Category: diversity

Sallis’ Law Confirmed Once Again

And other news.

Johnson writes this, so….

Was Italy unified? It’s still racially, and thus IQ-wise, and thus everything else wise, split in 2 as it ever was.Southerners who emigrate to the North still frequent each other, and there’s very little mixing between the two real Italies even at the “acquaintance” level. Then of course everyone in the “classes that matter” pretends to things being other, and it makes all quite happy. (Including the beneficiaries of the billions spent to “bridge the gap”, along the same lines of USA’s gap-bridging, and with equal outcome).

The Bossi family testifies to the lack of mixing between the two. Hail Padania!

The northern Italians have a saying, which translated into English is that Garibaldi didn’t unite Italy so much as he divided Africa.

You have none of those Africans in leadership positions in Der Movement.  Thus, you must be enjoying unprecedented success.  Hail Victory!

I couldn’t get past the first half hour of this film, probably due to its tedious pace and attention to the extreme decadence of the Italian Aristocracy. If you’re going to glorify aristocracy, I’ll accept the British, but the Italians can’t figure out how to practice self-control.

As long as you don’t bend over to pick up the soap in a shower stall at Oxford or Cambridge.

S Italy was a mess under the Bourbons. It got much worse after Italy was unified. It got so bad that by 1880 the S Italians fled to America and brought their mafia government here. Wretched refuse indeed.

Indeed!  What we need instead are more Aryan Barbarians dancing around cemeteries in swastika-soled boots.  Hail Victory!

Sallis’ Law confirmed once again. It’s a law of nature more definitive than that of, say, gravity or electro-magnetism. As well, my open call for White ethnics to abandon Der Movement is also further legitimized. Just leave it to the swastika-soled boots, drunken podcasts, Pepe, homosexual flirting at meetings, etc. crowd and sit back and watch it fail, as it has for the last 50-100 years.

 
The following is perhaps not unrelated to the preceding – Zman:

Another reason co-called conservatives were happy to call Koch a right-winger is the Left was happy to call him a right-winger. The best maneuver in the Progressive playbook is to select the leaders of their opponents. They focus their attention on one soft target, making that person the symbol of their cause. That person then becomes the easily mocked and ridiculed leader of the opposition. For example, they turned the alt-right into a joke by cultivating Richard Spencer as the face of the movement.

Yes, he’s right about Spencer, but Zman’s buddy, Gaslighting Greg, is no better.  And ALL the rest of them. Blaming Spencer alone – or even predominantly – for the collapse of the Alt Right is ludicrously naive or dishonest to the point of breathtaking mendacity. I for one was denouncing the Alt Right, and predicting (and hoping for) its downfall, even at its peak in 2016 and early 2017. The only thing that surprised me is how quickly it collapsed; even I couldn’t predict the astonishing levels of stupidity and ineptness coming from that distortion of racial activism.

The racially superior hero expresses himself.  Yes, at which point they’ll just ban you anyway, and invent ever more narrow speech codes to justify it.  Anyone with an ounce of sense understands that the free speech issue is discrete not continuous.  You either have it or you do not. Trying to parse different levels of censorship means that you’ll always be at the mercy of the censor and their changing standards.  Why does Spencer believe that any “defined” YouTube policy will last a second longer than the start of SPLC/ADL screeching about “White supremacists taking advantage of loopholes” and Huffpost/Guardian articles asking (i.e., ordering) YouTube to “do something about it?”

It is one thing to recognize the reality of censorship and try to do something about it, both short term (adjusting to the reality) and long term (fighting for pure free speech rights).  Yes, it is one thing to deal with the reality while vigorously denouncing it, making arguments against it, and, perhaps, getting involved in the political process to deal with it.  It is another thing entirely to be so naive and simple-minded that you actually believe that Internet/social media entities would establish a definitive and permanent set of rules and guidelines. They are not playing by a set of idealistic rules; their rules and guidelines are, and will remain, purely utilitarian.  If it shuts down Far Right speech, then that’s the rule. If it doesn’t, then the rule will be changed until it does.  You do not embrace speech codes and call for a “clearer statement” of them.  While dealing with the reality, you oppose the reality, and, realistically point out what I’m saying here – that there can be no compromises on free speech, because once the precedent is set, the “line” dividing acceptable from non-acceptable will always be redrawn for political purposes.  And as I’ve written about before, let no one believe that the over-rated “successes” in Europe (with their own speech codes) in any way argues against this.  Those “successes” are for the most part small wins in minor skirmishes, confined within narrow guidelines of acceptability, and whenever any leader or spokesmen steps out of line, it’s prison or fines for them. Why should Americans so blithely give up on free speech, then?  And I don’t want to hear about “free speech is the government, and private entities can do what they want.”  First, these social media giants are essentially utilities and borderline monopolies and should be regulated as such. Second, it is NOT TRUE that private entities can “do what they want” with their property.  Let’s see a White homeowner publicly advertise selling or renting only to Whites, let them state that, for example, they refuse to sell or rent to Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims (of any race).  You’ll see then how quickly “private property rights” evaporate.

In summary, again, Zman has a point.  Spencer is so shallow that he makes a piece of tissue sliced by a microtome look as deep as the Grand Canyon by comparison.

Speaking of shallow: “The devastation is the most important thing,” after all.  A man of genuine greatness!

I laugh at how articles about “super commuting” completely  ignore a major reason – perhaps the major reason – for such commuting, and for long commutes in general – RACE.  That is, White workers cannot, or will not, live in or around those urban areas that have the jobs because those same urban areas and their surroundings are infested with “vibrant” Color.

Granted, long commutes in more rural regions have other causes, some alluded to in the article, but the fact is that long commutes are still overwhelmingly a blue state coastal and Rust Belt phenomenon.  It is something found wherever you have large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics and the flight of Whites away from them.  It is another symptom of White Flight, and another indication that the Contamination of Color is metastasizing away from the urban cores into surrounding suburbs, and into smaller cities as well.  Whites need to keep on moving farther and farther away to escape the rising tide of Color, but the jobs stay where they are. Hence, the long commutes.

Advertisements

EU Travel Advice and Other News

Advice and news.

This applies to Der Movement more than it does to conservatives.

But we should all support the Yang Gang, right? Gee, the Quota Queens have been really quiet about Yang recently.  Did they realize that they were making fools of themselves?

One possible idea for some Americans to get around travel bans to Europe (I do not have any suggestions for the reverse) is to investigate the possibility of obtaining dual citizenship in an EU nation. There are several mechanisms by which dual citizenship can be obtained and I will assume that the EU cannot ban their own citizens from traveling there.

There are of course certain potential problems/issues with this plan:

1. This option would most likely be available for only a very small fraction of people.

2. This would be something that would be most optimal as a preemptive mechanism, for people who have not yet become overt public activists. Of course, overt public activists can, and should, attempt this, if relevant to their individual cases, but I assume that the EU nations would simply refuse to issue dual citizenship to known “haters.”

3. It is also possible that an EU nation would strip dual citizenship from someone if and when they are identified as a “hater.”  I am not sure what the legal status of such stripping would be, but we know that the System does – or tries to do – anything it wants.

4. You would need to understand all the legal and political implications of dual citizenship.

Well, regardless of the details and the limited nature of this possibility, it is something to at least consider if circumstances allow.

Strom being an ignorant, anti-scientific jackass.

Autism rates are far lower in populations that don’t inject their children with Big Pharma products…

There is no evidence whatsoever linking vaccination (to which Strom undoubtedly refers) to autism. In the midst of a resurgence of measles, to imply otherwise is the height of irresponsibility.  If you are interested in correlations between autism and other factors, why don’t you take a look at the posts about autism at this blog – or look at Bowery’s work on the subject – and you’ll see alternative hypotheses that are far more likely to be correct than the “big scary needles causing problems” hysteria.  In my opinion, it’s more likely that there is a causative relationship (and not just a correlation) between diversity and autism than there is between vaccination and autism. By the way, concerning “Big Pharma products” you may wish to express concern about maintenance medication – where the big money is really made (*) – pushing pills for (in my opinion) imaginary diseases (attention deficit disorder) or for diseases caused by lifestyle choices (statins, metformin, blood pressure medication being used because the average American has the BMI of a black hole singularity).  Never mind putting every other person on “anti-depressants.”  But, alas, pills are not “scary needles” so no need to worry, eh?

*As well as cancer therapeutics that are exorbitantly expensive and prolong lifespan by, at most, months.

A Fresh Start for Marvel Comics?

Diversity apparently hurt the bottom line.

As I have previously written about Marvel comics and race (also see here), I will comment on a recent development on that subject – Marvel’s “Fresh Start.”

See this. Then read this hysterical and disgusting anti-White SJW diatribe.  

The real problem is not the introduction of new “vibrant” characters (which Marvel intends to keep), but the replacement of the original White male characters with the “vibrants.”  That is what offended the base – the (maliciously?) intentional replacement (using incredibly clumsy and stupid storylines) of the one for the other.  You see, White males (not men) will meekly accept demographic replacement in real life, but if that replacement occurs in the pages of their favorite comic books, then, by golly, they certainly won’t stand for that!  That’s just going too far!

Marvel’s thoughts on the matter:

What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity.  They didn’t want female characters out there.  That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not.  I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales.
We saw the sales of any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up against.  That was difficult for us because we had a lot of fresh, new, exciting ideas that we were trying to get out and nothing new really worked.

Forget the subsequent spin added after this individual realized he went too far with the truth – the truth is in the original statement reproduced above.

So, what I read from this is that after Marvel doubled down on their SJW tendencies, with a Negro Captain America, a Negress Iron Man, Thor as a woman, a high-IQ Korean cogelite as the Hulk, Iceman as a homosexual, etc., the core Marvel costumer base – White heterosexual male nerds – rebelled, complained, stopped buying those titles, and sales sagged.  Meanwhile, DC comics, which refrained from transforming Batman into a transgender Black lesbian, did not have these troubles. Hence, Marvel’s “Fresh Start” reboot, returning some of the iconic White male characters; hence as well, the SJW hysteria about Marvel’s “old clichés” – you see, comics need to be “progressive” and “transgressive.”  According to the leftist hysterics, Marvel needs to eschew their fan base in favor of a more “vibrant” clientele which, even after they were pandered to with all the “diversity,” still didn’t flock to the comics to make up for the declining White male core readership.  

Alas, comics are a business and they need to make money.  Marvel can of course take the SJW advice, give the middle finger to their fan base, and be all “progressive” and “transgressive,” but the White male readership are under no obligation to buy that product.  Replacing the core readership with “vibrants” hasn’t worked and will likely never work, as human nature cannot be changed, and Coloreds, Yeastbuckets, Queers, etc. are not the natural constituency for comic books.  Straight White males are the core readership, and a business that disrespects its core base is going to run into problems (similarly in politics the GOP’s contempt for the base led to Trumpism).

Marvel of course is continuing with its demented and offensive Ta-Nehisi Coates experiment, and actually spreading it to the Captain America series.  The mind boggles.  Imagine!  The Alt Right a creation of the Red Skull!  Captain America punches out a Richard Spencer-like character!  Steve Rogers speaks out in favor of White demographic replacement!  A Trumpite President is uncovered as a Nazi plot!  Sales of Captain America comics lag behind other brands as White fans get disgusted!

So, while the “Fresh Start” is a step in the right direction, Marvel will not – apparently, cannot – change course completely and ditch the SJW hysteria and diversity nonsense.  They have to make concessions to the religion of multiculturalism and genuflect to diversity, trading the return of some iconic characters for contaminating Captain America with Negro militancy.  So it goes.

By the way, Marvel would not have to continuously “reboot” their comic franchises if they would simply stick to what comics are supposed to be about – entertainment.  Although, Marvel comics were always tainted by Jewish liberalism, and always foisted leftist and anti-White narratives on the reader, during Marvel’s peak – the Silver (1960s) and Bronze (1970s into at least part of the 1980s)  ages of comics – the primary focus was on entertainment, on imaginative superhero vs. supervillain tales of science fiction, fantasy, and drama.  Over the last twenty years, especially, the shift has been to “progressive” and “transgressive” leftist militancy, and the company has never recovered; without Marvel characters getting on TV and film, and the money and attention brought in from that, Marvel would have been in bigger trouble than it already has been (apparently there is little carry-over between the short-attention-span masses who watch the TV shows and the films and the dedicated readers who stick with the comics over the long haul; in addition, the comics have drifted even more to the SJW direction than the other media).

On a more general note, the “Fresh Start” suggests the strength of White, particularly White male, purchasing power.  White male comic readers became disenchanted with Marvel’s demographic replacement of iconic characters, and this displeasure has forced a change in direction.  The change is not enough, to be sure, but contrasted to what goes on in the general society, any change for the better has to be noted.  If only Whites would leverage their economic power to enforce societal change in more substantial aspects, then maybe some progress can be made.  The lesson of the “Fresh Start” is that Whites, particularly White males, are unaware of their own power, they are a sleeping giant and even something as simple as expressing displeasure through the power of the purchase can “put the scare” into sanctimonious elites and force them in other directions.  By the way, this increases racial balkanization, as things even as small as this trigger SJW hysteria, uncover racial, sexual, and social fault lines, and create hatred and distrust.  Using White economic power to alter anti-White narratives is not going to be any “safety valve,” in case the “worse is better” crowd is worried about that.  Instead, it will embitter the Left and the Coloreds, and in the long run create even more tension.  The whole System is based on White (male) dispossession, altering course on that, however minor, weakens the System, not strengthens it,

Finally, there’s niche space for the Far Right to get involved in the comics business. One can imagine a Der Movement Inc. superhero series: Faster than a speeding Goth!  More powerful than a Viking warrior!  Able to leap greasy swarthoids in a single bound!  Its…Nordic Man!

Seriously though, Far Right comics is a niche space worth looking into.  Pop culture is influential, which is why the Left wants a monopoly in that space.  The Right needs to colonize this niche space, although I would think that comics is a more Type II interest and authentic Type IIs in the “movement” are few and far between.

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.

Diversity in the Windy City

Typical Negro behavior.

See here.

Negro behavior is one of those proximate issues that should in theory induce Whites to pursue their ultimate (i.e., genetic) interests, if for no other reason than to get away from Negroes and other coloreds.

So far though, the White response has been atomized – individual “White flight.”   It needs to be collective and political, and voting for a Negrophilic beta race cuck like Donald J Trump doesn’t cut it.

Meanwhile, speaking of Trump, he has so far been silent about this incident (in which his name featured prominently), while the much-maligned-by-the-right Obama has at least come out to publicly condemn it.

And of course the usual suspects come out to defend Trump’s silence, just as they defend Trump’s slavish pro-Israel attitudes  Cucks gonna cuck, and it’s funny how the folks who point fingers at others as “cuckservatives” do their own major league cucking when one of their Man on White Horse superheroes is involved.

The Population Will Be Obliged

How’s that diversity working out for you, Germany?


How about this as an alternative: the population will be obliged to put Merkel on trial for treason and crimes against humanity, with the same penalty on the table that was meted out to the likes of Julius Streicher.

And here’s a comment to that article that says it all:

RonnixGCC2 hours ago 

Please remember to celebrate Diversity whilst imprisoned in your own home.

Do Women and Minorities Depress White Male Cognitive Performance?

More sex and race segregation, please.

Read this.  Emphasis added:

They were asked to read out loud a number of Dutch words while sitting in front of a webcam. The experimenters told them that during this “lip reading task” an observer would watch them over the webcam. The observer was given either a common male or female name. Participants were led to believe that this person would see them over the web cam, but they would not be able to interact with the person. No pictures or other identifying information were provided about the observer—all the participants knew was his or her name. After the lip reading task, the participants took another Stroop test. Women’s performance on the second test did not differ, regardless of the gender of their observer. However men who thought a woman was observing them ended up performing worse on the second Stroop test. 

Researchers have begun to explore the cognitive impairment that men experience before and after interacting with women. A 2009 study demonstrated that after a short interaction with an attractive woman, men experienced a decline in mental performance. 

A more recent study suggests that this cognitive impairment takes hold even when men simply anticipate interacting with a woman who they know very little about. 

Once again, women’s performance on the test did not differ, regardless of whether they were expecting a man or woman to observe them. But men who had been told a woman would observe them ended up doing much worse on the second Stroop task. Thus, simply anticipating the opposite sex interaction was enough to interfere with men’s cognitive functioning.

In today’s society people frequently interact with each other over the phone or online, where the only way to infer somebody’s gender is through their name or voice. Nauts’ research suggests that even with these very limited interactions, men may experience cognitive impairment when faced with the opposite sex. Although the studies on their own don’t offer any concrete explanations, Nauts and her colleagues think that the reason may have something to do with men being more strongly attuned to potential mating opportunities. 

The results may also have to do with social expectations. Our society may place more pressure on men to impress women during social interactions. Although this hypothesis remains speculative, previous research has shown that the more you care about making the right impression, the more your brain gets taxed. Such interactions require us to spend a great deal of mental energy imagining how others might interpret our words and actions. For example, psychologists Jennifer Richeson and Nicole Shelton found that Caucasian Americans who hold stronger racial prejudices face similar cognitive impairments after interacting with somebody who is African American. In these situations, individuals who hold strong prejudices must try hard to come across as not prejudiced.

Questions:

Is the degeneracy of today’s White male (not “man”) at least partially due to having to share workplaces, co-education, and other venues with IQ-depressing women and minorities? Are White males so obsessed with getting “poosy” and not offending half-apes that they cannot think straight? Is this what happened to the men on Theranos’ board of directors? What if a White male lives with a female minority – will he be doubly addled (hello, Derbyshire)? Do we need racial segregation (yes, please), sex-segregated education, and more traditional sex roles overall in order to boost the cognitive performance of the important fraction of our population?