October 31, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America:
- Mrs. Madoff says it’s the “gentiles” fault!
- Drasius Keyds, A new hero to all
- Jews cut Palestinians water to a trickle
- Facebook link here
- And much more…
October 31, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America:
October 29, 2009
Matt Johnson discusses:
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 50 min.
October 29, 2009
October 29, 2009 7:35 a.m. EDT
Tehran, Iran (CNN) — Iran’s hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a rare conciliatory note Thursday, saying that the Islamic republic was ready for nuclear cooperation with Western powers.
Ahmadinejad, speaking to crowds in the northeastern city of Mashhad, said the West has gone from “confrontation to cooperation,” according to state-run Press TV, and praised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as “playing a genuine role.”
“One, they told us to stop (nuclear work,)” he said. “Now they express readiness to cooperate with us in exchange of fuel, expansion of the technology and construction of power plants and atomic reactors.”
He said his nation is ready to talk with the United States and its allies in developing Iran‘s nuclear program, and he described a current draft proposal as a “victory” for Iran.
A formal response to the proposal is expected from Tehran on Friday. If accepted, it could help quell the international showdown over Iran’s nuclear activities.
That deal, brokered earlier this month at IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, would send low-enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment and then return it to Iran for use in medical research and treatment at a reactor in Tehran. And, Ahmadinejad said, getting fuel for the Tehran reactor would provide an opportunity to determine the “honesty” of the IAEA and the countries involved in the negotiations.
It could potentially reduce the amount of raw material Iran has on hand to build nuclear weapons. Building weapons is what the United States and its allies suspect is Tehran’s goal. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
“We welcome the exchange of fuel, technical cooperation and construction of power plants and reactors and we are prepared to cooperate (in those areas),” he said.
Iran shocked the world in September by revealing the existence of a previously unknown nuclear plant near the city of Qom.
The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, sent a team of inspectors for a four-day visit to that facility, Press TV said. It said the inspectors “have expressed satisfaction with their mission.”
Iranian officials are expected to meet with the five permanent members of theU.N. Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany, to further discuss the nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad also said that Iran expected countries who are parties to the talks to “fulfill their previous obligations.”
“We have nuclear contracts. It has been 30 years. We have paid for them .. such agreements must be fulfilled … for technical activities, for reactors and power plants. If we intend to cooperate, such contracts must be addressed and the previous commitments must be fulfilled.”
Iranian lawmaker Hossein Ebrahimi told the semi-official Mehr News Agency on Wednesday that nuclear talks between Iran and Western powers have greatly improved.
“Current international circumstances suggest that the atmosphere of distrust in the ongoing nuclear talks is diminishing,” said Ebrahimi, a member of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.
He said the IAEA-brokered proposal would be beneficial “because Iran’s right to produce enriched uranium would be recognized.”
“If we choose this option, we can continue enrichment and gradually increase our ability to produce uranium that is more enriched to supply our power plants and reactors in the future,” Ebrahimi added.
October 29, 2009
October 27, 2009
I have received some feedback on my racial cuckoldry article, and, to be honest, some of the comments are disheartening. Some readers apparently completely missed the major point of the essay, and there seem to be many misunderstandings. I will make a few brief comments here. I would strongly suggest though that interested readers go to American Renaissance and order Frank Salter’s book On Genetics Interests. Salter deals with some of these issues, including the “only phenotype is important” argument, in his chapter replying to objections to genetic interests, and this book is absolutely fundamental.
I will start by outlining the chain of argumentation used in the original racial cuckoldry essay. I attempted to construct a simple, logical, and accessible-to-the-layman thesis. I began by discussing the general phenomenon of cuckoldry for evolved organisms, relating the human experience of cuckolded men with what occurs with brood parasitism involving, for example, birds.
I assume that the reader agrees that raising another man’s child due to deception is a serious blow to the cuckold’s interests, since he is investing in another man’s genetic continuity and not his own. But it’s the same at the level of the population: Racial cuckoldry occurs when the “racial cuckold” mistakenly perceives a genetically alien person/group as a member of the cuckolds’ own ethny, and thus maladaptively invests in that genetically alien person/group.
I then considered in what manner such a mistake can be made. I used several examples — including on the population level (e.g., Kalash) and on the individual level (e.g., Gosselaar) — to demonstrate that racial cuckoldry often occurs because of racial mimicry. The cuckold thinks that the genetic alien “looks like” and/or “acts like” “one of us” and thus accepts that this alien is “one of us” when objectively, this alien is not “one of us” at all.
I concluded that if one wishes to avoid the maladaptive action of racial cuckoldry, one must take into consideration kinship as evaluated through genetic assays, instead of relying on personal opinions of what someone “looks like.”
I also pointedly compared cuckoldry to adoption. In both cases, investment is made in the genetic alien, but with cuckoldry, this investment takes place involuntarily due to deception and/or ignorance, and in the case of adoption the investment is voluntary, the decision is made fully informed of the genetic consequences.
The ultimate “take home point” of the original essay is that whatever decision one makes on “who is in my ingroup,” that decision must be an informed one, made with all the facts known. If you want to “adopt” the Kalash or Gosselaar as European, then at least do so knowing exactly what they are. I also pointed out that it is not necessary to “test” every individual – ethnic group data can serve as a proxy when individuals’ ethnic ancestries are known.
Thus, starting from the biological reality that adaptive behavior for evolved organisms is defined as that behavior which results in genetic continuity and/or expansion, all else in the original essay follows, assuming that the reader wants to act adaptively. Of course, people may not care (e.g., quite a few Christians don’t care). But it is reasonable to believe that readers of The Occidental Observer care about adaptive behavior, even if they may not specifically use that “scientific” term to describe their interests in familial and racial continuity. The typical racial nationalist stresses kinship ties to the race and ethnic group.
Let’s look at some (paraphrased) comments and complaints (in italics) and replies to these.
The concept of “Racial Cuckoldry” presumes the existence of a pure race…
I have read over my original essay and I can’t quite see any references to a “pure race.” All that is required is genetic differences, not “purity.”
You confuse racial interests with genetic interests. Racial interests are the interests we have for people with a White phenotype, groups that have evolved a White phenotype in particular environments. You are too reductionist with all of these genetic arguments. Only physical appearance matters.
Some people apparently missed the entire point of the essay and talk about only White phenotypes as being of importance, and that if different groups under similar conditions evolved similar White phenotypes, then that’s all that matters.
Salter made clear in On Genetic Interests that some people will continue stubbornly clinging to phenotype and that “who cares?” will always be an essentially unanswerable riposte against the invocation of genetic interests. This is likely what is happening here: If some people simply don’t care about kinship or relatedness at all, what can one do? If people value phenotype over kinship, then that is their value system and one cannot objectively argue against values. However, one can logically point out that this choice, this value system, is not biologically adaptive. It is the same as favoring the children of a completely unrelated stranger over your own children simply because the stranger’s children happen to look more like you than your own (assume for the sake of simplicity that all are of the same ethny). Now, if that is your choice based on your value system, I can’t argue with you. But don’t pretend that it is adaptive and a biologically wise choice. It is in fact highly maladaptive.
Another argument is as follows. For a variety of reasons, disease-related as well as, allegedly, surgical, Michael Jackson started “looking Whiter” as he aged. However, his African-American genes remained the same. If, as some claim, racial interests are different from genetic interests, I ask — did Whites’ racial interests in Michael Jackson increase as he started to “look Whiter?” If racial phenotype independent of genetics is what racial interests are really about, then by the time of his death Mr. Jackson was much “more White” than he was as a youth, and, thus, of greater racial interest to Euro-Americans.
To answer that absurdity, some may claim that what they really mean are heritable phenotypes. That’s okay, but by heritable you mean genetic. Thus, these racial interests in phenotype are based upon genes — genes for physical appearance. But why should these genes get sole precedent over all others? What about genes encoding intelligence, behavior, etc? What about so-called “non-functional” genes that provide important information on kinship, on family, on common ancestral origins? Who is to say that some genes are important to racial interests and others are not?
The fact is that there are many, many more functional genes than just those controlling physical appearance. And, even though (true) non-functional genes may be of lesser importance, gene markers that provide important information on kinship are not completely without value. Thus, I argue that all genetic information that distinguishes people or groups from each other is important. Some are more important than others, but all must be considered. Once you cite the heritable genetic nature of phenotype to get around the obvious absurdity of “a ‘Whiter’ Michael Jackson is now worthy of White racial interests,” one cannot arbitrarily draw a line and say that only a small set of genes are important. They all are, to one degree or another. Thus, racial interests are indeed genetic interests; there is no real difference between the two.
Groups people say are related are not really that related because, for example, Slavs and Basques are characterized by different NRY haplotypes.
First of all, you cannot determine population identity by single locus markers, like NRY or mtDNA. Their time of utility for population genetics has passed; we are now in the age of using hundreds of thousands of autosomal markers to ascertain race and ethnic group identities. Second of all, there is no such thing as an ethnic group composed of members with only one type of NRY or mtDNA haplotype. There is variation within groups as well. This means that even in mono-ethnic extended families, you can have different NRY or mtDNA. Mono-ethnic male cousins of different paternal lineages can have different NRY. Are they not closely related? The same applies to mDNA and maternal lineages.
Now, there are of course real differences between European types that can be identified by autosomal analyses. I never said Europeans were identical. The point is, though, that they are much more closely related to each other than to the Kalash, or to hybrids like Gosselaar.
A general comment that does have some validity is that I am missing the forest for the trees. In other word: with a global racial meltdown for Whites, why bother nitpicking over a White-looking fellow like Mr. Gosselaar? Is it necessary to focus on ever finer genetic distinctions?
In one sense, I am sympathetic to this argument. Gosselaar and reasonable numbers of people like him are likely assimilable. And, true enough, it is easy to get distracted from the worldwide racial crisis by obsessing over small genetic differences between closely related peoples.
On the other hand, Gosselaar’s non-European ancestry is not trivial. Even if you assume that his mother herself is admixed and not pure Indonesian (possible, given Gosselaar’s appearance), the fact that he may be 1/4 Indonesian rather than 1/2 Indonesian doesn’t make him European. 25% Southeast Asian ancestry is a lot. And I have no definite evidence his mother is admixed; it is just a possibility.
But, Gosselaar was just an example of the broader issue. An entire ethnic group — the Kalash — is being mistakenly classified as similar to Europeans based on several pictures of Kalash children. So, the assimilability of Mr. Gosselaar aside, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. At the very least, as I have stated, let us have the information. If we know what Gosselaar and the Kalash are, and if we still want to accept them as “White” — well, at least make that acceptance an informed decision. Thus, my essay is not so much telling people where to draw the line, but rather, suggesting that they get all their facts in order before drawing that line — and that they must rely on genetic facts and not just on their personal opinions of what they think someone “looks like.”
Some of this is arbitrary — there are blonde, blue-eyed Jews, Black Jews, etc.
I was referring for the most part to Ashkenazim, the ones that may look most similar to Europeans. That they may be “blonde and blue eyed” — like some Kalash — is the entire point of the article.
Some groups have increased their power by accepting mixed race “cuckoos.” Blacks accept as “Black” obviously mixed mulattoes, and this increases Black numbers and power. Hispanics come in all types: White, Black, Amerindian, and mixes thereof, but a pan-Hispanic identity increases their power. Maybe it is OK to have “racial cuckoldry?”
Obviously some people skipped over my distinction between cuckoldry, in which ignorance/deception is involved, and adoption, in which the genetic alien is accepted with the knowledge of the differences that exist. I put forth the option that one could “adopt” Gosselaar or the Kalash (or, by analogy, even Jews) as “European.” If that will increase our power and cause a net gain of genetic interest (by helping us save ourselves), that would be a good strategy. All I am saying is — let us know the facts about genes and kinship before making a decision. If the decision is “let’s accept Jews, Kalash, and Gosselaar,” that’s fine. Let’s see the argument for that and balance it against the genetic evidence and kinship.
Certainly, it makes sense for any group to look for allies and mutual benefits. What I am concerned about is cuckoldry, where one race is giving resources to people from another race.
These critics don’t want to consider kinship at all. They only want to consider interests like physical appearance and political power. How is that different from the argument that (alien) immigration will make us all richer?
Let’s assume that the immigration would make us richer and more powerful. Is it still good? Only if we can be assured that in the long run we won’t lose wealth and power to the alien immigrants. In other words, we must be assured that immigration does not result in cuckolding the receiving race.
As a thought experiment, one could imagine a managed form of immigration in which immigrants worked as contract laborers and could be trusted never to seek political power; nor would they seek economic benefits such as affirmative action that are costly to the natives, or disrupt the cohesiveness of the host society. They would leave as soon as their contract expired. Under such a situation, immigration may indeed be beneficial for the receiving society.
Unfortunately, immigration into Western societies is not at all like this. Current immigration is maladaptive for Whites because within a few decades they will be a political minority at which point their wealth (and even their physical safety) may well be imperiled. And immigration destroys the social fabric by creating ethnic enclaves. And in the end, the present form of immigration lowers the genetic fitness of the natives relative to the total gene pool of the society. That is, distinctive European genetic combinations become relatively less common.
By the way, Blacks accepting mulattoes as “Black” is not racial cuckoldry. Blacks distinguish between dark “pure” Negroes and the “coffee and cream” mixes. In other words, skin tone has important practical implications among Blacks. But in any case, they know that those with light skin are mixed and they have decided to accept them.
It is not racial cuckoldry if people create categories that benefit their own group. Whites could creatively admit others (say, Jews) into the category of White if it benefited them in some way. But if so, the important thing would be to be aware of underlying genetic differences in order to prevent cuckoldry by, say, coming to believe that all Whites have the same interests in Israel as Jews do.
In any case, the point is that the people who claim that the Kalash are the same as Europeans are not saying “we are different, but let’s form an alliance anyway.” Instead, they are mistakenly thinking that the groups are the same when they are not — they are saying “the Kalash are just like Europeans, let’s accept them as such.” The decision of acceptance is being based on mistaken opinions of Kalash racial characteristics. That’s the point.
People will not agree to be tested.
In my article, I said that it is unlikely that everyone will use genetic testing. And I say that we should use ethnic data as a proxy for individualized data in most cases.
Then there is another fellow on another website who has made the following comments (in italics, my response in plain text).
Ted seems to be saying that everyone has to provide a DNA analysis indicating that they are pure Aryan before they can join the club.
In the original essay, I openly state that for most people, simply knowing what their ethnic ancestry is can be reasonably sufficient if population genetics data exists for the person’s ancestral ethnic groups. I do not say “everyone must be tested.” I do say that would be optimal, but it is not currently practical.
I do not “seem” to be saying anything about “pure Aryans” either. “Racial purity” has become a strawman argument, often used today by the “anti-racist” left to delegitimize the science of racial genetics. It is also now apparently being used by some on the “right” to attack genetic testing. “Purity” is not required. All that’s important is that genetic differences exist, and that some groups/people are more or less closely related compared to others. So no one needs to “indicate” that they are a “pure Aryan.” However, I don’t think it is too much to ask that people who are considered “racially just the same as Europeans” not be Central/South Asians like the Kalash or have an Indonesian mother like Gosselaar.
What a load of nonsense. Mark-Paul Gosselaar is a White man because he looks White.
This kind of thinking is exactly what I am arguing against in my essay. Gosselaar is likely to be genetically 25–50% Southeast Asian. But because he “looks White” in a photograph he mysteriously is not transformed into a “White man.” Let’s change this a bit. Imagine this commentator sees a boy that is the son of an unrelated stranger. The boy looks like the commentator, so he says, “That boy is my son because he looks like my son, he looks like me.” But … he’s not your son. He is someone else’s son. If your wife cheats and bears another man’s son and tricks you into thinking it is yours — followed by her saying “that’s it, no more children for me” — is the possibility that the little “cuckoo” may “look like you” going to change the fact that your genetic line has ended and you are raising another man’s child? Doesn’t it matter what people actually are?
Let’s look at this another way. Highly admixed families often exhibit a high degree of phenotypic variability. Contrary to popular misconceptions, people do not inherit an equal, proportional amount of genes from each of their ancestors. So, for example, due to independent assortment and recombination that occurs in meiosis, a person may inherit significantly less than or greater than 25% of particular types of genes from each of their grandparents — and the same applies to all other ancestors and proportional genetic inheritance going back in time. Assume Gosselaar’s mother is herself somewhat admixed, with some European heritage. Thus, Mark-Paul Gosselaar may have inherited predominantly European phenotypic genes from his Eurasian mother to complement those from his father. His overall genetic ancestry, however, will still be significantly Southeast Asian, but he will “look White.” In theory, he can have a full sibling who inherits more of the Asian genes from the mother and therefore will look obviously non-White and Eurasian. Can a “White man” have a non-White full sibling? Isn’t it obvious that ancestry trumps physical appearance?
And even if the mother is full Indonesian, many Indonesians do “not look as Mongoloid” as do many other East Asians, particularly Northeast Asians. They may have ancestry from other sources, including, possibly, Pacific Islander, Australoid, or even South Asian. Particular combinations of uneven inheritance of genes encoding physical appearance can result in a Eurasian who looks like Gosselaar — despite being heavily Asiatic and obviously not “White.”
Whether Kalash are White or not is irrelevant. They don’t live in White countries so who cares?
Commentators at American Renaissance sure care. And, obviously, the point about the Kalash is that they are illustrating the Racial Cuckoldry problem. The Kalash may not live in White countries, but other non-European Caucasians do live in White countries. Should we accept them all as “White Europeans” just because you think they “look White?”
Ashkenazi Jews are White to me but that does not make them one of us. Many Albanians are White but I don’t consider them one of us.
Why? Why aren’t they the same as Gosselaar? They “look White” but they are not “White?”
Most scientists believe that life on Earth came about as replicating macromolecules. These were almost certainly not DNA at first — perhaps RNA and possibly proteins. Some even postulate that non-organic material was the first replicating macromolecule. What we are talking about here is information — self-replicating information in material form, making more copies of itself.
Relatively quickly, given the many advantages of DNA as material for storing and replicating this information, DNA took over as the predominant form of replicating macromolecule leading to life as we know it. Selective pressures then favored those replicating macromolecules that could not only reproduce themselves most efficiently (e.g., faster) but also those that could fill new niches and exploit these niches for further replication. Thus, the informational material began coding for production of proteins that created a phenotype, whose purpose was the more effective replication of the informational material in particular ecological niches. This, self-replicating information became genetic information, and life as we know it today. The “striving of life” — if we may use that unscientific term — is toward the reproduction of the genetic material encoded in the DNA.
Many species, like the Mayfly, have extremely short adult lives, some as short as only 30 minutes! These insects simply emerge from the pupae, fly around, mate, lay eggs, and die. If the “striving of life” was to express phenotypes, it is certainly strange to evolve a phenotype whose only purpose is to produce an adult that mates and then dies within 30 minutes. The mayfly seems to me to be an organism (similar to microorganisms) whose essential purpose is reproduction. Reproduction of what? More 30 minute-lived adults? Or, reproduction of the unique and distinctive genetic information characteristics of mayflies, that produces a particular phenotype to fill a niche allowing for this information’s replication.
I know the answer that evolutionary biologists would give, the only answer that makes sense and which is consistent with modern neo-Darwinian thought: The mayfly is a vehicle for the reproduction of its genes, nothing more and nothing less.
Humans, ultimately, are no different. Europeans — and the finer subracial and ethnic distinctions among Europeans — need to worry about the continuity of their own unique and distinctive genetic information, and let Central/South Asians and Eurasian hybrids, regardless of phenotype, worry about themselves.
Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.
Source: The Occidental Observer
October 27, 2009
Dr. Sunic spoke to the Altermedia group in Oslo, Norway on October 17th. The theme of the speech is “Identity and Civic Duty in the Face of Adversity.” Topics include:
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
October 26, 2009
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.
Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.
He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.
Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.
On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.
In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy.
He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.
But he acknowledged that “nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.
“Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
“But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.
“Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.
“This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”
The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: “We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.
“It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “Our new flexible points based system gives us greater control on those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.
“Britain’s borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards to foreign nationals, we have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK.
“The British people can be confident that immigration is under control.”
Source: Telegraph UK
October 26, 2009
I have suggested in previous articles, as well as in my dystopian novel, Mister, that the longer we allow our enemies to carry on as they are, the harsher the measures that will be required to extricate ourselves from the present mess.
This is not a profound insight; it is something every schoolboy learns in the playground. When a challenge is allowed to pass without a forceful response, the challenger is immediately emboldened into starting a program of escalating depredations. The greater the depredations, the greater the retaliation needed to end them. After a while, the level of retaliation needed to regain peace becomes so destructive that victory over the predator ultimately becomes a pyrrhic victory. It is, therefore, always preferable to take the first challenge very seriously, and to respond forcefully, even disproportionately, rather than ignore it or let it pass in an attempt to keep the peace.
Perhaps no film serves as a better metaphor for this than the controversial 1971 psychological thriller, Straw Dogs. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, and starring Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, this is the story of a young couple – David Sumner, a timid, American mathematician and, Amy, his rather puerile Cornish wife – who move to a farm in a small village in Cornwall, and quickly run into trouble with the locals.
Having hired four workmen to finish his garage roof, David becomes absorbed in his work and Amy, bored and craving attention, begins flirting with the men – one of these is Charlie, who has a previous history with Amy. David had encountered a status challenge early on in the film (see below), but he had chosen to ignore it, thus triggering idle talk and a progressive loss of authority before the workmen.
One evening, David finds their cat dead, hung by the neck in their closet. Amy claims the workmen have done it as a provocation, to prove that they could get into his bedroom. David, however, is a coward, and lacks the nerve to confront the workmen. Instead, he attempts to win their friendship, and invites them in for a beer. Amy is horrified, but David argues that he wants to ‘catch them off-guard’. She is not fooled, however, and, when David fails to mention the cat, as expected, she visibly loses respect for her husband.
The workmen suggest that he come duck hunting with them, and David agrees; but on the appointed day the workmen leave him stranded on a lonely moor, after promising to drive ducks in his direction. Charlie then goes back to the Sumners’ house and rapes Amy, who, after some resistance, soon appears to enjoy the violation. Upon finishing, however, another workman shows up, and forces Charlie at gunpoint to hold Amy down while he takes a turn at raping her.
After several hours of standing around looking like an idiot on the moor, David finally realizes that he has been had and decides to walk back to the farm. By the time he arrives back home it is dark, and he finds his wife in bed, disheveled and withdrawn; she does not tell him about the rape. David tells his wife how the workmen stuck it to him, but is patronizing — as he always is towards her — and makes himself look even more of a fool in the process; Amy rebukes him for his cowardice and failure to confront the workmen about the cat. True to form, however, David blames Amy for ‘pushing’ him.
The following day David fires the workers, but even at this point he does it nervously and with diffidence. Later, David and Amy attend a church social. Amy is haunted by the trauma of the rape, and David, noticing her discomfort (yet still unaware of its source) suggests that they leave early.
They do, but it is a foggy night and, on the drive home, they hit the village idiot, Henry Niles. David takes him back to the farm. Unable to reach anyone as he telephones for help, however, he eventually telephones the village pub, with whose landlord he leaves a message.
This proves a mistake, though, for Niles had earlier in the evening disappeared with Janice Hedden, a village girl, who was later found dead: the girl’s father, Bobbie, an unemployed drunk and Charlie’s uncle, was by the time of David’s telephone call out for blood. Upon learning that Niles is at the Sumners’ farm, he and the workmen, including the two who raped Amy, decide to go there.
All drunk, they pound the door of the Sumners’ house and begin breaking windows. David refuses to give them Niles, despite his wife’s remonstrations, deciding it is a matter of principle. The violence escalates until the local magistrate arrives; the latter, however, is shot dead by Janice’s father. At this point, seeing that there was no turning back, the workmen decide to pull all the stops, and begin a violent siege. David attempts to defend his home, but, eventually, defenses are breached and some of the workmen gain access to the house. One by one, however, David kills them all. The last scene is David driving Niles back to town, smiling.
The film was meant to be an exploration of violence, and Dustin Hoffman is said to have agreed to play David Sumner because he was intrigued by the idea of a pacifist who was unaware of his capacity for violence.
I, however, see the film as an exploration of pacifism, and I believe David Sumner illustrates rather well how stupid we must look to our racial competitors when we remain silent in the face of their depredations and rationalize tolerating endless forced concessions and humiliations. To them, we are David Sumner; to us, they are the drunken villagers.
The villagers are rough, uncouth, virile, hard, clannish, and menacing; they wear Wellington boots and coarse garments; they represent low cunning, brute force, excess, base instinct, and manual labor. David Sumner is polished, polite, feminine, soft, individualistic, and physically insignificant; he wears cloth shoes, cotton, and wool; he represents intelligence, pacifism, moderation, high principle, and mental work.
The sad moral of the film is that low cunning and brute force tends to be an effective strategy for resource acquisition. It is certainly also a universal one, which is favored by the bulk of humanity. And even if David emerges victorious in the end, we are forced to think of what he has lost: his cat has been killed, his wife has been raped, his home has been trashed, his peace has been stolen, and any goodwill he might still have enjoyed among the villagers has been fully expended. It is reasonable to speculate that he will have to move out and be tried for the deaths of the men he has killed — he might even be convicted for some or all of those deaths, and his wife might even leave him in the end.
Despite his intelligence, his high principles, and good will, the evil, lazy, drunken, and dumb workmen are unimpressed and they manage to take everything away from him — everything, including his sense of self, for through his final resort to slaughter, he abdicates the intellectualism, pacifism, and high principles with which he sought to define himself. All right, the workmen lose their lives, but what do they care? Their lives seemed rather useless anyway and they are dead, so they do not suffer their loss.
There are a number of key points in the film worth noting.
As Charlie rapes Amy, she is seen to become enthralled by his obvious masculinity, and she, accordingly, allows herself to be dominated. This scene was controversial at the time and instigated bans and cuts. Yet, it is probably one of the most educational scenes. There is no doubt here that she re-discovers in Charlie what her husband is lacking; even if only momentarily, her brewing contempt for, and anger at, her husband for his spinelessness is what causes her only to mount a weak resistance and to finally melt and embrace Charlie’s usurpation.
And despite the second rape by one of Charlie’s friends, of which Charlie is an accomplice, the two men subsequently show neither remorse nor worry at the prospect of David finding out. It does not seem to even cross their minds for the remainder of the film. Throughout it, both before and after the rape, the workmen remain tight and maintain a united front; the Sumners, by contrast, are divided: they undermine each other; she taunts him he ignores her; she is petty, he is patronizing; she rebukes him, he dismisses her; and, in short, they fail to act as a unit — to synchronize, complement, and synergize — which is one of the keys to a solid marriage.
Although Amy’s anger was triggered by the cat incident, David’s weakness and the fissures in their marriage, not apparent to her until that point, are revealed much earlier, during the initial scenes of the film. The latter begins in Amy’s native village in Cornwall. She has obviously been away with David in America, and has only just returned; David has obtained a research grant and the nearby farm is to serve as a retreat.
Amy encounters Charlie as David is loading the Sumner’s car with groceries, and Amy and Charlie engage in conversation. She attempts to show off her husband, telling Charlie about his research. But she does not explain it accurately, and David makes a patronizing and dismissive remark.
This is mistake number one: a married man ought never to undermine his wife in front of third parties; only a coward would do so to a loving wife, and only a man not interested in keeping his wife would thus invite others to steal her from him.
Then, David, upon learning that Charlie is unemployed, decides to hire him, as the workman he had previously hired to build the roof of his garage was taking too long. David asks for a cost estimate, but Charlie says simply ‘Reasonable,’ an unspecific answer that David accepts.
Mistake number two: if your money is on the line, you always demand precise answers; you always establish who is boss.
David then goes to the pub nearby to purchase a packet of cigarettes. Bobbie Hedden, hunched over at the bar and drunk, notices David walking in and facially registers his scornful disgust at the sight of David’s unmanly shoes; David, oblivious, looks immediately weak in the hard, working man’s pub, standing wide-eyed as he blows his nose. By the time he approaches the bar and orders his cigarettes — apparently the wrong kind, as far as the locals are concerned — he has already marked himself, not only as an outsider, but as prey: he speaks quietly and unassertively and is, accordingly, ignored by the barman.
Mistake number three: in a hard setting, hard presentational tactics apply; the moment the newcomer enters the scene he is under observation, and male observers begin determining his position in the power hierarchy; it is essential to confidently and unambiguously establish an assertive position, and to scare off challengers before they dare surface.
David then walks to the window and witnesses Charlie putting his hand around his wife’s neck, in a possessive gesture of masculine assertion. Charlie is trying it on, attempting to revive an old romantic flame. David watches the scene, says nothing, and does nothing; therefore, it falls upon Amy to rebuff him, which she does. Charlie backs down as David returns. Despite what he has just witnessed, however, his behaviour remains agreeable.
Mistake number four: self-explanatory.
Thus we see that the mock politeness of Charlie and his workers and, subsequently, their escalating transgressions have very subtle and fleeting points of origin. David, a classic introverted, intellectual type, attaches little importance to what I would like to call here ‘primate politics.’ He probably has never even thought about it.
Perhaps this is because David grew up in, and inhabited, a rarefied environment, where other people were very much like him, and where, therefore, he lived a sheltered existence. As a result, with offensive and defensive instincts very weak, power moments and status challenges pass either unnoticed or unacknowledged, with power and status gains invariably defaulting to the challenger.
This is very much analogical to the position of European-descended peoples in relation to the ever-growing presence of, and ever-escalating challenges from, immigrants from the Third World in Europe and across the Anglophone world.
European man is said to be the product of environmental evolutionary pressures that occurred in relative geographical isolation and, therefore, occurred away from intensive ethnic and racial competition. With the environment, rather than competing human collectivities, presenting the main source of challenges, group strategies designed for dealing with competition from the latter appear not to have been as important as those designed for dealing with the former: it could be that for European man intelligent cooperation, rather than cunning competition, proved more adaptive, and that, consequently, any inborn ethnocentrism became weakened or recessive.
Be that as it may, it is clear that modern European man unwittingly marked himself as prey long ago, and that he continues to do so now because, like David in the film, he encounters a psychological — and perhaps even a physiological — barrier when faced with the need to overcome evolved temperamental proclivities that were once adaptive but have become maladaptive in the changed human ecology of traditional White homelands.
Besides what I outlined at the beginning of this review, a key lesson of this film is the importance of being alert, of remaining vigilant, and even of being on the lookout for those subtle power moments that fly by in an instant, well before a visible, tangible challenge occurs. Before present negative trends became established, there were plenty of opportunities to pre-empt even their origin — yet we failed to notice them, and, when we did, we failed to act upon them, each time in the belief that it was only a minor incident, not worth the hassle and the unpleasantness of kicking up a fuss. Even the most minor of transgressions needs to be taken very seriously, and retaliation has to come fast and overwhelmingly.
Straw Dogs is a splendidly shot film, and both the interiors and exteriors are highly evocative, sometimes because of their bucolic charm, sometimes because of their natural beauty, sometimes because of their chilling grimness. It is also a film that perpetuates the tired old stereotype of rural and small-town Whites: the village’s tightly-knit community is portrayed here in a blatantly negative way, to the point where the villagers are quasi-animalistic, nearly deformed, and positively sinister.
This is likely to resonate with a Jewish audience, not only because the village is what one would imagine is every Jew’s worst nightmare, but also because Dustin Hoffman is so obviously Semitic in his physiognomy and — being cerebral, bespectacled, puny, urban, and high minded — a fairly common type of hero in Jewish American cinema. (Sumner’s swipe at Christianity at one point in the film contributes to this perception.)
Yet, for those who know and appreciate European village folk and the charms of living in a close, friendly rural community, the villagers in this film resemble not real life ones in Cornwall, but our new non-European fellow citizens and arrivals — although many of the latter are far uglier, far ruder, far more lustful, far more primitive, far more rapacious, and far quicker to engage in evil violence.
It works in this case, but such negative portrayal of Cornish villagers ought to be admonished all the same. The Duchy of Cornwall should have slammed the filmmakers with an immediate suit for defamation, if only to teach them a lesson.
This is certainly a strong and excellent film, even though made decades ago – and a must for its educational value.
Source: TOQ Online
October 26, 2009
[This is the article Alex Kurtagic spoke about on last Friday night's show with Dietrich & Mishko covering the BBC ambush on Nick Griffin as he sat on the discussion panel for the UK television show, Question Time. I will post the entire video of the show at the end of this article for those who wish to view what Alex is writing about.]
October 24, 2009
After much controversy, discussion, soul-searching, explanation, and legal posturing, BNP Chairman and Member of European Parliament Nick Griffin was allowed to participate in the BBC’s premier political television program, Question Time. The format of this show consists of a panel of politicians and public figures, sitting at a table, chaired by a moderator (David Dimbleby), and facing an audience inside a television studio. The purpose of the show is to perpetuate the illusion of a democratic society, whereby members of the public are given the opportunity to question politicians and public figures on current affairs issues in front of the nation. The show broadcasts from different cities every week, and average audience figures tend to be under the 3 million mark.
The audience for the 22 October 2009 edition — that is, the edition with Nick Griffin — was nearly 8 million viewers.
Nick Griffin is not new to mainstream television, having appeared on various news programs broadcast by corporate networks, including the BBC, ITN, and Sky. Appearing in Question Time, however, was different, for this is a one-hour forum, intended for mainstream politicians only. And this being the first time that the leader of a pro-White party was allowed to contribute his views to the political debate alongside mainstream politicians, the unrepresentative liberal clique that staff the present British establishment was terrified that Mr. Griffin’s appearance would cast the BNP as a credible party, thus increasing the voting public’s level of comfort with admitting sympathy for the party’s policies on race and immigration. The BBC bosses, however, perhaps because they relished the boost in audience, perhaps because they feared exposing themselves as the organ of liberal fascism that we all know they are, felt that they had better allow Mr. Griffin into their studio, deciding to remember that they are obligated to fulfill a charter of due impartiality.
I knew that the BBC would use every trick in the book to massively bias the program against Mr. Griffin, and ensure that he was properly and thoroughly humiliated. I knew that they would ensure that both the audience and fellow panelists were aggressively hostile. I knew also that they would focus their odion laserbeams onto Mr. Griffin for the duration of the program. I knew that they would make sure to keep the political discussion well away from relevant issues by dredging up the Nazis, the Holocaust, and the Ku Klux Klan. And I knew that Mr. Griffin would be interrupted at every possible moment and not given adequate opportunity to reply to accusations.
And, of course, I was not disappointed.
Caption from Mail Online: “On the offensive: Nick Griffin (right) left Jack Straw (left) speechless after attacking his father’s wartime jail spell.”
In this video clip, Nick Griffin Labels his Question Time Appearance a “Lynch Mob.”
The BBC hosted the program in heavily multicultural London, thereby ensuring a strong presence by ethnic minorities while avoiding, by only technically fulfilling, their moral obligation to host an audience representative of the British population. And the BBC then invited Jack Straw, the (Jewish-descended) Justice Secretary, representing Labour; Bonnie Greer, a Chicago-born ultra-liberal Black playwright, author, and critic; Muslim Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action (yes, we now need a whole ministry to try to keep communities from exploding); and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat’s home affairs spokesman, a socialist. The set up was almost cartoonish in its tendentiousness, to the point where I could not help but imagine the program makers standing around the kettle in the BBC kitchen, doubled up in hysterical laughter, with tears running down their faces, as they dreamt up ever more outrageous ways to pervert the program.
The resulting spectacle presented by the BBC was shameful. The panelists were childish, their arguments moronic, their ad hominems base, their sophistry unbelievable, their self-delusion even more so. And their fear, in the secret knowledge that their position in these troubled times is weaker and more precarious than the public realizes, glaringly obvious.
As to the audience, it was apparent to anyone with detectable cranial cubicage that the BBC had comically contrived to fill the studio with all manner of hooting apes, pious liberals, rabid anti-racists, self-hating Whites, irascible Blacks, militant homosexuals, and politically agitated Muslims. The audience also represented all manner of tricky demographics, including mixed-race British citizens, inter-racial couples, and descendants of Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrants.
Accordingly, Mr Griffin was barely given opportunity to express himself on behalf of the million who voted for him: He was systematically attacked, he was seldom allowed to respond, he was almost never allowed to finish his sentences, and every minor hesitation or draw for breath was rudely exploited by his pitiless opponents. Mr. Dimbleby, who happens to be the president of the Institute for Citizenship, which issues resource packs aimed at promoting diversity and (get this) educating people about media bias, studiously tolerated this chaos. So much for due impartiality!
And, of course, all the while, an unwashed anti-White rabble of deranged, deformed, egg-pelting terrorists — sponsored by the government with tax-payers’ money — protested outside, having been frustrated in their attempts to prevent Mr. Griffin from entering the building or to have the BBC workers go on strike.
Mr. Griffin’s performance was not excellent. He was nervous, he faltered, he sought to be liked, to refute his media image as a hater, a Nazi, a racist, and a potential mass murderer in a suit, and he even made absurd attempts to ingratiate himself with Bonnie Greer. It seems harsh to rebuke him for being nervous: This is, to a large degree, physiological, and it is easier said than done to perform brilliantly in a psychologically hostile environment, in a situation that poses as a great opportunity, yet has been so carefully engineered to embarrass and discredit.
It also seems harsh to rebuke him for attempting to discredit the media portrayal of him as a nasty, hate-filled, and unpleasant hoodlum — no ordinary human wants to be perceived like that. Yet the nervousness is linked to what, to my mind, is the main weakness in Mr. Griffin’s position, so clearly exposed in the program, and to what motivated his attempts to make friends with those who despise him: As a politician, access to power and the media is a function of his being liked, and his being liked is a function of his perceived legitimacy as a politician, which is, in turn, a function of how much he is willing to conform to the liberal establishment’s ideological orthodoxy.
In other words, Mr. Griffin’s position is dependent on the favors and toleration of a corrupt power structure that abhors him and is fundamentally inimical to the interests of those whom he was elected to represent.
In the post mortem examination, Mr. Griffin will probably hope for sympathy and will re-evaluate his tactics. There is no question that his efforts to re-present the BNP to the public as a sensible party have yielded electoral results, and that, as a result, he has been able to reach a much wider audience.
There is also no question that many voters know that the only way to motivate mainstream politicians to listen to concerns they would rather ignore is to scare them with the threat of a so-called ‘fascist’ party coming to power. It was the BNP ‘threat’, after all, that motivated the Conservatives to make immigration a campaign issue in the 2005 general election. Moreover, it is true that major movements have had marginal beginnings — one has only to look at the Labour Party itself. It is therefore possible that the BNP could continue to grow.
Yet, the creeps that comprise the present establishment will never cede power voluntarily: they are absolutely ruthless and amoral, they are convinced of their own righteousness, and they will never permit a threat to their existence. If there is a lesson from Mr. Griffin’s appearance in Question Time, it is that, when dealing with the enemy, it is futile to be anything but perfectly frank in one’s hostility, vicious in one’s humor, and relentless in one’s aggression. However elegant the suit or polished the language, one has to be proud to be considered a monster, a beast, a demon, and never apologize for it, never feel one owes an explanation, never accept their terms, never empathize, never sympathize, and never issue an apology. One must encourage their fear, relish their discomfort, and revel in their demonizations.
Some might not agree with unconventional opinions, but they all respect what they fear.
It is painful to think of the opportunities that went unexploited in this program. In theory, it should have been easy to make the establishment politicians in the panel look like fools, for it is not as if their parties have not already supplied — through a lurid chain of failure, corruption, deception, embezzlement, and scandals of every stripe, all going back decades — ample ammunition with which to gun them down into the trench of discredit and professional embarrassment. They are vermin; a horripilating freak show of intellectual dwarves, equivocating slugs, fiscal leeches, snake oil salesmen, lying demagogues, pompous ideologues, toxic pedagogues, legal eels, media lice, economic burglars, political toads, crooks, cowards, traitors, cretins, weirdoes, academic fraudsters, and orangutanaceous buffoons. It should have been equally easy to ridicule their delirious utopian visions, for they have failed on every level, and the mess we are in is entirely of their making. No one else has been in power.
Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales, was furious Nick Griffin was allowed to appear on Question Time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Griffin’s desire for legitimacy and acceptance, caused him to temper his aggression and offer amiability: Much time was wasted in the effort to appear moderate by explaining, denying, or qualifying alleged remarks and previous statements, and not enough was invested in vigorously attacking the corrupt politicians and mediacrats, their lies, their cravenness, their slipperiness, and their catastrophic policy failures.
Mr. Griffin has performed much more forcefully on other occasions, and to his credit, he did go on the offensive several times, such as when he pointed out that during World War II his father had served in the RAF while Mr. Straw’s had been in prison for refusing to fight for his country. However, on the whole, despite presenting some sound arguments, he came across as defensive, almost obsequious, which hostile observers have smugly interpreted (for the ‘edification’ of fence-sitters) as evasion and as Mr. Griffin’s deceptiveness in the secret knowledge that he is wrong.
During World War II, Mr. Griffin’s father served in the RAF, while Mr. Straw’s father was in Wandsworth Prison for refusing to fight for his country. (Jack Straw could have fallen foul of the law as well, had he not acted before the recent MP’s expenses scandal broke out.)
But he is not wrong. The aboriginals of the British Isles are White. They have never been, and will never be, anything else. They have a culture, a language, an identity, and a geographical space of their own. They are right to desire a White society. They are right to desire its continuity and prosperity. They are right to desire the ability to define themselves and to choose their own destiny. They are right to loathe and despise those who seek to take away what is rightfully theirs. They are right to wish the destruction of those who seek to destroy them. They are right to be vicious and ruthless in dealing with their enemies, because their enemies are vicious and ruthless too. They are right, and the Left is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, forever wrong.
This issue transcends British politics, because the same applies everywhere else across traditional White homelands. Utopian liberals dream of cohesive communities of multicultural diversity where very different groups live in splendid, impossible harmony, followed by a homogenized brown world were everyone looks the same, earns the same, and thinks the same. For utopian liberals equality is the ultimate goal, the key to happiness and human progress. If the price is the destruction of genius, the suppression of individuality, and the irrecoverable loss of beauty, so be it. It is monstrous, perverse, insane. Yet they are absolutely determined to realize their vision.
If we are to stop them, if we are to survive them, we have to embrace the Nietzschean maxim and dare to be ourselves. To be assertive and devoid of qualms in the pursuit of glory — of glory defined by us, for us, and in our terms. To not care what they think, to scorn their friendship, and be prepared to eat them, lest they eat us first.
Let us hope Mr. Griffin’s appearance has cured the hopeful of any illusions that this is anything but an all out war to the finish.
Question Time: aired Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009
October 24, 2009
[Here's more insanity from the British legal system.]
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 10:15PM BST 24 Oct 2009
“I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door,” she said.
“Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience.”
Christian campaigners condemned the police action as “alarming” and warned that freedom of expression was under threat, while the homosexual equality group Stonewall said the officers’ visit had been “disproportionate”.
The pensioner had written to Norwich council complaining about its decision to allow the march in the city centre in July, at which she claims she was verbally abused.
In the letter, she wrote: “It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals.”
Mrs Howe referred to homosexuals as “sodomites” and blamed “their perverted sexual practice” for sexually transmitting diseases as well as the “downfall of every Empire”.
She argues that she is not homophobic, but was expressing her deeply held religious beliefs.
However, Bridget Buttinger, deputy chief executive at the council, replied to Mrs Howe in September, warning that she could face being charged with a criminal offence for expressing such views.
“As a local authority we have a duty along with other public bodies to eliminate discrimination of all kinds,” she wrote.
“A hate incident is any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hatred. A hate crime is any hate incident that constitutes a criminal offence.
“The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation.”
She added: “Your details and details of the content of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the Police.”
The officers from Norfolk constabulary who questioned Mrs Howe in her home told her that her opinions were regarded as a hate incident and had caused offence. However, they decided that no crime had been committed.
A spokesman for the force defended the decision to send officers to Mrs Howe’s home.
“If it has come into our intelligence and been reported to us as a crime then we have to investigate,” he said.
“Therefore it was part of a routine check-up. We went around and spoke to the individual.
“We talked about inappropriate comments and the effects they can have on people. We believe that this response is proportionate and the individual is aware of her actions.”
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, criticised the police’s action. “Clearly her views are pretty offensive, but nevertheless this is disproportionate. I’m glad Norfolk police didn’t take it any further,” he said.
Mrs Howe has sought advice from the Christian Institute, which is investigating whether the council and the police have breached Mrs Howe’s rights to free speech and religious liberty under the Human Rights Act.
Mike Judge, a spokesman for the Institute, said: “Whether people agree or disagree with Mrs Howe’s views, everyone who cares about freedom should be alarmed at the police action.
“For democracy to survive people must be free to express their beliefs – yes, even unpopular beliefs – to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from the police. It’s not a crime to be a Christian, but it increasingly feels like it.”
In a similar case, a retired couple won damages in 2006 after being questioned by police regarding their views on homosexuality.
Wyre Borough Council regarded some of the wording in a letter of complaint as inappropriate and decided to consult with the police, who interviewed the couple but took no further action.
Source: Telegraph UK
October 24, 2009
Our friend, Kievsky gets through on a local talk show:
October 24, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America, with special guest Alex Kurtagic:
October 23, 2009
[The controversial episode of Question Time, which aired last night on the BBC, can be viewed at the end of this article.]
Friday, 23 October 2009 13:02 UK
BNP leader Nick Griffin is to complain to the BBC over his controversial appearance on Question Time, saying he had faced a “lynch mob”.
Mr Griffin claims the normal format of Thursday’s programme was changed and it should not have been held in London.
The fallout from the show – watched by eight million people – has intensified, with Mr Griffin’s fellow panellists saying he had been “shown up”.
But critics said the show had given the BNP huge publicity.
Watch the programme again
Question Time on iPlayer
The BBC has defended the show, which was watched by four times its normal audience but also attracted a large number of complaints, saying it had a duty to be impartial.
More than 240 complainants felt the show was biased against the BNP, while more than 100 of the complaints were about Mr Griffin being allowed to appear on Question Time.
In addition, more than 50 people contacted the BBC to show their appreciation for the programme.
‘Not a Nazi’
Mr Griffin faced robust questioning about his views on race, immigration and the Holocaust from a largely hostile audience.
He criticised Islam, defended a past head of the Ku Klux Klan but insisted that he was “not a Nazi”.
In a press conference on Friday, the BNP leader said he would be making an official complaint to the BBC about the programme, saying its normal format had been “twisted” so that it focused solely on his views.
The BBC is firm in its belief that it was appropriate for Mr Griffin to appear as a member of the panel and the BBC fulfilled its duty to uphold due impartiality by inviting him on the programme
BBC deputy director general
Profile: Nick Griffin
Analysis: How did he do?
Newspapers on Griffin appearance
Reaction to Griffin’s performance
Angry scenes outside BBC
BNP on Question Time: Key debates
He challenged the BBC to ask him on the show again and to allow a wider range of subjects to be discussed.
He also claimed the audience was not representative of the UK as a whole as levels of immigration in London meant it was “no longer a British city”.
Mr Griffin’s fellow guests on the show said his performance had exposed his real views and the true attitudes of the BNP.
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said Mr Griffin had been “taken aback” by the hostility of the audience which showed most people in the UK wanted “nothing” to do with his views.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said Mr Griffin had been subjected to proper scrutiny and that his performance had been “catastrophic”.
But Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said the BBC had legitimised the BNP’s “racist poison” by inviting its leader onto the show.
The BNP leader was booed at the start of the recording and accused of trying to “poison politics” as he was attacked by fellow panellists and the audience.
The show covered topics including whether it was fair for the BNP to “hijack” images of Winston Churchill, whether immigration policy had fuelled the BNP’s popularity and whether Mr Griffin’s appearance was an early Christmas present for the party.
He was asked by a member of the audience about why he had described Islam as a “wicked and vicious faith”.
The BNP leader insisted his views had been widely misrepresented in the media and denied a string of statements attributed to him, including a quote from 2006 in which he said “Adolf went a bit too far”.
“I am not a Nazi and never have been,” he said, adding: “I am the most loathed man in Britain in the eyes of Britain’s Nazis.”
But Mr Griffin was challenged by several black and Asian members of the audience.
One man asked Mr Griffin: “Where do you want me to go? I love this country, I’m part of this country.”
The BBC defended its decision to ask Mr Griffin onto the show.
“The BBC is firm in its belief that it was appropriate for Mr Griffin to appear as a member of the panel and the BBC fulfilled its duty to uphold due impartiality by inviting him on the programme,” said its deputy director general Mark Byford.
Six protesters were arrested and three police officers injured during demonstrations outside BBC Television Centre, where the programme was filmed.
About 25 people managed to get through the gates and run towards the BBC building when security guards opened them to let in a car.
Source: BBC News
October 22, 2009
Matt Johnson discusses:
The GULAG as the center of the Soviet economy
The GULAG as essential to the NKVD
The GULAG as essential to Marxism
Why the GULAG came into existence
11 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 49 min.
October 20, 2009
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 6:53PM BST 20 Oct 2009
They say social media websites offer a powerful opportunity for “open source” intelligence – publicly available data that can be mined for information.
In an attempt to sift through the blizzard of information, the investment arm of the CIA, In-Q-Tel, has invested in a software firm that monitors social media.
Terrorist networks are increasingly using the internet as it allows people to communicate anonymously and across borders. A number of terrorist plots have involved the use of chat rooms for recruiting, discussion or the passing of messages.
Visible Technologies examines more than half a million websites a day, looking through more than a million posts and interactions happening on blogs, in online forums and on popular social media sites such as Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and Amazon.
The company’s customers, who include Microsoft, Hormel Foods and Xerox, receive real-time data on what’s being said on these sites, based on a number of predetermined key words.
A “score” is then assigned to each item, identifying it as positive, negative, mixed or neutral. The customer can then forward items to others, enabling them to respond.
For instance, this enables Microsoft to gauge how its Windows 7 launch is being received or Hormel, which makes Spam luncheon meat, to tracks the campaigns of animal rights activists against the company.
“Anything that is out in the open is fair game for collection,” said Steven Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists.
He added, however, that it would be “problematic” if information was used for unauthorised domestic investigations.
“Intelligence agencies or employees might be tempted to use the tools at their disposal to compile information on political figures, critics, journalists or others, and to exploit such information for political advantage. That is not permissible even if all of the information in question is technically ‘open source.’”
In-Q-Tel was set up by the US government in 1999 to identify and work with “companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency”.
October 20, 2009
Dr. Tom Sunic and author Harold Covington discuss the novels of Mr. Covington, comparative literature, and more.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 55 min.
October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19th 2009, 2:24 PM
It was supposed to be a big night for top urban fiction author Teri Woods, who had invited 175 people to party at a trendy SoHo nightclub to celebrate her new book.
But Woods ended up in tears when she found almost her entire guestlist being kept outside Greenhouse’s notorious velvet rope.
Now a $1 billion class-action suit says the partygoers were denied entry because they were black.
“They should have just put up a sign that said, ‘No Coloreds Allowed,’” fumed Kashan Robinson, 39, of the Bronx, one of the plaintiffs. “There was no reason for them to not allow us into that club, except for the color of our skin.”
Club owner Barry Mullineaux declined to discuss what had happened to Woods’ party beyond calling charges of racism “all pretty much bogus.”
Woods has text messages she says he sent that night showing he was barring people based on appearance. “Everybody looking at me like this ur people Barry???” read a text message. “I couldn’t let in 300lb girls.”
Asked if he remembered sending the messages, Mullineaux said, “Not word for word.”
Woods said, “I was clearly violated that night, and so were so many other people. … All I know is it had something to do with ‘your people’ and ‘fat.’”
A pioneer of the enormously successful urban or hip-hop fiction genre, Woods had planned a blowout on Aug. 6, complete with popular DJ Suss One, bottles of French Ciroc Vodka and gift bags with copies of her new book, “Alibi.”
Her party promoter printed up flyers for the Thursday night shindig at the “environmentally conscious” club on Varick St.
Greenhouse, which opened last year, already is known for its tough door policy and the long lines of clubgoers waiting to get in.
Woods, author of New York Times best seller “True to the Game,” said she arrived to find that all her black guests – some of whom had traveled from as far as Virginia – had been turned away without explanation.
“They left all of my friends and family standing outside,” she said. “I had really serious people out there: lawyers, doctors and people in the entertainment industry.
“I was embarrassed. I was just walking around in circles and in tears. They took my moment.”
A handful of her guests who were white lawyers were allowed in, she said.
“There was nobody out there who was fat, and even if there was a fat person, who cares?”
Robinson, the sister of rapper Queen Pen, said, “When I asked the doorman what was the problem, he just looked past us like we didn’t exist.”
Robinson is part of the suit filed against Mullineaux and another club owner.
Woods is mulling a separate action.
“We’re not talking about four people – we’re talking over 100 people,” said lawyer John Nonnenmacher, who filed the suit. “Our contention is Greenhouse didn’t let people in because of the color of their skin. Because they were black.”
Clubs can deny entry based on clothing but not race: The feds have gone after clubs in Virginia and Wisconsin that tried to keep black people out.
October 20, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America:
October 20, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.
Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.
Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”
“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”
The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.
In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.
“To begin with, ‘nonpartisan elections’ is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart,” said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s involvement.
Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.
“The determination of who is a ‘candidate of choice’ for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,” he said.
Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. “The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”
Located about 60 miles from the Atlantic Coast in eastern North Carolina, Kinston has a history of defying governmental authority. During Colonial times, the fledgling city was known as Kingston – named for King George III – but residents dropped the “g” from the city’s name after the American Revolution.
In Kinston’s heyday of manufacturing and tobacco farming, it was a bustling collection of shops, movie theaters and restaurants. Now, many of those buildings are vacant – a few have been filled by storefront churches – and residents are left hoping for better days.
In November’s election – one in which “hope” emerged as a central theme – the city had uncommonly high voter turnout, with more than 11,000 of the city’s 15,000 voters casting ballots. Kinston’s blacks voted in greater numbers than whites.
Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston’s general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama’s victory as America’s first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.
The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city’s nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.
But before nonpartisan elections could be implemented, the city had to get approval from the Justice Department.
Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.
In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department’s answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change’s “effect will be strictly racial.”
“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.
Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, “the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more.”
Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.
After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying “the facts and the law did not support pursuing” them.
Ms. King’s letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be “viewed as a minority for analytical purposes,” and that “minority turnout is relevant” to determining whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.
Black voters account for 9,702 of the city’s 15,402 registered voters but typically don’t vote at the rates whites do.
As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, “black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections.”
“It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice,” she wrote.
Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the department’s interpretation of the law.
“The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day,” she said. “The Voting Rights Act doesn’t guarantee an opportunity to elect a ‘candidate of choice.’ … My ‘candidate of choice’ loses all the time in an election.”
When asked whether Justice had ever “either granted or denied” requests either “to stop partisan elections or implement partisan elections,” Mr. Miyar, the department spokesman, said it was impossible to retrieve past decisions on that basis.
But he did provide, based on the recollection of a department lawyer, a single precedent – a decision during the Clinton administration denying a bid from a South Carolina school district to drop partisan elections.
That decision employs similar reasoning and language as the Kinston ruling: “Implementation of nonpartisan elections … appears likely to deprive black supported candidates of meaningful partisan based support and to exacerbate racial polarization between black and white voters.”
But the 1994 decision doesn’t mention the necessity of the Democratic Party and doesn’t mention low turnout among black voters in that school district as a factor affecting their ability to elect candidates they prefer.
Kinston City Council member Joseph Tyson, a Democrat who favors partisan elections, said nothing is stopping black voters in Kinston from going to the polls.
“Unfortunately, I’m very disappointed with the apathy that we have in Kinston among the Afro-American voters,” he said.
Mr. Tyson, who is one of two black members of the six-member City Council, said the best way to help black voters in Kinston is to change the council’s structure from citywide voting to representation by district. Kinston voters currently cast as many votes in the at-large races as there are council seats up for election – typically three, or two and the mayor.
“Whether it’s partisan or nonpartisan is not a big issue to me, whether or not the city is totally represented is what the issue is to me,” he said. “If you have wards and districts, then I feel the total city will be represented.”
Partisan local elections are a rarity in North Carolina. According to statistics kept by the University of North Carolina School of Government in Chapel Hill, only nine of the state’s 551 cities and towns hold partisan elections.
The City Council could take the Justice Department to court to fight decision regarding nonpartisan elections, but such a move seems unlikely. The council voted 4-1 to drop the issue after meeting privately with Justice Department officials in August.
“What do I plan to do? Absolutely, nothing,” Mr. Tyson said. “And I will fight, within Robert’s Rules of Order, wherever necessary to make sure that decision stands.”
The Justice ruling and Kinston’s decision not to fight it comes in the wake of a key Voting Rights Act case last year. In that decision, the Supreme Court let a small utility district in Texas seek an exemption from the law’s requirements to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. But the court declined to address whether the law itself is constitutional.
Critics of the law argue it has changed little since its 1965 inception and that the same places the law covered then no longer need Justice Department approval to make changes to voting procedures.
Proponents, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said the law is still necessary to ensure equal voting rights for all Americans.
In Kinston, William Barker is the only City Council member who voted to continue discussing whether to challenge the Justice Department’s ruling.
He said he voted against eliminating partisan elections because the proposed new system would declare a winner simply on who received a plurality of votes instead requiring candidates to reach certain threshold of votes based on turnout.
“Based on the fact that the voters voted overwhelmingly for it, I would like to see us challenge it based on that fact. My fight is solely based on fighting what the voters voted on,” he said. “It bothers me, even though I’m on the winning side now, that you have a small group, an outside group coming in and saying, ‘Your vote doesn’t matter.’ ”
Source: The Washington Times
October 19, 2009
SALEM, Ore. – A Halloween mask is sparking outrage among some Willamette University students.
The students say they first saw a mask they said is depicting an illegal immigrant.
After searching online and in stores, they claim they found a number of other costumes and masks with the same theme.
The students say the mask is de-humanizing and depicts a stereotype that is offensive.
“Some people may think it’s a joke; it’s not,” said Willamette University student Reynaldo Goicochea. “It’s wrong. The migrant people are reminded of their second class status every day, day after day.”
The students said other minorities are targeted too. They’re asking all the stores and Web sites that carry the products to recall them or take them off shelves.
So far, the Lancaster Mall’s Spirit Halloween store has said they have pulled the masks off their shelves.
Source: KATU News
1:04 p.m. CDT, October 19, 2009
Several well-known chain stores have halted sales of an “illegal alien” Halloween costume after complaints from immigrant-rights activists.
The costume includes an orange jumpsuit similar to prison garb, with ILLEGAL ALIEN stamped across the chest, a “green card” and a space alien mask.
Activists began complaining Friday when they learned the costume was being sold in stores or on Web sites of retailers including Target, Walgreen’s and Amazon. The costume was priced between $27.49 and $39.99.
The costume makes a “mockery of the status of millions of immigrants in need of immigration reform,” said Jorge Mujica of Chicago, an activist with the group March 10th Committee.
Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, urged a boycott of stores selling the costume. “When a corporation dehumanizes immigrants, the best thing is to stop buying from it,” he said.
After Target heard from activists it apologized and halted sales of the costume. “It was never our intent to offend the consumers with the products we offer,” a Target statement said.
Walgreen’s spokeswoman Vivika Vergara said the costume was never on sale in its stores and was pulled from its online store. “We received feedback from customers and decided it was best to stop carrying it so it would not be subject to varied interpretation,” she said in an e-mail message.
The maker of the costume, Forum Novelties Inc., based in Melville, New York, could not be reached for comment.
Activists also were offended by a revealing “illegal alien” costume for women that included a mini-dress, sleeveless top and handcuffs.
Activist and Radio Arte host Tania Unzueta called the costume “a mockery.”
She said anyone who sells the costume doesn’t “know a thing about the depression, anguish, pain, frustration and anger that comes from being an undocumented immigrant in the United States.”
Source: Chicago Tribune
By Maegan la Mamita Mala
Oct. 18, 2009
As a Latina mami, I think I hate September through November more than any other time of the year. Hispanic Heritage Month, Columbus Day, Halloween, and Thanksgiving provide way more damn teaching moments than I care to experience and the worst part of it is that I’m not teaching my children, but rather those charged with educating them, why certain things are just plain old fucked up.
So far, with la Mapu, my older daughter, in a new school, I haven’t had to send notes to her teacher or make copies of articles, as I have done in the past, about why it’s wrong to teach what a great guy Columbus was. For Latino Heritage Month, she wrote about Chile and it’s U.S. sponsored 9-11-73 military coup and was praised. I was pleased to hear that there was an actual discussion of how the conquistadors contributed to what amounted to Native American genocide. There was discussion not of the contributions the Europeans brought to the not so new world but rather of the diseases they brought.
Now comes Halloween. Now I love Halloween. It’s always been one of my favorite holidays. With a long family history of good relationships with muertos, it was more about dressing up in fanciful costumes, begging for candy, and decorating the house with carved pumpkins. I don’t ever remember thinking that it was ok for me to dress up as an “Indian Princess”, a stereotypical Mexican (or a Puerto Rican for that matter), and sure it sure as hell wasn’t ok for me to dress up as an “illegal alien”. I was a smurf, a vampire, a poodle skirted 1950’s girl, and a devil. I even wanted to be he-man one year because I was obsessed with He-Man pero that’s another post. My kids have been cats, hot dogs, turtles, pirates, dead punk zombies, mimes, dinosaurs, skeletons and ghosts. As if the racist costumes that have me pretty much boycotting most Halloween shops wasn’t enough, there’s a lack of appropriate tween girl costumes. My 12 year and I, thanks to my mom, have put together a pretty awesome costume but that came after hours of being disgusted by having to treat my daughter like a baby or a slut.
And then it’s only a hop, skip and a jump to thanks for nothing day or as I always used to hear Tiokasin Ghosthorse on WBAI say, “There goes the neighborhood day”.
October 18, 2009
October 16, 2009
It was with great interest that I read Christopher Donovan’s TOO article on politically incorrect comments at a blog for the lawyerly elite. The field of law prides itself on being a meritocracy. Being made up of educated Westerners, it is also very liberal on racial issues. It’s hard to be both.
The two main academic factors considered in law school admissions are GPA and more importantly, the prospect’s score on the LSAT. Grades aren’t a very good indicator of skill since students choose their own majors, which of course vary in difficulty. That leaves the LSAT as the main determinant of what law schools a student is eligible for. The test is divided into four parts. Three are different forms of reading comprehension, and one is made up of logical games. The latter part gives the student 35 minutes to answer around 28 questions, broken up into four games. Many students don’t even finish three of the four. The LSAT requires no previous knowledge and the only thing that significantly helps improve scores is taking time to learn strategies for the games. It still takes intelligence to know quickly what kind of game you’re looking at, be able to accurately comprehend directions (if (a) then (b) doesn’t necessarily mean if (b) then (a)), make logical inferences (if (a) then (b) and if (b) then not (c) implies that if (a) then not (c)), etc.
Without affirmative action, there is virtually no overlap in student LSAT scores between the very best and the “just good” law schools. At number 4 ranked University of Chicago, a 169 is the 25th percentile — meaning that only 25% of students score 169 or below. At number 20 Boston University, 166 is the 75th percentile. Very few of those who got into Boston University have a good enough score for the University of Chicago. And very few from number 45 University of Utah (75th percentile 162) could’ve gotten into Boston University (25th percentile 163). (See data here.)
The more high-end firms will only recruit from the best schools and those who go to lower-ranked schools may struggle to find employment. It’s a winner take all system. Many on the internet, such as blogger Half Sigma, argue that law school isn’t worth the time or money if you can’t get into a top 14 school.
What place does affirmative action have in this system? In 2007–2008, 12,152 Blacks took the LSAT. Their average score was 142.15 and the standard deviation 8.4. In a normal distribution only one in a thousand scores three SDs above the mean. Three SDs over the Black average is 167.35. We’ll round up to 168. Only a little over one in a thousand Blacks who take the LSAT each year scores that high, or 16 of them in 2007–2008.
There are six law schools nationwide that have their 25th percentile at 168 or above. For example, Harvard’s 25th percentile score is 170. We can consider the 25th percentile the minimum required to get into any particular law school for a non-affirmative action beneficiary (i.e. Eurasian). Most below that level are the AA cases or people who have something in their application that stands out and makes up for a low LSAT score (maybe a 4.0 GPA or having a parent in the admissions office).
Since in 2007–2008 there were only 16 Blacks nationwide who scored at 168 or above, that’s the number of Blacks that should’ve entered the top six schools. Here are the numbers from the ABA for actual Black first year enrollment in 2008–2009.
25th percentile LSAT
Blacks in 1st year class
Blacks as percentage of entering students
New York University
University of Chicago
That’s 179 Blacks at top law schools. Actual Blacks at top law schools divided by deserving Blacks = 179/16 = 11.2.
So there are about 10 undeserving Blacks at the top six law schools for every one deserving case. This puts things in perspective for people who say that they oppose affirmative action because it stigmatizes African-Americans. Is it more rational to care more about the feelings of one Black out of 11 who gets where he is based on merit than the 10 Whites and Asians who lose their spot to a beneficiary of the system? Only if the self-esteem of one Black is worth more than the livelihoods of 10 non-NAMs!
Let’s look at the rest of the schools that round out the top 14. Among these schools, the one with the lowest 25th percentile score is the University of California-Berkeley at 164. We can take that number as the absolute Ice People minimum needed to get into a T14 school without AA. This number is about 2.6 SDs over the African-American mean. .47% of Blacks, or approximately 57, scored that high in 2007–2008.
25th percentile LSAT
Blacks in 1st year class
Blacks as percentage of entering students
University of California-Berkley
University of Pennsylvania
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Virginia
This makes a grand total of 351 Blacks entering T14 schools a year. The ratio of undeserving to deserving Blacks at these schools overall is about 5:1.
About 300 Ice People (mostly whites) are locked out of T14 schools every fall to make room for Blacks.
The above table shows that 164 is the bare minimum required for a White or Asian to score at or above the 25th percentile and thus have a reasonable chance of getting into a T14 school. With our numbers we can also figure out the bare minimum if you’re Black. 351 Blacks got into a top law school out of the 12,152 who took the test. That’s 2.89% of African-American test takers, or those who scored 1.9 SDs and over the group average. The Black minimum is thus around 158.
Minimum LSAT score for top 14 law school
Percentile of all LSAT takers
Things are just as interesting if we go back and look at those six schools with a 168 minimum. They took in 179 Blacks, or 1.4% of all African-American test takers, which were those who scored 2.2 SDs above the 142 mean or higher.
Minimum LSAT score for top 6 law school
Percentile of all LSAT test takers
So if you have a score of 163 (90th percentile) and you’re White forget about the top 14, but if you’re Black expect to get into the top six.
The Financial Cost
The Internet Legal Research Group records starting salaries for recent law graduates of different schools. The Black with a score of 158 who gets into Cornell (13) and actually ends up a lawyer can expect to start out making $145,000 a year when he graduates if he gets a job in the private sector. What happens to a White with a score of 158? The best he can hope for is a school like Indiana University-Bloomington (23) or University of Iowa (26). Graduates of those colleges start at $85,000 and $95,000 a year respectively in the private sector. That’s if they can get a job outside of government. If the University of Iowa graduate can only find work with the state he can expect a starting annual salary of $39,500. Undoubtedly those who graduate from Iowa have a much worse chance of getting a job in the private sector than those from Cornell. The affirmative-action case with the 158 LSAT score (approx. 118 IQ) makes anywhere from an extra $40,000 to $105,500 in his first year out of school for being Black.
Interestingly, the extra money that a Black T14 affirmative action recipient gets isn’t taken from any one White lawyer, but is distributed down the ladder. A White with a score of 158 isn’t getting into an elite school anyway. The African-American who gets into school #4 might kick a White student down to #10, that White student kicks another White student from #10 down to #15, etc. Somewhere down the line there will be an Ice Person who couldn’t get into any law schools thanks to the affirmative action Black at school #4 and maybe another who can’t find a job upon graduation because he went to #80 instead of #60.
It’s pretty much unthinkable that affirmative action will get much worse without destroying the integrity of law. You simply can’t scrape the barrel much lower for Blacks who can do the work. Already, 53% of Blacks who start law school never end up passing the bar exam compared to 24% of Whites. I figured that if the top 14 law schools wanted Blacks to be 10% of their enrollment, they would need to accept 485 a year and some Blacks with scores of 156. That’s only about half a standard deviation above the overall average for all test-takers. Many of the AA cases would probably drop out, but a few would stick it out and drive their White classmates crazy.
What the Lawocracy Understands
The numbers above explain the comments of the anti-affirmative action law students and professionals described in Christopher Donovan’s article. If each year there are 16 Blacks smart enough to go to a law school in the top six, and if Harvard and Yale between them take 85 Blacks, we must figure that those two schools mop up close to all eligible African-Americans smart enough for the top six. That would mean that at Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, and NYU virtually every single White is smarter than every single Black.
So if law school students at every level are harmed by affirmative action and must notice Black incompetence, why don’t they rise up against the system? First of all, even with all the affirmative action going on, Blacks are still way underrepresented in law schools and as lawyers. Look at the numbers for the University of Michigan above. Blacks made up less than 4% of the last entering class, a third of their percentage in the American population. The admissions practices of Michigan’s law school were the subject of a Supreme Court case in 2003. Those against affirmative action were justifiably arguing that the few African-Americans that that school admits each year shouldn’t be there. But who wants to be the person who makes a fuss about the only 14 Black students in your graduating class?
At the same time, most Whites probably think that if affirmative action was a significant factor in admissions then Blacks at all law schools would at least have close to proportional representation. But at no top 14 school do Blacks make up 12% of the student body, and at a couple they are half that or less.
That there are so few Blacks in top law schools explains why the incompetence of the ones there isn’t even more noticeable. We all know that humans self-segregate and the typical White student probably has very direct little contact with Blacks.
When reading The Affirmative Action Hoax, I learned that some of the most shamelessly pro-affirmative action people out there are those who control college admissions. The author tells of cases where these bureaucrats held firm in the face of overwhelming political and legal pressures.
Let me suggest that this may be because college admissions officers know what ending affirmative action would entail. No affirmative action means that NYU, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Chicago would be accepting on average two Blacks a year each. A few would possibly have no Black students at all. So when liberals say that equal standards is a “strategy for locking Blacks out of higher education,” they have a point.
The question of racial preferences is thus a more difficult problem than most people realize. Recently in President Obama’s speech to school children he said “I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that…your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.” But if affirmative action ever ended, we’d have to tell Black students that they’re probably more likely to be NBA stars than Yale Law graduates. After all, there are 60 players drafted into the NBA each year, the majority of whom are Black.
Admitting the unpleasant truths about race differences and working towards colorblindness would, after decades of PBS specials, “look how far we’ve comes” and “Yes, we cans!”, bring down nearly the entire already meager Black upper class.
Not to say that I would have any problem with that. It’s just that the rest of the world needs to be convinced it’s worth it.
Richard Hoste is a graduate student in anthropology. He runs the website HBD Books.
Source: The Occidental Observer