The desire for race war is a result of confusion

Recently Jim had an article in which he discusses the so-called day of the rope. The day of the rope (and the related helicopter rides) is a commonly referenced trope among at least some parts of the alt-right. It is my humble opinion that most of this is hyperbole used primarily for shock and awe. Otherwise known as lolz. In other words, it probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously and I think most people realize this. Or hope so.

However, it may be that some people at least take this as a serious and proper policy in the event that power is seized by reactionary groups. The left does, of course, because it suits their narrative. However, I could also imagine particularly disenfranchised and confused individuals taking this hyperbole to heart and acting rashly on their own accord. It is towards this avoidable potentiality which this post is addressed.

As Jim points out, many people in support of the cathedral today are exactly equivalent to Havel’s green grocer. In other words, there are many people who ape the common tropes of the cathedral because if they don’t they may lose their often apolitical jobs and their kids will starve. These people are in the completely unenviable position where they are forced to live a lie while knowing in their heart they would be much happier without it. I would argue that a true majority, at least, of those outwardly espousing progressivism to co-workers and other personally known acquaintances fall into this category for one reason or another. It is not right or proper to hate a man simply because he wants to live his life in peace and/or wants to maintain good conditions for his family. This is a reasonable desire we all share. He really has very little choice in the matter and this personally rational decision under current circumstances in no way warrants punishment at the end of of a rope or a ride in a helicopter. Give him the opportunity to be free and he will gladly call you brother.

A great deal of the anger felt on the reactionary right is related to race. And for good reason. It is clear that large portions of some populations, especially blacks, are basically out of control. The broader community is doing a pretty good job pointing this out and convincing people that something must be done about it. The rope meme, for better or worse, is often used in the context. Honestly, though, I think some may not realize that greatly reducing “petty” crime, for lack of a better term, is not actually all that difficult when you have the proper will, motivation, and institutions. Even extremely flawed cathedral institutions can successfully solve, or at least drastically reduce, this issue given the right motivation. Criminality by individuals is certainly an issue, but it is one that is eminently addressable without the need to resort to mass public executions.

The real issue with crime by problematic populations over the last few years has far more to do with motivations and reactions of institutions than it has to do with the technical feasibility of curtailing crimes by individuals. Even though law enforcement institutions are on the front lines, it is difficult to pass very much blame onto them with the exception of some of their leadership. Far more important to the public perception of the problem, which increases it like throwing gasoline on a fire, are the actions of NGOs, academia, and the media. All of which regularly and consistently encouraged more chaos among simplistic proles through their publications and coverage.

The unifying feature of these organizations is that in most cases it is possible for a small number of individuals to direct the policies and narrative of them. In the case of NGOs like the SPLC and Black Lives Matter, this control is exerted by donors:

The documents further confirm that the Open Society [A George Soros org] last year approved $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.”

In the case of the media it is a small number of owners. In the case of academia it is less obvious how this control structure works, but clearly involves centralized federal funding, hiring ideologically and enforcing ideological norms on possibly neutral professors.

It is clear to me that these groups who clearly have a limited number of leaders and funders are intentionally exacerbating the fundamental problem of individual cases of black crime to exceptional levels above and beyond all reason. This is obvious in the case of getting blacks riled up to go out and riot, but I think it is less obvious that they may also desire to some degree the militant reaction of the white population. In other words, I am starting to wonder if these actions are some sort of divide and conquer initiative.

It is quite possible that this is a case of virtue signalling gone awry and at the lower levels and in academia this is almost certainly a large factor. However, it is clear that there are other motives at higher levels. From the leaked emails at the Soros foundation:

In particular, recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform.

It seems to me that the apparent over-arching goal of the last several years of black riots was to get blacks, whites and everyone else so bothered by black crime/black deaths to consent to major reforms in law enforcement for opposite reasons. Typically the way any such reforms have been handled in the past has been to create federal legislation and mandates that require specific actions for local or state entities to qualify for federal money. Usually this money is substantial and virtually no local agency, law enforcement or otherwise, can say no. Since the feds are getting the money from local taxpayers then redistributing it, the setup can directly hinder local self-funding. Refusing the federal policies basically equates to instituting a double tax on the locals because the federal income tax just disappears and more tax must be taken locally. It is a double bind and onerously expensive, thus almost never tried. It is a very sneaky way to exert centralized control in a way technically within the limits of the constitution, though obviously in complete opposition to the spirit. Proving, perhaps, the worthlessness of the document.

Thus, the handling of the very real issue of minority crime appears to be a distraction with ulterior motives at its current level of hysteria. Specifically a desired result of it is some sort of federalization of police departments. Getting wrapped up in the distraction can and will cause confusion for everyone involved and could potentially result in a much more Orwellian structure than needed to address the underlying problems. People who want a day of the rope, or a race war, have allowed themselves to be caught up in this ploy and need to reflect on more sensible positions than any which require completely unnecessary mass executions.

In the early days of my subreddit, I created a guideline to help with this unfortunate tendency for drastic reactionary anger and termed it biotemperance. I believe it is a helpful concept to re-review considering the events which have happened since.

There has recently been some confusion about how discussions about different ethnic groups can be conducted in this subreddit. Frank and open discussion on any and all ethnicities is and will be tolerated. Period.

However, there is a common concept or principle in the manosphere that is equally applicable to this situation (slightly modified) which I will refer to as biotemperance. In the context of game and relationships there is a disparity between what men tend to want in terms of love and relationships and what women are able to provide. (read this, then this, then this for more detail) Taking the red pill involves the understanding and acceptance that due to biological instincts women act in certain consistent ways which often lead to frustration in men. By understanding the biological imperatives of women, a man can work within that framework to then create more fulfilling relationships. Men gain an understanding and acceptance of biological determinism in mating with the intent of improving the quality of his life and that of the woman or women he is with. Women can’t be blamed or hated for having the instincts that they do because the man would never, ever be able to form fulfilling relationships with that kind of baggage. Moreover, natural selection has endowed women with these instincts for a reason: it improves her odds of being successful in reproduction. Therefore not only is it necessary to not hold onto hate or blame from a quality of life perspective, it is also irrational in the context of evolution.

In the general case, a good definition of biotemperance:

biotemperanceis when the pursuit of knowledge of biological differences between human groups is guided by a moderate temperament and desire for benevolent outcomes for both the pursuer and group under consideration.

I do not suggest that one group should make sacrifices for the sake of another (see Atlas Shrugged for more details).

I feel the concept is important for the growth of this sub. Western culture is irrationally afraid of HBD as part of the aftermath of World War II. Racial conflict and mass murder figured greatly into all the theatres of that war. After it was over, it is understandable that intellectuals would try to craft the culture in such a way as to prevent such things from happening again. Preventing genocide is a desirable goal. Unfortunately, they resorted to a fiction of complete egalitarianism which, being untrue, is also very unstable. To quote Anthony Edwards

It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.

Biotemperance, if genuinely accepted by neoreaction, should allay the neurotic fears many people have that even talking about HBD is one step away from genocide. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction of fascism when they read this sub, I want to do whatever I can to get rid of that impression.

If and when the egalitarian bubble pops, and neoreaction grows significantly, biotemperance should ensure that whatever realistic steps are taken to improve order in society do so in a humane way. (I am not using the liberal definition. For example, it would have been far more humane for Belgium to have maintained control over the Congo so it could have imposed order. Imposing order through force by colonial powers would have clearly been more humane when compared with the suffering, deaths, rapes and other atrocities since the country became “independent”.)

Biotemperance will be treated as a guideline or suggestion and not a rule. It is not mandatory that you agree with it. You should feel free to disagree with the concept and perhaps post a better alternative if you have one. In terms of moderation, biotemperance will be my main guide for evaluating whether posts are trolls or, less likely, shills. If experience of /r/theredpill is any indication, there are people who would like to create havoc here because they strongly disagree with the DE. One of the tactics employed is to post extreme crazy ideas in order to discredit the overall sub to outsiders. This problem hasn’t happened yet, but if the sub grows it will likely be something that needs to be addressed. If a post strongly deviates from biotemperance (IE advocating genocide) it would be removed. However, I only anticipate applying this in very extreme and obvious cases.

Share Button

A particularly heinous crime, and how you can avoid a similar fate

Being a good Samaritan only makes sense in high trust societies. And the only societies capable of supporting that high level of trust are those composed primarily of ethnic Europeans. Asians may have this to some degree as well, although I don’t think they reach a level anywhere close to Europeans with the Japanese being a probable exception. What happens when a high-trust individual comes into contact with people who just shouldn’t be trusted?

There was a recent news report about two “teens” in North Carolina who got their vehicle stuck in ditch. A good Samaritan stopped to help them get it out. After the vehicle was extricated from the ditch, the “teens” proceeded to murder and rob him. This level of disgusting behavior is difficult to comprehend for the average European. It seems so… foreign to harm someone who went out of their way to help you.

As you have probably guessed, the “teens” were black males. Black males are notoriously prone to violent crime. 6-7% of the population in the US is composed of black males, yet they make up 50% or more of the perpetrators of violent crime, depending on the crime. In 85% of inter-racial violence between whites and blacks, the black is the aggressor. You can see a lot more details in the previous link. I also recommend this interview/discussion between Colin Flaherty (see also) and Stephen Molyneux.

Not every black person is a violent criminal and I am not trying to claim that. However, a much larger percentage of the black population is composed of violent criminals than any other racial group. So how should a rational person respond to this undeniable fact? I plan to have a more in depth post about stereotypes and statistical reasoning later, and will include a relevant excerpt from my book on stereotypes, but for now it will suffice to say that using stereotypes about blacks to avoid dangerous situations is justifiable. If you avoid a black stranger who happens to be decent and nice, there are no negative consequences of significance. If you give a black stranger the benefit of the doubt and are wrong you could be looking at a beating, a raping, a mugging or even death. Even if only 5-10% of blacks would do something like this, it really makes no sense to take the risk. Why chance it when there is no or very little benefit?

M&M

Avoiding even small risks is perfectly rational when there is no possible pay off. Avoiding relatively big risks like that of black crime is thus a no-brainer. Perhaps the best and most concise elaboration of this sentiment was in John Derbyshire’s The talk: the non-black version. In fact, Derbyshire even specifically advises against being the good Samaritan for blacks with vehicle issues on the side of the highway. Had the victim read and followed Derbyshire’s sensible advice, he would still be alive today:

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

In order to have nice things like good Samaritans a normative commons must be created and maintained:

In a normative commons, each person who forgoes the opportunity of breaking the norm, then pays the cost of maintaining the norms. So, when one lives in a White area, common areas such as shops (markets) will likely be open for browsing, because the norm of behavior is to not steal. Each time a White goes into a store and does not steal, he pays the opportunity cost, equal to the value of the items not stolen. By paying this cost, the norm of keeping shopping areas open to browsing is maintained. Areas with large numbers of Blacks experience increased incidence of crime. In these areas, the risk to shop owners or other providers to allow Blacks free access exceeds the benefits of open browsing (with a main benefit being increased economic velocity). Thus you see convenience stores with no common area, that only sell what can be passed through a bullet-proof teller window. The commons has been destroyed.

Or perhaps someone will follow Blacks through a store to make sure they do not steal, while allowing Whites to browse freely, in this case the normative commons is extended to White co-ethnics, but not to Black co-ethnics. The Whites are the beneficiaries of this normative commons, because they (as a group) pay the opportunity cost of maintaining it…

Privilege is said to be unearned (though I doubt any form of privilege is really unearned). White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons. To insist that the privileges accorded to Whites (who maintain the normative commons), be accorded to ethic groups who do not pay the cost of maintaining the commons is futile: market forces will ensure that the privilege is only accorded to those who pay for it. Call it racist if you want. It is simply the market at work.

If you want your society to have people willing to stop and help complete strangers, you have to forego killing them after they help you. I can’t believe this actually has to be explained, but real life events indicate that it does. At least for blacks and some other minorities. Actually, it is probably more the result of a biological tendency and no amount of explaining is likely to ever work. Only segregation or very intense, no-nonsense policing of problematic minorities could address this. The only long-term solution for a tendency for violent crime is regular executions for violent or otherwise egregious crime; although sterilizations could be considered equivalent. Over several generations this eugenic pressure could greatly reduce the frequency of genes leading to violent crime in any given population.

Ironically, avoiding blacks because of their tendency for violence is not just a sane policy for whites (and Asians, mestizos, Indians or anyone else), it is also a prudent policy for blacks themselves when dealing with other blacks they do not personally know and trust. You see, the good Samaritan in the above case was HIMSELF black. This was no instance of racial animus. It was purely the natural behavior of barely-human animals against one of their own co-ethnics. 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. It turns outs the claim that the “The talk”  is not for blacks is actually quite the misnomer. No group could get more day to day use out of that advice than blacks themselves.

Garrett Chadwick

Garrett Chadwick

It also explains why blacks and (some) other minorities are always in such a rush to settle in majority white areas: justified fear of their own co-ethnics (that and taking advantage of white created social norms). Never mind that whites don’t want and shouldn’t have to deal with the dysfunction of other groups. Never mind that the normative commons whites created are quickly destroyed as an area stops being overwhelmingly white because other groups refuse to pay the opportunity costs necessary to maintain them. The immigration mindset is essentially a slash and burn technique: Move to a white area with high trust, strong co-operation and take advantage of the situation. Individual acts of defection can provide real rewards and largely go unnoticed while the population of defectors is small. Unfortunately, every member of the out-group wants a piece of the action and quickly overwhelm the culture. The commons are destroyed, whites try to literally or at least de facto escape parasites on their cultural institutions, then the process begins all over again with a new white area being invaded. This will continue until it is forcefully stopped, or there is nothing left to destroy.

Blacks may implicitly already understand that their co-ethnics aren’t as trustworthy as whites:

It is common knowledge that Black cab drivers will often drive past Blacks and pick up White passengers instead. This White privilege is accrued to the White ethnic group because the members of the group tend to forgo the opportunity to rob the Black cabbie. Black cabbies understand this and accord the privilege to the White ethnics who will maintain the normative commons. Blacks could earn this privilege by paying for it through maintaining the normative commons. Unfortunately for them, enough of them create the tragedy of the commons for their own co-ethnics by abusing their privilege and not forgoing the opportunity cost.

Now I have read the statistics, I have seen the many news reports (the last two years have been especially enlightening), and I have read or heard lots of anecdotes by other people. However, I have also experienced issues with aggressive and volatile blacks personally, and those experiences are easily the most memorable and substantial in my forming of opinions on this topic. There is nothing like a real risk of being the victim of a group attack by blacks to make a person see things more clearly. Years of progressive propaganda can be washed away in mere seconds, or for 10s of minutes if you are unlucky. Assuming you survive that is. The following are three personal examples copied from a comment I have made previously:

1) In the first instance, I was at University after graduation. I had three friends over celebrating the end of classes for the semester. It was a large party school and I was in a college apartment complex known for throwing parties. Though of course, there were only four of us and I wasn’t throwing a party. We had some music playing and my neighbors thought it was too loud. Hypocritically, they were always making huge amounts of noise themselves the entire year. They first started stomping on the floor, I turned down the music a little, but that wasn’t enough. 5 big black guys then came down and started beating on my door with a baseball bat. We had to call the police who I think ended up arresting one for an outstanding warrant. This sort of behavior was amazing to me. This is a college apartment complex in a party town. Some noise is to be expected at times. With only the 4 of us, we couldn’t have been making that much noise. They had never shown any consideration towards their neighbors about their noise level for the entire year they lived above me. One night on which I had an important test the next day, their washing machine broke and they scrapped the floor with a wet vac from 1-3am. I was super pissed, but I didn’t beat their door with a baseball bat.

2) In another instance I was with my roommate and we were going to the grocery store in his truck. He pulled into a parking spot and all of a sudden a black guy who was around a corner pulls behind us. Being around a corner before this, he was clearly not in a position to own the spot when my roommate pulled in. He got out and attempted to instigate a fight (first with my roommate who was a quiet guy, then me when I stepped in and told him he was out of line). He eventually left after I threatened to call the police.

3) I used to ride my bike and take the train to work. On the train, there is a slot for bikes on some of the cars. However, there is a seat under the rack which makes it unusable when someone is sitting in it. On previous occasions, I was told by police officers (at least twice) that I needed to use the bike rack and not use the aisle. If someone is sitting there I need to ask them to move to a different seat if any are available (there were plenty of other seats on this occasion, the train was maybe 50% occupied). Well, it happened to be this black girl and her girlfriend. I politely asked her to move and she did move to a seat about 2 feet distant (literally, it was hardly a move) but with a great deal of attitude. I explained that the police told me I have to do that. Undeterred, she started yelling/chimping out and wouldn’t stop for about 20 minutes. At first (2 minutes) I tried to engage reason, but when that failed (of course) I just ignored her. Most people would eventually give up when their “opponent” stopped participating. Not her. She kept yelling and yelling and talking shit. She wanted to instigate a fight (probably hoping that her “cousins” on the train would gang attack me if something actually happened). The conductor eventually called the police and they took us off at the next stop (thank god). I explained my story and they let me go. I don’t know what happened to the girl. I noped right out of there, but they were detained at least somewhat longer than I was. I am sure she is using that as an example of “white privilege” while conveniently ignoring her completely unjustified and egregiously obnoxious behavior.

And just to add to that, an acquaintance was recently assaulted by a black man while pumping gas for his vehicle. His great offense was mistakenly thinking the yelling and belligerent black was trying to talk to him, and thus asking him what he wanted. Fortunately, the black guy, who was probably on some drug, was pulled away by his friend before he landed more than one punch.  There is a reason race relations are deteriorating rapidly and it isn’t being caused by whitey.

Share Button

Differences in complex social behaviors can have purely genetic causes even within the same species

An article came out about cooperation between an African tribe and a type of bird called the honeyguide. The bird spots bee hives and guides the human to it, the human knocks it down, breaks it open and shares it with the bird. The tribesman and birds communicate via a series of chirps and calls. For example, there is one special call a tribesman can use to signal to a bird that he would like to look for honey. There is another special call the honeyguide can use to get the attention of a tribesmen when they have a hive they would like cracked open. Now, in the case of the tribesman, it is possible to culturally transmit the details of the various calls down the generations. The honeyguides, however, are very much like the cuckoo which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. This means it isn’t possible for direct cultural transmission of the calls and likely indicates that in the case of the birds, the transmission of call knowledge is purely genetic. To quote the popular mechanics article:

There’s still some mystery as to how exactly young honeyguides learn to recognize the Yao tribesmen’s calls. Like the European cuckoo, honeyguides are nest parasites. Adults will surreptitiously lay their eggs in other bird’s nests and those birds raise the young honeyguides. This pattern rules out the possibility that the honeyguides are learning how to interact with humans through parental training.

Bolding was mine. While I will agree that exactly how this is done is unknown, mystery is a bit too strong of a word. There are really only two possible explanations. Either they are learning it from other honeyguides a few years older, or it is being genetically transmitted. Even if certain aspects of the behavior, like what specific type of call, is being learned from peers, the overall behavior has to have a strong genetic component. Otherwise why aren’t the other birds in the area copying the honeyguides? It would be a very easy source of food.

This isn’t the first time that a complex behavior was observed which really could have no other explanation than genetic. Most notably in Darwin’s origin of species. In it he described the tumbler pigeon which had the following complex behavior:

The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch; and the common tumbler has the singular inherited habit of flying at a great height in a compact flock, and tumbling in the air head over heels.

No other pigeon showed this behavior (i.e., it was singular). And pigeon breeders kept different varieties close together so if it could be learned it probably would have. There is really no other choice but to conclude that the tumbling behavior was and is genetic. The tumbler pigeon was undoubtedly the same species as the other domesticated species. It could breed with and produce viable offspring with those other varieties, yet small and particular genetic differences were more than enough to generate wildly unique behavior. If this genetic determination of complex behavior via only a very small fraction of the genome is possible in pigeons, it is also possible in humans. The outrageously greater violent criminal activity in Blacks, for example.

Share Button

A response to Duerte Harry

Recently Jim wrote about the future president of the Philippines, affectionately known as Duerte Harry because of a slight similarity of his last name to the first name in the movie dirty harry as well as his similar approach to crime as the title character. Namely that the only good crook is a dead one. Duerte Harry is heavily criticized by progressives enthralled to anarcho-tyranny because as Mayor of Davao he wasted no time with criminals, he just killed them.

As Mayor of Davao, [Duerte] has been accused of running vigilante death squads that have killed more than 1,000 people.

On the other hand, average law-abiding people obviously love him because his method is undeniably (and unsurprisingly) effective. A criminal can’t commit crimes when they are six feet under. Would-be criminals start to have enough fear to think twice. Therefore, once dangerous neighborhoods become safe for people of moderate means because everyone committing crimes is dead or in hiding, average people become happy. That kind of competent governance has led Duerte Harry to a landslide victory in the race for the presidency of the Philippines.

During his campaign he promised to end crime in the ENTIRE country within six months. If it were anyone else I would be skeptical, but he has a successful track record and enough right-wing death squads that he just might make this a reality. Here is a rundown of his campaign:

Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to end crime in his first six months in office through mass executions of convicts and eliminating police corruption… While on the campaign trail, the elderly politician enraged critics and hypnotized fans with promises to ignore human rights laws and solve crime by killing tens of thousands of convicts.

I must admit I am impressed. Part of his platform was willfully ignoring (progressive) human rights laws and a plurality of the country loved him for it. Can’t say I am all that surprised. If you have ever been in a bar that is mostly blue collar and talk about some crime or another, almost everyone will say that the S.O.B. who did it should just be killed and be done with it. This is probably true all over the world. If a person lives somewhere with a high crime rate especially, the idea of getting even with the thug who victimized them is probably high on their wish list. With a president like Duerte Harry, the dream just may come true. If the president kills tons of criminals, he just might get that specific criminal you would like to see get his karmic reward.

The only people who don’t think this way are typically rich liberals who can afford to isolate themselves from the trash. Rampant crime doesn’t bother them as much since they don’t have to live through it, and getting that smug feeling of self-righteousness is more important to them than the well-being of decent people unable to separate geographically from the trash.

Anyway, I would like to point out that Duerte Harry’s plan has plenty of advantages beyond just the immediate lowering of the crime rate. It is actually a profoundly eugenic policy. The personality that makes for a risk-taking criminal also often generates lust in many women. A criminal has high time preference and given his natural seductive talents, is likely to father multiple children by multiple women. And to become scarce when it is time to actually raise them. Do all criminals have this ability? Probably not, but criminals probably have a higher proportion of this ability than the average of the general population. By killing a criminal, you prevent him from reproducing ever again. You actually prevent any number of criminals from ever being born. Fantastic. You also can reduce the rate of single motherhood by removing bad choices from her vicinity, and reducing single motherhood has all sorts of positive benefits itself. Killing violent criminals is a likely reason why the west is (or was) relatively more civilized than other places. Our ancestors really liked their executions.

There is one last thing I would like to note about Jim’s post, and that is to confirm his appraisal of Duerte’s death squads compared to Western police forces. Basically he found that he felt perfectly safe around the death squads because they were highly disciplined and focused on actual criminals. In the West, on the other hand, decent, law-abiding citizens regularly find themselves fearful or wary of police even when they are quite certain they are doing nothing wrong. I have felt this way plenty of times and regularly avoid officers just in case they decide to harass me for the hell of it. I feel this way because it has happened on plenty of occasions. Especially in college, but after that as well.

For example, if you have a beer or two you have to think twice about walking out of your door. And I am not defending going out completely sloshed, I mean only a beer or two. A police officer is not unlikely to slap you with a 3-400 dollar fine even when you are just trying to go about your business. I remember one time in college I was going to a party and had not drank anything. At least not yet, and neither had my friends that were with me. As soon as I arrived officers quickly ran up to us gave all my friends and I tickets for drinking. We hadn’t had a single beer. They were in it merely to harass, annoy, and maybe get some easy income for the city. They were apparently upset that the people already in the house wouldn’t let them in, so they took it out on us. The whole situation was crap. Meanwhile, on the other side of the city you have a (minority) area overloaded with violent crime and hard drug use that never seemed to get any better . For some reason the police couldn’t do anything about that (anarchy), but they had plenty of time to pick on college students (tyranny). We were easy targets.

After college I spent about 2 years living, working, and traveling in south east Asia. I never once felt the same sort of dread at seeing a police officer in any of those countries. The simple matter was they weren’t going to bother you unless you were actually visibly doing something wrong, and they were very consistent about that. There is only one example of an exception to this rule and that is that sometimes you could get your scooter pulled over and they would check it for drugs, or they might come into a bar and check it for drugs. In the whole time I was there I only saw this happen twice, so about once per year, and only in extremely touristy areas. Outside of those areas it was unheard of and I never saw anyone harassed by police undeservedly. In fact, the only time I saw the police in action was when a homeless man set a truck on fire and he obviously had it coming. I personally never once had trouble with the police, even if I saw other people being checked.

Now, I won’t skip over the important specific example, because it was messed up, but you have to make a comparison to what might happen in the states under similar circumstances. However, I am not going to get too into the details. And the story is second-hand anyway since I wasn’t immediately around when it happened. Some people I had met and was hanging out with generally, if not at this exact moment, got arrested for smoking marijuana. The police forced them each to pay somewhere between 200-500 USD in bribes to get out of the ticket. One guy got really mouthy and they made him pay the bribe, then picked him up the next day and made him pay it twice. That ended his trip and he had to go back to his country of origin.

So they made them pay bribes, which is corruption and sucks right? Well, ya it does, but what would have happened if you were arrested in the US?  My brother has been arrested for smoking pot several times and I watched him go through all of the following types of BS at one point or another until he finally wizened up and quit. The fine you would pay would easily be 300-500 or more (sometimes they add a yearly payment on top of the initial fine that lasts several years), you would have to do between 20 and 100 hours or more of community service, you probably would have had to pay for some “drugs er bad M’kay” class which would waste a few hundred dollars and up to 20 hours of your time, and you would likely have a permanent mark on your record that would make securing future employment far more difficult. To avoid the permanent record, you could be put on probation for a year which requires regular visits to a government office for drug tests. Failing that and other harsh restrictions could lead to bigger fines or jail time. It could easily take years of annoyance to finally stop having to interact with the cursed legal bureaucracy. If you had gotten mouthy like the guy in the story (and apparently he was pretty bad according to his friends) you might expect to get tazed or even shot in the US. Now tell me, which of these things sounds worse to you? Paying a one-time fee and never having to look back, or years of wasted time, money, and hassle as well as bleaker employment options? The kind of crap they force people to go through over a relatively harmless plant is clearly an example of the tyranny part of anarcho-tyranny.

There is no contest. The one example of BS, which I never experienced personally and is honestly easily avoidable if you take simple precautions, actually has far preferable resolution conditions than the equivalent in the states. Not that I want to laud corruption, but if you are going to have it the system over there is superior. In SE Asia corruption is available to all. If you are of modest means and you get caught committing some minor infraction, such as smoking pot, you can pay a bribe just as easily as the wealthiest man in your city to avoid interaction with the legal system and any sort of permanent record. In most of the US this simply isn’t possible unless you are well-connected, and even when it is it is far more expensive. I would honestly argue that the corruption there is in many ways more fair to the middle class and lower than the rigid legalism of the US. It is certainly far easier to move on with your life after something minor happens.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning drug use. A lot of drugs can cause a lot of harm if over-used. In the case of pot, however, its only real problem is that it makes people forgetful and lazy. That can be a problem yes, but not one I think the legal system needs to be involved in addressing. And even being involved it shouldn’t be more than a minor fine and that is it. Of course, it wouldn’t be the US if the state didn’t harass relatively decent people for the hell of it.

Share Button

Cathedral Censorship in Action: Colin Flaherty banned from Youtube

This will be a short post. I just want to draw attention to yet another example of people not following the “right” narrative being bullied, badgered, pressured and purged.

Part of the “acceptable” narrative is that all races (and genders) are equal in every conceivable way. Not just in terms of being treated fairly before the law, but also in potential for success or potential for crime. When one group statistically commits more crimes than other groups, this axiom is violated. The strategy of progressives is not to look at this information and reject the axiom, but to double down and create rationalizations that allow the axiom to coexist with facts that clearly debunk it.

It is well known (and empirically verified) that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and that in interracial violence blacks are much more commonly the aggressor against the out-group, especially whites, than vice versa. This is a clear violation of the axiom that all groups are equally criminally, or equally non-criminal. In love with their axiom, progressives invent (rationalize) nonsense theories and hypotheses such as white privilege and systematic racism to explain the disparity and keep their axiom too. Of course that is bullshit, and genetics is in the process of showing these differences are innate. Once enough “warrior” alleles at various gene locations are identified, it is almost certain blacks will have a greater frequency of them than most other groups and that will be determined to be the true cause of their higher likelihood for violent crime.

There are people out there who actively work against the progressives and make the information about the reality of inter-racial violence, and especially black violence, known. Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire for example. Another such person is Colin Flaherty, author of ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It and ‘Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry’: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it.. In these books he demonstrates the reality and extent of black on white violence and how much more often whites are the victims of blacks rather than the other way around.

In addition to these important books, he also had a youtube channel which posted videos, both privately recorded and found in the media, which demonstrated both black violence and the media’s blatant attempts to white wash the truth. This channel was gaining popularity at a very rapid rate because the general public could not access this information as a result of collusion in the mainstream media to cover it up.

“My channel documents how the media ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about these kinds of crimes. I filled a vacuum, and the people responded to that.

“And all of this was based on facts and evidence. We produced videos, 9-1-1 calls, police reports, eyewitness accounts and statements from victims who all said the same thing. ‘Something very wrong is happening here, and we have to pay attention to it,’”

“My YouTube channel was getting 1 million views a month, generating about 5 to 10 million minutes of viewing. There were 25,000 to 50,000 comments a month, and 15,000 subscribers. And all of those numbers were growing 20 percent per month,” he said.

“This channel satisfied a craving for real information about black-on-white crime and black-on-white hostility that has reached epidemic levels. And I don’t apologize for pointing out the obvious: black mob violence and black-on-white crime is wildly out of proportion.”

When a white is the perpetrator of some crime the race is readily reported, but when a black is a perpetrator, the only information we get is “a man” or “youths” or “teenagers” and the public is left wondering the ethnicity of the perp. Well, not many people are dumb enough not to know implicitly. Most average people, white or otherwise, have easily figured out that when a description is intentionally vague it usually means a black is responsible (though Hispanics also will get similar treatment their crime rate  is lower than blacks).

Colin Flaherty’s work goes against the progressive narrative of the cathedral, which makes it a prime target for censorship. His work shows the reality of race relations today and calls into question both the axiom of equality and the rationalization that whites are the aggressors and thus are at fault. Such crimethink is not something progressives will tolerate, at least not for long and so now Flaherty’s work is no longer available from youtube. A platform which has a great potential for the truth to be made known. This is unfortunate for those who value truth above sentiment, but in this case the truth wants to be free and will continue becoming more widely known despite this bump in the road.

Share Button

Maps of Detroit

I think these images speak for themselves. Here is a crime map of Detroit, Michigan:

crime map detroit

http://spotcrime.com/mi/detroit

see also http://www.detroitnews.com/article/99999999/SPECIAL01/120606001

Here is a map of the ethnic concentrations of Detroit from the 2010 census. Red is white, blue is black, and orange is Hispanic.  Source image is from wikipedia.

FischerDetroit2010Census

When leftists claim to want a conversation about race, something tells me they are hoping we just ignore things like this. Actually, the police are no longer reporting crime locations so that people can’t put 2 and 2 together. The elites really don’t want people to know about black crime it seems. I guess if the information isn’t publicly available, they hope that the conversation about race will go favorably for their delusions.

Share Button

A Neoreactionary Analysis and Review of “12 Angry Men”

[Spoiler alert] I recommend you watch the movie before reading this review, which includes a summary. If you have already seen it or don’t care, read on. It is currently available on Net Flix.

12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve (all white) men who must decide whether or not to convict an 18 year old hispanic boy from the slums of murdering his abusive father. If they convict him, then there is a mandatory death sentence for his crime. The events of the night, though never defined very clearly, go as follows:

  1. 7 PM the boy purchases a knife from a pawn shop. This knife is either the murder weapon or is identical to the murder weapon.
  2. 8-9 PM The boy has an argument with the father that ends in the father hitting his son several times.
  3. 9 PM The boy leaves the home. According to the boy, he loses the knife he purchased earlier.
  4. 11 PM The boy claims that he goes to the movies and watches several features. This is his alibi.
  5. 12:00-12:10 AM The father is murdered in his apartment using a knife that was identical or the same as the knife purchased earlier by the boy. The murder is supposedly heard or seen by several witnesses.
  6. 12:10 AM The murderer escapes the scene leaving the knife in the body, but did not leave any finger prints on the knife
  7. 3 AM The boy returns to his apartment and is apprehended by police. He witnesses his dead father before being questioned by police. He is unable to recall the films he saw during this initial interrogation, though later at court he is able to elaborate on the films he saw.

The majority of the movie takes place in the jury deliberation room and follows the unnamed men as they discuss the evidence and testimony of the case. It starts out with 11 of the 12 men being thoroughly convinced that the boy is guilty, but the one dissenter (the protagonist played by Henry Fonda) is progressively able to convince the other men that there is a reasonable doubt of the boys guilt. Most of the dissenter’s doubt focuses on the fallibility of human memory in the case of both the witnesses and the boy.

Some, but not all, of the pieces of evidence they consider:

  • They look at the knife the boy purchased immediately before the murder that was used to kill the father. They were able to demonstrate that it was a rather common model. The dissenter purchased the same knife at one point while the jury was in recess and shows the copy to the other jurers.
  • They considered the testimony of the first witness, an old man, who claimed to have heard the boy shout, a body drop, and to have seen the boy running away after rushing to his door. However, the old man was seen to limp so it was determined to be improbable that he could make it across his apartment in the short time needed to catch the murderer running away. In addition, thanks to the testimony of the other main witness, it was known that a train would have been passing by as the murder took place which undermines the testimony that the old man was able to hear either the shout or the body drop. Lastly, it was speculated that an old man of this sort was hungry for the attention provided by the trial and may have embellished his story to experience a feeling of importance.
  • They considered the testimony of the other witness, a middle aged woman, who claimed to see the murder take place. It was determined that she wore glasses normally and that she probably wasn’t able to put them back on after getting out of bed because of the scream to positively identify the murderer. In addition, a train was passing between her and the other window which would have further obstructed her view.
  • They considered the inability of one of the jurors to accurately remember a film he saw only a few days before despite not being involved in a traumatic situation; implying that it was reasonable that the boy couldn’t remember the movies after seeing his dead father.
  • The boy was supposedly good with switch blades like the murder weapon. As such, his experience would have led him to use it underhanded. However, the murderer held the blade overhanded which suggests a person with less experience.

Sometime when I was in high school I was in a class that watched 12 Angry Men, rightfully considered a classic film. I vaguely remember my impression at the time was of surprised admiration. The fact that a black and white film could be enjoyable and impactful was somewhat unexpected to my shallow 15 year old self. Of course what really struck me, and presumably everyone else who likes the movie, was how close the jury came to carrying out an “obvious” miscarriage of justice. The portrayal of the situation by the movie was that prejudice and human fallibility were conspiring to condemn a young boy to death. As such, it was only just that he should be found not guilty. At least, that was how 15 year old me felt. How I was supposed to feel I guess.

I recently watched this film again and I now take the message of the film with a large grain of salt. As I have grown older and wiser, and also more experienced with neoreaction, it is easier to spot the undeniably progressive stance of the film. 12 Angry Men is the quintessential artistic expression of the progressive attitude toward the criminal justice system. The film itself was made in 1957, which was a time at an early stage of progressive reform of the courts. These reforms, which were implemented during the 50s and 60s, led to a huge spike in criminal activity during the 70s and early 80s. The reforms made it much more difficult for prosecutors to actually convict real criminals at trial. After all, it is better that 99 criminals go free than 1 innocent man goes to prison, right? Well, apparently not. Legislatures and prosecutors reacted to the surge in criminality created by these reforms by putting into place the draconian penalties and mandatory minimum sentences that allow prosecutors to scare 97% of the accused into accepting plea bargains to avoid the extremely harsh sentencing that would result from a jury trial conviction. For more on the changes that have taken place in the criminal justice system over the last 60 years or so, I recommend Handle’s review of “The collapse of American Justice” (and of course the book itself).

One of the most striking things I noticed when watching the movie was the easy association it made between the progressive attitude toward the boy, as embodied by Henry Fonda, and the church. Near the beginning of the film, one of the other jurists repeatedly paints Fonda’s character as a progressive Christian through sarcastic comments about his position such telling him to stop “giving a sermon” and asking if he also wanted them to “throw a quarter in the donation box.” Like the article “American Malvern,” 12 Angry Men comes from a time before progressivism had fully divorced from its Christian roots. That the audience would understand that progressive attitudes were associated with mainline Protestantism was simply taken for granted. No explanation necessary. This point was further hammered in by the same character later pejoratively calling Fonda’s character and the other jurists he had convinced “bleeding hearts;” a common slang for liberals and social justice advocates. “Bleeding Heart liberal” itself was likely coined as a reference to the bleeding heart of Jesus, which further underscores the shared cladistics of social justice liberalism and Christianity.

The accusing jurist himself, along with 2 or 3 other jurists to a lesser degree, is an interesting example of a caricatured archetypal conservative. Where the progressive leaning jurists are portrayed as calm, reasonable and objective, the “conservative” jurists are portrayed as emotional, angry, and prejudiced in order to create as polar a dichotomy as possible. In other words, good and evil were clearly defined by the exaggerated character and personalities of the individual jurists. This was especially pronounced in the attitudes written for the right leaning jurists towards immigrants and other ethnicities, which seems to be an early example of anti-white “anti-racism”. That is, the audience is made to feel antipathy towards the obviously negative personalities of the white, conservative jurists with illiberal opinions by associating those opinions with the absurd and flawed characters. For example, the “bad” jurists angrily referred to immigrants and minorities with disdain through terms like “they are just like that,” “that’s how they are,” and “that’s what people from the slums do”. Never mind the fact that such observations aren’t completely irrational, the point was to paint the picture that anyone who might use such information to help them decide a case is just as evil as this caricature through the association of flawed personalities with quick and prejudiced judgements. As illogical as such an association is, the film succeeds masterfully at this point.

It was this portrayal of the personalities of pro-guilty (IE conservative) jurists that I found to be most bothersome. In the most notable example of ad hominem via caricatured conservative, one jurist was given a back-story of conflict with his own son. He apparently was a hard father who engaged in a savage fight with his boy when he was 16. The boy had left and never spoken to his father again for many years. This bad father thus projected his bad situation onto the accused boy and associated the accused with his own disappointment and bitterness he experienced with his son. “Bad” was determined as much if not more via synthesized character attacks against the archetypal conservatives as it was by synthesized doubtful evidence. Surely this emotional appeal has little to do with jurists, conservatives, or justice in reality. And yet, we can see how effective it was on influencing the average person by the prominence of the movie in cultural history and the ultimate success of the progressive reformers to change the system.

Although this is a well made film and worth a watch, it has to be understood in the context of the times and especially the progressive ideologies of the writers. Being fictional, it is easy to simply manufacture doubtful evidence, testimony, and flawed personalities of jurists. Within the context of the reality created by the film, the progressive message does indeed seem right and just. However, a better way to judge the film is by the real world consequences of the progressive ideologies it embodies. Considering the sorry state of our modern criminal justice system, history should not remember this film anywhere near as favorably as it currently does.

Share Button