Category: diversity

Democratic Multiculturalism and Title VI

Title VII and Title IX as well.

See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.  Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.

I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others.  All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.

Read this.  That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.

If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites.  One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI.  There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue.  It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat.  The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting.  Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites?  No more assistance!  No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution!  The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.

Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Worse is not always better.  

There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System. 

Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.  

Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity

America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. 

America is certainly unique.  It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.

Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity. 

Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas.  But the exact opposite occurs.  As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it  is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.

A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors – including race and national origin – in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures – provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable?  What about political diversity?

There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college’s interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.

Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.

Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…

Again, “narrowly tailored”  is never defined.

…to the goal of diversity…

Why is that a goal?  What kinds of diversity?

…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…

Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.

….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.

If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.

If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.

Sure!  Not for you, Whitey!

Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin

Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.

The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…

Who decides whether there was past discrimination?  Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.

…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.

The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.”  Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and “privileged.”  Got it!

Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered. 

Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good.  White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.

Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals – for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students – that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student’s opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.

Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.

A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.

“Compelling interest.”  Laughable.  How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?

The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race. 

Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college!  Take out ruinous loans, Whitey!  Rob a bank!  That’s the ticket!  And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey!  It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!

Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed. 

Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.

For example, a college’s receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.

Certainly!  If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all!  Let Whitey pump gas for a living!  If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!

Even in the case of a college’s own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.

Please read the above paragraph very carefully.  What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools – in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!

In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. 

Right!  So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions!  Holistic review!

In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.

Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?”  Answer: The school administering the program.  As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.

All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System.  Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title Vi and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families. It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system.  In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point for the System, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.

Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority.  However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in.  If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed. 

Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start.  And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest.  The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.  

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.

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.