Link to Part 1: Foreign Policy
Link to Part 2: The Economy
Link to Part 3: Race Relations

We have chosen Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago and the actions taken by his friend and former Chief of Staff Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel as a case study to illustrate how liberal ideologically driven interventions actually exacerbate a problem without solving it. The unsolved problem is the skyrocketing number of murders in Chicago, the highest in almost 20 years. In 2016 Chicago had more murders than Los Angeles and New York combined.

A staggering total of 762 people were murdered in Chicago in 2016, more than 2 murders every day on average. This represents a 57% increase over the 468 murders reported in 2015, which was a 12.5% increase from 2014.

During Obama’s eight years in office 3,930 people have been killed in homicides across Chicago. The vast majority were young Black males killed by other young Black males. To put this in perspective, this is nearly as high as the 4,229 service members killed during the Iraq War under President George W. Bush.

Residents are fleeing the city and Illinois at a record pace. Illinois lost 37,508 residents in 2016, bringing the state population to the lowest level since 2009. Homicides in Chicago in 2016 skyrocketed passed previous figures, rising from 496 in 2015 to 762 in 2016.

The numbers out of Chicago clearly show a reversal in the decades-long downward trend in murder rates in American cities. And it is certainly not unique to Chicago. In the most populous American cities, murder rates generally increased in 2015 over 2014 ( e.g. Baltimore, 63% increase, Washington, D.C., 54%, Milwaukee, 65%, etc.)

Non-fatal shootings are perhaps an even better barometer of the level of violence in a community, at least partly because better medical procedures saving lives. On that front, Chicago’s numbers are also record-setting. The city recorded 3,550 shooting incidents and 4,331 shooting victims in 2016, compared with 2,900 shootings in 2015. Again, 2015 was 13% more than 2014. So the data we seek to explain is the accelerating rise in both murders and non-fatal shootings over this two-year span.

Chicago keeps detailed annual statistics on major crimes. Until 2011, it published the race of offenders, but shortly after Obama’s election, Mayor Emanuel, ordered the police department to stop releasing that information to the public. The most recent racial data, the 2011 report (p. 53) shows that, like most US cities, there are stark racial differences. Murder offenders were 70.5% Black, 24.3% Hispanic, and 3.5% White.

The first action Mayor Emanuel took upon taking office took is quite illuminating. He chose to eliminate any potential discussion of Black violent crime in the city by simply erasing that information from the public record. In traditional Orwellian doublespeak, this is referred to by the extreme left as “transparency”, or sometimes as “openness”.  While the MSM does not like such facts to be generally known, Black murder rates are consistently 7 to 10 times higher than White murder rates in US cities, including Chicago, and the overwhelming majority of Black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) are killed by blacks. Read more

My New Year’s thoughts do not circle around new resolutions, seeing as that I have already resolved to do everything possible to make this difficult existence more tolerable.  Rather, my thoughts linger on the fact that we now live in a police state precipitated by Muslim immigration and the general coexistence with various and sundry other non-White people.

This was brought to mind by a photomontage from New Year’s Eve, featuring ominous looking police and military figures guarding areas which would formerly appear in a more celebratory aspect.  Could there be any better symbol of our current maladies? All our holidays are now sullied with the countermeasures made necessary by…diversity.  1,500 armed polizei in Cologne—in some ways a welcome sign that Chancellor Merkel has tacitly acknowledged that Germany is out of control; but unwelcome insofar as, well, Germany is out of control.  Heavily armed NYPD are seen guarding Times Square in anticipation of a truck-style attack as perpetrated in Berlin and Paris. Somehow it just doesn’t feel “festive.”

Similarly, 90,000 security personnel were deployed in France. Camouflaged soldiers in Paris could be seen guarding key sites, after having experienced their dose of diversity via truck turned mass-murder weapon.  And, according to the French government, it was a great success, as only ~1000 cars were torched by vandals.

These are the memorable scenes and photographs which in and of themselves provide excellent social commentary on the depth to which Western Civilization has sunk, as though we were in a dystopian sci-fi film. This is not a civilization in optimistic confidence, but rather one that is girding for an enemy which might attack from all sides, and is especially apt to strike on those brief occasions when we seek to revel and celebrate life.  Hence we can literally never relax, but can only put on a brave face if we wish to enter a public place, to show that “the terrorists haven’t won.”  We congratulate ourselves for venturing outside in our own cities as an act of defiance.

Suffice it to say that we are a little beleaguered at the moment. Read more

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

CONCLUSION

An important mechanism underlying all this is that of rallying around the flag during times of crisis, a phenomenon that is well understood by social psychologists. Group identification processes are exaggerated in times of resource competition or other perceived sources of threat,131 a finding that is highly compatible with an evolutionary perspective.132 External threat tends to reduce internal divisions and maximize perceptions of common interest among ingroup members, as we have seen among American Jews in response to perceived crises in Israel, ranging from the Six-Day War of 1967 to the unending crises of the 1990s and into the new millennium.133 Jewish populations also respond to threat by developing messianic ideologies, rallying around charismatic leaders, and expelling dissenters from the community. Traditionally this has taken the form of religious fundamentalism, as among the Hasidim, but in the modern world these tendencies have been manifested in various forms of leftist radicalism, Zionism, and other Jewish intellectual and political movements.134 Throughout Jewish history, this siege mentality has tended to increase conflict between Jews and non-Jews which then has a feed-forward effect of increasing the perception of threat among Jews. In the context of the intense ethnic conflict of nineteenth-century Eastern Europe, the conflict was exacerbated by an enormous increase in the Jewish population and the resulting poverty.

And in all cases, the leaders of this process are the more ethnocentric, committed Jews. They are the ones who donate to Jewish causes, attend rallies, write letters, join and support activist organizations. As J. J. Goldberg, the editor of the Forward, notes, Jews who identify themselves as doves feel much less strongly about Israel than those who identify themselves as hawks. “Jewish liberals give to the Sierra Fund. Jewish conservatives are Jewish all the time. That’s the whole ball game. It’s not what six million American Jews feel is best — it’s what 50 Jewish organizations feel is best.”135 In other words, it’s the most radical, committed elements of the Jewish community that determine the direction of the entire community.

As a European in a society that is rapidly becoming non-European, I can sympathize with Jabotinsky’s envy of the native Slavic peoples he observed in the early twentieth century:

I look at them with envy. I have never known, and probably never will know, this completely organic feeling: so united and singular [is this] sense of a homeland, in which everything flows together, the past and the present, the legend and the hopes, the individual and the historical. Every nation civilised or primitive, sees its land as its national home, where it wants to stay as the sole landlord forever. Such a nation will never willingly consent to new landlords or even to partnership.137

It is the memory of this rapidly disappearing sense of historical rootedness and sense of impending dispossession that are at the root of the malaise experienced by many Europeans, not only in the U.S. but elsewhere. The triumph of Zionism took a mere fifty years from Herzl’s inspiration to the founding of the state of Israel. There is a tendency to overlook or ignore the powerful ethnocentrism at the heart of Zionism that motivated people like Jabotinsky, especially on the part of the American Jewish community, which has been dedicated throughout the twentieth century to pathologizing and criminalizing the fragile vestiges of ethnocentrism among Europeans.138

But the bottom line is that the Zionists were successful. Israel would not have become a state without a great many deeply ethnocentric Jews willing to engage in any means necessary to bring about their dream: a state that would be a vehicle for their ethnic interests. It would not have come about without the most radical among them—people like Jabotinsky, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, and their supporters—a group which now includes the entire organized American Jewish community. The impending dispossession of Europeans will only be avoided if people of their ilk can be found among the political class of Europeans.