson use his “particular set of skills” to slowly take care of the bad guys. Neeson has been playing this role since he got super famous for doing it in the movie Taken. He is in his seventies now, but he still manages to make it work, just as long as he does not have to move around too much. In this film he is the wise old version of the lethal weapon.

Somewhere in the middle of the film, there is a black guy. Finbar is in a pub and there is a black guy playing Irish tunes on a fiddle. He is not a black leprechaun, but he is a short guy so that would have made some sense. Instead, he is a refugee from Africa who somehow settled into this tiny coastal town in rural Ireland. He tells Finbar that the reason he picked the town is he wanted to escape the violence of his home country and he once heard Irish music as a kid.

It gets more absurd. Later in the film there is the big show down between Finbar and the terrorists at the pub. The terrorists are shooting the place up and Finbar sees the sacred African hiding under a table, so he rushes over to save him. In other words, the wandering African is not just a ridiculous addition to a film set in 1970’s Ireland, he is now a sacred symbol of the film. In that scene you expect the people to scream, “leave the women and children but save our sacred African!”

Clearly, the quality control committee realized that their film did not have the required amount of diversity, so the script was sent back for a rewrite. The writers probably thought they were okay because they made the head terrorist a sassy girl boss with two thick headed male henchmen. That was not enough so they needed to figure out a way to add some color to story set in rural 1970’s Ireland and they settled on having a peripatetic African midget playing the fiddle in the pub.

We have all become used to the black washing and race swapping that goes on in the culture, but in a film like this you see how mechanical it has become. Somewhere in the process there is a crew of shrews and scolds who make sure there is a girls boss and the proper amount of color. They do not care if it makes any sense. Like people with rubber stamps in a bureaucracy, their job is to make sure the film has enough diversity points before it goes into production.

Eric Hoffer famously said, “What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.” In fact, it often becomes all three and you see it with the diversity rackets that now infest every institution. It is a lucrative racket for those who master the arcana, but it has been embedded in the economy. Like the green rackets, the diversity rackets are now part of the fabric of corporate life. It is assumed to be an essential part of every large enterprise.

The thing that holds it in place, however, is that it is a cult. There is little doubt that many of the people in that film thought it was stunning and brave that they had a little African guy skittering around the set. Those who thought it was a ridiculous addition to the film kept their head down because they did not want the lunatics from the cult of diversity hounding them over it. The result is we now have diversity everywhere when what we need is to have it nowhere.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

Peaceful Separation

Posted on May 29, 2024 by thezman

How best to govern a diverse population is a part of the subtext of public political debates in America, mostly because no one is permitted to debate the orthodoxy on immigration, so America gets more diverse every day. This is treated as a novelty that only the best minds in the managerial elite can tackle. In reality, humans have been dealing with diversity since the first human settlements. It turns out that there are only five solutions to the problem posed by diversity.

The most common way of dealing with the problem of diversity is also the oldest way of dealing with diversity. That is for the dominant tribe to subjugate or even eradicate the alien tribes from their land. The people of one place finally get the upper hand over the people adjacent to them and wipe them out. Alternatively, the main identity group in the newly formed society compels the minorities to adopt their identity. Wiping out diversity is the oldest cure for diversity.

The trouble is it rarely works, especially when you are dealing with large numbers of people in tight communities. The Israelis are trying to drive off the Arabs in Gaza, even going so far as to deliberately massacre civilians, but they are no closer to pushing out the Arabs than when they started their genocidal campaign against them. Even with modern tools, it is extremely hard to remove a large population. It is possible, but in this age, even the Israelis cannot get away with it.

That leaves the four more civilized options. One is to simply keep the various identity groups apart to reduce friction. This was common in the northern cities of the United States into the 20th century. The old neighborhood system that is romanticized today used to be rigorously policed by the authorities to make sure blacks were not going into Italian areas and vice-versa. Keeping the peace meant keeping the groups as separate as possible from one another.

In the South there was a soft version of segregation. Diversity primarily meant blacks, who were systematically segregated from whites in largely symbolic ways. Blacks and whites could share public spaces, but had to maintain separation, even if it were mostly symbolic like riding in the back of the bus. This performative segregation was to reinforce the notion that the two races could never mix. Segregation became a habit of mind, rather than physical separation.

Both of those effective and popular systems were overthrown by the managerial elite in favor of the chaos of the present. This system does not have a catchy name, like segregation or Jim Crow, but proportionalism will do. The system of rights that had been the basis of America society was abandoned in favor of egalitarian ideals to which the elites make exceptions in order to achieve what they arbitrarily see as a proportional outcome among the various tribes of America.

The growing tyranny that must come from such a system is what is driving the academic debates about the civil rights revolution and the rear guard action to hold the line against DIE programs in the institutions. Of course, the people responsible for this disaster are not interested in altering course. They are especially uninterested in the fourth option which is to not manage the diversity at all. This was the way America managed diversity through most of the 19th century.

A good example of this is in this interesting post about an old house by one of the professors in that linked video. He bought an old farmhouse and got curious about its history, so he did the research. It turns out that his house has a diverse history that reflects the way diversity was managed in early America. Basically, people were left to sort themselves out as best they could, which generally meant peaceful separation when peaceful cohabitation was not possible.

As pointed out in that post, who people are, in terms of their primary identity, is how they live, and no amount of downward force can change it. This is why the path of proportionalism as practiced by our tyrants must lead to that first and oldest option for dealing with diversity. They are trying to wipe out whiteness, by which they mean white people, through a campaign of cultural genocide, along with the importation of nonwhites in numbers no society can sustain.

The trouble is that wiping out even a small minority is difficult. Purging America of “whiteness” when most of the population is white and determined to live as they prefer, in the teeth of the cultural pogroms, is impossible. This brings us to the irreconcilable contradiction that lies at the heart of the current crisis. For the ruling elite to remain the currently constructed ruling elite they must continue with proportionalism, even though it must fail and lead to their eventual overthrow.

What all of this points to is both a solution to the current tyrannical regime and the challenge of diversity. Because whites will remain the largest population and will increase their self-segregation in response to their shrinking majority and the cultural assault on them from the elites, the racial tyranny must collapse. Put another way, the old solution of self-sorting, the habit of frontier America, will be the rocks upon which the racial tyrants will be destroyed.

This may seem overly optimistic, but the reality is the current regime is fighting human nature, which is undefeated in fights of this sort. Ideology, and the racialized politics of this age are ideological, is hostile to human nature. Communism did not fail due to technical errors. It failed because it was inhuman. The same is true of the racial ideology of the managerial class. Peaceful separation is the natural state of Americans, and it will be it natural order again.

The Naked Classroom

Posted on May 11, 2024 by thezman

Most people, whether they admit it or not, accept the basic premises of what is commonly called Human Bio-Diversity. We tend to live around people who look like us and think like us. It is why after more than half a century of trying, the United States is as segregated as it was before civil rights. Humans naturally self-segregate and that is both natural and based in natural properties.

The term Human Bio-Diversity is credited to Steve Sailer, who years ago hosted an email list using that label to discuss advances in the human sciences. For a time, the HBD subculture functioned as a sort of counterculture, reacting to the dominant blank slate culture, while refuting their claims about the human condition. It has remained a gateway drug for many who end up in the dissident camp.

Thirty years ago when The Bell Curve was released, what would become the HBD world was primarily focused on intelligence. After close to a century of systematically measuring human intelligence and comparing the results to various social outcomes, science seemed to prove what people have always suspected. Intelligence is heritable and genetically determined.

Over the last thirty years, managerial culture has turned against the human sciences in an effort to defend their blank slate presuppositions. If IQ is mostly about genes and most of the rest is about home environment, which is also mostly about genes, then most of what makes up pedagogy is as empirical and tarot card reading. This is the topic of Ed Dutton’s new book The Naked Classroom.

The book sets out to do three things within the context of education. One is it explains why schools and schoolteachers tend to be far left. Dutton relies on the human sciences to explain the qualities that are selected for by schools, but also what types of people will be attracted to education. The chapter on the biological basis for homosexuality is both enlightening and disturbing in this context.

The second goal of this book is to function as a breezy summary of what we know about human cognition for the average reader. Simply knowing that intelligence can be measured is not useful without some real-world examples that show how intelligence plays a role in every aspect of life. For example, boys reach puberty later than girls, which is why they seem dumber than girls pre-teen.

The final goal of the book is to explain how intelligence and dimensions of personality, the Big Five, explain the cultural trends. People with slightly above average intelligence tend to be more compliant with social trends because they quickly see the benefit in participating in the latest thing. This explains why the woke always tend to be midwits with impressive credentials but limited practical knowledge.

For those looking for a gentle introduction to the HBD topic, then this is an excellent book to buy and read. Dutton is aiming at the general reader looking for a place to start and he is a very capable teacher. His YouTube channel is popular because he is also a highly entertaining presenter. It is a short book that covers the main topics of intelligence, personality, and human differences.

This brings up the main problem in the book. If you are a fan of the Jolly Heretic YouTube channel, then you have heard Dutton discuss the material in the book many times on his show. In fact, the book is a written summary of the last couple of years of his video work. In other words, it is not a book for those already familiar with Ed Dutton or the general ideas within the human bio-diversity subculture.

Another nit that can be picked is that Dutton hints around at the question of whether people can be trained to be logical, but he never takes it head on. This is the general flaw with the HBD space. They get to the water’s edge but never come to the inevitable conclusion that must follow their observations. If who we are is written in our code, then the liberal project is nothing more than superstition.

For example, if what science tells us about male homosexuality is largely correct, then logically we should never permit male homosexuals to be around young males without strict supervision. In fact, we should be aggressively screening out homosexuals from schools, youth groups and so forth. Of course, suggesting this means men with guns are sent to throw you into the void.

In other words, if the people with real power refuse to go where science about human nature must lead, then what is the point of knowing any of this? Further, there must be some material explanation for why people with heads full of oogily-boogily seem to rise to the top of liberal societies. Perhaps evolution does not care about empiricism as much as the fans of evolutionary biology insist.

In fairness, this is not the point of the book, so Dutton cannot be faulted for not diving into this topic. He also has to worry about being hurled into the void. In the end, the evolutionary imperative may simply shrug off liberalism like a case of fleas and it will follow other oogily-boogily into the dustbin of history. In the fullness of time, the HBD people will be proven correct about the reality of the human condition.

In the end, a book is judged by how well it achieves what the author sets out to do, not by what some crank in the critic community thinks it should have done. In his short summary of how IQ and personality shapes education in the West, Dutton ticks all of the boxes he set out to tick. The result is a great gift to the dissident curious who needs a gentle introduction to the topic as they sit by the pool this summer.

Burn Baby Burn

Posted on May 2, 2024 by thezman

For the last few weeks, protests have raged at some elite colleges between anti-Zionists in support of Gaza and Zionist in support of Israel. At Columbia University in New York City, the protests essentially closed the college. The cops were finally sent in yesterday to clear the pro-Gaza camp, but at this point there is probably no point in trying to resume the spring semester. At other colleges, police continue to battle with protestors in an effort to restore order.

The protests provide some insight into what is happening among the Cloud People and also some insight into how the Dirt People see the Cloud People. It has been a long time since factions of the anti-white coalition that makes up what we call the left have squared off against each other. As a result, the Cloud People are struggling to grapple with what is happening. Usually, it is easy for them to pick sides, as the protestors are always targeting Dirt People.

The first thing worth noting is that the pro-Gaza protestors are not white. It is anti-Zionist Jews and nonwhites, with a smattering of upper-middle-class white girls from the grievance studies programs. The pro-Israel side is primarily Jewish students organized by the network of anti-BDS organizations that exist on every campus. As a result, the pro-Gaza side uses the antiwhite language they have been trained to use against the mostly Jewish protestors on the other side.

One result of this is the bellowing about antisemitism has had no effect on the protestors or their supporters among the faculty and media. This is has been the most powerful magic in American politics for so long that no one remembers a time when it was not otherwise, but the magic seems to be fading. Amusingly, this has the conservative commentariat chanting “antisemitism” even louder, sort of like how English speakers shout at foreign fast-food workers.

One reason for this is the youth are not as white as they used to be due to the deliberate demographic changes over the last half century. This is especially true on the college campus where antiwhite activism is now admissions policy. Those nonwhites and post-whites trained up to hate whitey now look at the people carrying Israeli flags and repeat the classic Jared Taylor line, “They look huwhite to me.” It would take a heart of stone to not laugh at this development.

There is a serious element here. Young people are nowhere near as supportive of Israel as in the past, due mostly to demographics. Support for Israel remains strong with old white people, but support declines rapidly after the boomers. There is also an antisemitism fatigue setting in with whites. Decades of crying wolf has had the natural impact on the culture. People are tired of the complaining from people who have done better in America than any other group.

There is another angle here. The shuffling husk that is the conservative movement has been trying to do what it exists to do, which is get white people to focus on the how and why, rather than the who and what. They shout about the pro-Gaza side being communists and antisemites, so their aging followers will focus on that rather than the fact these people do not belong here. They do not want you to notice the two alien tribes from the Levant fighting it out on the college campus.

That is why they jumped on the image of the “frat boys” supposedly “defending” the American flag at UNC. It was a staged photo by the usual suspects because this sort of boomer bait always works to distract middle-class white people. The “frat boys” were part of some anti-BDS operation. They were also waving around an Israel flag, but that was trimmed from the scene. This sort of thing is a reminder that conservatism exists to distract white people from what is happening.

The fact is none of the people involved in these protests should be in the country and that is what people should notice. Thirty percent of the undergrad student body in Columbia is foreign. Less than half of the student body is classified as white and half of those identify as Jewish. If you are the typical white person, Columbia University may as well be located in another solar system. It is not just a foreign place. It is an alien place that rests on hostility toward you.

These protests not only suggest fractures in the antiwhite coalition, but they suggest the Potemkin opposition in American politics is losing its grip. The Republican response to these riots was to pass a bill banning parts of the Christian Bible and stripping you of your right to criticize foreign governments. The Antisemitism Awareness Act is probably the most vulgar and depraved piece of legislation to ever pass the House, and it passed with overwhelming support from Republicans.

The Republicans passed this, in part, because they are trapped in 1985. They still think their voter base cares more about Israel than anything else. The idiot who dreamed up this monstrosity is right out of central casting. He is the typical clueless zombie that gets recruited into Republican politics, because he is biologically incapable of noticing what is happening all around him. The GOP is the party of feckless, clueless goofballs who can no longer play the role for which they exist.

In the end, these protests matter to Dirt People only in so far as they indicate problems among the Cloud People. None of these people are on our side and all of them would lock shields with the other side if asked to put on their Antifa and BLM outfits in order to terrorize white people this summer. The hope is that both sides of these protests are committed to the theory of escalatory dominance. After all, revolutions often grow out of the cracks in the ruling coalition.

The Myth Of Dual Loyalty

Posted on January 2, 2024 by thezman

Over the holidays, a bit of controversy erupted when in an interview, Tucker Carlson noted that certain people, like Ben Shapiro, are much more concerned about Israel than the people of the United States. The bat signal was immediately lit, and Israel supporters started chanting about how Ben Shapiro is a patriot and Carlson’s criticism smacked of the old dual loyalty “canard” from a mythical time in America’s past when Jews were forced to live under a cloud of suspicion about their loyalty.

Because this is the media age, it was not hard to see the invisible hand of coordination in the responses from the usual suspects. Here we have Andrew Klavan posting the same thing as Ben Domenech, who posted the same thing as Kurt Schlichter who said the same this as Chris Loesch and you get the idea. A memo went out to their Twitter influencers to boost the idea of Ben Shapiro being a patriot. The object of his patriotism, however, is never mentioned.

This is an old trick to avoid the actual question. The pro-Israel lobby is not addressing the issue at the heart of Tucker’s criticism, which is that people like Ben Shapiro and his defenders care more about people in other countries than Americans. Instead, they want Tucker and his fans to address this made-up idea that Jews were subject to bigotry in the past on the grounds they have dual loyalty. Instead of addressing the point, they shift the focus to another topic.

Of course, the concept of dual loyalty itself is the result of a similar tactic used in the past to shield Zionist from criticism. The “dual loyalty” concept is a product of the 20th century, created by the Israel lobby to obscure the fact that we suddenly had this new force in politics that demanded the government care more about the interests of Israel than the interests of Americans. People who raised questions about the Israel lobby got smeared as antisemites.

For most of American history and probably European history, the concept of dual loyalty was unknown, for the simple reason people understood that a man who chases two rabbits catches none. You can have only one true loyalty. You may have conditional loyalty to other people and ideas, but those conditional loyalties have to give way to your primary loyalty. You were primarily a Christian, an Englishman, a loyal subject of the empire or a Jew. That is the nature of loyalty.

That was always the criticism of Jews, that their first loyalty was always going to be to their people, no matter their conditions. In America into the 1970’s it was common for people to note, often approvingly, that Jews stick together. The implication was that they cared primarily about their people. Jewish comedians had jokes about this that had a punchline, “but is it good for the Jews” that played on this well-known and generally accepted reality of the Jewish people.

It should be noted that into the 20th century this was same reasoning was applied to Catholics, who were assumed to be primarily loyal to the Church. This was a carry over from the schisms within Christendom. Protestants in Protestant countries could accuse Catholics of being loyal to the Pope rather than the king. Even today, Catholic judges have to answer questions about their faith. Jewish liberals attacked Amy Coney Barrett for being a faithful Catholic, especially on abortion.

The clever trick about this “dual loyalty” stuff is it not only shifted the focus from Jews onto their critics, but it made noticing what everyone, including Jews, had accepted for hundreds of years into a taboo. Noticing that Ben Shapiro was an emotional wreck over the Hamas attack, but he blatantly states that he does not care about the health and welfare of the white people is somehow immoral. It is a form of the motte-and-bailey argument that is so popular with the Left.

Of course, guys like Ben Shapiro and Joel Pollak do not have dual loyalty, despite having dual citizenship. It is impossible to have dual loyalty. Their primary loyalty is to their people, which is why they wear the funny little hats. That is the point of the hats, to tell the world they are not of the world, but separate. This is an age-old way people identify with a specific group and show their loyalty to that group by physically separating from everyone else in society.

There is nothing immoral about this and there is nothing immoral about noticing it, but it does raise questions, which is why we have the “dual loyalty” stuff. Tolerating a minority whose primary interests lie outside the majority must be limited. That limit is the interests of the majority, whose primary loyalty is to themselves. It means Ben Shapiro cannot pretend to speak for the interests of the majority. He must appeal to them as an outsider on behalf of outsiders.

This creates an obvious problem, so what people like Ben Shapiro prefer to do is conflate the interest of Americans with the interests of Israel so that questioning the behavior of Israel is equivalent to burning the American flag. To their credit, this rhetorical game has worked on many people. Anyone questioning the proportionality of Israel’s response to the Hamas attack or criticizing the wholesale killing of civilians is unironically accused of being unpatriotic.

The fact that Tucker has not been hurled into the void over this speaks to the changing nature of public consciousness. America and the West are heading into a time for choosing in which people must think about the question of loyalty. Are you more loyal to an abstract concept or to people who look like you, sound like you and share your same concerns about your community? We are entering a time when people begin to think about their hierarchy of loyalties and their identity as people.

It also speaks to the fact that the old pseudo-loyalties are breaking down. When the concept of American has been watered down to the point where it often means caring more for strangers than your own family, it is not hard to see why increasing numbers of Americans are no longer moved by calls to patriotism. Ben Shapiro waving the American flag and Israeli flag in front of the suckers is not working because the suckers are no longer moved by the American flag.

It is natural for minorities to put the interests of their minority group first, as their identity is tied to their minority status. In a society composed of minorities, there can be no patriotism as everyone’s primary loyalty will be to their group, so the good of the whole is always a secondary consideration, if it is considered at all. In other words, America will be populated with people who think about their people, just as Ben Shapiro thinks of his people, but they will just wear different hats.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

The Antiracist White Nationalist

Posted on July 31, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the rise and fall of Nick Fuentes, a review of the classic buddy comedy Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

With some obvious exceptions, the people who use the term “white nationalist” use it to mean “people they do not like.” These are people who imbue their language with emotional meaning, rather than descriptive meaning. Just as Eskimos supposedly have a long list of ways to describe snow, the people fond of using the term “white nationalist” have a long list of words for people outside of their cult. The term has no meaning other than “danger! danger!” to the rest of the cult.

Before the term became a cult signal, it used to have meaning. A white nationalist is an American term for a white person who wants to live in communities free of nonwhites, especially black people. Having lost the fight over “civil rights” in the middle of the last century, and not understanding the implications of it, these people organized around the idea of separate lands for people of European descent. They want intentional communities organized around race.

Of course, the people who use the term “white nationalist” as a slur acknowledge that the people calling themselves white nationalists primarily want a white homeland exclusively for white people, but they also claim the reason for this desire is an irrational hatred of nonwhites, especially blacks and Jews. In this way, the term “white nationalists” is shorthand for people who hate nonwhites. It is why you can be a nonwhite white nationalist now.

Putting aside the bizarre claims by the usual suspects, if we assume that white nationalists want to live away from nonwhites, then it makes sense that the areas with the least number of nonwhites are the areas with the greatest number of white nationalists or at least white nationalist sympathies. In fact, this assumption is a cornerstone of civil rights law. Diversity is a moral good, so it is the standard against which people and organizations are judged.

For example, if you want to find the state that like black people the least, you will look for the state with the smallest black population. A state with few black people is, at the minimum, unwelcoming to black people, so they do not move there. The most likely reason for the unwelcome mat is the locals do not like black people. By this reasoning, Montana is the most racist state in America. Look at this map and you see ten states that have a black population below three percent.

Interestingly, half of those states voted for Joe Biden in the last election and half voted for Donald Trump. Eight of the ten states with the highest black population voted for Donald Trump and are reliably Republican. This is often pointed to as proof that white nationalism is all about hating blacks, because these states are where we tend to find people who call themselves white nationalists. They say familiarity breeds contempt, but it may also breed white nationalism.

A more granular way of looking at this is by congressional district. The most far-left district in the country is New York’s 15th Congressional District. It is ninety-seven percent diverse, but the largest group is Hispanic. The second most left-wing district is New York’s 13th Congressional District, which is fourteen percent white. Number nine on the list is Nancy Pelosi’s old haunt. It is just four percent diverse. There are many such examples on the top-50 antiracist congressional districts.

Interestingly, when you do the same exercise for Jews, you find that the states with the smallest Jewish population vote Republican. The one exception is Florida which is number eight on the list, but trends Republican. That said, there are many solidly Democratic states that have a tiny Jewish populations. Outside of a few states, the Jewish population is so small that they go unnoticed. You are more likely to meet an alien abductee in Oklahoma than meet a Jewish person.

What this tells us is that if you are a white nationalist, you want to move to Montana, Wyoming, or Utah. These three states are in the bottom ten in terms of black population and Jewish population. Mitt Romney is the face of white nationalism. Of course, if you set the Jewish threshold at one percent, then the world is your oyster, as long as you do not mind the daily antiracist lectures from your all-white neighbors in places like Oregon, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire.

This runs counter to the official narrative, but it is something people have observed for generations with regards to antiracism. The higher the percentage of blacks in any given area, the lower the percentage of antiracists and the higher the percentage of accused white nationalists. On the other hand, the lower the percentage of black people, the higher the percentage of white antiracists. If you want to live like a white nationalist but sound like an antiracist, move to Oregon.

When you look at the data, something else becomes clear. The states that are most reliably Republican are those with the highest black populations. It speaks to the racialization of white politics. If you are black, you vote Democratic no matter where you live or how you live. Whites, in contrast, vote Republican if they are in close proximity to enough blacks to form a community. Maryland and Delaware are the exceptions, but there are larger factors at play in both states.

This is something that drove the flight of white people from the cities into the suburbs in the last century. As black populations grew in American cities, there reached a tipping point where whites began to abandon the city altogether. The legendary quantitative blogger La Griffe du Lion analyzed this with regards to urban crime. Once the black population in a city reached twenty percent, white crime victimization soared and white flight to the suburbs soon followed.

The great paleoconservative writer Joe Sobran said, “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.” This was true in the sense that they talk like MLK but live like the KKK. The thing is though, the people labeled as the KKK tend to live closer to the antiracist ideal. The typical “white nationalist” will meet more black people at her grocery store than the typical antiracist will meet in his lifetime.

What all this tells us is that the racialization of politics has resulted in a bizarre cognitive dissonance among the most active participants. The most race aware white people live in the most diverse places. The most antiracist white people live in places that are so white they glow in the dark. What this suggests if you are worried about becoming a white nationalist is you should move to Oregon or Vermont. The surest way to not become a white nationalist is never meet a black person.

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory.

Antiracist Constitution

Posted on July 3, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the movie Amadeus, a post about Affirmative Action and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

Note: American Renaissance is having its annual conference in August at the usual location in Tennessee. It is a great event and anyone who is interested in the sort of politics discussed here should make it there at least once. You can sign up for the event at the American Renaissance website.

When the typical person thinks about the law, he thinks about it as a list of behaviors that are prohibited. You cannot fish during certain months, for example. You are not allowed to drive over a certain velocity. The law is a list of limitations on what you can do as well as a list of things others cannot do to you. This is largely true as a practical matter, but the law is more than a list of prohibitions. It is a moral system that turns those limitations into a habit of mind for the citizenry.

Although the law often looks chaotic and self-contradictory, it is a system made of properties and methods. The properties are things like constitutional rights, precedents, and legislation. These are statements that are treated as facts. Your First Amendment right to assembly is assumed to be a fact of nature. The Court’s decision that the First Amendment does not permit you to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is now assumed to be a truth in the Constitution.

The methods are the rules that govern how the people inside the law interact with those properties as well as the other people inside the legal system. The courts have processes for adjudicating disputes between citizens, for example. The government has to meet certain conditions when they infringe on the rights of a citizen. All of us exist inside the legal framework, as it is the implementation of the moral framework of our society and the framework determines how we interact with one another.

This is the starting place for reading this new booklet titled How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution: Canonizing Brown v. Board of Education in Courts and Minds, which is part of the Claremont Provocations Monograph Series. The author is Jesse Merriam, who teaches government at Patrick Henry University. His focus is on the history of the famous Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which has transformed not just the law by the Constitution itself.

The author starts with a short history of the famous case. This is one of those things that will be a revelation for most readers. Even though the case was decided in 1954, the process started a generation earlier when a young communist radical received a million-dollar inheritance from his father. He was going to reject it, but the founder of the ACLU convinced him to use the money to fund left-wing causes. This was in 1922, long before normal Americans thought about civil rights.

This money was used to start the Garland Fund, which gave the NAACP $100,000 to begin the litigation that eventually led to the Brown decision. The author does not spend a lot of time on it, but the point is clear. The civil rights movement was not something organic and spontaneous. It was a long-term project organized and financed by wealthy and important individuals. They set out to change the moral framework of the country and committed their lives to the cause.

That brings us to the heart of the topic. The author walks the reader through the process by which a legal decision becomes canonical and then how that status in the law warps everything that comes after it. In the law, “canonization” is “the process by which a single Supreme Court decision comes to control constitutional theory, debate, and interpretation.” A case can become so important that it changes the methods by which the Court views the Constitution itself.

This is a three-step process that starts with the construction phase. This is when the new moral principles are introduced to the moral framework or old moral principles are challenged as antithetical to the core principles. Brown was the end point of the construction phase where two new principles were added. One is that diversity is a constitutional good. This is why diversity is a strength. The other new principle was that discrimination, private or public, is always unconstitutional.

The next phase is what the author calls submission, which is the process “whereby critics of the initial decision capitulate to the new paradigm.” The author provides data on how conservatives changed over this phase. He counted negative stories in National Review before and after Rehnquist was nominated to the Court. He also looks at opinions on Brown during this period and notes that they went from uniformly hostile to neutral and then accepting.

The submission phase with regards to Brown is a great primer on what lies behind the internet meme “the conservative case for…” These new moral claims are first embraced by the people with control of the institutions. That power is then used to select against critics, which has the desired effect of selecting for those willing to bend their knee to the new moral paradigm. What has shaped conservatism over the last several generations is this process of submission to the Left.

The final phase of canonization is weaponization. This begins “when the former critics marshal the decision and its values for their own legal and political agenda.” As the former critics incorporate the moral principles in their own arguments, the case then becomes a controlling moral authority. Those former critics of the new morality transform themselves into its champions, often trying to stake out positions that are more extreme than those of the original advocates.

Again, the author dives into the writings of conservatism to provide examples of how they now embrace the moral claims of Brown. This is the origin of another well-worn internet meme, “democrats are the real racists.” For a generation after Brown, opposition to this decision was central to conservative arguments. Over the last thirty years Brown has taken center stage in conservative arguments in favor of diversity and opposition to discrimination.

The final result of this process is that the original Constitution has been hollowed out and in place of the rights-based moral order we now have the twin moral demands that have come from the logic of the Brown decision. Not only are your enumerated rights subject to the “Brown test”, but the federal system established by the Constitution has collapsed in order to comply with the new moral paradigm, leaving us with what the author calls the antiracist Constitution.

The author does not get into this, as it falls outside the scope of the essay, but the new legal framework created by Brown reflects the new moral framework that has come to dominate the thinking of the ruling elite. Diversity as the primary good and discrimination as the primary bad haunt every aspect of modern life. Not only must you avoid discriminating against members in the league of the oppressed, but you must also swear allegiance to diversity.

This is fundamental to the new religion which imagines the end point of social progress as the open society. If all people are inherently equal, then the differences we see must be due to social structures, which means that people are infinitely malleable. This is the universal truth of mankind. Thus, we have the holy trinity of the new religion, equality, the blank slate, and universalism. The logic of Brown reflects this spiritual sensibility as well as the ultimate goal of the open society.

This is a topic of critical importance for dissidents, so this booklet on the Brown decision and its canonization in the law is an important entry point. As the author notes, the road forward is not in fighting the tentacles that have grown out of Brown, but to understand how we got to this point. In order to remove the tentacles of Brown v. Board of Education from the neck of society, the moral claims that lie behind the decision must be understood and then defeated.

Religious Equity

Posted on June 22, 2023 by thezman

Recently the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama redistricting plan on the grounds that it needed one more black district. The majority claimed that the Voting Rights Act demands racial proportionality in congressional districting, even though it says no such thing and if it did, it would be unconstitutional. The courts follow the news, and these judges understand what happens when you question racial orthodoxy, so they invented a new reason to conform with orthodoxy.

While the trend toward threatening judges, as is common in other corrupt societies, is an interesting topic, what matters here is the proportionality claim. One of the ideological shadows over this age is an old claim by the post-Mark culturalists, or what used to be called the New Left, is this idea that equity demands proportionality. Equity is the claim that a just society requires all people to equally participate and equally benefit from the stuff that come from society.

Back in the old days when left-wing meant high taxes on rich people, racial antagonists would argue that representation should be by race and sex. Congress should be composed along racial and sexual lines. If thirteen percent of America is black, then there should be fifty-seven blacks in Congress. Since roughly half the adult population is female, half of Congress should be female. This idea never got far, but the concept is embedded in the calls for equity.

At this point it is common to note that it makes no sense to hurl men into the void for noticing race while also demanding racial filters be applied to all outcomes. If it is true that black people know things about blackness that only black people can know and that requires that they be proportionally represented in all matters to ensure they get what they deserve, then race is not just real, but it is the only reality. The same can be said of sex, which gets the same treatment.

The inherent stupidity of the new religion is the main appeal. Ingratitude and grievance are functions of intelligence. The smarter you are, the less likely you are to think the world is unfair or that you are owed more than you deserve. Stupid people prefer to think their condition is the fault of others. The more magical and mysterious the cause, the more appealing it is to the aggrieved. Disproving something nutty like institutional racism is like disproving paranormal activity or astrology.

Putting that aside, the proportionality idea is not without some merit. Politics is about normative trade-offs. There is no empirically correct tax code, for example. Taxes are collected to pay for government. Who pays those taxes is a moral decision. The same is true for all public policy. The right policy is not something that can be established by the scientific method. It is what the rich people who control government think is the right policy or what they hope will keep the peasants docile.

With that in mind, if you are going to have representative government, then the legislative bodies should reflect the moral diversity of the people. The easiest way to sort people in terms of moral outlook is by their religious affiliation. Jews will have a different moral code than Muslims or Buddhists, for example. While all religions share moral claims, they have important differences. If the differences were superficial, there would be no need for separate religions.

Here is a recent list of congressmen and senators by religion. Presumably, this is based on what the person says about his religious identity. Many no doubt lie. For example, Joe Biden claims to be a Catholic, but he actively promotes things that are specifically against Catholic dogma. Is Hank Johnson a Buddhist? He is the guy who thinks Guam might flip over if too many people stand on one side. Moron is not a religion, but it could probably describe many members of Congress.

With that said, the most represented faith in Congress is Catholicism. They make up 28% of the elected officials. Catholics are 21% of the population, so the Vatican is significantly overrepresented in Washington politics. The next group is listed as “Protestant unspecified” at 20%, which probably means the person grew up in a secular home with a Protestant history. If you add this group to those who have no religious identity, this cohort of American is well-represented.

The group not getting equitable treatment, using the language of the new religion, is the largest religious identity in America. Protestants are roughly 45% of the American population but only 35% of Congress. Again, many of the people calling themselves Episcopalian or Presbyterian are faking it like we see with Catholics. What are the odds that Senator Chris Van Hollen can name a single Episcopal church in his state, much less the last time he went to mass?

This raises another consideration. About 30% of Americans attend services regularly, which is usually defined as at least once a month. About a third of Americans attend services for events like weddings, funerals, and holidays. It is fair to assume that a good portion of that group would attend regularly if the churches had not succumbed to the modern disease. Why go to church when you can hear a similar sermon during half time of the football game?

Now, how many elected officials regularly attend church services? How many of them even believe in God? There is no data on this, but it is a good guess that only a small portion of elected officials are genuinely religious. Instead, their views on religion and morality reflect the people who bankroll their campaigns and control the important parts of the managerial state. If you want to have a good career in Washington, you best keep your religious views to yourself.

If you want to know why so-called conservatives fall for every left-wing social fad, there is the answer. These people are experts at talking about religion and morality, but they exist in a world that has a different moral order and a radically different moral code from the people over whom they rule. Congressman X instinctively puts a sodomy flag on his Twitter profile, because that is what everyone else he knows is doing. The fact that he claims to be a Baptist is not in the front of his mind.

The point of all this is that one major cause of the current crisis of trust is that the ruling class of America has a different and district moral code. This shows up in the normative decisions made by Congress and elected officials. If Congress truly reflected the morality of the people, much of what drives Americans crazy about national politics would not exist, much less be the center of debate. Our politics would reflect our shared moral code and our shared moral priorities.

One of the ironies of this age is the people hopping up and down about equity also rail against religion and religious people. Yet the most likely way of reaching some sort of equitable result would start with equity in Congress. If the house and Senate truly reflected the moral sensibilities of the people, many of the issue at the heart of the social justice demand would be resolved. Religious equity in Washington would go a long way toward creating a just society.

Willing Accomplices

Posted on January 3, 2023 by thezman

If one were looking for a reason for why the conservative movement failed so completely you would be spoiled for choice. Most people would point to the fact that despite having billions of dollars and majority support on key issues, conservatives managed to conserve nothing. Others would point out that many of the people claiming to be conservative were more concerned with maintaining good relations with their friends on the Left than advancing conservative policy.

Often this is where you hear some form of the Hoffer quote about great causes becoming religions, corporations or rackets. It is a great observations and certainly true, especially with regards to the conservative movement. Any system that produces a sanctimonious simpleton like David French has long since stopped being a serious political movement. Most of conservatism is a racket, while the rest is just a jobs program for philosophy majors.

While true, these are symptoms rather than causes. The real cause of conservative failure was the race issue. Once they conceded the moral high ground to the Left over the issue of race, the Right was forced to embrace the blank slate and egalitarianism in order to make any sense of it. You cannot agree that unequal results are immoral if you also claim that Mother Nature does not distribute her gifts equally. You have deny nature in order to embrace the moral claim.

Once conservatives accepted the starting premise of the Left, they condemned themselves to forever embracing the Left’s conclusions. You can see this in the fight of the antiwhite pogroms called CRT and DEI. This recent National Review post claims that conservatives can win the race debate. That sounds good until you read the actual text of the post and see that the secret formula for winning is another version of the internet meme, “the conservative case for…”

Here are the key lines. “We must see racial disparities where they exist and acknowledge racial trauma as real, because for many Americans, it is real. Responding to the trauma of racial discrimination by simply expressing a commitment to a race-neutral ideal is a bad move.” In other words, the so-called conservatives have to accept the premise of the Left. They see winning as proving to their masters on the Left that they are properly trained on the issue of race.

Now, the author of the piece is an interesting character. We can be sure that his ancestors did not arrive on the Mayflower. He is an example of what conservatives tell us is the new model American. His people arrived recently and as if by magic they are not only as American as everyone else, but they now have a duty to criticize the errors of your ancestors and explain how you can make things right. South Asians have embraced the skins game with a passion.

There is another name for this. Isaac Willour is a fine example of the Ingrate-American, a new arrival who does nothing but lecture white people for not having done enough to make his stay comfortable. White Americans could be forgiven for wondering why in the hell they need to listen to this interloper about anything. Maybe instead of lecturing us about our ancestors, he should be thanking us for a life that the civilization of his ancestors could never provide to him.

Putting that aside, once you concede that racial disparities require your attention and that they are the fault of white people, you sign onto whatever pogroms the Left launches on white people. There can be no salvation for white people until those disparities are gone, but since that is an impossibility, the only choice left is a forever war on whiteness, which is a war on white people. This is the logical end of the conservative embrace of the blank slate.

One you concede that people are amorphous blobs that can be made into anything, the cause of observable disparity shifts from the individual to society. Once you buy into the idea that all men are created equal, you concede that any observed inequality must be the result of some malevolent force in society. Once conservatives signed onto these two concepts, they committed themselves to a war on the majority population in the name of equality, equity and justice.

This is how conservatives went from Bill Buckley arguing with James Baldwin over the issue of civil rights to a world where recent arrivals lecture the white population about the crimes of their ancestors. After all, if all you have is the claim that all men are created equal, endowed with natural rights, what argument can you have against some guy getting off his flying carpet and claiming to be your equal? As your equal, does he not have the right to judge you and your ancestors?

Of course, this degenerate thinking pollutes everything. After all, how can one oppose open borders when you owe such a huge debt to the world? How can one question the economic arrangements when the world is counting on your sacrifice? How can you oppose community wrecking policies when you wanting to live a peaceful life among people like yourself is clearly white supremacy? Once the blood libel gets going, it becomes the universal weapon.

This is why conservatism has been a failure in America. Once they signed off on the blank slate and egalitarianism, they had no way to dispute any of the claims made by the Left, so they were reduced to being their unwilling accomplices. Eventually, their masters lost patience and now conservatives compete with one another to see who can be the most enthusiastic for the latest progressive fad. Conservatism is a shadow that cheers as the Left flits from one cause to the next.

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Welcome To The New Rome

Posted on December 12, 2022 by thezman

Note #1: I have multiple goodies up behind the green door this week. The schedule going forward will be two written pieces a week and one podcast. You can sign up at SubscribeStar or Substack.

Note #2: If you are looking for a book to read, you may want to buy the book A Walk in the Park: My Charlottesville Story. It is a first person account of the events by a couple of good guys who deserve your support. it would be a great Christmas gift.

Imagine you agree to play a game with someone and the first rule of the game is that your opponent sets the rules of the game and he can change the rules whenever he likes for any reason he likes. That would mean that no matter your mastery of the rules, you must always lose the game because your opponent will simply change the rules whenever necessary. You would spend all of your time learning rules that keep changing to put you at a disadvantage.

Similarly, imagine that you decide to build a house on another man’s property, without getting a fixed agreement on your use rights. Since the landowner could at any time tell you to remove your house or even deny you access to it, the focus of your life must be making sure that you are in good standing with the landowner. While technically the house is yours, in reality he sets the rules for how you use it. Like the game example above, your life is about complying with changing rules.

This is the situation for professional Christians. They have agreed to allow their opponents to set the rules of the moral framework. Like the guy building a house on another man’s land, they have built their church on progressive land. The professional Christian must always get permission to use his church. Or like the game example, he must spend his time making sure the tenets of his faith comport with the changing morality of the prevailing the moral framework.

You see it in this rather bizarre post at First Things. There are two main assertions made in the post. One is that racism, and the mythological concept of white supremacy, are the worst things possible. The other point is that it is the duty of Christians to purge those accused of these sins from the ranks of the political Right. To make this point, he piles on a guy named Thomas Achord, a headmaster of a private classical Christian academy, who was accused of blasphemy by the Left.

A feature of professional Christianity is to not only abandon a fellow Christian attacked by the enemies of the faith, but to also rush to the front of the line of bigots taking turns kicking the accused. Here is the execrable Rod Dreher taking some self-righteous shots at Thomas Achord. Like David French, Rod Dreher never misses an opportunity to promote his own virtue. He is who Emerson had in mind when he said, “The more he spoke of his virtue, the faster we counted the spoons.”

Note that Christian mercy never comes up when the Left starts howling for the blood of a Christian accused of violating the progressive faith. Professional Christians are like a pack of wild dogs. As soon as they sense a member of the pack is weak, they pounce on the poor fellow, tearing him to pieces. One cannot help but wonder if this behavior is solely to please the Left. Many of them, like Dreher and French, seem to take pleasure in these sadistic rituals.

Of course, the reason that professional Christians rush out these condemnations whenever one of their own has violated progressive dogma is to let the people holding the other end of the leash know they are a good boy. For professional Christians, what matters is remaining in good standing with the Left. These ritualized condemnations are a public act of piety – progressive piety. It is an affirmation that Christian piety must always rest on the moral foundations of the Left.

Another example of this sort vulgarity is this self-published video from Anglican priest in Nova Scotia Canada. If not for the collar, one would be forgiven for thinking Father Ed Trevors is a weirdo from the grievance studies department. In the description of this tantrum, he makes sure to post his pronouns. One thing missing from his public act of piety is a reference to Scripture. Like all Anglican priests, he is probably unfamiliar with the foundation text of his church.

Putting aside the vulgarity of these displays, the premise of the argument in that First Things article is anything but a Christian argument. Jesus Christ had plenty of chances to state his opinions about racism and white supremacy. He had nothing to say on the matter. His disciples wrote and spoke about the full range of the human dilemma but never bothered to mention anything about racism. Scripture is silent on the issue of race and the moral claims around it.

The reason for this is that these are entirely novel concepts conjured in the last century for purely political reasons. Even those on the winning side of the American Civil War lacked the racism concept. Lincoln famously said, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” He repeated these claims throughout the Civil War to audiences on his side.

Now, there are people who will cherry pick lines from Scripture claiming that Jesus was very much opposed to racism. Never mind that the concept did not exist in the age of Jesus and his language lacked words for the concept. Even if one can make these leaps of logic, the reason for doing so is to make Christian morality match progressive morality, in order to please the people controlling public morality. Those who bothered to read their Bible should be thinking of Matthew 6:24 right now.

In fairness, the professional Christian can argue that Christians must live in this world and that means navigating around secular moral claims. That is clearly not what we are seeing with these people. Instead, their Christianity is just part of the sales pitch they use to convince Christian people to embrace secular morality. Once you accept this new class of sins as far worse than those in your theology, you have subordinated your theology to those creating the new class of sins.

Arguably the most challenging thing is this age is to be a Christian. Your enemies control the commanding heights of Western society. Your friends are always looking for a way to profit from their alleged defense of you. It is a good reminder that all moral frameworks must stand alone. In the case of Christianity, it means the logic of the faith must stand outside of and often opposed to the prevailing orthodoxy. Christianity now finds itself where it started. Welcome to the new Rome.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Race