“Crowds and the People Inside Them,” by Alpha Unit

New Alpha Unit. This post is about the anti-Jewish Crown Heights riots in New York when mobs of Blacks rampaged through the streets, sometimes yelling, “Heil Hitler” and attacking the Orthodox Jews who lived there. There is a lot of resentment towards Orthodox Jews in New York.

As a Dominican friend of mine who lived there once said, “They’re tight and they treat non-Jews like shit.”Unfortunately, that’s a pretty accurate portrayal of Orthodox Jews in New York.

Orthodox Jews were the landlords of his building and the other buildings around there.

He spent a lot of time investigating the auctions that the city of New York had every year to lease out city property. After intensely studying the issue for a long time, he finally came away convinced that the auctions were rigged. During the tenure of Mike Bloomberg, my friend said that 70% of the auctions were closed bids, and all went to Jewish bidders. Bloomberg was waging ethnic warfare for the Jews against the non-Jews on New York in a fraudulent and corrupt bidding process.

When a Catholic, Rudy Giuliani, came in, the situation reversed. Now 70% of the bids were closed bids going to Catholics, typically Italians, but also Dominicans and others. The Jews and Catholics of New York were waging a totally corrupt, Third World style ethnic warfare on each other all the way from the very top down.

He said the Orthodox Jewish landlords were well known as slumlords. They never fixed anything and they, in general, treated non-Jews like crap. That’s not necessarily a slam at Jews in general, but it’s a slam at the Orthodox. The classic anti-Semitic stereotypes are most prominently displayed in the often racist behavior of the Orthodox. In my experience, the more assimilated and less religious the Jew, the less these classic stereotypes and racist behaviors are evident.

During the Crown Heights riots, the Blacks were said to be angry about the Orthodox Jews buying up property in their neighborhood. Black anti-Semitism is a new thing, and it’s very complex. I don’t pretend to understand it well, and an analysis of it goes beyond the scope of this post. A lot of this stems from Jews running stores in the ghettos where they charged high prices and were often overtly suspicious of Black customers or treated them poorly.

The high prices are possibly due to the costs of running a ghetto store. Due to high crime, security needs and large-scale theft of merchandise probably add to the cost of doing business. Blacks are treated suspiciously in ghetto stores frankly because so many of them steal, act bad and sometimes do even worse things.

High levels of ghetto-TNB (Typical Negro Behavior)* lead to ghetto store owners treating all, most or many Black customers poorly. The treatment is probably reciprocated. It’s important to note that not just Jews have been guilty of this behavior. First Jews, then Koreans, Arabs, East Indians and other ethnics have run ghetto stores. Many have packed up and left due to high theft or violent crime.

The Jewish behavior above has been mirrored precisely by all of the other groups running these stores.

It was against this background that the lamentable and tragic Crown Heights riots occurred. Many Jews still smart when they think of these riots.

*A sarcastic, humorous, and not altogether true, expression for the worst stereotypical Black behaviors. The word “nigger” is usually substituted for “Negro,” but I’m trying to avoid being offensive here. I don’t think that “TNB” really is typical Black behavior, or at least I hope not. It’s mostly just a snide synonym for “ghetto” behaviors.

When in crowds, people do things that they wouldn’t do if alone. A crowd is a kind of organism with a life and death of its own.

The saying goes that there is safety in numbers. There’s also danger sometimes.

I’ve never cared for being in crowds myself. Once when I was eighteen, back in the late seventies, I went to a concert with some friends – it may have been my first time going to a concert. They were two friends I had made my first semester in the dorm.

I liked the concert – I think it was Bruce Springsteen – but I remember being separated from them afterward for some reason. Being in large crowds is overstimulating as it is for me, so I was trying not to be too frustrated while trying to get past all these people and scanning the entire place for their faces.

And then I saw one of them. She saw me, too. I was still finding my way down from my seat, and she was standing in the middle of the arena floor. She raised one of her arms high so I wouldn’t lose sight of her. And she kept her arm raised the entire time I made my way down.

When I finally got to her, she smiled, like it had been no big thing. She really was one of the nicest people I ever met, although I think another reason she was so mellow is that she was high. I just know that if she hadn’t done what she did, it might have taken forever to find her. Or I might have given up trying to.

My instinct is to get the hell out of a crowd as soon as I can. And this is why I don’t understand why people will mill around in a crowd even when it’s obvious that something really bad is either about to happen or has just happened.

People who study crowd psychology note that one of the things that happens to you in a crowd is a loss of individuality. This may sound obvious, but it can have serious ramifications. Once something bad starts to go down in a crowd, who you actually are ceases to matter, in a way. You are essentially anonymous.

If two sides, for example, are going at it in a crowd, there is a strong likelihood that you are going to be seen as “one of them.” It might not matter that you are just an innocent bystander. If you’re perceived to be “one of them,” you might get hurt. Or, in your sudden anonymity, no one will really care who you are. You could get hurt just being in the way. Once a crowd is in this state of arousal, you are in danger.

Some of the people who’ve been tear-gassed or beaten by police during riots weren’t rioters. They were innocent people caught up in that situation. They were reporters, some of them, there to record the event. Once police batons start flailing, it doesn’t matter what your intentions were if you are perceived to be a part of some unruly mass.

Some of those hurt or killed during the student protest at Kent State University in 1970 weren’t protesting. They were kids going to or from class. The bullets flying that day didn’t make any distinctions.

Back in 1992, Reginald Denny was an innocent guy driving a truck when he pulled up to an intersection in Los Angeles, where, unbeknownst to him, there was a riot in progress. The rioters attacked the truck, then dragged him out of it and beat him nearly to death. It didn’t matter who he was to his assailants. He was “one of them.”

Something else working against you in a situation like this is “diffusion of responsibility.” If people are inclined to engage in antisocial acts and are surrounded by like-minded individuals, the odds are in favor of antisocial behavior. Everybody is familiar with this; it happens in lynch mobs and other kinds of spontaneous groupings.

The flip side of diffusion of responsibility is that if you do get hurt in a crowd, there is a very good chance that those who witnessed it won’t come to your aid. Not because they’re just cold-blooded human beings, but because they’re actually going to be unsure if they should! They’re going to be checking everybody else’s reactions to tell them whether or not it’s a good idea for them to get involved.

Two little black kids were accidentally struck by an out-of-control car back in August of 1991, in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights. One of them was killed. The car, part of a motorcade, had been driven by a young Jewish man.

So now we’ve got the Blacks and the Jews. In a predominantly Black neighborhood where resentment toward Jews is reportedly on the rise.

What followed was entirely predictable. The driver of the out-of-control vehicle was dragged out of his car and beaten. An angry crowd gathered. Stuff was thrown, and other stuff was vandalized.

Things escalated over the next several days. More vandalism and looting. People got injured, many of them police. An innocent bystander, Yankel Rosenbaum, was beaten and killed.

Is there anything that could have happened after those children were struck that might have caused all of this to turn out differently?

Why Are All Racists and Sexists Reactionaries?

This is something I don’t really understand.

Lots of Black people act bad. Before you say Whites do too, there’s way more bad Blacks actors than bad White actors, percentage-wise. Living in a poor all-White town was instructive, as was moving to a poor Hispanic town. It finally made me realize that this fucked-up behavior doesn’t have much to do with economics. Sure, there were idiots in the White town. But it seemed like in the Hispanic town there were 3 times more of them per capita, and the bad actors acted about 3 times worse than the White bad actors. Of course I’m guessing here, but that’s my perception.

I figure in a poor Black town, there will be 8-9 times more bad actors per capita, and I figure they will act 8-9 times worse than White bad actors.

So really it’s not a case of bad actors. Kids of every race act like shits. But to us Whites, it seems like the Hispanic and Black bad actors are way worse than our own and there’s way more of them to boot.

It’s pretty clear that once a White city turns Hispanic or Black, there’s a decline in all sorts of variables. It’s much worse in the case of a White city turning Black, and this process has been viewed in realtime by millions of Americans. As a general rule, the city turns into a crime and squalor ridden Hellhole.

Given these obvious facts, I really don’t understand why the only White racists are reactionaries. Aren’t there any White liberals who are tired of Blacks and Hispanics too?

And why are racists so reactionary in every other way, too? They usually hate all of modernity – modern art, modern literature, modern music, modern culture, recreational drugs, the Sexual Revolution, the works. I don’t get it. If you’re a racist, you don’t like to rock out, get high and fuck your brains out? Why not? Aren’t there White dopers, rockers and sex freaks that are tired of minorities too? Aren’t there any Whites who dig David Bowie, Thomas Pynchon, Marcel Duchamp and Picasso, yet can’t stand Blacks? If not, why not?

Why do most White racists support Israel? Because, Arabniggers being an inferior race and all, it was cool of the superior White Jews to steal their land, kill them and ruin their lives? Why was that an ok thing to do? Because one is a superior race and the other is an inferior race? Really? So the superior races just get to kill the inferior races, ruin their lives and steal their land, everywhere on Earth, simply due to their superiority? Is there anything that is not ok for the superior to do to the inferior?

Anyway, why, just based on religion or test scores of whatever, does one race get to deliberately fuck over another one anyway? On what basis? Superiority? If so, wow, what an appalling mindset!

I’ve noticed something else. Sexists are all reactionaries too. There are plenty of woman-hating sites all over the Net. They’re pretty entertaining, but they’re all reactionary. I don’t get it. Women are a pain in the ass, and lots of normal humans end up having had quite enough of them. Hell, I know women who don’t like women. Aren’t there any liberals who’ve had it up to here with female shenanigans too?

Racist and sexist ideology aside, the more you learn about racists and sexists, the less appealing racism and sexism is based, if not on ideology, then at least on the reactionary assholes who are attracted to it.

The Rational Element to White Nationalist Discourse

In the comments section, tulio notes that White Nationalists are not necessarily irrational. I agree that the project makes sense on a lot of levels. Agreeing with Alpha Unit, I simply state that it is both unworkable and more importantly immoral, or evil if you prefer. On Occidental Dissent there have been many discussions about how to implement their project. My Liberal Race Realism will not save the White race. I don’t intend that it should, as I don’t care about White extinction. Most other similar projects are also doomed.

In fact, putting their project in democratically via elections is also doomed, as is winning over a majority of Whites to their project. The only way to put their project in, as the webmaster of Occidental Dissent notes, is via an undemocratic project such as coup, seizure of power or  revolution. Then a dictatorship (authoritarian state) would need to be put in place because if the project were put up to vote, it would lose. I agree with this assessment. A fascist dictatorship is the only way to implement the WN project, and also, incredibly, to save the White race.

In addition, an authoritarian state would need to be implemented to input the more unsavory aspects of the WN project. Even the most moderate proposals involve a denial or rights to non-Whites living in the White state to encourage them to flee. Furthermore, miscegenation by Whites would be made illegal. You can guess what the more unsavory projects entail.

tulio notes that de facto White (and other) enclaves already exist:

Aren’t there already de-facto ethnic states in America? I’d say that whole area between Eastern Washington to the Dakotas and extending south to Northern Nevada and Utah is pretty much a de facto white ethnic state. As would be New England north of Boston. Los Angeles is pretty much Mexico City with a beach. Miami has been called “The Capital of Latin America”.

Atlanta is considered the “Black Mecca” amongst middle class black folks who are flocking there to be amongst people like themselves. I’d say there are already many ethnic territories in America, just not by law perhaps, but they exist.

Yes, but the WN argument, and once again it is rational, is that all of these places are doomed. Their argument is that Whites develop a place, make it a real nice place to live (by virtue mainly of there being mostly Whites living there) and then non-Whites (code as Blacks and Hispanics) move there to get away from the hoods that the Blacks and Hispanics have degraded or in some places destroyed. Even many Blacks and Hispanics often do not wish to live with their own kind in large numbers.

You could call this argument, Whites Create, Non-Whites Destroy (What Whites Created).

With Blacks, they are probably fleeing excessively Black hoods where well-behaved Blacks have had it with the bullshit. White areas are nice, low-crime and prosperous. Most of all safe. Blacks, when asked, prefer to live in a “diverse” hood, not in a Black community. Hispanics will probably just move to White areas because they are increasing in population and moving everywhere nowadays, possibly also for work. Hispanics don’t seem to mind living with their own that much, though once they get some money, you do see a bit of “Hispanic flight.”

The WN argument is that these very nice White areas soon start to decline as a result of large numbers of non-Whites move in, paradoxically to escape the places they have already destroyed. But with certain numbers, they will probably also recreate what they sought to escape. So the Whites are doomed. Everywhere they move, the non-Whites will follow and soon create degraded hoods that the Whites were seeking to flee in the first place.

At some point, there will be nowhere left to run. The Whites with money will move to Latin American like gated communities, while those without will be left to their own devices in the high crime diverse areas that most places have become. We do see something like this in Latin America.

Well, the WN’s are indeed onto something here, and as in so many ways, there is a large grain of truth to what they say.

I argue that WN is not just impractical but also immoral or evil, not necessarily that it is irrational, though its discourse necessarily contains many irrational arguments. Necessarily because any racist project or viewpoint is automatically irrational to some extent, since a rational view of race tends to lead away from hardcore racism.

Derrion Albert Beating Death Video

The video has been removed following discussions with WordPress staff. Try here instead.

This video shows the melee on the south side of Chicago in which groups of Black youfs from two different schools, all future NFL players, engaged in a fight in the streets which resulted in the death of Derrion Albert, a 16 year old boy said to be an honor student. The fight occurred on Thursday, September 24. The video is not that bad; it just shows a fight. After Albert goes down, his prone body is blurred out.

This sort of thing happens all the time in Chicago, but the fact that an honor student bought it this time has promoted a spate of articles.

Albert is said to be an innocent bystander who just accidentally strolled into the middle of the brawl or was accidentally caught up in it. That is certainly possible. The brawl took place as students were getting out of school and the streets were blanketed with students. When a brawl takes place in such a situation, obviously a bystander could happen to get caught up in it.

However, I have reviewed this tape extensively, and I conclude that Derrion Albert may not have been so innocent after all. Although the cellphone video is not the best and I don’t have the necessary tech to slow down videos or review frame by frame, after repeated viewings, it seems that Albert deliberately ran into the middle of the fight and then participated in some sort of fighting. The fighters on the other side seem to have retaliated against him for this. One hit him in the head with a large plank of wood.

After that, he falls to the ground, but gets up quickly. As soon as he gets up, he is immediately punched in the face and hit again with the railroad tie and goes down hard. This time he stays down. At least one person comes up and kicks him in the head several ties when he was down. Somewhere in this rain of blows, he suffered enough injuries that he was killed. Bystanders quickly surround him, keep people away from him, and then cover his prone body with some sort of a white sheet.

I don’t think this kid deserved to get killed, and he may well have been an honor student. But I’m not so sure, looking at the video, that he’s so innocent. Right before he gets hit with the board, it looks like he tries to punch a member of the opposing faction.

The fight occurred in SW Chicago in the 300 block of West 111th Street. My mother grew up around 65th Street in the 30′s and 40′s. Back then, the area where the fight occurred was White and safe, but not anymore. It’s now a heavily Black ghetto, but there seem to be a lot of Whites and Hispanics in the area too. The fight occurred around Fenger High School. This is a notorious ghetto school with tons of problems and lots of violence.

The fight was between two groups of youths from different areas, one from the Altglen Housing Project and one from an area known as the “ville.” Altglen is a notorious project. This is where Obama did some of his earlier community organizing work. His claim to fame there was asbestos removal at the project. This area is not far from where Chicago wants to host the 2016 Olympics. At this rate, they may as well call it the Gladiator Games.

One Boy One Needle

1 boy 1 needle

►

This video actually came out a few years ago, but it is still going viral in a pretty big way, or maybe it is just starting to go viral, I am not sure. It goes by all sorts of names. Most of them, other than Heroin Boy, are not memorable .

The story behind the video is very strange, and no one knows if the video is fake or real.

The story behind the video is that a Russian guy wanting to showcase the dangers of drugs arranged the shooting of the video, which involves some young boys shooting heroin in Russia. The boy who gets shot up is 8 years old. The guy shooting the video was actually a drug dealer. The video supposedly depicts the 8 year old boy shooting heroin and then dying from the heroin. After he shot the video, the dealer pitched it around to Western agencies to fund his drug rehabilitation clinic. He stole all the money and never set up any clinic. He was arrested by police later. The cops decided that he was guilty in part for the supposed death of this boy. He was imprisoned, and he died in a Russian prison. Cause of death described by officials: “He repeatedly banged his head up against the wall until he died.” Yeah right. Looks like he was beaten to death by guards, other inmates, or both.

How do we know all of this? Because another version of this video has Russian dialogue running in the background (I got the less annoying “no dialogue” version). A translation of that dialogue reveals the story I just repeated above.

Anyway, no one knows if the story is true. We don’t know the name of the 8 year old boy who supposedly died. Some are saying that he didn’t even die, that his supposed death in the video is “just the normal, expected effects you would get from mainlining heroin.” We don’t have a name of the supposed dealer, nor any proof he got arrested or that he died in prison. In short, nothing behind the background story about this video has yet been verified.

Some say that this video is probably from the 1990′s, when Russia was seriously flooded with heroin, and even little kids were taking it. Since then, things have calmed down a lot.

Anyway, fake or not, this video is really freaking out a lot of people who think they are watching an 8 year old boy die from shooting heroin (And maybe they are, who knows?). It’s in competition as one of the worst videos on the Net. This video doesn’t really bother me because it’s not violent. I just tell myself that the kid is going to sleep and not dying, and then everything’s OK. Of course it’s troubling to watch little boys shooting up.

Unfortunately, the only copy I could find has this stupid semi-literate written dialogue crap at the beginning, written by the moron who runs the King of Cordia’s Den website. He’s the one who made this video, and my video-editing skills are not sufficient to get rid of his ads and lame illiterate copy in the video.

Comments Deleted on Great Article on Black Crime

Black Crimes are Foundation of Whites’ Fears.

This fascinating article by an apparently non-racist Yale English professor which ran recently in the New Haven Register generated an incredible number of comments.

It included the usual crap from PC anti-racists. One Jewish guy demanded that the article be censored and removed, and then demanded a law forbidding all publication of “hate speech”, which presumably this article would fall foul of. Of course the usual crap from Black commenters was also on display. And sadly the piece did generate some racist comments, probably due to it being widely posted to White nationalist fora.

However, many of the comments were very reasonable and spot on, in line with the article.

They simply stated the obvious.

Whites flee as areas become too Black not because they hate the way Blacks look, or they hate the color of their skin (This is the typical conceit of Blacks – you hate us because of the color of our skin!), or they just hate Blacks for no good reason at all, apparently just because they are different or because they are just not White folks. Sure, some Whites hate Blacks for these reasons, but most do not.

How do I know this? I’ve lived around White people my whole life, and I know my people very well. I have heard Whites expressing negative comments, including racist ones, about Blacks more times than I can count.

I’m convinced that if Blacks acted more like Whites or Asians and less like Blacks that not too many folks would have issues with their skin color or their facial structure or what not. A few would, but not most.

The truth is that what Whites really hate about Blacks is crime. As the % of Blacks in an area goes up, so does the crime rate. It doesn’t go up much up until 20% or so (This implies that most 1-20% Black cities and towns ought to be fairly tolerable), but it really starts to go nuts around 30%. From there on out, with each decimal increase in the % of the area that’s Black, the crime rate flies up again, often at astounding rates.

We can go on and on about how Black criminals target mostly Blacks, but that’s not what matters. They target Whites too, and White towns and cities tend to be fairly low crime (I’ve lived in several, and that’s been the case every time).

In addition, it really doesn’t matter what’s causing Black crime. If they’re just born that way, or if poverty does it, if Black culture does it, or if racism does it, none of this matters. This is why the usual liberal-Left screeching about how all Black crime is caused by poverty or crime is irrelevant. One brings up Black crime and the Leftie starts screaming that it’s all caused by poverty or racism or whatever, as if this is supposed to end the discussion and negate the reality of the subject.

Suppose Black crime is all caused by mean Whites (racist theory) or poverty? What relevance does that have to Whites deciding on which town to move to, or watching nervously as their town slowly darkens? None whatsoever. The damned crime rate is going to go up come Hell or high water no matter what’s causing it, and that’s all that’s important to the Whites living there.

All that matters to White crime victims is that they got victimized. Let’s ask the victims. So racism made the mugger do it. So what? They still got mugged, dammit, the victims think. Assuming racism really did do it, then they should stay in this town to get mugged again then?

As the White person is getting mugged, they are supposed to think, “Wow, this guy is mugging me due to racism. That means I’m going to stay here and maybe get mugged again. But if he doing it because he’s an evil criminal instead, I would fly out of here tomorrow!”

This is why the liberal/Left derailing of all of these conversations into irrelevancies like, “Whites are twice as likely to molest kids,” “Whites commit the majority of crime in the US,” and other Tim White-isms is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of a White person, or any person for that matter, say, “No way am I moving to that White town! Whites commit most of the crime in the US!” Or, “No way! I will never live in a White area! Whites molest children!”

Just to show you the power that PC still holds over us, the 100′s of comments that this article quickly generated have now all been deleted, and are not even available on cache. That’s typical, but do you think this PC censorship is going to be able to go on forever? How long before people have had enough of it?

That’s right, Lefties. Censor all talk of Black crime. That’ll make it go away.

Not.

PC Lunacy on Immigration and Other Things

The quote at the end of the post is from a middle class Black commenter who took tremendous offense at this rather moderate post, accusing it of sounding like the neo-Nazis on Stormfront. He also took issue with my description of this site as anti-racist (In my opinion, it is, and that is one of the foundational themes of this site), and said instead it was a racist site.

He has now been banned because you don’t get to call this a racist site, and if you come here and spout PC anti-racism at me, I will soon tire of you and ban you. So this fellow was banned.

He objected to many things in the post. One objection is that a Black state in the US would not be a miserable failure. I’m quite sure it would be a disaster, and that is why you hardly see any Blacks crazy enough to advocate for this. In particular, he objected to my saying that all of the Blacks in the US could take off tomorrow, while it would be painful in some respects in that we would lose a lot of quality workers and citizens, I’m confident that on balance, Whites would be better off.

Obviously, professional sports would be hit very hard, but White men have been shooting hoops, throwing footballs and catching fly balls for a long time now, and I’m sure they could go back to it. Baseball’s practically a Caribbean Latino sport now anyway. We no longer need Blacks for cheap labor, as we’ve imported millions of illegals to do that.

The crime rate would obviously plummet, many of our ruined cities would become quite a bit more livable again, music and other entertainment would become less obviously sociopathic, many of our social pathologies would ameliorate, and perhaps most significantly, we would be free of a lot of racial friction generated by a perpetually grievanced group (Blacks) that many Whites are getting increasingly tired of.

Granted, since the 1960′s, Blacks have resembled a bunch of angry people locked out of a really cool party hanging out on the sidewalk and yelling that they want in. Inside, we Whites are partying it up. Whenever you see a scene like that, you know how painful and ugly it is.

Well, Obama got elected, and to me that meant that Blacks finally got invited into the party after all this time. Instead of being grateful or happy, they seem just as pissed off as ever. They’re inside the party now, and everyone is having fun, but they still act like they are out on the sidewalk.

Many Whites, including me, are exasperated. There is a sense of, “What more do we need to do, anyway, before you all settle down, relax and try to be happy?” What I am saying is that the culture of grievance gets old. US Blacks are the richest, the best educated, the most politically powerful, the most intelligent and the most cultured Blacks on Earth. Despite the ghettos and all, they live quite well here compared to just about any Black or heavily-Black country.

Sure, you can find some other White countries that are maybe better for Blacks, but once again, you come back around to the original argument that White cities, regions and states are great places for Blacks to live in. Blacks agree. They vote with their feet. Once a city gets too Black, the most functional Blacks start taking off too, usually to a Whiter area.

I’m not a White nationalist or a Back to Africa idiot or any of that. I just note that Whites do not particularly need Blacks in the US, while the converse does not seem to be true. Blacks need Whites. If all the Whites left tomorrow, this country would rapidly turn into the usual Black and mestizo Latin American type country. It would not be a better place for Blacks.

So I’m not making any argument for ethnic cleansing or saying Blacks don’t have a right to be here.

But this is why quite a few Whites are enthusiastic about a White ethnostate in the US, while almost no Blacks are keen on the idea of a Black ethnostate.

Whites look at the White ethnostate with no Blacks and ask, “OK, why is this a problem?”

Blacks look at a Black state with no Whites and probably think, “Uh-oh. Detroit. Black Belt. Count me out.”

Blacks benefit in the present integrated system to some extent in that Blacks in the US are fairly spread out and diluted and further that many of the victims of Black criminals are non-Blacks.

In a Black ethnostate, all of the Black criminals would be concentrated together, and there would be no non-Black victims to dilute the victimhood. Blacks would be seriously hammered by Black criminals in a Black ethnostate as Black criminals turned all of their antisocial fury on the only victims available, other Blacks.

Anyway, all the above is surely insulting for a lot of Blacks to think about, so they are going to be pretty defensive about it.

On immigration, this guy spouted the standard PC line, which is quite common nowadays. You hear it across the board by the entire US elite. Immigrant advocates are also parroting this nonsense. It’s interesting that the modern version of Political Correctness is really Marxism stripped of class analysis and focusing solely on race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other nonsense.

Many of the folks pushing this Leftist line on race are in fact marrying it to explicitly free market economics and reject anything smacking of a Left view of economics, at least according to a friend of mine who is currently taking a syllabus called “Multiculturalism” – mandatory at California state universities now! He calls it “Anti-White Studies.”

Considering the Cultural Leftism these folks were pushing, I assumed that they were liberals or even Leftists. But this Cultural Marxism, according to my friend, is married to an embrace of “the free market” and a rejection of most to all government intervention and regulation of economies.

This really is the same pro-corporate globalism that is being pushed by the corporations. Our modern corporations feature, along with diversity advisers, multicultural seminars and crazy hate speech and anti-harassment codes, the standard conservative pro-corporate economics.

So Political Correctness often nowadays is a bizarre mix of the worst – Right neoliberal madness of the kind that is blowing up our economy mixed with brain-dead stupid and White-toxic Leftist Cultural Marxism.

There’s nothing in this for any principled progressive White person. Economically, it’s just conservative gunpowder and matches. The only Left part of it is objectively hostile to Whites and frankly working class folks of all races, as it demands that White nations be flooded with the entirety of the Third World in the name of redress for supposed White crimes and evils.

So working Whites get the double-whammy. First we get hit by the Rightist Hurricane Neoliberal side of this template. Next we get hit by Leftist toxic anti-White hate propaganda combined with a tsunami of Third World non-White immigrants driving wages into the gutter and turning once-livable cities into Third World hellholes. There’s nothing here for us.

Check out this standard PC line on why mass Third World immigration is necessary for all White countries:

Some Whites will always talk about how we don’t “need” these non-Whites and such and such, but the fact is, if they weren’t needed, they wouldn’t be there in the first place. First off, White countries don’t even reproduce at replacement level, thereby making it imperative to have to bring in non-White immigrants just to keep their rapidly-aging societies from having a labor shortage and to be able to support the social security benefits of Whites retired and soon to be retired.

The situation is even more accelerated in Europe with it’s even lower white birthrate than in America. So go ahead and cut off the spigot of non-White immigration, and the White countries will eventually vanish off the face the planet based on their low birthrates alone.

You ought to be thankful there are non-White workers coming in to make up the slack for your low-fertility rates. I guess next someone will be blaming Blacks for white low fertility rate since you know, Blacks are responsible for everything bad in the universe.

Does anyone reading this blog actually believe this tripe? Yet this is what passes for standard and unquestioned wisdom by the PC Mafia and entire right to left political spectrum of US elites.

Setting The Record Straight On California’s Proposition 13

Proposition 13 was passed by California’s White, mostly homeowning voters in 1978. Since then, property taxes have been frozen at 1978 levels. It’s been a complete disaster for schools and local governments all over California, but California’s White homeowners are so selfish that the initiative is still popular. One silver lining in the decline of White California is that we can probably finally get rid of this monstrous albatross on the neck of our state.

I was born in California in 1957. I lived here for 21 years before Prop 13 and I’ve lived here for 30 years afterward. The difference is night and day. Local government has been screwed all over the state, worse and worse every year, for 30 years now. The situation is dealt with in truly wealthy areas like Beverly Hills, where I taught school for a while (Beverly Hills High School) by the rich parents simply pouring cash into a fund and giving it to the school.

Tom, a commenter, has it all wrong in this comment:

In part Prop 13 was basically white California saying we don’t want to pay public services (public schooling) for all these poor Mexicans and their big families. This was the late 70s when the amount of Mexicans in CA wasn’t even that high.

Not true, that had nothing to do with it whatsoever. There weren’t even all that many Mexicans in California back then, and there were not that many illegals. We had a very liberal government back then headed up by Jerry Brown, and they raided places for illegals all the time, and no one cared. Everyone supported it, even liberals.

Property taxes only pay for local schools. This is the part the Toms of the world just don’t get. So White people, in gutting their property taxes, just fucked their own kids’ schools, that’s all. I think they also pay for local services. Every White person in California knows that local governments all over California have been wrecked ever since Prop 13. So the dumbshit Whites who voted for that, all they did was ruin public services in the cities where they lived, which were mostly White.

California Whites don’t care. They don’t care that the public services their White areas are shot. Fuck it, they say, ask me if I care. They just don’t want to pay taxes.

What happened was that property values were rising rapidly here in California at the time of Prop 13. The state was still about 72% White at the time, and in 1978 where I lived, almost everyone around me was White or at least part-White. Property taxes kept going up and up with the values and wages and salaries were flat. Homeowners were just getting pounded on their property taxes.

People kept screaming for the state to do something about it, but no one would. The Right wanted extreme solutions, and Jerry Brown would not budge and ease the burden.

Howard Jarvis, author of Prop 13, represented the renters’ association! He was a Goddamn landlord! The landlord lying scum went around telling all their dumbshit tenants that they were going to lower their rents after Prop 13 passed. I personally know a bunch of White tenants who told me that they voted for Prop 13 for that very reason!

Also, business interests were behind Prop 13 in a huge way. Businesses can obviously pay their property taxes; it’s no problem, they do it everywhere. But property taxes on landlord rental properties and businesses have been flat since 1978! The people who really cleaned up in California after Prop 13 were the landlord-scum and the business capitalists. Inequality has been skyrocketing in the state ever since.

I have no problem easing the burden on homeowners, but no way do landlords and business owners get a break.

Landlords are the biggest crybabies on Earth.

Most small landlords here in CA are just out and out slumlords. They’re always crying poverty and raising rents, but they never fix a damned thing, and they make tons of money anyway. I have a lot more respect for apartment complexes owned by corporations, because at least they fix stuff a lot more often than your 2-bit Joe White Suburban Slumlord.

The landlords own most of the county officials in the state, and they’ve always owned the legislature. Landlords have big bucks, so they buy their own power in our capitalist “democracy” here. Renters have no power, so no one listens to them, and they have no power in our capitalist “democracy” in California.

Oh, by the way, I’m not aware of one tenant who got his rent lowered after Prop 13.

There’s one born every minute.

Race Realism In Cuba

Fascinating article, A Visit To Raul Castro’s Cuba, on Cuba today written by a Marxist, which does not at all deny the serious shortcomings of the system. While it seems tempting to blame Communism for all of these problems, the truth is that Communism is probably responsible for only some of the problems.

First of all, the rations book only covers 40% of Cuban food needs. Yet in China and the Soviet Bloc, the ration book easily covered one’s nutritional needs. Much of the housing stock appears to be dilapidated or falling apart, in addition to being overcrowded. While housing shortages were well-known in Communist socieites, the housing of the Soviet Bloc and China was generally held to be in good shape, at least in the cities, and particularly in Eastern Europe.

The sidewalks are falling apart, but sidewalks generally were nice and clean in the East Bloc and China. Public facilities in general are not kept up well, but I don’t believe that was a problem in the East Bloc or China, where things were generally neat and clean. Cuba is an extremely hot and humid place, like the rest of the Caribbean, so that may enter into the lack of upkeep aspect. The problems with the ration books, deteriorating housing and sidewalks, however, is probably due to the US Embargo that costs Cuba $4 billion/year.

What is very interesting is a section towards the end of the article under the heading, “Race and Marginality — The Sleeping Giants?” Though couched in the usual Leftist “see no evil” mindset of a baffled person who can’t explain anything racially other than by resorting to accusations of White racism, there is some blockbuster race realist stuff in this section.

First of all, the Cuban Revolution was great for the Blacks and mixed race Cubans. In the great Batista Cuba of which the overwhelmingly White Cuban exile “gusanos” (or worms as I refer to them) dream and pine, there was an overt Jim Crow system, that, while not as bad as in the US, was still pretty bad.

The Cuban exiles all lie about this and say that there was little racism in pre-Castro Cuba. Darker Cubans were out and out barred from most beaches in Cuba. In provincial towns, public parks were segregated into White and non-White sections. Non-White Cubans were pretty much barred from most professional positions, especially in the private sector.

The Revolution got rid of all that and dramatically improved things for non-White Cubans. Nevertheless, the upper ranks of the Party and professional classes were mostly White.

A new and refreshing pro-Black movement has emerged in the form of non-White hip hop music with an emphasis on police brutality themes. The suggestion is that as in much of the West, non-Whites in Cuba commit a vastly disproportionate amount of the crime, and are consequently profiled and then harassed by police and possibly beaten and manhandled when arrested. So in that sense Blacks and mulattos in Cuba behave much as those in the West do.

One huge difference is that there is little violent crime in Cuba. There is quite a bit of theft though, in particular petty thievery.

In addition, as in the rest of Latin America, most faces on Cuban TV are White. A protest movement has also emerged against this tendency.

After the collapse of the USSR in 1990, Cuba went into a long phase called “The Special Period.” In a nutshell, Cuba lost 90% of its trading partners overnight and the cost of its imported raw materials like oil went up by 10X. North Korea is still reeling from the effects of this catastrophe. Now, 20 years later, Cuban production is probably just begin to approach the levels of 1989, right before the collapse.

One result of this Period was social chaos and an increase in something called “marginalization.” As in the West and in Latin America, wherever you find good numbers of Blacks in a mixed-race society, the Blacks mysteriously tend to be overwhelmingly more likely to be marginalized in various respects. This was even true in Communist Cuba. “Marginalization” became a codeword, for poor, uneducated non-White Cubans.

A number of theories developed to try to explain the behavior of the marginalized non-Whites. During the Period, non-White dishonesty, lack of upkeep and out and theft increased dramatically. Most of the people complaining about the “marginalization” theme were Whites.

Whites were associated with a “rich culture” in which, no matter how much money they had, they were relatively honest, hardworking, tidy and non-thieving. Non-Whites were associated with a “culture of poverty” borrowed from Oscar Lewis’ seminal work that was associated with lack of upkeep and subsequent disrepair and dilapidation, a less vigourous work ethic, greatly increased dishonesty and tremendous thievery, usually of the petty variety.

One episode that particularly outraged Cuban Whites was one in which poor non-Whites in Havana were given brand new state of the art housing in the city complete with a variety of new and working fixtures, hookups and whatnot. Quickly after they moved in, the non-Whites basically dismantled the brand-new complex of its hookups and everything that wasn’t nailed down, which they promptly sold on the Black Market for hard currency. Afterward, they were back living in a slum again.

Cuban Whites were completely outraged and offended by this behavior. It was not stated in the article, but the suggestion was that as much as Cuban Whites struggle, they won’t dismantle the equivalent of a Cuban mansion and turn it into the equivalent of a Cuban hovel.

What is fascinating about this is that this is exactly what Blacks did in Africa. In Zimbabwe, when Blacks took over the farms of the Whites, idiot Blacks dismantled and tore out everything not nailed down and sold it, or, if it was wooden, burned it as firewood. Working orchards and vineyards were destroyed in days or weeks, chopped up for firewood and sent up in smoke. Similar things occur in South Africa.

Similarly, in the New South Africa, upkeep has gone down the tubes. Sure, the Blacks fix stuff when it falls apart, but often by the tried and true “n-word rigging” familiar to White Americans. That’s basically a half-assed, quick and dirty, off the cuff, makeshift fix of a broken thing that will work for a while but won’t last long.

Crucially, routine maintenance that would keep things running much longer is simply put off for later which usually means never. This same dynamic seems to be operating in mostly non-White Cuba, while in the Communist East Bloc and China, things were at least kept tidy and neat looking. The Cuban experience of problems in upkeep suggests not so much a problem of Communism as a basic difference in temperament between Blacks and Whites.

The dismantling of working apparatuses in favor of the quick fix of firewood or cash, leaving one with a hovel or ruined farm, reflected from Cuba to Zimbabwe, once again suggests not so much a problem of Cuban Communism as once a basic temperamental difference between major human races.

Another problem in Cuba has been poor scores by the “marginalized” non-Whites of Cuba. Whites tend to dramatically outscore non-Whites in Cuban schools, particularly in the professional schools which are extremely competitive and held to high standards.

A culture of poverty explanation has been advanced to try to explain why White Cubans are doing so much better in school than non-White Cubans. Yet we see this discrepancy everywhere on Earth where there are Blacks and Whites together.

It is interesting the Cuba chooses a “culture of poverty” explanation. In the West, radical PC anti-racism is all the rage and these same things are blamed on omnipresent White racism, which seems even more dubious than the culture of poverty stuff. It’s even more fascinating, and actually disturbing for me as a Leftist, that Black and White behaviors show remarkable continuity with their racial cogeners around the world, under capitalism, socialism or Communism.

* I am not trying to imply that Black temperament is inferior to White temperament. If it is in part genetic (though adjustable via culture) then it is simply the way that they have evolved. I’m sure many to most Blacks are perfectly ok with a lot of these behaviors. However, they are so opposite to standard White behaviors that these Black behaviors drive Whites up the wall and cause endless friction in multiracial societies.

I also did not mean to imply that lack of upkeep or maintenance was in inferior trait. I practically wrote the book on Lazy myself. However, modern industrial societies do not seem to work very well when maintenance or upkeep is neglected.

Possible Flynn Effect Massive IQ Rise in Mexican-Americans

From a fantastic race-realist blog called The Inductivist by Ron Guhname, we have information that the IQ of US Mexican-Americans may be rising, probably due to a Flynn Effect. There has been an incredible 10 point rise in only 25 years or so. Keep in mind that all of the data has been renormed by decade due to progressively rising IQ’s (Flynn Effect), so the apparent slow growth in White IQ actually masks a 10 point increase over 35 years. Over 35 years, there was a 12 point gain in IQ, 3.4 points per decade or .34 points per year.

Data:

Mean IQ for White Americans

70s 99.1
80s 99.2
90s 100.5
00s 101.3

Now compare to mean IQ for Mexican-Americans, using the same test:

Mean IQ for Mexican Americans

70s 85.2
80s 84.4
90s 91.8
00s 95.1

The 1980′s show no gain, but there was a great 7 point gain in the 1990′s and another 3 point gain in the 2000′s, which adds up to a stunning 10 point gain in real IQ over a 25 year period. This in addition to the 10 point Flynn gain that occurred anyway during the 35 year period time but was masked by renorming.

Looking again, from 1985-present, a period of 25 years, Mexican-Americans gained an incredible 17 IQ points. That’s .68 points per year, or 6.8 points per decade. During this period, the Mexican-American IQ grew twice as fast as the White IQ. Over 35 years, they gained 20 IQ points, .57 points per year or 5.7 points per decade.

Importing lots of low-IQ Mexicans from Mexico is not a solution to anything. Are those Mexicans “genetically low IQ?” Probably not, since that 85 IQ may well rise to 95, give them 25-35 years or so. But that’s 25-35 years of poor behavior we have to tolerate.

Meanwhile, as the low-IQ flood continues, the problems of the ever-replenishing low-IQ recent immigrants just perpetuate, solidify, and eventually become a cemented subculture that is not only impossible to eradicate but also infects surrounding groups.

Indeed, their IQ’s may rise later on, but at the moment, your average Mexican immigrant has an IQ of 82. That’s way too low to function well in a modern advanced capitalist society. No wonder there is a such a “general decline” in areas overrun by recent Mexican immigrants.

They are not very smart!

So of course we see increased crime, graffiti, gangs, rundown areas, broken-down cars, squalid homes, dirtiness, trashiness, littering, corruption, along with epidemics of gang membership, teen pregnancy and school dropout. Why the epidemics? That’s what dumb people do in advanced Western capitalist societies. They drop out of high school, get pregnant while they’re kids, become single Moms and join gangs.

The question is why don’t Whites do these things in such high numbers. Answer being that they are smarter. The smarter you are, the less likely you are to do idiot stuff like that.

Based on the data above, Mexican Americans anyway present no obvious problems in terms of IQ (On this test, they score only 6 points below Whites!) but recent immigrants are probably a catastrophe, for at least the next 25-35 years anyway, and continuous flood tide of unscreened immigration from Latin America means a nightmare that ever perpetuates, rising again, Lazarus-like, with each new pulse of low-IQ immigrants, even as older cohorts brain up and civilize themselves.