Costs of Multiculturalism

Christopher Donovan: Pick Your Poison: Death, or a Civil Rights Lawsuit

Life in multiracial America presents us with stark choices:  live in an urban area with a short commute and risk mugging or murder, or live in the suburbs and spend hours of your life behind the wheel.  Send your kids to public school and leave them uneducated and terrorized by blacks and Hispanics, or send them to private school, and work long hours to pay for it.

The choice for a food delivery person in an inner-city area:  risk getting shot in the stomach for your Chinese food delivery cash, or risk being sued and called a racist.  (“Delivering food is a risky joby, but denying service could be catch-22, experts say.”)  Some might say the latter is worse.  A black, corn-rowed thug with a gun, or a Jewish lawyer whining about “hate and intolerance” and deposing you… it’s a tough call.  (I personally suspect that the targeting of Chinese food delivery people is a form of hate crime:  the black robbers assume that the Chinese will be meek and give it up easily.)

I’ve read that some pick a third option:  go home.  This is apparently what many Koreans in the Los Angeles area have done.

We whites, of course, don’t have the option of returning home in order to escape this madness.  This is our home. We’re stuck.

The lesson is getting clearer and clearer:  we cannot continue to live like this.  It’s going to kill us.  We need to move toward something else, whether it’s some form of separation or a greater white consciousness that serves as a much stronger bulwark against black violence and theft — and other anti-white ethnic attacks.

The Morality of White Advocacy

White advocates are inured to being seen as evil, mean-spirited people. Our desire to retain control over the lands we have controlled for hundreds or thousands of years is routinely denounced as racist and morally untenable. The current TOO article is an antidote for all that:

The degree to which the Europeanness of our societies is an important and valuable asset finds its most dramatic proof in the treatment women receive in many non-European cultures. Earlier I mentioned the civic erasure of women in not a few Islamic societies; yet this seems tame in comparison to some of the forms of suppression and abuse practiced in parts of Africa and South Asia.

The accompanying photos of women who have been horribly disfigured as a result of behavior that is normative in these cultures are difficult to look at. But we have to understand that non-European cultures are not just different; they condone practices toward women that are completely repellent. If they had any sense, Western feminists would be avid supporters of shutting off the massive flow of non-Whites into the West. While we are still a majority, Whites, incluing feminists, can prevent these cultures from having  a decisive influence. But, as the article notes, it is beyond optimistic to suppose that they can do so when Whites become a minority: “Demography, as they say, is destiny.”

As Eric Kaufmann noted, one of the conceits of WASPdom is to suppose that other peoples would be just like themselves. In the 19th century, it was common to think that Catholics would convert to Protestantism and even that Africans  would become White eventually. Their expansive optimism did have a solid basis if confined to other European peoples. But the idea that the millions of non-Whites will become just like White folks has no basis in science or common sense. Such sentiments live on among Whites not only on the high-minded  left, but also among braindead conservatives — perhaps now with more than a tinge of desperation as events continue to unfold and Whites become increasingly anxious about their future.

The individualist proclivities of the West have always resulted in an elevated status for women compared to non-Western cultures, where women are enmeshed in a web of  clan and kinship — where women are little more than pawns in games played by powerful men. Tacitus noticed the high status of women among the Germanic tribes, and the status of women in Rome was incomparably higher than anywhere in the Middle East, India, China, or Africa.  Many 19th-century Americans thought of individualism as an ethnic trait. They were right.

Bookmark and Share

Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments

Frank Salter  is a giant in the intellectual defense of White identity and interests. His book On Genetic Interests is a breakthrough in providing a rigorous conception of ethnic interests based on evolutionary theory and modern research in genetics and the  social sciences.

Salter has just published a wonderful article in Quadrant, an Australian neocon publication (On misguided advocates of open borders). It is a masterpiece of elegant argumentation and a complete trashing of his professorial opponent, the unfortunate Mirko Bagaric, who seems almost ludicrously unaware of the most basic academic literature bearing on the issue. The good news is that it’s an excellent introduction to Salter’s thinking–much recommended.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

Salter lists the downsides to this idea–all of which apply equally well to other Western societies similarly bent on open borders self-destruction.  Diversity is associated with “reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.” Ethnic diversity is also associated with “reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Critically, he points to “invidious ethnic stratification” as an inevitable result: “No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.”

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.

Sound familiar? These are all the things that Westerners can look forward to as they become minorities in the societies they built and dominated for hundreds of years. This resentment and contempt will produce enormous unrest in Western societies, and ultimately it will result in violence directed at White people perpetrated by ethnic groups with deep historical grudges against their erstwhile benefactors.

Salter also emphasizes the general point that everyone has rights and interests. People who argue for open borders argue solely from the rights and interests of people who (naturally) want to go to a place where they have a higher  standard of living. They never take the perspective of the natives. Egocentrism writ large. As Salter argues, the open borders movement is profoundly immoral.

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

The egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole. … The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission.

There are other factors as well. For example, Salter points to a collusion of self-censorship on immigration by self-interested politicians bent on obtaining support from immigrant constituencies.

But the role of elite academics should never be underestimated. Not one Australian academic stood up to point out the shoddiness of Bagaric’s arguments. The revolution in the academic world that toppled Darwinian social science in favor of erecting the culture of critique is critical to the demise of White nation states. In my view, this revolution was at its core an ethnic revolution, resulting from the rise of a Jewish intellectual elite, Jewish ownership and influence in the media, and Jewish influence on the political process. It is not surprising that the revolution that caused the impending increase in ethnic hatred and conflict in Western societies was itself the result of ethnic hatred and conflict.

The power and rigor of Salter’s ideas are a huge asset in combating the suicidal tide sweeping all White countries.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: The Secret to Long Life: "Right Tribe"

Christopher Donovan:  In this video, speaker Dan Buettner reviews three world spots — Sardinia, Okinawa, and Loma Linda, California (home of a community of 7th-day Adventists) — where people regularly live to be 100.

He throws in some political correctness (like claiming that the Adventists are racially mixed, which I question the extent of), but the biggest conclusion is:  You live long by having a connectedness with your fellow humans, as well as a sense of both daily and ultimate purpose.  More than drink, drugs and fried foods, it’s isolation and nihilism that kill.  Never mind the Stairmaster — get some friends.

How is “tribe life” best achieved?  Well, racial homogeniety is an unstated but obvious factor.  Neither Sardinia nor Okinawa are even remotely multiracial or multicultural.

On the basis of studies, demographic movements and a thousand personal anecdotes, I surmise that the most corrosive environments for humans are multiracial societies where everyone’s got their guard up about everyone else — including members of their own race.  Rather than cooperate and blend, they scrap and fight.  In effect, life in a multiracial society — especially for Whites denied any sense of an explicit White community — is de facto isolation.  We know that human racial groups are programmed by evolution to trust in-group members more than outsiders — not because they’re “racist” or morally deficient, but because from primitive to modern times, the outsiders were rightly seen as competitors for resources and power.

It’s not much of a stretch, then, to imagine that a lot of stress reduction comes from living in a racially homogenous setting.  Who knew that we “scary racists” were really just health gurus underneath it all?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Radical Muslim Shoots Up Fort Hood, But Attention's on Whites?

Christopher Donovan: I try to ignore the Southern Poverty Law Center and its pathetic flailing, but this blog item was irresistable in its stupidity. 

I had been searching for stories on the Fort Hood killings, scrounging up evidence for my theory that the media has buried this story because of the heavily negative implications for multiracialism.  More on that in a second, but here’s the Google news search result for Fort Hood. 

Note that by the fourth story down, the talk is of grand marshals for parades.  I may be on to something. 

Back to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Incredibly, they manage to flip this story into something about “white supremacists” — never minding that “white supremacists” were about as far removed from the Fort Hood killings as possible.

In fact, pro-whites are vindicated by the story, because it shows the internally destructive nature of mixing all manner of racial, ethnic and religious groups into a fighting force.

But to the SPLC, it’s an example of how we need to be on the lookout for “hate” — “hate” being something only whites are capable of, naturally.

And the SPLC has great official backing — an author of the Pentagon report they cite is Togo West, a black former Army secretary.

What a shocker that he’d come to conclusions approved by the SPLC.  Where does this absurdity end?

To put the attention back where it belongs, let me state the following.  The killings at Fort Hood by a Muslim extremist who somehow managed to become an officer in the U.S. Army is direct proof of:

* the failure of multiracialism generally

* that the military is infected with political correctness to the point of (literal) self-destruction

* the loss of security created by the destruction of white hegemony

* the failure of nerve on the part of whites who know better but fear being called a “racist” for calling attention to an obvious problem

* the ridiculous nature of the American justice system, which extends to a thoroughgoing enemy all the rights and privileges of a Revolutionary-era tavern owner

* the creeping prevalence of the “not guilty” psycho-babble culture, which had commentators wondering if the “stress of war” caused the shooter’s actions (never mind that he never saw combat).

Nidal Hassan, by his actions, repudiated everything the multiracial global elite teaches us:  that all religions and cultures can blend into an American ideal, that culture and background don’t matter, that only native or poor persons are sucked into anti-Americanism, that the military is a uniquely cohesive organization made up of all colors and creeds focused on a single goal (and is capable of overcoming differences that the rest of society can’t).

So it’s not surprising that there’s radio silence on his story.

Up next for consideration:  when and how did the U.S. military become the last pillar of traditionalism to succumb to anti-white political correctness?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Trial By Ordeal — Not as Primitive as It Sounds?

Christopher Donovan: An interesting article in the Boston Globe describes how the medieval practice of “trial by ordeal” might have actually worked pretty well. 

Basically, it came down to the social order created by widely-held beliefs — the logic or truth of those beliefs aside.  If everyone uniformly believed that God would punish them for a crime, fewer guilty persons would go through with an ordeal.  So you got a good sense of who’d been bad, and who was falsely accused.  It would have taken a stiffly anti-social European to fool the system. 

Today’s criminal jury trial system might even be less reliable than sticking a hand in boiling water as an indicator of truth.  In multiracial America, there are far fewer uniformly held beliefs.  A system in which a black or Hispanic defendant feels aggrieved by the pressures of living in a “White society” surely feels less moral compunction about lying or fooling the system.  If evil White police, prosecutors, judges and juries are staring you down, who cares?  You’re justified in lying. 

And, consistent with Prof. Robert Putnam’s observation that even intra-racial relations are harmed in a multiracial society, guilty White defendants might feel similarly.  If society is nothing but a crazy mishmash of clashing ethnicities, why not have a little party in the midst of the confusion? 

This is to say nothing of the craziness surrounding the racial makeup of the jury.  As O.J. Simpson found, having black jurors is very handy when the evidence against you is overwhelming.

As a civil litigator, I watched as race — of the plaintiff, defendants, witnesses and juries — absolutely obliterated anything else going on.  Like, say, the facts.  There was no widely-held belief that a barely-injured plaintiff should be denied a financial windfall — no, it was a fellow Hispanic woman looking to get a chunk of white society’s cash, so by all means, help her.  It was a capricious system that often had little to do with witnesses, cross-examination or persuasive arguments by attorneys.  It was a race racket. 

So, while the “trial by ordeal” had truth as its aim (and possible result) in racially homogenous European societies, the trial by jury’s truth-finding function is often subverted in multiracial America.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Smith v. Berghuis: The Black Defendant's Right to a Not Guilty Verdict

Christopher Donovan: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Smith v. Berghuis, quite possibly the most absurd lawsuit of the year.  Needless to say, the claim was racial discrimination. 

Equally needless to say, he’s got supporters in the media and among whites.

Diapolis Smith, a Black man, shot and killed Christopher Rumbley during a bar fight in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1991.  He was convicted of second-degree murder.  On appeal, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury pool had too few Blacks. 

Get this:  The percentage of Blacks in the community was 7 percent.  For Smith’s jury pool, it was 6 percent. 

How this laughably trivial complaint makes it to the Supreme Court is a testament to the insanity of the multiracial society.  The slightest claim of racial discrimination — provided it’s lodged by a non-white — throws our whole administrative apparatus into a tailspin. 

Caselaw does say, however, that a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury pulled from a fair cross-section of the community.  This has been interpreted to mean that “identifiable groups” cannot be excluded. 

So, how were Blacks “excluded” from Smith’s jury pool?   A big sign declaring “no Blacks”?  An evil White racist jury administrator who tossed every other Black person? 

Not quite. 

Blacks, evidence showed, were more likely to be excused because they asked to be excused, often for child-care or transporation reasons. 

Or, they were kept off because of their felony records. 

In other words, the slightly lower number of Blacks was because of their own behavior, not because of any exclusionary intent.  And imagine if the court refused to excuse Blacks who complained that they couldn’t serve because of a lack of money — another lawsuit would have resulted.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

But all of this is only one level of insanity — a level that assumes the “cross section of the community” demand is a legitimate one to begin with. 

The supporters of Black murderer Smith, interestingly, don’t seem to doubt the existence or importance of race, despite the constant left-wing assertion that “race does not exist” or is “only a social construct.”  As always, this argument only applies when it benefits non-Whites.  Just ask Sonia Sotomayor, who whipped hostile questions Michigan’s way — but of course found no fault with New Haven, Connecticut’s exclusion of White firefighters.  

Dig a little deeper, and you see that what Smith is really claiming is the right to be tried by fellow Blacks, not Whites.  Or at least as many Blacks as he can get on his jury. 

Dig deeper still, and you see that what he’s claiming is a right to be found “not guilty” — because he presumes that his racial brothers and sisters will side with him, the evidence be damned.  There’s simply no other reason for Blacks to demand that they be tried by fellow Blacks. 

Nevertheless, I am beginning to suspect that the dreaded “all-White jury” doesn’t sometimes acquit Black defendants for fear of being seen as “racist.”  If anyone’s got evidence of this, let me know.  

Despite the insanity of Smith v. Berghuis, I see almost no critical media coverage of this suit.  Look at the “friend of the court” briefs, and you’ll see plenty — filed for Smith.  One lonely brief takes Michigan’s side. 

It all makes me want to stand on a mountain and scream, “Can’t anyone see what’s going on here?” 

If it’s the case that Blacks are wrongly accused and convicted — or cannot be fairly judged but by fellow Blacks — then I have a solution:  racial separation.  Could it be any crazier than the status quo?

Bookmark and Share