African Americans

Black Brains Shatter: The Intellectual and Ethical Bankruptcy of Black Lives Matter

If you’re looking for a truly powerful pleasure-drug, then forget heroin, cocaine or crystal meth. They’re crude, fast-fading and unreliable. No, for a real rush that’s guaranteed not to fade or falter, you need what Black Lives Matter (BLM) and their allies are on — the three most powerful pleasure-drugs known to humanity.

History’s greatest drug-dealer

The three drugs are called narcissism, self-righteousness and malice. And not only are they completely legal and available in unlimited quantities at no cost to the addict, you can receive full instructions in their use from the most prestigious and respected institutions in the Western world. From the Ivy League to Oxbridge, from the New York Times to the Guardian, from the ADL to the BBC, expert drug-dealers are ready and eager to teach you everything you need to know about where to obtain your supplies and how to inject.

But the greatest drug-dealer of all lived and died in the nineteenth century. Fortunately, we still have his instruction-manuals and a host of his disciples have worked to interpret and explain them for each new generation. And who was that world-historic dealer in narcissism, self-righteousness and malice? It was Karl Marx (1818-83), of course. Marx himself never won the power he longed to wield and abuse, but the “toxicity” of his ideas (as Guardianistas would put it) was just as apparent to some of his contemporaries as it was to those who suffered under Marxist regimes during the twentieth century. The Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009) lived through Stalinism and his magisterial critique Main Currents of Marxism (1978) reported the prophetic words of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814—76):

Bakunin … not only combated Marx’s political programme but, as he often wrote, regarded Marx as a disloyal, revengeful man, obsessed with power and determined to impose his own despotic authority on the whole revolutionary movement. Marx, he said, had all the merits and defects of the Jewish character; he was highly intelligent and deeply read, but an inveterate doctrinaire and fantastically vain, an intriguer and morbidly envious of all who … cut a more important figure than himself in public life. (pg. 248) Bakunin … inveighed against universities as the abodes of elitism and seminaries of a privileged caste; he also warned that Marxist socialism would lead to a tyranny of intellectuals that would be worse than any yet known to man. (Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. I, The Founders, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pg. 250)

Yes, Karl Marx was indeed highly intelligent and fantastically vain, but his latter-day disciples in Black Lives Matter are only fantastically vain. High intelligence is not characteristic of Blacks and BLM are not bucking the trend. Their crusade is emotional, not intellectual. And it’s emotional in the most direct and satisfying way, being fuelled by those three mighty pleasure-drugs of narcissism, self-righteousness and malice. But I think Black brains would shatter if they were asked to properly address one simple question: Why are Whites the evil exploiters and Blacks the virtuous victims?

Omnia Ex Alea

On a progressive reading of history and human biology, there is only one possible answer: It was pure, unadulterated chance. Whites are evil exploiters and Blacks are virtuous victims simply because that’s the way the historic dice happened to roll. If the dice had rolled another way, it would have been the other way around. Blacks could just as easily have enslaved Whites, just as easily have set forth from the heartless headquarters of a cruel capitalist Africa to ravage the gentle, egalitarian societies of a peaceful pastoral Europe. After all, progressive dogma insists that “We Are All the Same Under the Skin” and that “There Is Only One Race — the Human Race.” But Blacks themselves haven’t created that dogma or imposed it so effectively on academia and the media. Blacks don’t have the necessary intelligence and ability to spin seductive webs of high-sounding words.

Progressive dogma: “There is Only One Race — the Human Race!”

But Jews do. And it’s Jews who have been the most effective creators of and propagandists for the progressive dogma of absolute and unequivocal equality between all human groups. “There is only One Race — the Human Race.” Furthermore: “There is Only One Brain — the Human Brain.” The Jewish progressive Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) preached those falsehoods throughout his career in award-winning best-sellers like The Mismeasure of Man (1981). And the Jewish progressive Jared Diamond (born 1937) continues to preach them. Diamond is perhaps the greatest living exponent of the idea that the superiority of White Europeans in warfare, technology and science is owed to mere biogeographic accident. You might say Diamond preaches the doctrine of Omnia Ex Alea — “all things from the dice.” In other words, all apparent White achievements are the product of undeserved luck. But Diamond’s underlying goyophobia, or hatred of White gentiles, is apparent even as he preaches this supposedly objective doctrine. Why did Europe conquer Africa and not vice versa? It was Omnia Ex Alea, ladies and gentlemen — the biogeographic dice just happened to roll in Europe’s favour:

All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep,  goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable [Gregory Cochran disagrees]. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)

Diamond obviously likes the idea of Blacks making “mincemeat” of White gentiles. You can see the same hostility to White gentiles in Diamond’s award-winning best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997), when he imagines “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:

That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, 1997, ch. 18)

Jared Diamond isn’t conducting objective science and dispassionately analysing history, as Kevin MacDonald saw during “a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause.” Diamond’s fantasies appeal to the envy and malice of non-Whites and Jews, and to the misguided individualism of Whites, who enjoy punishing members of their own race for ethical transgressions (see the concept of “altruistic punishment”). As Diamond himself put it, Whites are tainted by the “stink of racism.” But if Diamond’s ideas are true, there is no stink and no true ethical transgression. It’s the impersonal forces of biogeography and chance that have governed history, not innate differences between human groups. We are all the same under the skin, but we don’t all occupy the same environment, which is the only reason that some groups have conquered or out-performed other groups.

Leftists pursue power, not truth

It follows, then, that Evil Exploiters and Virtuous Victims can occur in all possible permutations of colour and creed. But it also follows that exploiters aren’t “evil” and victims aren’t “virtuous.” Such terms don’t make sense in leftist ideology, because all groups — Whites and non-Whites, men and women, gays and straights — are capable of any kind of behaviour in the right (or wrong) historical circumstances. However, leftists don’t care when their ideas don’t make sense. Leftism isn’t designed to explain reality or to correct its alleged faults, but to win power for leftists and to meet their emotional needs. That’s why you’ll never see any hint from BLM and other high-priests of anti-racism that non-Whites can be “racist” too, or that non-Whites are capable of abusing the power that they are demanding so self-righteously.

Blacks as Foot Soldiers for What Is Essentially a Jewish Coup: Where Jews lead, Blacks follow: Saul Alinsky, Godfather of Political Chaos

After all, if the high-priests admitted all that, they couldn’t be self-righteous. And self-righteousness is central to the protests and riots organized by BLM. It’s both highly satisfying in itself and highly effective as a stimulus for action. BLM is powered by the idea that Blacks are innately virtuous and Whites are innately evil. That idea makes no sense by progressive ideology and the Omnia Ex Alea school of history, but ideas don’t have to make sense to inspire action and change history. And speaking of history, here is a highly eloquent indictment of its chief villains. Indeed, its only villains:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [italics in original] (See “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World,” Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, 17th October 2017)

That is the “highly intelligent” and “fantastically vain” Jewish ideologue Susan Sontag (1933–2004) supplying more  ammunition for the unintelligent but still “fantastically vain” non-Whites of Black Lives Matter. I disagree with Sontag, of course. I don’t think the White race is the cancer of human history. If human history has a cancer, that cancer is Jewish ideology and the Jewish Culture of Critique that simultaneously — and self-refutingly — preaches the Absolute Equality of Humanity and the innate depravity of White gentiles.

The Cause of the Second Civil War in America

In 1991 the USSR, beset with problems of debt, glasnost/perestroika, failure of national leadership, democratization, and out-of-control military spending, broke apart into 16 separate countries—some autonomous, others partially so.  Notably, for the most part, this process occurred peacefully, that is, without the central ruling elite unleashing the might of its army against those regions, and without the terror/suicide bombing of the institutions of the then Soviet Union that we see today as a pretextual political statement in other parts of the world.

It was a significant transition made even more so by the fact that the citizens of the 16 regions achieved separation of their geographic areas, then formed governments, when they had never before participated in a fully operational democratic process at the national level.  In other words, the citizens avoided what could have been, in an earlier time in history, a casus belli, by participating in an unprecedented civic event.

It was also unusual that the central state did not resort to force of arms to compel the 16 regions to remain within the united government.  Why it did not do so is, as they say, “complicated.”  But the simple overarching reason is that the citizens of the USSR who also composed the entire geography of the country’s 16 regions spoke clearly that they did not want to live and work together as part of, and be governed by, the same political entity.

They, the citizens, desired to be part and parcel of an area where they exercised their right of governance as they defined it to control their own land mass according to their own geopolitical expectations, be those based on culture, religion, race, ethnicity, language, or a combination of any of these.1  In order to utilize “might” to maintain a functioning central authority, the USSR would have found it necessary to make war against a sizeable population living within the boundaries of the entire country.

When comparing the dissolution of the USSR with that of the United States one hundred and fifty-seven years ago, one must ask why the North and the South could not have split apart, gone their separate ways, and become two distinct governing regions of one contiguous geographic mass? It would have been mutually beneficial—the South providing cotton and tobacco to the North, and the North maintaining its manufacturing infrastructure to weave cloth from the South’s cotton and to sell farming implements and other goods to the South. Read more

“The New Jim Crow” As Seen from the Right.

Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a text I’ve come across many times over the years. In fact, I don’t know if there is a single time I have walked into a major bookstore and have not seen the book displayed in prominence on an end cap or center aisle table. I’ve encountered all the arguments made within the text over the years in articles, during debates, and in university classrooms as an undergraduate. Perhaps the significance of Alexander’s work is best assessed in the foreword by Cornel West: “The New Jim Crow is the secular bible for a new social movement in the early twenty-first-century America.” Although the data and arguments found within have been seen both before and after Alexander’s work, this is perhaps the most definitive and comprehensive work on the topic of Black crime and mass incarceration in America, as seen from the left.

The overarching premise is that mass incarceration, Jim Crow laws, and slavery have been the three primary measures adopted as public policy in the U.S. as a means to control the Black population. Several of Alexander’s contentions jumped off the page at me from the very beginning of the introduction, where she states that an essential goal of the Founding Fathers was to ensure citizenship to Blacks would be denied. In a way, I was thoroughly impressed, aghast even. I hear noxious phrases like “we are a nation of immigrants,” “America is for everybody,” and “this is a homeland for all,” almost daily, be it on social media, from politicians, the press, or in the media. And to see an author who has declared her goal is an “egalitarian democracy,” to be so honest, so frank, and so correct, is in many ways to be welcomed. Alexander displays from page one that she has a grasp of historical racialism as it pertains to the foundation of the U.S. and the Founders’ intentions. She finds this to be an unacceptable position, of course, but her admission that the U.S. was founded as a White nation is exceedingly rare nonetheless. Read more

Who Commits Murder in America?

Most Americans suspect that Blacks commit the majority of crime in this country. They are, in a word, correct. However, the government takes great strides to cover this up. From the federal on down to the city level, our rulers are loathe to release data on crime that includes racial breakdowns. Such data disrupts the preferred narratives about race in this country.

However, there are a handful of cities that do let the public see the numbers, and, no matter the city, it is Blacks who are running riot. Philadelphia is one those few forthright cities, so we will start there. To begin, here are the demographics for the city in 2016, according to the US Census:
44.2% Black
34.9% White
14.4% Hispanic
7.4% Asian
2.6% mixed
0.9% American Indian
0.2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Here is the demographic makeup of arrestees for shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, that same year in Philadelphia:

For shootings, Blacks were just shy of doubling their share of the general population, with 80.3% of arrests. Whites were the opposite — just shy of halving their population share at 18.5% of arrests. Asians arrest rates, at 0.6%, are about one twelfth their share of the population. Read more

Fiftieth Anniversary of the Detroit Riot: Personal Observations and Evolutionary Analysis

Fifty years ago, a deadly urban riot began one hot summer night in my hometown of Detroit. It ignited around 3:30 a.m., when police arrested 85 patrons of an illegal after-hours bar in the midst of an all-Black neighborhood that had been all-White 15 or 20 years before.

When the mayhem ended six nights later, 43 people had been killed, 1,189 injured, 7,231 arrested, 2,509 stores had been looted or burned, 690 buildings were destroyed or had to be demolished, and 388 families were displaced.

Detroit’s Mayor at the time was Jerome Cavanagh, a young, bright and ambitious liberal. Elected with near-unanimous support of Black voters, he had aggressively launched anti-poverty programs to make the nation’s fifth largest municipality a model of the Great Society’s War on Poverty. (1).

The rapid migration of American Blacks between 1940 and 1965 from the mostly rural South to the big cities of the North, very quickly increased the Black population from less than 10% to over 30% at the time of the riot. That meant that Detroit, which had about 150,000 Black residents before World War II, had about 600,000 a generation later. In the 1960’s Detroit was dealing with a larger influx of Southern Blacks than all but Chicago and New York.

Conditions of Detroit’s Black Community Before the Riot

Politically correct revisionist historians and sociologists (many of whom are Black) like to portray Detroit’s riot of 1967 as the inevitable rebellion of a people victimized by White racism.  However to maintain this typical liberal view one must dismiss many well established facts that contradict the narrative. Read more

Heart of Darkness: Hip Hop, Existentialist Theology, and the WASP Cult of the Other

Introduction

Hip-hop is another cultural artefact attracting the attention of Christians working with young people.  Back in January, at the five-day intensive university course for Youth Culture and Ministry, Andrew Root, a professor of youth ministry from Luther Seminary in Minneapolis, devoted an afternoon session to the subject.  His very effective audio-visual presentation reflected what I now recognize as the received understanding of hip-hop among progressive Black academics teaching at leading American universities.

Root left unexplored the ethno-political dimension of the hip-hop phenomenon.  My subsequent journey through the proudly ethnocentric work of several prominent Black hip-hop scholars took me to the front line of the contemporary cultural war on White America.  These Black writers describe hip-hop as a primary means by which Americans talk about race.  Debates about hip-hop, according to Tricia Rose, “stand in for discussion of significant social issues related to race, class, sexism, and Black culture.”  Commercial hip-hop provides “the fuel that propels public criticism of young Black people.”[2]  Strangely, however, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans such as Andrew Root never ask themselves whether “the hip-hop community” (inclusive of rappers, fans, record companies, and well-connected professors) is friendly or hostile to young White people. 

Is Hip-Hop Good for Black People?

While properly repulsed by the violent and crudely sexist lyrics in contemporary commercial hip hop, Black scholars emphasize “the importance of craft, innovation, media literacy, and other practices that have made hip-hop such an enduring and inspiring force in the lives of young people, especially Black youth.”[3]  Some emphasize the ways in which the gangstas and guns, hustlers and pimps, the bitches and the hoes featured in hip-hop lyrics both reflect and contribute to “the socially and culturally toxic environment” of urban Black and Latino ghettoes.  Orlando Patterson, for example, laments “the fact that instead of artistically representing and transcending the realities of ghetto life, under the pressure of corporate packaging, elements of the street and prison culture have now been morphed into hip-hop, so much so that it is often difficult to differentiate the two.”[4]  Others celebrate the creativity of Black youth, from the “compelling aesthetic innovations of hip-hop’s founding figures” to the “countless variations” which they inspired “in the ensuing decades.”[5] Read more

“I love myself. So I must be good”

If you read the links on previous posts you’ll find  ‘a lack of self-esteem’ adduced as one of the main explanations for low Black SAT scores. This is ridiculous on any number of counts, most obviously by avoiding the IQ elephant in the room. But where do they get the idea that Blacks have low self-esteem? In fact the contrary is the case, especially for the younger cohort for whom a preening swaggering bravado, totally unrelated to actual capabilities, is standard behaviour. And that’s not just my impression.

Bernadette Gray-Little, a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, performed a complex review of every piece of research available on black self-esteem.’There have been inconsistencies in the results of the studies on this topic over time,’ says Gray-Little. ‘I wanted to see if I could find any basis for a firm conclusion. And if inconsistencies occurred, I wanted to know when and why.’ …

She found that before the age of 10, whites slightly surpass blacks in self-esteem. Everyone’s self-esteem dips in the later years of school. After that, blacks narrowly but consistently surpass whites, up to the age of 21, the upper limit of the study.

The self-esteem gap seems to depend on wealth. Low-income blacks show higher self-esteem than low-income whites. But the gap disap pears at higher income levels. The study also shows that black self-esteem has not risen over time. The theory of many psychologists was that as blacks gained in civil liberties, their self-esteem would rise. But the study shows it has never been low.

The report will confound black activists who have seen raising black self-esteem as the key to overcoming social disadvantage. At the all-black Paul Robeson Academy in Detroit, students start the day by standing up and proclaiming: ‘I feel like somebody. I act like somebody. Nobody can make me feel like a nobody!’

In Britain, many companies now have mentoring schemes to help people from ethnic minorities. The Millennium Commission is funding a three-year programme to expand such schemes.

Read more