Category Archives: Multiculturalism

Apple Vows to Put Race&Gender Over Merit

Apple’s American employees (data excludes foreign employees) are 80% male and 77% white or Asian. 72% of its leadership is male. Like Google, Apple has vowed to change this. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook recently declared (AP quote):

“Let me say up front: As CEO, I’m not satisfied with the numbers on this page,” Cook wrote. “They’re not new to us, and we’ve been working hard for quite some time to improve them.”

Rev. Jesse Jackson, president and founder of the Rainbow PUSH coalition, called Mr. Cook to congratulate him.

My questions are:

  • Have Asians finally been pushed from the coalition, or will only whites, especially white males, lose their jobs to less qualified replacements?
  • And, how long until Asians begin voting with white conservatives? The divide isn’t so much between Haves and Have Nots, as between Cans and Cannots. The tech industry is famous for its meritocracy and radical Libertarianism, but those days are ending.

Interesting beneficiaries of diversitocracy: Whites who can claim to be [partly] nonwhite [in this case "Hispanic", which includes those descended from Spaniards]. (following quote from same AP article):

As CEO, Cook also promoted Cuban-American Eddy Cue to Apple’s executive team and hired a woman, Angela Ahrendts, to oversee its stores.

Perhaps Apple should outsource tech jobs to where meritocracy is still the norm: Asia and Germany. Not only does the world distrust NSA involvement in American-made technology, but now it will fear American iphones are as poorly made as American cars.

Addendum: AmRen posted an even better report on this same story.

PC Hysterics Claim a Virginia GOP Scalp, VA GOP Cheers Them On

Bob FitzSimmons, the treasurer of the apparently ball-less Virginia Republican Party, is stepping down because some poor PC sensitive babies got their diapers in a bunch over the inconvenient hate facts he posted on his private Facebook page.

Briefly, Obama issued a Ramadan related statement praising the contributions of Muslims to the “fabric of America” and the “core of our democracy.” Mr. FitzSimmons posted a Facebook reply calling the President out for his obvious hyperbolic pandering. The hysteria quickly ensued. Take a look at this HuffPo article, and you’ll see that it wasn’t just Dems and libs wetting their collective pants. Some of his fellow Republicans were wetting theirs as well. I guess cutting off your balls causes problems with continence.

I got in a debate about this with a bunch of PC squishes and Establishment water carriers on a Facebook. (Is there a bigger waste of time?) Here is what I wrote:

Here is what Obama said. “In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.” This is so obviously hyperbolic and pandering it’s laughable. He didn’t say Muslim have contributed to our economy for example. He said “very fabric of our nation” and “core of our democracy.” Please PC apologists, work that out for me. Fabric of our nation? Core of our democracy? Please explain.

And:

Here is what Fitzsimmons said. “To mark the end of Ramadan, on Sunday, Obama released a statement thanking Muslim Americans “for their many achievements and contributions….to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”

It is one thing to be gracious on religious holidays, but this is pure nonsense. Exactly what part of our nation’s fabric was woven by Muslims? What about Sikhs, Animists, and Jainists? Should we be thanking them too?”

FitzSimmons is equally obviously correct. Obama’s statement was “pure nonsense.” Perhaps FitzSimmons, knowing the current PC oppressive intellectual climate, could have phrased it differently, but he was speaking truth and calling Obama out for his lies. Before the PC hysteric chorus replies in outrage, take a few deep breaths and just think. That Obama was FOS and FitzSimmons speaking truth is hardly debatable. Truth is under no obligation to conform to modern PC sensibilities.

I wish he hadn’t stepped down. The PC Beast must be resisted, not caved into.

Jack Hunter and Rare.us Go PC on Border Crisis

This is pretty bad stuff. People worried about the border invasion are, of course, racists.

As I have said before, I like Jack Hunter, but he is unfortunately still trying to pay penance for his Southern Avenger days. No self-respecting conservative should make the charge of racism because it is a meaningless Trotskyite slur term that is meant to thoughtstop rather than illuminate. Perhaps what the town hall folks said was insensitive, but to use the r word is cheap. Since Jack likes wrestling, it’s the political equivalent of cheap heat. The issue of disease also misses the main point. The real issue is where are these kids parents. Kids from distant Central American countries don’t just show up in mass. This is part of a systematized program.

Murrieta Invasion Protests

From: “Murrieta[, California,] immigration protests: 6 arrested“. The Desert Sun.:

Ideology:

The two carried a small yellow sign that read, “Nation of immigrants.”

Compassion:

“These people are here because of foreign policy. They’re refugees.”

Suicidal Twisted Religion:

Linda Hendrickson said she’s here “strictly for religious reasons.”
“I’m here out of my religious duty,” she said, which is to help the poor and the oppressed.

Continue reading

Obama’s Two-Front War

Interesting, isn’t it, how tactics and objectives dovetail in D.C.’s ever-escalating war to impose multiculturalism at home and abroad? In defense of the principle of “inclusion” in Iraq, Obama is quietly ramping up efforts to prop up D.C.’s puppet regime in Baghdad:

Monday of this week, the first combat troops came, with the promise now shifting to a “no combat missions” one.

Even that seems absurd, as the Pentagon sends Apache attack helicopters into Iraq for the combat troops to use in these “non-combat” missions. The administration appears to recognize the unpopularity of a new Iraq War, but seems determined to escalate quietly until it is no longer a potential move to warn against, but a simple reality.

Similarly, Obama’s response to the invasion of our southwest border is to present defenders of traditional America with a fait accompli of a Third-World occupation that will impose “inclusiveness” on the American people:

“Either we’re going to enforce our laws and remain strong, economically or otherwise, or we ignore the rule of law and go to being a Third World country,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican, told Fox News. “You’ve got to follow the law. You cannot bring hundreds of thousands of people in this country without destroying the country. Then there’s no place that people can dream about coming.”

No one knows this better than Barack Obama. Making the United States over into a Third World country is exactly what this president is about. He is of the Third World. He spent his formative years in the Third World, and when his mother, obsessed with the Third World, brought him back to America, he sought out the company of those who dreamed of making America over into the world’s largest welfare state.

You have to feel for the patriotic protesters in Murietta standing up to the government’s importation of tax-consuming invaders. But they’re trying to defend a nation that NO LONGER EXISTS. It’s past time trying to reform D.C. and imagining we’re going to shame the federal government into protecting and representing us. That’s exactly the opposite of what the powers that be want.

It’s time for a hundred mighty secession movements to rise up and form governments that represent them and their interests. The first step is to recognize the utter illegitimacy of the corrupt regime in D.C. The good news is that only 21% of Americans believe the federal government is based on the consent of the governed. Do the math, and you’ll see that we’re half-way to the goal of self-determination.

Attempt at “Honour System” Coffee Shop in North Dakota

In North Dakota, a coffee shop called “The Vault” is operating with minimal supervision – no employees. It runs on the honour system.

From The Vault’s website:

Would an honor system coffee shop work anywhere? Probably not. The good people of Valley City make it possible.

According to Wikipedia, Valley City, ND, has 6,585 people, 95.2% white (2010 census).

The Kurds are all right

The crisis in Iraq has dealt a major blow to consolidated government. The Kurds are now on board to partition Iraq:

The collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) to cities seems to have strengthened the positions of those demanding independent Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. The Kurds, who support this division, declared yesterday [June 17] they don’t intend to withdraw from Kirkuk and “the disputed areas.” The Kurds emphasized they will avoid a confrontation with ISIS “except for self-defense.”

Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan wonders how much better it would have been if the Western powers had allowed the Middle East to self-organize naturally:

How much disorder, horror, fear and mutiny might have been avoided had Iraq been divided along ethnographic lines in 2003 – or, better yet, in 1920. (If you don’t like the word “ethnographic”, substitute “democratic”: it amounts to the same thing.)

Re-read that last sentence. It will be the guiding principle of politics for the 21st century.

Two Roads Diverged in a Yellow Wood

UPDATE BELOW:

One thing’s for certain: The sea-to-shining-sea unity of pre-1965 America is gone, thanks to floodtide immigration, and it ain’t coming back. Numbers don’t lie.

So the question is, What do we do about it? It’s time for a massive political reorganization. There are two models we can use to guide us. One is a decentralized model with well-defined boundaries separating distinct groups, allowing autonomy within each unit; the other is the model of a powerful central government that must impose order on a mixed population. These two models are exemplified by the experience of Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Their histories are examined in this Public Library of Science paper. Here’s part of the Reader’s Digest version summarizing the Swiss model:

Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country.

And then there’s Yugoslavia:

Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Which should we choose? Well, I’m not one to try to sway opinions (what? me?) but let’s keep this in mind: Switzerland today is peaceful and prosperous, while Yugoslavia self-destructed in 1990.

Which shall it be? Which shall it be?

UPDATE:: This story from the Washington Times suggests which way DC plans to go: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens

Santa Barbara shooter had history of posting racist, misogynist comments on hate site

Does the above headline send shivers down your back? Good. That means it worked.

The ghouls at the Southern Poverty Law Center rake in their millions by trolling the news for tragedies, selecting facts out of context, and spicing up the story with their own special spin. Then it’s a simple matter of contacting their secretarial pool (aka, the mainstream media) and releasing their lurid tales to a breathless public. Et voila – everyone’s talking about how another dangerous racist has terrorized our multicultural utopia. In their next fundraising letter, the SPLC will conflate neo-Nazis with immigration control activists, conservatives, and critics of big government as “haters” and “racists” inflamed by uncontrolled “hate speech” (aka, non-leftist speech).

The latest example is Elliott Rodger, a mass-murderer who killed nine people in Santa Barbara on Friday:

According to the hate-tracking Southern Poverty Law Center, alleged Santa Barbara shooter Elliott Rodger had a history of posting misogynist and racist comments on anti-woman website PuaHate.com. …

According to the SPLC, Rodger posted comments in January, beginning with “Saw a black guy sitting with 4 white girls,” causing him to admit his frustration over white women socializing with minority men.

But even a cursory examination of this troubled young man reveals a delusional, frustrated sociopath who resented all women who rejected him and the men who dated them. In his seething manifesto, Rodger threatened to “slaughter every single blonde s**t I see.”

Does that sound like something a white “racist” would say? No matter. The SPLC will go on with its fear-mongering fundraising, and the mainstream media will go on transcribing SPLC releases.

60th Anniversary of Brown Vs. Board of Education

Gail Jarvis turns his eye on the Brown vs. Board decision. We’re assured this was a wonderful thing, but as Jarvis points out, the actual results have not been all that wonderful. From the Canada Free Press:

The Brown decision brings to mind the following quote from James Russell Lowell: “Among the lessons taught by the French Revolution there is none sadder or more striking than this, that you may make everything else out of the passions of men except a political system that will work, and that there is nothing so pitilessly and unconsciously cruel as sincerity formulated into dogma.” – Wise words indeed. “Sincerity formulated into dogma” certainly characterizes the Brown decision. It might have been based on good intentions, but attempts to accomplish its idyllic goals actually did more harm than good.

“Sincerity formulated into dogma” could just as well describe not just the French Revolution, but the Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian revolutions too. Otherworldly ideas imposed on flesh and blood do not yield paradise, but mayhem.

Why we will win

We know the DC Empire is immoral and spending itself into oblivion. It’s unsustainable, largely because its own ideology is killing it, just as socialism killed the Soviet Union. The Empire’s central article of faith about the equality of all peoples and cultures dictates that Western standards are no better than others.

The latest manifestation of this is a real doozy: There’s a bizarre new style of college-level debate that’s replacing real debate. Instead of making a logical case for or against a debate topic, participants change the topic at will, ignore the rules, and base the power of their arguments not on the standard of logic but on which debater has more “nigga authenticity.”

No, I’m not making this up. It’s from an Atlantic article entitled, so help me, “Does Traditional College Debate Reinforce White Privilege?” Here’s an excerpt:

Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.

Indeed, to prevail using the new approach, students don’t necessarily have to develop high-level research skills or marshal evidence from published scholarship. They also might not need to have the intellectual acuity required for arguing both sides of a resolution.

This “new approach” means that instead of presenting relevant facts to build a case, the “debaters” scream, curse, toss insults, and demand they be declared the winner. Not everyone in collegiate debating likes what they see:

[Debate coach] Aaron Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. “Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs,” he said.

The Western ideals of objectivity and detached reason are dismissed as tools of oppression of minorities whose cultures stress subjective, emotional justifications for making choices. The Atlantic article continues:

Liberal law professors have been making this point for decades. “Various procedures—regardless of whether we’re talking about debate formats or law—have the ability to hide the subjective experiences that shape these seemingly ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ rules,” said UC Hastings Law School professor Osagie Obasogie, who teaches critical race theory. “This is the power of racial subordination: making the viewpoint of the dominant group seem like the only true reality.”

If you’re not familiar with “critical race theory,” here’s a definition from one of its proponents: CRT as applied to court cases, for example, “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” It’s Cultural Marxism, which sees everyone and everything through the lenses of socialist ideology. If minorities aren’t as successful as the majority, it’s all due to oppression. Period.

Can you imagine the real-world consequences if abiding by the rules of logic are discarded? Imagine if the NASA engineers during the Apollo 13 crisis, instead of scrambling to find a way to rescue the stranded astronauts when the ship’s air supply was running out, just stood and screamed “Screw the time limit!” and declared the problem solved?

This country has been propping up its official ideology through willful blindness. But despite affirmative action, prohibitions against the use of IQ tests, and racial gerrymandering, sooner or later reality is going to smack us in the face. Signs of that are already evident, and the longer we make believe everyone’s equal, and that Western standards are no better than others, the worse things will get.

The right to secede

As the Tom Toles cartoon above illustrates, secession in Crimea, like secession in Scotland or Catalonia, is not an academic issue. Nor is it a trend that only affects people “over there.” In fact, all the overgrown political units bound together by brute force in the 19th and 20th centuries are now confronting populations demanding more autonomy, if not outright secession, from their former conquerors.

Writing in The New York Daily News, Dr. Robert Barro of Harvard notes this rising tide as a natural and benevolent development. The ruling elites of the world make a great deal of noise about their commitment to all sorts of human rights, but somehow overlook the one basic right from which all others flow, and that is the right of self-determination:

The potential switch of Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine to Russia raises the more general issue of the right of secession. Many individual freedoms — for example, of speech, the press and religion — are viewed as central elements of liberal constitutions, but the right to secede is seldom viewed this way. …

If I were able to design a constitution from scratch, I’m sure I would include provisions for peaceful secession. The procedure would have to define the underlying sub-regions, such as U.S. states, designate a voting mechanism for residents of a potentially departing region, and might require a super-majority, such as 75%, of the voters. This structure would provide a useful check on central authority, make country borders align better with underlying population characteristics and minimize conflict.

Barro makes clear that secession is not motivated by some irrational hatred of “others,” as nervous apologists for the old order, such as the online snitches at the Southern Poverty Law Center, would have you believe. Secession is instead “the process of generating the optimal sizes and compositions of countries.” Behind that process, says Barro, is “the desire to have a reasonably homogeneous population within its borders.” Without cultural unity, conflict is inevitable. As conflict between sparring ethnic groups rises, social cohesion and liberties can only degrade, as both history and objective scholarship have proven. The old model of a multicultural population kept in check by an authoritarian government is no longer sustainable.

The dustbin of history has a space reserved for that imperial model.

Coke Relents on its America the Beautiful Commercial – Sort of

Coke’s America the Beautiful ad has been praised by the boosters of multiculturalism, but it has also been harshly criticized by many flyover country yahoos who know a dis when they see it. Coke has apparently heard the criticism and is modifying the ad slightly to include the phrase E Pluribus Unum in Latin and English.

The ad is self-contradictory, as any person willing to look can tell. It features Jews and Muslims who based on attire seem to be at least somewhat observant. Well I have news for Coke, those groups have a history of not getting along. It has what has been widely assumed to be a gay couple. It shouldn’t be news to Coke that observant Jews and Muslims don’t have much use for homosexuals. So it could be argued that what the ad actually suggests is not so much the tired mantra that “diversity is our strength,” as “come to America and we’ll liberalize the diversity out of you and make you into a good little amorphous consumers just like the rest of us.” They’re won’t be any conflict if everyone is taught that their ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. are largely irrelevant or at least not worth differing about.

While I don’t think the addition of E Pluribus Unum helps that much if at all, it’s encouraging that Coke has heard the criticism and that many were willing to speak out despite being called names by the promoters of multiculturalism.

The inevitable collapse of multiculturalism

Look, if a bunch of leftists can’t appease Third-World activists, no one can, as this mini-riot among Minnesota Democrats proves:

Party caucuses are going on tonight in precincts across Minnesota. Caucuses are an old-fashioned civic tradition, more noted for boredom and long nights than anything else, but tonight there was some excitement at a DFL [Democrat-Farmer-Labor] caucus in Minneapolis. A fight broke out:

A very tense night at a caucus site in Minneapolis where DFLer Mohamud Noor is challenging longtime DFL state Rep. Phyllis Kahn. The heat in one Minneapolis location resulted in police being called out. With 300 people at the Byan [sic] Coyle Center, a fight broke out and people rushed the stage. After the melee, the Minneapolis police shut down the caucus.

Napoleon and his blood-soaked reign followed the world’s first leftist movement. Communists saw themselves as the heirs of the French Revolution, and their initial success led to the bankruptcy and breakup of the once-mighty Soviet Empire.

Leftists always self-destruct. With the blinders of ideology firmly strapped to their pointy heads, they have no frame of reference other than their airy theories about how people OUGHT to behave. When reality makes its unavoidable return, something’s gonna hit the fan, and hard.

Coca-Cola Promotes “Nation of Immigrants” Meme

Africa for Africans. China for Chinese. Israel for Israelis. America… for everyone.

And it’s an uphill battle for whites or any ethnicity to continue its existence, because capitalism demands that we be inclusive, seeks greater economy of scale by combining markets, and recruits cheap labour regardless of cost to the host civilisation. Coca-Cola will only drop the “Nation of Immigrants” meme if such is good for business. Only government action or very strong individual action (e.g. a populist boycott of Coca-Cola products) can thwart this expansionary tendency of capitalism.

In 2000 Sam Francis wrote an article entitled, “Capitalism the Enemy“. Therein he defends Confederate symbols, but this can be seen as a microcosm of a greater struggle by whites (not only Southern whites) and indeed any ethnic group that wishes to persevere amidst the great devouring beast that is global capitalism.

Francis closes with:

If serious conservatives are going to salvage whatever remains of their civilization, in its local or national or civilizational forms, they will have to start working toward not only a new political vehicle but toward a new form of economic organization as well.

And the closest I’ve seen to this is David Opperman’s series: “In Defense of Economic and Social Nationalism: Why Libertarianism Must Die“. Also, organising ourselves within extended families reduces our tendency to atomise. Some might leave the family for money, power, other reasons; but if the extended family structure remains, they’ll be inclined to return.

For the love of money is the root of all evil

Quote of the day

“Equality incurs tolerance, and tolerance has become but another word for nihilism. It’s easy to be tolerant, if you don’t believe in anything. A civilization practicing high standards must perforce be highly intolerant, becoming more and more intolerant as it becomes better and better.” Tito Perdue, in his talk to the H.L. Mencken Club.

The above is just one of numerous sizzlers in an insightful, no-holds-barred speech. You owe it to yourself to read the whole thing.

Before They Pass Away

Jimmy Nelson recently published a book of photography (pricey @ over $100, Amazon) entitled Before They Pass Away. The book glorifies vanishing tribes, tribes being destroyed largely by globalism.

Many of us here are alike with such traditional peoples. Will Swedes be extinct by 2100? Will Southern-Americans? Our losing life force today of course doesn’t predestine us as Darwinian losers tomorrow. However, I find value in viewing the struggle as Tradition vs. Globalism.

In Harry Seabrook’s famous 2004 speech, he quotes Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“[T]he disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”

We need a dictator!

David Brooks is frustrated. Congress won’t grant amnesty to all those potential Americans “hiding in the shadows,” it can’t pass gun control, and it hasn’t given us any fun wars lately. Brooks is also disappointed by the American public’s lack of enthusiasm for DC’s military adventures. Members of Congress, always mindful of the next election, aren’t about to further alienate voters. That makes Brooks sad. Brooks, a thorough Neocon, gleefully backed the Iraq War as a means to achieve “national greatness.” To him, a strong central government is the answer to everything, since, in his own words, “ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington.”

The solution? Brooks says it’s time for the president to assume more power and get things rolling again. Here’s his argument, from an opinion piece entitled Strengthen the Presidency:

Here are the advantages. First, it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything. Second, executive branch officials are more sheltered from the interest groups than Congressional officials. Third, executive branch officials usually have more specialized knowledge than staffers on Capitol Hill and longer historical memories. Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks.

What should Obama do, in Brooks’s opinion? Simple: “So how do you energize the executive? It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility.”

Yeah — nothing like a few “executive branch power grabs” to liven things up.

Don’t dismiss this as just the ravings of a typical government supremacist. What Brooks is advocating is a very real, very frightening possibility. Obama is already taking steps to do exactly what Brooks is talking about. Obama has appointed long-time DC insider John Podesta to his senior staff. Podesta has long been an open advocate of a powerful chief executive. In a Center for American Progress paper in 2010 entitled, “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change,” Podesta wrote: “Concentrating on executive powers presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Liberty activists should fear this man. Podesta’s progressive ideology is a blueprint for the welfare-warfare state:

In 2008, Podesta authored his book The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country. In it, he articulates a vision of progressive values based on four core lessons: 1) Progressives stand with people, not privilege; 2) Progressives believe in the Common Good and a government that offers a hand up; 3) Progressives hold that all people are equal in the eyes of God and under the law; and 4) Progressives stand for universal human rights and cooperative global security.

(Catch that last line? And some people don’t believe me when I argue that civil rights and militarism are DC’s yin and yang.) Like all DC insiders, John Podesta knows how to deploy his noble-sounding ideals to turn a buck:

Since President Obama entered office in 2008, Boeing has spent $840,000 on The Podesta Group’s services, relying on the firm to lobby in favor of lucrative defense appropriations at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

What can we expect from Obama in the coming months? More wars, more forced multiculturalism, more authoritarian government.

In other words, what we can expect from ANY administration.