ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The inevitability of segregation

Even the biggest champions of postracial fantasy are beginning to recognize the failure of desegregation:
To the extent that the word “desegregation” remains in our vocabulary, it describes an antique principle, not a current priority. Today, we are more likely to talk of diversity—but diversification and desegregation are not the same undertaking. To speak of diversity, in light of this country’s history of racial recidivism, is to focus on bringing ethnic variety to largely white institutions, rather than dismantling the structures that made them so white to begin with.

And so, sixty years after Brown, it is clear that the notion of segregation as a discrete phenomenon, an evil that could be flipped, like a switch, from on to off, by judicial edict, was deeply naïve. The intervening decades have shown, in large measure, the limits of what political efforts directed at desegregation alone could achieve, and the crumbling of both elements of “separate but equal” has left us at an ambivalent juncture. To the extent that desegregation becomes, once again, a pressing concern—and even that may be too grand a hope—it will have to involve the tax code, the minimum wage, and other efforts to redress income inequality. For the tragedy of this moment is not that black students still go to overwhelmingly black schools, long after segregation was banished by law, but that they do so for so many of the same reasons as in the days before Brown.
One hopes it won't take another 60 years for them to figure out that diversity is inevitably doomed to failure too. The reason segregation is inevitable is because diversity+proximity=war. And the fact that it is inevitable is based on sound and impeccable logic.

All these diverse groups came from somewhere, right? And, for the most part, they once belonged to the same population group, right? So, the process of separation and eventual segregation occurred naturally and spontaneously through a combination of factors such as free association, sexual selection, and tribal mobility.

The current diversity and multiculturalism fad is nothing more than a short-term artificial artifact of wealth, peace, cheap international travel, and anti-national governments. Take away just one of those four supports and the entire edifice collapses in violence and bloodshed.

To talk about being pro-segregation or anti-segregation is a category error. It's no different than claiming to be pro-biology or anti-gravity. It's a normal human dynamic, and as such, it can be resisted with effort, but only for a short time from the historical perspective.

Labels:

175 Comments:

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist April 22, 2014 3:29 AM  

One of leftism's biggest intellectual failings is failure to comprehend that because an idea can be made to work in certain limited circumstances, that means that it will always work in every circumstance, if we just believe in it enough and/or try to force it hard enough.

"Diversity" is one of those ideas. Singapore is diverse, and works well. But the reason it works well is because Singapore accepts diverse people only at or above a certain social class. Get a diverse group of university-educated professionals together in a prosperous environment, and things will work well in a way that they won't if you flood a place with the very same groups' semi-literate proletarians.

Hong Kong is another good example - the English and the Chinese got along well there for decades. But here again, we have a limited circumstance - two groups of people who share certain key values like studiousness, politeness, strong work ethic, and respect for the law. Try the same thing, but replace one or both groups with a different group that has different values, and the result will probably vary greatly (Johannesburg comes to mind).

So diversity+proximity does not necessarily have to equal war, in that it can be made to not equal it in certain limited circumstances. This does not in any way mean that it won't equal war the vast majority of the time and in the vast majority of circumstances, however.

Which is a long way of saying: We're not Singapore, and we're screwed.

Blogger ScuzzaMan April 22, 2014 3:45 AM  

Stephen Wolfram (author of "A New Kind of Science") demonstrated decades ago, using the simple black and white grids of his cellular automata constructs, that segregation is not necessarily a function of irrational discrimination in any negative sense.

All that is required for segregation to occur is that each person possess a positive liking to have at least one neighbour who is like to themselves. It requires no negative or repulsive reaction against anyone else. You can start with a completely random distribution of black and white cells, or with a perfectly even distribution, or anything in between. Within 100 cycles, wherein two cells may swap position if each agrees that they would prefer the new position, and only a small percentage of cells may swap in any single cycle, you have larger 'clumps' of monotone cells forming. After a few dozen cycles very few changes occur.

These experiments were significant for two reasons: one, they showed no negative repulsion is necessary, which directly refuted the accusation on which segregation policy was based (i.e. that the mere existence of white and black enclaves was proof positive of white discrimination). and two, they showed that positive desires to live around people like ourselves are common to all people (iow, they also refuted the associated notion that racism is a purely white against black phenomenon and that the existence of white enclaves also demonstrates this).

But these policies were never about science or rationality. They were never about improving the lot of poor black people, either. They were emotional sops to white liberal guilt (with the word "liberal" used in the modern sense, not with its original and proper meaning).

Thomas Sowell made a fabulous point in his "A Conflict of Visions". He describes two opposing views of humanity, what he calls the constrained and the unconstrained view. The constrained view is that mankind is what it is, and that we cannot change it. We live within a variety of constraints inherent in human nature and wisdom consists of recognising the historical fact of these constraints in human nature and constructing political systems that deliberately blunt the worst aspects of our nature while rewarding the best.

The unconstrained view is that human nature is itself a political construct, infinitely malleable, and thus perfectable, *by the "right" people*. That these constraints are in fact imposed BY the institutions prior generations constructed, and that the people and the institutions must be remade to better serve the vision of a constantly-self-perfecting humanity.

Yet one can easily see that the first vision is inherently compatible with both Christian and conservative (again, in the old and proper sense of the word, not as a code for oppressive right-wing militarism) thought, and the second is inherently atheistic, humanistic, and prone to social engineering projects. Also, since it relies on a presumption of superior wisdom, vision, and indeed integrity, it tends to promote demagoguery.

Which brings us back to desegregation, another failed social engineering project of the 20th Century, promoted by ruthless demagogues who knew it was bullshit before it started, but did not (and do not) care.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2014 4:36 AM  

The current diversity and multiculturalism fad is nothing more than a short-term artificial artifact of wealth, peace, cheap international travel, and anti-national governments. Take away just one of those four supports and the entire edifice collapses in violence and bloodshed.

All of modern liberalism - including anti-national governments - is essentially an artifact of stockpiled economic and moral capital. We pay the economic parasites to go away and we absorb the blows to civilization, drawing on our reserves to make up the difference. Such peace as we've had lately is an artifact of it too, and now that I think of it, so is cheap (and easy) international travel.

We're about out of reserves. Perhaps it only needs one leg to fall for the whole thing to crumble, but I have a hunch all four will go more or less at once.

Blogger IM2L844 April 22, 2014 4:51 AM  

Diversity is the natural state and individuals have mostly found acceptable ways to live with it. Universal equality is an unenforceable myth; the perpetuation of which causes many more problems for everyone than it purports to solve. But realists are the enemy?

Anonymous Roundtine April 22, 2014 5:27 AM  

Hong Kong is another good example - the English and the Chinese got along well there for decades.

You can start with a completely random distribution of black and white cells, or with a perfectly even distribution, or anything in between. Within 100 cycles, wherein two cells may swap position if each agrees that they would prefer the new position, and only a small percentage of cells may swap in any single cycle, you have larger 'clumps' of monotone cells forming. After a few dozen cycles very few changes occur.

Hong Kong is the perfect refutation of the left's argument. Hong Kong is mainly Chinese. They are the same race and ethnicity as the people who live just across the water in Mainland China. Yet there are protests by HKers calling Chinese locusts. If Mainland Chinese were black or Jewish, the progressive media would consider the HK people Nazis based on their attitude towards Mainland Chinese.

Or in America, ask a Cold War era Russian, Chinese or Vietnamese immigrant what they think of the newcomers from Russia, China and Vietnam.

It is because raciss that Americans are completely retarded in their thinking on this topic.

Anonymous Rothschild April 22, 2014 5:45 AM  

"But these policies were never about science or rationality. They were never about improving the lot of poor black people, either. They were emotional sops to white liberal guilt (with the word "liberal" used in the modern sense, not with its original and proper meaning)."

Silly goyim, The plan is far bigger than pandering to white liberal guilt. White liberals and their guilt were created by us as merely another tool

Anonymous Stilicho April 22, 2014 5:45 AM  

Diversification worked out so well for the British and French when they divvied up the Ottoman Empire and also in places like Yugoslavia. It will work just as well here.

Anonymous Luke April 22, 2014 5:54 AM  

Speaking of the French, Stilcho, here is a news item about them.
Apparently, by the best numbers available, 30% of new births inside French borders are nonwhite. (Oct. 2012 article)

http://tinyurl.com/nx7bzat

Blogger Outlaw X April 22, 2014 6:04 AM  

One hopes it won't take another 60 years for them to figure out that diversity is inevitably doomed to failure too. The reason segregation is inevitable is because diversity+proximity=war. And the fact that it is inevitable is based on sound and impeccable logic.

Now understand I am talking about only one aspect of diversity, I understand what you are saying. But at work we, being black and white employees, got along just fine. I would rather had worked with a black woman in HR than a white women. But to be true and say things we are not to say Asians were pussies. They hated white people, I avoided them because they hated me.

One day an Asian came into my office and we were talking about 401k's and I said at the end of 1999 I got out of the markets, and he called me stupid, while he lost his butt. He said I know about computers (as if I didn't) He didn't know I was a Fortran programmer and had a better handle on it than he did. also was trained in Pascal. I understood the date dilemma, but was contracted to help reprogram Fortran so it rolled over to 2000 instead of 1900, I also knew the animal spirits so got out. He thought I was an idiot and he told me how much smarter Asians were than dirty white Americans. I went back to my computer and he as well as others are still using my programs at work. So you are right, but never had a problem with black people any more than white bullies since the 5th grade and forced bussing. Asians are assholes.

He came over in a boat from Vietnam eating diesel contaminated dirty rice until an American ship saved him. He told me how his older sister passed out the commie money and got people to give a little each pay day to hire a boat, then told them the wrong day and left without them and was proud of it., and he wants Obama to become dictator. He is asking for what he escaped from.

Anonymous Luke April 22, 2014 6:08 AM  

ScuzzaMan April 22, 2014 3:45 AM

"Stephen Wolfram (author of "A New Kind of Science") demonstrated decades ago, using the simple black and white grids of his cellular automata constructs, that segregation is not necessarily a function of irrational discrimination in any negative sense.

All that is required for segregation to occur is that each person possess a positive liking to have at least one neighbour who is like to themselves. It requires no negative or repulsive reaction against anyone else."


Scuzzman, even diversity-loving (the fools) U.S. whites will typically be forced for purposes of property and physical safety to flee diversifying neighborhoods rather early.

From http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm

Graph referred to in following excerpt:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood_0%7Bimage2%7D.gif

"Figure 1 traces the evolution of black-on-white violent crime as a neighborhood transforms racially. The probability, ΦB, that John is victimized at least once in a year is plotted versus the black fraction of the neighborhood. Beginning insidiously, the preying of black upon white is barely noticeable until the community is about 20 percent black. At that point, the probability of John being attacked by a black is still only 0.02. However, the probability that at least one member of John's family will be attacked by a black is about 8 percent. When the black population grows to 50 percent, the likelihood that John will be attacked by a black rises to 8 percent, and the chances are 29 percent that someone in John's family will be attacked within the year. For most whites, this threat crosses the threshold of intolerability, but those more hardy or less able will remain. As blacks begin to predominate, the situation for whites grows worse rapidly. If John hangs on until his neighborhood is 65 percent black, the risk of victimization will be 15 percent for him and 53 percent for his family. Should John be among the most foolhardy hangers on, when the black population reaches 90 percent, John will have a 54 percent chance of being victimized by blacks, with the chances of someone in his family becoming a victim being better than 95 percent -- a virtual certainty."

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 8:07 AM  

Anti-democracy Activist:
Singapore is diverse, and works well. But the reason it works well is because Singapore accepts diverse people only at or above a certain social class.
Singapore is also a very tightly regulated city-state. Did you know chewing gum is illegal there? And don't even think about drugs there - though to be honest, that form of drug criminalization does work.

Anonymous fnn April 22, 2014 8:19 AM  

Singapore and the Death Penalty

Singapore’s approach to combating drug trafficking has traditionally entailed the use of capital punishment. According to Amnesty International, over the last two decades Singapore has hanged hundreds of people – including dozens of foreigners – for narcotics offences. So it was a pleasant surprise for many last Thursday morning when the courts lifted the death penalty on a drug trafficker for the first time in its history. Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian who was sentenced to hang in 2009, was spared after a judge ruled that Yong was merely a drug courier, rather than involved in the supply or distribution of narcotics.

Blogger sykes.1 April 22, 2014 8:21 AM  

Somewhat off topic, but can it possibly be argued that a black sharecropper in 1914 Mississippi was worse off than a black ghetto resident in 2014?

The sharecropper was dirt poor, and the ghetto bro has all sorts of welfare goodies given him. But, the sharecropper supported himself and his family by his own labor; he had an extended family with parents, maybe grandparents, siblings, cousins et al; he had the support of a church; there was alcohol but no hard drugs; there was much less violence; he was segregated but so is his modern descendant; and racial tensions were less.

100 years of progress.

Anonymous Big Bill April 22, 2014 8:29 AM  

"Should John be among the most foolhardy hangers on, when the black population reaches 90 percent, John will have a 54 percent chance of being victimized by blacks, with the chances of someone in his family becoming a victim being better than 95 percent -- a virtual certainty."

Classic liberal innumeracy: "Don't be so racist! Not all/less than half/only a few of [pick minority] are [murderers/robbers/rapists]." Their ill-formed, ill-considered thought is that as long as less than half of "them" are violent criminals, it is racist to mentally ascribe criminality to "them". If you meet a random one of "them", they are "nice" more likely than not.

But switch the script. Ask them how many murderers/rapists/robbers could live within a mile of them before they started demanding action. Ask them how many murders/rapes/robberies could occur annually within a mile of them before they started locking every door, listening for every noise, getting an alarm system.

And then calculate for them the tiny percentage of people that could cause that. One in a thousand? One in ten thousand? You don't need more than 50% murderers/rapists/robbers around you to be concerned, you just need 1%, or maybe 0.1%.

Anonymous DrTorch April 22, 2014 8:30 AM  

Off topic- Debt default IS the plan

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/rudolf-havenstein-draghi-speaks-debt-default-is-our-aim-hidden-wage-depreciation-is-our-means/

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 8:36 AM  

Serious question (not snark). What about Italy? Diversity appeared at the end of the Roman Empire, has been around for 1000-1500 years. No war. Diversity + proximity =/ war. My understanding of Italy is: south is dysfunctional (I've been to Naples). North is industrial and productive. But no war.

What's stopping USA from being the same (black areas dysfunctional, white/asian areas industrial and productive) for a few thousand years?


anonymousse.

I get it: no anonymous comments. But perhaps you could address the question without my comment being posted.

Anonymous DJF April 22, 2014 8:49 AM  

With the 'Civil Rights" laws we went from a system where the government said that you could not integrate to where you must integrate. They skipped right over the choice of letting people decide on their own.

Anonymous Peter Garstig April 22, 2014 9:08 AM  

. My understanding of Italy is: south is dysfunctional (I've been to Naples). North is industrial and productive. But no war.

What's stopping USA from being the same (black areas dysfunctional, white/asian areas industrial and productive) for a few thousand years?


My guess is you don't know anything about Italy.

Blogger Desiderius April 22, 2014 9:13 AM  

"But these policies were never about science or rationality. They were never about improving the lot of poor black people, either. They were emotional sops to white liberal guilt (with the word "liberal" used in the modern sense, not with its original and proper meaning)."

Evidence?

If white liberals are feeling guilty, then why are they smug, arrogant, and self-righteous?

"Liberal guilt" is a myth made up by those who are afraid to confront what is actually happening.

Anonymous DrTorch April 22, 2014 9:13 AM  

This is completely on topic:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/21/see-what-theyll-be-teaching-in-the-chicago-public-schools/

Chicago public schools are set to introduce a new Afro-centric curriculum, according to a closely-guarded copy obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The curriculum covers kindergarten through tenth grade and is designed to align with Common Core. It includes a web link to TheAfrican.com, a website whose publisher decries “fake-Jews” and calls the United States a “Zionist-occupied enemy territory.”
“The law said it had to be one unit devoted to the history of African-Americans,” Annette Gurley, CPS chief officer of teaching and learning told the Chicago Tribune in 2013. “What we’ve done is we’ve taken it throughout the year for all subjects, not just one subject.”
...


But some of the subjects, including those discussed at TheAfrican.com, are heavily controversial. The Chicago curriculum topic discussed at TheAfrican.com is “The Black Athena,” a book written by historian Martin Bernal. Sixth and ninth grade Chicago students will discuss the book and an accompanying full-length Youtube documentary.

In the work, Bernal claimed that ancient Greeks stole much of its civilization from Egypt, which, Bernal asserts, was populated by blacks. The Chicago curriculum entertains rebuttals to Bernal’s theory but skews heavily in its favor.

Blogger ScuzzaMan April 22, 2014 9:18 AM  

@Luke:

Thanks for that. Fleeing crime is categorically distinct (in my mind) from fleeing black people, red people, or yellow people.

My point was only that segregation was based on an accusation of a negative and irrational prejudice. But logic and experience says differently.

I live in Germany. I love the German people and the German culture. That doesn't mean I want to be the only English-speaker in a group of only German-speaking people. I have a natural (positive) affinity for my own native language. So I belong to a local English-speaking club. We get together every couple of weeks just to relax and speak our own language without having to think about grammatical rules while having a conversation.

The members of the club are from the USA, Canada, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and all over Europe. Many German people are members, who just want to practice their English.

Again, the point is that the gathering together is based on a positive desire for the familiar, and not on an irrational prejudice against a particular ethnicity or skin colour.

The accusation, on which forced desegregation was based, was false. Therefore, segregation had to fail, because it was not addressing reality.

As Sowell noted, the reality is that people are not perfectible.

Which reminds me of my favourite subversive tag-line:

"I aim to misbehave!"

Thanks.

Anonymous Peter Garstig April 22, 2014 9:19 AM  

OT: Meanwhile, the github co-president resigns because two women didn't like each other.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 9:32 AM  

If a country achieves internal peace by dividing unofficially into two parts with distinctly different people in each part, that would tend to prove Vox's point. It's not "diversity" to have two different groups living inside the same nation if they interact as little as possible.

If America followed that example, it would mean turning a few states into New Africa, a few others into Mexifornia, maybe a couple into East Asia, and the rest white. People would still be free to live where they wanted, but most would gravitate toward the regions matching their race and culture. They'd still all be Americans, but wouldn't interact with people outside their own regions much.

That might make sense, but it wouldn't be "diversity" in any sense that the word is currently used. Pretty much the opposite, actually.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 22, 2014 9:34 AM  

The Left tends to confuse race with culture. As such, they simply see segregation as a race issue, when it was really a culture issue. You cannot have two cultures live in the same space without some violence conflict. Think Northern Ireland.

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 9:39 AM  

Scuzzaman;
In the work, Bernal claimed that ancient Greeks stole much of its civilization from Egypt, which, Bernal asserts, was populated by blacks.
Ah yes, there's that old ''we's wuz 'gytians and sheeiit'' again.
Never mind that:
A. The only reference to what today we call 'blacks' in the Bible is ''the Ethiopian'' in various places.
B. All ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs depict people who appearance is roughly the same as modern Egyptians. Not 'blacks' as we (unfortunately) know them.

Anonymous Baseball Savant April 22, 2014 9:39 AM  

I'm in my mid-30s so this isn't all that long ago but I remember we had all sorts of racial fights break out in our high school with white students & black students fighting. It got so bad that a couple of the local news stations actually sent TV crews out to do interviews and a story about how bad it was getting. Each high school in my hometown had 2 feeder middle schools that were complete opposites. One feeder middle school was very affluent and 99% white. The other feeder school was in one of the poorer parts of the city and was 15-20% black. My hometown wasn't very black to begin with, but just the mixture of the two middle schools caused quite a bit of havoc and the racial tension never really died down. I heard stories from friends that it was that way at all of the high schools, but that my high school got quite a bit of attention because the fights were usually so violent.

I do know that one of the area high schools relocated and it brought up a district question because it would have made sense for this high school to take 2 of the middle schools that were probably 2 of the 3 most affluent in the city, but this would have given another high school 2 of the poorest and most black. They decided to keep the districting the same despite geography but there was a lot of uproar over that battle.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 9:44 AM  

People of Color have many children.

white people do not have children.

Many white women are having Children of Color by having intimate relations with Men of Color.

Soon white people will not exist.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 9:45 AM  

@anonymous- From the Goths to Garibaldi, from Machiavelli to Mussolini; Italy has had, like, a metric shit-ton of wars since the Fall of Rome. That's not even mentioning gang wars.

Anonymous Will Best April 22, 2014 9:46 AM  

Asians are assholes.

Not really, they just culturally don't believe in integrity. They care about family honor, which is reflected in status, money, and power. Shame is what keeps them in check, and I suspect it also paralyzes them in terms of being risk adverse since failure is culturally so much less acceptable there.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 22, 2014 9:47 AM  

"Diversity + proximity =/ war."

So Naples is close to Milan, is it?

You're mistake seems to be in confusing proximity for "within the same political boudaries."

That said, there's a qualifier in that that isn't generally stated. I might phrase that as, "Diversity, as an internally dangerous phenom, often doesn't exist when the people outside your political boundaries are, and / or are perceived as being, more diverse from you and your somewhat different neighbor, and dangerous to you both and to all who live in your society."

Anonymous The other skeptic April 22, 2014 9:48 AM  

As Sowell noted, the reality is that people are not perfectible.

Not only that, but like wants to be with like. Murderous thugs want to be with murderous thugs and nice people want to be with nice people.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 9:48 AM  

Diversity is here to stay because of one very important reason: white women want the sexual pleasure that only a Man of Color (because of their elephantine genitals) can provide.

Anonymous Brother Thomas April 22, 2014 9:48 AM  

The irony is that the most dynamic force for desegregation, integration and interaction is the free market. But the Leftist rather see the world literally burn than to admit that fact.

Anonymous anti-racist April 22, 2014 9:50 AM  

People of Color have many children.

white people do not have children.

Many white women are having Children of Color by having intimate relations with Men of Color.

Soon white people will not exist.

Diversity is here to stay because of one very important reason: white women want the sexual pleasure that only a Man of Color (because of their elephantine genitals) can provide.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 22, 2014 9:53 AM  

I don't know how many are generally picking up on this, but that second paragraph Vox quotes isn't an admission of defeat, it's a demand for ever more intrusive social engineering and ever greater goverment control.

Be afraid.

Anonymous 11B April 22, 2014 9:53 AM  

If America followed that example, it would mean turning a few states into New Africa, a few others into Mexifornia, maybe a couple into East Asia, and the rest white. People would still be free to live where they wanted, but most would gravitate toward the regions matching their race and culture. They'd still all be Americans, but wouldn't interact with people outside their own regions much.

Cail, Why couldn't we do what Mexico and other nations do, namely,encourage certain population groups to emigrate? Maybe we could provide maps, brochures of government benefits, and instructions for how to obtain them in Canada.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 22, 2014 9:57 AM  

Vox,

1. In your theory of sub-speciation, what prevents us from singling out people by eye color for discrimination? Have you looked at any studies concerning eye color and crime or other social factors?

2. Have you explored the possibility that arrest, prosecution, and incarceration rates may be skewed by race due to personality types draw to those professions? What if it's a possibility that they are skewed?

3. Would you have an issue with primarily using socio-economic and religious visual cues to identify the increased possibility of violence or crime instead of using race as an indicator?

As always, thanks in advance.

Anonymous 11B April 22, 2014 9:58 AM  

Diversity is here to stay because of one very important reason: white women want the sexual pleasure that only a Man of Color (because of their elephantine genitals) can provide.

I try to get friends to frequent blogs like this and iSteve, but the freaks with their sexual hangups aren't helping.

Anonymous red April 22, 2014 9:59 AM  

Forced racial marriage is the next step in trying to equalize the races.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 22, 2014 10:08 AM  

Speaking of diversity, this report on claimed technological and economic advantages the Russians have over the Ukrainians ignores one thing. The difference in willingness to fight for the edifice your leaders have erected.

The Russians seem to have found their mojo in large part. That is, they seem to believe in their culture again, while the Ukraine seems to be some chimera constructed by banksters and who is going to fight for the blood suckers?

Anonymous Will Best April 22, 2014 10:15 AM  

The neighborhood of my youth is dramatically different. My elementary school was 80%+ white when I went there. It is now 38% Hispanic and rising. The adjacent school district was 80% white and about 20% Asian, is now 48% Asian and 45% White.

That might look like a desegregation success story, but in another generation one school will be 70%+ Hispanic and the other will be 70%+ Asian.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 22, 2014 10:18 AM  

To speak of diversity ... is to focus on bringing ethnic variety to largely white institutions, rather than dismantling the structures that made them so white to begin with

Because it's working out so well for the debate team.
Anyway, since I'm reliably informed that the future is queer, this should all work itself out.
Because if there's anything black people love, it's the free and open display of homosexuality.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 22, 2014 10:23 AM  

white women want the sexual pleasure that only a Man of Color (because of their elephantine genitals) can provide

The fat ones, sure.
No real loss, same as it ever was.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 22, 2014 10:23 AM  

There seems to be some diversity happening in Central Park, but I can't find any photos. Those damn Chinese youths again, I suppose.

Anonymous Brother Thomas April 22, 2014 10:25 AM  

@anti-racist April 22, 2014 9:50 AM

You don't understand evolution. White people are white because their human ancestors lived in colder climates with less sun and darker people are darker because their human ancestors lived in warmer climates with more sun. If the earth were to have a climate change resulting in less sun for millions of years, – and assuming stupid people like you didn’t exist and thus the human species could survive – the human species would evolve a lighter complexion.

Do you know what melanin is?

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 10:25 AM  

DrTorch:
If you think that *blech* 'afro-centric' crap is ridiculous just wait 'till you see how commie core is teaching math!
If you though Bonobo-Americans had trouble learning math before...

Anonymous Cranberry April 22, 2014 10:27 AM  

11B, anti-racist is just lost since GLPiggy shuttered his blog.

Cail, yes, Babel needs to fall. This story has been played out before and will end much the same as the last time. More people on Earth, though, means more will necessarily suffer when the edifice crumbles.

Blogger Nate April 22, 2014 10:30 AM  

/facepalm

and this is why I tend to skip the threads that even remotely related to race... because you can always count on some idiot like Anti-racist to say something so mind numblingly stupid that you risk losing brain cells simply by reading it.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 22, 2014 10:32 AM  

While some people claim that this is the new math, they are incorrect.

African Americans know how to subtract. You use bullets (which don't often hit their intended targets because they have not yet mastered the correct technique of holding the gun):

Q: How do you subtract a brotha from the community?

A: You shoot him!

Blogger James Dixon April 22, 2014 10:33 AM  

> In your theory of sub-speciation, what prevents us from singling out people by eye color for discrimination?

Not a damn thing. And if we were all the same except for eye color, that's almost certainly what would happen.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 10:34 AM  

diversity+proximity=war.

Vox, can you tell us what you consider to be your top three examples from history?

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 10:34 AM  

11B, encouraged emigration would be worth a try. With American know-how and resources, we could probably make it work -- sort of a national-level black knighting: "Hey, you countries that have been guilt-tripping us into taking all these people and telling us how wonderful they are, we're going to share!" I'm also in favor of paying people to go home, though there need to be safeguards in place to make sure that doesn't turn into a repeat income stream.

Of course, if we had the political will to do any of that, we probably wouldn't need to because we'd already have control of the border and be limiting immigration to a level and type that's beneficial and easily assimilated. By the time things get bad enough that we have the political will, people might be leaving on their own anyway.

Anonymous fnn April 22, 2014 10:35 AM  

TFRs and Israeli Exceptionalism

Africans don’t count because Africans quite literally are not the same species as the rest of us.

High fertility data points: Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, Afghans, Russian Old Believers.

The common theme should be obvious.

A superficial religiosity draped over an increasingly modern lifestyle may be enough to maintain a moderate level of fertility as we see in the Arab countries or among Mormons, but it also looks unsustainable with a dramatic downward slope.

Interestingly, we also see replacement level fertility among “secular” Jews in Israel. They’re not really secular but it’s still perhaps the most relevant data point since most of us aren’t going to be interested in joining extremist sects. Even if you leave religion out of the equation, Israel is quite different from Singapore.

Israel is an ethno-nationalist state where the people are bound together by a shared identity (based on racial pseudo-science, culture, religion, pretending to share a history, etc), where the (Jewish) people are bound together by a shared struggle, where they are allowed to take pride in that identity and where they are allowed to express that identity in various ways that go beyond the superficial.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are just liberal atoms who live in order to participate in the economy so that we can to obtain hedons and utiles. With the trend being perhaps more advanced in Singapore than in most places.

If you want to raise fertility really high, do the opposite of Singapore. If you don’t want to go that far, find a way to do something really, really different from Singapore while keeping a couple of the features (like military tech) that you find necessary.

Anonymous Man of Color April 22, 2014 10:38 AM  

@Nate

Are you denying that our genitalia are indeed elephantine?

Anonymous CMC April 22, 2014 10:41 AM  

Kratman: "I don't know how many are generally picking up on this, but that second paragraph Vox quotes isn't an admission of defeat, it's a demand for ever more intrusive social engineering and ever greater goverment control."

...it will have to involve the tax code, the minimum wage, and other efforts to redress income inequality....

Yeah, I saw that. More committees! More administrative law! Long live the regime!

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 22, 2014 10:42 AM  

Have you looked at any studies concerning eye color and crime or other social factors?

I've heard tell that an overwhelming majority of the gunfighters in the Old West, the ones that were any good, were blue-eyed.
Make of that what you will.
Today, the overwhelming majority of crime that takes place in my neighborhood is committed by folk with brown eyes.
Again, make of that what you will.

Blogger Nate April 22, 2014 10:59 AM  


"Are you denying that our genitalia are indeed elephantine?"

If the size of genitalia had anything to do with demographic success... then Asia would be populated with blacks.

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 11:04 AM  

The other skeptic:
They updated since you posted the link:
The suspects, all of whose names were witheld because of their ages except 16-year-old Angel Munoz, split up after the muggings, police said. Officers arrested three of the kids — 12, 13 and one of the 14-year-olds — at 96th Street and Fifth Avenue, shortly after the attacks, police said.
OK so they're ''kids'' instead of ''teens'', must be Editor in Chief Ira Cohen said ''quit using 'teens' - the goyim are on to us!''

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 22, 2014 11:08 AM  

James Dixon,

In your theory of sub-speciation, what prevents us from singling out people by eye color for discrimination?

Not a damn thing. And if we were all the same except for eye color, that's almost certainly what would happen.


While we can always discriminate based on any whim and difference, my question may not have been clear enough. My question is in regards to specifically identifying sub-speciation.

Anonymous Man of Color April 22, 2014 11:24 AM  

If the size of genitalia had anything to do with demographic success... then Asia would be populated with blacks.

Give it time.

Elephantine genitalia = elephantine population growth.

Check the population charts, whitey.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 11:32 AM  

I've heard tell that an overwhelming majority of the gunfighters in the Old West, the ones that were any good, were blue-eyed.

In Western novels, they're usually blue-grey. Also steely and/or flinty.

More seriously, dividing people by eye color would amount to a partial proxy for dividing by race, and correlate with the same factors to that extent.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 22, 2014 11:35 AM  

Elephantine genitalia = elephantine population growth.

Check the population charts, whitey.


Those offspring usually starve to death before adolescence without whitey's money.
Good luck!

Blogger Nate April 22, 2014 11:47 AM  

"Check the population charts, whitey."

Population density: Africa 80 per square mile. Asia: 225 per square mile.

You're possibly the stupidest person to ever comment here... and I'm include Morgan of the Lake in that comparison.

Anonymous Josh April 22, 2014 11:53 AM  

Don't elephant populations grow slowly because they have longer gestation and weaning periods?

Blogger JartStar April 22, 2014 11:56 AM  

In segregation news: U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan anti-affirmative action law, California's Prop. 209 stands - San Jose Mercury News

Anonymous CLK April 22, 2014 11:56 AM  

"If the size of genitalia had anything to do with demographic success... then Asia would be populated with blacks."

I think the factor that has historically been #1 since the dawn of time is intelligence and problem solving -- humans are tool makers and tool users and to a large extent those that where best at this have been the ones that succeeded. Look at the diversity charts in the engineering and science fields and then tell us whom has succeeded and who will eventual succeed. The invention of the club, then the spear, then the gun has long since meant that the survival of the fittest has been replaced with survival of the smartest, survival of the tool makers.

IMHO...




Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco April 22, 2014 11:58 AM  

Vox, take a look at this gem:

World government is back, in geopolitics and in the academy, but what does the future hold for it?

Anonymous anti-racist April 22, 2014 12:03 PM  

If we as a society are serious about integration we have to make the hard choices. The most succesful drastic restructuring of society was done in 1804 by Haitian freeedom fighters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_Massacre

1. Kill all the white males (justified as they, and I include myself) continue to wage a brutal hateful war on humanity)
-perhaps castration and disarmament would be sufficient. whatever renders the white race incapable of destruction and reproduction


2. Ask the white women to marry and reproduce with Men of Color

3. If white women refuse the way of love then they too shall be liquidated


To quote a great freedom fighter: "We have given these true cannibals war for war, crime for crime, outrage for outrage. Yes, I have saved my country, I have avenged America."

Anonymous anti-racist April 22, 2014 12:06 PM  

Africans have tons of children. They must go somewhere. They will go the West. The western women will have children with them becasue they will not be able to resist the ultimate in sexual pleasure, the warmth of spirit, the confidence, the will to win, and the impeccable charm of the African Man.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 22, 2014 12:08 PM  

Africans have tons of children. They must go somewhere. They will go the West. The western women will have children with them becasue they will not be able to resist the ultimate in sexual pleasure, the warmth of spirit, the confidence, the will to win, and the impeccable charm of the African Man.

They will not go West. They can remain where they are because Africa is a continent that is very rich in its own right.

Anonymous Don April 22, 2014 12:09 PM  

I'm pretty sure Orientals have tiny penises. That's a given right? So there can't be more than one or two billion of them.

Anonymous Man of Color April 22, 2014 12:11 PM  

Population density:

Wrong chart, whitey.

Try fertility. Or median age.

Don't elephant populations grow slowly because they have longer gestation and weaning periods?

elephantine: adj. Having enormous size or strength.

survival of the fittest has been replaced with survival of the smartest, survival of the tool makers.

The one tool that matters is the one that whitey doesn't use.

Anonymous anti-racist is a serial troll April 22, 2014 12:11 PM  

Anti-racist/man of color/ or what ever this idiot calls itself is a notorious troll, he/she/it spams several blogs at a time with this worthless drivel, stop taking the bait and ban this idiot.

Anonymous Josh April 22, 2014 12:11 PM  

We have witnessed a new level of stupid in these comment threads.

Blogger Nate April 22, 2014 12:18 PM  

"Wrong chart, whitey.

Try fertility. Or median age. "

Over 50% of Africa is under 19 you dumb fuck. And fertility ignores an extremely important factor. Mortality.

Where do all those african go?

They die you stupid fuck.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 22, 2014 12:20 PM  

stop taking the bait and ban this idiot

You know, executions used to be parties.
There'd be a feast, libations, music, while they made the poor sap watch it all from the beneath the Hangman's Arch.
Many contend this kind of torture was worse than the hangin'.
Now y'all just want to get to the end; ban him, burn him, hang him, gas him, shoot him, kill him now!
Time preferences.

Anonymous civilServant April 22, 2014 12:21 PM  

diversity+proximity=war

Surely there is diversity in any assemblage of humans. Yes?

free association

I am curious. Surely anyone is free to associate with or walk away from anyone already? Surely you have the right to dismiss anyone from your property already? In what way is "freedom of association" not in play? It would seem that "free association" in practice would mean the driving away of persons from locations not one's personal property.

Anonymous SumDood April 22, 2014 12:25 PM  

"Lowest difficulty setting" update:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/white-male-privilege-squandered-on-job-at-best-buy,35835/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

A parody in name only.

Anonymous civilServant April 22, 2014 12:27 PM  

survival of the tool makers.

...

And fertility ignores an extremely important factor. Mortality.

One notes that the tool makers have created tremendous tools of mortality such as nuclear weapons and birth control.

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 12:28 PM  

Man of Color:
If the size of genitalia had anything to do with demographic success... then Asia would be populated with blacks.

Give it time.

Elephantine genitalia = elephantine population growth.

Check the population charts, whitey.

If you're getting your information from pr0n (pic NSFW then you're getting your information from pr0n aren't you?

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2014 12:29 PM  

If the size of genitalia had anything to do with demographic success... then Asia would be populated with blacks.

What's the old joke? God gave man a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to operate one at a time? Maybe that's the explanation.

Anonymous A Visitor April 22, 2014 12:37 PM  

With regards to the article, she reminds me of the idiot author that Vox posted at AG yesterday about men only clubs in London. People may or may not prefer the company of their own. I, personally, tend to have friends from south of the border and elsewhere. Yet, I am for reduced immigration (ideally a moratorium). Does that make me a hypocrite? I'd say it makes me an anomaly.

My problem with black culture (if you want to call it that) is its glorification of a) irresponsibility (as evidenced in the single parenthood phenomenon) b) drug use c) murder. I say this as someone who used to listen to hardcore gangsta rap for three years in grade school. If they actually, as a whole, made something of themselves and tried to elevate themselves, up instead of calling each other Uncle Toms or insinuating that someone was acting white, I wouldn't have nearly the problem with them, aggregately, that I do.

I prefer living in a homogeneous neighborhood. We have a black family and they comport themselves like anyone else. That is proof that anomalies do exist but they don't disprove the rule.

There are certain parts of the city I don't go after dark as I know I'll be robbed due to my skin color. It's no different than some places I've been south of the border. Just because you're a white American, you're assumed to be rich. While in absolute terms that may be the case (U.S. vs. 3rd world), it does not mean I have money to burn. Racism, a hackneyed term, runs both ways.

Let people decide for themselves. Oh wait...that's too much to ask of the government and Leftists.

Anonymous A Visitor April 22, 2014 12:45 PM  

I have one other thing, partially on topic, to say: I picked up a copy of One Second After yesterday and am halfway through it. If anything like that were to happen (not even an EMP but a shut down of EBT cards like Xerox a few months back), I pity anyone perceived to be rich in a big city.

Anonymous Josh April 22, 2014 12:46 PM  

I don't understand the white nationalist obsession with black genitalia.

Anonymous Man of Color April 22, 2014 12:46 PM  

Where do all those african go?

Well whitey, their population is growing at more than double the rate of any other continent. In fact, no other continent is even at replacement rate.

They die you stupid fuck.

Just for that I'm gonna date your sister.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter April 22, 2014 12:49 PM  

"Are you denying that our genitalia are indeed elephantine?"

I guess that explains the IQ scores then. There's only so much blood to go around.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey April 22, 2014 12:51 PM  

The question is, are we going to split peacefully, or will it take civil war?

I'm betting on (hoping for) the latter.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 12:52 PM  

"Diversity + proximity =/ war."

Vox, can you tell us what you consider to be your top three examples from history?

Since Vox is busy anybody else want to take a stab at this?

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 12:54 PM  

A visitor:
My problem with black culture (if you want to call it that) is its glorification of a) irresponsibility (as evidenced in the single parenthood phenomenon)
From Those Who Can See:
"The number of deserted wives [in Philadelphia], however, allowing for false reports, is astoundingly large and presents many intricate problems. A very large part of charity given to Negroes is asked for this reason. The causes of desertion are partly laxity in morals and partly the difficulty of supporting a family. The result of this large number of homes without husbands is to increase the burden of charity and benevolence, and also on account of their poor home life to increase crime. Here is a wide field for social regeneration.
[...] There can be no doubt but what sexual looseness is to-day the prevailing sin of the mass of the Negro population, and that its prevalence can be traced to bad home life in most cases. Children are allowed on the street night and day unattended; loose talk is often indulged in; the sin is seldom if ever denounced in the churches. "

W.E.B. Dubois, in 1899.
Nothing new under the sun, folks.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 12:57 PM  

hat about Italy? Diversity appeared at the end of the Roman Empire, has been around for 1000-1500 years. No war. Diversity + proximity =/ war. My understanding of Italy is: south is dysfunctional (I've been to Naples). North is industrial and productive. But no war.

What you are describing is literally segregation, not diversity.

Thus, it cannot be considered a counterpoint to the viewpoint that diversity will fail and result in segregation.

Anonymous 11B April 22, 2014 12:59 PM  

I don't understand the white nationalist obsession with black genitalia.

They don't. It's trolls and provocateurs who try to sabotage the comments because they are afraid of people deviating from accepted views. Therefore, they must associate those alternative views with things that would tend to disgust so as to prevent them from spreading to more people.

That's why I never understood why they allow Whiskey to post his crap on these blogs. it really does turn people off who otherwise are discovering an alternate view to the PC narrative pushed by the MSM.

I hope you don't fall for it.

Anonymous Josh April 22, 2014 1:09 PM  

YIH,

Note the location: Philadelphia.

Thanks Yankees.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2014 1:10 PM  

Stephen Wolfram ...demonstrated decades ago,...that segregation is not necessarily a function of irrational discrimination in any negative sense.

All that is required for segregation to occur is that each person possess a positive liking to have at least one neighbour who is like to themselves


Yes, he demonstrated that's possible, but that's not why segregation occurs. Aside from a preference for women with good figures and short skirts, I don't particularly care what the people around me look like. I'm not even all that concerned with how well they care for their lawn or what color they paint their houses. What matters to me is that they don't pose a danger to my health or wealth.

I don't want to live around thieves. I don't want to live around muggers, or people with poor anger-management skills. I don't want to live around people who gleefully form bands specifically in order to steal from or brutalize people like me (physically or "legally").

It's all negative association. I don't care if a Meth-head neighbor has the same skin color as me or not, I don't want him around (and where I live, meth addicts, usually white meth addicts, really are the biggest problem). Maybe I'm just a special snowflake, but I doubt it.

Anonymous Josh April 22, 2014 1:11 PM  

Porky:

Yugoslavia, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda are examples from just the past twenty years.

Blogger njartist April 22, 2014 1:12 PM  

@Peter Garstig April 22, 2014 9:19 AM
Why does that feel like a purge?

Blogger James Dixon April 22, 2014 1:13 PM  

> My question is in regards to specifically identifying sub-speciation.

I'm pretty sure that while there is a relation, eye color and sub-speciation are not well enough linked.

Anonymous CLK April 22, 2014 1:22 PM  

"One notes that the tool makers have created tremendous tools of mortality such as nuclear weapons and birth control."

Absolutely -- there's a 50/50 chance that mankind will eventually be killed off by the tools that we make ... but until that instant.. the tool makers will rule.

Anonymous Brother Thomas April 22, 2014 1:25 PM  

The amount of melanin in skin tissue is only relevant in relationship to environment and one's ability to synthesize vitamin D. Now, there may be other differences in subsets (right word?) of our species, but skin pigmentation is rather a trivial difference when considered rationally.

Man of color (aka anti-racist), you may be vitamin D deficient if you live in a climate with little sunlight (e.g. northern hemisphere).

Anonymous H April 22, 2014 1:26 PM  

Britain has already started the process in its schools.

Anonymous CLK April 22, 2014 1:27 PM  

And I have to wonder why blue eyes would be an a factor in gun fighting -- is it better low light vision, sharpness ... ? Blue eye also points to a specific genetic origin as well.

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 1:29 PM  

11B:
That's why I never understood why they allow Whiskey to post his crap on these blogs. it really does turn people off who otherwise are discovering an alternate view to the PC narrative pushed by the MSM.
Eh, Whiskey's OK, a bit dense, but what the hell. As such he actually takes stock in that meme from comedians and the pr0n industry.
Just like there's a few dozen 7+ foot tall individuals in the NBA there are a few unusual types in the pr0n biz. And more often than not penises are as exaggerated (and fake) as the breasts.
Whiskey must be busy, this is his second favorite subject.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic April 22, 2014 1:33 PM  

It would seem that "free association" in practice would mean the driving away of persons from locations not one's personal property.

Free association means I get to sell my house to whom I want and hire and fire whom I want. It also means me and my neighbors can covenant out certain racial groups if we so desire. Of course, the government has outlawed all of this.

For something as organic as diversity is said to be, it sure seems to require a lot of positive law and bureaucrats to enforce.

Anonymous unsub April 22, 2014 1:37 PM  

Are you denying that our genitalia are indeed elephantine?
I played Div 2 football. Not that I was looking, but the biggest unit I ever noticed was on a white guy who wasn't John Holmes (another white guy).
And yes, just replying to you makes me feel like I picked up and threw back a dog turd the mongoloid child first thew my way.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 2:01 PM  

The most succesful drastic restructuring of society was done in 1804 by Haitian freeedom fighters

Given that Haiti is one of the most comprehensively failed states in the entire western hemisphere, if this is one of the most successful examples of such restructuring that you can point to, I think your argument is self refuting.

"Diversity + proximity =/ war."

Vox, can you tell us what you consider to be your top three examples from history?


It might be harder task to list 3 wars where this rule was not a factor. In the 20th century alone, everything from WWI (Serbian ethnic nationalists attempting to break away from the dying Hapsburg empire) to the The Troubles in Ireland to the endless rounds of violence in what remains of Yugoslavia has underlined how broadly this rule has applied.

Anonymous fish April 22, 2014 2:10 PM  

Diversity is here to stay because of one very important reason: white women want the sexual pleasure that only a Man of Color (because of their elephantine genitals) can provide.


Using that rationale she should own a horse. True they are expensive pets but they'll never steal your car or wallet. Bonus points for a horses inability to prattle on about sports or ask you to listen to "his rhymes".

Blogger IM2L844 April 22, 2014 2:14 PM  

That's why I never understood why they allow Whiskey [et al.] to post his crap on these blogs.

Shining a light on their flawed reasoning provides the necessary contrast to ameliorate correct understandings.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 2:22 PM  

And in just the last couple decades we've had further examples in: Syria, Iraq, Turkey (anywhere there are Kurds, basically), Sudan, Nigeria, Palestine, Rwanda, Chechnya, Balkans, Somalia, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, etc

This is far from a comprehensive list, but is still a rather telling group of countries have have experienced civil wars due to diversity. (The inclusion of Georgia is moderately questionable, depending on how you assign root causes).

While it is true that homogeneous states, instead of descending into internal strife, simply go to war with other homogeneous states, history indicates that the frequency of such nation-state on nation-state conflicts is rather rarer than the internal civil war conflicts.

From an outsider's standpoint, such wars are also much easier to mediate. Compare the efficiency of the United States army in quelling Saddam's incursion into Kuwait, with the efficiency of the US Army in creating stable prosperous democracies where everyone gets along in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anonymous civilServant April 22, 2014 2:23 PM  

Diversity + proximity =/ war.

Vox, can you tell us what you consider to be your top three examples from history?

Since Vox is busy anybody else want to take a stab at this?


Perhaps an anti-stab. The Roman and Ottoman Empires were both somewhat "diverse" (I still await someone's definition of this word) and China includes not only different tribes and cultures but even different languages united only by a uniform pictograph (?) system. Yet they were held together reasonably well. Meanwhile the 1860's United States could hardly be said to be diverse yet they fought a vicious north-south war for several years incurring major casualties on both sides over tarrifs and/or highly limited slavery. At the end of this bitter war General Lee was similar in outlook to that of the North that he could admonish his troops to accept defeat and be good Americans - yet more than a century later some are ready to fight that war again.

"Diversity + proximity =/ war" seems to need explication.

Anonymous civilServant April 22, 2014 2:25 PM  

Regarding the slavery issue: one notes that the slavery question involved neither side but rather a third party group.

Anonymous civilServant April 22, 2014 2:37 PM  

It would seem that "free association" in practice would mean the driving away of persons from locations not one's personal property.

Free association means I get to sell my house to whom I want and hire and fire whom I want.


In truth if you are bound and determined then this is not so difficult. But what about your neighbors and contractors? Would you restrict them? Tell them with whom they could and could not associate?

It also means me and my neighbors can covenant out certain racial groups if we so desire.

Why stop with racial groups?

And if you yourself are locked out as well? Because you will be.

Blogger Matamoros April 22, 2014 2:38 PM  

anti-racist white people do not have children.

That may be true of liberal whites with their death wish, but here in the South it is usual to see whites with 4 or more children.

Many of those families are Baptist. Traditional Catholics have large families (+6), as well as Mormons.

So what we are witnessing is the death of the stupid. Nature/God is culling the white herd for the coming reconquista.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 2:39 PM  

I see some people, including me, have replaced the = sign with the != sign without realizing it.

The Roman and Ottoman empires did not hold together in the end, nor even reasonably well in the time before their final dissolution.

Do you have any idea how many civil wars were fought in the Roman Empire? It took two separate civil wars just to get the thing formed properly. (Caesar vs Pompey, Octavius vs Antony) It can be hard to categorize the civil wars properly, especially as there was a period of about 50 years of constant strife, but there were at least 8 separate instances over ~400 years of the roman empire. That works out to be one every 50 years, which certainly exceeds the rate of civil wars in the United States or England.

The Ottoman Empire was a constantly simmering cauldron of rebellions and insurrections for the entirety of its existence, and long before its coup-de-grace was administered in WWI was known as 'The Sick Man of Europe'. Hardly a success story in any sense of the term.

I think including the war to end slavery as an example of a war that did NOT include 'diversity' is pretty cheeky. Absent such 'diversity', the war would not have been fought.

Examples where two culturally distinct groups of people coexist more or less peacefully inside the same set of political borders (Canada, Belgium) tends to end up involving some pretty strict and severe self -segregation.

All that said, it is not at all clear to me how 'diverse' one would rate Rome of the late republic era with, say, the present day United States.

Anonymous Stilicho April 22, 2014 2:40 PM  

I that Cop Sucker is having a discussion with the voices in her head... again

Blogger Matamoros April 22, 2014 2:40 PM  

Whites Have Bigger Cocks Than Blacks

Scientific Study Proves It

7/10/2005 7:21:13 PM

Discuss this story in the forum
LSN Staff

Science -- A scientific study has proven that white men have bigger cocks than blacks, despite lies about black sexuality perpetrated in Jewish mass media and pornography.

According to the study, published in a Canadian scientific journal, white men's average cock length is 6.4", two tenths of an inch longer than black cocks, which are an average of 6.2" long. Hispanic cocks are an average 6" long, and East Asian cocks are an average of 5.6" long.

For decades, whites have had to listen to the insulting and false derision of Jewish propaganda claiming that African barbarians have giant cocks that somehow make white women attracted to them. While very few white women are actually attracted to blacks, and most of those who are are mentally, emotionally, or physically defective in some way, this myth has been eagerly propagated by Jewish entertainment media, Jewish movies, Jewish music, and, most importantly, Jewish pornography.

Like all Jewish myths about black "superiority", such as alleged black musical ability, alleged black dancing ability, alleged black sports ability, and alleged black entertainment ability, the myth of giant black cocks has been proven to be a racist lie designed by Jews to psychologically undermine white society.

Found this while googling at: http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-11393.html

Anonymous H April 22, 2014 2:40 PM  

@civilServant

The Roman and Ottoman Empires could afford to be diverse because of their strong central cultures that made sure the minority groups within them were subservient to the majority, and because they were prosperous for a time. When times are good, people are happy, and when times are bad, people get angry. Diversity + proximity = war is exasperated by bad economic times, which is partly why Vox and others here predict violent clashes in America's future.

Anonymous YIH April 22, 2014 2:41 PM  

Using that rationale she should own a horse. True they are expensive pets but they'll never steal your car or wallet. Bonus points for a horses inability to prattle on about sports or ask you to listen to "his rhymes".
They're probably less expensive to care for than an African. Also one of the most famous of that meme was confirmed fake:
However, photographer Jay Myrdal has revealed that although Mead “was immensely endowed… a good nine or ten inches,”[1] the penis featured in his porn shoots was faked. After at first successfully utilising “complicated multi-exposure techniques”[2] to enhance Mead’s natural endowments for still photography, Mrydal later persuaded the makeup artist for the film The Elephant Man to create the prosthetic which greatly contributed to the notoriety of Long Dong Silver.
But Whiskey believes it so that's all that matters, right?
/sarc

Anonymous anti-racist April 22, 2014 2:42 PM  

If there ever was a "civil war" like you guys are hoping for. white right wingers would get trounced.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/03/916577/-An-Open-Letter-to-the-White-Right-On-the-Occasion-of-Your-Recent-Successful-Temper-Tantrum

Anonymous H April 22, 2014 2:43 PM  

Dewave's explanation is probably better than mine as well.

Anonymous fish April 22, 2014 2:47 PM  

If there ever was a "civil war" like you guys are hoping for. white right wingers would get trounced.

hmmm...Tim Wise again....sniff...yawn!

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 2:52 PM  

The claim is that diversity plus proximity results in war, not that war is proof of diversity and proximity. Wars may happen for other reasons, but it appears that excess diversity is one of the most common.

Late 20th-century America, like the Roman Empire for a time, was prosperous enough to pay diverse peoples to get along, basically. As soon as an empire can't do that, there's trouble.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 2:54 PM  

I'm afraid anyone who envisions eventual violence in America breaking down along Democrat vs Republican lines simply has no grasp of history or any idea of what they are talking about.

The same goes for anyone envisioning it having the same boundaries as the American Civil War v2.

Also that daily kos article perfectly exemplifies the whig view of history as one of permanent and inevitable progress.

Who are the whigs, you ask?

Exactly.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 3:06 PM  

Civil Servant: "The Roman and Ottoman Empires were both somewhat "diverse" (I still await someone's definition of this word) and China includes not only different tribes and cultures but even different languages united only by a uniform pictograph (?) system. Yet they were held together reasonably well."

Hell, even Vlad Putin brags about how multicultural and diverse Russia has been for centuries.

He also rightly points out that wars are fought not because of the diversity but rather when one group is restricted to the point where they can no longer cope.

Anonymous ogunsiron April 22, 2014 3:11 PM  

fnn April 22, 2014 10:35 AM

TFRs and Israeli Exceptionalism

Africans don’t count because Africans quite literally are not the same species as the rest of us.
------
The former British caribbean islands are very, very black and yet their black populations have definitely undergone the demographic transition. The Black TFR in the usa is 2.1. Blacks aren't immune to the forces that push fertility down in most societies.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 3:19 PM  

Hell, even Vlad Putin brags about how multicultural and diverse Russia has been for centuries.

Yes, and they've had the same stable, peaceful, prosperous form of government for all that time, right? No civil wars or angry minorities or mass loss of life or anything?

Multicultural success stories need to be examples that aren't chronic war zones.

Anonymous Hank April 22, 2014 3:21 PM  

"I don't understand the white nationalist obsession with black genitalia."

You'd have to have white male genitalia to understand Josh.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 3:31 PM  

He also rightly points out that wars are fought not because of the diversity but rather when one group is restricted to the point where they can no longer cope.

So Saddam invaded tiny Kuwait because they were restricting him?

The American revolution was started by people who were far less restricted by their government than are American citizens today.

This explanation is complete bunk, along with the 'poverty causes wars' explanation.

People start wars because they believe they will benefit by doing so. They don't even have to be correct.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 3:44 PM  

So Saddam invaded tiny Kuwait because they were restricting him?

Actually, yeah. He was heavily in debt from the Iran war and Kuwait was slant drilling his oil out from underneath him.

The American revolution was started by people who were far less restricted by their government than are American citizens today.

No. Not even close. What modern equivalent can you cite to the quartering act?

Blogger Marissa April 22, 2014 3:51 PM  

What modern equivalent can you cite to the quartering act?

What King-imposed colonial equivalent can you cite to the income tax, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, environmental and zoning restrictions, forced government-supported infanticide, etc. Really the list goes on. The level of restriction is far worse today than it was under the last king of the American colonies. I think the only reason Americans today aren't as sissified as the British is because a large percentage of their most masculine population died in two world wars.

Anonymous CorkyAgain April 22, 2014 3:54 PM  

To talk about being pro-segregation or anti-segregation is a category error. It's no different than claiming to be pro-biology or anti-gravity. It's a normal human dynamic, and as such, it can be resisted with effort, but only for a short time from the historical perspective.

Like most humans, I'm anti-entropy. But I recognize that I'm probably likely to only succeed in the short term.

Blogger Unknown April 22, 2014 4:17 PM  

When whites realize there is a propaganda war aimed at them with the goal of genocide as its end point, then it will get serious. In the meantime we squabble about crime, taxation and the idiot factories known as public education, and its a fairly safe debate and well policed by the establishment so as to not lead to anything but unhappy grousers. Like its said "anti-racism is nothing but a code word for anti-white." Think I'm lying then ask the anti-white trolls here.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 4:21 PM  

What King-imposed colonial equivalent can you cite to the income tax, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, environmental and zoning restrictions, forced government-supported infanticide, etc.

All done by duly elected representatives and their appointees. No comparison.

Anyhow, you've missed Vlad's and my point: it doesn't matter how diverse the population or how awful the circumstance. All that matters is that one group gets fed up and that violence is the only way out.

Even if it's one group of englishmen vs. another group of englishmen.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 4:37 PM  

No. Not even close. What modern equivalent can you cite to the quartering act?

That's easy. Kelo. That's less defensible than saying the government can seize your property to support soldiers in times of war. Now, it can seize your property in times of peace to provide profits to politically connected corporations!

Also see Civil Asset Forfeiture. The property of innocent Americans is being seized to fund law enforcement.

All done by duly elected representatives and their appointees. No comparison.

What an absurd statement. You are saying a democracy can never be more restrictive than a monarchy. That is of course, nonsense.

Anyhow, you've missed Vlad's and my point: it doesn't matter how diverse the population or how awful the circumstance. All that matters is that one group gets fed up and that violence is the only way out.

I think YOU are missing the main point, which is that diversity makes it far more likely one or more groups will get fed up and decide that violence is the way to go. This should be obvious. The lack of a shared cultural background and respect makes non-violent resolutions to conflict less likely.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 4:43 PM  

.Actually, yeah. He was heavily in debt from the Iran war and Kuwait was slant drilling his oil out from underneath him.

No they were not. They were producing more oil than Iraq wanted them too, but before the invasion they had already agreed to limit their production.

Needless to say, this did not stop Saddam from invading them.

The slant drilling argument is just as much a specious pretext for utterly unwarranted aggression as was the claim that Germany only invaded Poland because the Polish army had raided a German radio station.

Not even the Iraqis bothered to keep up this charade after the invasion. They insisted their invasion was justified, not on easily disproven claims of slant drilling, but by the fact that Kuwait had historically belonged to Iraq and should belong to Iraq once more.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2014 5:01 PM  

Like @jimworrad matters! LOL

Blogger James Dixon April 22, 2014 5:07 PM  

> All done by duly elected representatives and their appointees. No comparison.

So were the British laws, Porky. We just didn't agree that we were properly represented.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 5:11 PM  

@dewave

Kelo is bad. But at least they pay you fair market value, and you have at least a modicum of hope of changing the policy.

Quartering comes down by decree, and you have to pay for it. Period.

What an absurd statement. You are saying a democracy can never be more restrictive than a monarchy.

A democracy is as restrictive as the people let it become. Same for a monarchy.

I think YOU are missing the main point, which is that diversity makes it far more likely one or more groups will get fed up and decide that violence is the way to go. This should be obvious.

No. It's about restrictions, not HBD. How can you simply gloss over the fact that the colonists were practically indistinguishable from englishmen?

Were the Irish separatists bonded by their Irish blood or their oppression? Irish will fight Irish, English will fight English, whites will fight whites and blacks will fight blacks anytime they feel that they are intolerably oppressed.

That is obvious.

Anonymous Racialist Heretic April 22, 2014 5:16 PM  

@Anti-Racist If there ever was a "civil war" like you guys are hoping for. white right wingers would get trounced.

Keep telling yourself that. You guys are screwed. lolz

Blogger Whiskey April 22, 2014 5:20 PM  

Sailer notes that dark skin and testosterone generates female attraction but are ugly in women. Matches Kanazawas study, Black women least attractive Black men the most, Asian men the least and women the most.

Male sexiness depends on low IQ and high testosterone and impulsiveness.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 5:25 PM  

They were producing more oil than Iraq wanted them too, but before the invasion they had already agreed to limit their production.

Yeah - you mess with somebody over and over until they raise a fist, then you say "hey just kidding". Don't be surprised when you're picking up your teeth off the floor.





Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 5:27 PM  

Kelo also came down by decree. And of course, civil asset forfeiture involves Americans just paying for the maintenance of law enforcement. I'd argue the colonists had a greater chance of petitioning the King to rescind the quartering act than people today have of getting the supreme court to overturn Kelo.All the principles present in the quartering act, meant to be an emergency measure to help during a time of war, are alive and well, today in America.

How can you simply gloss over the fact that the colonists were practically indistinguishable from englishmen?

You are falling into a classic error here.

diversity + proximity = war does not mean that war = diversity + proximity. This is an easy error to fall into, our brains seem hardwired to assume that if b is a, then a is b. For example, some people treat the statements 'all terrorists are Muslims' and 'all Muslims are terrorists' as equivalent. Our minds do not seem naturally inclined to the necessary precision.

Blogger Dewave April 22, 2014 5:28 PM  

Yeah - you mess with somebody over and over until they raise a fist, then you say "hey just kidding". Don't be surprised when you're picking up your teeth off the floor.

I see you have abandoned the 'war is caused by restrictions' argument.

Now you are proposing a 'war is caused by hurt pride' argument, which is at least closer to the truth.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 5:54 PM  

I see you have abandoned the 'war is caused by restrictions' argument.

After you already admitted that Kuwait had been screwing Iraq over for years? Not hardly.

Anonymous Porky April 22, 2014 6:01 PM  

diversity + proximity = war does not mean that war = diversity + proximity.

Well also diversity + proximity = no war. And no war = diversity + proximity.

The equations are useless as predictors.

Prolonged tyranny, however, is the constant that should appear in the equation - but doesn't.





Anonymous Josh April 22, 2014 6:14 PM  

Is whiskey drunk?

Anonymous Luke April 22, 2014 6:38 PM  

anti-racist April 22, 2014 2:42 PM
"If there ever was a "civil war" like you guys are hoping for. white right wingers would get trounced."

Refuted: http://tinyurl.com/m6t28la (link to history book)

Anonymous VD April 22, 2014 6:49 PM  

Whiskey, I'm not interested in your irrelevant opinions about who is, or is not, sexually appealing. Not even if you cite studies. If you bring it up again here when "which race is the sexiest" is not the subject of the post, the comments will be deleted.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic April 22, 2014 6:54 PM  

And if you yourself are locked out as well? Because you will be.

I think I can make do without being able to buy a house in a black neighborhood.

Anyway - you are proving my point. Groups with different worldviews and different phenotypes do not like each other. Absolute fear and loathing is more like it. We siphon off a good deal of tribal energy via sporting events.

Only powerful, centralized government under the control of a dominant ethnicity can hold a multicultural empire together, and when it becomes a plurality then things start to fall apart quick. There's sort of an ersatz unity in the corporate world, but that is disappearing as workplaces become dominated by different ethnic patronage networks. Anglo's and Euro's can play that game too; they're just temporarily out of practice.

Not if, but when.

Blogger Marissa April 22, 2014 7:00 PM  

Porky that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Americans are less restricted now than they were before the Revolution. The laundry list I posted is much worse than forced quartering of soldiers. It doesn't matter if one is the result of monarchy and one is the result of liberalism (classic or otherwise). Restrictions are restrictions.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 22, 2014 7:13 PM  

"Quartering comes down by decree, and you have to pay for it. Period. "

Little more complex than that. There was a priority list of how the troops were to be billeted and supported, with private housing down near the end. The owners were supposed to feed the troops, yes, but the colonial legislatures were directed to recompense the homeowners. By 1765, quartering on the populace was illegal here, per British law.



Blogger john Bkl April 22, 2014 7:26 PM  

So when I saw that they mentioned the minimum wage and taxes I thought they might mean get rid of those things, but then I saw it was an article from the New Yorker...

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2014 9:22 PM  

The equations are useless as predictors.

Certainly a man is prone to find something useless when he doesn't understand it. But other people who do understand it will have a different opinion.

Prolonged tyranny, however, is the constant that should appear in the equation - but doesn't.

Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it isn't there. For instance, what do you find more tyrannical, forced busing or schools that end up segregated along the same lines as the neighborhoods they are in? What's more tyrannical, Grandma gropers at the TSA, or a separate line for Arab passengers? What's more tyrannical, a bigoted boss here and there or disparate Impact lawsuits from the EEOC? What's more tyrannical, King George's Intolerable Acts, or the current US Federal Register?

Anonymous Matamoron April 22, 2014 10:17 PM  

“Oversized” Penile Length In The Black People; Myth Or Reality" - Tropical Journal of Medical Research Vol. 11 (1) 2007: pp. 16-18 ISSN: 1119-0388

Design: A prospective and comparative study

Setting: The Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Nigeria.

Subjects and Method: Full-stretch flaccid penile lengths, and flaccid penile lengths, were measured in 115 adult men of the Black race in Nigeria. The results were compared with reported similar main studies on people of other races, which were accessible to the authors. These studies were done in Italy, Greece, Korea, Britain, and the United States of America.

Result: The mean full-stretch penile length of the Nigerian Blacks was 13.37cm and the mean flaccid length was 9.36cm. Similar studies reported full-stretch penile lengths of 12.50cm in Italians, 12.18cm in Greeks, 9.6cm in Koreans, 13cm in British Caucasians, and 12.45cm in the American Caucasians. The penile length for Nigerian Blacks was longer than those of the other races, but the differences were only statistically different in comparison with the Koreans.

Anonymous Toby Temple April 23, 2014 2:52 AM  

There is a very good reason why Africans are not the most populous race.

Sure, they reproduce. But they sure as hell do not reproduce as much as Indians and Chinese and their children do not live long enough like the children of Indians and Chinese.

The entire African continent boast a population of 1 billion. The country of India boasts 1.2 billion people. The country of China, 1.5 billion. 2 Asian countries puts the entire African continent to shame.

Asia's total population as of last year: 4.3 billion. That is 62% of the world population. Over half of that is in India and China.

In other words, nigga please!

Blogger ScuzzaMan April 23, 2014 5:42 AM  

@Jack Amok:
"It's all negative association. I don't care if a Meth-head neighbor has the same skin color as me or not, I don't want him around (and where I live, meth addicts, usually white meth addicts, really are the biggest problem). Maybe I'm just a special snowflake, but I doubt it."

That was my point. That is why I said that fleeing crime is distinct from fleeing black people, red people, or yellow people.

It is an issue of culture not of colour. I dont give a rats ass what colour anyone is. I do care that they behave themselves like a civilised human being.

For myself, I come from a white trash background, so I know from personal experience that colour has little (if anything) to do with it.

Anonymous Porky April 23, 2014 7:33 AM  

Porky that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Americans are less restricted now than they were before the Revolution.

Oh, Marissa. Let's go through it then.

The colonials had their entire main port shut down because of the tea party, punitively, without a trial.

That'd be like shutting down Long Beach Harbor because somebody in LA threw a brick at a cop car.

Royal government officials could demand to be tried in England, meaning they could do whatever the hell they wanted.

That'd be like Harry Reed raping your daughter and then telling you that you will have to fly to Dubai for a year or two if you you want to press charges.

Royal troops could quarter themselves in any available building or in your home.

That would be like the Marines showing up at your husband's hardware store and taking it over. Oh, and by the way they'll be eating at your house tonight and they love mutton and ale.

In colonial Massachusetts the local government were to be all royal appointees.

That's like having Barack Obama tell you who your school board, your city council, your mayor, and your city planner will be. Oh, and you want to have a town hall meeting about it? Fuck you. There's no more town hall.

Marissa, you are completely, utterly, spectacularly clueless. You've obviously lived such a pampered life in an era where government does everything from teach your kids to build your roads and gives you free cell phones and food every month and pays you not to work and makes sure your kids are getting enough veggies at lunchtime - that you cry and whine about "restrictions" every time you hear some story on NPR about a guy who is fighting a ten year eminent domain case or that Wesley Snipes is in jail for not paying taxes.

Your ignorance of history combined with your rabid histrionics about *gasp* taxes! and *snort* social security! render you incapable of properly guaging the signs of the times. We are nowhere near breaking point. Not even close.

But don't worry, my dear. We will get to colonial level tyranny in due time. And I'll be sure to bring you some oxygen and a fainting couch.



Anonymous Porky April 23, 2014 7:40 AM  

Kratman: Little more complex than that.

To be sure. And not as horrific as the Boston press made it out to be. But it was fuel for the fire.

Things didn't get real bad until they came for the powder. I suspect it will be the same for us.

Blogger Dewave April 23, 2014 11:27 AM  

The colonials had their entire main port shut down because of the tea party, punitively, without a trial.

The tea party was a clear act of rebellion. The consequences thereof clearly cannot be counted as part of the restrictions that caused the colonists to rebel in the first place. That said, government can easily unilaterally shut down your business today as well. I see little difference between the current administration declaring war on the coal industry and the British crown declaring war on the colonial shipping industry.

Royal government officials could demand to be tried in England, meaning they could do whatever the hell they wanted.

Sounds like our own officials! Merely cite executive privilege or official immunity or any number of special rights and privileges to get away with things normal people cannot. Geithner can get away with tax evasion that would land lesser mortals in jail. The contempt of our political elite for the law, and their incessant and flagrant flaunting of it, drives much of the rancor and discontent in today's politics.

Royal troops could quarter themselves in any available building or in your home.

Any government flunkie can seize your home from you using eminent domain. I think it's clear that having your home seized and given away to a private corporation is far more indefensible than having the troops tasked with protecting you temporarily quartered there.

That said, we do have examples of police arresting people who refused to turn over their homes to police for police use. (Henderson, Nevada)

In colonial Massachusetts the local government were to be all royal appointees.

I note once again you dishonestly attempt to portray the intolerable acts, passed after the colonists engaged in acts of rebellion, as the restrictions that caused the discontent and rebellion in the first place. This was not the case for colonial Massachusetts before the Boston Tea Party. Even if it had been, I note you conveniently attempting to ignore the representative government available in, say, colonial Virginia. Or I guess you've simply never heard of the House of Burgesses. Anyway, even given the invalidity of your example, the parallel today is the shocking number of laws that are implemented and defined by unelected bureaucrats in unaccountable agencies, who are all appointed by government and not answerable to the citizenry. The colonists actually had several terrible royal officials repealed or recalled. When was the last time a private citizen had an officious EPA employee fired?

Every example you cite has equal (or worse!) occurrences today. I can only conclude that not only are you shockingly ignorant of past history ( a common, and thus forgivable offence) , but you are also shockingly ignorant of what is happening in the world around you today (far less excusable).

Blogger Dewave April 23, 2014 11:28 AM  

The equations are useless as predictors.

You don't understand how predictors work.

VD advanced his hypothesis that a certain set of circumstances would lead inevitably to either segregation, or war. You responded by saying "No, that never causes war. War is caused by people being restricted instead!"

Right away that puts you on very weak footing. There are many causes of war, attempting to stake out such an absolutist claim is an unwise tactic.

You would have been better off to say "Sure, yes, that can cause war, but war can also be caused by other things. And look, here are some examples of diversity and proximity not leading to strife, discontent, and struggle!"

Perhaps you didn't go that route due to the lack of positive examples.

The next problem with your thesis is that the alternative explanation for why wars are fought (people feel they have no recourse to non violent means to solve their problems) is, while true, clearly made more likely to occur by diversity and lack of shared cultural understanding or background.

Additionally, just as not ALL wars were caused by diversity + proximity, it is easy to find wars that were not caused by a weaker and poor neighbor being bullied to the edge of endurance by a stronger power. America didn't launch the Mexican War or the Spanish American War because it was being meaningfully restricted by Mexico or Spain in anyway - these were pure imperialistic land grabs, plain and simple. The only possible thing you could say was being restricted was the expansion of our own sphere of influence: and if that if that counts as a restriction justifying war, than anything short of possessing total world domination serves as a casus belli, making your entire point meaningless.

The same thing goes for going to war to become richer. (As Iraq did to Kuwait). You cannot possibly argue that one country making less money than it could if it invaded another country is a 'restriction' that justifies a war - and if you do, you're not really advocating that wars are caused by one side being backed into a corner, but by one side feeling they have something to gain by the war (my own position).

The other problem with your position is that both your suggestion, and VD's, can be valid predictors of war. It can both be the case that a powerless group backed up against the wall will lead to war, and that diversity and proximity will eventually lead to war.

It does not mean that all wars must necessarily involve either diversity and proximity, or a powerless group with no other recourse. The predictor works only one way.

Blogger Dewave April 23, 2014 11:28 AM  

Prolonged tyranny, however, is the constant that should appear in the equation - but doesn't.

This is both a very neocon and a very whiggish (but I repeat myself) thing to say - and utterly incorrect. I'm not surprised to hear you say it though, historically illiterate people tend to also believe this fatuous nonsense that oppression breeds its own downfall.

Even a cursory examination of human history shows that oppression tends to win, and keep winning, for a very long time. It's not tyranny or oppression that leads to the downfall of a government, it is weakness, perceived or real. The idea that inside every human heart beats the inextinguishable flame of liberty is complete neocon nonsense. Most people simply want a master who is reasonably predictable and beyond that, are content to uphold the status quo. Despotic, oppressive regimes all around the world fall only when they are perceived as weak, not at the height of their oppression. Often, they are overthrown when they are least oppressive, as they attempt to make reforms to placate an unhappy population.

For this reason, even though I think American citizens today indisputably face more restrictions on their daily lives than did the colonials in King George's realm (who would never have dreamed of telling a farmer he couldn't graze his livestock on a field for fear of upsetting a tortoise, or demanding children manning a lemonade stand purchase a permit, etc etc), I don't think there is any danger of a second American Revolution. This is because the colonials (correctly) judged they could throw off the rule of a distant and weakened monarch, who had many other issues to contend with. People today, (correctly, I think) feel that armed rebellion against a large well armed well trained modern army NOT on the other side of the Atlantic ocean would be put down swiftly and brutally. This is the inherent problem with your restriction thesis. You don't have to look at just America, either. Citizens in communist Russia were obviously far more restricted than citizens in America ever have been but failed to mount a revolution the same way Americans did because the Soviet Empire was perceived as strong and forceful. Look at North Korea, for example. Is there a more tyrannical and oppressive regime? Yet we see Venice trying to separate from the objectively far less oppressive rule of Italy instead of successful revolutions in NK.

The track record of prolonged tyranny is excellent, as long as the prolonged tyranny is winning wars and bringing home the booty.

Blogger Marissa April 23, 2014 12:14 PM  

Your ignorance of history combined with your rabid histrionics about *gasp* taxes! and *snort* social security! render you incapable of properly guaging the signs of the times. We are nowhere near breaking point. Not even close.

You conveniently ignored the tens of millions of abortions committed in just the last forty years. I find the income tax and Social Security distasteful (and the men of the late 1700s would have rebelled because of them alone--which speaks to your own historical ignorance). Anyway, Dewave made an argument against you already. Trying to compare the British monarchy to today's filthy decadence is a losing battle for you. What do you think the revolutionaries would have been more horrified at? I think today's government, and with good reason. Also, I don't understand your sarcasm; it's very ugly.

Anonymous Porky April 23, 2014 1:50 PM  

You responded by saying "No, that never causes war."

cite? Didn't think so.

America didn't launch the Mexican War or the Spanish American War because it was being meaningfully restricted by Mexico or Spain in anyway - these were pure imperialistic land grabs, plain and simple.

Oh good God you idiot. Do you think the US govt. woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's go get Cuba!"? Are you even aware of a little thing called Cuba's War for Independence?

You are living proof that a two digit IQ + wikipedia can be very dangerous.

Trying to compare the British monarchy to today's filthy decadence is a losing battle for you.

So now it's decadence, not restrictiveness, that bothers you? The two are often inversely related, in case you hadn't noticed.

The thing you haven't grasped, Marissa, is that the US govt.'s problem is not that it is too restrictive. It's that it is TOO FREAKING HELPFUL.

They help everybody. Poor people, rich people, people in other countries, people who come from other countries, farmers, businessmen, they build us schools and roads and space stations, they give us food and money and housing and buy us all sorts of goodies. They buy us art exhibits, music festivals, parties, fireworks, they keep us warm and safe and fight diseases and bad people and keep all the bad things away and they BORROW MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE just so they can spend it on US! THEY FREAKING LOVE US!!!!

Marissa, babe, you don't know what restrictive even means. Go read a fucking book by a Soviet dissident sometime.

Blogger Marissa April 23, 2014 2:01 PM  

Porky, it seems to me like you're arguing in bad faith, but if you aren't, I'm going to re-post my list, which is by no means exhaustive:

income tax, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, environmental and zoning restrictions, forced government-supported infanticide

For most people in this country today and for most people who rebelled against the King, these measures are restrictive (even if many in the former group don't believe they are). The income (wages) tax restricts my wages, along with the taxes for Medicare and SS, and not only that, it restricts the economy, how doctors perform, etc. Environmental and zoning restrictions - it's built right in there, along with eminent domain (which is worse than quartering of soldiers). And finally, the abortion mills I'm forced to support via restrictions on my wages.

As you seem to keep ignoring the abortion point, I'll ask again: What do you think the revolutionaries would have been more horrified at? Do you think twisting the restrictions of Caligula into decadence negates the effects of those restrictions?

Marissa, babe, you don't know what restrictive even means. Go read a fucking book by a Soviet dissident sometime.

Are you suggesting that a government has to be as restrictive as the Soviets for people to rebel? Does this not negate your own point considering the colonial government was far less restrictive than the Soviet government?

I'll request you not call me, babe. That is too familiar.

Anonymous Porky April 23, 2014 2:58 PM  

Marissa,

Taxes aren't restrictive. They are a trade-off. Unless a purely punitive tax, it is simply citizens hiring off certain tasks to government.

Many people erroneously think that the Boston Tea Party was about the cost of tea. Truth is the tea in question was cheaper, and of higher quality than the aftermarket stuff the colonists had been drinking. But it came with a hidden cost - the ability of the crown to tax it without allowing representation from the colonists. In short, it was purely about liberty, not money.

Are you suggesting that a government has to be as restrictive as the Soviets for people to rebel?

No. If I were to put forth an argument it would be that diversity can exist just fine in tight proximity as long as nobody's getting royally screwed over. It's the power plays that force the issue, not the diversity.

I'll request you not call me, babe. That is too familiar.

I get called sugartits constantly around here. Babe is pretty tame.

Anonymous Porky April 23, 2014 3:28 PM  

As you seem to keep ignoring the abortion point, I'll ask again: What do you think the revolutionaries would have been more horrified at?

Legalized abortion is not restrictive, it's permissive.

First, square your argument with this simple premise.

Anonymous Luke April 23, 2014 4:03 PM  

Dewave said:

"People today, (correctly, I think) feel that armed rebellion against a large well armed well trained modern army NOT on the other side of the Atlantic ocean would be put down swiftly and brutally."

That "well-armed/well-trained" isn't forever. First, consider how the U.S. Fedgov is clearly getting ever closer to going permanently broke. That's already affecting training/weapon acquisition/maintenance, right now. Second, think of all the "diversity" (affirmative action) prioritization in the U.S. mil. Physically weaker, unit-cohesion-disrupting, more likely to never deploy (from conveniently-timed pregnancies to falsified child care plans that fall apart when ordered to deploy to "I got an owie!!") women, pouring into most MOSs? How about the subliterate, black gangbangers and future La Raza/Latin Kings supporters? Not exactly the stuff of which the U.S.side at Midway or the British side at Rourke's Drift were made. It won't take all-summer chronic rioting in 30 cities as Thomas Chittum predicts for the U.S. gov't to start losing entire states; it'll come considerably sooner.

Blogger Marissa April 23, 2014 5:05 PM  

Legalized abortion is not restrictive, it's permissive.

From whose perspective? Consider if the law of Rome, that the patriarch may kill any member of his family for any reason whatsoever, were instituted. Is it permissive or restrictive? It permits one person to end the life of many persons. In fact, the abortion law is more restrictive, because the ability to abort is limited only by the number of pregnancies I can conceive, not the number of people already in my family.

Also, how is being forced to support this industry permissive? I find it restrictive. I can't understand why you ignored what I've written:

And finally, the abortion mills I'm forced to support via restrictions on my wages.

If I were to put forth an argument it would be that diversity can exist just fine in tight proximity as long as nobody's getting royally screwed over. It's the power plays that force the issue, not the diversity.

No one's getting royally screwed over in this country? Again, your example of the quartering of soldiers was countered by eminent domain, which is far worse. And any "mutton and ale" those soldiers like to dine in is a smaller cut than the amount of taxes one pays in many different forms.

Taxes aren't restrictive. They are a trade-off. Unless a purely punitive tax, it is simply citizens hiring off certain tasks to government.

Trade and hiring imply consent. Taxes are not consensual. I did not hire Planned Parenthood to destroy innocent life.

Blogger Marissa April 23, 2014 5:27 PM  

"People today, (correctly, I think) feel that armed rebellion against a large well armed well trained modern army NOT on the other side of the Atlantic ocean would be put down swiftly and brutally."

Luke has some good points counter to this, but I'd like to add a little more. Talk to current infantrymen (and ones who recently left the military). Infantry are the fighters; they're the ones who will be boots on the ground if the day ever comes. Many of them love their country but are not blinded by any PC nonsense. I hear stories from them like you wouldn't believe. Most people have no idea about 1) units not being able to deploy to Afghanistan or Korea because they can't afford the airfare, 2) units not having enough basic equipment like night vision goggles in Iraq or Afghanistan (within the last few years, too), 3) the army cutting meals and television to deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, 4) poor quality of some firearms and accoutrements (like lubricants), 5) release of prisoners who are clearly the enemy, 6) uniform and vehicle camo that can't be changed to the appropriate surroundings (literally--units were not allowed to paint over the "forest green" camo on a specific type of vehicle that was needed in a desert environment; you can see another example in Generation Kill with their MOPP suits); 7) the extremely poor mechanical quality of the MRAP (anti-mine) vehicle easily breaking axles and leaf springs; 8) affirmative action, to a lesser extent than made here, since the infantry is still very white--however, the issue will arise with logistics and support; 9) quality of folks allowed in the infantry, such as violent criminals, current gang members, and the mentally retarded.

I think the list can go on but I'll stop there. I'm still not confident about any force going up against them. But there are enormous problems, the main one being a lack of will. And I'm not even getting into the issue of countrymen lacking the will to fight fellow countrymen. I'm talking about the lack of will to engage of war, horribly violent tactics, difficult decisions, etc. The Army has been crushing the warrior mentality for a while now, for a kinder, softer, gentler military image.

Anonymous Porky April 23, 2014 5:34 PM  

From whose perspective?

From a legal perspective.

Here's a legal definition:

adj. 1) referring to any act which is allowed by court order, legal procedure, or agreement. 2) tolerant or allowing of others' behavior, suggesting contrary to others' standards.

Taxes are not consensual. I did not hire Planned Parenthood to destroy innocent life.

At least you can vote your representatives out if they don't meet your standards.


Blogger Marissa April 23, 2014 5:54 PM  

referring to any act which is allowed by court order, legal procedure, or agreement

Legalized murder is permissive for the murderer. What is it to the victim? Restrictive, I'd say. I wasn't aware we were arguing legal terms and it seems like you're now dancing around with semantics. Is legalized murder permissive for the victim of the murder? For instance, legalized quartering of soldiers is permissive for the soldiers. It is restrictive for the property owner.

At least you can vote your representatives out if they don't meet your standards.

I can vote for one state representative and one state senator, as well as one federal representative and one state senator. So what happens when the latter vote for a constitutional amendment allowing quartering of soldiers? "At least" I can vote them out? What about the millions of other people in the 49 other states who have to do so too?

This is my problem with liberalism. It will always be a race to the bottom, for the lowest common denominator.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion April 23, 2014 10:32 PM  

@Marissa,
@Dewave
@Porky
@Luke

Thanks for your intelligent arguing. I hope it goes on, since it's the best social studies/history refresher I've had in a long time.

Anonymous The Duke April 24, 2014 8:20 AM  

“How about the subliterate, black gangbangers and future La Raza/Latin Kings supporters?”

Complete mischaracterization.


“Not exactly the stuff of which the U.S.side at Midway or the British side at Rourke's Drift were made.”

Actually, the background of soldiers in both battles you listed consisted of second generation immigrants whom they ancestors were told by nativists that they would never amount to anything.


“as Thomas Chittum predicts...”

Predicts, being the operative word. Near 50% unemployment rates? “Vibrants” looting suburbs? Police officers shooting unarmed citizens at a record pace? Please, nigga. The banksters will NEVER let that happen.

I’ll wait for the movie to come out.

Blogger Marissa April 24, 2014 9:51 AM  

“How about the subliterate, black gangbangers and future La Raza/Latin Kings supporters?”

Complete mischaracterization.


Not complete, but definitely an overstatement. I've listened to one person in particular tell me about gang members in his infantry unit. Fort Hood is particularly bad, lots of crime on the base itself.

Anonymous Porky April 24, 2014 10:45 AM  

Again, your example of the quartering of soldiers was countered by eminent domain, which is far worse.

No, it's not. You can actually fight an eminent domain case in court. Many have done so and won.

Who are you going to fight when the redcoats knock on your door?

Legalized murder is permissive for the murderer. What is it to the victim? Restrictive, I'd say.

If we consider this restrictive, then it is only restrictive for a certain subclass of the population.

The Act that George Washington referred to as "The Murder Act" was restrictive to the entire population.

Again...the legalization of abortion turned a restriction into a permission. If you cannot or will not see modern America as an extremely permissive society which is getting more and more so every day, well, we are at an impasse.

Anonymous Luke April 24, 2014 7:16 PM  

The Duke April 24, 2014 8:20 AM

“Not exactly the stuff of which the U.S.side at Midway or the British side at Rourke's Drift were made.”

Actually, the background of soldiers in both battles you listed consisted of second generation immigrants whom they ancestors were told by nativists that they would never amount to anything.


FYI, the combat units in the regular U.S. military in 1942 were practically all nonblack. They have considerable numbers of minorities right now, and rising.

Oh, and Chittum bases his predictions in large part on what historically happens in Europe at various percentages of ethnic groups. They're not guesses. Have you not even read the book yet?

Anonymous Discard April 25, 2014 5:30 AM  

The Duke: The 24th Regiment of Foot, the Second Warwickshire at Rourke's Drift were second generation immigrants? Immigrants from where to where? England to Africa?

Midway won by second generation Americans? Here's the roster of Torpedo Squadron 8: Waldron (American Indian), Brannon, Moore, Owens, Campbell, Gray, Woodson, Abercrombie, Creamer, Ellison, Evans, Kenyon, Moore, Teats, Miles, Dobbs, Gay, Maffei, Lewis, Woodside, Pettry, Creasy, Bibb, Clark, Fisher, Martin, Phelps, Picou, Polston, Calkins, Field, Huntington, Sawhill, Larson, Earnest, Ferrier, Fieberling, and Gaynier. Not a lot of eastern or southern Europe in there.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts