During the dog days of August, there was a brief flurry of partisan excitement when Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert denounced the White House’s student loan giveaway as, “Joe Biden is robbing hardworking Americans to pay for Karen’s daughter’s degree in lesbian dance theory.” In response, Bill Kristol tut-tutted that complaining about “‘Lesbian dance theory’ adds that frisson of bigotry that really excites your basic semi-fascist.”
It struck me, however, that I, being me, actually have a lesbian dance theory.
Namely, my theory is that lesbians, like straight men, don’t much like to dance and aren’t that good at it, while gay men and straight women tend to adore dancing.
This pattern is the mirror image of golf, which is why the big Ladies PGA tournament in Palm Springs each March is known as the “national lesbian spring break.”
Way back in my 1994 article “Why Lesbians Aren’t Gay,” in which I enumerated dozens of behavioral differences between gay men and lesbians, I listed under “Bar Activity” that gays like to dance, while lesbians shoot pool.
Others have noticed as well that lesbians don’t tend to be the most graceful dancers. In one of country singer Kinky Friedman’s detective novels, the protagonist lives in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village under the rehearsal space of a lesbian dance troupe, exposing him to the incessant “semi-rhythmic thudding” of the sapphists.
Research has since vindicated my observations. For example, a 1997 survey of 136 professional dancers found a consensus that over half of the men in the field are gay, while lesbians are rare.
More generally, a 2005 meta-analysis of nearly 10,000 subjects found that lesbians tended to be most like straight men on a self-ascribed masculinity-femininity scale and also in terms of gender-related interests:
The gender inversion hypothesis—that gay men’s traits tend to be somewhat feminized and that lesbians’ traits tend to be somewhat masculinized—received considerable support.
In the 28 years since I wrote “Why Lesbians Aren’t Gay,” lesbian bars have largely gone extinct. Estimates of the number of lesbian bars left in the country range from 19 to 22. In sharp contrast, circuit dance parties are so massively popular among gay men in 2022 that they’ve helped turn monkeypox into a global health crisis.
One sinister reason for the decline in lesbian bars is the semi-genocide of lesbians going on during World War Trans as America’s tomboys and homely girly girls are encouraged by our insane culture to poison, mutilate, and sterilize themselves into pseudo-men.
Lesbian feminist academics played such a large role in spreading the social constructionist dogmas that are now being used so damagingly against lesbians by the trans movement that it’s hard not to be amused by their being hoist by their own petard. Of course, what is replacing lesbians is even more destructive.
Also, with the rise of heterosexual ex-men in dresses to the top of the victimist totem pole in recent years, a longtime annoyance for lesbians socializing—men in dresses hitting on them while they’re just trying to watch the ball game—has become a much worse problem. Now kicking out the ex-men demanding to have sex with the lesbian customers will instantly bring crushing charges of “transphobia.”
But yet another reason that about 90 percent of the lesbians bars in America have closed over the past 30 years is that lesbians don’t care much for dancing, and are much less promiscuous than gays, so they don’t need as much to gather physically in the internet era.
An interesting question raised by my lesbian dance theory is whether masculine toleration of dancing can ever be socially reconstructed? Is there any way to get straight men back on the dance floor?
The male aversion toward dancing that has been so prevalent in America in my lifetime is not representative of the whole world today or even of America in the past. Huge numbers of men dance well in Latin America and in Eastern Europe. If you are an Austrian lad, you know how to waltz.
Even American men were once pretty good at dancing. Around 1950, the two most famous dancers in the world were likely Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, and that was not a fluke. Mid-century Americans danced all the time.
As strange as it sounds at present, in the 1950s my father, a socially awkward Lockheed engineer, owned his own tuxedo for regularly taking my mother dancing at the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard.
Back then, America invested heavily in teaching dance steps to boys, so a sizable fraction of the male population eventually achieved some minimum level of competence at leading a woman around the dance floor without stepping on her toes. This made American girls’ lives more fun.
Granted, boys didn’t like taking dance lessons then any more than they do now. Dave Barry recalls his at age 11 around 1958:
When the dance class started, the enemy genders were lined up on opposite sides of the cafeteria…. After we boys had thoroughly failed to master these dances, the instructor would bring the two lines together and order the boys to dance directly with the girls, which we did by sticking our arms straight out to maintain maximum separation, lunging around the cafeteria like miniature sport-coat-wearing versions of Frankenstein’s monster.
But then along came the ’60s, which was an era of Guy Liberation as young men protested against whatever the older generation had meekly put up with, whether the draft, marriage, haircuts, or dance lessons. No longer did you have to shackle your creativity on the dance floor by learning steps; you just stood a few feet away from the girl and moved around however you felt.
The 1960s fashion for free-form non-touch dancing was a disaster for American culture that we haven’t recovered from yet.
One reason the types of dancing that had served white American men adequately for generations fell out of fashion in the 1960s was the rise in prestige of African-American culture. Some cite Chubby Checker’s immense hit “The Twist,” which was No. 1 in both 1960 and 1962, as the point at which dancing changed permanently in America.
Blacks tend to be good at making up dances on the spot. Perhaps that is because improvisational male sexual display is fundamental to sub-Saharan cultures in which women do most of the farm work with hoes so they choose the man who delights them most.
In contrast, whites emerged from economies in which men did the heavy farm work with plows, so men weren’t expected to be as entertaining to women. Their role on the dance floor was more to show that they could be good providers by learning the steps, practicing them diligently, then confidently leading the woman through the dance.
But that went out of fashion over the course of the 1960s. And yet, despite the huge changes in attitudes, white men never did become as good improvisational dancers as black men.
Instead, they mostly just danced less.
June 2002: A white woman named Valinda Elliott accompanied her boss on a business trip through the Arizona desert. When their car broke down and the boss suffered heatstroke, Elliott lit a signal fire to alert a passing helicopter. Unfortunately, the fire grew into a larger blaze.
At the same time, at the nearby Apache reservation, an Injun named Leonard Gregg, needing booze money, started a massive wildfire so that, as a volunteer fireman, he could get paid for putting it out.
Gregg was arrested, Elliott was not. Gregg’s entire defense, backed by his tribal leaders, was, “if a nonwhite is arrested for starting a fire, a white must be arrested, too.”
That Elliott’s fire was not set with criminal intent and Gregg’s was didn’t matter. Equity must reign! A nonwhite goes down, so must a white.
The Apaches didn’t get their way; in 2002 context still mattered in a courtroom. But the seeds were planted: An “equitable” system is one in which color trumps circumstance.
July 2002: Five-year-old white girl Samantha Runnion was playing with a friend on the lawn of her Southern California home when she was grabbed by a 27-year-old Mexican named Alejandro Avila, who shoved her in his car and drove away.
It was a textbook case of what the DOJ calls “stereotypical kidnapping”—a stranger with no ties to the victim using force to take a child.
The kidnapping spurred a massive manhunt. Samantha’s friend provided an excellent description of the kidnapper. Avila, who raped and murdered Runnion almost immediately after taking her, was arrested five days later.
The Runnion kidnapping, coming as it did a month after the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart in Utah, triggered something very ugly on the left (predominantly among Jewish and nonwhite journalists). There was “too much attention” being paid to kidnapped white girls. Within hours of Avila’s arrest, this theme replaced the kidnapping/murder itself as the predominant angle of L.A. Times coverage.
Even before Avila was arrested, the Times attacked the description provided by Runnion’s playmate. A July 18 piece by Scott Gold and Greg Krikorian called the little girl’s account (which turned out to be 100 percent accurate) “about as accurate as infomercials about dieting techniques.” Detectives “may have pushed the limits” by trying to profile the killer based on the eyewitness description, because the typical kidnapper is “a white man.” And anyway, Gold & Krikorian reasoned, with stranger abductions, “the vast majority of those children are held for a short time, then released unharmed.”
So, ignore the eyewitness, look for a white guy instead, and stop fussing so much about that dumb ol’ white girl because she’ll probably be released unharmed.
Once Runnion’s brutalized corpse was found, the Times ran interference for Avila. On July 27, “crime reporter” Tina Dirmann slammed the detectives: “Investigators say they are confident they have the right man. But they have yet to present any evidence, and Avila, in an interview with the Times before his arrest last week, insisted that he is innocent—in fact, that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime.”
I emailed Dirmann, challenging her statement; investigators had in fact presented tons of evidence, including DNA, during multiple press conferences. Dirmann replied smugly, “Evidence can only be presented in a court of law. Since preliminary hearing and trial proceedings have not yet begun, we have not yet seen any evidence formally presented. Police gather evidence, which gives them probable cause for an arrest, then take what evidence they’ve gathered to the DA, who will press charges and later present it in court. That’s how the system works.”
I followed up:
You appear to be saying that, by the definition of evidence you were using, investigators don’t “present evidence” and can’t “present evidence.” If that’s so, then why say they had “yet to present any evidence”? If they can’t—if, by your definition, only the DA can “present” evidence, and only at trial, why make the claim that investigators hadn’t done something that, by your definition, they can’t do?
She never responded. Years later, I contacted her again. This time she claimed, “I don’t remember this story at all” (a SoCal “crime reporter” not remembering one of the most high-profile local crimes of the past two decades?). “I don’t feel comfortable commenting further,” she added.
As Dirmann was using wordplay to make it appear as though there was no evidence against poor Mexican Avila, Times reporter Elizabeth Jensen and editor Reed Johnson collaborated on a July 20 front-page piece, “Some Murdered Kids Get More Attention.” Jensen & Johnson quoted black media professionals who condemned the attention being given to “white girl” Runnion. The article lauded newspaper editor Will Sutton of the National Association of Black Journalists for keeping the Runnion story off page 1 of his paper. NBC Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were cheered for leading off their newscasts with a story about Israel rather than the Runnion murder. ABC producer Paul Slavin told the Times that the Runnion story was “interesting” but “not important.”
Times “media critic” Howard Rosenberg wrote an Aug. 2 front-page entertainment section piece decrying the media’s obsession with “white girl” victims. “The national coverage of Samantha’s killing probably went too far.”
I asked Rosenberg if he knew the typical profile of a “stereotypically kidnapped” child. After all, if white girls are stranger-abducted more frequently than nonwhite girls, the “disproportionate” media coverage would make sense.
In response to my inquiry, Rosenberg replied, “I don’t know.” And then he turned into Ron Unz: “I’m only asking questions!”
The most pathetic cop-out imaginable, especially from a “journalist” who had ample ability to obtain answers. But like Unz, Alex Jones, and all crackpots who whine, “I’m just asking qwest-chins,” the goal isn’t to actually find answers, but to use “questions” as cover for not seeking answers.
Had Rosenberg wanted “answers,” he could’ve consulted the DOJ’s 2002 report on child abductions. White non-Hispanic children were the victims in 72 percent of stereotypical kidnappings in the years covered. An overwhelming majority. But charlatans like Rosenberg feigned ignorance of that figure because context can kill a good antiwhite crusade.
To the Times, Runnion wasn’t a human being but a color. On Aug. 12, 2002, I penned a Times op-ed (as with all my Times pieces, I take no responsibility for the title) to try to counter the lunacy.
Yes, I’ve been walking the apartheid beat a long time.
But I knew my efforts were futile; it was clear that downplaying white crime victims was a fetish on the rise.
And twenty years later, “Missing White Girl Syndrome” is canon. Like “white privilege,” it’s unquestioned truth. Acceptance of this myth allows antiwhite advocates to bury crimes against whites by framing the downplaying as a defensive measure: “We’re not ignoring white crime victims; we’re merely course-correcting because they normally get too much attention.”
The idea is for you to feel guilty when you think of white victims. “Am I only feeling sorry for that white girl who was raped and murdered by a black because I’ve been conditioned by Missing White Girl Syndrome?”
Like a few weeks ago, when Kiely Rodni, a 16-year-old Northern California white girl, went missing following an outdoor teenage party that, according to Rodni’s friends, had been crashed by predatory adults.
Missing minor, party full of predators? The cops took the matter seriously and launched a massive search.
Not so fast, said the apartheiders. Two NorCal Hispanics, Janette Pantoja, 29, and ex-boyfriend Juan Zavala, 36, had disappeared while driving from Reno. Although the cases were separated by geography and circumstances, apartheiders slammed the NorCal cops for going “too far” in their search for Rodni; it was “white supremacy” to give the white minor more attention than the Hispanic adults.
In fact, police had completely missed Rodni’s overturned car and corpse in a local reservoir. Had Rodni been nonwhite, that would’ve been used as proof that the cops “didn’t care” and had “half-assed” the search. Similarly, the apartheiders screaming about the Rodni case referenced the Gabby Petito murder as another example of white women receiving “privileged” treatment from law enforcement…even though two white cops practically sent Petito to her death when they had the opportunity to intervene.
Twenty years, same song, from Runnion to Rodni: Ignore circumstances and context, just invoke color. Repeat and repeat until the refrain becomes so pervasive, nobody questions it. We’ve even “progressed” to the point where every time a white criminal is apprehended alive, mainstream media figures grow enraged that the suspect wasn’t shot by cops in the name of equity.
Here’s where this is heading: The blueprint for the next evolution of the apartheid was provided in an October 2021 William & Mary Law Review article by Professor Ion Meyn of University of Wisconsin Law School. Meyn prepared the piece with input from a who’s who of leftist legal minds: Yale’s Jessica Eaglin (of the Brennan Center for Justice), Duke’s Ben Grunwald (“decarcerate all prisoners, public safety be damned!”), UVA’s Deborah Hellman, U Chicago’s Aziz Huq, Penn Law’s Sandra Mayson, Boston University’s Ngozi Okidegbe, Vanderbilt’s Christopher Slobogin, former ACLU senior attorney David Schwartz, and U.S. District Court clerks Anya Gersoff, Michael Longley, and Manuel Moyano.
I’m listing the accomplices to make the point that Meyn’s paper isn’t “fringe.”
“Race-Based Remedies in Criminal Law” proposes a formal, codified antiwhite criminal justice system. A “Racial Disparity Cap” (RDC) would assign criminal defendants a score based on their skin color/ethnicity. Whites would be the baseline, and all nonwhite criminal defendants would have their scores lowered based on their level of nonwhiteness.
Those with the lowest scores would be treated more leniently in court.
Meyn acknowledges that some of his colleagues believe that “the RDC threatens to release defendants of color into the community who are prone to violent recidivism, undermining public safety.” But he dismisses such concerns. Establishing a race-based criminal justice system trumps safety.
Meyn devotes much space to explaining why, based on legal precedent, his plan might pass SCOTUS muster. He argues that his system doesn’t penalize whites; rather, it rewards nonwhites. White criminals wouldn’t be treated more harshly; nonwhite criminals would be treated more leniently. As University of San Diego School of Law professor Kevin Cole states on his CrimProf Blog, “Within this unique context, Meyn’s Article provides a template for a race-based approach that potentially survives an Equal Protection challenge.”
For the record, Meyn rejected all of my requests for comment. He’s a scumbag coward who wants you to sit back and take his apartheid up the ass without resistance; it’s beneath him to respond to inquiries.
As for the question of whether Meyn’s plan can squeeze by the current Supreme Court, keep in mind that Trump’s SCOTUS picks were vetted for Roe, not race. Kavanaugh was the swing vote that scuttled Remain in Mexico and opened our borders to the entire Third World. And Barrett, who agreed in principle with Kavanaugh on Remain in Mexico, has that whole “kids of many colors” thing going on.
During my GOP years I spent enough time with pro-life-centered conservatives with adopted black children to know that typically they swing to the left of Ibram Kendi on race. It would only take one—Barrett or Kavanaugh—joining with Roberts and the leftists to make Meyn’s mad plan a nightmarish reality.
A reality decades in the making; one that started with “don’t be so worried about that dead white child; her skin color makes her less worthy of attention,” and ends with “don’t be so worried about the nonwhite criminal who killed that child; his skin color makes him less worthy of incarceration.”
“Buy land,” Mark Twain advised. “They’re not making it anymore.” Perhaps Bill Gates has been reading the American author, as he recently became the largest private owner of farmland in America, quite a retirement allotment. Of course, Gates is perfectly entitled to use his financial reach to buy land without it being called a land grab. But look to Europe, where a governmental takeover of the soil is actually happening, and you will see a civil war in miniature being fought, as wars always are, over land.
The Netherlands—née Holland—may conjure up images of tulips, windmills, and van Gogh, but today its importance is that it is the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world after the USA. Recently, Dutch farmers were told that in order to meet the emissions targets that are all the rage as the latest in wealth transfer schemes, they will have to cut their nitrogen use, particularly in fertilizer. For some farmers, this has consequences such as losing from 30 to 50 percent of their cattle. And losing them means killing them. For others, it means finding a new career.
The Dutch government is in no doubt that farmers are one of the chief enemies of the sacred environment. The Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Hank Staghouwer, states that “in some cases, we’ll have to ask farmers to stop farming. The environment cannot handle so many farmers.”
This is an interesting use of “ask,” which usually implies the possibility of polite refusal to proceed with the proffered suggestion, what lawyers call a nolle prosequi. There is no asking going on here. The Dutch government is more in the business of telling. They say that any land bought by the government from dispossessed farmers will be used not only for farming but also as environmental zones. Farms always have been environmental zones, of course, but what really concerns the government is that the food supply is not in their hands but in the hands of traditionalists.
Dutch farmers have not taken kindly to this unwanted revolution being foisted on their industry, piling manure and burning hay bales on highways and blockading food distribution centers in protest. In an echo of Canada’s trucker protests, they have also slowed those highways, and if you think snarling the traffic with a few thousand trucks is an impact statement, try a few thousand tractors. These strange engines are the soul of modern farming, and it is appropriate that they are a symbol of what is becoming the Peasant’s Revolt 2.0. They also represent just one of the industries that will suffer as a knock-on effect from reduced farming.
There have been muted suggestions that the Netherlands and Canada have been selected as test runs for the global reset so desired by the World Economic Forum. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte is also one of George Soros’ golden boys, along with Canadian show pony Justin Trudeau, adding credence to the theory that their respective countries are dress rehearsals for the new world order. Perhaps it is no surprise that Trudeau is now talking about nitrogen and emission targets. And as a quid pro quo to the Dutch, he has taught them how to deal with vehicular dissidents. Protesting Dutch farmers have been shot at, tear-gassed, and beaten by police.
Traditional farming methods adapt and succeed without the need to ask the state to help out, and they have worked that way for a very long time, which always makes progressives itch. Land is not bought by landscape painters with time on their hands, but for development of one sort or another. In the case of arable land, it is the crop that is the object of the purchase rather than the soil itself. But you still need the soil; you need to gain the ground just as in any war, which is what this is becoming.
Dutch farmers, and those of other European countries, are under siege, and America should at least be pleased that their sons of the soil are not similarly beset. I mean, it’s not as though the Feds are raiding the Amish over breaking farming regulations, right? Oh, wait. This just in. Amos Miller, Pennsylvanian Amish farmer for his local community, was recently raided and faces potential crippling fines and even jail time for infringements of U.S. agricultural laws. In the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the FBI won’t improve their image by shaking down the Amish.
BoerBurgerBeweging is Dutch for “Farmer/Citizen Movement,” and they are beginning to show in the polls. Ordinary people have sympathy for the farmers, and for good reason. When they heard what the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has to say about the future of Dutch farming, their patience may have begun to wear thin. Natasja Oerlemans heads the food and agriculture department of the WWF, and has a useful suggestion for farmers contemplating a career change:
“Storing water when there’s too much rain—in a densely populated country like the Netherlands, this can produce huge opportunities for farmers to gain extra income and work in the future.”
From maintaining a generational working farm to catching rainwater. There is a level of contempt for tradition here that Dutch and other Europeans are beginning to tire of. One farmer remarked that “Farming is in your heart, and you don’t want to do something else. You’re either a farmer or you’re not.” And the same goes for your children, as farms are regularly passed down through family.
The rallying cry of the protests is “No farms, no food!” although that is only one possibility. Another is “Governmentally controlled farms, some food to approved recipients.” Clunkier but much more in keeping with the times. Governments have controlled food production in recent history, certainly, and it would have been interesting to hear the views of the kulaks under Stalin, Chinese peasant croppers under Mao Zedong, and white farmers under Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe before they died from either starvation or machete wounds.
The Dutch demonstrations are doing a better job of uniting Europe than has been managed by the E.U., with similar protests by farmers from Germany, Poland, Italy, and Spain. The political right, the precise people you would expect to protect the farming industry as conservatism is essentially rural, are of course being lambasted for jumping not on a tractor but on a populist bandwagon. It is one of the defining traits of the left, in Europe as elsewhere, that they decry the protection of traditional values and practices as populist and therefore to be attacked and decimated. Farming has just joined the nuclear family, traditional education, and the sovereignty of nations as one of the new heresies.
As always in the modern world, the weaponization of the law is the cannon wheeled to the front of the government ranks. This entire fiasco is the result of a 2019 Dutch court order stating that nitrogen-compound fertilizer was a major threat to the environment. Rather than implement a gradual and exploratory reduction in its use, however, the Dutch mandated an immediate 70 to 80 percent reduction, a single sweep of a bureaucratic pen that is now threatening to turn thousands of skilled Dutch farmers into a new generation of people standing around catching rainwater in buckets. Goodness knows, the Netherlands need such people. It is not as if they are a famously rainy and low-lying country with possibly the best system of canals in the world, or anything like that.
“Who controls the food supply controls the people.” It sounds like George Orwell—doesn’t everything sinister?—but it was Henry Kissinger. The food supply, as every schoolchild who has ever walked past a cornfield knows instinctively, begins with the land. And they may have stopped making it, but they have just started taking it.
The Week’s Most Nixing, Transfixing, and Netflixing Headlines
THE CASE OF THE NAPPY NAPKIN NAPPING
For black women in Houston who need help with unmanageable hair, Erin Mims is the go-to girl for the ghet-to gal. As owner of Alluring Locz Kingdom & Fades And Meaux Barber Studio (motto: “Our name so long you think it wearin’ a weave”), Mims is there for all your nappiest needs.
But last week, the woman who gives fades to blacks nearly saw her life fade to black thanks to a fiendish would-be assassin with a rather unique weapon: a poisoned napkin.
Forget the Bulgarian umbrella and Putin’s radioactive tea; behold Houston’s lethal linen!
It was Mims’ birthday, and she and her husband were out on the town. As they returned to their car, Mims noticed a napkin scrunched into the passenger door handle. Using her Spike Lee Press-On Nails, Mims removed the towelette without touching it to her skin. But then she touched the handle…and whatever poison was on the napkin had transferred there, from which it entered Mims’ system via immediate osmosis through her fingers, causing complete organ failure, or so it felt.
As Mims explained in a Facebook video, “I thought I’ze gon’ be dead, dawg.”
Thankfully, the poison didn’t affect her facility with language.
Mims’ husband drove her to the ER, where (according to her) doctors initially said she was fatally ill but then she was fine. Mims also claims the doctors told her the poison might’ve been part of a “kidnapping” attempt.
That was just mean.
It’s easy to (snot)rag on Mims’ story, like the Daily Mail experts who questioned whether any known poison could be soaked into a napkin, transferred onto a handle, transferred onto a finger, and absorbed into the body causing immediate near-death. But as Mims is black it’s against federal law to doubt her tale of hankie-panky.
So yes, a napkin almost assassinated her, like JFK riding through Doily Plaza. This was Mims’ servietnam; she’s lucky she came home alive.
Fortunately, the story has a happy ending; Netflix has optioned Mims’ ordeal for a feature film: Malcolm Kleenex.
IT’S A BIRD! IT’S A PLANE! IT’S…A MILDLY CONCERNED BYSTANDER
Washington, D.C., September 1939
Henry Morgenthau: “Mr. President, that madman Hitler must be stopped at once!”
FDR: “Worry not. I’ve dispatched Wonder Woman to Germany to pay a personal visit to that mustachioed madman, if you get my drift.”
Two days later.
FDR: “Welcome back, Wonder Woman. Did you deal with our little German ‘problem’?”
Wonder Woman: “The real problem, Mr. President, is that the Danzig Corridor was and is German. It owes its cultural development exclusively to the German people. Also, your Cabinet is crawling with Jews.”
Apparently, Wonder Woman was a fangirl at Hitler speeches. At least that’s the impression given by a series of recently leaked photos created for the 2020 flop Wonder Woman 1984. The pics depict Wonder Woman attending a Hitler speech and assisting prisoners being liberated from Auschwitz.
So basically, Wonder Woman came face-to-face with Hitler and did nothing. And she waited until the war was over to “help” concentration-camp inmates.
Women really are fickle.
The photos never made it to the final cut, but the fact they were created in the first place means that either Jews are losing their grip on Hollywood, or interbreeding is making them way less intelligent.
Evidence of the former can be found in another recent controversy. After black/Italian actor Giancarlo Esposito revealed that he might play Magneto in an upcoming X-Men reboot, “black Twitter” cheered the notion of a black gentile portraying a character whose Holocaust survivor backstory is integral to the role. When several Jews objected to the casting, they were pummeled by black “experts” who claimed that plenty of blacks died in the Holocaust.
After all, if every black person is a magical genius, why not a Holocaust survivor as well?
Truth is, at one point the Nazis did try to imprison a group of blacks in Auschwitz. But when they marched under the “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign, the blacks thought it was a fast-food menu, and when their “freis” didn’t arrive in a timely manner, they shot each other before the Nazis could register them in the camp.
This, too, will soon be a Netflix movie: Triumph of the Will Smith.
NEW YORK TAKES THE DUTCH CURE
Next year will mark the 400th anniversary of Dutch trading colony “New Netherland” being granted provincial status. Several years later, the Dutch would purchase Manhattan from the Indians, who accepted as payment a handful of trinkets because after hearing the Dutch speak they thought they were dealing with a species of monkey (“Een boom haak in beek hoop ik”…that’s a real Dutch sentence).
Whatever the Dutch paid, they got gypped. Once known as the “capitol of the world,” NYC is now the crapitol of the world. Violent crime’s gotten so bad, thugs have moved beyond throwing innocent bystanders onto subway tracks.
They’re now throwing subway tracks onto innocent bystanders.
Last week Intazar Dar, who’s either a 64-year-old Brooklyn man or an extraterrestrial here to conquer us for our resources, was taking the Q train from Lower Manhattan when a shirtless wild-eyed street brutha leaped from the platform onto the tracks, tore out a large piece of bedrock, leaped back onto the platform, and bashed Zardoz Drak in the head with it.
You know the old saying: “If the mountain won’t come to Brohammad, then Brohammad must go to the mountain.”
Zontar was taken to Maimonides Medical Center (which is in the process of dropping the “onides” from its name to better reflect the city’s new official pastime) with head trauma. Although his wounds are survivable, he told a local reporter that all plans for Earth colonization are off.
“You humans are irredeemable; you’re either savages or enablers of savages. No resources are worth this.”
He then radioed his mothership in his alien tongue: “Abandon the invasion! Gleep gloot moop beep!”
Four hundred years, and Manhattan comes full-circle back to the Dutch.
KEEPING HELL HOT FOR TEACHER
Avast, ye teachers! Right-wing Neanderthals are trying to censor learning materials! Emergency, emergency! Attend the battle of Bonners Ferry, Idaho, where ignorant Christians are trying to get sexually explicit books removed from the children’s section of the local library.
Sure, Bonners Ferry is a town of just 2,500 people. But there’s no fight as important as the fight against the ideologically driven censorship of learning materials.
The Bonners Ferry controversy made national news last week, with NBC News running a 2,000-word piece championing the heroic librarian who’s standing up to the rednecks who don’t want books detailing gay sex and gender-queerness in the kiddy section. Librarian Kimber Glidden boldly told NBC that keeping kids from seeing oral sex manuals would be a violation of her sacred oath.
“I’d rather be someone accused of having naughty books than be in violation of the Constitution.”
Can’t you just hear the patriotic music?
Except…over in Salt Lake City, also last week, a fourth-grade teacher at William Penn Elementary uploaded a video in which she bragged about removing all classroom materials that feature white people. “There’s, like, no white kids represented in the materials I have,” she boasted. “Not a single white face there.” In the video she goes into great detail about how she bans classroom materials that feature whites.
An Idaho town of 2,500 where some parents are trying to limit the access of minors to sexually explicit materials?
Stop censorship! Protect the Constitution!
A Utah metropolitan area of 1.2 million where a teacher is removing all classroom materials featuring whites?
Censorship is good! Ban whiteness!
Argument #12,000,000 for homeschooling.
HUFFERS ARE BUFFERS
Of course, just as teachers should be a little more discerning when they declare a war on censorship, certain rightists should be a bit more discerning when they scream “ANTIFA RIOT!”
Berkeley’s People’s Park was founded in 1969 by student radicals who envisioned the park as a haven for community togetherness. And like everything hippies ever did, it quickly turned to crap. By the 1990s the park had become a foreboding den of homeless schizos, paint huffers, and assorted feces-caked flotsam.
At the same time, UC Berkeley, always in need of more student housing for the next generation of Soros paralegals, diversity managers, and social workers who recommend mastectomies for toddlers, had long eyed the park as a potential site for new off-campus dorms.
After many false starts, last month the university finally moved to bulldoze the park and begin construction of a massive 16-story housing complex. But the tweakers and huffers, bolstered by locals who prefer to have Berkeley’s slimiest corralled in one area, surrounded the park and chased off the construction crews.
Andy Ngo covered the event as if it were an apocalyptic riot. But in fact, when faced with an army of grotesqueries who smell like poop, the university usurpers gave up with no struggle.
Was this really a bad thing? Last week, white people were banned from entering a five-story, 30-room UC Berkeley off-campus housing complex. And conservatives are upset that Berkeley’s not able to build more apartheid structures?
That plot of land is way better off as a zoo for human animals who seek only to kill their own brains with drugs, as opposed to a housing facility for zealots who seek to kill your kids with progressive prosecution and tranny surgery.
In fact, a few days ago, a tranny tried to set up a tent in People’s Park.
The huffers set fire to it.
Sorry, Andy…every now and then you gotta root for the rabble.
GSTAAD—As the great Yogi Berra explained, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” The great one also contributed the following wisdom: “You can observe a lot by watching.” Yogi came to mind as high inflation and a recession loom, and merry old England’s trade unions are reverting to type and are blackmailing the government. And where is Margaret Thatcher now that she’s needed? Gone with the wind, that’s where.
I began writing a column with Callaghan at 10 Downing and Britain on the brink. The Brits back then were overtaxed and the smart money had gone abroad. Paper money issued by the treasury translated into higher prices, workers through trade unions wanted higher wages to defend themselves against an increase of basic prices, and when inflation struck, they demanded even higher wages. Parts of the North of England resembled Communist Poland, and Callaghan himself admitted that if he were younger he would emigrate. Taxation of salaries had reached 83 percent and on interest or dividends 98 percent.
Well, things are not as bad today, nor is my writing as bad as it was in the beginning. My first editor, Alexander Chancellor, dining with me in New York around 1980, told me the only reason I hadn’t been fired was because he didn’t want to do it by leaving a message over the telephone. “The thing wasn’t working, the column was really bad, but you were never around and you never answered your phone.” (Thank God email didn’t exist because it would have tempted him.) Unlike a column that readers can skip by turning the page, however, a nation’s economy cannot be skipped over. In democracies, that is. Two weeks ago James Forsyth asked in The Spectator, “Will the lights go off this winter?” I am wondering if it is déjà vu all over again.
All the great economist Taki would like to know is what were the blond PM and the brown chancellor thinking when they raised taxes and ordered cars and gas stoves to be done away with in order to please the brain-dead extinction rebellion mob? Zero growth in real income is what brings on regime change, and the two B’s wasted three years on empty gestures. In the meantime the fuzz has made internet hate crimes a police priority while knife crimes have gone through the roof. Yes, Yogi Berra was right that one can observe a lot by watching, and I watched Boris from the start and rooted for him like no one else—and not only because he stuck by me as editor when Guardian types falsely accused me of excessive womanizing, drinking, doping, and many other bad things that make one feel good—but he did lose his way as prime minister. Boris was not elected to defend the pecuniary lust of porcine moneybags. But nor was he chosen to clear the way for Greta Thunberg and her nincompoops. The great Margaret Thatcher may have been brought down by political midgets, but she never wavered from the goals she had set out to achieve. Not once in a decade. Boris wavered from the start. Still, he did not deserve to be stabbed in the back by his chancellor, and as Brutus never made it to the top, nor will (not so dishy) Rishy, although comparing this bunch to the Romans is like equating Concorde-nosed Barbra Streisand to the divine Lily James.
Mind you, politicians are not the only ones who really get it wrong; even the great economist, historian, and ancient Greek philosopher Taki makes a fool of himself at times. It was sometime last spring, or maybe last summer, when I attended a lunch in the sun-filled garden of Alike Goulandris’ nearby chalet. Her other guests Barry and Lizzie Humphries had brought an English couple whose name I didn’t catch. What I did notice was that both were very pleasant and polite, a rare happenstance nowadays, especially in the Alps where new money comes to show off. The man was Anthony Horowitz, author of 56 books, including James Bond and Sherlock Holmes versions, as well as the creator of TV’s Midsomer Murders and Foyle’s War. Jill Green, his wife, never mentioned the fact that her hubby also scribbled while I prattled on about having to come up with a column every week. Dame Edna could have saved me some embarrassment, but he let me babble on. Sorry, Anthony, next time I’ll be more careful and do what Americans do and ask somebody they’ve just met what their profession is.
In the meantime, Gstaad’s main street now looks like downtown Doha, with women in chadors endlessly walking up and down, shopping in high-end stores, while their men glower and look surly. Apparently they come here for the cold and rain, and the heat wave and sunny weather have not improved their mood.
Never mind. I’m back kickboxing again and it’s a far, far better thing I do. My opponent is a Turk and a very nice guy. He had someone film me and he posted it along with my age. Some remarks were very complimentary, but one sent a picture of a rocking chair. I’ve been discriminated against many times in recent years for my age, including—and sorry for the name drop—when I was given a necktie by the King of Greece with a rocking chair on it. I am a victim of ageism and it’s déjà vu all over again.
One of the most remarkable developments of recent years has been the legalization—dare I say, the institutionalization?—of corruption. This is not a matter of money passing under the table, or of bribery, though this no doubt goes on as it always has. It is far, far worse than that. Where corruption is illegal, there is at least some hope of controlling or limiting it, though of course there is no final victory over it; not, at least, until human nature changes.
The corruption of which I speak has a financial aspect, but only indirectly. It is principally moral and intellectual in nature. It is the means by which an apparatchik class and its nomenklatura of mediocrities achieve prominence and even control in society. I confess that I do not see a ready means of reversing the trend.
I happened to read the other day an article in the Times Higher Educational Supplement titled “Can army of new managers help HE [Higher Education] tackle big social challenges?” The article is subtitled “Spate of new senior roles created as universities seek answers on addressing sustainability, diversity and social responsibility.” One’s heart sinks: The old Pravda must have made for better reading than this.
As the article makes clear, though perhaps without intending to, the key to success in this brave new world of commissars, whose job is to draw a fat salary while enforcing a fatuous ideology, is mastery of a certain kind of verbiage couched in generalities that it would be too generous to call abstractions. This language nevertheless manages to convey menace. It is difficult, of course, to dissent from what is so imprecisely asserted, but one knows instinctively that any expressed reservations will be treated as a manifestation of something much worse than mere disease, something in fact akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
It is obvious that the desiderata of the new class are not faith, hope, and charity, but power, salary, and pension; and of these, the greatest is the last. It is not unprecedented, of course, that the desire for personal advancement should be hidden behind a smoke screen of supposed public benefit, but rarely has it been so brazen. The human mind, however, is a complex instrument, and sometimes smoke screens remain hidden even from those who raise them. People who have been fed a mental diet of psychology, sociology, and so forth are peculiarly inapt for self-examination, and hence are especially liable to self-deception. It must be admitted, therefore, that it is perfectly possible that the apparatchik-commissar-nomenklatura class genuinely believes itself to be doing, if not God’s work exactly, at least that of progress, in the sense employed in self-congratulatory fashion by those who call themselves progressives. For it, however, there is certainly one sense in which the direction of progress has a tangible meaning: up the career ladder.
You have only to read the pronouncements of the proposed army of new managers, as reported in the article, to realize that the “big social challenges” are nothing but a career opportunity for nullities. This is not to say that our societies face no problems: I do not recall a time when they did not, nor do I expect to live to see an end to all problems. But that these people, with their crimes against the English language, can pose as even a partial solution makes Baron Munchausen seem shy and retiring.
I will quote a few of the pronouncements verbatim to give you an idea of what I am talking about. A person whose title in a university is Chief Social Purpose Officer (which implies that there are Deputy Chief Social Purpose Officers, and Assistant Deputy Chief Social Purpose Officers, to say nothing of the personal assistants to some or all of the above, as well as Probationary Assistant Deputy Chief Social Purpose Officers) said the following:
I can sit horizontally across teams and help the university to build a coherent social purpose approach that takes in the operational stuff of how we live, reforms to the curriculum so that sustainability is embedded in our teaching practice, while also thinking about how we use our research.
This, of course, gives new meaning to the phrase la grande horizontale, but apart from the calling of meetings, wasting the time of the people who actually teach or do genuine research, and producing streams of verbiage while demanding assent to whatever rubbishy notions they contain, the better to destroy the probity of the staff, it is difficult to envisage what this woman actually does, other than draw a salary. Certainly, her words convey almost nothing: How exactly do you “build a coherent social purpose approach,” except possibly by Maoist-type meetings complete with denunciations and dunces’ caps?
Here is what a university vice president of sustainability said:
Sustainability requires us to close the gap between theory and practice. For a long time, the academy would proclaim “this is what we should do and why we should do it,” but this was often disconnected from what people were actually doing in practice. I think universities are now feeling the ethical crunch there, and these new roles in sustainability are about closing the gap.
I hope all is now clear to you, but in case it is not, the vice president kindly went on to explain further:
It has to be a distributed, federate model in that people can respond to sustainability in how it relates to their areas but with a view that it contributes to something bigger.
Still not quite clear about what the vice president does each day when she arrives in the office? Her own words, perhaps, are best:
We have to have these open conversations, and we can only do that if people understand sustainability is actually a chance for everyone to find a way to contribute to a better future for our world.
This is staggering in its grandiosity, if not its specificity; but the first step taken by the vice president was the institution of an “induction programme,” which probably partakes of the qualities both of an indictment and an indoctrination session.
An associate vice president for equity and inclusion said:
What we’re focused on is systems change, to really help make sense of the strategic processes, the planning, development, implementation and monitoring of various action plans to get at goals that we’ve identified.
It is lucky for these personages that there is no justice in the world, for if there were, they would be put to forced labor until they had repaid all the money that had been received for their activities (I cannot call it work). I refrain from suggesting any such thing only because I recall Hamlet’s wise words: Use every man after his own desert, and who shall ’scape whipping?
Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is Ramses: A Memoir, published by New English Review.
This is a cautionary tale for all Americans, both white and black.
Last Sunday, a college couple, 22-year-old Adam Simjee and his 20-year-old girlfriend, Mikayla Paulus, were driving through Talladega National Forest when they were flagged down by a black woman having car trouble. If I tell you the good Samaritans may have been National Review readers, you can probably guess that one of them ended up dead.
As they were trying to fix the car, the woman, Yasmine Hider, pointed a gun at them and demanded they walk into the woods and hand over their phones and wallets. At some point, Simjee pulled out his own gun and started firing at Hider, wounding her. She shot back, killing him.
The reason I suspect the couple were National Review readers is that the “good Samaritan” ruse was one of the bullet points in John Derbyshire’s famous “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” which got him fired from National Review in 2012 — standing athwart history and mewling, “Please like me, liberals.”
Derbyshire hadn’t even published the piece in NR.
He was responding to a spate of lachrymose accounts of black parents describing “The Talk” they have to give their sons, instructing them to be super polite to police officers — smile and say, “Yes, sir” — lest the officer shoot them to death for no reason whatsoever. (Ask any police officer, and they will tell you black arrestees, to a man, are the politest people you will ever meet.)
In the piece, Derbyshire issued exhortations about treating black people with “the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen,” but then listed “some unusual circumstances,” requiring extra vigilance due to “considerations of personal safety.”
The “personal safety” rules concerned only complete strangers. His point was that when you have no other information to go on, you have to rely on statistics.
Derbyshire’s Rule 10 (h) was: “Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.” He appended links to stories like the one that began this column.
Here are a few other examples from a general Nexis search for “good Samaritan w/s shoot! or kill! w/s car”:
— March 2021: “Boyfriend, 27, who ‘shot dead good Samaritan who stopped to help his girlfriend after her car broke down’ is indicted for murder”
— January 2020: “Motorist accused of fatally shooting good Samaritan after St. Paul crash is found incompetent to stand trial”
— August 2017: “Four strippers with broken down car fatally shoot good Samaritan in the back after he stopped to help them change a tire that HE paid for”
— August 2016: “Good Samaritan shot to death after helping teens pull SUV out of ditch”
Feel free to look them up, but I’ll save you the trouble and tell you: All the perps were black. National Review: DO NOT WARN OUR READERS ABOUT THE “CAR TROUBLE” SCAM!
Derbyshire did warn his readers, so NR editor Rich Lowry dumped him, denouncing the piece as “nasty and indefensible.”
Not good enough! Slate magazine’s William Saletan thundered, complaining that Lowry had not attacked the “ugly,” “racist” column with sufficient ferocity. He, Saletan, would proceed to explain “what Derbyshire got wrong.” Whereupon he demonstrated that he has no idea what the words “statistical” or “averages” mean — much less the phrase “[when] you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences.”
Thus, his central complaint was: “Derbyshire thinks his data warrant his conclusions. But all his data references include the crucial term ‘mean’ or ‘average.’ They don’t tell you about the person walking toward you. They tell you what you can assess about the probability of danger when the only information you have is color.”
Yes, exactly, you complete moron. That’s the point, subtly indicated by Derbyshire stating that he was referring only to those occasions when you don’t have any other information about a person. (Do black parents giving “The Talk” remind their sons not to make assumptions about any particular cop walking toward them?)
Back in the halcyon days of Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, we had one other fact to guide us: Criminals were in prison. Unfortunately for black people, a small percentage of their community commit a boatload of crime. But as long as criminals went to prison, New Yorkers could pass black men with little concern because if they were criminals, they’d most likely be locked up, not standing on a subway platform next to you.
Not anymore. Now, the criminals are out among us. There’s no possible way to evaluate a stranger, except the statistics. E.g.: Blacks, who make up about 20% of New York’s population, commit more than 70% of the shootings. In Los Angeles, blacks are only 8% of the population, but commit nearly half of the murders.
Suddenly, New Yorkers, Los Angelinos and anyone else living under Democratic control are behaving like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who once remarked that when he heard footsteps on the street behind him, he would, “look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved.” He made that statement in 1993 — the very year Giuliani was elected mayor, before proceeding to drive down crime rates and liberate black people from dangerous neighborhoods, as well as from suspicious looks.
This is the cautionary note for black people. The Democrats’ Free All Criminals policies have hurt black people in myriad ways — mostly by getting thousands more of them robbed, assaulted and killed each year — but also in other, more subtle ways, like this.
As Senate candidate Blake Masters of Arizona said — and the media lied about — it is blacks, frankly, who suffer the most when criminals aren’t locked up. And the Democrats don’t care.
Everybody has an opinion on matters of crime and race, but not that many people are familiar with the facts. So I’m going to devote this column to furnishing basic data about the best documented and most important crime, homicide.
The single most important fact about crime in the United States is the extraordinarily high rate at which African Americans die violently: almost ten times the rate of white Americans. That’s one of the most gigantic racial ratios in all the social sciences.
In contrast, Hispanics, who are roughly comparable to blacks in average income, education, and age, die by homicide just over twice as often as whites. The black homicide death rate is thus 4.8 times the Hispanic rate, a gap that is hard to explain in any politically correct fashion, so almost nobody ever mentions it.
The second-highest homicide rate is among American Indians, who die violently over four times as often as whites. Asians get killed only half as much as whites.
Despite making up only about one-eighth of the population, over half of homicide victims in the U.S. are black, with a little over a quarter being white. In all likelihood, a pie chart of perps would be even more lopsided.
My source is the CDC’s WONDER database for mortality statistics from 2018 to 2021, which tracks deaths by homicide. (Homicides are a superset of murders and manslaughters, including both crimes and justifiable killings. But homicides tend to be an informative proxy for murders.)
Note that the CDC tracks the race of victims, but not the race of perpetrators. Presumably, the offending rate of groups that get killed a lot, such as blacks, tend to be even somewhat higher than their victimization rate—the FBI counts blacks as 56.5 percent of known murder offenders in 2020—while those with low rates of dying by homicide, such as Asians, probably do unto others even less often than they are done unto. But most killings are intraracial, so counting victims can help us get a general sense of the number of perpetrators.
Crime shot upward in 2020, whether due to Black Lives Matter declaring the “racial reckoning,” the pandemic, increased gun purchases, stimulus checks, sunspots, or whatever. A simple way of measuring the change is to compare total homicides in the two years 2020–2021 with the previous pair of years, 2018–2019. It might not have seemed like it at the time, but in hindsight, 2018–2019 were the Good Old Days.
Over the past two years, black homicide deaths shot up 45 percent, Hispanics 37 percent, whites 17 percent, American Indians 16 percent, and Asians (whose victimizations have probably gotten the most publicity per capita) 9 percent.
More concern should be paid to the fact that Hispanics, after becoming notably better behaved since the 1990s, have regressed considerably over the past two years. More than anybody else during America’s tough-on-crime decades, Latinos seemed to get the message. Their murder rate declined relative to blacks and whites (and my vague impression is that they also drive drunk less often than in the 20th century).
But, as The Establishment signaled over the past two years that they were just kidding about rule of law, more Hispanics seemed to have decided that the gringos weren’t serious anymore about law and order.
There’s much discussion in the respectable press about legal gun purchases as being the cause (rather than, more likely, the effect) of the historic increase in shootings. It’s difficult to find statistics on what percentage of murders are committed with legally owned guns, but the CDC data lets you calculate the share of homicides due to gunfire rather than knives, blunt objects, fists, poison, or whatever. Among black homicide victims, 87 percent died by firearms compared with only 56 percent of American Indians, 62 percent of Asians, 63 percent of whites, and 75 percent of Latinos.
As you might guess from rap lyrics, African American culture tends to encourage knuckleheads to use guns to settle beefs. Native Americans are also quite violent, but they aren’t as quick to resort to guns.
America has a high homicide rate for a first-world country, although over half of that number is due to African Americans.
The African American homicide rate is similar to that of cartel-plagued Mexico, and lags Nigeria, South Africa, and Jamaica. According to a U.N. list, the highest-known homicide rate is in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Jeffrey Epstein’s favorite place to relax.
Not surprisingly, within the U.S., a state’s total homicide rate tends to correlate closely with how black its population is:
If you count Washington, D.C., as a state, the correlation coefficient is a very high r = 0.82.
New Mexico stands out as a state with a high murder rate despite very few blacks. Georgia, which increasingly attracts middle-class black migrants, is an outlier in the opposite direction, with a relatively low murder rate for its high proportion of African Americans.
Following the general pattern laid out in historian David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, Northeastern, North Central, and Mormon West whites have a homicide victimization rate similar to one of the more violent Western European countries such as gangster-ridden Belgium, remote Finland, or hard-drinking Britain:
Southern, hillbilly, and Wild West whites tend to get killed at rates more like Eastern Europeans.
The black homicide rate is twice as high in the safest state (Massachusetts) as the white rate in the most dangerous state (Mississippi). States in light blue have missing data:
Still, there are major differences among states in the black rate. The pattern, though, is perhaps unexpected: As far as I can tell, blacks tend to get themselves killed the most in states, north or south, near the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers.
In recent years, due to the Ferguson Effect, the black rate has been the worst in the state of Missouri, followed by Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. I don’t have a good sense of whether this is a recent development due to the Ferguson and Floyd Effects, a medium-term reality (possibly due to the hollowing out of American industry), or whether the Mississippi watershed has always had a higher black murder rate. Fischer talked about Louisiana being highly violent ever since its founding by the French, but what about blacks farther north?
One bit of good news is that the black homicide rate tends to be below the national black average in the warmer states that have been attracting black migrants in recent years, such as Georgia, Florida, and Texas. On the other hand, as blacks and immigrants pour into these traditionally business-friendly Republican states, will the new Democratic voters kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
If you divide the black homicide rate by the white rate to get the racial ratio, you’ll find that the races are somewhat less unequal in the South. The lowest black-white ratio at 4.8 to 1 is in West Virginia, where the whites tend to be ornery and the blacks relatively well-behaved.
The biggest racial gaps are found in the North Central states with their well-behaved whites, especially Wisconsin and Illinois, where blacks are 25 times more likely than whites to die by homicide. One theory for this is that the Illinois Central railway brought welfare-seeking Deep South blacks to Illinois in the 1960s and then to naive Wisconsin in the 1970s.
The black homicide rate grew from 2018–19 to 2020–21 in all states with enough sample size to measure:
The worst increase was near the epicenter of the Floyd Effect in Minneapolis. Black homicides in Iowa were up 119 percent, in Minnesota 113 percent, Nebraska 93 percent, and Wisconsin (home of the Jacob Blake riots in Kenosha) 92 percent. Kentucky, where BLM had a martyr in Breonna Taylor, also stands out, as do Connecticut and New York.
For a big state, Florida had a relatively small increase of only 23 percent.
Way back in 1760, Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet attempting to explain to the British government the future world-historical importance of the Mississippi watershed: Whoever ruled it would dominate the 20th century.
That came true.
But in the 21st century, we seem to be letting the middle of the country fall apart.
Predictions are risky for a columnist. And I’m already on thin ice, having been soundly humiliated by my November 2020 column “Madison Cawthorn: He’ll Never Rub His Balls in Another Man’s Face.”
Boy, is my face red (though not as red as the face of Cawthorn’s friend).
But one prediction I’ll make with certitude is that the racial apartheid I’ve written about so many times over the years is here to stay. A two-tiered racially stratified de facto apartheid in which whites are disfavored is our inexorable future (technically, it’s already our present; all that remains is for mainstream leftists to take that small step from “it’s not happening” to “it’s happening and it’s good,” a step more and more take each month).
Like it or not, the new apartheid has become institutionalized. By that I don’t mean government-mandated (though to whatever extent Democrats can get away with mandating it governmentally—which is a lot—and to whatever extent Republicans let them get away with it—which is always—it is). I mean that antiwhiteness, the “decentering” of whites (to use the left’s favorite term), has become a machine that’s self-perpetuating beyond ideological belief.
An ideological state becomes permanent when it no longer has to be propelled by the ideologues who created it; when the machine can go on autopilot. The new system becomes accepted as “the way things are,” and everyone just starts to live with it. Even if they don’t care for it, they learn to function within its confines.
In any ideological state, be it Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, any Islamic state, etc., you have the true believers who get the thing going and police purity of belief. And you have the unbelievers who only go along because they have to. If given a choice, they’d rather not live under the prevailing orthodoxy. But they have mouths to feed, if even just their own, so they choose the path of least resistance.
And then you have the exploiters. These are the crafty opportunists who take advantage of the believers. They know that the central weakness of a believer is a pathological need for hegemony. Believers know that they’re the rightness and the truth, so they never suspect those who suddenly “come around.” The believers’ childish psychological need for reinforcement makes them easy to sheer, as they don’t suspect the motivations of those who jump on the bandwagon (and coincidentally profit from it).
Three classes: believer, acquiescer, exploiter. Applying this to our current apartheid, the believers are the hardcore antiwhite ideologues: Jews, blacks, other nonwhites who possess virulent antiwhite hatred, and whites who possess virulent self-hatred. The acquiescers are the whites who aren’t pleased with a racially tiered system in which they comprise the ass-end; they aren’t thrilled that hiring, academia, medical care, criminal justice, entertainment, government policy, and damn near everything else in America must be viewed from the perspective of “how does this, or how can this, benefit nonwhites above whites?”; and they’re not enthused about the fact that anything seen as “too white” must be criticized and curbed. But the system still allows them to make a living, albeit with a few new hurdles, so they bite their tongue and go along to get along.
And the exploiters are the corporate entities that see the apartheid as just another fad to milk. They’re not thinking long-term societal repercussions. Part of it is simple profiteering, and part of it is the standard dynamic of younger hires justifying their existence and establishing dominance over older ones by claiming to be “connected” to what’s supposedly hip and edgy. The rightist cliché “go woke go broke” is graveyard-whistling. “Hah! That antiwhite Netflix show just bombed! Wokeness is dead!” A most unrealistic metric. That ten out of a hundred antiwhite shows fail is not a victory. Antiwhiteness still saturates the marketplace. That not all the content succeeds doesn’t diminish the saturation. There’s zero coming from corporate America that challenges the antiwhite agenda. You have corporate messaging that’s either pro-apartheid or neutral, but never anti-apartheid.
Yet these three classes—believer, acquiescer, and exploiter—aren’t enough to put the machine on autopilot. True believers are always a minority, as are exploiters. And reluctant acquiescers see the machine as a burden. The ideology doesn’t help them; they’d be happy if the system collapsed, as it brings them no benefit. Their lack of resistance protects the system, but doesn’t further it.
It’s a fourth class that propels the machine. The mediocre, the fat middle of the bell curve of any demographic group. The people lacking significant talent or skill. Not the tards, but the average, the unexceptional. The uninspired cogs who, judged on merit, would never rise above mediocrity. This huge demographic thrives when a system introduces something other than merit by which value is measured.
“Klaus isn’t the best worker, but he’s a dedicated National Socialist. We need men like him.”
“Georgy isn’t the sharpest tool, but a more committed Leninist you won’t find.”
“Amir is as useless as a camel fart, but his devotion to the Koran is inspiring.”
These are normal folks who—whether they’re conscious of the dynamic or not—benefit from a system in which the enthusiastic repetition of the orthodoxy’s mantras becomes a substitute for ability. They’re not true believers, they’re not calculating exploiters, and they’re not reluctant acquiescers. The mediocre embrace the system because it removes the need to be exceptional. Hell, it removes the need to be adequate. And by sheer numbers (and yes, even among whites the bell curve bulge is comprised of the unexceptional), the people who benefit from this new standard become the core of the machine.
Right now in America if you dress up pedestrian or subpar output in the trappings of diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE), your output becomes not just good but the best. When you read about how failing hospitals are pushing their commitment to DIE even as their patients literally die, there’s a tendency to put the hearse before the horse. We look at the situation and think, “An outrage! The new racial apartheid is forcing fine institutions to lower standards!”
Okay, maybe. Or perhaps there are a certain number of people at these institutions—workers and management alike—who are grateful to be relieved of the burden of having to be good at what they do. Rightists complain about how every institution, from medical schools to NASA to the USGS, has now declared that there’s no mandate greater than DIE (I just randomly guessed USGS; try it—think of any major agency or institution, and you’ll find that it’s rebranded as DIE-first). The immediate instinct is to claim that these institutions are being forcibly corrupted by the new racial orthodoxy. But it’s a mistake to view this as the result of arm-twisting. The new apartheid wouldn’t be half as dangerous if it were all force and coercion, if no one benefited beyond a small number of affirmative-action hires and diversity HR czars.
I think it’s more apt to liken the new apartheid to a welfare state. Something that gets people hooked on sloth.
Here’s a comparison: Once the federal government got to the point where it employs as many Americans as it does, it stopped mattering whether or not it functions well. Its function became the employment of those people. Generations of people. The machine self-perpetuates because it provides easy work for the unexceptional.
Once every workplace task, every company goal, becomes about spouting verbiage about centering nonwhites, how [insert product or company name here] is beneficial to nonwhites, how [insert product or company name here] has been too white-centered in the past, and how even with all the progress that’s been made, there’s still so much work to be done, once that supplants any other gauge of success or measure of results, the person who can memorize the language and kata of the apartheid and repeat it with gusto gets a leg up on the person with actual skills.
Sure, everything will go to shit. Everything always does in an ideological state. But the state keeps chugging along once it becomes of benefit to enough people.
And today you can just feel the permanence. You can feel that we’re in the “learning to work within it” phase, as opposed to the “stop it from happening” phase. Every day there’s some new example of the apartheid in action. This morning? Whites banned from Berkeley off-campus housing. Yesterday? Oat milk is too white; coffee establishments must buy creamer from nonwhite businesses. Two days ago? Minneapolis teachers approve contract with a stipulation that whites get fired first. There’s literally one a day, covering matters big and small, public and private sector. There’ll be ten more between the time I write this and when you read it (and those are only the ones that make the news).
So we get angry and shake our fists. And we move on.
Remember back in May when Dropbox senior director Jasmine Friedl enthusiastically admitted that she gives preferential hiring treatment based on antiwhiteness? She went so far as to state that she even favors overrepresented nonwhite groups over whites (i.e., her policies aren’t about forging numerical parity, but specifically not hiring whites for the sake of it).
Everyone on the right shook their fist—shakedy-shakedy-shake-shake—and have you thought about it since?
There are people who swear that this barrage will eventually motivate whites to fight back! Yep, just you wait. You can only push us around so much, see? M’yeah, see?
Enjoy the wishful thinking. The barrage more likely means that the apartheid’s firmly entrenched.
We’re in the harm-reduction phase; too late for prevention. And any harm reduction must be done using the language of the apartheid, in much the same way that people in Muslim nations who try to liberalize the laws still have to wrap their proposals in an Islamic shroud. A “reformer” in Iran can’t say, “To hell with basing our laws on Islam!” He has to say, “I believe we can loosen the rules a little without giving offense to the great principles of Islam under which of course we must all live.”
Nobody at CPAC last week dared challenge the core tenet of the apartheid (“White alone is bad; adding nonwhite always makes everything better”). Steve Bannon devoted his talk to the need to get “55 or 60 percent of the Hispanic vote” and then “show them that we earned that vote by action.”
Yep, it’s all about getting nonwhites on board and proving yourself to them. The value of something is measured by how not-white it is. Bannon speaks the language of the apartheid as vigorously as any leftist.
Because the apartheid is the system now. Even “reformers” must acknowledge its fundamentals and speak its tongue.
Shake your fist if it makes you feel better.
You can tell your grandkids living as second-class citizens that you did your best.
In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Joe Biden declared to the nation and world: “We are engaged anew in a great battle for freedom. A battle between democracy and autocracy.”
On her trip to Taiwan, Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed Biden: “Today, the world faces a choice between democracy and autocracy. America’s determination to preserve democracy here in Taiwan and in the world remains iron-clad.”
But is this truly the world struggle America is in today?
Is this the great challenge and threat to the United States?
Are autocracy and democracy in a climactic ideological crusade to determine the destiny of mankind?
For if that is the future, it is surely not America’s past.
Indeed, in the two-century rise of the United States to world preeminence and power, autocrats have proven invaluable allies.
When the fate of the Revolution hung in the balance in 1778, the decision of an autocratic French king to enter the war on America’s side elated Gen. George Washington, and French intervention proved decisive in the 1781 Battle of Yorktown that secured our independence.
A decade later, King Louis XVI would be overthrown in the French Revolution and guillotined along with Queen Marie Antoinette.
In World War I in 1918, the U.S. sent millions of troops into battle in France. They proved decisive in the victory over the kaiser’s Germany.
Our allies in that Great War?
The British, French, Russian, Italian and Japanese empires, the greatest imperial and colonial powers of that day.
In our war with Japan from 1941 to 1945, our foremost Asian ally was the autocrat Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek of China.
In our war with Hitler’s Germany, America’s crucial ally who did more fighting than any other to ensure victory, the USSR’s Joseph Stalin, was the greatest tyrant of his age.
During the Korean War of 1950 to 1953, the leader of the South Korean regime was the dictator-autocrat Syngman Rhee.
During four decades of Cold War before the collapse and breakup of the Soviet Empire and Soviet Union, autocrats were allies of the United States. The shah of Iran. Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua. Gen. Francisco Franco of Spain. Anwar Sadat of Egypt. The kings and princes of Saudi Arabia.
During that Cold War, India was the world’s largest democracy and sided most often with Communist Russia rather than the United States. Autocratic Pakistan was our ally.
Gary Powers’ U-2 flight, shot down over the Soviet Union, initiated in Pakistan, as did Henry Kissinger’s secret mission to China in 1971 to set up the historic Nixon-Mao meeting of 1972.
Across the Arab and Muslim world during the Cold War, many of our foremost friends and allies were kings, emirs and sultans — autocrats all.
The seven-year war in Yemen, in which U.S. air support has been indispensable, was waged by the Saudi monarchy to prevent Houthi rebels from retaining the power they seized in a revolution.
U.S.-Saudi goal: restore a deposed autocrat.
This recitation is not to argue that autocracy is superior to democracy, but to demonstrate that the internal politics of foreign lands, especially in wartime, have rarely been America’s primary concern.
The crucial question, and rightly so, is usually this: Is this autocrat enlisted in the same cause as we, and fighting alongside us? If so, the autocrat has almost always been welcome.
When the Arab Spring erupted, and the dictatorial President Hosni Mubarak’s 30 years of rule came to an end, we cheered the free elections that brought to power Mohamed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
A year later, Morsi was ousted in a military coup and power seized by Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, causing Secretary of State John Kerry to cheer that Egypt’s military was “restoring democracy.”
Kerry explained that Morsi’s removal was at the request of “millions and millions of people.”
Since then, the number of political prisoners held by Sisi has run into the tens of thousands.
If Pelosi and Biden see the world struggle as between autocracy and democracy, a question arises: As leader of the democracy camp in this world struggle, why do we not insist that our allies in places like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, the UAE and Oman begin to hold regular elections to bring to power legitimate democratic rulers, rather than the autocrats that currently occupy the seats of power?
And there is a historical question about the Biden-Pelosi description of the global struggle for the future between autocracy and democracy.
When did the internal political arrangements of foreign nations — there are 194 now — become a primary concern of a country whose Founding Fathers wanted it to stay out of foreign quarrels and foreign wars?
America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” said Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. “She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
And so it once was, long ago.
