Clear Thinking Family, Race, Religion, Culture, Politics

July 8, 2016

The Lessons of Dallas

Filed under: Multiculturalism,Nation State,Race,Society — Editor @ 8:47 am

The shootings last week in Baton Rouge, Minnesota and now Dallas show that as a practical matter, multi-racial, multi-cultural societies don’t work. Here’s what Wikipedia says happened in Dallas.

Dallas shooting

Dallas shooting

Two shooters opened fire on police near Belo Garden Park at 8:58 p.m. A bystander reported hearing 50 to 75 shots. Reports stated that one shooter shot at the police from an alleyway, while another fired from the upper level of a parking building. Dallas Police Chief David O. Brown said that at least two shooters fired ambush style at the officers. Brown added that some of the officers were shot in the back, and that the shooters, having had some knowledge of the protest route, positioned themselves in a way to get a triangulated firing position. Police stated that at least four snipers located on elevated positions appeared to be involved in a strategic cross-fire attack targeting the police

It’s not just a black and white issue, it’s more profound than that. Civil harmony depends first of all on universal agreement on certain values, modes of behaviour and social norms. When there are different racial groups, no such agreement exists, or can exist, because values come from the people, not from the law. The shootings in Paris and Brussels came not from blacks, but from the same causes; a disgruntled minority, in this case both cultural and racial, which does not share the values and norms of their host society.

There are several lessons we need to take away from these events. The first is that policing is only possible in a society in which there is near universal agreement on moral, social and cultural grounds. Indeed, in such a society it was and is possible to round up a posse of ordinary citizens, arrest an outlier and convict him with a jury of random individuals. To state that simply; in such a society you don’t even need a police force. The second lesson we can learn is a reverse of the first. In a society riven by a racial divide, there are too many potential perpetrators, too many potential interactions and too many locations to police at all.

You will note that in France, Belgium, Britain, Germany, Sweden and the United States, the police and authorities are still dealing with racially-motivated crime as if it can be dealt with one criminal at a time. Time and again they are surprised by cultural clashes, “instant jihad” or anti-police shootings. They will continue to be surprised because different racial and cultural groups believe in different moral concepts, social values and laws.

There is only one solution to this issue: the ending of multiculturalism and multi-racialism. This is why we support the concept of an ethnic state, or more specifically, an ethnically homogeneous nation state. Let me end with an analogy: imagine a zoo where there was no separation of the animals.

June 24, 2016

Brexit was all Anglea Merkel’s Doing

Filed under: Globalization,Immigration,Nation State — Editor @ 11:46 am

Well, the vote is in and the U.K. is out; or going out, of the European Union. Along with the fishermen and farmers of the United Kingdom, who opted for the Leave campaign, there were a sufficient number of real, honest Britons to outvote the financial gnomes of the City and Globalists like George Sorros and President Obama. And who really started the ball rolling? Yes, Mutter Merkel.

David Cameron quits as British Prime Minister

David Cameron quits as British Prime Minister

If you didn’t stay up to watch the vote unfold, you can get a sense of the wonder and excitement of the Brexit vote from this column by Katie Hopkins. She was, to use a British expression, “over the moon” with joy.

There will be plenty of congratulations all round today, especially for Nigel Farage, who gave the speech of his life last night after first mistakenly conceding defeat.

How did it happen? How was victory snatched from defeat? I believe I know the answer. The answer is that Britons knew full well that in a year or two all those millions of Middle Eastern “refugees” would get German citizenship and be on the train for London. Nothing could stop them. Nothing would stop them. Angela would be at the bahnhof to wave them off to the U.K.

Why did she do it? Was this a 21st Century payback for the attack on Dresden? What was she thinking?

Watever it was, this German attack on Britain has been stopped at the Channel. Once again Britain is an island, a nation. Once again it is Great Britain.

June 17, 2016

U.S. State Department Calls for War with Russia

Filed under: NeoCon — Editor @ 11:03 am

The Most extraordinary document has emerged that shows war with Russia is a lot closer than anyone thinks.

2475718 08/12/2014 The Su-35 fighter performing on Air Force Day in Lipetsk Artem Zhitenev/Sputnik

A Russian Su-35 fighter performing on Air Force Day in Lipetsk Artem Zhitenev/Sputnik

The Globe & Mail reports today that more than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo calling for military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad’s government; that is, against the government of Syria currently under the protection of Russia.

It doesn’t take much of a leap to realize that if this policy were implemented, Russian and American planes would immediately be in an air war. And just where would that end?

Here’s more from the Globe:

The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 mid- to high-level State Department officers advising on Syria policy.

It calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing copies of the cable it had seen.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, visiting Copenhagen, told Reuters on Friday: “It’s an important statement and I respect the process, very, very much. I will … have a chance to meet with people when I get back (to Washington).”

He said he had not seen the memo.

Military strikes against the Assad government would represent a major change in the Obama administration’s policy of not intervening directly in the Syrian civil war, while calling for a political transition that would see Assad leave power.

Such strikes would put the United States on a collision course with Russia, which is backing Assad with air strikes, equipment, training and military advice.

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he had only seen media reports about the memo, but said: “Calls for the violent overthrow of authorities in another country are unlikely to be accepted in Moscow.

“The liquidation of this or some other regime is hardly what is needed to aid the successful continuation of the battle against terrorism. Such a move is capable of plunging the region into complete chaos.”

One U.S. official, who did not sign the cable but has read it, told Reuters the White House remained opposed to deeper American military involvement in Syria.

The official said the cable was unlikely to alter that, or shift Obama’s focus from the battle against the threat posed by the Islamic State militant group.

A second source who had read the cable said it reflected the views of U.S. officials who have worked on Syria, some for years, and who believe the current policy is ineffective.

So, the White House is opposed? Piffle. This is a trial baloon; Obama is testing the water to see if there is a neat way to derail the next election. A world war would certainly do it.

June 4, 2016

Trudeau: Prime Minister of Homosexuals

Filed under: Society,Western values — Editor @ 7:08 pm

Oh man, this is a Meme that’s going to hurt: Trudeau, Prime Minister of Homosexuals. It’s like calling him the King of Clowns and it fits so perfectly.

PM of Homos

PM of Homos

The name (also good in the short form: Trudeau, King of the Homos) comes from Gwen Landolt of the ‘REAL Women of Canada. She said, quoted by PinkNews:

“Justin Trudeau in his boyish enthusiasm for the homosexual agenda fails to understand that he is the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Prime Minister of the Homosexuals.”

Ouch that hurts. And there’s more:

Ms Landolt continued: “Raising a homosexual flag on Parliament grounds displays the narrow, extremist, and exclusive viewpoint of the current Liberal government.

“The rainbow flag represents the views of an activist special interest group only.

“To raise this flag is offensive to all Canadians who have knowledge and concern about Canada’s history, culture and traditions.”

Ms. Landolt has effectively ended Trudeau Jr.’s Camelot act and consigned him to history. His sexy wife can’t save him. He’s toast.

And thank God for that.

May 20, 2016

Let’s Get Back to Self-Determination of Peoples

Filed under: Nation State,Race — Editor @ 12:51 pm

Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted the Atlantic Charter at a shipboard conference Aug. 14, 1941. Among other things, the Charter said territorial adjustments after the war “must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned” and that “all people had a right to self determination.” People in this context meant not only existing nations, but ethnic populations under the control of others who wished to become nations.

Kurdistan: a people without a country

Kurdistan: a people without a country

It should be obvious now to everyone the division of the Ottoman empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire after WWI was a collosal mistake. Borders were drawn willy nilly with no consideration for the people who lived there, many of whom found themselves on the wrong side of the line. Even after the Atlantic Charter stated nations should be created out of peoples, this mistake continued.

In Asia, India split into India and Pakistan, Malaya split into Malaysia and Singapore; in Africa Sudan separated into Sudan and South Sudan; in Europe Czechoslovakia split into Czechia and Slovakia and Yugoslavia split into Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia/Herzegovnia. Where splits have not taken place, but should, wars broke out.

A prime example involves Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, all of whom should give up land for a new nation of Kurdistan. Wars also broke out in Lebanon, Cyprus and Rwanda due to ethnic and sectarian issues.

What this all means is incredibly simple to understand although very few politicians see fit to admit it. It is that peoples, that is ethnic groups, prefer to govern themselves and if they don’t have that chance, they revolt. The nature of the revolt depends on the numbers involved. If it is a very large percentage, then they opt for separation. If a smaller percentage, they opt for some kind of provincial self-governing status. The Kurds in northern Iraq, for example, have this status as have the French in Quebec.

Where the numbers are smaller still, rioting breaks out. The American example shows that while blacks only constitute 13% of the population, they repeatedly cause civil disturbances of which the Ferguson riots were the most recent. Minority riots have also taken place in recent years in London, England and Paris. Interestingly, it doesn’t really matter what the minority is, the religion or the circumstances. It just seems to be universal that ethnically similar people want self-rule. Period.

In the Canadian context, the First Riel Rebellion by the Métis and the establishment of a Provisional Government is a case in point, one that failed.

This leads me to make a simple suggestion. Canadians, and indeed all peace-loving peoples of the world, should support, as a principle, the idea of ethnic nation states. They could be large like Kazakhstan or small like Singapore, but they should be self-governing. If that principle were applied world-wide, we would sharply reduce the amount of violence, riot and war on this planet.

Of course we would have to ditch some cherished beliefs, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that would be a small price to pay for world peace.

April 26, 2016

How Free Traders like Walter Williams Get it All Wrong

Filed under: Globalization,Nation State — Editor @ 3:40 pm

This post will take some research on your part. Please read a column by Walter Williams at Front Page Magazine entitled Seen and Unseen: How tariffs hurt Americans. Of course they don’t, but first read how Williams think they do.

an American worker cutting steel

an American worker cutting steel

If you don’t have the time to read his piece, I’ll try to summarize it in one sentence. He says, using steel as an example, that an eight to 30 percent tariff in 2002 on several types of imported steel saved 1,700 steelworker jobs but cost American consumers $800,000 and resulted in layoffs of 65,000 workers in steel-using industries in California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. On the face of it that looks a little high, but no matter. His point is that cheap imports are critical to American industries using steel.

Why is this? I’ll tell you why; it’s because cheap imports have destroyed the American steel industry leaving it unable to cope with steel from cheap-labour countries like South Korea and China. Those countries have built brand-new plants using American technology, Japanese automation and German machine tools so they now not only have the lowest cost workers, they have the most productive plants.

How did that happen? It happened because American industries flew over the Pacific and signed trade deals with mostly government-backed corporations. These deals included all the plans, patents and processes China needed to start fresh with new plants. The American companies got cheap goods made to high standards and put billions of dollars in their pockets. Their workers in the United States, meanwhile, were fired.

Imagine if there had been a tariff cost at the American border, not on steel, but the products those American companies were making. Imagine if it were illegal to give corporate business secrets to foreign companies, especially those controlled by foreign governments. There would have been no incentive to build new plants in China; they would have built them in the United States. The U.S. would then have used its higher productivity to balance against Chinese lower costs.

Let me put this another way. You can’t have a competitive country if you give your competitors all your secrets.

Of course, in the case of China, they’re busy taking those secrets whether you give them or not, but that’s another story.

Let’s just say that a tariff on imported steel should have been just the start. What’s needed is a tariff on ALL imports that competete head-to-head with American goods. That’s what Donald Trump is calling for and why I’m calling for Americans to please vote for him.

It’s either that or just give up on the American dream.


April 20, 2016

I’ll Bet You Haven’t Heard Anything Like this in Canada, More’s the Pity

Filed under: Immigration,Islam — Editor @ 7:26 pm

German Leader Slams George Soros, Unfortunately it’s not Frau Merkel

Filed under: Islam,Nation State — Editor @ 9:47 am

Here’s a sensational speech by Tatjana Festerling of PEGIDA. She asks Soros “Why should Europe follow your personal ideas” on immigration?” Here in a few minutes are all the reasons Germans are rising against the wishes of their government and that of the European Union. They’ve had enough and they’re not going to take it any more.

Thanks to Jihad Watch and Victor Lazlo of Rebel Media for the clip.

April 13, 2016

So What is the Alt-Right Anyway?

Filed under: Globalization,Nation State,Race — Editor @ 3:58 pm

The Alternative Right, or Alt-Right, is in the news, attacked by both the left and the traditional right. But what is it; and what does it believe? I think you’ll find if you’re a thinking person with a mind of your own, the Alt-Right is just right for you.


Charles Darwin as a young man

There are two views of human development: those of the Darwinists and those of the Progressives. We in the Alternative Right belong to the Darwinists because we believe in science, the scientific method and in the value of observation and analysis. The Progressives, on the other hand, are repelled by their observations of the human condition and attempt to replace science with a belief system they can manipulate. Progressives are Utopianists, while we on the Alt-Right are realists.

Before I go on, I should explain the Alternative Right is an alternative to the conservative movement which, we believe, has been taken over by neo-conservatives who believe in free trade, mass immigration, nation building and individual rights above ethnic rights.

We believe the neo-conservative worldview is a recipe for disaster; indeed, for the disaster that has already overcome the world with violence imported from the Middle East in Europe, America, Canada and Australia; with the loss of good middle class jobs, with attacks on our heritage and ancestry and with issues of crime and culture shock associated with mass immigration from the Third World. We believe, in short, that neo-conservativism has accepted Progressive globalist goals and attempted to dress them up in conservative clothes.

This is easily proven. Communism, the product of Marxism, sought to expand over the whole world and to impose a top-down governing structure run by socialist elites. Neo-conservativism seeks to establish a New World Order of international free trade, complete with the mass movement of workers, controlled by a small coterie of international elites. In reality, it’s the same totalitarianism in a different suit.

The Alt-Right, on the other hand, believes in democratic bottom-up government, the nation state based on an ethnic model, a capitalist national economy, very little immigration, the family as the basic social unit and a national birthrate of 2.1 children per family. These are all conservative policies, or rather what were Classical liberal policies at the time of Adam Smith. They are now extremely out of favour in the West.

Why we believe in these policies is interesting. It’s because, as Darwinists, we think the nation should exist as a gene pool, and since we come from a European background, a European gene pool. We think the same argument should apply to other ethnic and racial groups. Thus, we support the Kurds in their demand for a country of their own. We support Israel as a land for the Jews. Japan as a land for the Japanese. Congo for the Congolese, and so on. Each race is like an extended family for the people in it and this large extended family should have a home of its own. Again, this used to be standard fare for Classical liberals, but again it has fallen into disfavour.

It’s fallen into disfavour because utopianism is a very appealing concept and has won many converts. It was the driving force behind Christian evangelism, international Communism and the United Nations. It appeals to some of the best human instincts (helping others) but it also to some of the worst (something for nothing). In this latter form, it has become useful to those who are attempting to leverage it to achieve power, such as cultural Marxists, environmental activists and left liberals of all stripes.

Let me present a very simple concept at the heart of the Alt-Right movement. If people in a group are genetically similar they will develop a pattern of habits and procedures which they’re comfortable with. This is their culture. Any laws they happen to agree on are designed to catcht the exceptions; those individuals who deviate from the accepted norms. In other words, the law is for exceptions to the culture, not a method of enforcing a new culture. Because most people in the group agree on most things there is a maximum amount of personal freedom.

(You can read an analysis of this effect at VDare where Kevin MacDonald says the following in a rebuttal of an attack on the Alt-Right by Robert Tracinski: “Apparently Tracinski can’t or won’t understand, is that individualism works well when pretty much everyone else is playing the same game.”)

(The construction in the above paragraph was stated recently by Hungarian President Viktor Orban, when he said: “Constitutional order is necessarily built on an existing community with a history. It is built on a community of real people of flesh and blood, one that is aware of its identity. It is never built on abstract theories. Abstract theories may help define the common principles and interests, but they must not supersede them.” This truly is a scathing indictment of countries like Canada who try to base nationhood on principles instead of population.)

If, to take the reverse of this argument, you have a group of people who are genetically different, each sub-unit will differ in its culture from the others. These cultures will eventually clash because their laws are based on their cultures and their cultures are based on their biology. To put these different races and cultures in the same political basket is to ask for trouble. In every case where it has been tried, it’s failed.

There are numerous examples: India, Ireland, Iraq, Syria, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the United States (white and black America), Canada (our Native problem, the Quebec nation) and, my favourite, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This latter was an empire based, like Canada’s constitution, on multiculturalism and bi-culturalism. Its spectacular failure led to WWI.)

The Alt-Right believes that the maximum amount of personal freedom, the best form of national economy and most harmonious society can only exist within the boundaries of an ethnically-based nation state. If we seem anxious and upset at current events in the world it is because we see them as a disaster unfolding over which we have no control and about which we are very well informed.

All of which means nothing to most people because if they express an interest in the Alt-Right they’re afraid they’ll be accused of racism. This is a real tar baby in modern discussions on race, even for physical anthropologists who have shied away from making comments on the subject because of the influence of Columbia University physical anthropologist Franz Boas (1858–1942). Boas, whose grandparents were observant Jews, turned the discipline from the study of biology into the study of culture, claiming humans could be changed by social and environmental factors and downplaying the role of genetic inheritance.

(It’s interesting that Wikipedia says his parents embraced Enlightenment values, including their assimilation into modern German society. So, in a way, Boas anthropological theories sought to validate his family’s own history of rejecting race. He is not the first, nor the last, scientist to try to work out childhood feelings on a larger canvas.)

However, as I’ve just shown culture is downstream from biology just as law is downstream from culture. To claim otherwise is to confuse cause and effect. Indeed much of the failure of modern day social programs can be laid at the feet of Boas’ followers, from the Great Society, to school busing programs to demolished public housing complexes in St. Louis and Chicago. None of these programs worked because none of them dealt with the root cause of the problem.

Surely, after 75 years of failure, someone somewhere needs to return anthropology—the study of humans—to studying humans as the animals we are. We need to study humans at least as well as we do dogs, sheep, cattle or horses. We need categories, we need statistics, we need to establish (actually re-establish) the relationship between these categories and their social and cultural by-products.

Is it racism to study race? I’ll answer that by narrowing the field in question to that of your own family. Is it racist to prefer and enjoy your own family over someone else’s? Is it racist to love your wife, cherish your children, defend your parents? Some leftist thinkers believe it is. Indeed, Cultural Marxists believe the family unit itself should be abolished.

In this semantic and social fight, which side are you on? Are you with those who want to atomize society, remove inheritance, make babies in factories to specifications approved by a ruling elite? That’s what anti-racists are calling for, working for, demanding for us all. Consider what their ultimate goal is: a world of individuals stripped of any biological relationship. This is the truly horrifying end game of anti-racism.

April 11, 2016

What Happens to Race in a Multicultural Country?

Filed under: Race — Editor @ 4:34 pm

This is a simple enough question. But, assuming you even believe in race as a descriptive reality, the conventional wisdom and actual data are two very different things. Instead of becoming a stock pot like bouillabaiss, such a country is more like a cheese factory; things tend to separate in ways no one expects.

Jair-Oliveira and Tania-Khalill

Jair Oliveira and Tania Khalill and their baby

We’ve all been reading a lot lately on the evils of white males, whites in general, white  privilege, and the hidden superiority of whites. Black Lives Matter and other groups have called for whites to be excluded, spurned and even eliminated from society, the nation and the planet. Whites have been attacked merely for being white.

A lot of leftists and liberals think maybe blacks have a point; that maybe we whites have had it too good for too long. They’ve told us we’re racists and we’ve started to feel it. Even conservatives and the Alt-Right have seen the anti-white movement as the writing on the wall. Whites are going to be overwhelmed by a tsunami of yellow, brown and black people and all the world is going to come out with a nice natural tan. And that’ll be just fine to the Progressives currently running the country, the media and academia.

Progressives aren’t very good at pulling out facts to back this claim, but when they do, reluctantly, they point to Brazil as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society that has succeeded the way they hope Europe, Canada and the United States will succeed after waves of new, third-world immigrants re-order the racial balance.

Look at Brazil, they say. Now there’s a success story.

Well, I thought, let’s look at Brazil and see what’s going on in race relations. What are the concerns, if any, in the black community there? A good place to start is with a website called Black Women of Brazil and an article, I kid you not, entitled: “White women for marrying and the Brazilian solution to race: the elimination of the black race.” The title comes from a Brazilian expression: “Branca para casar, mulata para fornicar, negra para trabalhar” and the article and commentary makes much of the ingrained tradition of marrying white, also known as marrying up. A quote:

I also remembered the “white passport” which is a term used by a militant of the Movimento Negro (black movement) to talk about interracial relationships in which social mobility must be postmarked or “rewarded” with a white partner. For what? To show society that one is well off. A bank account and diploma does not call as much attention as strolling hand in hand with people considered “beautiful”. Those people that look like the hosts of children’s programs.

There’s a lot more in a similar, annoyed, vein with pictures of black men and women who marry white. There’s also an attack on miscegenation which will come as a shock to Canadian Progressives:

Incidentally, the source of these “modern” theories about miscegenation in Brazil is the old theory of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, generically known as “praise for miscegenation” that basically proposes the “dilution of races,” assuming, devilishly, that there might be some sort of gain from this.

Not just the early 20th Century; this is the current policy of the Canadian government. We’re all going to be one, big, happy, coloured family. Kumbaya everyone, everywhere.

Now let’s look at the reality in Brazil. Why are black women in Brazil so vexed at the way things are going? Here’s why.  Brazil, as we know is a very multi-racial society.  Whites are 48%, Browns 43% and Blacks 8% as of 2010. If race mixing were making more Browns this number should be going up. And sure enough, if you compare the figures to those from 1872 we see that Browns have risen from 38% to 43%. But, hey, look at this, Blacks have fallen from 20% to 8% and Whites have increased from 38% to 48%!

So to summarize; the black population is now less than half of what it was and the white population instead of falling, as predicted, has INCREASED by 10% of the total or 20% of itself.  The only explanation for this is that blacks and coloured Brazilians are selecting for white; that is, they are marring lighter-skinned Brazilians and getting lighter skinned babies. Eventually, taken over generations, the result is that the Black percentage goes down and the White percentage goes up.

Now, I ask you; where if ever, have you read anything about colour selection by mixed race individuals? Where have you read that the outcome is not just more coloured people, but more white people? And why are the coloured people doing this? The explanation given above that blacks are choosing whites in order to show off their economic status is obviously wrong. A far more likely reason is that by marrying whites they actually improve their economic status.

Just why that might be is worth another article at another time. For the moment it’s worth realizing that whiteness and blackness have a natural relation dynamic that plays out in multi-ethnic countries.


While the percentage of whites has fallen slightly since 2000, the decline is within the margin of error being a mere 246-thousand out of 91-Million. This means the white population is not assimilating, but has remained the same. The black population, meanwhile has trended downward from the beginning. If you take the years from 1960 and average them (despite the up-tick in the last three years), you will see that the average is 6.9% which continues the downward trend from all the years before that (6.9% being below 8.7%). Inside that average the variation is a mere 1.7 percent in 50 years. Looking at the general increase in population, you can see that the majority of it was in the brown column (17M) while the minority was in the black column (4M). So, looking at the whole thing, the brown column expanded at the expense of the black column while not affecting the white column.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress