Category: diversity

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.

Advertisements

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?

Analyzing Salter’s Analysis of the Destruction of Australian Neighborhoods

West vs. Islam in Australia.

I would like to examine in a bit more detail Salter’s report on the impact of Mosque building – and Muslim immigration in general – to Australian neighborhoods and Australia as a whole.

Excerpts, emphasis added, with my comments interspersed:

The above brief review indicates that SIAs [Sallis note: Social Impact Assessments] of mosques are often compromised by an ethnocentric focus on Muslims as victims. Generally ignored is the equally important question of how a mosque or Muslims affect the majority population in an area. It is not uncommon for academic studies to criticise those who are concerned about mosques without evaluating the complaints. The studies just reviewed fall short of the standard of analysis advocated by the Planning Institute of Australia or its international affiliate. This is true with regard to goals, because these studies do not pretend to assess how mosques (or churches or temples) might affect a neighbourhood’s way of life, culture, sense of community, social and architectural environment, and health and wellbeing. It is also true with regard to theory and method, because the reviewed studies do not offer a basis for predicting social impacts. This fails to meet the Planning Institute’s standard: “Social impact assessment of policies or plans should be sufficiently robust to anticipate the impact of proposals made under the plan.”17


Salter makes clear in his piece that SIAs in the current Australian regime are ethnocentric in the sense that they focus on, and favor, minority groups (part of the very definition of standard multiculturalism). Hence, the question about mosques boils down to: how do they benefit the Muslim majority? Concerns of the majority are with ignored or “spun away” into non-importance. SIA concerns about violence are only directed toward the (mythical) possibility of native violence against poor, defenseless, peace-loving Muslims; actual violence by the aliens toward the majority is completely ignored. Americans will find this familiar in the sense that concerns about “race relations” focus solely to the benefit of minorities and on alleged White perfidy; legitimate complaints by Whites are ignored or mocked, and the idea that Whites have legitimate group interests is labeled as “extremist hate.”


Indeed, the situation with mosques in Australia is analogous to the situation in America with “desegregation” – the infection of White areas with feral Negroes and other coloreds is always and solely looked at from the point of view of minority-colored benefits; damage done to White interests are either ignored, mocked, or is actually considered a positive feature of the program and not a bug.
Ultimately, Whites in both countries (and throughout the West) have themselves to blame. They are still the majority; they could, in theory, elect to power officials who would take a more pro-White view. Instead they elect leftist radicals and self-hating cuckservatives.


Ethnic nepotism theory predicts that ethno-religious diversity incurs substantial social costs of diminished trust and cohesion as well as rising conflict. This has been confirmed by cross-cultural research. One recent study looked at conflict more widely defined to include not only violence but discrimination, affirmative action and interest groups of the kind found in Australia and other multicultural societies. The study compared 176 contemporary societies, finding that 66 per cent of global variation in conflict was explained by ethno-religious heterogeneity.23 In other words, most conflict within societies around the world is caused or exacerbated by the mixing of ethnic and cultural groups. Ethnic Nepotism Theory also predicted that ethnic diversity would reduce social cohesion, which was independently confirmed by the famous study by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam in 2006.24 Putnam found that rising diversity in U.S. cities caused a decline in trust and cooperation. This finding was replicated at the neighbourhood level in a longitudinal English study, which found that social cohesion was restored when people moved to a more homogeneous area.25 That diversity brings costs is to be expected from knowledge of human evolution. Humans evolved in culturally and religiously homogeneous groups. Ethno-cultural diversity is novel on the evolutionary and historical time frames. As a result negative social impacts are not surprising.

That the mainstream continues to promote diversity – without hesitation – despite even liberals like Putnam underscoring its faults tells you it is akin to a religion with them; in the case of the Jews, there is an underlying ethnic motive of a group evolutionary strategy. Other minorities of course benefit from diversity as well.

Another biosocial theory seeks to explain the altruism and passionate loyalty elicited by religion. David Sloane Wilson, an evolutionary biologist at Binghamton University, U.S.A., conceptualises religions as adaptive systems that coordinate the behaviour of groups beyond kin and sometimes beyond tribe.26 Co-religionists are drawn together by shared rituals and beliefs. For millennia religion was humans’ most powerful group strategy outside the family, and still exerts considerable influence. When religious and ethnic ties coincide, as they often do with Muslim populations, group solidarity is enhanced. These theories help explain why endogamy, or marrying within the ethno-religious population, is a universal human tendency. All ethno-religious groups are endogamous to various degrees, though the religions and segmentary societies of the Middle East and Africa are at the high end of the spectrum. Endogamy is generally adaptive, for example by maintaining a higher level of parental kinship and retaining religious and cultural identity…


Mainstream analysts will of course never admit that endogamy is adaptive.

Terrorism is the most high-profile impact of Muslims. Islamic communities are a major source of terror directed at the West and at other Muslims despite relatively small numbers. There have been Islamist terror attacks in the U.S., France, Spain and Britain in recent years, committed in part by Muslim men of immigrant descent born and raised in those countries. Economic inequality, unemployment and self-segregation are contributing to social polarisation in Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, mostly among the Muslim immigrant population. The situation is less pronounced in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and France where policies promote more assimilation, and in Britain, where welfare is less generous.29  In Sweden immigrants from Africa and the Middle East make up about 16 per cent of the population but take as much as 58 per cent of welfare payments, representing a large wealth transfer from the native population.30 That transfer cannot be seen as a good investment because about 48 per cent of working-age immigrants are unemployed. Even after 15 years in the country, 40 per cent are not working. The trend is for separate and dependent Islamic societies to be established as the Muslim population segregates itself and new generations come of age. The separation is territorial and psychological. The failure to integrate economically and culturally contributes to high levels of Muslim crime, a phenomenon experienced across Europe. In Sweden the majority of those charged with murder, rape and robbery are immigrants, despite immigrants – largely Muslims – numbering only 16 per cent of the population.31 In Denmark, immigrants from the Middle East and Africa commit crimes at a much higher rate than do ethnic Danes. The greatest frequency of law-breaking was shown by the children of non-Western immigrants.32

“Children…of immigrants.” In the USA, the mainstream just calls them “American citizens” – hiding their alien antecedents or, stupidly, asserting that their background is immaterial to their behavior.
Sweden is suffering an epidemic of rape of native Swedes by Muslim men. A 2005 government report states that immigrants, mostly Muslims, were five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes, and four times more likely for homicide, than native Swedes.33 In addition there are over 50 “no-go” immigrant neighbourhoods in which police are reluctant to go except in force, because they are at risk of mob attack. Whites are fleeing Muslim areas and trust is declining.34 Immigrant crime often emerges in the second generation. This is also the experience of the United States, that immigrants are generally more law-abiding than their children.35 To these patterns should be added the extraordinary levels of criminality shown by some Islamic immigrant communities in Britain and France, the two ex-colonial powers with the longest experience of these minorities. There are no-go areas in northern Paris, Marseille and other French urban areas, where even police dare not venture except in force. (The same applies to Brussels.) In France and Britain there are occasional riots so violent and extensive that police lose control of affected areas. These amount to uprisings, periods of mass conflict, which would edge closer to civil war if the indigenous population fought back to protect their shops, cars and other property.

“..if the indigenous population fought back…” But that’s the problem – they do not fight back, never fight back, despite very provocation. This disgustingly servile behavior on the part of Westerners simply invites more abuse, just as tolerating the school bully invites more bullying.
In France Muslim-African youth rioted in 2005 burning an estimated 9,000 cars in 274 cities and towns. The situation was out of control for three weeks. A state of emergency was declared. There were two deaths, almost 3,000 arrests and 1,256 injured police and fire-fighters. Large scale organised sexual exploitation of white girls, predominantly by Muslim Pakistani men, took place in the English town of Rotherham in South Yorkshire. Up to 1,400 girls as young as 12 were raped and sex-trafficked by multiple men between 1997 and 2013. About 100 have given birth to children fathered by the rapists. The rapes point to the wider phenomenon of uncompetitive ethnic minorities becoming alienated and exhibiting contempt for the Europeans among whom they live. These men did not prey on Pakistani girls, so it was an ethnically-directed crime.

The response of the natives? Nothing.

This prejudicial assumption that intolerance is expressed only towards minorities and not also by them has been typical of the multicultural establishment from its beginnings. However, this gives the Scanlon data an added plausibility when reporting data that reflect badly on minorities. As shall now be reviewed, those data show that residential areas of high immigration settlement suffer significant losses of social trust, sense of belonging, feelings of safety and other measures of social cohesion. As Markus concludes, “[t]his finding supports Putnam’s interpretation that ethnic diversity has a significant negative impact on social cohesion.” 44

Thus, the racial liberal Markus admits the negatives of ethnic diversity. But…we must have more of it!


Respondents who opposed Muslim immigration expressed a range of concerns. Some were critical of Islam as a religion, others were critical of the non-religious culture of Muslims, accusing it of being incompatible with Western culture. Muslims’ religion or non-religious culture was thought to impede assimilation into Australian society.76 Respondents believed that earlier waves of immigrants had cultures more similar to the Australian mainstream. The strongest critics of Muslim immigration felt that Australia is being colonised by Islam and felt that sharia law poses a threat. Concern about human rights was also raised as an objection to Islam and Muslims’ secular culture. These respondents perceived Muslim immigrants as misogynistic and homophobic. The hijab was seen as a violation of women’s human rights. Other frequently voiced concerns about human rights involved female genital mutilation and Islamic discrimination against other religions. 
The reluctance of Australian Muslims to volunteer for the Australian Defence Forces is consistent with the data reviewed earlier on community hostility to Muslims in Australia, especially on the part of long-time Australians. It is consistent with the relatively low levels of charitable volunteering on the part of Middle Easterners compared to the average for native born. The 2007 Scanlon Survey found that individuals of Middle Eastern background had the lowest level of volunteering, at 12.4 per cent, about 40 per cent of the national average.103 The defence analyst, Neil James, has referred to survey findings of low affinity to Australia among some immigrant groups, which indicate that they would not help defend Australia even in time of war. James notes that the armed forces’ difficulty in recruiting immigrants groups is complicated by the existence of radicalised elements of Australia’s Muslim community which would be problematic if deployed overseas in operations against Islamist terrorism.104 James implies that radicalised Muslims feel more loyalty to Islamist causes than to Australia.

The research reviewed in this section confirms the second hypothesis, that Muslim communities are associated with negative social impacts beyond that produced by ethno-religious diversity.


Another complication is that the intermarriage rate is a poor measure of endogamy effort. Two populations with the same rate of intermarriage can have very different traditions promoting marriage within the group, if they are in different circumstances or are of different sizes. For example, imagine two groups both of which in-marry 80 per cent of the time, but the first is 80 per cent of the population while the second is 1 per cent. The first group’s rate of endogamy is consistent with chance alone, while the second group’s rate is only possible if it is segregated in some way or has a highly endogamous culture. Conversely, newly-arrived minorities can be expected to have low rates of intermarriage due to the segregated circumstances of travel, arrival and initial settlement. However, if a minority retains a high rate of in-marriage after a few generations, that is good evidence of a robust endogamous tradition. Looking overseas to other Western societies, Islamic immigrant minorities stand out as resistant to intermarriage.

The point about intermarriage rates mirrors previous comments I’ve made over the years about Jews. Given their small numbers, Jews would need to have an outmarriage rate of at least 80% in America to be proportionately consistent with Gentile White groups, and they do not. 


A serious problem I see here is the idea that intermarriage is a good thing, to be encouraged. I take the opposite view. I do not see why the Australian majority needs to absorb the genes of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Indonesian Muslims. Even the assimilation of European Christian immigrants exert genetic costs on founding stock Anglo-Australians, but at least those people are from the same continental population group. Absorbing more genetically distant peoples can permanently alter the gene pool in a negative fashion. And if endogamy is adaptive, as Salter states above, why should either majority or minority groups indulge in it if they are genetically (and culturally) distant, so that the costs of exogamy are amplified?

It is relevant that Greg Sheridan is a long-term advocate of large scale non-European immigration and supporter of ethnic pluralism Sheridan recounted various aggressive acts by Muslims that were related to age, male gender and ethnicity. He witnessed an unprovoked attack on a middle-aged white woman by two Arabic-looking young men. His family was threatened. One of his sons was attacked by local boys of Middle Eastern appearance who “objected to white boys playing cricket”. Another son was “challenged by a boy with a gun”. Sheridan himself suffered abuse for his pro-Israel writings and for being white. “At some point it became unwise to walk on Canterbury Road. A white guy in a suit was a natural target for abuse or a can of beer or something else hurled from a passing car.” He spoke with a senior police officer in the area, who reported elevated levels of violent crime. The nearby Lakemba police station was peppered with bullets.  He summarised the decline in social conditions as having three causes: “the growth of a macho, misogynist culture among young men that often found expression in extremely violent crime; a pervasive atmosphere of anti-social behaviour in the streets; and the simultaneous growth of Islamist extremism and jihadist culture.” Three other factors are implied in Sheridan’s examples. The first is the ethnic component of Islamic aggression. He noted that the problem behaviour came from men and boys of “Middle Eastern appearance” and reported their targeting white people.

And the response of the targeted White people? Nothing. As usual, nothing. Just surrender and pusillanimous groveling.
To summarise, quantitative and qualitative data indicate that Muslims exert negative social impacts on local neighbourhoods significantly beyond that caused by ethno-religious diversity. More than immigrants and minorities in general, Muslims weaken community identity and cohesion, reduce trust and sense of public safety, and increase anti-social behaviour, crime, and unemployment in local areas. In addition, Islamic populations and mosques increase the risk of organised crime and terrorism, a trend expected to last for generations. Mosques contribute to negative social impacts in their areas by attracting Muslims and by reproducing Islamic doctrines and identity. They also slow assimilation by promoting within-group marriage.

That last bit should be considered a positive.

How might councils and state planning authorities use that information to evaluate proposals to develop new mosques and other Islamic facilities? The short answer is that planning authorities should consider general social impacts along together with impacts specific to the mosque being proposed. If those proposing a mosque or other Islamic building deny or ignore general negative social impacts, they should be asked to explain why those impacts will not result from their particular proposal. Failure to provide convincing answers should count against the proposal because the social impacts documented in the present study are severe – sharply lower community cohesion, trust and sense of public safety, together with higher crime and unemployment. In other words, there should be a presumption that Islamic facilities have negative social impacts on local areas. The long answer includes legal, political and ethical factors that weight social impacts in the overall planning process. In some circumstances general negative social impacts might not apply. This is a complex matter beyond the scope of a social impact statement, warranting separate treatment. But some relevant factors can be briefly identified. The first factor is the legal and moral reality that the overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims are citizens with full civil and human rights. They are innocent of any crime. They have the same freedom of religion as other Australians, a freedom which entails ready access to places of worship. This is their legal right and accords with the morality of fairness.

In the context of a multicultural regime, that “morality of fairness” holds. But I see it as inherently neither “moral” nor “fair” that alien invaders have any legal rights whatsoever. Now, illegal aliens certainly should have no rights at all, even in a multicultural regime. What about “legal” immigrants and their descendants, “invited” in by elites, despite being genetically and culturally distant from the native population? Under the current regime, yes, there are certain obligations. But these are not innate, and in any future accounting in the march toward the ethnostate, the only moral fairness I am concerned with is the well-being, and ethnic (genetic) interests, of the majority. Legal rights and moral fairness (no scare quotes) for others can be obtained in their native homelands. In any fixed territory containing multiple populations that are not engaging in cross-assimilation and hence exist as separate ethno-genetocultural entities, there will be conflicting interests and non-overlapping concentrations of legal rights and moral fairness. Those of native majorities should have precedence.

Given the federal government’s persistence with transformatory immigration, local government is limited to finding least-worst options, rear-guard amelioration of the worst cases of social breakdown evident in some neighbourhoods of heavy immigration settlement. An alternate approach, which might be called territorial multiculturalism, would be to acknowledge the importance of local communities to the stability of multicultural society. The concentration of ethno-religious groups represents decades of accumulated residential choices and investment in those choices, financial, emotional and aspirational. To allow that distribution to be changed against the wishes of residents is to frustrate their free choice of social environment.  To protect people’s choice of social environment, state governments should enforce the requirement that councils assemble social impact studies before approving the commissioning of a religious building. They should work to amend planning laws to ensure that negative social impacts count strongly against approval. They should ensure that proposals liable to change a community’s ethno-religious identity be classified as such to allow informed public discussion. Councils should be authorised to protect a particular cultural identity or mix of identities, if that is in line with the wishes of local citizens. In case of deadlock or controversy, the will of the municipality could be determined by plebiscite. In particular, councils should be authorised to deny applications on the basis of cultural or religious affiliation of the proposed centre, after assessing social impacts. As in other approval matters, state planning authorities could provide an appeals option to give residents recourse should their local council exceed its authority. The resulting approval process would allow citizens to preserve the identity and cohesion of their neighbourhoods, thereby offering them some protection against the social transformation and loss of community documented in the present study.

The idea of “territorial multiculturalism” (a reasonable companion to “democratic multiculturalism”) is good as far as it goes, and is in fact somewhat similar to some ideas of the French New Right, of having separate native and immigrant communities within France (a form of “right-wing” multiculturalism” or “multicultural segregation).


Of course, in the long-term, I would view these ideas as a “stop-gap” – to limit the damage done by alien immigration and give the natives some breathing room. Further, it could be viewed as a reasonable first step in majority mobilization in defense of their ethnic interests. These ideas should not be viewed as a final solution, which I see as being repatriation of the aliens and establishment of a regime of universal nationalism, with homogenous ethnostates.
But there’s no sign we even decades away from such a solution, and, to be pessimistic, who knows if it can be ever achieved. In any case, pursuing majority interests as part of multiculturalism can solve some short-term problems, and, perhaps, as stated above, provide impetus for more long-term solutions down the road.
The “worse is better” crowd will disapprove of any alleviation of majority suffering, but, to be honest, I don’t see any sign that “worse” is pushing Whites to the long-term solutions. We may need to take it one step at a time, keeping in mind that we must always keep the long term goals in mind.

My overall analysis is that territorial multiculturalism could be positive. As stated above, I’m opposed to encouraging intermarriage across lines of continental race and High Culture. One other point of critique stated above would be the idea that Muslims in Australia have legal rights under moral fairness to practice their religion if peaceful. My argument would be that this is true under the current regime (and even under a territorial multiculturalist system), but that they have no such inherent right: the ultimate moral fairness is the EGI of the native majority. But I of course understand that in writing up these policy reports for more general analysis one cannot dismiss minority concerns completely; putting together real policy statements for more public consumption is more nuanced than, say, writing a blog post. This is all important. These contributions are thought-provoking and have real-life practical applications. We need more of that.

However, the possibility exists that “territorial multiculturalism” would devolve into more White surrender. Or, that Whites would accept internal segregation as the new status quo, leaving a dangerously alien and fast-growing population within their national borders. Thus, I think, for “territorial multiculturalism” to work, it must be tied to programs to encourage repatriation of the aliens, stop further immigration, and empower majoritarian interests and give those interests precedence in every case of group conflict.

Thus, the concept needs to be closely scrutinized and proofed against being compromised by the anti-White Left. If the concept is promoted as a majority-first stepping stone toward White empowerment, then it’s all to the good. The idea is sound as a tactical maneuver in the long struggle for White self-determination. It is a means not an end; as long as we remember that, majority-oriented forms of multiculturalism can be used as a lever against the System, to disrupt the status quo, and encourage further steps of majority activism.
Ultimately, we need some sort of “Grand Bargain” in which the West disengages from the Islamic World – stops interfering politically, culturally, economically, socially, and militarily, allowing them to live as they see as the best fit; in exchange, those nations accept the repatriation of their people (and obviously stop all further immigration to the West). Such a bargain will require negotiating from a standpoint of strength; today, the West exhibits complete consummate weakness.

Meet the New Iron (Wo)Man

That is, if you want to refer to Negresses as “women.”


I know many in Der Movement would say “big deal” but this is another case of cultural racial displacement, another example of the utter contempt felt by elites (if one can call comic book writers, artists, and executives “elites”) toward the White masses.  Indeed, given that the major consumer of comics are White (beta/omega) males, this whole push to “diversity through displacement” is bizarre. Even betas and omegas are likely to be turned off by the loss of decades-old entrenched characters, and by their replacement by “people of color” that the readers cannot identity with.  More to the point, the idea of a genius Negress building a Iron Man suit at MIT is doubly ludicrous.

By the way, the reader may be interested to learn that the storyline of the arch-cuck Captain America secretly being a neo-Nazi “Hydra” agent was recently shown to be a manipulation by the Red Skull. You see, the evil kraut has polluted the mind of the pure-as-gold cuckhero Steve Rogers through the dastardly use of a “cosmic cube” (absurdly manifesting as a young girl – sex diversity even for inanimate objects!).

The best riposte to all this trash from Marvel (Including the Black version of Captain America, the Korean Hulk, and the PMS-tampon-wielding female Thor) is economic: boycott those titles, or even boycott Marvel as an entire company.  Hit them in the pocketbook, although they are so rabidly SJW they’d probably accept poor sales to advance their social agenda.  And a vicious agenda it is – for as commentators have pointed put, if they want more “diversity” why don’t they just invent new colored/female characters instead of pointedly replacing White males?