Aliens, Predators, and Orlando

Most are no doubt familiar with the late 70’s and late 80’s sci-fi thrillers Alien (1979) and Predator (1987). I assume that most are also well acquainted with the prodigious spinoffs, sequels, prequels, and crossovers spawned (heh) by both franchises. For the uninitiated, Alien introduced  us to a ragtag group of space cowboys returning to Earth aboard the Nostromo after a mission to space when they encounter a signal transmitted from a desolate planetoid. When the Nostromo lands on the planetoid, the crew discovers the wreckage of an alien craft, the remains of a deceased alien within the ship, and a chamber full of alien eggs. During the course of the crew’s assay, one of the eggs hatch and a hatchling attaches itself to the face of one of the crewmen and an alien subsequently bursts from the crewman’s chest while aboard the Nostromo. Unbeknownst to the crew they are explicitly expendable: their employer, the Wayland-Yutani corporation, knows of the creature’s existence and intentionally sent the crew to the planetoid to recover the organism at all costs, likely for development into some sort of biological weapon. Naturally, the mission goes horribly wrong when the target alien unexpectedly gets out of containment and cannibalizes the entire crew save the intrepid Ripley.

Predator, on the other hand, follows a crew of high T special forces agents enlisted by the CIA to rescue a high ranking official being held hostage by guerrillas in the Central American jungle country of Val Verde. Led by Maj. Alan “Dutch” Schaefer and supervised by former commando George Dillon, the team heads into the jungle to rescue the official, only to discover that they are “expendable assets,” intentionally sent there by USG not to extract an official, but to retrieve valuable intelligence from captured operatives. Unfortunately, the mission goes badly awry then the crew encounters the titular antagonist, an extraterrestrial predator that picks the crew off one by one, save the intrepid Schaefer.

On June 11, 2016, many celebratory LGBTQ folks and allies went to the Pulse nightclub (a gay venue) in Orlando, FL to enjoy the freedoms afforded them by virtue of living in an open and liberal society. Unfortunately for them, their celebrations went horribly awry and ended tragically when an American-born Afghani with Islamist leanings and an abiding hatred of faggotry named Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, entered the club and slaughtered 50 unsuspecting homos while wounding 53 more before himself being killed. The event now has the dubious distinction of being the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history and the most significant terrorist attack since the September 11 attacks. Unbeknownst to the party goers, Mateen was known to the FBI and called 911 during the attack to inform authorities that he had pledged allegiance to ISIS.


The question of why these mass murder psyops always seem to happen in June aside, what’s the connection between the three? Let’s begin with the films. What was it that made both Alien and Predator so poignant to viewers both then and now? Certainly, the storytelling in both movies was sterling and both were superbly acted. Nevertheless, the common theme shared by both films is apparent to every viewer. Thematically speaking, the crux of the problem, the catalyst for the supervening events in both films was elite malfeasance-particularly the willingness of elites to lie to and sacrifice non-elites for the sake of some unspecified agenda, whether pecuniary, programmatic, or ideological. In Alien, the Nostromo’s space cowboys were deceived by the Wayland Corporation and sent on a suicide mission so that the Corporation could create the ultimate bioweapon. In Predator, USG sent a cadre of “expendable [CIA] assets” into the heart of darkness to retrieve intel from a guerrilla faction. This is no different from what occurred in Orlando on Saturday night. Granted, cause and effect are much more tenuous than they were in either Alien or Predator, but the impulse remains the same-sacrifice of the lows for the benefit of the highs. The true battle is always and ever between the highs and the lows, with a healthy dose of pretext and a high body count in the middle.

Let us think about things logically. Mateen was known to the FBI and he openly voiced his opinions to anyone who would listen. Yet, he was deemed not to be a threat back in 2013. More abstractly, the Establishment Left struggles to reconcile the fundamentally irreconcilable differences of all the constituent parts of its coalition by falsely advancing the notion that everyone is equally capable of participation in a liberal democracy, that there are no differences between groups worth discussing, and that to suggest otherwise is incorrect and/or racist. The Left has people putting themselves at risk, running around believing utter balderdash that is false on its face: that Islam is not the problem, that it is a “religion of peace,” that it is racist to exclude Muslims from civic participation and from entry into the the U.S., that No True Muslim would do what Mateen did, that the true danger is from Angry White Christian Men, that guns are the problem, that homophobia is the problem, et cetera ad infinitum. So people are left incapable of parsing the truth from the lies. 

The Left has turned normies into total retards undesirious of looking at the totality of the evidence, lest they discover something that conflicts with the narrative. Narrative preservation is possible only when every element is viewed as discrete and unrelated. Meanwhile, those made of sterner stuff, those who are willing to call events as they see them, those who might save the world-are actively suppressed.

How is Orlando not a product of the active malfeasance of the political classes? 

How could the Left at once claim to advance the cause of liberal, Western democracy (and its attendant degeneracy) and in the same breath argue for the wholesale importation of individuals from cultures that hate liberalism and openly preach the gospel of its overthrow? How can the Left observe Muslims pledging allegiance to ISIS and shouting Allahu Akbar while gunning people down, and insist that it has nothing to do with Islam? Does it make sense to promote homosexuality as a value while simultaneously promoting a lax immigration policy that would allow in individuals who view the killing of homosexuals as a mitzvah? Casualties will naturally result from these clashing values; Orlando is the most recent evidence of this. Nevertheless, Americans are continually browbeaten by their (((elites))) into welcoming destablilizing elements into the country without questioning their motives, their allegiance to the state, or their compatibility with the wider culture.

Our (((elites))) are no different from the elites in Alien or Predator, actively weaponizing our ignorance and goodwill to use against us. Whether corporate or governmental, in every instance the powers that be are setting us up. In every instance, they know something you don’t know-and they’re not telling. We are being played. They are not above lying to us to get their way. We are all expendable assets in the ongoing struggle for power and supremacy. I feel for the families impacted by the events in Orlando, but this is the reality. We are the prey. And these events will continue to happen, so long as individuals are prevented from accurately identifying the nature of the problem and neutralizing the threat. We will continue to be cannon fodder in the war to vindicate prog ideology.

It’s time for us to begin approaching anything that our (((thought leaders))) and actual leaders advance with intense skepticism. It’s high time that we all become conspiracy theorists. The powers that be will dissimulate, will lie to you, will use you and then will kill you if doing so would enable them to accomplish their ends. Now we know: we are besieged from within and from without.

It’s time to act accordingly.

 

When Vibrants Collide

This ad has been been making the social media rounds recently and progs are scandalized-scandalized I tell you!

From an article discussing the ad:

Just minutes before his birthday, Masonda Ketanda Olivier was beaten to death. The Congolese national was confronted by a mob of men late at night last Friday in New Delhi and killed. Police said the incident was a dispute over the hiring of an autorickshaw; Olivier’s friend, an Ivorian national, said it was a clear hate crime, with racial epithets repeatedly invoked.

Further:

In China, it’s a similar picture. In a 2013 account, an African-American English teacher recounted his students complaining about their instructor: “I don’t want to look at his black face all night,” one said.

And:

Africans, whether on university campuses or elsewhere, across the country have also been subject to attack and abuse. Growing merchant communities in certain cities, such as in the southern metropolis of Guangzhou, rub up against a wider population that is ethnically homogenous and largely unfamiliar with the diversity and history of black populations elsewhere.

And we’ll leave this one here too, lest the white population decline triumphalists find themselves tempted to salve their troubled souls with palliative thoughts of a future America full of pacific beiges & browns living together in perfect harmony.

It’s high time that race denialists and diversity shills face two realities:

  1. A less white world will be a substantially more conflict ridden one.
  2. Diversity + proximity = war, always and everywhere.

 

Diversity Tales, Diversity Fails

Every now and again, the New York Times goes off message with an article as badthink-y as it is clear eyed. From time to time, the (((Editorial Board))) lets slip through a piece that does not stand for the propositions the Board believes it stands for. This article is the latest foray into the netherworld of confused agendas.

Black in Algeria? Then You’d Better Be Muslim

From our intrepid op-ed writer Kamel Daoud, we get a glimpse of how vibrancy is likely to play out when the faction in power is immune to the sting of historical oppression. Daoud presents the reader with a snapshot of Algeria, a case study in the grim future of multikult in a world wherein the mantle of power has been passed from far more magnanimous whites. . .to far less charitable Peoples of Colour. While Algeria has been at the forefront of sending her sons far and wide to colonize and culturally enrich the West, it appears that she has had to deal with a similar tsunami of vibrancy. This particular wave of cultural enrichment is of a decidedly sub Saharan flavor. Algeria is none too keen:

ORAN, Algeria — For a few years now, families of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been gathering at major street crossings in the large cities of northern Algeria. They come to beg for alms, wearing grotesque outfits: oversize veils for the women, even little girls; cotton djellabas for the men; prayer beads ostentatiously displayed. They say “Allah” too readily and misquote verses from the Koran.

Many black migrants, including those who are not Muslim, are deploying symbols of Islam to appeal to Algerians’ sense of charity. Why? Because poverty helps decode culture better than reflection does, and migrants, lacking shelter and food, are quick to realize that in Algeria there often is no empathy between human beings, only empathy between people of the same religion.

Ah, well then. It’s just religious discrimination, right? Daoud wishes this were the case, and makes his best efforts to frame the conflict as one of a purely religious nature. Nevertheless, it quickly becomes apparent that the problem is that of Berbers shitting on unwelcome blacks.

The situation wasn’t always like this. For decades Algerians mostly treated blacks with discreet aloofness; only recently has that turned into violent rejection.

Oh boy. How to square the circle when oppressed respawns as oppressor? What is the appropriately liberal response to clear evidence suggesting that, when left to their own devices, their downtrodden pets will begin to terminate each other? Blame Western interventionism, obvi.

There are no reliable official statistics, but many migrants here come from Mali, Niger and Libya, and their numbers have increased over the past few years, partly due to instability in neighboring countries, especially Libya, once a main hub of immigration from Africa to Europe.

Qaddafi warned you. Now his ghost smirks at your chagrin.

From a geopolitical standpoint, it’s clear that this analysis is correct. Destabilization notwithstanding, how does one explain the fact that the kill switch was so (literally) and quickly activated by the mere presence of a few thousand black Africans within Algerian borders? This suggests a propensity for anti-black antipathy that has long lain semi-fallow in the hearts and minds of many an Algerian-an outlook that predates the regional destabilization occasioned by the Benghazi affair. How could it be that diversity is failing so fantastically in Algeria, especially as we’ve been told that racism is the white man’s invention? Why is it that in the absence of those rascally white racists has a multicultural shangri-la of peace and mutual goodwill not taken root in Algeria? Our author provides us with a clue.

 In Europe, migrants can try to play on the humanitarianism and guilty consciences of their hosts[.]

What’s this? Diversity in Algeria doesn’t work because “historical oppression” against blacks can’t be use as a cudgel with which to drub Algerians into submission to a globalist agenda? Is it that the absence of suicidal guilt for muh slavery and muh oppression means the presence of the will to survive as a people? Could it be that Algerians lack the propensity for outgroup altruism, the very propensity that is presently being used by people like Algerians by those with interests adverse to those of the West to manipulate and exploit the West into accepting such individuals against its interests? Is it possible that this simple equation is applicable across time and space: DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR?

What questions! Our bold author skates past engagement with those questions and poses a few questions of his own with an eye towards laying the blame for Algeria’s racism problem squarely at the feet of those dastardly Europeans.

Yet these two forms of racism are related: Westerners deny (or accuse) Arabs, and Arabs in turn deny (or accuse) black Africans. Is there a causal link? Is this a domino effect of negation? Perhaps. In any event, the parallel, the mimesis, is troubling.

 The lengths to which the author goes to overlook the most obvious cause of the problem in Algeria is astounding. Clearly the issue is not that the black migrants “aren’t Muslim,” as Algerians from the most secular to the archly conservative seem to have attitudes on the problem ranging from “expel negro” to “burn their settlements and kill them all.” The core issue is that diversity always foments conflict wherever it is attempted. People are evolutionarily inclined to favor homogeneous groups of like individuals and kinship networks. People are evolutionarily disinclined to enjoy existence in heterogeneous hellholes filled with a hodgepodge of people with which they share no ethnic or genetic bonds. Racial diversity, as one of the most obvious forms of diversity, tends to trigger the most extreme backlash once it reaches a tipping point.

Even more amazing is to observe how ruthlessly Algeria has dealt with its own migrant invasion in light of the continuous mewling from Arabs and their assortment of goodwhite lackeys to allow unlimited numbers of “migrants” into Europe. The message here is simple: (1) porous borders = failed state = national doom; (2) unchecked immigration of drastically diverse others is profoundly distasteful to everyone, even those in possessions of countries that would, objectively speaking, be better off nuked from space.

 The West would do well to follow Algeria’s lead and treat the influx of interlopers accordingly.

You Hate Yourselves and Long For Death

A picture worth a thousand words.

The self-satisfied smiles. The vacant, lobotomized expressions. The arms overflowing with genetically dissimilar infants riddled with tubes and tape.

The manifestation of the middle class death impulse. A slow suicide committed publicly, in real time.

This past Sunday, my gorgeous wife – a white evangelical, like me — gave birth to our beautiful African-American triplet daughters whom we adopted as embryos. 

There is nothing more illustrative of the extent to which “diversity” has morphed into full blown anti-white racial antipathy, how completely this hatred has been internalized, and how firmly it has become lodged in the white psyche.

Knowing that it is often more challenging to find adoptive homes in the United States for non-Caucasian children we informed the agency that we were willing to accept any child except a fully Caucasian child.

The middle class death impulse, as aided and abetted by the rotten fruit of the technological march of progress that has made it possible to sever the link between gestation and genetics, subverting technologies developed ostensibly to assist in the creation of life so that they may be instead used to assist in the extinguishment of entire genetic lineages. The benign in service of the profoundly malign.

Make no mistake about it: these two have most certainly chosen death. This is death on a genetic level, their “family” the physical evidence of a sick desire to obliterate themselves from the human race. We all intuit this on a subconscious level, which is why the first reaction to this photo was probably to recoil. There is something unnatural about sacrificing body and soul to give birth to three children who have no genetic connection to either mother or father. For all the “father’s” posturing about his “deeply held conviction that if the Lord wanted [him] to have a fully Caucasian child [his] wife would conceive naturally,” it is apparent to all that these two were so besotted with the idea of destroying their ability to have their own natural for the sake of “diversity” that they probably never made a serious attempt to have “a fully Caucasian child.”  They wanted mixed race trophies to preen over, not children to raise, instruct, and love. They want to signal, not to nurture.

Deep down, these people recognize that they are sick. The level of doublethink necessary to reconcile their suicidal ideology with their intuition is astonishing. You see, these are not the first mixed race children that these two have collected. Finding that simply adopting two mixed race children was insufficient to slake their thirst for diversity brownie points, they graduated to implanting the woman with foreign mystery meat embryos, with the following logic:

We wanted additional siblings to feel connected to our first two children racially, and asked the team at the [embryo adoption clinic] if we could be matched with African-American embryos.

That they intuit the wrongness of what they have done is clear from this sentence. They recognize that human emotional connections are made primarily at the racial, genetic, and kinship level and they prioritized this when selecting their embryos so that their adopted mixed race children would feel a racial affinity to their new siblings. Yet, chose to adopt/give birth to five children who share neither their racial backgrounds nor either of their genetics and who, by their own logic, they will never truly be able to bond and connect with.

I hope that these people realize that there is no God in this. They have bastardized the word of God in the service of their own vanity, and have destroyed five lives to vaunt themselves. Their god is the zeitgeist and they worship only public opinion. And thus they careen towards death.

Oscars Recap & Commentary

I’ve been away for a bit, primarily working on other projects, secondarily working on developing a pipeline of blog material that will be timely/thought provoking/interesting for my dear readers while giving serious thought to the direction that this platform will take over the next few months. So, please pardon my dust.

I had the displeasure of attending an Oscars viewing party yesterday night.  While I am typically loathe to partake of such thoroughly dildofied spectacles, the invitation came from a work colleague and I figured that it would be best to take this one on the chin and put in some face time.  The 2016 Oscars was more dreadful than I could have even anticipated, highlighting just how disconnected from reality and dour the ((entertainment establishment)) has become.  We are currently in an era wherein the entertainer’s greatest sin is that of merely wanting to be entertaining.  One must make a statement, one must pay lip service to the issue du jour, one must genuflect before the secular deities of tolerance and inclusivity.  Chris Rock was brutally unfunny as host, immediately launching into an insulting and frankly abusive monologue about lynchings, racism, and oppressive whiteness. . .before imploring the white Hollywood elites to open the gibsmedat spigot for the considerably less agentic black Hollywood elites  Upper echelon rent seeking.  It was all quite brain dead.

Rock’s main gripe is the gripe of every mediocre actor/entertainer of color in the industry: Hollywood fails to provide sufficient opportunities for non-white (read: black) actors, resulting in an #Oscarssowhite predicament year after year.  The remedy for this great injustice is to arbitrarily cast non-white black actors in a greater number of roles regardless of whether or not the castings make narrative sense.  Thus, Hollywood’s mandate is not to produce films that are thematically interesting, phenomenally plotted, impeccably acted, or visually sensual.  These elements do not a good movie make, according to the envious shills of color. Rather, a film’s goodness rests almost solely upon the extent to which its cast is diverse as determined by whatever metric these goons may happen to cook up.

As usual, this is a case of basic people coming to basic conclusions and proposing simplistic fixes due to their inability to think critically or logically. To them, the importance of the Oscars is merely symbolic.  They do not view it as an event shaped by other more. .  pragmatic. . .consideration$.  So, if there are insufficient numbers of black people cast into Oscarworthy roles, it’s not because the market is at best agnostic to diversity and at worst doesn’t give a fuck about it, it’s not because black celluloid offerings are generally vapid, trite, and poorly acted-it’s because the Academy is full of old white racists actively discriminating against black people because. . .reasons.

However, this is their mistake: their failure to understand what the Oscars truly are.  While the Academy Awards is ostensibly an event aimed at recognizing excellence in film making from a more artistic rather than commercial perspective, the films that are ultimately made must nevertheless scratch that proverbial (commercial) itch.  That is to say: the movie made purely for the sake of the art is an increasingly uncommon one and directors and actors are keen to work on and star in movies that not only pique the interest of the Academy, but also appeal to consumers further downstream.  Furthermore, producers are not interested in financing films unlikely to yield a significant return.  Why else would Inarritu have done his damnedest to snag Leonardo DiCaprio for the lead when Chris Pine or even Idris Elba would have arguably performed just as capably?  Because DiCaprio is certified box office platinum.  When he’s in a movie, he puts asses in seats and puts money in bank accounts. This is far less true of the other two. As the moviegoing public is still predominantly white, it prefers to consume movies starring actors they can recognize and identify with.

Artistically, Stuff Black People Like tends to be pedestrian and one note, with black audiences overwhelmingly responding to features like the Friday series, the Barbershop series, biopics about famous black people, and musical movies (think Dreamgirls) or movies about music (think Straight Outta Compton).  Their tastes don’t run particularly esoteric or experimental or conceptual (think Jonze’s Her or Garland’s Ex Machina). While the black movies listed may be somewhat commercially successful (even this is questionable, because the subject matter and the casts mean that these movies’ popularity will be limited to largely black audiences), they will for obvious reasons never be lauded by the Academy.  The problem here is very sharp.  Due to the expressed preferences of both black and white audiences, directors and producers committed to solving Hollywood’s “diversity problem” are forced to either sacrifice art for representation (no Oscars) or to sacrifice representation for art (no dollars).  You can guess how that tension is frequently resolved.  As Leo said in that other movie for which he was unceremoniously robbed: “money talks and bullshit rides the bus.”

The artistic and the commercial are inextricably linked, and black themed movies generally fail on both counts.  Enough black actors in a movie, and you already know what the movie will be like. These affairs are highly predictable.  The problem here is that black audiences don’t like the kinds of films that are either artistic enough to merit Academy recognition or broadly appealing enough to merit being made.


Hollywood is pozzed beyond redemption.  You’ll find no quarrel with me on that point. But, consider the range of subject matter in the films nominated for best picture this year:

  • Bridge of Spies (a movie about the Cold War)
  • Mad Max: Fury Road (a dystopian action film)
  • Revenant (a historical drama about American trappers set in 1823)
  • Spotlight (a movie about journalists uncovering sexual abuse in the Catholic Church)
  • The Martian (space travel)
  • The Big Short (a movie about the root causes of the 2008 financial crisis)
  • Room (a movie about a woman kidnapped and held hostage in a room with her son)
  • Brooklyn (a movie about an Irish immigrant living in 1950’s Brooklyn)

Which, if any of these films would appeal to a black audience?  One of Rock’s prerecorded sets provides us with an answer: precisely zero. In this segment, when asked if they’d heard of some of the pictures nominated like Bridge of Spies or Trumbo, the black individuals polled expressed bemused confusion. One even went as far as to accuse Rock of making the movie up. The one movie that all of the assorted blacks watched?  Straight Outta Compton.

Which serious director wants to toil to film the millionth MLK biopic?  Which ambitious actor wants to make a name for himself working in music themed movies and Barbershop spinoffs?  All of these BLM “we need more diversity in Hollywood” types fail to recognize the importance of the market in determining what gets produced and what doesn’t; who gets cast and who doesn’t.  The Academy will never be able to review movies not made due to lack of commercial viability. At the end of the day-in a roundabout way-the Oscars are about dollars and cents.  Who calls the shots in Hollywood?  The same ((ones)) who make the racist bottom line casting decisions in order to generate the most revenue while skating off scot free and letting white people hold the bag and play defense against a vast horde of ungrateful grievance mongers.

Fisher v. Texas Redux

Fisher v. University of Texas is in the news again. The case is before the Supreme Court again after having been vacated and remanded to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration over two and a half years ago. The case is the latest in a series of decisions dating back over 35 years grappling with the (dubious) constitutionality of affirmative action-or as it is now euphemistically termed “race conscious admissions”-in public institutions of higher education. Since the Bakke decision in 1978, the Court has consistently held classroom diversity to be a “compelling state interest” and thus on par with such other compelling interests as national security and the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizenry.

Consider that. Diversity is considered to be as important an interest as protecting the nation from the machinations of foreign marauders intending to do it and its people ill.


 

There are two aspects of this case that I find particularly interesting, specifically the public vilification of the plaintiff as a bad plaintiff who wouldn’t have qualified for admission at UT anyway based on her SAT performance and her high school GPA, and the vitriol unleashed against Justice Scalia for some hatefacts observations he made during oral arguments. The criticism launched against Fisher has been nothing less than a magnificent display of doublethink. Fisher’s detractors have criticized her for bringing the case, arguing that she wouldn’t have qualified for admission to an elite school like UT anyway given her underwhelming SAT scores and high school performance. These are the very same critics who approve of affirmative action, which is nothing more than programmatic justification for the admission of URM candidates who wouldn’t have otherwise qualified for admission to elite schools- due to their generally underwhelming SAT scores and high school performance.

Of course, her critics fail to grasp her argument. The argument was never that she was a stellar test taker and a superstar high school student who should have been granted admission as a matter of course. Her argument is simply that based on her test scores, had she been black or Latino, she would have more than likely been granted admission to UT as affirmative action initiatives make it permissible to accept URM candidates with less impressive academic profiles than would be acceptable for white (and marginally Asian) candidates. Her argument is that it is unconstitutional, indeed, unjust for the government to employ different standards for different groups of ostensibly equal citizens, especially when the application of these differing standards serves to disadvantage one group of citizens relative to other groups.

Naturally, this demonstrates the indisputable veracity of the “liberals think that only whites have agency” meme that has been swirling around the alternetz for awhile now. Fisher is ridiculed for being “too dumb” to have secured admission to A Good School. Presumably, her critics would have told her that she should have been better: she should have studied harder to improve her scores so as to ensure admission to the choicest of schools. The onus is completely upon her as a white person to succeed & her failure to do so is met with scorn and derision. When it comes to URMs however, they are viewed as being utterly incapable of performing to standards and of ever bringing themselves up to standards; it’s ridiculous to even suggest that they should try. So it stands to reason that the standards must be brought down to suit them.

Scalia, Scourge of the Left had this to say on the issue:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”
“I’m just not impressed by the fact the University of Texas may have fewer [blacks]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”

 

 

He’s been blasted for these comments, but he’s absolutely correct. Excellent point poorly made, I’d say. But the data bear out his poorly articulated observations. The attrition rates for black public college attendees is astronomical for black students, and the remainder struggle to finish a four-year course of study. . .in six years.  Considering that for 2007-2008, the school year during which Fisher sat for her SATs the black mean stood at 1280/2400 as compared to the overall mean of 1511/2400, this should come as no surprise. Compare both means to the UT mean of 1901/2400, and the nature of the problem becomes even clearer.

URM students who are admitted to elite public colleges are by and large unable to compete with the rest of the student body and would be better off attending schools where the academic aptitudes of the student body are more in line with their own. Instead, they are pushed into and through colleges where they either fail out or flounder even after selecting economically useless social justice courses of subjective study guaranteed to saddle them with mountains of debt, chips on their shoulders, and no useful skills.


Of course, none of this means anything. The Court has recently become populated by affirmative action nominees willing to contort the Constitution any which to justify their prefab conclusion that the Equal Protection clause exists in order to ensure that some Americans are more equally protected than others.  The underachievers of today must ensure that the pathways to power remain available to the underachievers of tomorrow so that they too may succeed in spite of their mediocrity. As a result of Kagan’s recusal, the outcome will likely be a 4-4 decision – a worthless outcome, as it will create no binding precedent.

So why write about it? Simply because this case is a reminder. As we’ve always maintained here, diversity is not a value. It is an anti-value. It obliterates values. It is antithetical to values and principles, and it forces everything to genuflect before it. It perpetuates a culture of falsehood, failure, and lowered expectations that will ultimately level and destroy everything of worth within a civilization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race and School Discipline

More deliberately obtuse race baiting garbage from the New York Times. Apparently, some University of Pennsylvania researchers have discovered that black students are expelled from schools at rates more than five times that of their representation in the school population.

With the Obama administration focused on reducing the number of suspensions, expulsions and arrests in public schools, a new analysis of federal data identifies districts in 13 Southern states where black students are suspended or expelled at rates overwhelmingly higher than white children.

The analysis, which will be formally released Tuesday by the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, focused on states where more than half of all the suspensions and expulsions of black students nationwide occurred. While black students represented just under a quarter of public school students in these states, they made up nearly half of all suspensions and expulsions.

Of course, this is just an outgrowth of the ever expanding pseudo-Constitutional doctrine of “disparate impact.” Any governmental action that disproportionately impacts coloreds in a negative manner is automatically probative of discrimination, notwithstanding intent. Discriminatory intent on the government’s part doesn’t even have to be proven.

Which is what makes this doctrine so utterly bogus. Rather than examining the underlying causes leading to certain outcomes, the outcomes themselves are taken as proof of wrongdoing while the causes are deemed irrelevant. The study makes the observation that black children are likelier to face expulsion than white students, but the $64,000 question remains:

Are black children in aggregate likelier than white children in aggregate to act in ways that merit expulsion?

Naturally, that question remains unasked and goes unanswered. We’ll answer it here: yes, they are. Granted, the article is anecdotal. But it does reflect the reality of how common “behavioral issues” tend to be in schools with a large black student demographic.

Never is it asked whether the individuals within the “disparately impacted” group experience higher expulsion rates because behave differently from individuals within other groups. Cause and effect are completely divorced, and effects are proof of wacism.

This study, and other stupidly formulated studies like it are nothing more but the products of a culture that assiduously tries to deny the obvious: that there are inherent differences between races in terms of conduct, in terms of time preference and in terms of intellect. This notion is anathema to the leftist mind, a notion so intolerable that they produce bodies of obscurantist “research” that fail to come to obvious and sensible conclusions-as they have been intentionally designed to avoid grappling with root causes of disparate treatment-all for the purpose of advancing some dumb “oppressed class” narrative.