Anti-Male Shaming Tactics?

Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has an addition to the catalog of anti-male shaming tactics.

Inspired both by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s additions to the Catalog and the discussion on this post at Dennis Mangan’s blog, I’ve defined a new type of shaming language.
Charge of Moral Degeneracy (Code Scarlet)
Discussion:  The target is accused of being morally or spiritually deficient. Examples:

• You’re a sexual degenerate.
• You’re an evil, destructive nihilist.
• Your immoral behavior makes you an enemy of Western civilization.

Response: The accuser is guilty of a logical fallacy – the argumentum ad antiquitatem. The moral goodness of an individual or lack thereof has no bearing on the truthfulness of what they espouse. Indeed, many “degenerate” people have contributed to advances in philosophy, science and art. The accuser is substituting blind, reflexive condemnation for rational analysis of the target’s arguments.

Reading the responses to Dennis’ post, I’ve noticed that all the alt-right, HBDist and white nationalist opponents of game use the same arguments over and over. Beyond ample use of Code Scarlet shaming language (more on the WN side then the HBD side), they claim we’re generalizing the behavior of urban liberal women to ALL women, they consistently confuse description with prescription and they always, and I mean ALWAYS, split hairs over the definitions of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta.’

I pretty much agree with Ferdinand here; while he emphasizes the splitting hairs over what "alpha" and "beta" mean, I would emphasize the confusion of prescription with description. Roissy is the archetypal exponent of game - and to my mind one of the best writers on any blog anywhere - and his blog mixes prescription and description, which a lot of conservatives, reactionaries, and others have great difficulty in separating. (To some of my private correspondents: you know who you are!) We saw this in spades in the game discussions among this blog and others along with Lawrence Auster.

Calling PUAs "losers" or asserting that they love feminism because it creates the conditions for their craft is - well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it in no way changes the facts on the ground. Furthermore, much of the animosity towards game amounts to a belief that a lot of men should remain voluntarily celibate for a good long while. Feminism isn't going away in our lifetimes, and until the immensely anti-male family court system is radically amended and something done about no-fault divorce, which makes a mockery of the so-called marriage contract, men are well-advised to be extremely wary of marriage.

We've trod this ground extensively in previous discussions.

Allow me to point out what appears to be a non sequitur in Ferdinand's post, namely stating that the "moral goodness of an individual or lack thereof has no bearing on the truthfulness of what they espouse" (true) after mentioning the argumentum ad antiquitatem. The two arguments are not the same.

Most destructive president calls network "destructive"

Obama: Fox News is 'destructive' to America:

By:
CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) - President Obama is pulling no punches when it comes to Fox News, declaring the cable news outlet to be "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."

In a more than 8,000-word interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama compared the cable news channel to papers owned by William Randolph Hearst at the turn of the 20th century that unabashedly pushed the media titan's own political views.

"You had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view," Obama told the magazine.

Officials in the Obama White House have long made Fox News a punching bag, launching a full blown offensive last year when aides declared the network to be "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said the cable outlet "operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and top aide Valerie Jarret called Fox "clearly biased."

But the new comments from Obama constitute the president's most direct attack yet on the network owned by business mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

Obama just can't stand it that, despite having CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSBNC, PBS, the NYT, LAT, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair - I'm sure I'm forgetting some - all on his side, rooting for him, slanting the news, one holdout stands alone. Since as far as I can tell, Fox News is the unofficial network of the Tea Party, which appears to be gathering steam daily mainly on the basis of opposition to our first post-racial president, Obama can't be doing himself any favors by talking in this way. But his haughty demeanor will have its way; he can't help himself.

Obama appears to equate "opposed to my administration" with "destructive", since he gives no explanation as to why Fox is as he describes.

Although Obama has been and continues to be among the most destructive of U.S. presidents, it is only because he has stood on the shoulders of giants.

HBD and Game

Roissy has a good post on the relation between HBD and PUA.

He notes that some HBD bloggers are skeptical about game; they basically say that genes will out in both spheres, so that the chances of a man improving his love life through learned skills is nil. Girls go for the natural alphas - the explanation goes.

What I would add to Roissy's explanation is the overlap between HBD and some form of rightist politics. Obviously, since conservatives argue that some things about society are so near immutable that we should be very wary about messing with them, and since, as Roissy notes, the truth about HBD is everywhere covered up these days, it's no surprise that right-leaning folks see the point in emphasizing HBD.

The problem is that many of these conservatives look at the old paradigm - girl meets responsible, intelligent, hard-working boy and immediately sees that he'd be the perfect father for her children - for bedrock reality. As Roissy has tirelessly documented, this has all drastically changed in ways that we're all familiar with. Genes haven't changed, but society has undergone a revolution, freeing women to follow their basest instincts and freeing men to use those to their advantage.

That's another reason besides Roissy's why some HBD types are skeptical of PUA. What conservatives see as unchanging human nature was in fact a product of the civilization that is barely still with us.

Zuckerberg donates $100 million to NJ public schools

Facebook founder, CEO, and newly minted billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is giving $100 million to Newark public schools.

CHICAGO – Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on Friday announced a $100 million donation to Newark public schools in a move that could enhance his reputation just before the opening on an unflattering movie about him, "The Social Network."

Zuckerberg told Oprah Winfrey that he picked Newark for the gift "because I believe in these guys."

"These guys" are Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a Democrat. All three appeared with Zuckerberg on a live episode Friday of Winfrey's TV show.

The Newark district has been plagued for years by low test scores, poor graduation rates and crumbling buildings. It was taken over by the state in 1995 after instances of waste and mismanagement.

Zuckerberg, wearing a gray T-shirt, black jacket and tennis shoes, explained to Winfrey why he chose to make his philanthropic debut in education.

"Why education? Because every child deserves a good education and right now that's not happening," Zuckerberg said, adding he wants other children to have the same opportunities he had.

Well, Zuckerberg may be an entrepreneurial genius, but when it comes to philanthropy, he's a fool. Just for starters, why would anyone want to give money to the government, the very entity that takes it at the point of a gun or prints it at will? Given the way the government is run these days, this is about the equivalent of a voluntary donation to the Mafia. Beyond that, the teachers' unions are corrupt, and at least in the the federal government, the average worker makes double his private counterpart, with far better job security to boot. The federal, state, and local governments are robbing us blind and doing nothing much constructive with the money, and Zuckerberg wants to give them more.

Then there's the whole "achievement gap" issue. There are no bad public schools, there are only bad students, and throwing money at the problem will not help. New Jersey already ranks number 2 - after Washington, D.C. - in per capita expenditures on education. (See here.)

Mind-bogglingly dumb.

Wonders of Diversity

Stephen Walt updates a topic I'd started to write about a few days ago but decided it was just too academic inside baseball to care about: More on the Martin Peretz affair. Peretz, the well-known editor of The New Republic, Harvard professor, and ardent Zionist and supporter of Jewish causes, made a remark about the propensity of Muslims to kill each other and the seeming indifference to it of other Muslims. They, according to Peretz, are far more interested in sticking it to the Dar al-Harb.The specifically offending sentence:

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims.

Just to be clear, whatever Peretz's other views - and he's been accused of basically passing off PR material from the Israeli Embassy as important TNR editorial content - his statement rings pretty true to me. Muslims are blowing each other up or otherwise murdering each other all over the place, and all we hear from Muslims in America as well as their liberal fellow travelers is how America discriminates against them, by not allowing them to build a forward rampart of the Dar al-Islam at the site of a massacre of Americans by Muslims.

Leave that aside. Walt and many others - you can follow all the links at his post - are just outraged that anyone could say anything so obviously bigoted. They want Harvard to reconsider naming something or other after Peretz, a decades-long professor. All the bright and good, including Walt himself, Nicholas Kristof, James Fallows, even that paragon of diversitude, Ta-Nehisi Coates, are up in arms. Fallows has suggested that "Harvard could address the controversy by creating a scholarship fund for students of Muslim background." Just what happened when Larry Summers got himself into hot water with the feminists, they want to throw some money - our money, essentially - at the offended group.

Why are they (we) having this conversation? Because of the wonders of American diversity, and because of our public theology by which it is blasphemy to say anything derogatory about any group - any group other than white Christians that is.

The first thing liberals do when they hear something they don't like, and this case shows that they do it to each other too, is hurl charges of racism and bigotry.

"The Big Short"

At Amazon, you can read 499 customer reviews of Michael Lewis's The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, so I'll keep it short and just say that it was a terrific book, a page turner for anyone interested in Wall Street, finance, and the subprime mortgage bonds that precipitated our current crisis.

The gist of the story is this: by 2005, housing prices had gone up so far, and so much money was being lent to people otherwise not creditworthy, that a few investors, whose stories are presented in the book, began to catch on that something major was wrong. These investors were mostly far from Wall Street, like Charlie Ledley and Jamie Mai, two young men who started their money management firm with $110,000 in a Schwab account. Another is the now-celebrated Michael Burris, a man with Asperger's who quit his neurology residency at Stanford to become a full-time investor, and who practically invented the credit default swap as a way to make a short bet on mortgage-backed securities. Each of these men went on to make hundreds of millions of dollars in the subprime bust, because they knew what they were doing and placed their bets accordingly. Many of their investments paid off a hundred-fold or more.

The other main aspect to the story is the capacity for self-delusion on Wall Street and in government. Other than the investors mentioned, hardly anyone had an inkling that anything at all was wrong with housing and lending until it was too late. The big banks and the investment banks were simply too greedy and too complacent - too stupid, in some cases - to realize that a huge problem was brewing. The small-time investors chronicled in the book could hardly believe how clueless the big shots were.

Lewis writes in an entertaining style and tells a riveting story, full of colorful characters, profanity-spouting investment managers, and clueless bankers. For the most part he explains things clearly enough that anyone with basic investing knowledge can follow, although I'm still a bit unclear as to what a CDO (collateralized debt obligation) is. That's OK, most on Wall Street couldn't understand them either.

ADL Finds Rightist Movement It Can Support

A movement is afoot in Israel to require citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to the nation as a "Jewish and democratic state", said movement being proposed by "the extreme right Yisrael Beiteinu party". (As an aside, since the press regularly describes anti-immigration parties and people in Europe and the U.S. as "far right", the description of this party as such shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value.)

The proposal has - hard to believe, I know - found support among liberal U.S. Jews, most prominently Abraham Foxman of the ADL.

But the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that is quick to spot instances of discrimination, says Lieberman is right to be concerned about apparent acts of disloyalty by Israeli Arabs.

Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director, noted with concern the trips by Arab Israeli Knesset members to enemy states and expressions of solidarity with Hamas by Israeli Arabs during Israel’s recent military operation in the Gaza Strip. [...]

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said he found Lieberman's proposal “legitimate.”

Strange, but according to the ADL website,

The League has:

* Shined light on the atmosphere of hate that has surrounded the debate among right-wing extremists and anti-immigration groups;
* Issued reports on the co-opting of the issue by extremists and hatemongers;
* Opposed policies that are discriminatory or encourage racial profiling;
* Encouraged relationships between the immigrant community and local law enforcement;
* Advocated for comprehensive immigration reform;
* Partnered with Hispanic and other immigrant groups at the local and national levels;
* Re-issued A Nation of Immigrants, John F. Kennedy’s classic essay celebrating the immigrant experience in America.

The ADL believes that Americans have no right to control their borders or decide the ethnic composition of their country, but oddly believes the opposite for the Jewish State.

(First two links thanks to One STDV.)

The Waste of Higher Education

Bruce Charlton wrote a great piece for Alternative Right, The IQ Allergy, many of the issues discussed being familiar territory for the human biodiversity crowd.

Modern education is about selection more than enhancement, with educational qualifications mainly serving to “signal” or quantify a person’s hereditary psychological attributes. On average, a modern college or university education enhances neither skills nor behaviors, nor does it inculcate useful knowledge.

In practice, higher education mostly functions as an extremely slow, inefficient, and imprecise form of psychometric testing that measures intelligence and evaluates personality. It would therefore be easy to construct a modern educational system that was both more efficient and more effective than the current one.

And, therefore, the reason why the elites are so adamant, obscurantist, and, shall we say, such liars when it comes to the reality of IQ:

Academics at the most expensive, elite, intelligence-screening universities tend to be hyper-skeptical of psychometric testing, precisely because they do not want to be undercut by cheaper, faster, more-reliable IQ and personality evaluations. But sooner or later, the modern elite will be overcome and replaced, or will destroy themselves.

The opportunity cost of the vast amounts of higher education that modern societies, and especially the U.S., promote, is enormous. First of all, according to a document from the National Center for Education Statistics (pdf), the U.S. spends some 3% of GDP on higher education as of 2007. As of 2008, U.S. GDP is $14.6 trillion, meaning that we spend roughly $440 billion on higher ed. Charlton's estimates that the Western world provides perhaps ten times more higher education than would be necessary with the simple expedient of IQ testing and subsequent sorting of students into the appropriate educational tracks.

But there are further costs. Millions of young people spend many of their prime years getting an unnecessary education, with effects on fertility and the economy. For women, whose fertility is in decline from roughly their mid-20s on, spending four of their years of prime fertility getting an education few of them need means that they will definitely have fewer children. For both men and women, spending those years in college means that for the most part, not only are they not working, but contracting student debt. According to the WSJ, the current average student debt load upon graduation is over $23,000. Add the opportunity cost of not working at, let's say, a mere $20,000 a year, and even a state college education starts to run upwards of $100,000. What a colossal waste.

Most are aware of the egregious Griggs vs. Duke Power case in which the Supreme Court essentially banned employers from using IQ tests. Simply repealing that decision could save the U.S. and its young people enormous amounts of money.

There is one catch: a university degree signals not only IQ, but future time orientation and conscientiousness as well, and it's hard to see how simple testing could make up for that. Of course, if employers were allowed to readily dismiss unproductive employees, they probably wouldn't be as unwilling as now to take a chance on a worker without credentials.

British Airways Goes Halal

Most of British Airways in-flight meals could soon be halal, says caterer GateGourmet.

The company behind airline food on some of the world's major airlines has announced plans to make the majority of its meals halal.

GateGourmet, which caters for all long-haul British Airways flights from Heathrow, wants to standardise production to drive down costs and boost profits.

The caterer has been tempted into the switch by lucrative business available from Middle Eastern and Asian airlines.

In other news, British Airways plans to make all women on flights cover their heads with scarves. "It's just easier that way", said BA spokesperson Mohamed Issa. "With all women having their heads covered, we won't have to worry about pious Muslim passengers getting enraged at the sight of a woman's bare head. It's a flight safety issue, you see."

British Airways also announced that, henceforth, no flights will serve alcoholic beverages. The spokesperson, Issa, commented, "As you know, we are not allowed to make inquiries into the religion or ethnicity of passengers. Therefore, the simple expedient of banning alcohol means that we will never inadvertently serve a pint of Guinness or similar kufir abomination to a Muslim. Even should he want it, that would undoubtedly upset other Muslim passengers, and we all know how unruly those people can get when they feel they're being dissed. At 35,000 feet, the problem is compounded, as you may well imagine."

British Airways is also considering the omission of meals entirely during daytime flights during the month of Ramadan. "Look", said spokesperson Issa, "the same logic applies as above. Do I really have to explain it again?"

Elite Religion

The Darwinian analysis of religion, as best exemplified by David Sloan Wilson, emphasizes the group cohesion that results from everyone in a group believing in the same dogma. Just the fact of believing in a dogma, i.e. a religion, creates bonds with everyone else who believes. For instance, the article Christians in Gaza fear for their lives as Muslims burn Bibles and destroy crosses tells the story of the persecution of people like us and, even though the Christians in Gaza do not share our language, geography, or ethnicity, the fact of their Christian religion evokes sympathy in us. (At least it does for me, not even any longer a Christian, and I assume it does for most Westerners, which is one reason you see articles like this on conservative or Christian websites. The point being that the sole bond in this case is one of believing in certain ideas.)

The Western elite believes all kinds of things as a matter of faith, e.g. the literal equality of all peoples, that Muslims can be successfully integrated into Western nations, that mass immigration of Third World peoples will enrich us, that feminism is an unalloyed good, and so on. These beliefs that have so little empirical evidence in their favor can be looked at as the articles of faith of a religion.

The elite needs to reproduce itself, constantly gathering in new members to expand and to replace the retired and dead. Nepotism or other connections are not as important as formerly; as Herrnstein and Murray pointed out in The Bell Curve, the country is more meritocratic than ever. But merit only goes so far, as can be seen for instance in the almost utter lack of conservative university professors. The elite needs not just smart people - and perhaps not even that smart - but it also needs conformity to their ideas. Perhaps the most important recruiting ground for the elite are the top universities. Probably the main thing that one learns at Harvard, as opposed to, say, Cal Tech, is to think like a member of the elite. You don't get a better education at Harvard, but you do learn what it is important to believe and what important not to believe. Dogma, in other words.

So, when we look at the leftist/liberal beliefs of those in power, or at least what they say and not necessarily what they do, and wonder how anyone so allegedly intelligent - Peter Orszag, for instance - can believe such things, one way to understand is that they're signaling their religious beliefs, and thus marking themselves as members of the elite, just as a Catholic who receives communion on Sunday in front of his community marks himself as a believer, i.e. as one of them.

Comments Policy

I don't really have a formal comments policy, other than that I would like to let the maximum number through. However, even many of the regular commenters here have had a comment deleted, at one time or another. Let me put that in a less wimpy manner and say, in the active voice, I've on occasion deleted some regulars' comments.

I bring this up now because I deleted a remark from a commenter in a recent post, who goes by the moniker "B", for directing an obscenity at me, specifically inviting me to perform a certain homosexual act. When he saw that his comment failed to show up, he called me and my readers "white supremacists". (That comment also didn't make it. And as an aside, by calling us white supremacists, and since he's Jewish, even after all his feigning of reasoned argument, it looks abundantly clear what at least one Jew thinks of whites who show any ethnic identity. And this guy is somewhat rightist; you can imagine what some of the rest must think: they're full of hate.)

Also, at this moment I have a comment in the queue which states some good arguments, but also has a line or two in there about what could or should happen to certain ethnic groups if the U.S. takes a turn toward social unrest, as many of us think it will. These types of comments are the kind that bother me to delete, since with this blogging platform, I'm unable to edit comments, so the whole comment gets deleted. Nevertheless, please keep in mind that any statement, even allusion, to the acceptability of violence, as well as statements about ethnic groups that go beyond fact or reasoned argument and into the realm of prescription or gross bigotry, will be looked at askance at a minimum, and deleted if need be.

I should stress that probably better than 95% of comments make it through, and I welcome your comments, which to the extent that you find this blog worthwhile, undoubtedly account for a good portion of that.

In sum: disagreements are fine; insulting me is not. Ethnic solidarity is great; gross bigotry or threats against other ethnic groups are not.

Thanks.

Guy with Stones

One man against the establishment.

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall?

Steve Sailer pointed to a column by former budget director Peter Orszag, Sweating Your Way to Success, a Gladwellian exposition of why, with 10,000 hours of practice, anyone can get to Carnegie Hall. The column has got to be the dumbest thing written by an allegedly smart person in ages. For instance:

Let me focus today on the core one. Too many of us believe in the “talent” myth — that top performers are born, rather than built. But Syed shows that in almost every arena in which tasks are complex, top performers excel not because of innate ability but because of dedicated practice.

So, Orszag sets up a straw man, namely that "too many of us believe... that top performers are born, not made", and counters it with the notion that "top performers" are just like you and me, only morally they're better, because when their moms told them to practice, they did.

As Sailer points out, why can't people like Orszag talk to us like adults? But it also occurs to me that Orszag and his ilk have another motivation beyond pushing their blank slate theories, and that is self-justification. Those like him who have made into the elite are made of sterner stuff, practicing their 10,000 hours, and thus deserve to be part of the elite, unlike you proles, wasting your time on TV and Nascar.

No, connections and intelligence have nothing to do with becoming a Cabinet member, or even a New York Times columnist. All that success comes from the superior morality of someone who buckles down to the task.

Sarrazin Resigns

Sarrazin Quits Bundesbank.

By MARCUS WALKER

FRANKFURT—Bundesbank official Thilo Sarrazin agreed Thursday to resign from the German central bank's board, defusing a political crisis over whether he could be fired for making a series of controversial statements about immigrants and other minorities.

The Bundesbank, responding to an international outcry over Mr. Sarrazin's views, asked the country's president last week to remove him from his post, a move some legal observers had warned would lead to a court battle.

Mr. Sarrazin, a 65-year-old former finance chief of the city of Berlin, was widely condemned by Germany's political elite, but polls show he enjoys strong support from many Germans who share his view that the country's immigration policies have been a failure.

The Bundesbank said in a statement that it had withdrawn its request that Mr. Sarrazin be fired as part of an apparent deal under which he agreed to resign.

The official's voluntary departure curtails a source of embarrassment for Bundesbank President Axel Weber, a leading candidate to become the next head of the European Central Bank. Mr. Weber had come under pressure from German politicians to punish Mr. Sarrazin, despite doubts about the legality of firing him for his opinions on issues unrelated to central banking.

In a new book and recent media interviews, Mr. Sarrazin had warned of an Islamic takeover of Germany and said that Muslim immigration threatens the nation's identity and economy.

The central banker's suggestions that Muslim immigrants are less intelligent and productive than native Germans partly for genetic reasons have caused outrage across Germany's political elite.

Chancellor Angela Merkel and other politicians had called on the Bundesbank to take action against its board member. But opinion polls suggest a degree of support for Mr. Sarrazin among ordinary Germans concerned by the growth of poorly integrated ethnic minorities in the country.

How to deal with Mr. Sarrazin, who has long been known for his maverick statements, is still a headache for his political party, the center-left Social Democrats.

The party's leadership has criticized his views on race and intelligence as unacceptable and wants to expel him, but part of the party's rank and file support him. Opinion polls suggest that ostracizing Mr. Sarrazin could cost the party votes.

Social Security to Pay Hundreds of Billions to Illegal Aliens

Bruce Krasting has the story. It turns out that, by law apparently, illegal aliens who have used fake Social Security numbers are still entitled to benefits.

Assume: A person comes illegally to the US and illegally obtains a fake SS and using that fake # finds work. This person stays in the US continuing to work illegally for many years. During that period this person has SS payroll taxes deducted from their paycheck. This person returns to (Mexico) and at age 62 applies for SS retirement benefits.

Question: Is this person entitled to receive benefits? If so what are the conditions for payment?

Well, I got this wrong. So did all the people I asked (including a lawyer). How about you? The answer is that an illegal worker using an illegal SSN has the same rights to SS benefits as a legal worker with a legal SSN. The only difference is that the person who worked illegally must receive those SS benefits outside of the USA.

Not only do they get benefits, but since they must receive them outside the U.S., it looks like we'll be subsidizing retirement in Mexico for a lot of illegals. Krasting estimates that, as of 2007, Social Security has collected over $240 billion from illegals, which has meant a crucial boost to the Social Security Trust Fund.

In a comment, Krasting writes:

No one, no matter how much has been paid in, or for how long, has any entitlement whatsoever to SS benefit payments. None. The courts have ruled definitively on this.

The dirty little secret about SS is this: It's just a tax. Nothing more. A tax that Congress levies and spends as it wishes; the so-called 'Trust Fund' is evidence of this -- i.e. the money has already been spent.

The law regarding collection of taxes ('contributions') and payment of benefits can be changed at any time.

So all Congress has to do is change the law to deny benefits to illegals. Which is what ought to be done, regardless of whether some people find this 'fair' or not. I'll concede the point: it isn't 'fair'. But there has to be some cost to coming and working here illegally. This is one of the costs. And the US ought to publicize this wide and far on the chance that it might deter some people from coming to the US illegally.

The White People Policy Planning Institute

Over at The Learning Diary of an Israeli Water Engineer, J. remarks that, according to the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, the Jewish population of Israel is growing quite nicely, while Jews in the Diaspora are decreasing in numbers. Anon commented:

You deserve to survive, since your leadership is actually on your side.

Can you imagine if a proposal was made that Harvard, or Oxford, host a "White People Policy Planning Institute"??

Imagine we've got a country
It's easy if you try
No diversity around us
Just redheads, blonds, and rye
Imagine all the white folks
And their progeny secure

Imagine whites have leaders
It's pretty hard to do
No invasion or immigration
Nor insolvency too
Imagine all the white folks
Living lives in peace

You may say this is reaction
I say bring it on
I hope someday they'll leave us
And our people will be as one

(Forgive me.)

International Redhead Day

Read about it at r/h/e notes. According to n/a,

The highest percentage of natural Redheads in the world is in Scotland (13%), followed closely by Ireland with 10%.

That must be why I like redheaded women so much.

(Photo source.)

Enforcement

Another European politician has become the recipient of the point-and-sputter, this time the EU trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht. EU Commissioner apologizes for ‘irrational Jews’ remark.

(JTA) -- The European Union's trade chief apologized for comments he made about Jews.

Karel De Gucht, a former Belgian foreign minister who is now the E.U.'s Trade Commissioner, said that rational discussion about Israel was impossible with Jews and that the Jewish lobby is the most influential in Washington.

He made the comments during a radio interview Thursday, when asked for his opinion on renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks launched in Washington.

"That is the best organized lobby that exists there," De Gucht was quoted by The Associated Press as telling VRT, a Dutch-language radio network. "There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Jews that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Jew about what is happening in the Middle East. It is a very emotional issue."

The European Jewish Congress immediately blasted the remarks and said they were part of an increasing pattern of anti-Semitism.

“What sort of environment allows such remarks to be made openly by a senior politician?” said Moshe Kantor, the EJC president. “This is part of a dangerous trend of incitement against Jews and Israel in Europe that needs to be stamped out immediately.”

By Friday, De Gucht was apologizing. In a statement he said it was not his intention "to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish Community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world and is fundamentally against our European values."

Just as we've seen in the Sarrazin case, no details on what the alleged offensive or untrue remarks consist are forthcoming. De Gucht merely fell afoul of Derbyshire's Law. Among themselves, American Jews brag about the power of their political clout, but no one else is supposed to mention this.

Meanwhile, Thilo Sarrazin threatens litigation if sacked. In contrast to De Gucht, Sarrazin appears to have some fight in him.

Kevin MacDonald refers to the hubbub over Sarrazin as policing the elites, repeating what I mentioned the other day about the reaction against Sarrazin as a warning to the others to keep their heads down. (Hey, maybe MacDonald reads Mangan's.) MacDonald:

The question is how to break through this elite monopoly on discourse on immigration and race. I confess I don’t have a clue. That’s what makes the Glenn Beck phenomenon so pathetic. Here’s a guy who has an immense following of angry White people yearning for leadership that would really help their plight. And all he can come up with is a vague commitment to traditional values and the Constitution. I’ve got news for you Glenn: The only important issue is that Whites are becoming a minority and seeing their political power and cultural influence disappearing. The Constitution will be completely irrelevant when Whites become a minority.

But that’s the thing. Idiots like Beck get exposure on the national media. And if Beck somehow strayed off the reservation and started worrying about explicitly White issues, he’d be gone, just like Sarrazin. He probably understands that.

By the way, it appears that Sarrazin has not been sacked, yet. The Bundesbank wants him gone, but apparently the decision must be ratified by the German president, Wulff.

How to break through the elite stranglehold? The one thing that occurs to me is that if Sarrazin doesn't back down, and he doesn't get canned, that would be a breakthrough. Officer Crowley achieved a breakthrough of sorts last year when he refused to back down. So not backing down would appear to be a necessary if insufficient cause of breaking the elite policing of discourse.

Sarrazin "Swamped with Support"

The WSJ reports German Politics Hit by Blowback Over Sarrazin.

The German government’s effort to oust a senior Bundesbank official for publishing controversial racial theories isn’t going at all well.

Yay!

A day after the German central bank asked President Christian Wulff to dismiss the official for racially charged remarks, it was becoming evident that a sizable slice of the electorate share Sarrazin’s concerns over immigration and ethnic integration and were protesting preparations to expell the 65-year-old from the central bank. Informal TV polls suggest that nine in 10 call-ins say Sarrazin might have a point or two.

Brand new in office, Mr. Wulff’s first reaction was to run for cover and ask the government to confer on the case before he makes a decision that only he has to make. The government itself fears that the Sarrazin case is splitting society on a thorny issue that German mainstream politics has tried to avoid confronting head on. Now there’s no choice.

The starkest evidence was the letter that the Social Democratic Party sent to members defending a decision to expell the 65-year-old Sarrazin from their party. It was in response to a groundswell of support for the author of a book that warned that high fertility rates among Muslims in Germany will erode the country’s economic potential and collective intelligence.

Copies of the SPD letter excerpted in the German media acknowledged that the party’s headquarters was being swamped with calls and emails supporting Sarrazin and at least some of his views on immigration.

Sarrazin, for better or worse, has outed a festering issue that Germany’s political class will have to take on before it’s hijacked by fringe groups. For the moment, Mr. Wulff is caught in a Ceausescu moment as he stands before the country and sees nobody waving back.

In another report, Chancellor Merkel finally deigned to give a reason why Sarrazin's remarks were so outrageous.

"I can't accept these comments," Ms. Merkel said Friday. "They have an exclusionary effect."

Profound, Chancellor. What you mean by "exclusionary" is that Sarrazin's remarks have the effect of waking people up to the global elite's project of abolishing the West by importing alien, hostile, low IQ immigrants.

So far, there's no sign of Sarrazin backing down, and with the groundswell of support, maybe he won't.

Even a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist like myself can see some grounds for optimism in Sarrazin.

France

Nothing much for me to add, other than it's good to see that at least a few of the French are up in arms about it. Oh, and the cameraman's has received death threats - who could have seen that coming?

This is related: Gaddafi: Europe will 'turn black' unless EU pays Libya £4bn a year. Unless the beloved leader of Libya gets his extortion money, he'll unleash his hordes.

And this is unrelated, but I watched this video for the second time yesterday and it reinforced the message: Never Talk to the Police: fantastic lecture by a lawyer on why talking to the police is a very bad idea, accompanied by many examples. If they want to get you, they'll do everything in their power to do so, so keep your trap shut. If you're like me - and probably most readers here are in this respect - you trust the police and understand that they need to function properly for the good of society. It's precisely people like you and me who need to hear this lecture, because we are the ones most likely to believe that there can't be any harm in talking to the cops. Wrong.

Why Glenn Beck Spouts PC Nonsense

John Derbyshire points out the completely liberal nature of Glenn Beck's opinions and mode of operating, noting that it just about has to be this way, as the moment Glenn Beck starts offering genuinely rightist views is the moment he gets shut out of the airwaves.

Consider Derb's list of "uncomfortable truths" that will need to be addressed to see real arrest of the nation's deterioration.

* the impossibility of continuing federal entitlements at anything like their present levels;
* the radical reduction in public services and public employment that would follow if tax rates were lowered to the degree Beck and his supporters claim to wish;
* the mad folly of giving settlement visas to a million foreigners a year when unemployment stands at ten percent;
* the doubleplus-mad folly of permitting illegal settlement of millions of Mexican and Central American peasants to form a permanent new underclass making huge new demands on government services;
* the gross and pointless squandering of public monies on crackpot schemes of education reform;
* the certainly and inevitably nation-destroying effect of permitting public employees to unionize;
* the impossibility of effective law enforcement without racial profiling;
* the absurdity of waging war not to crush and demoralize the enemy, but to transform his nation into 1955 Oklahoma.
* the infantile narcissism of believing that all life’s ills have a remedy in law;
* the contradiction inherent in wishing for a health-care system that (a) has no socialist component, or only a modest one, while (b) providing every known treatment or level of care to every condition for everyone;
* the doubleplus contradiction inherent in the previous bullet point when the genome can be cheaply and rapidly sequenced.

Lets' add a few more.

* that affirmative action has accomplished anything good whatsoever;
* the ongoing recruitment of whites via their money and manpower and fertility to remedy the "racial gap" in education, i.e. helping the permanently disadvantaged;
* the media's anti-white, hopelessly leftist agenda;
* the sure-thing race replacement of whites into the nation's minority, with all that entails;
* anchor babies;
* rule by lawyers and judges.

Beck, so far as I know, mentions none of these things; Palin either. That this big rally in Washington was led by an ex-alcoholic and drug addicted Mormon gives one pause, even more so considering the number of people this charlatan managed to attract, all eager to absolve themselves of racism, all eagerly playing to the current anti-white zeitgeist. He's a William Jennings Bryan for the support-our-troops crowd.

The best we can hope for out of all this is, I think, that a real leader will come along and co-opt (to use a word of the 60s radicals, who can teach us a few things) Beck and Palin.

Maybe Thilo Sarrazin is available.

Fastest Shrinking Countries

Businessweek - now owned by Bloomberg, a good reason not to read it - discusses Shrinking Societies: The Other Population Crisis. Nothing written there will be unfamiliar to anyone here, but along with the story is a slideshow listing the top 25 fastest shrinking countries. Japan, of course, tops the list.

Japan
Ukraine
Georgia
Bulgaria
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Latvia
Serbia
Lithuania
Poland
Moldova
Romania
Cuba
South Korea
Croatia
Belarus
Germany
Albania
Russia
Slovakia
Hungary
Macedonia
Slovenia
Estonia
Taiwan
Puerto Rico

Of these, 20 are white countries, and three are non-white but widely regarded as admirable by whites. Of the white countries, all but two - Germany and Georgia - are in Eastern Europe. I would imagine that countries like Italy, Spain, and France are not on the list only because they are on the receiving end of lots of mostly non-white immigration; the news that France may have finally managed to beat the population race with Germany becomes distinctly clouded when those who help make up the French nation are Moroccans and Senegalese.

As for Eastern Europe, it would appear that Communism has been a demographic disaster. I'm not sure what else could explain it other than a transition away from a total welfare state that sapped the initiative of all. Whatever the causes, it's pretty clear that as things now stand, those who look toward the East as the Great White Hope need to think elsewhere.

Letter from Germany on Sarrazin

I received the following email from a German friend of mine, whom I met and hung around with in Salamanca, Spain, in the summer of 2000, when we were both studying there. He's now in his late 20s and studying for a Ph.D. in a social science field in Britain. Although the email isn't as radical as many of the things I've written here, I think it noteworthy because until fairly recently, my friend seemed fairly middle-of-the-road politically. He now shows that he's become deeply worried about Germany's future.

I read your blog post on Sarrazin and the replies by readers as well.

I don't want to go into this subject because the whole affair makes me very angry (what about freedom of speech for someone like Sarrazin who doesn't share the opinion of all these tree huggers and who finally speaks out publicly about issues that threaten the very survival of our society and welfare state, for instance?). His party, the German Social Democrats, have already started a legal procedure trying to kick him out of the party. So a party that has the term democratic in its name, tries to rid itself of someone who speaks his mind. Very weird indeed.

On your blog you raised the issue of Sarrazin's ancestry. [In the older post, here.] Please see page five of the pdf attached. In his reply starting with "Grober Unfug. Unter den Nazis...", Sarrazin states that his father's side of the family is Huguenot from Lyon, he also has an English grandmother, Italian great-grandmother and his mother is from West Prussia, hence his Slavic cheekbone (the cheekbone bit is somewhat entertaining). Sarrazin further states that the name Sarrazin is fairly common in Southern France and that its origin lies with the Arabic pirates of the Mediterranean.

Trying not to think about the future of my fatherland (as if Britain was in any better shape!) and focus on this PhD of mine instead.

Maybe if people like my friend are starting to question the zeitgeist, things are looking up.

Update: My friend writes:

The Bundesbank just asked the German president to sack Sarrazin; it's a fairly complicated process involving a number of institutions, but basically the message is that Sarrazin's colleague's in the Bundesbank kicked him out and now need the president and whoever else to make this dismissal official. An interesting twist is that the whole Sarrazin book launch and what the mainstream media and the German political class have made out of this by blowing the case out of proportion and by denouncing Sarrazin, has cast a negative light on the Bundesbank's head, Axel Weber. It so happens that Mr Weber is very eager to become head of the ECB succeeding Mr Trichet.

One can hope that the powers that be in Germany have shot themselves in the foot. In any case, has anyone opposed to Sarrazin made any sort of case as to what he said wrong? Not as far as I can tell. The entire response has been nothing but point and sputter.