Dec 10, 2015

Why We Culturally Profile

via Those Who Can See

The Europe to come?
At the height of the Trayvon Martin affair, we met a young Afro-Canadian who strongly objected to being racially profiled. Drawing on the pool of data at our disposal, we presented, to the best of our ability, the reasons such profiling exists.

Today, as hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants pour into Europe to claim asylum, profiling again rears its ugly head. Not racial/ethnic this time, but religious:

At least five European countries have signaled that they prefer to grant asylum only to Christian refugees flooding the continent from the Middle East, not to Muslims.
“I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country,” Hungarian Prime Minister Orban said.  ... “Refugees from a completely different cultural background would not be in a good position in the Czech Republic,” said Czech President Milos Zeman.

On what are these fears based? Ignorance, prejudice? We have been told for years that immigration is a gift, an economic boost, an injection of fresh blood, and that our new guests will culturally enrich our lives with their differentness (all while assimilating seamlessly thanks to their sameness). We at TWCS have thus decided to take a deeper look at the data.

But is Islam a religion, a culture, or a civilization? Has it genetically changed its adherents over time like Christianity has (cousin marriage enforced vs. forbidden)? In the absence of any genetic connection, does it culturally push its believers to certain behaviors? Could these beliefs and behaviors really, as the critics charge, prevent their assimilation into the West?

In a word--is this cultural profiling of Muslims based on fact or fantasy? . . . Read more

The Muslim Invasion Is a Trivial Issue?

via The Occidental Observer

Green oracle George Monbiot, rock star columnist for the Guardian,  wrote some months ago that Islamic terrorism was no big deal. In fact, in the UK, he wrote, it is less dangerous than wearing the wrong pair of slippers. Unlike climate change, he asserted, the growing strength of Islam is not “an existential threat.” In other words, don’t sweat the small stuff.

So if you are caught defenceless in a restaurant or classroom or movie theatre by a violent jihadist with an automatic weapon, just remember, climate change is an existential threat. I mean, for God’s sake, put things into perspective will you?

While the science on climate change is “settled,” climate models are impeccably reliable, and predictions about sea level rises and temperature increases are incontrovertible, that gunman you see before you shouting “Allah Akbar!” could simply be a figment of your imagination. An illusion. A projection of your Islamophobic fears. Best to organize your life around things that you know to be true.

For example, if you are a Swedish woman who statistically, has a one in four chance of being raped by a third world Muslim man in your life time, and you are afraid to walk the streets of Stockholm even in the broad daylight, ditch the paranoia. It is more productive to focus on the Paris conference on climate change, because what happens there will affect the entire life of your son, the one sired by the Muslim assailant you will encounter next month on your way home from the supermarket.

When you reflect upon it, your fears about the demise of Western, European civilization are unwarranted. Just because 950,000 Syrian migrants, the great majority of whom are young Muslim men steeped in a rape culture, have invaded Germany, and the EU predicts that another 3 million will come next year, to be followed by untold millions after that, is no reason to worry. I mean, what is the worst case scenario? That the welfare state that your parents and grandparents worked so hard and fought so hard to create will destroyed by the demands made upon it by hordes of poor, unassimilable and unemployable barbarian wretches who take over every park, school and community centre? That the government will boot you out of your apartment to house as they have done to tenants in Germany and Sweden? That disaffected, alienated roving gangs of angry, menacing young men will make your neighbourhood unsafe? Is that it? Is that all? Oh you poor thing!

What you need lady, is an attitude adjustment. You need to be sentenced to a Diversity Awareness and Sensitivity Workshop. You need to check your privilege, your belief in some God-given entitlement. And more than that, you need to learn to be tolerant, welcoming and accepting. Just because that Third World thug who mugged you has a different set of values than you do is no reason to be judgmental. Different cultures have different ideas about right and wrong. One is no better or worse than another.

And what’s all the fuss about our cultural heritage and European civilization? What makes you think that our cathedrals, our art galleries, our literature, our concepts of person liberty, freedom of expression, the rule of law, the separation of church and state and the right to a fair trial are so damn important? As Eula Biss wrote recently in the New York Times Magazine, Whiteness is nothing more than a moral problem, and it is certainly not “a kinship or culture.” I mean, get a life! Besides, everything Europeans ever accomplished came as a result of racism, colonialism, imperialism, slavery and oppression.

The truth is, you should be ashamed of your white skin. It is amazing that you can even look at yourself in the mirror. Why don’t you commit suicide? No wait. It would be better if you encouraged your nation to commit suicide. Not that they need much encouragement.

Meanwhile, get down to that demonstration on climate change. Priorities. Life is all about priorities.

War Is on the Horizon: Is It Too Late to Stop It?

via Darkmoon

Paper tiger?
One lesson from military history is that once mobilization for war begins, it takes on a momentum of its own and is uncontrollable. This might be what is occurring unrecognized before our eyes.
In his September 28 speech at the 70th Anniversity of the United Nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later at the invitation of the Syrian government Russia began war against ISIS.

Russia was quickly successful in destroying ISIS arms depots and helping the Syrian army to roll back ISIS gains. Russia also destroyed thousands of oil tankers, the contents of which were financing ISIS by transporting stolen Syrian oil to Turkey where it is sold to the family of the current gangster who rules Turkey.

Washington was caught off guard by Russia’s decisiveness. Fearful that the quick success of such decisive action by Russia would discourage Washington’s NATO vassals from continuing to support Washington’s war against Assad and Washington’s use of its puppet government in Kiev to pressure Russia, Washington arranged for Turkey to shoot down a Russian fighter-bomber despite the agreement between Russia and NATO that there would be no air-to-air encounters in Russia’s area of air operation in Syria.

Although denying all responsibility, Washington used Russia’s low key response to the attack, for which Turkey did not apologize, to reassure Europe that Russia is a paper tiger. The Western presstitutes trumpeted: “Russia A Paper Tiger.”

The Russian government’s low key response to the provocation was used by Washington to reassure Europe that there is no risk in continuing to pressure Russia in the Middle East, Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and elsewhere. Washington’s attack on Assad’s military is being used to reinforce the belief that is being inculcated in European governments that Russia’s responsible behavior to avoid war is a sign of fear and weakness.

It is unclear to what extent the Russian and Chinese governments understand that their independent policies, reaffirmed by the Russian and Chinese presidents On September 28, are regarded by Washington as “existential threats” to US hegemony.

The basis of US foreign policy is the commitment to prevent the rise of powers capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral action. The ability of Russia and China to do this makes them both a target.
Washington is not opposed to terrorism. Washington has been purposely creating terrorism for many years. Terrorism is a weapon that Washington intends to use to destabilize Russia and China by exporting it to the Muslim populations in Russia and China.
Washington is using Syria, as it used Ukraine, to demonstrate Russia’s impotence to Europe— and to China, as an impotent Russia is less attractive to China as an ally.
For Russia, responsible response to provocation has become a liability, because it encourages more provocation.
In other words, Washington and the gullibility of its European vassals have put humanity in a very dangerous situation, as the only choices left to Russia and China are to accept American vassalage or to prepare for war.
Putin must be respected for putting more value on human life than do Washington and its European vassals and avoiding military responses to provocations. However, Russia must do something to make the NATO countries aware that there are serious costs of their accommodation of Washington’s aggression against Russia.

For example, the Russian government could decide that it makes no sense to sell energy to European countries that are in a de facto state of war against Russia. With winter upon us, the Russian government could announce that Russia does not sell energy to NATO member countries. Russia would lose the money, but that is cheaper than losing one’s sovereignty or a war.

To end the conflict in Ukraine, or to escalate it to a level beyond Europe’s willingness to participate, Russia could accept the requests of the breakaway provinces to be reunited with Russia. For Kiev to continue the conflict, Ukraine would have to attack Russia herself.

The Russian government has relied on responsible, non-provocative responses. Russia has taken the diplomatic approach, relying on European governments coming to their senses, realizing that their national interests diverge from Washington’s, and ceasing to enable Washington’s hegemonic policy. Russia’s policy has failed.
To repeat, Russia’s low key, responsible responses have been used by Washington to paint Russia as a paper tiger that no one needs to fear. We are left with the paradox that Russia’s determination to avoid war is leading directly to war.
Whether or not the Russian media, Russian people, and the entirety of the Russian government understand this, it must be obvious to the Russian military. All that Russian military leaders need to do is to look at the composition of the forces sent by NATO to “combat ISIS.” As George Abert notes, the American, French, and British aircraft that have been deployed are jet fighters whose purpose is air-to-air combat, not ground attack. The jet fighters are not deployed to attack ISIS on the ground, but to threaten the Russian fighter-bombers that are attacking ISIS ground targets.

There is no doubt that Washington is driving the world toward Armageddon, and Europe is the enabler.

Washington’s bought-and-paid-for-puppets in Germany, France, and UK are either stupid, unconcerned, or powerless to escape from Washington’s grip.
Unless Russia can wake up Europe, war is inevitable.

Trumped!: "The right words can change the world"

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Samra Kesinovic -- before (right) and after
For each of us, solitary moments have an impact that can haunt us for the rest our lives.

For me, it was looking upon the picture of Samra Kesinovic, an Austrian teen who ran away from home and joined ISIS.

She would, in trying to escape, be murdered by the very people she believed would be her liberators.

How could a nation's moral authority collapse to the point where their daughters would spit in the face of its fathers?

With the Rotherham incident in the United Kingdom, the tyranny of the other (more on this coming soon*) became crystal clear as white girls became the prey of Muslim immigrants and white men/women were too fearful of political correctness than defending their own people. [Rotherham council ignored child abuse by Asian gangs because of 'misplaced political correctness', report concludes: Damning report into the Rotherham child sex exploitation scandal finds council riven by 'bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness', The Telegraph, 2-4-2015]

The Donald, saying what needs to be said

When mass immigration/refugee resettlement of Somali Muslims into America helps create a community struggling with ISIS recruitment tactics, it's time to reevaluate everything.

Right?

Wrong.

Those same "Enlightenment" values permeate the decaying carcass of Western Civilization, with French President Hollande arguing in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack leaving more than a hundred French dead, that "France will remain a country of freedom" and his country will accept the duty of accepting 30,000 Syrian Muslim refugees...

Democracy, you see, allows the tyranny of the other to materialize, or what one honest Muslim - boasting of the horrific reality of democracy - stated in Hamtramck when demography became the city's destiny : “We were a big threat to their religion and culture. Now their days are gone.

An Obama Administration demanding NASA scrap the taming of the heavens for outreach to the Mohammedans now has an Attorney General, in the aftermath of an Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino, says the real enemy is those who notice the small Muslim population in America is committing a number of attacks on our countrymen.

Though the United States of America might be irredeemable as a nation, many of the people who still proudly call themselves "Americans" are not.

They know something is wrong.

Terribly wrong.

And now, we come to this. [Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S., NY Times, 12-7-15]:

Donald J. Trump called on Monday for the United States to bar all Muslims from entering the country until the nation’s leaders can “figure out what is going on” after the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., an extraordinary escalation of rhetoric aimed at voters’ fears about members of the Islamic faith. At last, we come to it.

The unraveling and the era where surviving the American Nightmare will bring about the birth of a future free of the folly of the principles of the Enlightenment.

May we create a world where the horror Samra Kesinovic encountered in her final moments on earth is never, ever an option for our daughters.

[* The Tyranny of the Other represents the first true defense of The Empire in Star Wars you'll ever read.]

A Response to William Saletan’s “At War with an Idea”

via TradYouth

I remember my mind being blown while reading Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. The whole book is a masterpiece of popular science. He’s second only to Carl Sagan in his ability to make a scientifically illiterate teenager feel as if he’s standing shoulder to shoulder with brilliant men learning amazing things. He’s a prominent atheist, of course, but only because encouraging people to seek transcendence inwardly and spiritually would directly compete with his business model of profiting from the vain search for transcendence somewhere, somehow, in the material universe’s particles and processes.

Unlike the other big atheists, he’s gone on record admitting that he essentially abides and endorses Christianity’s cultural and moral framework (…almost). Furthermore, his genuine interest in critical thinking and skepticism increasingly puts him at odds with the ever more delirious and delusional Left. Even if you have no patience at all for Young Earth Creationism, you must admit it’s less preposterous than the belief that all the races are of perfectly equal intelligence and disposition, that Bruce Jenner is a truly female, and that Ahmed’s alarm clock stuffed into a suitcase was a brilliant science project. William Saletan aptly called all this science denialism endemic among the Left “Liberal Creationism” before an angry mob of them forced him to apologize.


Unlike Bill Nye or the “Black Science Guy,” Dawkins occasionally applies critical thinking to relevant social and political issues. He’s often off-base, but the effort’s clearly there. And unlike Saletan, he generally holds his ground when the SJW mob goes into hysterics. One socially relevant idea, popularly introduced by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, is the notion of memetics, thinking about ideas in society in a manner one typically thinks in terms of biological natural selection of genes and organisms.

For me, the significance of this insight has shrunken since I was first introduced to it as an edgy atheist kid back in the nineties. Taken to its logical conclusion, it’s the height of biological reductionism. Not only would reductionists have us believe that we’re nothing more than a clump of cells with teeth and hair which only exists to replicate virally, but even that very notion is merely an emergent pattern of electrical pulses and chemical reactions which only exist to replicate virally.

Dawkins’ idea that ideas can virally replicate has been virally replicating like an actual virus in a kitschy sci-fi horror film, with a decidedly mixed impact on our understanding of the world around us. While the analogy between evolution and abstractions has genuine utility within limited contexts, memetics just as easily (…and perhaps more frequently) invite pseudo-intellectuals to go meta, evading critical analysis of the ideas themselves and the humans and societies those ideas exist within.

In Saletan’s latest, “At War With an Idea,” he ponders a frightening memetic prospect…
They’re looking for evidence that somebody somewhere directed or guided the killers, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Maybe they’ll find a connection. But the more disturbing possibility is that they won’t. Instead, it will turn out that Farook and Malik never received a suspicious package or a target assignment from abroad. What they received was an idea: Kill Americans.
Reminiscent of his cousin Sigmund, Saletan can’t help but diagnose rather than debate those who differ. Bless their hearts, all these terrorists have been haplessly infected with a mind virus that transforms its hosts into Manchurian Candidates who must “Kill Americans.” This sure does seem like some deep stuff. After all, how do you stop this “idea” from inflicting havoc without taking away everyone’s weapons and shutting it down?

Of course, the elites are actually trying to do both of these things. The reflexive response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the entire mainstream media, in one eerily united voice was that American citizens must be disarmed in order to stop the mayhem. Others are calling for prosecuting all crimethink as incitement to violence. None of them, even Saletan, seem to have stopped to consider that given the ubiquity of unregistered weaponry and the disparities in turnover rates in that weaponry, they would only be disarming themselves.

Entirely discounting political contacts who I studiously refuse to discuss weaponry with, my organic apolitical social circle includes more weapons of death than human beings. One family friend even collects cannons and medieval battle weaponry as a hobby. Nothing says Fourth of July like permanent hearing damage! Antique firearms, hunting shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, samurai swords, …you name it. We got it. And I ain’t even all that country, I’ve never had an interest in firearms as a hobby or interest, and my poor marksmanship is the butt of jokes.

I don’t have the figures handy, but I’m pretty sure that’s all pretty ordinary for rural America. While I’m a true believer in the First and Second Amendment (the only two aspects of ideological Americanism worth standing for), I sort of perversely hope the Leftists keep up this terrible idea of trying to make it harder for people to access firearms. Leftists like to talk an awful lot about racial disparities in access to education, nutrition, and the interwebs. But one of the most stark racial disparities in America is in ready access to firearms.

Screwing with the Second Amendment would doubly serve to exaggerate that disparity in our favor while further alienating and radicalizing us. And when we become alienated, radicalized, and fighting mad, Saletan will surely diagnose us with some memetic condition, to be sure. To his credit, he seems to get that gun control is, objectively speaking, a non-starter.
I’m a skeptic of gun laws. The weapons used in San Bernardino were apparently purchased legally, under California’s relatively strict laws, and then modified illegally. Rounding up most of the guns in this country would be logistically impossible, and enacting mandatory registration would be an enormous political challenge.
With removal of weaponry off the table (sorta…), perhaps we can just do a thorough job of screening people to detect whether or not they’re liable to be terrorists?
To get a visa to the United States, Malik—who reportedly pledged her allegiance to ISIS in a Facebook post during Wednesday’s attack—had to go through an in-person interview, biometrics, and checks against terrorist watch lists. The review included her workplaces, travel history, and family. The process is supposed to be especially rigorous for people from extremist-infested countries such as Pakistan, where she was born. Then, to get a green card, she had to go through additional national security background checks using data from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. She passed both screenings, most recently in July. Now Pakistanis are trying to blame Saudi Arabia for radicalizing her while the Saudis claim to have no information linking her to militants.
The San Bernardino terror attack is especially problematic for the elites and their Leftist minions because the event completely unravels the narrative that they were running with, insisting that the Syrian refugees they’re attempting to bring in will be very carefully vetted to ensure that there are no radicals among them. If the Left were concerned with making sense, this would be quite a riddle for them to resolve.

Of course, the oligarchs are going to do what they’re going to do regardless of whether we’re persuaded to agree with them. The demographic engineering project our elites are engaged in completely transcends the democratic system of government which is ostensibly sovereign. The vast public spectacle presented by every prominent person in America except for Donald Trump is there to help calm the public down enough to not actively revolt while the poison pill of open borders is being forced down their throat.
But if you’re not willing to pursue some kind of gun registration or gun control, then you’re left with the psychology of the shooter. And what San Bernardino just demonstrated, in the grisliest way, is that we’re even less capable of tracking psychology than we are of tracking guns.
We’re perfectly capable of containing the “Kill Americans” meme if we’re allowed to. Instead of silly sci-fi speculation about Islamic jihad as some sort of “mind virus,” we could have an adult conversation about the who, what, when, where, and why of their terrorist acts. Who? Sunni Muslims. What? Attacks. When? Now. Where? Soft targets. Why?

Why, indeed.

As is often the case with an abusive relationship, both the perpetrator and the victim have arrived at a shared illusion warping the context of the relationship. ISIS ‘n pals insist that they’re crazed madmen who are too diabolical to be reasoned with and we’re all too eager to agree with them. There’s nothing novel about the intersection of warfare and spirituality. Whether it’s the Christian crusader, the Japanese kamikaze, or even the atheist clinging to his Enlightenment abstractions, humans tend to get a bit philosophical and metaphysical when engaging the prospect of imminent death.

Pamela Gellar, Geert Wilders, and the rest of the judaeophilic Islamophobes can join William Saletan in hinting that Islam itself is the root of the problem. Islam ultimately doesn’t belong in the West, but the problem is a tribal and political one of recent vintage with proximate causes. It’s more simple than it appears. The problem is that our government royally pissed off a specific group of people and then airlifted them into our hometowns. The solution is to stop fanning the flames over there and to stop bringing them over here.
  • Had Qaddafi not been sodomized to death by the American government,
  • Had Saddam Hussein not been gruesomely decapitated in a snuff film courtesy of the American government,
  • Had the Taliban been diplomatically rather than militarily challenged by the American government,
  • Had the American government intelligently partitioned a sovereign Sunni regime from Iraq’s carcass when it had the opportunity to do so,
…ISIS and associated networks wouldn’t have the public sympathy on the Arab street–the political oxygen–to achieve their ambitious goals.

ron-paul

NATO has been going around killing and causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Islamic world for decades, on behalf of the Israel Lobby, on behalf of the military-industrial complex, on behalf of the global capitalist agenda. Decades into it, the rivers of blood are finally spilling over into our own streets. I’m not asserting that American citizens deserve jihad. Plenty have it coming, to be sure, but most folks are too misinformed and misdirected to be morally accountable for what their government is doing in their name.

Islamic terrorism isn’t some irrational religious superstitious mind virus outbreak devoid of social or political context like killer bees or the H1N1 flu. That’s what William Saletan, the Jewish community, and the global capitalist oligarchs would have you believe. They want you to feel like you’re in the cult classic horror film Pontypool, where an infectious string of words causes the quiet Canadian village to descend into a maelstrom of zombie terror.

The problem is the result of stupid and evil political decisions and can be resolved with intelligent and virtuous political decisions.
So if you want to blame radical Islam, go right ahead.
Scumbag Saletan: “I’m not saying scapegoat the Islamic faith, but I’m not not saying it either. Just sayin’…”
And tell us how you’d monitor the flow of radical Islam from Syria to California.
If we had precluded Islamic and Middle Eastern immigration (not because they’re evil, mind you, but because they don’t belong here), then there would be far less radical Islam to monitor, and San Bernardino would have never happened. That’s off the table for William Saletan, of course. Jews are as partial to open borders as ticks are partial to anticoagulants. Repeat after me: White countries are for everyone! Sharply tightening visas would narrow the scope of concern. Offering financial incentives for their emigration would narrow the scope of concern. The cessation of war games and active support for Israeli aggression would even further reduce the likelihood of terrorism in California.

Of course, trying to offer genuine answers to political problems to a Jew is even less constructive than talking to a concrete wall. Concrete walls don’t try to figure out where you live and who your employer is to mercilessly hound you out of a livelihood and polite society after you try to reason with them.
And if you can’t answer that question, then ask yourself whether you love liberty so much that you’re willing to defend the right of everyone, including aspiring jihadists, to stockpile and bear unregistered arms.
Did the editor add this nonsensical closing sentence as part of Slate’s “gun control” campaign? Because Saletan vividly explained just a couple paragraphs earlier that “gun control” was both logistically and politically stupid. That’s how they operate. It doesn’t matter what the facts are or how many times you show them to be wrong. They just repeat the same things over and over again. If anybody’s a zombie infected with sinister viral ideas that have taken control of the host, it’s Saletan himself.

Jews and the Massive Non-White Invasion

via Koinen's Corner

The Jews -- doing their damnedest to destroy all the White nations --  thoroughly explained in these three reports:

Short and informative article describing modern-day Jewish push for alien non-White immigration into the U.S.:

    Jewish Organizations Demand U.S. Accept More "Refugees"

Jews promoting massive immigration of non-Whites into Europe:

    The Jewish Contribution to the European Integration Project

For those interested in more detail: academic source cited in the above article here.

Trump, ISIS, and Israel

via Radix

Everyone’s talking about Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslims entering the United States. In his recent appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, he seemed to suggest something even more controversial. 

A country that is considered a U.S. ally . . . which he is reluctant to name . . . but which everyone knows . . . and which is not Saudi Arabia . . . is covertly funding ISIS!

The exchange begins at 26:06. I’ve made a transcript of the key section. 
Donald Trump
Right now things are going on right now that you don’t know about, that I don’t know about, that nobody . . . right now, there are things going on . . . that you have so-called people that you think are on our side and they’re not reporting it, they’re not talking about it, and, in some cases, they’re involved with it.
Look, I’ll give you an example. Some of our so-called “allies,” that we work with and we protect and we protect them militarily, they’re sending massive amounts of money to ISIS and al-Qaeda and to others.
Joe Scarborough
So who are we talking about there?
Donald Trump
You know who it is. What do I have to bring it up for? You know who it is.
Joe Scarborough
Because you’re running for president. Who? The Saudis?
Donald Trump
Joe, other countries are giving massive amounts of money. People from other countries are giving massive amounts of money . . .
Joe Scarborough
Are you saying the Saudis are doing this?
Donald Trump
Of course, they’re doing it. Everyone knows that.
Joe Scarborough
Ok. Any other countries?
Donald Trump
There are, but I’m not going to say it, because I have a lot of relationships with people. But there are. And you know that and everybody knows that, and nobody says it. Nobody talks about it.
Joe Scarborough
But you’re not even saying the countries that are doing it right now. Why aren’t you willing to name those . . . you say you have a lot of relationships there.
Donald Trump
Hey, Joe. All you have to do is check your records. Our government knows the countries, and one of them happens to be Saudi Arabia. And our government knows that.
And why aren’t we doing anything about that? Why aren’t we being firm as to why are we allowing that to happen.
Joe Scarborough
So why don’t you think we are?
Donald Trump
What?
Joe Scarborough
Why don’t you think we are doing anything about it?
Donald Trump
Because I think we have an incompetent president.
Joe Scarborough
Is he the only president that has had a policy, basically, a “See No Evil” policy?
Donald Trump
No, I do not think our previous president did not do the job. . .
I could be wrong, of course, but Trump (and Joe Scarborough) seem to be referring to Israel.

Trump certainly wouldn’t be the first to suggest that Israel might find ISIS rebels to be “useful idiots” in destabilizing its rivals in the region. Mainstream sources are reporting that Israel medical personnel are treating Syrian rebels—but I’m sure only the “moderate” ones, and for purely humanitarian reasons. . .

So did Trump just go full Shitlord—and in a way that went over the heads of most in the media? Or am I getting carried away?

White House Petition to Stop Resettlement of "Refugees" in America

via VDARE

We’ve blogged (here and here) on the petition that has been lodged with the White House website to “Place a Moratorium on all Refugee Resettlement from the Middle East in the Wake of the Paris Terror Attacks” but the number of signatures is still only
11,693 12,130 12,481 as of 6:36 p.m December  6!—another
87,87087,519! are needed by December 14.

UPDATE: Readers have reported technical issues trying to sign the petition. Keep trying until it works.

This is somewhat surprising as polls show overwhelming opposition against accepting (Poll: 60 Percent Of Americans Against Taking In Refugees, by Juliegrace Brufke, Daily Caller, November 24, 2015) and even the Congressional GOP (!) is making noises about doing something (GOP eyes spending bill as leverage in refugee fight, November 27, 2015).

Looking at the other petitions, I see that the successful ones tend to be supported by tightly-organized interest groups. Immigration patriots are not (yet) tightly organized: Indeed, I gather that no other immigration patriot groups have helped this petition drive except Ann Corcoran’s indefatigable Refugee Resettlement Watch. [And, Joe Guzzardi points out, Californians for Population Stabilization]. Additionally, I’m sure Americans are afraid of giving their names to a White House controlled by the increasingly-vindictive Minority Occupation Government. And maybe something else is going on too: I was unable to sign giving my VDARE.com email address, but had to use my personal one.

Nevertheless, there will be a lot of gloating if this petition fails. I urge VDARE.com readers to sign, and/or get family members . . . to sign.

The link, again, is here. (Good news! One more person signed while I was writing this!)

In Defense of Prejudice

via Counter-Currents

Years ago, a friend told me a parable about a species of hominid that did not live to inherit the earth. These hominids regarded each and every entity as entirely unique. When a tiger leaped out of the darkness and dragged one of them to his doom, this did not prompt any generalizations about tigers as a group. Thus when a new tiger began to prowl the shadows at the verge of the firelight, he was not judged on the basis of the other tiger’s behavior. Indeed, if the first tiger came back, they would not have judged him on the basis of his past behavior either, because that was then, and this is now: two unique, individual moments in time.

But even though tigers are not always man-eaters, and man-eaters are not always hungry, these poor creatures still went extinct, because their problems were not limited to tigers. They could not learn from any experiences at all. They were just too dumb to survive.

Survival, you see, requires the ability to learn from past experiences so that one can predict and even control future ones. To do this, however, one must recognize that there are not just individual beings, but kinds or types of beings. Individuals belong to the same kind if they share a common nature. And, since what we can do follows from our nature, we can infer that if a tiger is dangerous once, it will probably be dangerous again. And if one tiger is dangerous, it is probable that other tigers are dangerous too. Thus if one of us is killed by a tiger, we can take reasonable precautions to make sure that it does not happen again.

Drawing conclusions about kinds based on individuals is called inductive generalization. Induction allows you to infer that all members of a kind are “like that” based on one’s experience of individual members. These purple berries made me sick today, so they will probably make me sick tomorrow, since their nature and mine will probably not change overnight. And since you have the same nature as me, they might make you sick too. And since the purple berries on this bush are the same as the ones on the first bush, they’ll probably make us sick too. The flesh of this animal tastes good to me, so it will probably taste good to you too, since we have the same nature. And other members of its kind will probably taste good to us as well, since they have the same nature too.

However, induction also teaches that natural traits tend to graph along bell curves, with a large number of typical cases in the middle, and small numbers of atypical cases on each end. Typical purple berries will make us sick, but on every bush there might be some that have no negative effect and others that are downright toxic. Thus, inductive generalizations hold “not always, but for the most part.” In terms of any given trait, “Not all X are like that.” But most of them are.

Inductive reasoning is, therefore, probabilistic. There is always the possibility that one is not dealing with a typical instance of a kind. But it is not likely, since the atypical is by definition rare. Furthermore, as we experience more particulars, it becomes less likely that we are dealing with outliers, and our generalizations about a type become increasingly fixed. We even come to have a sense of what outliers are typical.

Although this is not common parlance, one could refer to a well-established inductive generalization as a “stereotype,” which comes from the Greek stereos (στερεός), “fixed” or “firm,” and the Greek typos (τύπος), or “type.”

Inductive generalization does not just allow us to learn from past experience, which would be of merely theoretical interest. Induction also has important practical implications, for it allows us to predict future experiences based on past ones, thus allowing us to act advantageously, even intervene in the course of events and control natural phenomena.

Another word for predicting future experiences is pre-judging them. Another word for a pre-judgment is a prejudice. Now, some prejudices may be utterly baseless and irrational—e.g., prejudices rooted in bad inductive generalizations, superstition, or mental illness—and acting on them may lead to disaster. But well-founded inductive generalizations (stereotypes) are the basis of well-founded prejudices that can be highly advantageous—for instance, helping us to discriminate between dangerous breeds and gentle ones, poisonous mushrooms and edible ones, etc.

Induction, by giving us the ability to predict future events, is the foundation of practical reason, which is the primary human means of survival. Induction is also the basis of science and technology, which allow us to more deeply understand nature and thus to predict and control her better. Induction is thus the foundation of the ongoing conquest of nature that we call modernization and progress.

Stereotypes and well-founded prejudices may be a triumphs of inductive reasoning and the foundations of common sense, science, technology, and progress. But today, when it comes to judging human beings, we are told that stereotypes and prejudices are evil and that each individual should be judged on his own behavior, not on the basis of the past behaviors of his kind. We are told that it is an injustice to judge individuals based on group membership.

This viewpoint is a kind of perversion of individualism. I myself defend a kind of Aristotelian individualism. I hold that the purpose of life is the actualization of our individual potentialities for excellence. In terms of politics, a well-ordered society should encourage individual self-actualization and excellence, as long as it does not undermine the common good of society.

The perverse individualism I reject, however, has nothing to do with individual self-actualization. Indeed, it basically amounts to a moral imperative to be stupid, since it is an attack on inductive generalization as such, which is the foundation of practical reason, science, technology, and the modern world. Perverse individualism demands that we behave like the hypothetical hominids discussed above, which were simply too stupid to survive.

False individualism is really an applied form of nominalism, which is the theory that there are no natural kinds in the world, only individuals, and all concepts of kinds are merely social conventions or “constructs.” According to false individualism, justice requires that we ignore all groups — except, somehow, “humanity” — and judge each individual as an individual, without any preconceptions based on his membership in any merely constructed category, such as race. Nominalism, however, is metaphysically false. There are real natural kinds. Individual members of those kinds share natural traits that allow us to make probabilistic predictions about them based on what we know of their kind.

An individualist could, however, reply that even though nominalism is metaphysically false and there are natural kinds, we should still set aside our well-founded stereotypes and prejudices and judge each and every human being as an individual. In effect, we have to treat every individual as a potential outlier, even though most of them are not. Why? Because, apparently, every individual is of infinite value, so rendering justice is an absolute value and committing injustice is an absolute evil. We must act as if nominalism is true, because otherwise there is a vanishingly small possibility that we might be unjust to a stranger.

This position is a moralistic absurdity, for it simply cannot be practiced. There are seven billion people on this planet. It is impossible to treat each and every one as a special snowflake, and if one tried it, even with the limited numbers of people we encounter in our individual lives, it would consume all one’s time and make it impossible to pursue one’s own goals, i.e., to actually live. Because the purpose of life is self-actualization, and the time we have is short, we just cannot get to know everyone we deal with.

One of the ways that civilization advances is by giving us means of dealing with greater numbers of people than we can ever know as individuals. The market economy, for instance, allows individuals to interact with millions of others around the globe through a largely anonymous symbolic medium that, at least in theory, allows all participants to pursue their individual self-actualization.

Psychologists have observed that the human mind cannot deal with more than 150 or so direct personal relationships, which means that if we could deal only with people as individuals, civilization would regress to the complexity of a hunter-gatherer band or agricultural village.

Well-founded stereotypes and prejudices make possible highly complex societies by allowing us to size up individuals at a glance and to choose to embrace or avoid them. Since natural kinds are limited in number, we actually create artificial kinds with visible distinctions — accents, clothing styles, even uniforms — that allow us to chart a course through complex social situations at a glance. For instance, a black man dressed in a ghetto clown costume signals danger, whereas a black man dressed in a police uniform signals trustworthiness.

Furthermore, if stereotyping is wrong, why do people go to great lengths to stereotype themselves? We all want to find like-minded people, and dressing in a certain way is one means to communicate the group we belong to, e.g., hipster, preppy, metal, redneck, businessman, career woman, slut, prole, gay clone, black thug, etc. Blacks go to great trouble and expense to dress like thugs, in order to communicate that they are dangerous, or that they aspire to be. Why do white liberals think it is disrespectful to take their signaling seriously?

The idea that we should always treat others as individuals also undermines one of the greatest gifts of modernity: privacy. It is fashionable to bemoan the impersonal and mediated nature of modern society, but in a smaller scale, more personal society, everybody knows everybody else’s business. Thus it can be liberating to live in a society in which most people only know you by the persona you project and the money that you spend. Years ago, a student of mine told me that she grew up in a small Georgia town full of prying, censorious Baptists. She said she could hardly wait to move to Atlanta, “so I could sin.”

Under what conditions do we want to be judged as special snowflakes? We all want a fair shake when we are applying for a job or are on trial for our lives. But even then, chances are we are trying to conceal as much as we reveal. Moreover, we know that employers often can look only at the most superficial criteria simply because they lack the time to dig deeper. But we hope that we can at least expect justice from the criminal justice system. Beyond that, when nothing really crucial is at stake, we are content to navigate with prejudices and stereotypes, i.e., to play the odds with others and accept that others do the same with us.

Since nobody can judge each and every person as an individual all the time, it stands to reason that people only trot out this imperative to use as a weapon against others. Universalists of both the Left and Right typically deploy it against any form of racism, nationalism, tribalism, or antipathy to various religious groups or categories of sexual deviants. Of course, if you prod these universalists just a little, you find that they have some rather poorly formed and emotionally charged stereotypes and prejudices about their opponents.

“Not all Xs are like that,” the universalists say, implying that it is a mortal sin not to appreciate the uniqueness of every special snowflake. And since group membership can never be a basis for excluding someone from our society, there can be no racially and ethnically homogeneous societies, and we cannot uphold any norms of social and sexual behavior. Thus perverse individualism is just a tool to make us incapable of resisting ethnic dispossession and social decadence. What kind of people preach (but do not practice) “blindness” to race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual identity as a moral imperative? Obviously people who are up to no good.

If you propose discrimination against pedophiles, you will be told that they aren’t all child molesters, and you can’t do anything against them until after they have been caught. If you propose discrimination against blacks or mestizos because of their propensity to criminality, you are told that they are not all like that, and we can’t do anything against them until they actually commit crimes. If you propose discrimination against Muslims on the grounds that their religion mandates lies, rape, terrorism, murder, enslavement, and the overthrow of all governments, you will be told that not all Muslims are like that, and we can’t do anything against them until after they have committed a crime. If you propose discrimination against Jews because they are a hostile elite working to corrupt our politics and culture and destroy our race by promoting white guilt, miscegenation, and race-replacement immigration, you will be told that they aren’t all like that, and it would be collectivism to treat them simply as an enemy group. We have to treat all members of problem groups as if they are innocent, until proven otherwise. It is immoral to try to separate ourselves entirely from problem groups. Instead, we need to give them a chance, which boils down to a chance to harm us. And that means no borders and no standards.

These perverse individualists might even try to argue that the soldiers of an invading army are not all out to kill us, so it would be unjust to kill them just because they carry arms against us. But at that point, we would see what they really are and stand them against a wall. Of course by then it might be too late.

As a nationalist, I believe that racial, ethnic, and religious diversity within the same political system are not strengths but weaknesses. They are constant sources of simmering tension that frequently boil over into hatred and violence. A healthy society also requires norms regarding sexuality, marriage, and child-rearing. Thus a society has to practice discrimination. We have to discriminate between who is us and who is not. And within our group, we have to discriminate between the normal and abnormal, the optimal and suboptimal, the law-abiding and the criminal.

We can freely acknowledge that there are some good blacks, Muslims, and Jews. There just aren’t enough of them for our tastes. But even if these groups were equal or superior to us — and they are bound to be superior in some ways — in the end they are simply not us, and we wish to create societies for ourselves and our posterity. We are not creating a team for a sporting event or a spelling bee by recruiting exceptional outliers from a wide range of different groups. We seek to create homogeneous communities with full ranges of both average specimens and outliers, i.e., organic white communities, which are one in blood and culture but diverse in abilities, opinions, and interests, so that all of our people have places to call home.

John Kersey on "Education and Reasserting Our Cultural Values"

via Traditional Britain Group

John Kersey at the recent TBG conference

One of the curious things about education is that, having experienced it at first hand, everyone believes themselves to be an expert on it. This is particularly damaging in the case of politicians, whose record of interference in education during the post-war era has offered a prime example of the dead hand of the state going where it has no business to be. Meanwhile, those who supposedly are the experts – those who teach – have effectively presided over the decline of their profession through decades of mistaken ideology and a belief that their profession continues to offer the last resting place for the Marxist spirit of 1968.

It is difficult for us to imagine now, but there was a time not so long ago when our education system was largely independent of government. The universities, in particular, were held to be self-governing communities of scholars, which is the model of the university we inherited from medieval times. At Oxford, there was not even any formal government instrument that permitted the University to grant degrees; simply the acknowledgement that it had done so since time immemorial and should continue in a similar manner. The history of our schools begins with the grammar schools, established by the Church, and from these our great independent schools developed from collegiate foundations – Eton, Winchester, Radley – which were both closely allied to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and, because they were boarding schools, could accept their pupils without geographical restriction.

Grammar schools have been much in the news recently and it is worth analysing some of the motives behind the debate on them and its wider context within our education system. I must declare a personal interest here: I was myself educated at what was at that time the top co-educational grammar school in the country. It was an academically highly selective school that was tremendously successful and which gave its pupils an outstanding education.

The history of state intervention in the grammar schools begins in 1869 under Gladstone, with the Endowed Schools Act. This Act followed upon the Public Schools Act of the previous year and proposed to restructure the endowments of the grammar schools so that they were more evenly distributed around the country and so that there was better provision for girls’ education. The Act changed many of the grammar schools which had been endowed to offer free classical education to boys into independent co-educational schools teaching a broader curriculum. The 1907 Education (Administrative Provisions) Act then introduced a requirement that all schools aided by government grant must reserve 25% of their places as free scholarships for students from the public elementary schools. This reform effectively brought about the grammar school in its twentieth-century guise.

It is with the 1944 Education Act that we see a designated role for the grammar schools as part of the tripartite system proposed, under which they would educate the top 25% of pupils. At this point there were around 1,200 state funded grammar schools, including not only those of ancient foundation but many which had been founded in the Victorian era, with its strong emphasis on self-improvement. In addition, there were 179 direct grant grammar schools, at which between 25 and 50% of pupils were educated free of charge and the remainder paid fees. All these became the maintained sector’s response to the independent schools; academic powerhouses dedicated to the needs of the most able.

We should now consider this system in its wider context. The tripartite system – divided between grammar schools, secondary moderns and technical schools – was designed to ensure that educational resources were distributed according to the ability of pupils to benefit from them and the state to provide for them. It was predicated upon the assumption that academically selective education produced the best results in terms of educating future leaders of the country in all areas, and above all upon the assumption that a university education should place academic excellence at the forefront of its priorities and should be reserved for those who stood to benefit most from it. It was academically competitive and there were consequences for failure at any level of the process. If, for example, you failed the eleven plus examination, you were unlikely to go to university.

Until 1965, this resulted in a situation where the universities were almost entirely filled by the products of independent and grammar schools. Their reputation was extremely high and their independence in academic terms was unquestioned. In a 1969 contribution to the educational “Black Papers”, Professor Richard Lynn wrote, “British education has been designed primarily to produce an intellectual elite. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, such an elite is necessary to keep going the intellectual and cultural tradition of European civilisation.” There was no suggestion in those days that the universities existed merely to train students for a career. Rather, they provided an academic education and existed for the purpose of propagating academic virtues, of which scholarship for its own sake and teaching were chief. Their graduates were, of course, in high demand by employers, but outside the specific professions, this was as much because of their intellectual calibre and qualities of character as it was because of any specific knowledge they possessed. In those days, the attitude persisted within independent and grammar school teaching that if someone was of the intellectual calibre to have graduated from Oxford or Cambridge they were capable of mastering and teaching any subject required at school level within reason. There were many examples of classicists who taught English Literature, or physicists who taught mathematics, and of course many academic staff also coached sport and music to a high level. Indeed, such breadth was viewed as a positive attribute.

We cannot pin the blame for the decline in our education entirely upon the Labour Party. It is quite true that many in the Labour Party have seen opposition to selective and fee-paying education as a cornerstone of their egalitarianism. But the Conservative Party has throughout the past fifty years signally failed to show support for academically selective education and as a result has been as willing a participant in our decline as its political rivals. The expansion of the universities during the 1960s took place under a Conservative government, which accepted the recommendations of the Robbins Report. The major expansion which followed during the 1990s and which is still ongoing has likewise been initiated by Conservatives. While the Conservatives introduced the Assisted Places scheme at independent schools in 1980, they have so far done nothing to bring it back since Tony Blair, himself an alumnus of Fettes, abolished it in 1997.

And yet, while our politicians can all trumpet that they have got more people into university education, what they cannot address is the fact that when you convert a selective education system into a mass education system you inevitably devalue the end product. In the 1960s it was extremely rare to see graduates working in non-graduate jobs because there was no graduate employment available to them. Nowadays it is commonplace. This transition has involved the creation of a deliberate untruth and its maintenance by an elaborate and costly bureaucracy. The untruth is that a British degree, wherever it is from, is a product of universal value. There is no end of quangos and interest groups – the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, the Higher Education Academy, Universities UK, GuildHE – all of which are dedicated to maintaining that premise of “quality assurance”, to continually expanding higher education seemingly without limitation, and ultimately to what amounts to a universal higher education system whereby all who go to school can be admitted to a university.

It is interesting to note that the funding of education has told the truth far more than have the pronouncements from the powers that be. Until the 1990s, it was generally true that if you were successful in winning a university place, you would not have to pay for your education and you could access a grant that would cover your living expenses. With the rapid expansion in higher education and the conversion of the former polytechnics into universities came student loans to replace grants. Now, as the university sector expands even further, students in England and Wales must pay tuition fees in addition to the debts they incur for their maintenance.

Higher education has changed from an experience that was due to our brightest as of right to a commodity which is now available to all if they wish to pay for it, and particularly to foreign students who will pay even more than domestic ones. It is hardly surprising that if higher education is presented as a product within a marketplace – albeit a marketplace that consists entirely of a state monopoly - that the public will assess its value shrewdly and in many cases will decide that it is not worth the price being charged for it. That, however, cannot conceal the fact that for those who can benefit from academically selective higher education, that kind of education is increasingly subordinate to the mass higher education system, in which the scholarly ideal has been replaced by that of the Research Assessment Exercise and the demand for research to result in tangible product. Moreover any higher education is now increasingly out of reach for those without significant financial means or who are unwilling to incur significant debt against an uncertain return.

Education is the visible casualty of these changes, but it is not the only part of the picture. One very practical reason why governments have embraced mass higher education is because our society no longer has a large number of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs available. Where they are available, there is an increasing expectation that they will be filled by cheap immigrant labour. This leaves the unskilled native population to exist on benefits and occasional appearances on Channel Five. The government takes the view that the answer to this is to subject all to more education, hence its raising of the school leaving age. But this ignores the plain fact that of our population, a large number are not capable nor temperamentally suited to continuing their education. What they need is jobs, not an artificial means of keeping them off the unemployment statistics.

One curious characteristic of the decline of British education has been the willingness of those who have benefitted from its excellence to implement measures that have effectively denied the next generation the opportunity to benefit from the same opportunities as them. The losers in this are the academically able but financially impecunious. Social mobility is not something that should be the preserve of socialist politicians. During the 1980s there was much talk of Britain as a meritocracy, and yet the opportunities for those born in poverty to rise through the education system nowadays are fewer than they ever have been. Our politics, law, media and even the Olympics are now dominated by former pupils of independent schools. Since the effective abolition of the grammar schools the number of state school entrants to Oxford and Cambridge has fallen. This is not merely because pupils are not reaching the required academic standard but also because their teachers in too many cases believe that the top universities are elitist and that pupils should instead go to their local university much as they do their local school. In believing this, they condemn their pupils to fail.

An expectation has developed that those who are successful in our society will either pay for their children to be educated at independent schools, or will, usually for ideological reasons where they oppose selective education, send them to take their chances at the local comprehensive. The former option is becoming more difficult, because independent school fees are now pitched at a level that attracts the children of foreign oligarchs, and increasingly international students are taking more and more of the independent school places in this country at the expense of those from our own population who could benefit from such an education if only it were more reasonably priced.

The way in which properties are now sold according to the catchment areas of good schools tells us another fundamental truth; the education system may have abolished selection officially, but another kind of selection – one far less fair and far less transparent – is going on behind the scenes. We should not forget that the grammar schools had no catchment areas; they took everyone who passed the entrance exam regardless of where they lived. If you decide school admissions on the basis of property prices, you will create schools that are segregated by class and you will ensure that the poorest areas have the worst-performing schools.

League tables and OFSTED inspections are the government’s chosen means of reassuring us about the standards of our schools, but they are selective in the story they tell. Some examinations count for more than others, and schools have effectively played the system by entering pupils for them accordingly. On the other hand, weaker candidates have been withdrawn from subjects lest their results should reflect badly on the school’s standing.

And this brings us back to the grammar schools. When the Labour government abolished the tripartite system in 1965, it largely forced the maintained grammar schools to become comprehensives. Only in a few local authorities – just imagine today, local authorities defying central government! – did the grammar schools remain. In 1975, Labour ended the direct grant system and forced direct grant grammar schools to become comprehensives or independent schools if they wanted to continue. This left what remains today: 169 grammar schools in England and Wales and 69 in Northern Ireland.

We should ask why seventeen years of Conservative government between 1979 and 1997 did not see a renaissance for selective education, and indeed why further grammar schools closed or ceased to be selective during that period. The answer is that by this point, our education system had become one of the firmest bastions of the Left in the country. Its official endorsement of comprehensive education has been unwavering despite the eminently visible problems that have resulted from it. Any measure of reform or any challenge to the comprehensive system has been shouted down by the teaching unions, the university departments of education and the quangos – a group which Michael Gove used to refer to as “the blob”. He has said that these people believe that schools “shouldn't be doing anything so old-fashioned as passing on knowledge, requiring children to work hard, or immersing them in anything like dates in history or times tables in mathematics...the result of their approach has been countless children condemned to a prison house of ignorance.” When I was at school, my teachers were drawn from all parts of the political spectrum. When I became a teacher myself, that was far less the case. My belief is that the comprehensive system exists to benefit one sector of society solely, and that is the teachers who find it ideologically to their liking.

By the end of my time in teaching it was axiomatic that whatever your politics, if you wished to teach, you would accept the Leftist orthodoxy that the profession had imposed and that you would not challenge it. That orthodoxy says, in essence, that all must have prizes and that the excellent are the enemy of the good. It sees education not as an academic pursuit but instead as a means of social engineering and vocational training, and as a means of reducing crime and social disorder. Over the years it has provided a happy home for all manner of Marxist nonsense and has enshrined teaching methods, particularly in basic English, that fail to achieve the same results as the traditional methods they replaced. It is not difficult to see the decline in the standard of written English in public life today compared to that of fifty years ago, and we have those teachers who promoted free expression ahead of spelling and grammar to thank for that.

Any education system will produce winners and losers. If we say that all must have prizes, then we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that those prizes will be of limited value. We cannot create their value merely by attaching government branding to them, for no-one believes that something is good simply because the government endorses it. Indeed, we had a situation in this country for many years where the products of the state monopoly, notably those of British Leyland, were regarded as markedly inferior to those of the private sector. The state can only win in education by deliberately retarding any perceived or actual competition. It does so through legislation – the Education Reform Act of 1988 effectively banned private sector universities – and for those entities that are private or independent in theory, it has devised a web of regulation and bureaucracy that in practice curtails their independence. OFSTED is one manifestation of this. Another is the devaluation that has characterized our exam system.

For many years, O and A level examinations were regarded as a gold standard. They were difficult to obtain and represented a high standard of achievement. They were unashamedly academic and required a high degree of factual recall. They could be taught in a way that stretched the most able and allowed for considerable extension activity. They were tested predominantly through timed examinations and not through coursework or continuous assessment. This was also the model of educational assessment maintained by the universities who were in turn responsible for the examination boards. While the CSE examination taken in secondary modern schools was not regarded as prestigious there is no question that it was a rigorous and well respected credential, as indeed were the awards of the former polytechnics. The fact that those awards were not degrees or were not O and A levels did not diminish their fitness for purpose, but it fostered a belief among egalitarians that they were second-tier qualifications and that they deserved the same titles as would be awarded to the more academically inclined. Unfortunately, this academic inflation has proved very costly. Because we no longer teach woodwork and metalwork in our schools, we end up importing our joiners and plumbers from Poland, and those who want to learn a skilled trade are unlikely to do so during their school years. The truth is that not everyone needs, wants or will benefit from an academic education, and when subjected to one against their will, it is unsurprising that many teenagers become disruptive and unco-operative.

It is interesting to note that while we have moved away from the academically selective model and from traditional modes of teaching and assessment, other former British possessions, notably India, have kept it and benefitted strongly as a result. The government determined to take the examination boards out of university control, to privatize them and to introduce competition. The result has been a race to the lowest denominator. The examinations are not invariably easier, but they have become increasingly turgid and reductive, with an emphasis on turning everything into something that can be easily and transparently assessed in simple terms. The GCSE examination, brainchild of Sir Keith Joseph and strongly opposed at the time by Baroness Thatcher, has been a misguided attempt to merge academic and vocational education, and the fact that a number of selective schools have turned to international examinations to replace it in recent years testifies to its limitations. It is also notable that many academically demanding schools now prefer the International Baccalaureate to A levels.

I believe that Michael Gove will come to be seen as the only Education Secretary of the past fifty years to have genuinely understood some of these problems and tried, in the face of overwhelming opposition from “the blob”, to address them. I hasten to add that this is not a general endorsement of Gove’s views or policy solutions, many of which I disagree with. He has, however, endeavoured to return rigour to our exam system and it may well be that he has, at least in some respects, succeeded. How lasting that success will be remains to be seen. Gove, after all, was replaced as Education Secretary because, so it is said, his approach was seen to be too confrontational; the opposition he had aroused included two votes of no confidence from three teaching unions, voodoo pincushions, anti-Gove T-shirts and an entire Twitter feed devoted to hating him. But the fact remains that we must confront the education establishment and we must win that confrontation if we are to achieve anything at all. The path of least resistance is to go along with the blob and do their bidding. The difficulty with that is that it fails those who lack a voice in this debate but whose interests need to be right at its heart: our next generation of pupils. Perhaps Gove, who was born far from privilege and won a scholarship to an independent school, understood this more than many of his colleagues.

I want to close by noting some aspects of the ethos of the grammar school. For all that academies and free schools may have some elements of it, they are still a long way away. The good grammar school is a highly structured and disciplined institution where academic values are at the heart of the life of the school and these are allied to an institutional endorsement of Christian principle irrespective of pupils’ own religious beliefs. It is formal in its rituals, encouraging teachers to wear academic dress, having a house system that is both pastoral and competitive, and maintaining high standards of uniform and behaviour. Often the school has an extensive history and distinctive, occasionally eccentric, traditions. What it teaches should be what the top selective universities demand. I well remember that my school did not teach certain subjects because those universities did not take them seriously at entrance, and that it disdained vocational studies altogether. Unlike the comprehensives, it is not a school where all are forced to study the same curriculum regardless of ability. Above all, it is a place where to excel academically is the norm and where to aim high is natural, with the expectation that the vast majority of pupils would go on to places at university and the best would go on to those which were rated most highly. If the grammar school is an elite, then it is not in my experience a complacent elite, but rather one where elite status must be earned anew by each generation of pupils and teachers. When such schools work, they offer a beacon of opportunity for those who, on merit, win a place at them. We need more of them. In 1997, John Major promised us a grammar school in every town, a phrase which has since been echoed by UKIP. It is time to restore our culture and values to our education system, and a strong grammar school system is the best way to do this.

A Domestic Arctic Alliance

via Alternative Right

Alternative Right Editor's Note: Originally published at our former site on 16th March, 2013. Republished due to the increasing relevance of Black-on-(other) violence.

John Derbyshire's "Arctic Alliance" proposal came out over half a decade ago. If you have not read it, stop reading this and read it instead. For such a fascinating idea it has been written about far too little; I suppose it touches on a few too many taboos. It seems no thinker aside from Derbyshire has written on it. Even Derbyshire himself rarely revisits the theory; last December was an exception when he wrote, "Preserving the Arctic Alliance." He makes passing mentions of it on occasion in his other articles and radio program, and I have found some chattering about it on internet message boards. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be a thing. I am here to change that, and to explore the Arctic Alliance's practical potential, which Derbyshire has woefully ignored.

The first example of Republicans gearing towards a domestic version of the Arctic Alliance (albeit perhaps unknowingly) in contemporary American politics was Pat Buchanan's so called "Culture War" speech. At the 1992 Republican National Convention, he talked of the vicious race riots in LA just a few months earlier – and pointedly noted that one of the neighborhoods hardest hit was Koreatown.


Roof Koreans, 1992
Buchanan was very much correct, and a strange historical footnote on the matter is that Jewish owned shops had characterized the neighborhood until the 1965 race riots, after which the Jews left and the Koreans moved in. An odd way of demonstrating the severity of what happen is realizing that Koreans in the area even have their own name for the riots, "Sa-I-Gu," meaning "4 2 9," or, "April 29th," the day the rioting began.

The facts on the matter are staggering, it is well understood that Korean businesses were purposefully targeted, so much so that shop owners hung signs in their doors that read, "this is a black-owned business" to try and stay safe. On the first anniversary of the riot, even The New York Times wrote that, "Korean businesses were the primary target of looters and arsonists, suffering more than $350 million in damage, or nearly half the city's total." Continuing, the article states, "Of 2,100 Korean businesses burned or looted last year, fewer than one in four have reopened."

Korean families went so far as to ask relatives back home to send them desperately needed money, "self-defense patrols" were started, firearms as powerful as AK-47s were purchased en masse. One plainspoken man who was interview stated flatly, "I don't know why Koreans are always a special target for African-Americans, but if they are going to attack our community then [sic] we are going to pay them back." Another honest appraisal of the situation came from Carl Rhyu when he was interview by the Times in 1992, saying that, "I think the black people are jealous of the Koreans. They're lazy; we are working hard. They're not making money; we are making money." When polled in the spring of 1993, 40 percent of Koreans in LA said they would like to leave.

A list of examples citing American Black mistreatment of Asian immigrants and Asian Americans, both during the '92 riots and otherwise could go on for quite a while. A more famous example would be infamous race hustler Marion Barry's comment, “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops.”

Hate facts.
A strong bout of Asian-Black tensions rolled through the Bay Area two and a half years after a particularly vicious series of crimes involving blacks targeting Asians. The matter got so bad that it even managed national headlines. Footage can even be found of Blacks openly admitting to purposefully targeting Asians. Even respected Asian organizations will admit that violence committed by blacks against them is a problem. Black on Asian crime is even bad enough that when Colin Flaherty wrote his book (White Girl Bleed A Lot) on contemporary street violence perpetrated by Blacks on Whites, he even included an often-overlooked chapter concerning Asian victimization.

What makes this trend more interesting, when keeping the Arctic Alliance in mind, is that Asians rarely fight back – perhaps Derbyshire should rethink his, "Whites are pussies, Asians aren't" stance. Blacks regularly target Hispanics as well, but the inverse is quite true as well. That racial tension trend looks quite different, more like a war. Countless articles can be found on the battles Hispanic and Black gangs have throughout the US and particularly in LA: here is one, here is another, and another, etc. It's a topic for another time. The point is this: Hispanics, Asians and Whites are all regular targets of Black violence. Hispanics, unlike Asians and Whites, respond to this with large-scale violence. Furthermore, as any "race realist" will tell you, Asians and Whites are considerably less criminal than Hispanics and Blacks.

If Blacks mistreat Asians and Whites in similar ways, and neither group is willing to employ equal levels of criminality in turn the way Hispanics do, than the solution must be political. A domestic political Arctic Alliance could very well be the solution, imagine a more or less united White-Asian voting block ushering in a government in California with a Giuliani style platform of law and order. Derbyshire's original concept certainly pertained more to international affairs, but starting small would be the obvious way to get it rolling.

Imagine an Arctic Alliance reaching across party lines in Chicago to elect their own Rudy? They could end the constant chaos and violence with tough laws, more cops, and less apologies. No more blaming pilgrims for black violence or asking the Nation of Islam for help. As Derbyshire has pointed out, Asians already have more conservative voting records than Hispanics or Blacks. I doubt it was a coincidence that in 1992 Bush received 55 percent of the Asian vote; perhaps Asians liked Buchanan's speech a great deal more than the left told them to...