Category: discrimination

The Free-Riding/Social Pricing Paradox

If free-riding makes ethnic nepotism “impossible” than why are social pricing and anti-discrimination laws felt to be necessary?

Question:  If free-riding is such a problem for ethnic nepotism and various forms of ethnic activism, if it is all so “impossible” and “unrealistic” then why, pray tell, is there an intricate system of social pricing – never mind actual anti-discrimination laws – designed to dissuade people from engaging in such “impossible” and “unrealistic” behavior?  If everyone would just free-ride on the ethnic altruism of a small number of naive saps, then where is the problem?  Social pricing would seem superfluous, and anti-discrimination laws even more superfluous.  Why, people would just like, you know, spontaneously engage in aracial behavior, right?
No, they would not.  That fact than a repressive “carrot-and-stick” regime of de jure laws and de facto social pricing has to be in place to punish (for Whites only, of course) ethnic altruism/ethnic nepotism while incentivizing (for Whites only, of course) neutral or even pro-alien behavior is practical prima facie evidence that people – including many Whites – would naturally engage in ethnic altruism and ethnic nepotism in a “free marketplace” system lacking in coercive laws and social controls.  There is no other reason for all these laws and social strictures except the very real fear that in the “free marketplace” of ideas and actions people would act in a more ethny-based fashion and discrimination (pro-ethny and anti-alien) would be commonplace.

Is Anti-White Discrimination Possible?

An example.

I have been reading some Negroes mocking White Americans for believing that anti-White discrimination is a serious problem. The Negroes scoff: “Nonsense!  Look at how well Whites are doing compared to Backs. They have more net worth, longer life spans, greater college attendance, etc. Those damn Whiteys just want to return to the 1950s, and oppress we beautiful people of color…”

The problem with that is the assumption that the races are equal in ability, and that differences in outcome that favor Whites must be due to a lack of discrimination against Whites, or even “White Privilege.”

An example.  Imagine two populations, X and Y, sharing the same polity. X is an intelligent, disciplined, and productive race. Y is a stupid, useless, and violent race. In the absence of any outside influences, we can model a situation in which the per capita net worth of X will be, say, five times that of Y, with fifteen years longer lifespan, and 100% greater rate of college attendance.

Then assume the polity adopts an extensive and vicious program of anti-X discrimination, favoring Y in every manner. After decades of this, X now has only two times more per capita net worth, the lifespan difference is only five years in X’s favor, and the rate of college attendance for X is 25% greater than that for Y.

Is X still better off – based on these metrics – than Y?   Yes. Is X still being viciously discriminated against?  Also, yes. Does X have a legitimate reason to complain about, and oppose, that discrimination?  Yes, most definitely.  If members of Y make comments that X faces no discrimination due to the smaller advantages still enjoyed by X as a result of X’s own innate abilities, does that demonstrate the intellectual inferiority of Y?  Yes, it does. 

We live in an age of Black Privilege.

Thank you.

Asians Acting Like Negroes, 7/10/15

A more intelligent form of Negro.
If Negroes did this, HBD filth like Derbyshire would endlessly pontificate about “Black” picking on “non-Black.”  Let the Holy Orientals do it, and it’s all OK.
HBD is the deadly enemy of the White race, and Whites will be free only when HBD is totally destroyed.
And…Asians HATE,HATE, HATE Whites and Western civilization. Never forget that, White man.

Anti-Bias Brainwashing

A psychometric attack against White racial interests.

“Scientists” are perfecting brainwashing techniques to make Whites “lessen bias.”

Abstract: Although people may endorse egalitarianism and tolerance, social biases can remain operative and drive harmful actions in an unconscious manner. Here, we investigated training to reduce implicit racial and gender bias. Forty participants processed counterstereotype information paired with one sound for each type of bias. Biases were reduced immediately after training. During subsequent slow-wave sleep, one sound was unobtrusively presented to each participant, repeatedly, to reactivate one type of training. Corresponding bias reductions were fortified in comparison with the social bias not externally reactivated during sleep. This advantage remained 1 week later, the magnitude of which was associated with time in slow-wave and rapid-eye-movement sleep after training. We conclude that memory reactivation during sleep enhances counterstereotype training and that maintaining a bias reduction is sleep-dependent.

Here’s a “popular” explanation of this despicably evil Pavlovian, Huxleyian, and Orwellian research.
Emphasis added:
In a computerized program, faces were paired with words that ran contrary to negative stereotypes. For instance, female faces appeared with words associated with math or science, and black faces appeared with words considered pleasant. Paller said two distinctive sounds were played during the training, one associated with the women and science pairs and the other with the black and “pleasant” pairs.
After the training, participants went to sleep. Then, without the participants’ knowledge, scientists repeatedly played one of the sounds with the volume low enough to avoid waking sleeping participants up. 
Paller said the sleep training produced results. He said bias reduction was stronger for the sleep-training group and that the changes were identified as having continued a week later. 
 Emphasis added:
In a commentary, Gordon Feld and Jan Born from the University of Tubingen praised the study saying: “This is the first to demonstrate that this method can be used to break long-lived, highly pervasive response habits deeply rooted in memory.”

But they cautioned that sleep was a vulnerable state in which people did not have “wilful consciousness”.

They added: “However, Aldous Huxley’s description of a dystopian ‘brave new world’ where young children are conditioned to certain values during sleep reminds us that this research also needs to be guided by ethical considerations.” 

Prof Paller said there were similarities to subliminal advertising and that there was an ethical discussion to be had.  

However, he continued: “More importantly, perhaps, is the question of whether people in positions of authority in society, such as judges and police officers, and perhaps people who make hiring decisions, should have their unconscious bias evaluated and perhaps trained to some standard.”

Then we have this excellent critique:

So every subject was white? How could they legitimately test the efficacy of cross-cultural bias abatement using only one cohort? That’s actually quite simple. The experiment isn’t at all about reducing a natural and beneficial concept called bias; it’s about reducing whites. Were it otherwise I quite think all of the clucking about diversity that emanates from the academy would seep into their studies. Practically every Western university has jettisoned principles of merit to accommodate a campus potpourri–and suddenly not a single student of color could be located to participate in critical bias reduction experiments?

This blogger asserts that Paller’s ancestry is reflected here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true, but I will withhold further comment on that until more information is available. I note that the first author has a Chinese surname. No experiments were done to see if this technique would lessen anti-White attitidues among Chinese. Fancy that!
From a proximate interests standpoint, maybe people would – on their own, without brainwashing – associate Blacks with “pleasantness” if that racial group was in fact pleasant, intelligent, disciplined, creative, productive, and law-abiding, instead of being unintelligent, violent, unproductive and generally useless, making the streets of America run red with their criminal proclivities.  Likewise, people may associate women with STEM achievements if in fact that was warranted, but the realty is, men are in general better in those fields. The idea – the lie – promoted by the evil genocidal filth behind this study is that their techniques allow people to “unlearn” the biases they have accumulated from (negative) influences in their lives.  Really?  The truth: the hyper-PC anti-White System (the same folks who fund this research) have been subjecting society to decades of anti-White and anti-male propaganda. In the mass media, Blacks are discriminated-against geniuses, and women are portrayed as far superior to men both intellectually and physically. What “biases” against minorities and women are being “learned” in this manner? If people have “biases” that go in the opposite direction of Paller’s sociopolitical agenda, it is because they have experienced reality, and reality is a harsh mistress indeed. What Hu and Paller want is to brainwash Whites to reject reality in favor of socially engineered fantasy.

And from the ultimate interests standpoint, this is all about disarming Whites in their competition with other groups, to make Whites unconcerned with their genetic and cultural dispossession and race replacement, while also masculinizing women and promoting non-fertile lifestyles for White females. This is, from a racial preservationist standpoint, in its ultimate outcome, the promotion of genocide.

Update: See this.

We are also experimenting with a crowdfunding project on implanting false memories during sleep…

This fellow is more dangerous than a million feral Negroes. More evidence that the ancestry mentioned above is correct.  Heritable ethnic evil…what else could it be?

Libertarianism, Choice, Responsibility, and Vaccination

What’s good for the unvaccinated goose is good for the vaccinated gander.
Following up my last post, I want to explore a bit about the libertarian view on vaccination.  My understanding of libertarian complaints is that they want:
1) People to have the choice to be vaccinated or not (for the most part, said choice already exists).
2) Vaccine manufacturers should not be protected from lawsuits; there should be an open and unregulated system in which said companies will be liable in civil court for damages resulting from their product.
Fair enough.  But that is incomplete. Let us expand the concept of choice and responsibility.
Choice. The vaccinated should have the choice to socially ostracize the unvaccinated.  Employers should have the choice not to hire the unvaccinated, businesses can refuse to serve them, doctors and hospitals (including emergency rooms) refuse to treat them, insurance companies refuse to cover them, neighborhoods and schools refuse to accept them.  Freedom! Choice!  No regulation!
Responsibility.  If the vaccine companies need to be held liable if someone has a side effect to a vaccine, so should the unvaccinated be held personally liable, in civil court, for damages resulting from them spreading disease to others, and be held personally liable for the costs incurred in treating those they have infected. 
I wonder if the libertarians would accept those terms of engagement, terms that would be most strictly enforced (e.g., if a medical facility refuses to serve the unvaccinated, they have the right to refuse the patient even if it results in that patient’s death, with no criminal or civil penalties allowed, since everyone is merely exercising freedom of association).
I admit to being hostile to libertarianism.  However, I see my points as valid.  Just like the capitalist wants to privatize the profits and socialize the costs (of, say, immigration or outsourcing), so do the libertarians want to privatize their choices but socialize the responsibility and consequences (they can choose to be unvaccinated, but society has to bear the costs of their Typhoid Mary epidemics). That is in my opinion a selfish and childish view and they should be called out on it.

Tactics and Strategy for Democratic Multiculturalism

A time to complain.

There are two basic things we need to do: we need to build a new society based upon a new movement (the theme of my Western Destiny blog), while, at the same time, undermining the System, which includes undermining the “movement” – which is actually part of that System (an inept bogeyman, playing a role similar to that of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984).  Today, I have a few words about undermining the System as a whole, built as it is on the ideology of multiculturalism.  I would like to talk about “democratic multiculturalism,” a concept endorsed by Salter and Duchesne, and one that I have previously discussed here.
Why do people who believe that “the only thing worse for the majority than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does work” want to promote so-called “democratic multiculturalism?”  This paradox should become clear with some further explanation.
Whites need to demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not groveling patsies.  Given that “Western” multiculturalism is defined by majority passivity and atomization contrasted to collectivist minority mobilization, a more collectivist and mobilized majority will go a long way to undermining the foundations of the System.
How to best begin this process on the group level is something that needs to be determined.  We will need Rightist elites to stand up and follow the lead of Salter and Duchesne. They need not be hypocritical or even deceptive about this, but essentially state: “It is well known that I do not approve of multiculturalism, a destructive ideology bad for my people, my culture, my nation. However, that is the dominant system we currently have and my people and my culture need to be represented within it.”
Most readers here are not, and never will be, part of that elite, but something that can be done at the individual level is to engage in some sociopolitical ju-jitsu against multiculturalism yourself. Think of this as the “bottom-up” component of the strategy, in contrast to the “top-down” approach described above.  When the opportunity arises, one can assert that Whites need to be included and given a legitimate seat at the multicultural table. However, one must present the proper ticket of admission: victimization.  Complain about discrimination whenever you have a legitimate case (in today’s society, you should have no shortage of opportunities).  The complaints should be couched in the language of multiculturalism, but explicitly aimed at targeting discrimination on a racial (anti-White), ethnic (anti-[fill in name of White ethnic group]), gender (anti-male), sexual orientation (anti-heterosexual), religious (anti-Christian, if you are a believer or even if you are not), etc. basis – with those guilty of discriminating being “others” (e.g., coloreds, liberals, feminists, Jews, Muslims, “gay” activists, System apparatchiks, etc.).  

We need to get over the idea that such complaining is “weak, beta, non-White, feminine” blah blah blah.  Not only is this complaining being done for a specific political purpose, but note that in a multicultural milieu, power is in part derived from the role of “victim.”  Yes, it is a “Last Man” attitude, but it is a means to an end, it is the case of Higher Men being able to stomach their sense of disgust (self-mastery, no?) to use the ressentiment of the Last Men against them.  Remember, this is a means to an end, not an end to itself.  It is not mainstreaming, it is not compromise, it is not incremental progress, and it is not reforming the System.  It is instead using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself; it is an approach which forces the System to take its own ideology at face value, or be forced to declare its illegitimacy to the majority of the population.
Certainly, at least in the beginning, these complaints of anti-White, anti-male, anti-heterosexual discrimination will be met with derision, disbelief, snarky ridicule, sarcasm, hysterical responses, heavy breathing about “White Privilege,” and, perhaps, the claim that majority assertions of discrimination are themselves signs that the complainers are the bigots.  This is where the men are separated from the boys, so to speak, where self-mastery comes in: you must ignore these responses, persevere, and push through the barrier. If the System is going to ignore or ridicule your legitimate complaints, you need to push them into a corner in which they have to openly admit that discrimination against straight White men (Sailer’s “war against Whites) is acceptable to them, they must be forced to admit that, to them, Whites have no rights, they must be forced to admit that “inclusion” excludes Whites, they need to admit that multiculturalism is for non-Whites only. The System depends on all of this being implicitly understood by Whites without it ever getting to the level of being explicit (although some former government officials have openly stated that “civil rights laws do not apply to [male] Whites”). The System loves the status quo, they want multiculturalism to work smoothly. They want the low-caste subaltern Whites to quietly accept their lowly status without complaint, without forcing the System to crudely reveal its agenda. Don’t let them off easy. If they want to exclude Whites, then the exclusion needs to be open and overt, as a slap in the face to the complacent White masses. Therefore, if you have a legitimate complaint, go for it.

After all – and this is crucially important – our complaints of discrimination, as opposed to those of the Others, have the added power of actually being true(note my caveat above: make sure your complaints are based on some sort of legitimate issue). This is an “the emperor has no clothes” situation – some Whites do know what the score is, but each alone is afraid of saying anything.  In a multicultural regime, complaining about discrimination is a socially acceptable means of protest.  In theory, socially acceptable for everyone; in practice, not acceptable for White men.  But, following the implicit/explicit argument I made above – it is “not acceptable” only in an implicit sense.  Implicit attitudes are the downfall of a White race unable to articulate or defend its racial interests.  Implicit Whiteness.  The acceptance of an implicit lower-caste status for Whites. An implicit understanding that White men are “not allowed” to complain about race/sex/ethnic animus directed toward them. This implicit bluff needs to be called. If multiculturalism makes whining victimology socially acceptable, then the real victims of multiculturalism have to force the issue. If a few Whites so complain, that might embolden others to follow suit.  With sufficient White complaints that seat on the multicultural table just might open up, as the System strives to placate Whites by assimilating them into multiculturalism.  At first, they may try and get System agents to pose as White representatives, to defuse the pressure: this must be opposed and such individuals replaced by real advocates.
First steps first.  Discriminated against?  Complain. Persevere.  Use the multiculturalists’ own language of “inclusion” and “fairness” against them.  If “White Privilege” comes up, make arguments against it – one can find plenty online.  One can slip in subtle “movement” memes at this point; the idea that a people being demographically displaced as a result of official policy are “privileged” is ludicrous, as one example. Keep on pushing, but within the System framework. Use common sense; become familiar with the vernacular of victimology. Play the game well. The System is based upon a house of cards and they know it. You should know it too.
Success here is predicated on the assumption that “breaking the ice” will embolden other Whites to speak up as well.  Of course, this assumption may be wrong, given the pitiful passivity of the subaltern White race.  But one never knows, one must try. If you wait for the “beer and football crowd” to be the first ones to voice their simmering complaints and resentment you will be waiting forever. 
One concern at this point would be that this essay, along with the statements of Salter and Duchesne, will lead the Others to conclude that the demand for a seat at the multicultural table is for the purpose of undermining their multicultural project, leading to a refusal of that demand.  After all, you can argue that these folks can simply point to essays such as this one that openly state what the strategy is.  That is true. But it is irrelevant.  One should not deny the obvious.  One can say: “It’s true. I don’t like multiculturalism. I want to see it end.  I have an overt pro-White agenda. Others who are demanding a “seat at the table” share these views. But that is not relevant. The multicultural system exists, it is YOUR system, and any system that disenfranchises that majority of the population will be viewed as illegitimate by that majority.  This being YOUR system, it is up to YOU to find a way to include Whites and LEGITIMATE White interests (defined by us, not by you) in multiculturalism. If you believe multiculturalism can work, it is up to YOU to show it can work for everyone. Inclusion cannot be exclusive, as much as you would like it to be, as much as you have practiced it as such for decades. Whites are no longer going to be passive while others are mobilized.”  

This of course, once again, depends upon other Whites doing their part – Rightist elites applying pressure from above, and a fraction of the White masses applying pressure from below. Obviously, if they fail to do so, there will be no incentive to the System to compromise (note: they compromise, not us) in the manner described here.  The “top” and “bottom” pressure must exist, it must be consistent, and it must weaken the legitimacy of the multiculturalist regime. The System may realize that including Whites in that regime may have the same long-term result that “glasnost” had for the USSR – but, like Gorbachev, they must feel like that have no choice but to take the chance on reform.
Another concern is that the System will attempt to co-opt White multiculturalist involvement by promoting compliant anti-White White traitors to positions of representing Whites.  We must absolutely refuse to let the System dictate the terms of our own participation. Only those who represent the interests of Whites, defined by those Whites who have historically been defending and prompting White interests in an explicitly racial manner, will be acceptable. Puppets will be rejected.
This is a long, hard road, and there will be additional objections, problems, and criticisms, but here at least is a broad statement in favor of “democratic multiculturalism” and an outline of sorts of what should be done.
Start complaining!  Do your best imitation of an aggrieved member of the Tribe, or some whining colored activist.  It may be hard at first, and out of character, but remember, it’s for a good cause. Disruption, chaos, heightening the contradictions. Probe the System to expose the anti-White animus of multiculturalism. It’s win-win. If they refuse that seat at the table, use that refusal to expose the animus and the hypocrisy; if they allow the seat, then undermine the very essence of multiculturalism by forcing majority interests to be accepted as a legitimate topic of discussion and policy objective.  Above all else, shake up the status quo.  Chaos, chaos, and more chaos.