Monday, December 31, 2007

Primacy For Anti-Discrimination Is A Major Threat To National Security

Look at this quote from the article below:"... doing so would involv[e] analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area." The 'taboo' being referred to is the idea of running society on an anti-discrimination basis, extending the supposed right to be free of discrimination, even to foreign hostiles in wartime!

If an attitude cripples your military intelligence when you have two wars going on, how is it that such intelligent high-level officials, cannot seem even to register the reductio ad absurdum of what they are grinding down to? Are the powerful now selected, educated and promoted systematically for inability to see when anti-discrimination has been reduced to an absurdity even in important national security decisions? If so, enemies will exploit this mercilessly, and break American international power as easily as the Portuguese empire was smashed in the 1970's.
From Jihad Watch December 28, 2007 :

"Pro-Muslim Pentagon officials pressuring one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on jihad

Infiltration. "Muslim pressure," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times (scroll down):

Pro-Muslim officials at the Pentagon are putting political pressure on one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on Islamist extremism, according to defense officials.
Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law on the Joint Staff, met recently with Hasham Islam, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England's close aide. The officials said Mr. Islam, a Muslim who is leading efforts for the Defense Department's outreach to Muslim groups, sought to convince Mr. Coughlin to take a softer line on Islam and Islamic law elements that promote extremism.
There is also evidence that a whispering campaign is under way to try and discredit Mr. Coughlin as a "Christian extremist with a pen" and force him out of the building, according to the officials.
Mr. Coughlin came under fire from pro-Muslim officials after a memorandum he wrote identified several groups that are being courted by Mr. Islam's community outreach program as front organizations for the pro-extremist Muslim Brotherhood.
Mr. Coughlin based the memorandum on documents released as evidence in a federal terrorism trial that he stated "are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated nongovernmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems."
Mr. Coughlin noted that the documents identified one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups as the Islamic Society of North America, whose leaders were hosted by Mr. England in April at the Pentagon, raising concerns that the deputy defense secretary does not understand clearly the nature of the Islamist threat he is working against as the No. 2 official.
Mr. England has been a leading advocate of what critics in the Pentagon say is a misguided attempt to reach out to the wrong Muslims, regardless of their views, in an effort to counter Muslim extremism.
That approach has kept military and civilian officials from conducting much-needed assessments of how Muslim extremists are waging war because doing so would involving analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area."
JB comments: Does reading this give you confidence that our government people are on top of domestic terrorist activities, and that openness to diversity of Islamic immigrants is safe and wholesome in the least?
Can we reasonably have porous borders with officials emphasizing religious anti-discrimination this far above national security? Would Israel allow such activities and attitudes among their top officers? At the same time, these people can't possibly be so naive, as to assume that there are no enemies, and that if we just say all men are brothers, the 'brothers' will reciprocatingly regard us the same way, and if we don't discriminate, that enemies will not exploit this as weakness? Since they can't literally believe such folderol, the implication would be that they need major terrorism to increase here for some reason, or they may be caught in some rhetorical trap, where dangerous actions or tolerances are continued beyond the grave danger point.
In an earlier post I said: The More that Government Insists that We Owe Individual Judgement to Minorities, The Worse Inter-Group Relations Become
Does this effect occur by emboldening the minorities to ask for more, or by encouraging them to blame others, or in some other ways?

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Connecting Some Dots Suggesting Motives Which Are Usually Covered Under Maudlin Feeling And Smear Offensives

Extracted from an interview entitled:"With Bhutto Gone. . .
By Jamie | Friday, December 28, 2007

Quoting Steve Schippert:"It should be noted that instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency campaign,..." Taking the above as a premiss, what does this suggest of the motives of those who ask us to value openness to diversity, which includes that of Islamic refugees, and that of the current Islamic terror offensives? Next some reports on Islamic refugee resettlement copied from Refugee Resettlement Watch postings on Shelbyville, TN of Dec. '07 :"The Center’s first encounters with the newcomers did not go so well, with the Somalis being described as “demanding, aggressive and argumentative” and very different than anyone they had ever dealt with._______

“They are very demanding and I don’t know if that is because their culture in general,” Weaver explained, but she has also been told that Somalis are being taken to Minneapolis after they arrive in America and given classes on “what they should demand, and what are their rights.” [from:here, here, and here. ]
JB comments:There's a reason why refugees just in from Africa are said to have rights here, but citizens apparently are to be told that they only have duties to pay for this.
This is how the power-greedy operate now: they find a way to bring in ill-behaved, highly objectionable people, enemies even, then try to worsen the misbehavior, and when they succeed in provoking a response, they smear the opposition as racism, fascism, xenophobia, discrimination, etc.
With opponents on the defensive, no one remembers to say that the use of smearing and other fallacies indicates that there is no rational argument for giving more power to the power-greedy.
This way the power-greedy control the issues; they bring in the people who cause public outrage, and the issues are already set up for officials and others to respond with their accustomed replies (which are mainly smears). They are prepared, but those who value freedom-from-aggression appear to be always caught off balance.
Set all this in the historical context of the long, left-dominated struggle for greater power at the expense of liberty; for 100 years shrill government scholars cried for the class war, then it was the race war for forty or more years, which would be the 'liberation'. Now the War of Religion, that of Islam itself, appears to have become the hope of the leftist professoriate and power-greedy officialdom, as an addition to the preceding.
In this context, an official valorization of enhancing diversity, of disunity and instability, and of the potential for insurgency, all fit together, when otherwise they wouldn't. In the first quotation, it is stated that:
"instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency".
Now we have two closely inter-related motives. The power-greedy can win if they provoke smearable opposition to the aggrandizement of their power, and they can win the dictatorship itself, if they can get full-scale insurgency going.
The same methods can be used in complementary manner for both objectives. These two methods have the valuing of objectionable diversity in common; they fit together rhetorically as well as pragmatically.
Now does it make sense why, the worse trouble we can expect from a foreigner, the more those who wish for more power, would prefer for that foreigner to be brought here, and close to your relatives?

Thursday, December 27, 2007

The Deceitful Equivocation Of Worth With Moral Worth Is A Quicksand Fundament Of The Racial Quota Regimes

When some are, for example, handicapped or retarded, this affects their worth in high degree, but need not affect their moral worth. Genetic retardation in large groups, makes it very easy for the power-greedy to exploit that equivocation of worth and moral worth. It can be made to sound as if moral worth were meant, in order to get the disadvantaged riled, but especially to smear, by way of that equivocation. Those who speak of differences in worth between individuals and groups, are smeared as if they were saying that moral worth could be inherited genetically. This smearing is done, because there is no rational argument for treating everyone as equal in worth, and power can be won by pushing for equalization of the consequences of unequal worth.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Why Should One Speak Of The Pressing Issues Of Our Time, When One Could Just Imagine A Planet Where Such Issues Have Become Irrelevant?

First off, I want to raise my suspicion that there are radicals on the libertarian and/or economic freedom-loving right, who wish that our officials would succeed in getting racial conflict to go all the way, in such countries as they may feel could thus become ripe for their radical alternative, which otherwise would have much less chance to come into power.
Further, that such radicals would have us remain silent and helpless on these issues, when otherwise more could be done to forestall any trends towards catastrophically increasing racial and ethnic conflict, through advocating sensible palliatives.
It so happens that we have a power-seeking officialdom, a professoriate in their pay, and an unspeakably dishonest shysterdom, which are bent on making the most out of race. They have spent decades on this project of increasing their power through exploiting racial inequalities, and have got their racial programs set up so as to increase the raw materials of racial conflict every year, presumably hoping to win emergency powers thereby. Mass immigration of racial-quota eligibles is lauded and assisted massively. Why should those who value freedom-from-aggression, unilaterally disarm, or muzzle themselves, with the effect of allowing the exploiters of racial feeling to have an effective monopoly and use it to further their power-greed without opposition, except of some apologetic kind? Instead of avoiding, one should welcome, the issues which the left uses to initiate their smear approach against everyone to their right. It gives one an opportunity to point out that there is no rational argument for more power that would decrease our freedom-from-aggression, and that is why the power-greedy have to use their smears of racism and so on.
Another view is quoted below...

From Dr. John J. Ray's Dissecting Leftism: "Does black IQ matter?

[...] So why do I, as a libertarian conservative, continue to expound the science of the matter? There are two reasons: Because we do not live in a libertarian world and because it is my own scientific discipline that is involved and I feel a committment to publicize the truth of the matter.
The second reason I will not expand on [...] The first reason is the important one: Vast errors in public policy are made because of the general refusal to accept the truth of the matter. Race is a most vexed topic in all countries where there is a substantial African minority and the problem is made much worse by the utter failure of many attempts to deal with it. The clearest example is in education.
Because the lesser ability of blacks is not accepted in education circles, every failure of blacks to do well at educational tasks is always attributed to "the system" or "racism". A perfectly normal and natural occurrence is treated as an emergency which must be remedied by hook or by crook. And because the real nature of the problem is not admitted, all the "solutions" that are tried are based on wrong theories so not only fail but normally make the problem worse -- generating much anger and feelings of victimization among blacks at the same time.
One "solution", for instance, is "dumbing down". The requirements for (say) a diploma are watered down so that EVERYBODY (or most anyway) passes. In the course of that, however, the educational requirements for whites have to be lowered too (it would be "racism" otherwise) so that white kids in the same educational institutions are taught and evaluated at a "black" level and consequently receive a much degraded education -- which is a tragedy, however you look at it. For instance, around half of High School graduates trying to entering Florida's public colleges and universities are found to lack the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic -- skills which in more "racist" times were acquired in grade school.
I could go on to multiply examples of how refusals to cope with black realities degrade life for everybody but I think I have said enough to make my point clear. I cover the matter in more detail here. For the record, what I would advocate as regards black educational failure is simply for the authorities to be race blind..." [linkHERE Wednesday, December 26, 2007]

Monday, December 24, 2007

Alien Anti-Cultures, Such As That Of Myrdal's American Creed, Have Pressing Incentives To Replace Loyalty To Fellow Citizens With Anti-Discrimination

It suits the convenience of foreign hostiles to have American national loyalties redefined into anti-discrimination and the Creed of the Equality of All Mankind. When you reorganize society around anti-discrimination, the minimum loyalties of citizens to each other, and over against foreigners arriving in hostile manner, get eliminated. If anti-discrimination is used in the above way, though, contradictions-in-terms have to follow. One can't discriminate against someone who discriminates, that would mean both failing to be anti-discrimination, and supportive of it at the same time and in the same respect. When, as with Myrdal's fake national essence of believing that all are equal and should be judged without regard to race, creed, religion, color or national origin, there is an insuperable contradiction following with the exclusion of those of, for example, the Islamic creed, where Islam demands discrimination on the basis of creed. Such a belief in an idea, contradictory or otherwise, is not equal to national loyalty; it is not the same as loyalty to fellow citizens who are loyal to us in the minimum necessary degree. Thus, another contradiction-in-terms emerges from the notional nation of anti-discrimination: national loyalty is set equal to its opposite and negation. Another insuperable contradiction-in-terms arises from believing that those who do not believe in the anti-discrimination creed were outside the nation, if it defines them thus outside, it discriminates on the basis of creed; if it doesn't, the supposed national creed does not define the nation. It may be that few would expect that which calls itself The American Creed to be free of the most extreme and self-refuting contradictions. If one is speaking of Myrdal, though, or any others who described their opponents as proceeding only from irrationality, then the appearance of contradictions-in-terms arising from a central doctrine, must not be swept under the rug. Anti-discrimination as a basis for a nation is wrong and traitorous: it denies the loyalty we need to maintain towards fellow nationals, regarding at least, that circumstance in which foreigners enter in a way which increases the aggression here. It subverts that irreducible minimum loyalty necessary for the nation to be a lasting one, since it rejects discrimination as between citizen and foreigner, substituting generic humanity for that specific loyalty. Loyalty to generic humanity can be an addition to, but not a substitute for, loyalty to fellow nationals in the case of foreign aggression within the borders at least. One loyalty posesses attributes of sovereignty, the other occupies spiritual ground. See also this link:Liberty or equality?

"Traditionally, the principle that every American has a right to be treated “without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin” was long regarded as the most fundamental of our core values, so fundamental that Gunnar Myrdal (and many others) labeled it “The American Creed” in his highly influential AN AMERICAN DILEMMA (1944). Not only was this creed written into the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, it was even the basis for the two presidential Executive Orders that first implemented “affirmative action” in the federal government — 10925 from President Kennedy on March 6, 1961, and 11246 from President Johnson on September 28, 1965. They both repeated identical language in many provisions, typified by the beginning of Kennedy’s order:

WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States...."
Quoted from John Rosenberg's : The Press Dog That Didn’t Bark... »

Sunday, December 23, 2007

The Greater The Islamic Percentage, The Less The Contribution To The Advancement Of Civilization

It is in this way that allowance for significant Islamic immigration is to be understood. The effect is on per capita, or per million, measures of advancement of civilization. That is, contributions to knowledge globally, not just local improvements in a place which is behind. The effect of Islamic population is independent of per capita income. As seen in the table below,
Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, are at much the same level, even though they are at low, moderate and high per capita incomes, respectively. Algeria shows levels associated with per capita incomes in the hundreds of dollars, while actually being in the middle ranks of incomes. The 'Near East and North Africa' are comparable in population size to Sub-Saharan Africa, while having much higher per capita incomes and hugely larger university staffs in total, yet show, as in the bottom graph, scarcely larger total output of this kind. The countries shown below, which are less than 90% Islamic, India, Malaysia and Thailand, are also 90% or more below the output levels of America and many European nations. For context, America and the top European countries are at 700-1000 or higher on the scale used below:

Table 2. Per capita output of scientific publications of selected emerging and developing countries: 1999–2001.Figure 1. S&E article output of emerging and developing countries by region: 1988–2001. From NSF at this link: Latin America Shows Rapid Rise in S&E Articles
"During the 1980s, the number of scientific publications per million inhabitants was 18 (Brazil), 16 (India), and 15 (the Arab world). The per capita output of the Arab countries is some 2 percent that of industrial countries. In 1990, there were more than 5,000 publications from 700 Arab institutions. Half of these were from 12 institutions, 11 of which were universities. Other institutions involved in publishing were hospitals and agricultural research stations.

R&D in the Arab countries is overwhelmingly of an applied nature. [...] The three leading countries in order of research output are Egypt (37 percent), Saudi Arabia (20 percent), and Kuwait (12 percent). "

Added 7-21-08 from: Sunday, July 13, 2008

Author Demonstrates Warlike Identity Of Islam By Publishing A Novel
It is encouraging that we have here still some brave intellectuals, unlike the dhimmi-leftists of the government schools of power-worship. Brad Thor is not only intelligent and courageous, he is raking in the millions, doing a job that foreigners won't do. Quoting from an article entitledAngry Muslims threaten life of 'The Last Patriot' author :"Thor says 'Islam is getting a free pass,' and he has the right to write anything he wants to write and Muslims have the 'right not to read it.' He adds that he's tired of the chattering class in Washington glossing over the violent nature of Islam, sugarcoating it as a 'religion of peace' that doesn't need to be reformed."Brad Thor has a character claim evidence that a peaceable Islam was the final word of its prophet, which would abrogate the jihad doctrines. Whether this is true or not, the response of today's Islam to such a claim is so warlike and intolerant, that they demonstrate their unfitness for civilization.Added 7-15-08: 2008The push to criminalize "Islamophobia"
Posted by John S. Bolton

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Diversity, Ottomanization And The Spread Of Mass Murder

"Apparently, freedom of speech is not a human right in Canada. The Canadian Islamic Council that filed the nuisance suit may not win against somebody as globally-connected as Steyn, but the lesson for anybody actually living in Canada is clear [...], it is indicative of how diversity and civil liberties are increasingly in collision. The future of the world may well look like the old Ottoman Empire writ large: multiculturalism on a remarkable scale, but public liberty close to non-existent -- it was simply too dangerous in such a diverse community." Quoted from Steve Sailer 's post of Dec. Bernard Lewis said:

“The authoritarianism present in the Middle East region is not part of the Arab and Muslim traditions, but it has been imported from Europe.”

Despotic regimes have existed since the beginning of history in the mideastern and Islamic lands. Non-authoritarian regimes have never existed there, not in Islamic countries. They can't have got the idea of totally exterminating the Jews from Europe, either , if that is what Lewis actually means by 'authoritarian' in some deceitfully equivocated sense. Now Lewis is going to be contradicted with the relevant facts on the Mufti of Jerusalem, and his introduction of the practice of total extermination of the Jews into several countries of Europe. Below are some timelines indicating the direction of flow of the extermination practices from the Ottoman empire starting with the Armenians [bottom], brought to Europe by the Mufti of Jerusalem, developed into the practice of the total extermination of the Jews, a novelty which had its pilot operations begun under the Mufti in Bosnia, copied from this site on: Amin Al HusseiniAmin Al Husseini

Amin Al Husseini Meets Hitler in Berlin During WWII

Hitler was reportedly content with deporting the Jews out of Europe to Palestine. Husseini perceived this as a threat to his stronghold in Palestine and pushed successfully for the extermination of the European Jews.


Christian Serbian Genocide

Husseini’s Personal Project [xxvi]





Al Husseini meets Croation Nazis
Amin Al Husseini meets Croat Nazi A.Artukovic and M.Budak during WWII.

April 25th. Amin Al-Husseini is made chief architect [xxvii] of Nazi offensive in Bosnia: Serbian-Cyrillic alphabet outlawed. Orthodox Serbs forced to wear Blue armband. Jewish Serbs forced to wear Yellow armband.

While in Bosnia, Amin Al-Husseini takes the title “Protector of Islam”. One hundred thousand (100,000) Bosnian Muslims join the Nazi ranks. They seek Nazi approval to establish autonomous Nazi protectorate for Bosnian Muslims.

Amin Al-Husseini approves the Pejani Plan, calling for the extermination of the Serbian population. Nazi Germany refuses to implement the Pejani plan.

Bosnian ethnic cleansing under Amin al Husseini:

. Orthodox Christian Serbs: 200,000 killed

. Jewish Bosnians: 22,000 killed

. Gypsies: over 40,000 killed

Husseini’s legacy of hatred is a major factor in today’s Bosnia/Herzegovina conflict against the Serbs and their leader Milosevic.

Amin Al Husseini
Amin Al Husseini Inspecting His Muslim Troops. 1943.


10,000 Children Die

Amin Al-Husseini intervenes personally with Nazi High Command to block Red Cross offer of exchanging 10,000 Jewish children for Nazi prisoners of war. They will die in Hitler’s gas chambers. [xxviii]


Nazi Muslims

Bosnia, which he calls ‘the cream of Islam’. It becomes the largest division of the Third Reich Army (26,000 men) and participates actively in the genocide of Serbian and Jewish populations. ‘Hanzar’ was the name given to the dagger worn by officers under the Turkish Ottoman Empire. [xxx] Muslim soldiers pledge allegiance to Nazi regime in official statement prepared by Heinrich Himmler, head of SS Nazi troops


Husseini’s First Taste of Jihad

Allegiance to Ottoman EmpireOttoman Officer
Amin Al Husseini: Ottoman Empire Officer

Amin Al-Husseini swears allegiance to the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide [i] . [ii] He is an officer stationed in Smyrna and participates first-hand in the Armenian genocide. One and a half million Christians are slaughtered under the sword of Islamic Jihad by the Ottoman Army. Allegiance to Ottoman Empire and Islamic world take-over will be echoed by Osama Bin Laden in his post-September 11th declaration [iii]

.Amin Al Husseini Amin Al Husseini

Friday, December 21, 2007

As Diversity Has Increased, High School Graduation Rates Have Declined... For Decades

According to information provided by authors:
James J. Heckman and Paul A. LaFontaine
abstract, (found onHigh School Graduation Rates, posting of Dec. 20th,'07)

" ...the U.S. high school graduation rate peaked at around 80 percent in the late 1960s and then declined by 4-5 percentage points; (2) the actual high school graduation rate is substantially lower than the 88 percent estimate of the status completion rate issued by the NCES; (3) about 65 percent of blacks and Hispanics leave school with a high school diploma and minority graduation rates are still substantially below the rates for non-Hispanic whites. In fact, we find no evidence of convergence in minority-majority graduation rates over the past 35 years."
..Not only is most of the convergence in male minority high school completion rates to those of whites due to higher GED certification rates among minorities, but a substantial portion of these credentials is produced in the prison system.

...The estimated graduation rate is biased upward by 7.7 percentage points when GED recipients are counted as high school graduates. The bias is larger for males than females due to high rate of GED certification in prisons among males...Excluding GED recipients lowers minority graduation rates more than majority rates."

JB draws conclusions: These results are exceedingly contrary to the prediction of the pro-diversity, that we are strengthened and enriched by continual increase of openness to diversity. America is one of the very few countries not to have made considerable progress on this metric, of larger proportions graduating high school and on academic track during the last 40 years. If diversity were valuable in the manner advertised, how could the more-diversifying jurisdiction be retarded in its progress relative to the less-diversifying one? What is seen actually is a randomization of quality of population towards the mean of the world and below. Enemies of America have cause to delight in this, and could be expected to applaud the further valuing of diversity here.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Openness To Diversity Of Adult Illiterates Strengthens And Enriches?

First some backgound links:"According to a recent United Way study, 53% of adults in LA are functionally illiterate.) Steve Sailer
Now Quoting: Heather Hollingsworth, AP, Dec. 18th, '07

"Before Bob Jansen can teach English to the adult immigrants in his lowest-level class, he has to show about a quarter of them how to hold a pencil.

Adult education teachers like Jansen are finding themselves starting from scratch as uneducated immigrants and refugees from conflict regions of Africa and rural areas of Mexico and Central America flock to the United States.

An estimated 400,000 legal and 350,000 illegal immigrants are unable to read or write even in their native language, according to a July 2007 report from the Migration Policy Institute, an independent Washington think tank."
This exemplifies how valuing openness to diversity randomizes quality of population with a highly-pronounced downward tendency. Valuing openness in this way has to mean the annihilation of minimum standards, and those who know what they're doing in promoting openness to diversity can't help but realize it. They must want the destruction of standards, and it takes little understanding of motivation to be aware that this serves power-greed, to preferentially import needy and dependent populations.
The idea that refugees may be singled-out as individuals for political persecution if returned, becomes incredible in the case of illiterates. No regime feels especially threatened by them. Illiterate prospective immigrants are said to somehow have the right to get our fellow citizens to extend the protection of our government to themselves and their relatives; while the net taxpayer of our citizenry is treated as having no right to avoid having incoming foreigners increase the level of aggression on him, and we supposedly have no responsibility to be loyal to him above the foreigner.
Officials may deliberately recruit the most undesirable foreigners, so as to position themselves to smear opposition as it is aroused through ever-greater provocations. There is no rational argument for increasing the power of officials relative to the people's freedom-from-aggression. That's why they need ways to set up the next smear offensives, to get any opposition on the defensive and trying to disprove the smears, and undesirable foreigners are an easy way of doing this.
Since each new demand for increased power for officials has less chance to find honest justification, even more undesirable immigration cohorts will be searched out. For each increment of undesirability, of immigrants or domestic undesirables mobilized towards successful societies or communities, the provocation is greater, and this is the key to getting the smear offensive set up. Officials never have to argue for why we need more undesirables, more dependents, more aggression and more power for them, and less freedom for the good. They just smear those who object, and the opponents placed on the defensive with relentless smearing, never get around to demanding a convincing argument as to why these officials should be trusted with additional power. Right-wing leaders have not told the people this, most likely because they share the power-greed of the others. They may hope to use the same methods themselves, but they're usually much too slow to catch on, to where the new fashion in smearing will appear. They are always late to that party, wading chuckleheadedly through the puddles after the others have almost all moved on. Civilization is being trashed from causes as trifling as these.

Added 7-30-08 from: Monday, July 28, 2008

Assimilation & Valuing Openness To Diversity Mean Forcing High Schools To Graduate English-Illiterate Spanish Speakers?
As found here: Judge says Texas High schools must teach in SpanishIf the power-greedy judge issues a despotic decree to the effect that there is not enough done to graduate bilingual program overstayers, doesn't this mean that the English part of the program is not required for graduation? Or does it mean that they must be kept the full four years, even if they come out with no diploma and no English language literacy beyond the fourth grade level? Either way, it's hard to see how the mass immigration advocates can blame the general public for this arrogation of power by a judge who clearly delights in detonating division and conflict here. There is even more power to be won from that. Given the way the undemocratic features of the republic are manipulated by such as the above judge, the electorate needs to protect the future by opposing mass immigration which, through various such incompatibilities and inequalities, is sure to be fodder for more power-grabs and free-riding.
Posted by John S. Bolton

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Equality And Brotherhood With Terrorist Barbarians: Another Reductio Ad Absurdum Of The Government Schools' Egalitarian Anti-Culture

There are no enemies except those who say that there ARE enemies, isn't that quite the explicit contradiction-in-terms?
All are brothers, except those who say that not all are brothers, wouldn't that be another rather brazen one? From an earlier post: The More A Population Tries To Live According to an Ideal of Brotherhood with All Mankind, the Less Real Brotherhood Remains to Them
If the above tends to be true, why is this? One great part of the reason may be that there is a contradiction-in-terms involved; a brotherhood which is over-extended, even to enemies, contradicts and defeats itself. That our best scholars do not know this, or cannot permit themselves even to suspect it, can hardly be universally true. Some of these will be deceitfully pushing on unsuspecting victims, a 'brotherhood' which will , again and again, sorely victimize them.

Now look at this treatment of these issues, and say that it is not rare and thus revealing of today's anti-culture by how different it sounds relative to mainstream 'thought'.
"Equal Treatment for Terrorists

By William R. Hawkins
Washington Times Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The most consistent theme running through liberal-left opinion since September 11, 2001, has been concern for the well-being of the enemy. The latest example is the contrived scandal over the CIA destroying tapes of interrogations of two captured terrorists.

The first instinct of responsible members of Congress is to fulfill their duty to protect Americans from attack. Now they are pushed by ideological zealots to not only accord foreign adversaries "rights" that will protect them from effective U.S. counteraction but to harass their countrymen on the front lines in this deadly conflict.

Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen reported in The Washington Post on a secret congressional briefing given by the CIA in September 2002: "For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk...on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder."

The same two reporters interviewed former CIA officer, John Kiriakou in regard to Zayn abu Zubaida, a top-ranking al-Qaeda prisoner. Abu Zubaida's interrogation tape was one of those destroyed. Mr. Kiriakou argued that the harsh technique of "waterboarding" used to break abu Zubaida provided intelligence that "probably saved lives." Information gained led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

The other destroyed tape was of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who planned the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors. Unlike their victims, both abu Zubaida and al-Nashiri survived their ordeals and are held at Guantanamo Bay. Within the liberal-left ideology, however, it is not the terrorists who are to be condemned, but those who are fighting them. "For what reason would the CIA destroy these videotapes other than to cover up criminal acts committed during the brutal interrogations depicted on these tapes?" asks Caroline Fredrickson, of the American Civil Liberties Union.

At the core of this perverse outlook is the principle of equality, taken to an extreme. The ACLU says it "works to ensure that the U.S. government complies with universal human-rights principles in addition to the U.S. Constitution." In his infamous 2005 rant comparing FBI interrogators to the Nazis, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin complained they had "no concern for human beings."

So everyone is to be accorded equal treatment simply because they meet the lowest common denominator of being "human." This is the notion in play when presidential candidates say they would not authorize "torture" of a foreign terrorist even if it meant saving American lives. The well-being of the terrorist is no less precious than the lives of Americans, because all are equally human, part of a single extended family descending from some common origin.

Indeed, the entire concept of an adversarial "us and them" is to be rejected. Adversaries are just people whom we have not taken the time to understand. Common ground can be found by dialogue, and a fair settlement on the basis of mutual respect. That the purpose of war is to "compel the enemy to do our will" is distasteful to leftists.

Nothing could be more fundamentally wrong as a basis for dealing with the real world. A distinction must be made between "what" we are and "who" we are. "What" is nothing more than a crude, amoral description. It is "who" a person is that matters. How one acts and to where one owes their allegiance are crucial distinguishing characteristics. An unwillingness to differentiate between friend and foe is a fatal handicap in making national policy.

The failure of leftism to make necessary distinctions is seen across the whole spectrum of issues, not just the stark "us" versus "them" of global warfare. Liberals have a longstanding reputation for being "soft on crime." The victims of crime fade from view and the criminals become the focus of benevolent concern. The inability of liberals to deal harshly with terrorists is an extension of their inability to deal harshly with felons. Capital punishment is called inhumane because even serial killers are considered people just like the rest of "us."

The effort to blur distinctions is explicit in the debate over immigration, as terms like "undocumented resident" are substituted for "illegal alien." It is also embodied in trade policy, where Americans are not to be favored over foreigners in U.S. economic policy (national treatment), nor allies favored over enemies (normal trade relations). Why should citizens feel any loyalty to a government that by doctrine rejects expressing any loyalty to them?

An ideology more at odds with common sense and experience is hard to conceive. And in the real world where ruthless adversaries abound, modern leftism is a prescription for defeat.

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industrial Council in Washington, D.C."
JB comments further: To complete the Jacobin trinity it remains only to mention freedom, which to the above-described disloyalistic excuse-makers for the Islamic terror offensive, can be inferred to mean freedom-FOR-aggression. Our desire for, and right to, freedom-FROM-aggression is exactly what such leftists and liberals find to be an obstacle, to their power-seeking, and to such extent, that the powerful among them are willing to look like traitors and propagandists for the Islamic terror offensive against the infidel. This consideration ties together the patterns of being soft-on-crime, soft-on-terror, soft-on-enemies and hostiles of almost any description, which is spoken of here. Another contradiction-in-terms issuing from the no-enemies talk on the left, is that one would then be saying that there are no enemies except those who say that there ARE some enemies. Even without the direct and explicit contradiction-in-terms, the no-enemies doctrine would have at least some enemies: those who are enemies of the doctrine that there are no enemies. Further, trying for equality with enemies means taking their side and pushing for their supremacy; which indicates disloyalty and hatred against those to whom loyalty is owed.

Also, similarly, from an earlier post: If politics be the ethics of aggression, a political ideal which treats as non-existent, the distinction between aggressors and all others, so that more brotherhood with more and worse aggressors would be better than less, is self-contradictory. It implies that aggression and the various levels of it, are not important to the determination of what sort of ideals, universal brotherhood or others, may still be political and essentially so.

Added on 8-17-08 from Wednesday, August 13, 2008:

Since Diversity Also Means The Lasting Inequality of Man
...valuing openness to diversity, as a political imperative, also means exploiting politically the inequality of man. It is done this way because there is no reasonable case to be made for officials to have more power domestically. Neither is there a good reason for their scholars to get to apply theories which are themselves obvious vehicles of power-greed. They just raise pre-selected issues so as to position themselves to attempt a smearing of opponents as racist, x-, y-, z-phobic, etc., and that's the moderne political exploitation of the Inequality of Man.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Randomizing Quality Of Population Via The Valuing Of Openness To Diversity: Another Insuperable Contradiction For The Pro-Diversity Emerges

The more openness to diversity you obtain, the more you randomize quality of population.
Valuing openness to diversity (with more always better) implies valuing randomization of quality of population. The randomization will tend to proceed downwards unless quality of population is already the lowest in the world.
If our quality of population is already the worst that is found anywhere, in spite of having valued openness to diversity to the extent of importing a significant change in population, valuing openness to diversity similarly as before, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms.
We can't have had the worst quality of population before these pro-diversity policies started to make their changes, and also today, such that randomization through valuing openness to diversity would still make an improvement. Either we were the world's worst before the pro-diversity got its population changes underway, or we're the worst now, after diversification of population. It can't be both; but valuing openness to diversity even after the first major diversification, implies both at the same time and in the same respect.
The way this pro-diversity insult works is in the tradition of the agents provocateurs.
Your people are the absolute worst, any random diversity would improve you, is such a provocation that it doesn't get answered rationally. The people react with hatred of the pro-diversity, as they should; but then the pro-diversity get to say that the people are haters and won't respond rationally, so why not let officials have more power to suppress the hatred and unreason. No, it can be answered rationally; provocateurs should be exposed and their servitude to the aggrandizement of despotic power should win failure for them. The increase of aggression is not excused by the characteristics of its opponents in any case.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Retitled: Pro-Diversity's Need To Hide Its Is-Ought Transition, & Pro-Diversity In The U.S. Military

There is widespread official equivocation between the facts of diversity, and the evaluation of them. Why would this be done in such self-contradictory manner, as if the blank facts of diversity in the world, had to imply a positive evaluation of them? If all diversity is to be considered somehow good, and anti-diversity is part of the global diversity as well, this yields a contradiction-in-terms. The fact-value distinction gets blurred and indeed equivocated quite dishonestly, by the pro-diversity, who never even call themselves that, since they need to conceal their is-ought transition. How does it make someone good, meritorious, deserving or otherwise preferable, simply by being diverse from whites for example? The pro-diversity have a propagandistic concern not to call themselves the anti-caucasians; yet one may infer that having value just by being non-white, and sometimes by being also non-asian, is at least anti-caucasian. That the federal courts are the promoters and enforcers of this, and have the effrontery also to say they're doing it for the benefit of the majority, signals the need for a cultural overturning at least as great as that which could be obtained by privatizing all the government schools.
[originally today's posting was about the Princeton attack reported in the NYSun, which turned out to be a hoax]
Friday, December 7, 2007

Professional Race-Baiters Proliferate Cancerously Even As Officials Exhort Increase Of Anti-Discrimination
Professional race-baiters appear more frequently, and with more power and influence, wealth and publicity; the more that openness to diversity is treated as a value. As diversity increases, by immigration or mobilization domestically, so too does this formerly unknown class: the professional race-baiters. Today even the Army in wartime says our diversity is our strength, which shows that the push for division and conflict is an item of devotion throughout the government, to such extent that the basic survival impulse of having a cohesive military, with unity of loyalty to each other, can be jettisoned. Danger from without deters them little if at all, since division and conflict, kindled with increase of diversity, and patronage of professional race-baiters, are the favored routes to power domestically. The gamble for greatly increased power must seem worthwhile to these officials, who make out division to be strength. From , Dec. 3rd '07, does this sound as if diversity quota-filling is the highest priority, or that something else like highest preparedness or actual war-fighting might be, recalling that two wars are underway: "I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity," Gen. Casey said,[...] that being at war for six years has kept the Army busy and focused on operations, but he feels that diversity should always be a priority."I started getting a sense, that because of everything going on, because of the war, because of how stretched we were, that it caused a perception that we were done, that we had licked this already, that people weren't paying (diversity) the attention that is due. So we need to do something to energize folks and change the focus of folks on diversity."? In wartime, you should make the priority be the promotion of minorities on a racial and ethnic basis, to get racial percentages of officers to match the overall proportions? How will this affect the morale of those who would have their promotions' timing be slowed down by half or more, so that some representatives of minorities can be moved up even ten times faster than otherwise? Or is this the brilliant macchiavellian politics which got a FAT 10% of the black vote for the president? The implication one is entitled to take as well, is that since diversity is said to be 'the strength', the white officers are the weakness, or, at least, not 'the strength', of the army, and this on a strictly racial basis. How is that not to be regarded as a racial provocation against the majority?

(Pro)-Diversity Is An Equivocation...
...which reduces to a contradiction-in-terms. It is stated as diversity, without being explicitly called PRO-diversity, which allows for the equivocation to be put over. That is, via the use of a suppressed major premiss. Diversity is non-evaluative, while pro-diversity is evaluative; but these two are treated as interchangeable. That is the equivocation, and one which may be reduced to a bald contradiction-in-terms.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Western Human Rights Activism Causes 3rd World Insurgencies?

From Mencius' posting of Dec. 6th, '07 on
"Insurgency simply does not work without political protection.
[possible counter-examples: Afghans relative to soviets, Karens vs. Burmese, Chechens vs. soviets , Refugee bands vs. Congolese, Slovenians and Croatians vs. Yugoslavia, etc.]
If this analysis is correct, these Third World insurgent wars exist only because of Western human-rights activism. So why don't Western human-rights activists recognize this? Why don't they notice that they are creating violence and destruction, rather than suppressing it?
A simple explanation of this phenomenon is that Western human-rights activists are in fact political activists, seeking power by the only means that are available to them.[ ...alert from JB: a stunning transition follows over the next two sentences...] It is not that opposing the Pentagon is a necessary method of their human-rights activism. It is that their human-rights activism is a necessary method of their opposing the Pentagon." [ or any civilized force tending to limit a leftward move towards more freedom-for-aggression?]" We saw exactly how much Western human-rights activists cared about their swarthy mascots in the '70s, when they finally managed to force South Vietnam[ presumably this means the ban on further aid ] to surrender to the North. As tens of thousands of Vietnamese were shot, hundreds of thousands imprisoned without trial, and millions fled on boats, these watchdogs of humanity uttered not even a meow. I'm sure most of the "peace" protesters of the '60s sincerely believed that they loved their little brown brothers, but the real political motor of their movement was their hatred of their American enemies, and their desire to achieve power..."
And such power is achieved by progressively eliminating freedom-from-aggression, crippling more and more the institutions which protect this freedom, while insisting that human rights consist of freedom-for-aggression: and differentially so, as between racial and ethnic groups. The current stage involves trying to bring third-world insurgencies to the civilized countries themselves, and of course, to America in particular. This is also the meaning of valuing openness to diversity, since the diverse are those who might, through 'human-rights activism', be more easily than others, triggered into insurgency here. This sort of 'human rights' power-greed needs cannon fodder from abroad, in order to ride a 'revolution' into power. The new enthusiasm on the left for Iraqi refugees is part of this. Many such 'human rights activists' would be chiefs, but few would be Indians on the warpath, so far as this means one could be killed, imprisoned , injured or operate in a menial capacity. Oddly enough the main protection of civilization by now, is the disdain by scholars for menial work, and their general squeamishness. The left needs foreign recruits, of the kind for which one would need to value openness to diversity, and not just any old way. When your power-greed demands especially hostile diversity you can try this:

"The number of Green Cards obtained by people born in Muslim countries was 74 percent higher in 2006 than in 2000. Over the same period Mexicans stayed basically the same. The total number of Green Cards awarded rose by 51 percent."
quoting Edwin S. Rubenstein on:

Persons Obtaining Green Cards

by Country of Birth, 2000-2006

All Countries


Muslim Countries (a)





























% incr., 2000-06:




a. Afganistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,

Somalia, Turkey, UAE, Yemen.

Source: Dept. of Homeland Security, "2006 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,"

September 2007. Table 3.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Look At The Revelatory Power Of Not Giving The Assumption Of Good Faith To Likely Propagandists...

Brazil's leftist government is promoting race hatred

Olavo de Carvalho

Monday 10 December 2007

In an interview with the BBC, Matilde Ribeiro, Brazil’s Special Secretary for the Promotion of Racial Equality Policies, explained the very special kind of anti-racism she defends: it consists of nothing else than overt and continuous anti-white hate, legitimized by a slavery history that ended more than a century ago.

As most Brazilian families (including mine) come from mixed race marriages, Ms. Ribeiro’s preaching tries to stir up hate among people who would rather prefer to love one another. But her scandalous doctrine, promoting the hostility of mulatto children against their white fathers or mothers, is not an original product of her empty head. It is the passive echo of a long and very active cultural tradition. Since Stalin ordered the communist movement to exploit all possible racial conflicts, conferring upon them a sense of class warfare, perhaps nobody has obeyed that instruction in a swifter, more faithful and constant way than Brazilian "social scientists".

Practically all our university production in this domain consists in a long and noisy effort to instill in blacks and mulattos a retroactive hatred directed not only against the slave masters and the descendants of slave masters, but against the white population in general, including those who fought for the liberation of slaves, those who married black persons, those who never said a single word against the black race nor did it any harm. According to the doctrine of our academic establishment, all these whites are unconscious racists, virtually as dangerous as Joseph Goebbels or the Ku-Klux-Klan.

Even the blacks are a little racist against themselves. Truly innocent of the crime of racism are only the distinguished authors of these studies and the militants of organizations inspired by them. In other words: you either are one of the accusers or one of the culprits. There is no third possibility. An incessant flux of Master's and PhD theses, largely subsidized by the government and by billionaire international foundations, pours out from our universities in order to lend credibility to that lovely doctrine. It is founded upon the following eight methodological precepts:

1. Attribute to racial discrimination the difference in economic standing between blacks and whites, omitting the fact that, between the abolition of slavery and the beginning of industrialization in Brazil, more than 40 years went by, during which time the freed black population reproduced itself at a rate incomparably higher than the number of jobs available.

2. Portray black people as the main victims of violent crimes, without asking if they are not also predominantly the perpetrators of these crimes. Every murderer, white or black, is thereby considered a priori as an instrument of white violence against blacks.

3. In the same way, explain all police violence against blacks as a consequence of white racism, without considering whether the police officers who committed the violence were black or white.

4. Depict Europeans always as enslavers and blacks as enslaved, systematically omitting the fact that Muslim troops, filled with blacks, invaded Europe and enslaved millions of whites eight centuries before the arrival of Europeans in Africa.

5. Explain, therefore, internal slavery in Africa as a mere byproduct of European slavery, thus inverting the order of historic time .

6. Transform every race into a juridical person, a holder of rights, when black, and of penal responsibility, when white.

7. Take it as implicit that every white person is guilty of the acts of slave masters, even if he has not a single slave master in his ancestry and even if he has come to Brazil as an immigrant decades after the end of slavery.

8. Blame it all on the "Judeo-Christian civilization", exactly the only one, throughout human history, to have done something in favor of enslaved races.

The word "bias" is too delicate and subtle to qualify the mental attitude that generates these studies. The sociology of races produced in Brazilian universities is pure propaganda material, deliberately misleading and calculated to legitimize the revolutionary violence against what former Sao Paulo (white) governor Claudio Lembo called the "white, cruel and selfish elite". Social science in Brazil is a kind of organized crime .

Olavo de Carvalho, 60, is a Brazilian writer, philosopher, journalist and former university teacher presently living in the U.S. as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. He can be emailed at and at his site

JB comments: Government officials and their professoriate, plus media subject to licensure, are not wisely given the assumption of good faith. Carvalho's precept #6 above is especially relevant to the state religion of anti-caucasianism in our public schools: "Transform every race into a juridical person, a holder of rights, when black, and of penal responsibility, when white." I say this doctrine in itself fully justifies the disestablishment of government schools here through privatization, insofar as it is pervasive in them. Such doctrines are all that's left for the left, when the dream of the class war dies. Another brilliant and highly exportable observation of Carvalho's, excerpted from above: "Truly innocent of the crime of racism are only the distinguished authors of these studies and the militants of organizations inspired by them. In other words: you either are one of the accusers or one of the culprits. There is no third possibility."

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Exposing Major Deceptions On The Characteristics Of Today's Immigrants

We've been told that immigrants are going to support social security as they are younger, but that was a lie. The new CIS report [//]
shows that foreign-born are actually four years OLDER than the population in general. Not only are they older, but their median incomes per person are 30% LOWER when we were told to expect them to have the same or higher incomes. We're being told that immigrants are self-selected for entrepeneurial qualities, but that was deception, since the report shows immigrants less likely than citizens to be that way. Family values are not shown by the 50% illegitimacy currently found among Hispanics, which happens to be the same as in Central America. Weve been dishonestly told that immigrants are unlikely to be on net public subsidy, when their significantly lower median personal incomes, higher rates of lacking medical insurance, and TWO-FOLD greater likelihood of having children enrolled in public school, means that they are overwhelmingly likely to be on net public subsidy. Dishonestly also, we've been led to believe that more numbers in the country makes us stronger relative to national security, but 9-11 showed that to be deceptive, as does the proportion of foreign-born in the military being only half their pro rata share. This pattern of lies and deceptive statements told in support of immigration is so strong that the assumption has to be that one is likely to be lied to by a pro-immigrationist who gives you such information as would tend to make immigrants sound better, or at least not much worse than, the citizenry.

Monday, December 10, 2007

The Left As Dhimmi To The Moslem

Wanting to be his dhimmi, or second-class to the moslem, is a disgrace and a shocking weakening of the image of the left. The left , by making common cause politically with Islam, waves white flags before barbarism, beckoning submissively to them. The smear-mongers' tactical advantage that they thus gain by positioning themselves to say racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia etc., against those to their right, as Islam becomes more emboldened to attack, is only valuable so long as the right fails to say: you have only smears, but no rational arguments for any major moves to the left. Alliance with Islam means rejecting modernity and progress, and it demonstrates an encompassing lack of adherence to rationality. The left as an anti-discrimination movement is especially handicapped, when rejecting reason in order to be inclusive towards Islam. Expecting people not to notice the indulgence of conspiracy theories about the Jews, which is so prevalent in Islamic communities regardless of how much freedom or democracy, education or wealth, that they have; is rather unrealistic.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Is Paternity Testing An Instance Of Racism?

I have seen definitions of racism which specify the attaching of cultural-political importance to genetic lineage, as the essence of racism. If such a definition be not unreasonably broad, must not the use of paternity testing for determining various connections of cultural-political importance, then become 'racism'? If so, then anti-'racism' would be highly inimical to the requirements of human life, or at least civilized life, as reponsibility of parentage, its determination and enforcement, and more, would be crippled by being damned as 'racist'. The slippery slope equivocations and false dilemmas of anti-'racist' smearing would be entrained, making parental responsibility, and its foundations, out to be expressions of racial hatred, all the way out to mass-murder. There is no rational argument for trying to make people attach zero cultural-political importance to lineage, when genetic connections are not known to be unimportant in the cultural-political sphere of affairs. This would be why smears are used instead. Customs and laws against inbreeding treat such degrees of relatedness as culturally and politically important, enough to militate against certain kinds of breeding. Valuing openness to diversity implies that there can be too much relatedness in a population, even when there is no inbreeding to the extent of first cousin marriage, and that this is a matter of cultural and political importance, and is claimed to be a way of working against racism. If racism were defined as assigning cultural-political importance to genetic lineage, how may it also attach such importance to the coalescence of such lineages, or their long maintenance as distinct ones, for that matter?

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Valuing Openness to Diversity of Standards Means Preferentially Pushing Towards Ever Lower Standards II

From an interview entitled:
As the Bell Curves
By Charles Murray and Daniel Seligman
(Originally published in The National Review, December 8, 1997) "Look at the military performance of women. A military officer came into my office some months ago [...] "We're killing people,'' he said, referring to the degradation of entrance requirements and training standards for combat pilots -- a degradation carried out so that enough women could get through. How many journalists in major U.S. papers have been willing to write that story straightforwardly? When the problem of female combat performance is mentioned at all, it is with an "on the one hand, on the other hand'' presentation, even though one side has all the data and the other side is only an attitude."[end of excerpt quoting Charles Murray] JB comments: Why does this keep happening, unless it is because those who would uphold standards which are not to be diversified through randomization by substituting protected-class status, continually fail to respond effectively to the smears from the anti-merit activists? It is by now, really necessary for upholders of standards to respond NOT defensively, disclaiming that they are motivated by hatred of some group; but to go after those who try to smear them, saying: there are no rational arguments for what you want, that's why you have to use smears instead. There are always constituencies for anti-merit policies, but it is they who should be on the defensive. The situation is extreme and has been for many years now, as is shown by the willingness of the government to risk lives, and equipment costing tens of millions apiece, just because some of them want to diversify away from those they hate, and others fail to put the smear-mongers in their place, using the accusatory insinuations against the upholders of standards as an opportunity to reveal that there are no sensible arguments for what can only be pushed through with insults. A government that allows its own propaganda and internally-directed power-greed to compromise its military capacities at the top levels has got a very serious problem. An example of the extreme case would be the Khmer Rouge regime allowing its power relative to potential invaders to fall almost to zero, as they pursued the far reaches of power-greed internally, and allowed propaganda principles of egalitarianism to handicap them to an amazingly far degree.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

As Diversity Increases Through Immigration, Ever Less Complementarity With Citizen Labor Is Seen

From CIS:Immigrants in the United States, 2007
A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population
November 2007 "...the correlation between native unemployment rates and the share of an occupation that is comprised of immigrants is .80. The square of a correlation, in this case .63, can be interpreted to mean that the presence of immigrants in an occupation explains 63 percent of the variation in native unemployment rates across occupations." JB comments: Occupational categories with above 30% foreign-born participation, have double-digit native-born unemployment rates. Instead of complementarity, this sort of immigration, which is of excess quantity and low quality, yields forced job-sharing, seasonalization and the like. Since the competition is largely from the bottom on up, the unskilled and unproductive are doubled in numbers and set against each other, while the net taxpayer gets to pay for the worse shortfall as larger percentages of both job-sharing groups go on to greater net public subsidy.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Valuing Openness To Diversity Itself Is Unpatriotic And Anti-American

Americans would have to be the worst people in the world if increments of openness to diversity systematically would improve the population. To believe that value is created through more openness to what is more diverse from the current population, does not indicate loyalty to one's compatriots, but the reverse. It means disvaluing them insofar as they have some characteristics which are to be diversified away from. The valuing of openness to diversity, such that more diversification is said to be better, and selectively against precisely those populations which have been more resistant to despotism, while achieving the most civilizationally, has to really mean a hatred against human success and against freedom-from-aggression.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

A Stunningly Barbarous Prevalence Of Anti-Caucasianism Among American Officials Is Revealed In The Hate-Crime Statistics

Found on posting of Nov. 30th, '07:"According to the NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey], whites are victims of hate crimes at an annual rate of 0.9 per thousand. Given the white population of about 200 million, that works out to an annual count of about 180,000 victimizations. Of these, 54.7%, or about 98,460, are perceived by the victim as anti-white - i.e., motivated by his or her race. If 44% of these were reported to law enforcement, then about 43,322 victimizations perceived by the victim as anti-white hate crimes would have been so reported. But the UCR [Uniform Crime Reporting] puts the number of anti-white hate crimes in 2006 at only 890.
So, apparently, law enforcement accepts as anti-white hate crimes only about 2% of reported victimizations perceived by the victim as anti-white.
In which case we may conclude that law enforcement agencies are more than twenty times as likely to accept and confirm the perceptions of blacks compared to whites that they have been the victims of hate-crimes.[...]
In fact, it turns out that the main reason the NCVS detects so much more hate crime than the UCR is simply because it takes anti-white hate crime so much more seriously. It reports more than a hundred times as much anti-white hate crime, but less than five times as much anti-black hate crime.
Posted by Steve Burton on November 30, 2007"
JB Comments: This indicates a very widespread anti-caucasian policy tendency among officials, and one which could hardly be intended otherwise than as a racial provocation against the majority. If conflict on such a basis serves the ambitions of officials, and the majority is the chief obstacle in front of their power-greed, perhaps this would explain the above-measured anti-caucasianism of these officials, who are using discretion in this sytematic way.