Diluting the Stock

Imagine this blog is a business and you are a stock holder who got in early when I was starting up. The blog is booming and that means the value of the stock is booming. I figure I can capitalize on the boom and start issuing more stock. That’s good for me, but there’s one problem. That dilutes the value of your stock. That would be a crappy thing for me to do to my stock holders, which is why companies tend to avoid doing this.

But, let’s assume I don’t care about my stock holders and I start issuing new stock. One thing that will happen is current stock holders will begin dumping the stock. After all, the value of the stock will most likely decline and the point of buying the stock in the first place is to get something for it, as in a return on the investment. If I keep issuing stock, the price will collapse and the stock will be worthless.

The same logic applies to citizenship. Being a Canadian has value. You get cheap maple syrup, high alcohol beer and good hockey. There’s also the protection of the Canadian government, law enforcement, economic benefits and social welfare benefits. In return, the citizen serves on juries, pays taxes and serves in the military when required. A country is a lot like a company and the citizens are stock holders. It’s not a perfect analogy, but a useful one.

What our rulers seek to do is dilute the value of citizenship by offering it to whoever staggers along.

Rep Luis V. Gutiérrez, one of Congress’ most outspoken advocates for immigrants, on Wednesday called for expanding the Affordable Care Act to cover all of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the United States.

“The goal is to make integration and inclusion real for millions of families that are locked out under current law,” the Illinois Democrat said in a floor speech introducing his proposed legislation.

“As it stands right now, undocumented immigrants are not subject to the individual mandate and cannot buy into health insurance exchanges even if they use their own money.  My legislation will change that.  It says that we stand for inclusion.”

Citing last week’s papal address to Congress (the pope repeatedly urged U.S. lawmakers to follow “the Golden Rule”), Gutiérrez said: “Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you means moving forward with no restrictions on which brother and sister and neighbor we think of as ‘eligible’ or ‘deserving.’”

The Gutiérrez legislation faces long odds in the House, where proposals to overhaul immigration have been stymied by Republicans who insist the federal government must first address holes in border security.

If everyone on earth is eligible for the benefits of citizenship, as long as they get to America, what point is there in being a citizen? More important, why would anyone try to make the country better? The whole point of investing in a company or a country is to make it better. In the case of a country, better for your descendants. If the children of foreigners are going to take from your kids the fruit of your labor, why bother?

That would obviously spill into voting, as doing what’s best for the country would lose all value. Instead, factions would vote in blocks, at war with other factions, for the right to take what they can from whomever they can. That’s assuming people both voting. The only solution to that is authoritarianism where the national government uses force to compel cooperation from and among the people.

That’s what our betters have failed to understand. At some point, people will simply not respond to patriotic appeals or moral suasion. After all, loyalty to the state will have no basis as there is no benefit to citizenship. The relationship becomes purely transactional as both sides try to beat the other in their dealings. The only result of open borders is a Hobbesian world that looks more like the Middle East than Western Civilization.

The Faith of the Crazy

What’s hard for normal people to wrap their heads around, I think, is how modern liberalism is not a set of fact-based opinions, but a crazy quilt of beliefs that are untethered from reality. Normal people tend to assume that people can look around, see the world as it is and act accordingly. Those who fail to acknowledge reality are either mistaken or insane. For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, conservatives have assumed liberals are mistaken and therefore they can be corrected.

Over the last decade, many on the right have come to the conclusion that the people we call Progressives are suffering from a mental disorder. Maybe it is the nutty aunt who thinks Obama is Jesus. Maybe it is that neighbor who has covered his Prius in “coexist” bumper stickers. These are not people with whom you can have a conversation because they find some way to preach Progressive craziness at you, even over the damned weather.

I tend to think of it a third way, which is as a religion. I call it the Cult of Modern Liberalism because what we call politically correct is what we used to call “pious” in another age. The PC enforcers deeply believe in egalitarianism, anti-racism and multiculturalism as pathways to salvation. It’s Congregationalism with God removed from the cosmology. Here’s a good example of it in the Washington Post.

This month, Jennifer Cramblett lost her “wrongful birth” lawsuit, which centered on a troubling ideology that has been creeping into mainstream discussions in ways not seen in decades. Cramblett claimed that the sperm used to inseminate her came from the wrong donor, leading to a biracial child, which she had not wanted. Her lawsuit claimed that this mix-up in the lab caused her and her family personal injuries of various kinds.

This lawsuit was shadowed by a troubling logic: the idea that race is a biological reality with particular traits and behaviors that can be avoided through proper breeding practices. In doing so, Cramblett’s claims echoed arguments made in a darker era of global history of “scientific” racism.

Here’s how the argument goes. Some people are born with outstanding talents, easily mastering basketball, mathematics, languages or piano, if given the right environment in which to grow. What biologist or social scientist could argue with that? But alongside that genetic understanding, an old and pernicious assumption has crept back into the American conversation, in which aptitudes are supposedly inherited by race: certain peoples are thought to have rhythm, or intellect, or speed or charm. That’s a fast track toward the old 19th- and early 20th-century problem of “scientific” racism.

First off, you’ll note the tone. These are two deeply religious people speaking to an audience they assume to share their religion. If instead of “racism” the bogeyman was the devil, it would be something you would expect from certain Christian sects. If the bogeyman was Western decadence, then this would read like a sermon from the local imam. Instead, the bogeyman is biology so it is a boiler plate lecture we’ve all come to expect from people who enjoy diversity seminars.

You’ll also note that the authors are both professors with degrees in nonsense fields like racism and sociology. These are not fields of study that add to the stock of human knowledge about the world. These are fields dedicated to enforcing religious orthodoxy. When your kids go off to college, they are forced to sit through diversity lectures by these types of people as part of the “orientation.”

The Washington Post gobbles up submissions like this because it helps the faithful resist the temptations of biological science, which is becoming a real threat to the Cult of Modern Liberalism. When genetics can trace your genealogy back to the home country by merely taking a mouth swab and correlate physiological attributes to intelligence, biology becomes the same sort of threat to the New Religion as it was to the Old Religion.

Because this new religion inherits so much from the old religion, it even comes with an apocalyptic element. This breathless story on “climate change” is a daily feature in Progressive media. Christianity used to keep people in line by promising eternal damnation in the fiery pits of Hell if you broke God’s laws. Progressives promise an extremely high air conditioning bill if you keep using the lawnmower.

The interesting thing about the New Religion is it is a throwback to the pre-Christian days. Before the Jews gave us a fixed, rational God who created a fixed and rational world, people truly thought appeals to the gods would change the laws of nature. Hang a bull’s penis around your neck and your next kid would be a son. Burn a couple of heretics and the rains would come and end the drought.

Climate change is paganism for guys and gals on the private jet circuit. They force the state to pass some regulation making it hard for you to cut your grass because that will appease, well, whatever is in the blank spot where Elagabalus used to sit. As has always been the case, the rich guy making the sacrifice to the gods is never sacrificing anything of his. It’s always some other guy stretched out on the altar, having his heart ripped out.


No people have been more poorly served by their leaders than the German people, going back to the founding of the modern German nation. Most people would assume I’m referring to you know who and the you know what, but that’s just one example.The Kaiser’s actions in the lead up to the Great War were reckless and crazy, costing his people immeasurably. The Great War has largely been forgotten, but it is fair to pin the blame there for what came after on the events of 100 years ago.

I’ve been reading about the Great War lately and one event in the Battle of Ypres jumped out to me for its significance today. The German army found itself on the defensive after the French rallied at The Marne. They retreated back toward Belgium and took up defensive positions before the Race to the Sea, where both sides tried to outflank the other to the north. The Battle of Ypres was at the end of this.

There’s one battle that struck a chord with me and it is the Battle of Langemarck. The war had not gone as the Germans had planned and they suddenly found themselves needing many more soldiers. Not only was there not going to be a quick end to the war, the Allies had amassed a huge army and the Germans had to match it so they began conscripting every able bodied man into the army.

Both sides found themselves in a position where they were sending raw recruits into battle against hardened units in a form of warfare no one had contemplated until the Great War. The result was often slaughter where raw units were sent rushing against machine gun positions, only to be mowed down by the thousands. By Langemarck, however, both sides were well aware of the reality of this war.

In September 1914 four new German Army Corps had been formed. At that time, a German corp was about 12,000 men so these new corps totaled 50,000 men at most. Estimates vary, but about 75% of these new units were young volunteers between 17 and 19 years of age. As a result of the young age of so many of the soldiers, the Corps became known as the “Kinderkorps”. The word “Kinder” translates as “children” in English.

These four Corps were incorporated into the German Fourth Army and by October, with only a few weeks of training, they were on the march towards the front at Ypres. On the other side were experience soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force. These were some of the best soldiers in the war at the time. The BEF was a professional, full-time military that had fought around the globe prior to the war in France.

The accounts are disputed, but the reports at the time claim these “Kinderkorps” attacked the British positions, singing Deutschland Uber Alles, with some having put flowers in their helmets. This was most assuredly apocryphal, made up to add poignancy to a dreadful event. Estimates say 70% of these units were mowed down in the attack. Again, the details are disputed by revisionists, who have motives worse than the the people they wish to refute, but the slaughter is not disputed.

For a long time this event held a special place in the German national consciousness, but I’m sure it no longer holds any place today. It should have remained a warning to all future Germans about the conduct of their leaders and the cost of giving them too much power. The story of German leadership since the founding of the modern state is one of suicidal squandering of their most precious resources for no good purpose, beyond self-aggrandizement.

This is relevant today in what we are seeing with Merkel’s quest to fill up Germany with Muslims form the Near East. These Muslims are not looking to become German, even if that were a possibility. They are not seeking temporary shelter from a storm back home. The majority are men of military age, who should be back home fighting to make their country safe again. No, this is just a bunch of people looking for a better deal.

Germany should be organizing the defense of Europe, helping the periphery deal with this flood of migrants. Instead, it is a slow motion “Kindermord”, where the children of today are being sacrificed to the mad policies of a bunch of old farts in charge of the country.The absolute inability to admit error is leading the German political class to embrace what amounts to national suicide, just so they can feel good.

Reading about the Great War, it’s hard to comprehend how the leaders of that age could have been so foolish, reckless and craven. But, we also have the benefit of 100 years of hindsight. Still, after the first wave of young men were fed into the gaping maw of industrial warfare, there was simply no excuse for not seeking a way to end what was a pointless war.

One hundred years from now, if civilization permits a looking back at our age, people will wonder how the leaders of today let wave after wave of migrants wash away European civilization. After the first experiments with wholesale immigration, how could they not see the suicidal lunacy of these polices? The lesson, of course, is no amount of “Kindermord” can shake the faith of men determined to wipe themselves out.

Straw Wars

The Democrats have always been the gold standard in the art of politics. They are a means-to-an-end operation where the only thing that matters is the end result. The Republicans are a clown car by comparison, because they get hung up on process and let the goals slip away from them. That and many of their leaders are stupid. But, they can play hardball when pressed by internal dissent. A good example is what we are seeing with Carly Fiorina.

Starting a couple of weeks before the last debate, the inner circle of the party started pressing their media friends to promote her candidacy as a more sober alternative to Donald Trump. They got CNN to change the rules to put her on the big stage so she could try to draw blood from Trump. Strangely, the establishmentarians think Trump offends women as much as he offends the Panda-Men of the party. Ever since, all of the usual suspects have been telling us Fiorina is surging in popularity.

This is the classic use of a straw candidate to dilute the support of an adversary. Since Pericles, political factions have sought to split the vote of a larger faction by offering up alternative candidates to drain away some of the vote. Recently Democrats, for example, have used straw candidates in Massachusetts and Virginia to win elections they would otherwise have lost. They surreptitiously supported libertarian candidates who had no chance of winning, but would draw away a few points from the Republican.

The best straw candidates are those who don’t know they are a straw. My favorite example of this is the 2010 governor’s race in Massachusetts. The incumbent Democrat, Deval Patrick, was in trouble so the party encouraged a guy named Tim Cahill to run as an independent. He was a conservative Democrat, but as an independent, he was biting into the vote of the liberal Republican, Charlie Baker. At first it looked like Cahill would be a strong candidate, but he faded and it was clear he was only going to split the anti-Patrick vote.

Cahill never figured out he was just a straw so he hung in the race, even after the local media began to refer to him as the straw. Whether or not Cahill was this stupid is debatable, but he kept running, throwing the election to Deval Patrick. Not long after Cahill was indicted on corruption charges by the very same Democrats who used him in the election. I always thought that was a great touch.

Fiorina has been a hang-around for about a decade now. She worked on McCain’s campaign as an adviser. She ran for Senate with party help in 2010. I’ve called her Mitt Romney in a skirt because she is one of those no-trust candidates that says all the right things, but no one really believes them. It’s as if they are actors from central casting, trained to repeat the lines, but only playing a role. If someone decides they need new lines, they will gladly say the new things.

That’s what makes her a great straw. Like Romney, she thinks politics works like a corporation. Suck up to the bosses, keep moving up the org chart and eventually you get the top job. Instead of seeing the motives of her new best friends, she thinks she is being welcomed into the club. She will suck up even harder trying to please the party bosses, who are only encouraging her so she can tear a whole in the Donald Trump dirigible.

Fiorina is never going to be the nominee. The company men just want to hide behind her skirt while she dilutes the Trump vote for a while. They correctly see that the voters are rejecting the establishment men, rallying to Trump as a protest more than anything. If that vote can be split between three candidates, that leaves open the chance to let a company man consolidate the vote currently split between guys like Jindal, Rubio, Bush, et al. If you do the math of the polls, half the vote is willing to back a company man over the rebel options.

The other role she serves as the straw is to play the “I’m mad, but I’m not crazy” card on the Trump voters. What I mean here is she will take up the same issues as Trump like immigration, but a full step further toward the party’s position. Once Trump is gone, she becomes the fringe position. Once Fiorina is gone, then it is short walk for those voters back into their cages.

I offer no predictions on whether this will succeed. This is a weird time for the GOP. I called it the Yankee Crackup because the ruling coalition is at war with itself in ways we have not seen in a very long time. Boehner just got the hook by the party bosses for failing to deal with the House rebels. Now McConnell is under pressure for being himself. The recent polling suggests this latest Fiorina ploy is falling flat so maybe a revolt is really happening.


Someone asked me the other day if I supported Israel. Specifically they asked “Would you say you are a supporter of Israel or not?” This implies it is a binary issue. My interlocutor thinks you are either fully in support of the country or against it. I may be misinterpreting his intentions, but that was my reading of the question.

My answer was that I had no strong feelings about Israel, one way or the other, but I wished her the best. I have the same emotional response as I would if the topic were Canada or Lichtenstein. Israel is a country just like any other country. Where her interests coincide with the interest of my country, I expect my government to work with Israel. Where our interests collide, I expect my government to put our interests first.

That’s a cutesy pie answer that is not entirely honest. I’m a human being born into a culture and therefore I have a cultural outlook. Like any normal American, for example, I don’t care for the French. They could be building the paleo-conservative utopia over there and I would have a tough time cheering for them. On the other hand, I’ll always root for the Brits, even when they are doing stupid things.

The reason, of course, is that the Brits are a lot like Americans. Familiarity and a commonly held sensibility makes it easy for Brits and Americans to get along. That’s where I come down on Israel and the Middle East. I’ve known a lot of Jews and I’ve done business with Israelis. They are familiar to me and I have some insight into their world view and I can navigate it. Arabs, on the other hand,  are inscrutable and their ways often strike my western mind as barbaric.

A young Saudi Arabian Shi’a activist, who was sentenced to death last year, has lost his final appeal for justice and is due to be executed by beheading, followed by the mounting of his headless body onto a crucifix for public viewing.

Human rights groups and Saudi critics are appalled by both the nature of the execution and the flimsy case against Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, though neither of these factors are unusual in today’s Saudi Arabia.

Al-Nimr was arrested in 2012, at age 17, in the predominantly Shia province of Qatif, and accused of participating in anti-government protests and possessing illegal firearms. He has repeatedly denied the latter charge, although he was reportedly tortured into confessing the offenses after his arrest. According to Amnesty International, al-Nimr spent a short time in a juvenile detention facility before being transferred to prison when he turned 18, and was sentenced to death in 2014.

Al-Nimr was likely targeted because he is the nephew of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimra, a prominent Shi’a cleric who was also sentenced to death in 2014. Al-Nimr’s father is also a political activist.

“Ali was a vulnerable child when he was arrested and this ordeal began,” said Maya Foa of the legal charity Reprieve, in a statement. “His execution—based apparently on the authorities’ dislike for his uncle, and his involvement in anti-government protests—would violate international law and the most basic standards of decency. It must be stopped.”

US talk show host Bill Maher raised al-Nimr’s situation on television a few days ago, encouraging viewers to stop fretting about the American Muslim who was arrested for bringing a clock to school and instead show some concern for the Saudi who’s going to be crucified for attending a protest. “If you haven’t used up all your heroism hashtagging for the clock kid, maybe do it for this guy,” Maher said.

I’ll stipulate that my bias here , which comes from ignorance, probably excludes the very real crimes committed by this guy. I’ll also stipulate that the death penalty is seen as a reasonable punishment by most people. I’ll even go so far as to accept beheading as humane, assuming it is swift like the guillotine. As a matter of science, there can be no more humane way of killing someone than the swift removal of their head.

Where I draw the line is on displaying the corpse. The story calls it crucifixion in order to elicit strong feelings from their intended audience. The use of the wælsteng went out of fashion in Europe about 1500 years ago. The last guy to make regular use of this practice was Vlad the Impaler and that was 600 years ago. He has been remembered for his outlandish cruelty. In other words, we are well past this sort of barbarism.

Israel is a country that is much more similar to what I know than are the Muslim countries around her. Given the choice, I’ll root for the Israelis, because to do so is to root for civilization, my civilization. Israel is not perfect and there are plenty of bad Israelis. The Saudis are stuck in the fifth century and most of the Near East is populated with people I never want to see in my neighborhood.

That said, this is a matter of degrees. I would just as soon never have to think of the entire region and the people from that region. It is like picking between gruel with bits of insect in it and gruel that looks insect free. I’m not enthusiastic for either option, but one is better than the other. That is how I feel about Israel. if I’m forced to choose between  the Jews and Arabs, then I reluctantly pick the Jews, but I would much prefer it if such a choice was never on the menu.


A while back, there was a post on Unz about creating a black homeland. The piece was not very well done so there is no point in linking it. It was about how efforts to make race relations work had failed so a two-state solution was the only option. The plan was to turn a few states in the South into the new black homeland. Again, itt was not very well done so the particulars are not important.

What is striking about the idea of a black homeland, is it is an idea you never hear mentioned, even by racists. Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves to Haiti or other Caribbean islands, but that’s forbidden knowledge these days. Yankee abolitionists would never have gone along with that as they wanted the freed slaves to riot and murder the bad whites in the defeated South. A dream they still nurse.

The American Colonization Society tried to create a black homeland for freed slaves, which eventually became Liberia. This probably would have worked if the demand for cotton had not made slavery so wildly profitable in the American South. By the end of the 18th century, Southern elites saw slavery as a dismal and dying institution, but the spike in the demand cotton changed those attitudes and killed any hope of ridding the nation of slaves and slavery through peaceful means.

The 20th century had some black nationalist movements that wanted to bring the former slaves back to Africa. Marcus Garvey is probably the most notable, but those efforts never went anywhere. The Nation of Islam guys are essentially black separatists arguing for blacks to withdraw from white society whenever and wherever possible, but they stop short of decamping for another land.

It’s not a crazy idea, if you think that blacks and whites can never truly live peaceably in a color blind society. If you’re black and assume the white majority will always have you under their thumb, a separate homeland should be attractive, as long as it does not mean going to Africa or the Caribbean. Those places are terrible and unfixable. A black homeland could only work if it is a part of the Anglosphere.

Some Basic Principles of Blacktopia

If you’re going to set up a black homeland, you have to start from some basic principles. The whole point of the endeavor to arrange things so that blacks can run their own shop and avoid the pernicious racism they must contend with in modern America. It is a form of reparations, just with a more logical end. The trouble with the TN Coates brand of reparations is it is really just a childish tantrum so that a middle-aged man-boy can pay his rent. Real reparations repair the damage and closes the books.

With that in mind, the first rule of Blacktopia is it has to have the promise of making black lives better. No one can know the future so the results of Blacktopia cannot be known in advance. All we can reasonably achieve is an arrangement where blacks are given every chance to succeed, and the results are in their hands. That means the land carved out for the new nation has to have all the natural resources you need for a successful country. It also has to have enough existing capital to provide for a strong start.

Carving out a new nation and moving millions of people into it is no small endeavor. It has to involve the least amount of harm in order to work. Money has to be allocated so the new citizens of Blacktopia can start their new lives with the least amount of hardship. Similarly, the people already living in Blacktopia need to be compensated where necessary. It’s not going to be cheap, but this is about trade-offs and the trade-offs need to be a consideration when creating this new nation.

Finally, it has to be sustainable and by that, I mean it has to settle the issue of race in the long term. Whites from Yankeedom have been making war on the bad whites over race for centuries. The point of Blacktopia is not just to provide closure for black victims of white racism. It has to close out the cold civil war between Yankeedom and the rest of America. That means the final configuration of this new nation has to be such that Yankeedom can no longer complain about the racism of whites.


Finding a habitable spot that can support roughly 40 million people is not so obvious. The temptation is to find the least populated states and use those or maybe carve out part of Canada, but Blacktopia is not going to survive in a tundra or desert. Again, the first principle here is it has to have a chance to thrive. At the minimum, that means a decent climate, access to the sea and usable land.

The most obvious choice is California and maybe Oregon and Washington. Despite the massive flow of Mexicans into the state, California still has a low population density of 246 per square mile. New Jersey, by comparison, is 1210 per square mile. Washington state is 105 and Oregon just 41 souls per square mile. Without moving anyone out and just relocating black people to those states, the population density climbs to 311, which somewhere between Pennsylvania and Florida.

The trouble is Hispanics are not very friendly to blacks. Compton, which was made famous by the hip-hop group NWA, has slowly turned Hispanic, pushing out the blacks in a slow motion ethnic cleansing. This is a pattern seen all over America, one that liberals are fond of using to gentrify their strongholds. Washington DC imported Salvadorans, for example, as a way to freshen up the city.

That’s going to be a problem in the other lightly populated coastal area, the American South. Geographically, it is about perfect. You have mild climate, great agricultural areas, access to the sea and many good ports. There’s also the long history of blacks in the South, good and bad. In many respects, turning the South into Blacktopia would close the books on the Civil War. After all, the Abolitionists hoped the freed slaves would murder all of the white Southerners.

But, there’s a big problem. Southern whites have always been awful to blacks and there’s no reason to think that will change. Blacktopia would quickly look like South Africa circa 1975. One of the rules here is to make sure the new nation can survive. In theory the blacks could overwhelm the whites, but it is not a given and history says it is not the way to bet. The whites from Yankeedom would never tolerate it so this would lead to another civil war. Therefore, this option fails the basic principles outlined above.

That leaves New England. The population density of the six New England states is around 200 so there’s room for a lot more people. If you throw in New York, you have loads of room. The population of those seven states is roughly 35 million. Add in 40 million new people and you have a population density of Pennsylvania. Given that there are big cities like Boston and New York City, the density in the hinterlands would be quite low.

This region also is blessed with two world class cities and several smaller vibrant cities like Providence and Hartford. The current population is educated and productive. Most important, they have been lecturing the rest of us about race for 300 years. They fought a bloody war to help black people and fought a legal war to end segregation. Today, no people on earth fret over racism like the old Yankees of New England. They love black people!


Now that we have the perfect location for Blacktopia, there are a few things that will need to be done. One is the current population of these states, and anyone born in these states are automatically citizens of the new nation. If you were born in New Hampshire, but now live in California, you are immediately a citizen of Blacktopia, but will be issued a visa for one year so you can decide to move back to your new country.

The reason for this is the new nation needs more than natural resources. The indigenous population is educated, rich and resourceful. They have built out the social organizations that a new nation will need in order to thrive. There’s also the goal of separating the old Yankees from everyone else as that has been a source of problems for 300 years. By keeping the current population in Blacktopia, we satisfy the core goals of the project.

Now, moving 35 million people to New England is no easy trick. The way to do this is to pay these folks $50,000 per head for relocation expenses. That’s well more than necessary, but there’s a hassle factor involved. The cost of that will be roughly $2 trillion, but in a big economy like ours that’s very manageable. There are trade-offs to everything and continued racial strife has costs well above this figure, I’m guessing.

The one last bit here is what to do with the people now living in New England and New York who were born elsewhere and wish to remain Americans. They would be allowed a year to move back to their home state. You can’t let this go on forever, so after a year, they either become a citizen of Blacktopia or they remain in the new nation. This solves the long term problem of people claiming rights in America, despite not having lived in America for decades. No more anchor babies either.


This little exercise has turned out better than I imagined. My instinct was to assume it was economically and logistically impossible, but once you think it through, it is very workable. Not only does it solve the problem of black people being treated poorly by whites, but it also solves the problem of whites warring on each other over the issue of race. The good whites are separated from the bad whites and that long running feud can be ended.

Fake Crime

The late great Sam Francis, explaining the concept anarcho-tyranny said, “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” By “we” he meant society as a whole, which was then, and is now, dominated by the managerial class. This process has accelerated, as anyone who owns a car surely knows. If your car is stolen, the cops don’t bother to look for it. If you run a red light they send a SWAT team after you.

The new wrinkle in the late empire phase of America is to import the idea of thought crimes from Europe. Instead of policing the ghetto, for example, they would rather chase after a couple of drunks because some people think the drunks had prohibited thoughts.

Police late Wednesday released sketches of the three suspects who apparently mistook a woman and her mother for a couple and assaulted them in an anti-gay bias attack in Midtown East.

Around 1 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 12, Tiffany Santiago and her mother went to the BarKogi restaurant at Second Avenue and 51st Street for a quick late-night bite, when they were attacked by a group at a nearby table who started yelling anti-gay slurs and throwing things, Santiago told CBS2 exclusively.

“Me and my mom look very similar in age, and so I think me with the short hair, and my mom’s really tall – she’s like five-eight; she’s a big lady,” Santiago said. “I think they thought we were on a date.”

Santiago said the fighting escalated from shouting into shoving, and then an all-out brawl.

“He threw me across the restaurant,” Santiago said. “I don’t even know how far I went, but I went through tables, chairs, glasses.”

She said her attackers were drunk, and said the restaurant owner – who also appeared drunk – did little to help.

When asked for comment, the owner would not speak to CBS2.

The second suspect is described by police as a white woman in her mid-30s, about 5 feet 7 inches tall, 130 pounds with dirty blonde hair. She was last seen wearing light-colored shirt, black pants and light-colored high heel boots.

The third suspect is also described as a white woman in her mid-30s, about 5 feet 7 inches tall, 120 pounds with long wavy black hair. She was last seen wearing a white tank top, black pants and black high heel boots.

Police have also released surveillance video of the suspects.

The NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating.

The fact that such a thing as a Hate Crime Task Force exists is proof enough that we have descended into madness. Putting people in jail for unclean thoughts is exactly what you would expect in a theocracy, which is what we have now. Instead of a sensible Christian sect running things, it is neo-Puritan lunatics from Yankeedom.

Public Protestantism used to be about converting the savages on the other side of the horizon. Having given up on dominating the Americas, the heirs of Jonathan Edwards first went to convert the Indians and then set sail for wherever the heathen savages need ministering. Sadly, in this last century, they are back to purging the sins from the locals.

The insanity of thought crime laws is that it untethers the state from principle. No one can know what is in the mind of a criminal or the victim. We can only know their deeds. Giving the state the right to police thought can only work if the rulers are clairvoyant psychics. Otherwise, they are left to guess and that means the law becomes arbitrary, at best, and capricious at worse.

In this case, if it were two straight white guys attacked by three blacks, there would be no manhunt and no hate crime task force. It would not merit a police report. The cops would have told the victims to shake it off and go home. But since this one has all the narrative elements, it’s front page news and the mayor is giving pressers about it.

Pizza Rat and Bureaucrats

One of the things most people fail to comprehend is the logic of bureaucracy. When we bump into it and inevitably get frustrated by the results, we assume it is due to sloth and stupidity. The image of the callous, incompetent bureaucrat is a stock figure on TV and in movies. In America, the Post Office is the example held up as emblematic of the dull-witted and disinterested government functionary.

The truth of it is, many of the people working in the bureaucracy are quite competent. The average is probably about the same as you would find at any private sector company. The difference between the government bureaucracy and the corporate bureaucracy is what gets rewarded. In government, it’s all about advancing the interests of the bureaucracy, while the private firm is motivated by profit. The latter encourages competition among employees, while the former encourages cooperation.

The most obvious example is corruption. City police departments are often bedeviled by corruption because cops never rat on one another. That’s a good way to get killed. Instead, the honest cops look the other way and the crooks collude to advance their corruption. In the private sector, employees rat out crooks and loafers all the time, because the crooks and loafers are seen as a drag on the organization. The peer pressure in the private sector is to advance the goals of the group, which is always about profit.

The goals of government organizations are about protecting the prerogatives of the organization. The people inside are entirely focused on what happens inside. The people at the Post Office, for example, don’t care a wit about the customers or the service they are allegedly providing. They simply care about their place within the blob and protecting the blob against outside threats.

This story about “Pizza Rat” in the NYTimes provides an excellent example of how the internal logic of the bureaucracy looks insane from the outside.

Even in a subway system often cluttered with trash, it stood out: a whole slice of pizza left carelessly on the floor.

The slice found its way into the grip of an ambitious rat that dragged it down the stairs of the First Avenue L station in Manhattan early Monday. A video of the spectacle spread quickly online, amassing more than two million views on YouTube, and a star was born: Pizza Rat.

A day later, Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state comptroller, released an audit that questioned whether an effort by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to reduce trash and rats on the subway was working. Mr. DiNapoli said that a pilot program to remove trash cans from some stations had shown little evidence of success.

“After four years, the best one can say about this experiment is that it’s inconclusive, except for the fact that riders have a harder time finding a trash can,” Mr. DiNapoli said. His office declined to comment on the video of the rat.

The authority has removed trash cans from 39 subway stations in recent years to encourage riders to take garbage with them instead of dropping it in overflowing trash cans and leaving scraps for rats to feast on. On Tuesday, the authority defended the program, saying it had reduced the number of trash bags collected at those stations.

“We wholeheartedly disagree with the comptroller’s opinion,” Kevin Ortiz, a spokesman for the authority, said.

Now, to normal people the obvious solution to over flowing trash barrels and the subsequent rats is to empty the trash barrels. If the trash barrel in your office fills up, you empty it. If you use a service, maybe you have them come more often. If you have a rat problem, you get a service to eliminate the rats. In other words, the problem needs to be solved and that means the problem stops being a problem. The trash barrels get emptied and the rates go away.

To the bureaucrat, the problem is not the overflowing trash barrels and the rats. They don’t care about that. The problem is how to create activity. It’s always about creating activity, which is why problems never get solved because solved problems create the need for new activity. In this case, overflowing trash barrels means pilot programs, committee meetings, budget hearing, endless activity as long as rates are dragging slabs of pizza around the subway platforms.


It’s Blame the Machines Time

Historically, American political parties have been coalition parties, not ideological parties. In a big diverse country, geographic and cultural factors are too big for the narrowness of ideology. The most obvious example is on the American Left where the moonbats of the upper Midwest are agrarian and populist, while their coreligionists back in New England are more aristocratic and exclusive.

The parties are, of course, ideologically tilted. The Democrats have largely become the Progressive party. They still have elements outside the One True Faith, but that’s diminishing. The GOP is just everyone else, a mash up of normal people either rejected by the Progressives or disgusted by them. Calling the modern Republican Party “right-wing” is absurd, but it is certainly not a Progressive party.

This difference in ideological purity is reflected in how they handle defeat. When Republicans lose, their constituents blame the party leaders for being idiots or lazy or corrupt. The leaders will blame their voters for being stubborn purists who stayed home to pout rather than fight the Democrats. Failure in the GOP is a time for recriminations and finger pointing.

The Democrats, however, go for conspiracy. When their guy loses, it’s the result of a global cabal run by the Koch Brothers, Mega Corp and the Bush Family. In 2000 and 2004, they swore the voting machine maker was a Republican operative, rigging the machines via software to thwart the efforts of the One True Faith to defeat the class traitor George Bush. In 2010 and 2014, the culprit was racist bad thinkers scaring voters about the threat posed by Obama, because racism.

One of the ways to tell if the the One True Faith is glum about its election prospect is to see if they are out hunting for conspiracies to blame for their looming defeat. This story in Wired on the state of election machines suggests they are gearing up to blame the machines for what’s coming in 2016.

As the US presidential election season heats up, the public has focused on the candidates vying for the nation’s top office. But whether Donald Trump will secure the Republican nomination is secondary to a more serious quandary: whether the nation’s voting machines will hold up when Americans head to the polls in 2016.

Nearly every state is using electronic touchscreen and optical-scan voting systems that are at least a decade old, according to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (.pdf). Beyond the fact the machines are technologically antiquated, after years of wear and tear, states are reporting increasing problems with degrading touchscreens, worn-out modems for transmitting election results, and failing motherboards and memory cards.

States using machines that are at least 15 years old include Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, which means they are far behind even a casual tech user in keeping pace with technological advancements.

The ancient Greeks managed to hold elections with lots, but now we’re supposed to believe that we need the latest technology or the whole thing falls to pieces. That’s not really what they’re saying of course. The whole election machine meme is part of the larger narrative where the One True Faith is not really rejected by the people. It’s all a misunderstanding along with actions by nefarious forces allied with Halliburton.

One of the most serious problems with aging machines is they are prone to crashes and screen freezes, which can lead to long lines at polling stations and disenfranchised voters who leave without casting ballots.

“We have had motherboards go down—in essence the voting machine just stops working on Election Day because the motherboard is dead,” Joe Rozell, director of elections in Oakland County, Michigan, told the Brennan Center about his aging optical-scan machines.

In 2013, New Mexico was having similar problems with the memory cards used with optical-scan machines it purchased in 2006. “As the machines got older, they had more and more functionality issues,” Maggie Toulouse Oliver, the county clerk in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, told the authors. “In particular there was a high failure rate for memory cards. It got so bad that we had to replace one-third of machines in every election.”

Some election officials have resorted to scouring eBay for decommissioned equipment they can cannibalize for parts.

Even more important are reliability and integrity issues with malfunctioning machines that fail to record votes, or record votes improperly. Numerous voting districts have reported calibration problems over the years with electronic touchscreen voting machines seemingly “flipping” votes—that is, recording a vote for a different candidate than the one the voter selected onscreen.

The federal government is well aware of the problem of aging machines. In January 2014, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration issued a report (.pdf) warning of an “impending crisis … from the widespread wearing out of voting machines purchased a decade ago.” But so far, lawmakers have done nothing to remedy the situation.

The voting machine story is a lot like the homeless problem. It’s only a problem when the wrong people are in charge. When the good people are in charge, we hear nothing about these things. In both cases, the problem exists because the Left insisted we go away from what worked for generations in favor of some new thing. The old lever machines worked just fine and were very hard to rig. But, they kept recording the wrong votes as far as the Left was concerned so here we are.

Fear the Brown Tide

The Left is a religion, a secular version of Public Protestantism. The adherents deeply believe that the promised land is over the next hill. All that is necessary is to eliminate the sins of society so that the elect can be freed to reach the Utopia that has been promised. They are not much different from the Muslims who believe the hidden Imam will return when the righteous have the final showdown with the infidels.

To the true believer, everything passes through the filters of their belief. Anything that contradicts the faith is either filtered out or re-imagined so that it fits the narrative. Extraneous data is worked into the narrative to give it weight, so that the believer can believer harder. All of it, so to speak, points to the day when the Great Pumpkin rises out of his pumpkin patch and flies through the air with his bag of toys for all the children.

A great example of this is the Latin King. Since the Reagan years, it seems, the Left has been telling us that the Latin King is coming and he is going to be pissed unless we get our bleep together. That means lifting up his little brown children on our shoulders and carrying them to the top of American society. Otherwise, when the Latin King arrives, the tide of brown will wash all the gringos out to sea or something.

This column in Politico is a good example.

Hispanic activists have two words for Donald Trump — thank you.

“I think the greatest thing to ever happen to the Hispanic electorate is a gentleman named Donald Trump, he has crystalized the angst and anger of the Hispanic community,” U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Javier Palomarez told POLITICO in an interview. “I think that we can all rest assured that Hispanics can turn out in record numbers.”

Trump has rankled the Hispanic community from Day One of his presidential run when he called many illegal Mexican immigrants “rapists” and drug peddlers during his rambling announcement speech in June. Since then, he’s driven the GOP field further right on immigration issues, in part with his aggressive proposal to have Mexico pay for a wall along the border with the U.S. and to deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in short order.

While many activists find his comments downright offensive, they also see an opportunity. Trump has managed to get Latinos engaged with the 2016 race, and activists plan to exploit that to the fullest extent possible.

“He really is just outrageous, he’s built his entire campaign on attacking our community and really playing to the worst element of American society,” said José Calderón, president of the Hispanic Federation, a nonprofit membership organization. “In some ways, he’s helping us out, the base is energized —I think people are really eager to stand up and say this is not who we are and show that through our electoral process.”

Calderón said in nonelection years, the Federation, which represents 100 community-based organizations across the country and is leading voter outreach efforts, can register about 25,000 Hispanics and on election years it’s about 60,000. But with Trump’s comments driving people to the polls, Calderón believes they can register even more.

“It’s become easier, right, to do it now. The community is very mobilized, there is this anger,” Calderón said. “We will respond in kind, through our votes.”

One of the stock features of this form of Progressive fairy tale is to have a super-white WASP lady do the reporting. There’s nothing more compelling than a lecture about diversity from a girl who makes Eva Braun look like a mulatto. But, from her end of the telescope, those little brown people look threatening so she’s scared that the mean old Trump guy is getting them worked into a frenzy.

There’s also the suicidal impulse on display. The choice presented is either resist the brown tide flowing north from below the equator and incur the wrath of that brown tide or lie back and enjoy the brown tide washing away your culture and people. This does not occur to the nice white people as they can only focus on one thing at a time. Their focus is on the bad whites whose sinful ways are keeping everyone else from grace.

This is what has always perplexed conservatives about their Progressive antagonists. Rational people see the suicidal implications, but they can’t believe it is intentional so they try everything to talk the moonbats out of it. There’s no convincing a fanatic and these fanatics think burning the village in order to save it is rational, even when it is their own village. The elimination of the sinner is all that matters.