Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained ” slave vs. slave-owner vengeance fantasy movie has been widely denounced as you-know-what because of its frequent use of the n-word [VDARE.com note: redacted because of corporate censorware] so I thought it might be paradoxically interesting, but it isn’t. The best way to describe Django Unchained is to put it in the context of D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation [Watch The Birth Of A Nation free on the Internet Archive]
Most Americans encounter Griffith’s film—if they encounter it all—in a class on “Pop Culture and Film” in college, where they learn how insidious this movie was for daring to show a far different take on the Reconstruction Period than that currently disseminated throughout the American education system. (Which, coincidentally, is basically what Django Unchained preaches: white people were already prepared to join the Ku Klux Klan in 1860 and were always prepared to unleash vicious dogs a la Bull Connor in Birmingham on black people to keep them in their place).
Perhaps you’ve read about the NAACP Boycott of The Birth of A Nation or President Woodrow Wilson’s alleged remark—after viewing the film in the White House—that “it is like writing history with lightning.”
What is rarely mentioned is this: The Birth of A Nation was a huge commercial success.
As Seymour Stern wrote in the American Mercury magazine in 1949:
The Birth of a Nation (1915) has grossed to date—it is still running—over $48 million, the largest single gross achieved by any one film since the movies began.
Privately financed at a cost of $110,000 (five times more than the cost of any other film made up to this time), it was directed, produced and exhibited by Griffith in complete independence of the Hollywood film "industry," the first monument to free enterprise in the new medium. By the end of the first two years of its career, it had created 25 million new moviegoers—25 million spectators for whom The Birth of a Nation was the first movie.
[D. W. Griffith and the Movies, March 1949]
In today’s dollars, that $110,000 budget is roughly $2.5 million. Compare that to the $100 million production budget for Django Unchained (not to mention the untold millions spent marketing the film).
In contrast, Django was released on Christmas Day (why?), grossing
Immigration is not just another issue. It cuts to the very soul of a people. A polity’s approach to outsiders reflects its entire self-conception, social structure, and way of life.
Remarkably, one of the most powerful recent portrayals of the soul-rotting effects of mass immigration comes in the form of a political fable from Paul Lake, an Professor of English in Arkansas: Cry Wolf: A Political Fable . It was published in 2008 by a small Dallas house, BenBella Books, and as far as I can see got almost no reviews e.g. nothing in National Review. I was sent a review copy, but to my shame only just read it (n.b. at one sitting). It is nothing less than an Animal Farm for the central question facing Western civilization in the 21st century.
The setting is Green Pastures Farm, a peaceful community where the farm animals have learned to “walk in the ways of man” after the deaths of their human masters. By working together, the animals have escaped the horrors of nature red in tooth and claw and are able to lead a peaceful, albeit simple, life where everyone—“hoof, web, paw, claw” lives “on level ground, under one law.”
Their little society is organic, with a smoothly operating natural hierarchy. Each animal knows its place, performs its assigned tasks, and helps out where it can with no ostentatious displays of wealth or laziness. The dogs patrol the farm and guard against intruders, the rooster crows the dawn and keeps track of the stars to determine the planting schedule, the lambs milk the cows and so on.
Some animals are dissatisfied with their lot, such as a cowardly duck named “Pierre” who doesn't think he is given proper recognition for his own importance. But the society is basically unified and happy.
Underlying the farm is a moral structure and mythology that unites the entire community. The animals celebrate the great victory that saved their farm, when they all joined together to chase off a wild bear that threatened to break in. They even have a kind of religion, where the purpose of the farm animals is to “walk to the path towards personhood” and learn civilization.
Lake, who is the poetry editor of the conservative religion journal First Things, makes an obvious nod towards the civilizing power of Christianity: the animals dream of a holy infant child, a “spirit-shepherd” who will teach the world gentleness and peace.
The farm is regulated by four commandments, “Walk by day, not by night,” “Do not kill or eat living flesh,” “walk in the ways of man,” and the first and most important, “NO TRESPASSING.” The whole point of the community is to defend the tiny corner of safety for “tame” farm animals from the wild world outside, and to “defend their sacred borders.”
Trouble arrives when a pitiable creature, a wounded doe, breaks into the farm in search of relief. The deer is obviously harmless and it seems cruel to expel it, but
Your Vice President, Joseph Biden, presided over the swearing in of all the Hispanic members of the 113th Congress on January 3. There were 36 of them—a new record—so it was a joyful occasion. Hispanics, said Mr. Biden, are “the center of this nation’s future,” adding that “now the nation . . . understands the Hispanic community must be courted.”[Biden: Latinos 'the center of this nation's future', By Donovan Slack, POLITICO, January 3, 2013]
Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), who has devoted his career to filling the country with Hispanics, noted that “on Election Day, a new America, a diverse 21st century America showed us just how the political and demographic landscape has changed.”
But it was Mr. Biden who said it clearest. “The Hispanic community” he noted, will “take this country to a totally new place.” (Emphasis added).
He’s right about that. But we don’t want to go there.
“Hispanics” are of course an artificial construct of American politics—VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow called them "a strange anti-nation inside the United States" in Alien Nation. The term includes widely varying groups, not all of whom have much in common or even like each other, although the bulk (some 63%) are Mexican. But here are more of them in America all the time, and what’s in the pipeline is not promising.
No fewer than 53 percent of Hispanic girls get pregnant while they are teenagers—twice the national average. Hispanics are three times more likely than whites and twice as likely as blacks to drop out of high school. If they make it to 12th grade they read and do math, on average, at the level of the average white 8th grader. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in criminal youth gangs.
But these are dry statistics. There are better indicators of the “totally new place” Joe Biden is eager to get to.
It was recently reported that the school district in Salinas, California, has decided to name a new elementary school after Tiburcio Vasquez, a 19th century bandit who stabbed his first policeman at age 14, and was eventually hanged for murder. Naming committee member Francisco Estrada says Vasquez was framed by racist whites and that he can be “sort of a hero to us.”
Thanks to Hispanics, we have a new record: the youngest person ever to face the possibility of life in prison. Cristian Fernandez of Florida was 12 when he beat his 2-year-old brother to death. He already had a long record of violence, so prosecutors charged him as an adult in order to put him away for good. The courts are still squabbling over what to do the ironically named Cristian.
Hispanics have novel ideas about government. Ninety-six-percent-Hispanic Maywood, California, had to fire all city employees when it became the first California city ever to lose its insurance. It had an official population of 29,000, but this grew to an estimated 45,000 when it decided to become an official haven for illegal immigrants. City government ran the place into the ground and missed so many payments that the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority stopped its coverage. Maywood fired all its employees, right down to school crossing guards. Neighboring towns took up the slack.
I can already see the headline in the Tennessean: “White Supremacists Meet in Nashville.”
It might be “Racists Meet in Nashville,” but “racism” is so passé, such a cliché, so 20th century. Nowadays, when liberals want to work up a really satisfying hate for someone, they have to call him a “white supremacist.”
What will provoke these sinister headlines? The 11th American Renaissance conference, which will be held the first weekend in April—April 5-7. We will be talking about things that interest VDARE.com readers: what immigration is doing to America; nationalist movements in Europe; what kind of country we’d like to leave to our children.
Terrifying stuff, to be sure. But these days you can be called a white supremacist for a lot less than that.
Take the case of Noah Steadman. Last fall, he was a 17-year-old freshman at a school you never heard of: Bard College at Simon’s Rock. It is a tiny place, with not even 400 students, in the Massachusetts Berkshires. Simon’s Rock, as it is called, loves diversity. It even puts up bar graphs on its website bragging that non-white enrollment went from 10 percent to 30 percent in the last 10 years; and that 90 percent of seniors said “diverse” viewpoints were worked into class assignments “very often.” You can imagine what the place must be like.
Young Mr. Steadman wasn’t convinced by all the ballyhoo about diversity. He put up flyers on campus offering a reward to any student who could list five benefits of diversity other than ethnic food and music. Instead of answers, he got on-line threats.
- “Go punch him in the gut.”
- “Do we have a flag pole we can duct tape him to? Preferably naked.”
- “I just consider this f----r fresh meat.”
- “Drop him off in some housing projects somewhere, I’d say kick his ass.”
And, of course, there was the usual name-calling. He was a “white supremacist” who, as one black student explained “would’ve supported slavery.”
Students raged that Mr. Steadman should be expelled—and it actually looked like the school might do that, until his parents threatened to sue .[Bucking the College Diversity Cult Noah Steadman, American Renaissance, December 28, 2012]
So the “white supremacist” stayed at school, much to the fury of just about everyone else.
A group of non-whites issued a statement saying that, since the administration failed to expel this horrible person, it was “essentially legitimizing white supremacist ideologies on this campus.” They then boycotted Simon’s Rock’s annual and very earnest Diversity Day solemnities, claiming that if the school were serious about diversity, every day would be diversity day.
All this amounted to a very edifying answer to Mr. Steadman’s question about the benefits of diversity. I congratulate Simon’s Rock for making the case so clearly.
Mr. Steadman’s question was simple and factual question. But instead of answers, he got threats of violence and was called a “white supremacist.” Students at Simon’s Rock clearly had no answer to his question—but the very elites of American society have no answers either.
If you want to know what’s so great about diversity, or why whites would want to become a minority, or what’s wrong with preferring the company and culture of whites, you don’t get answers. You get screamed at. Being called a “white supremacist” is just one part of a long, moronic
The following is from a speech given by Patrick J. Buchanan during the Richard M. Nixon Centennial celebration in Washington, D.C., on January 9, 2013.
We are here tonight to celebrate the centennial of a statesman, a profile in courage and an extraordinary man we are all proud to have served: the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon.
I see that the blogger Half Sigma says he has given up posting about HBD—“human biodiversity,” otherwise known as H-BD, H-Bd, hbd, h-bd, etc.(He has also moved to a new blog with a rather attractive layout.)There have been some thoughtful reader reactions, notably this one:
I believe that the taboo against HBD will last indefinitely. As the scientific evidence mounts ever more so in favor of HBD, the taboos against speaking about it only seem to grow stronger . . .
Perhaps I had better explain a bit about HBD.
Back in 1999, Steve Sailer launched an invitation-only email discussion group under yahoogroups.com, for the airing of facts and opinions about human biodiversity—which is to say, those (individual) differences between human beings and (statistical) differences between human populations that have biological causes in whole or part.I was an invitee.
Some of the members of the HBD group were heavily-credentialed academics in the human sciences.Others, like me, were literary or journalistic types with an expressed interest in the field.There was a good range of attitudes and opinions in the group, with representatives from, to use the classification I sketched out in Chapter 7 of We Are Doomed , the Religionists, the Culturists, and the Biologians; though Culturists and Religionists tended to drop off from the group—or in the case of View From The Right’s quarrelsome Lawrence Auster, be forced off it—as time went on.Anyway, I learned a lot from our discussions.
(I see the HBD group is still active, though much decayed.I haven’t posted anything myself in ages.Posting activity maxed in the early 2000s, with a peak of 1,638 posts in June of 2002.)
It would be gratifying to report that the reason for the decline in interest is that, whereas 14 years ago HBD was a taboo topic that could only be aired on a private group like that, it is now so commonly accepted that there is no need for such strategies.
It would be gratifying, but wrong—twice wrong, in fact.
For one thing, groups like this have a natural life cycle as members get tired of hearing each other’s voices.Depressingly few of us have a decade-long stream of new and interesting things to say.I count myself a contentedly married man; yet I recall that when we were first wed, my wife and I discussed metaphysics and medieval Chinese poetry, while now our conversation centers on such topics as whether or not I remembered to put out the garbage.
In the second place, HBD is, if anything, even more of a taboo topic now than it was in 1999. I have documented elsewhere the fact that the late 1990s were a brief Golden Age of openness in writing about HBD.Peter Brimelow calls it an “interglacial”—a brief warm period in the middle of an Ice Age.
This is not what we—we, the participants in the HBD discussion group—anticipated.We thought that the publication and widespread discussion of books like The Bell Curve (1994) and The Nurture Assumption (1998) heralded the fact that the entire Ice Age was drawing to a close.
Some of us anticipated even more than that.A brilliant young geneticist on the group was wont to tell us that
When a gang of some eighteen self-styled anarchists, part of the Anti-Racist Action leftist militant network, launched an unprovoked assault with deadly weapons on alleged members of Stormfront, a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/whatever group and wreaked havoc in a Tinley Park IL restaurant last May 19, VDARE.com’s James Fulford pointed out that the controversial British historian David Irving had twice had meetings similarly attacked in the Chicagoland area—but the perpetrators has been let off with slaps on the wrist. With the result that it was happening again. [Tinley Park Attack: Anarcho-Tyranny In America].
Fulford contrasted this with the practice of “exemplary sentencing”—for example, the British Establishment has long congratulated itself that the long jail terms imposed on whites involved in the 1958 Notting Hill Riots crushed working class resistance to Third World immigration. (Similarly, I’ve reported that in the U.S. the Federal government has been savagely attacking blue collar symbolic speech about white dispossession a.k.a. “hate”).
Now, for the first time to my knowledge—and apparently greatly to their own and their lawyers’ surprise—five of the Leftist terrorists have been sentenced to jail:
- Jason Sutherlin, 33, was sentenced to six years in prison (he had a previous felony conviction).
- His brothers Cody, 24, and Dylan, 20, were each sentenced to five years.
- John Tucker, 26, and Alex Stuck, 22, were each sentenced to three-and-a-half years.
All pleaded guilty on January 4 to three counts of Armed Violence in Cook County Circuit Court. All had been charged with 37 felonies, all but one for crimes of violence (multiple counts each of “armed violence, aggravated battery using a deadly weapon causing grave bodily harm, mob action,” etc.), as well as one felony count of “knowingly destroying property in value of $10,000-200,000.”
The five—all white—were part of an Indiana group calling itself the “Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement” (“HARM”). They were caught when a Tinley Park police officer saw that their vehicle matched the radioed description of one that had just fled the scene of the crime. According to a press release from the office of Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez:
A GPS device was later recovered from that car and it showed that the defendants’ car was at the scene of the crime during the time period of the attack.
[Five defendants plead guilty in Ashford House incident, January 04, 2013. VDARE.com links]
Contending that the stop of the vehicle was illegal, attorneys for the terrorists had sought to have all evidence from, and statements made at the time of the stop suppressed. [See "Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird"—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule]
The suppression hearing was due to take place Friday morning
National Data | December Jobs: Hispanics And Immigrants Are The Only Winners. And an Immigration Moratorium Could Have Cut Unemployment In Half.
From a distance i.e. from the Main Stream Media’s viewpoint, the December employment report released Friday [PDF] shows an economy continuing to expand at a gradual pace. The 155,000 jobs added by U.S. employers were enough to keep up with growth in the labor force (although millions are still unemployed or are too discouraged to even look for work).
But the “other” employment survey, of households rather than employers, which also reports immigration and ethnicity, provides troubling details. Household employment crept up by a minuscule 28,000 in December—with the gains redounding exclusively to Hispanics.
In December 2012:
- Total Household survey employment rose 28,000 (+0.02 percent)
- non-Hispanic employment fell by 58,000 (-0.05 percent)
- Hispanic employment rose by 86,000 (+0.39 percent)
Over the past 12 months the number of employed Hispanics grew by 7.2%, or 8.5-times the 0.85% growth reported in non-Hispanic employment.
Put differently, Hispanics are 16% of the labor force but they received 60% of the jobs created in the past year.
Hispanic employment is, of course, a proxy for our primary interest: the displacement of native-born workers by immigrants. Since January 2009—the month Barack Obama took office—data on foreign- and native-born employment has been included in the monthly employment report. Coincidence or not, this means we can piece together the monthly points to track the long-term impact of Mr. Obama’s policies:
The blue line tracks native-born job growth; the pink line immigrant job growth; while the yellow line is the ratio of immigrant to native job growth, which we call the New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI).
NVAWDI rose in December, indicating that immigrants received a larger share of the jobs created that month than in November. In fact, our analysis of Household Survey data finds that immigrants garnered the entire 28,000 rise in December employment while native employment remained unchanged.
Conclusion: immigration explains as much as one-third of December’s rise in Hispanic employment.
Resurgent American worker displacement is also confirmed by comparing
Despite having a black quarterback, Everett Golson—whose performance had to be salvaged several times this year by his white backup, Tommy Rees—Notre Dame starts up to twelve whites at a time and probably has a 70 percent white roster (judging from the sidelines). Alabama starts only four whites (out of 22 starters) and sports a roster that is over 70 percent black.
College football has long been an obsession in America. A new book examines the racial politics behind the game—both on and off the field—and shows how we arrived at the point where Alabama’s storied football team—all white until the 1970s— is now overwhelmingly black.
Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White is a collection of essays by Paul Kersey, who runs the popular Stuff Black People Don’t Like blog and writes frequently for VDARE.com. Kersey is a keen observer of pop culture and often devotes his blog to racial trends in music, movies and sports.
His book starts off with the 1960s, describing how white coaches, fans and administrators reacted to the demands of black players and the black power movement.
Kersey goes into painstaking detail about controversies at Oregon State, the University of Washington, Syracuse and other colleges where white coaches tried to enforce the rules of their teams on black players. Seemingly minor things like asking a black player to shave his moustache or benching a black player in favor of a white athlete would spur protests and race activism—all supported by the (exceptionally liberal) sports media.
At the University of Washington (UW), Jim Owens was a popular coach who led his team to numerous conference titles and Rose Bowl wins throughout the 1960s. UW had long played black players but that was not enough to save Owens from constant harassment from his own black players starting in 1968.
The thirteen blacks on the roster presented Owens with a list of racial demands, such as hiring a black coach, firing a white trainer they didn’t like, and having a four man “black athletic committee” oversee any roster changes made by the coaching staff. Owens, like most of the supposedly authoritarian white coaches profiled in the book, meekly gave in to the black power demands. A Sports Illustrated article from 1969 notes,
“Owens lives in a glass house. His every move is catalogued. The University’s Student Athletic Committee grills him on student seating and other procedural matters and on the athletic department’s requests for funds. Owens is questioned about black athletes, about discrimination, about jobs.”
[Shave Off That Thing! By John Underwood, September 1, 1969]
Only one coach didn’t give in so easily. The University of Wyoming (of all places) used to recruit black players from the South. During the 1969 season, a group of black Wyoming players wanted to wear armbands during their game with Brigham Young University (BYU) to protest the Mormon Church’s racial theories. Coach Lloyd Eaton—known as a stern disciplinarian— denied this request and simply threw the fourteen disgruntled blacks off the team.
In the Southeastern Conference (SEC) many of the top schools such as Georgia, Louisiana State (LSU), Arkansas and Auburn remained all-white until the early 1970s. This was a sore point for black “civil rights” leaders, since these all white teams from Dixie routinely defeated integrated sides with black athletes.
Of course, these teams paid a price for fielding all-white rosters. The Ole Miss team of 1962 and the Alabama team of 1966 went undefeated yet were not named national champions due to the biases of the sports reporters of the day, who vote for the national champions.
The complexion of the SEC started to change in the 1970s. By the 1980s, teams were often half white and half black.
Main Stream Media sports reporters make a big deal out of a 1970 game between all-white Alabama and an integrated Southern California (USC) team. USC crushed Alabama which purportedly made legendary Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant decide to recruit black players.
But Kersey points out that the 1970 Alabama team was in a down year anyway. The very next year Alabama—with only two blacks on the team—defeated the same integrated USC team.
Nevertheless, the idea that blacks are superior athletes is
Peter Brimelow writes: Sunday January 6th is The Feast of Epiphany, which means tonight or tomorrow night (there’s a dispute) is Twelfth night—traditionally, the end of Christmas. We are hedging our bets by running Tom Piatak’s wrap-up survey of the War Against Christmas tonight and announcing the winner of our annual War Against Christmas competition tomorrow. For Tom’s earlier coverage of the Kristmaskampf, see here and here etc.
On December 6, 2012, the feast of St. Nicholas, I had the good fortune to give a speech on the War on Christmas to an intelligent and engaging audience at the Rockford Institute, publishers of Chronicles Magazine. It was a distillation of what I have written over the past decade on what VDARE.com calls the Kristmaskampf—the drive to strip our culture of references to Christmas. [The War On Christmas | Audio]
I was interviewed at length by Matt Mershon [email him], an earnest reporter for the Rockford FOX affiliate. His report gave a fair summary of my speech, but also contained a twist in War on Christmas Denial I had not encountered before. He used an interview with the organizer of Rockford’s “Festival of Lights”, Joe Marino,[Email him] to suggest to viewers that I was the one waging an unwanted war—not the people who have managed to get displays of Christmas decorations across the country renamed such things as the “Festival of Lights:”
"Talk to the kids that drive through here with their parents and when they see the lights and they get to talk to Santa Claus," remarks Marino. "Talk to them about a 'War on Christmas.' You'll get a pretty different attitude”.... Marino says, although he may prefer to be wished a 'Merry Christmas', he says Christmastime is a time to celebrate and not wage a "war".
Of course, in Main Stream Media outlets far more august than FOX affiliates, the 2012 consensus was overwhelming that those of us resisting the War on Christmas were bad, 1) because we were causing needless strife by imagining this non-existent War; and that anyway 2) the suppression of Christmas is good because that is what “diversity” and “inclusion” require.
Newsweek’s David Sessions led the charge, declaring that “The War on Christmas is Over” and sneering at Bill O’Reilly for being “virtually the last person to continue to fight.” Sessions also wrote that
some Americans say that anger over the perceived purging of Christmas from society was simply absorbed into the right’s more general resentment toward the forces of multicultural inclusion.
Similarly, the Washington Post ran an op-ed piece by Herb Silverman, [Email him] founder of the Secular Coalition for America, arguing first that the War on Christmas was “manufactured,” and then that “Atheists . . . use this seasonal opportunity to join the war by supporting diversity” and that those resisting the War on Christmas are waging a “war against religious diversity.”
Silverman also argued that “Christmas has its origins in the winter solstice festivals that most ancient civilizations observed” and that, since Puritans in both England and America banned Christmas, “Christians initiated the first war on Christmas.”
The New York Times also invoked the Puritans in a rare appeal to tradition: an an op-ed by Rachel Schnepper [email her]arguing that the Puritans were right to conclude that “Christmas represented nothing more
Before Christmas, George Soros’s Media Matters operation had an attack on The O’Reilly Factor’s Bill O’Reilly, constantly denounced by War On Christmas Deniers as the point man in the Khristmaskampf resistance:
O'Reilly Again Covered The "War On Christmas" More Than Three Times As Much As Actual Conflicts In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, And Gaza.
By Ben Dimiero, Matt Gertz, & Rob Savillo, December 19, 2012
From December 1 through 18, The O'Reilly Factor spent more than 55 minutes on the "War on Christmas" but only about 17 minutes covering military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Gaza.[Mor
MediaMatters included this helpful graphic, which gives you an idea of the amount of coverage given to the War On Christmas by O’Reilly:
Of course, this is not actually that much. The O’Reilly Factor broadcast a total of 720 minutes—an hour every weekday—over that period. And, while 55 minutes of airtime on Fox Network would be a lot if you had to buy it as ads, it’s not “flooding the zone”.
In a recent assault on the intellectual Left, Jonah Goldberg complained about “the dreck” that is circulating in our culture courtesy of anti-American Leftist historians. [The Stone Truth: Left-Wingers Are Boring, National Review, December 7, 2012]
Jonah is especially exercised by Oliver Stone and his co-author, American University historian Peter Kuznick, who have published a “miasmic 700-plus-page tome”, called The Untold History of the United States Goldberg, whom we are led to assume is a maven on American history, the way he is on “liberal fascism,” is exasperated by how the Left, which he deems “boring,” dares to recycle the same stuff again and again as “new, fresh, and courageous.” He criticizes not so much the “substance” of Stone’s book but “the manufactured rebelliousness, the kitschy nostalgic play-acting of the thing.” He cries out against the “kitsch of leftism” and the “hackneyed left-wingery” which passes for scholarship on American campuses.
Far be it from me, as a forty-year veteran of college teaching, to deny Jonah’s charges about those boring leftists who micromanage American campuses and academic publications.
Indeed, the idiocies of this breed become exponentially more intolerable the farther you descend into the academic cesspool. Those in charge of our less-esteemed colleges have begun to emit the same kind of Cultural Marxism that now dominates the better schools, but in a garbled fashion two generations later.
But I see two problems with Jonah’s screed.
Moreover, I enjoy watching his intricately-contrived movies more than I do reading Jonah and his buds at NR. Even without seeing their columns, I could easily
[VDARE.com note: His what? Helpful definition of vade mecum here).
We all know the feeling.
And those of us in the tiny minority who keep up with race-realist and patriotic immigration reform websites know the feeling particularly well. So comprehensive is the Main Stream Media [MSM] blackout that policies we have been patiently promoting for years, facts we have long since uncovered, ideas we have worn so threadbare with discussion that we can no longer be much bothered with them, strike too many unreflective ordinary Americans as: astonishing! Radical!! Impossible!!!! Outrageous!!!!!!!! (I have been reading Tom Wolfe.)
Contrariwise, when we engage in discussion on these topics with that Ordinary American, we know with dreary certitude the slogans we shall hear:
Nation Of Immigrants! Culture of poverty! Fix the schools! Etc.
This is what the Ordinary American has heard from the MSM and not bothered to reflect upon. From Fox News or MSNBC, the New York Times or Weekly Standard, it makes very little difference—any more than it makes a difference which party’s politician he most recently heard them from. Seven years ago, a Republican Administration was vowing to “reform our immigration system” (by which it meant amnesty). Now a Democratic Administration is vowing the same thing, in well-nigh the same words.
We live in a one-party state, adrift on an ocean of clichés.
Readers often ask me how to counter the commonest points that opponents make.
There is a misconception there: I am a retired and uncourtly scholar with only meager argumentative skills and a tendency—fatal to success in verbal combat—to see the other guy’s point of view.
A couple of years ago I was invited on The View to discuss something or other. The opportunity for a moment’s fame tugged at me briefly; then I realized what easy meat I would be. I all too clearly saw myself ineffectually mumbling “Well, yes, you may have a point, but...” to some snarling Gyno-American gargoyle who wouldn’t know a database from a dildo. I politely declined the invitation.
But in arenas less fevered than daytime-TV screech-fests, the clichés are, in fact, easy to refute. Here are counters for the half-dozen commonest. I have kept the wordage low enough that you can print them up on a two-sided sheet to laminate and carry round with you as a vade mecum.
It’s not race, it’s poverty. (By far the most common assertion when black-white gaps in school achievement or criminality are discussed. A third to a half of all race-denial arguments are some version of this. Vast multi-billion-dollar federal programs are premised on it.)
Of our 40 million self-identifying blacks, 25 percent are on food stamps; of our 268 million self-identifying whites-plus-Hispanics-plus-Asians-plus-Amerinds, nine percent are. Put it another way, blacks “commit poverty” at 2.8 times the rate of non-blacks, if we take food-stamp usage as the proxy and ignore the one-in-seven Americans who write “human” or “Klingon” in the census race box.
So if blacks commit crimes at 2.8 times the rate of non-blacks, then crime-wise it could indeed be that “it’s not race, it’s poverty.” But if the multiplier is much different, then the assertion is false.
Guess what? The multiplier is way different, depending on the crime. For homicide it’s about seven; for robbery, eight and a half. Even for white-collar crimes like fraud and bribery, it’s in the four-to-five zone. The statistics are easy to find.
And empiricism aside, pure logic tells us that if the poor are more characteristically X (criminal, low-achieving, addicted, whatever) than the non-poor, three possibilities are in play:
(1) Poverty causes X;
(2) X causes poverty;
(3) Some underlying factor causes both poverty and X.
For crime I’d guess all three are at work, weighted about 10-20-70, with feedback loops from one to another. (Try getting a job when you have a prison record).
It’s not race, it’s culture. Notwithstanding that it’s one of the phrases most commonly heard from the inattentive, this is in fact empty of meaning—what logicians call a tautology, like “All bachelors are single.”
“Culture” in the properly anthropological sense, means “the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.” So if you say: “This group characteristically behaves and thinks like this because of their culture,” you are saying “they behave and think like this because this is how they behave and think.”
This invoking of culture as an “explanation” of culture is a bastard child of some genuine anthropology. The sire of the bastard seems to have been Alfred Kroeber, fl. 1900-1950. Prior to Kroeber’s time—and indeed in his own early writings—what we nowadays call “culture” in this context was called “history.”
Fine, OK: then it’s not race, it’s history. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. If there’s a big, long migration in your group’s history, then geography comes into play, affecting subsequent history—more feedback loops. So it’s history and geography.
And then, if the environment in which your group lives—geographical, climatic, zoological, nutritional, or social—undergoes some big change, the group’s genetic profile may be affected. But then it is race, because that’s what race is: the genetic profile of a mostly-inbreeding group.
One of the greatest advances in our understanding this past few years is that group genetic change can happen more quickly than was previously thought. Dmitry Belyaev bred the wildness out of Siberian foxes in just ten years.
That’s anecdotal. (Said in rebuttal when you mention some particular anti-white outrage by illegal aliens or other malefactors.)
Oh, you don’t like anecdotal? Fine, let’s talk statistical, then. Which database would you prefer to use: NCVS, Uniform Crime Reports, Supplementary Homicide...? I’m pretty familiar with them all, as I’m sure you are…
The guy who shot up a school just recently was white. Anecdotal!
OK, but serial killers and spree killers are predominantly white. Americans are predominantly white, so if all else were equal, this is what you’d expect.
But all things aren’t equal. Justin Cottrell’s book Rise of the Black Serial Killer does a proper statistical analysis. Conclusion: Per capita, there are at least twice as many black as nonblack serial killers. VDARE.com has reported extensively on the topic: here, here, here...
The only people with any right to be in this country are the Native Americans. If true, this suggests two possible courses of action: