Tedious Wankers 1: Michael Eric Dyson

American race hustlers abound. One can think of Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Jesse Jackson.  The new one on the block is Michael Eric Dyson. Obviously he is at least half white, and that makes him more tedious than less.  In a way the racism of Malcolm X came from a place of deep and possibly grievance. This guy is a nabob of the chattering classes, a professor of sociology at Georgetown. He appears on talk shows to denounce whiteness, white people,  and the baneful effects of both on his precious consciousness.

Let us refer to the words of Thomas Sowell, the American black intellectual, who has fought the ideas of the race hustlers all his life. Speaking in an interview in 2013 in the American Spectator, Sowell had this to say:

AmSpec: Let’s talk about the example of David Hume and the Scots and the path they followed.

Sowell: The role Hume played was one diametrically opposed by that played by most intellectuals as regards ethnic groups that are lagging behind. He wanted the Scots to master the English language. And that’s what they did. There were places all over Scotland that were giving lessons in English. The Scots learned that and it greatly expanded their cultural universe. I don’t know if there were any books in Gaelic in Scotland, and you were unlikely to learn chemistry or anything like that in Gaelic. The Scots came out of nowhere. They were very backward at one point. But from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century many of the leading British intellectuals came from Scottish ancestry, including John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith.

It was the same with the Czechs in the Hapsburg Empire. If you were a Czech and you wanted to become a doctor or a scientist, chances are you’d find the books you needed in German, but not in Czech. And so, again, you needed to borrow from another culture.

Hume understood that. Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore understood this. The kids there learn English in addition to their native language.

But nowadays you are told to cling to your own culture and glory in its past achievements, real or fictitious. In Czechoslovakia after World War I, when they were doing they were doing the opposite of what Hume had done, intellectuals were lauding the Czech peasant as the purist expression of Czech culture. And the Czech peasant may have been the purist expression of Czech culture, but there wasn’t a damn thing he could teach you that would enable you to become a doctor or a scientist.

None of this race hustling will stop until Americans of good intentions cease to listen to the Dysons, Sharptons, and their ilk. Yet they seem addicted to self flagellation. Why? Therein lies a question whose answer runs deep into the spiritual decadence of the contemporary leftism.

Cultural appropriation is both good and necessary for cultural growth. People like Dyson are too ashamed of their “blackness” – whatever that is –  to endure comparison to real standards of accomplishment, which he labels “white”. Dyson fails to understand that  we all once to learn those standards of accomplishment ourselves, and in so doing gave up living in our little villages and knowing only our cousins and our clansmen. Charlatans like Dyson keep trying to get American blacks to revel in their cultural and economic failure, and to shift the blame for that failure onto whites. If whites were not around, he would have to shift the blame  onto whatever racial or cultural group was dominant. That is the sum and substance of sociology, a collectivist system of blame apportionment and victim worship.

A rational society would fire every sociologist from university teaching positions and send them to work making coffee and sandwiches for people who do useful things.

Michael Eric Dyson is today’s Tedious Wanker.

 

Sowell, Race Hustlers, and David Hume

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latest twaddle

I was at a speech given by a senior federal bureaucrat last week, a man not normally given over to political correctness, or complete folly for that matter, and to my astonishment I heard  him begin his speech by announcing piously that he was acknowledging standing on some tribe or other’s treaty territory. This seems to be the latest fad in virtue signaling.

As I write I am sitting in a chair on land that goes back to the time it emerged from retreating ice 9,000 years ago.  It used to be the hunting grounds of indigenous Ottawas, who emigrated to the Ottawa River from around Manitoulin Island in the upper Lake Huron, and thence to the Ohio River valley in the 17th century, where they were rivals, as were most Algonkian speakers, of the Iroquois Confederacy. My land has at various times been claimed by the King of France until the Treaty of Paris assigned it to the King of England in 1763 at the end of the Seven Years’ War.

 

The Ottawa [Or Odawa, Canadian] originally lived along the Ottawa River in eastern Ontario and western Quebec at the time of European arrival in the early 1600s. Their historic homelands also included Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron, and what is now Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The Ottawa moved into northern Ohio around 1740. They spoke an Algonquian language; and are thus related to the Delaware (Lenape), the Miami, and the Shawnee. Historically, the Ottawa were enemies with the Iroquois nation, and with the Wyandot because of the former’s ties to the Iroquois.

The Ottawa’s political alliances were complicated and changed with the times. Some Ottawa were allies of the French until British traders moved into the Ohio Country in the early 1700s. Many Ottawa moved into northern Ohio so that they could participate in the fur trade with the British.

And so forth. Normal people: fighting, trading, and moving with the tides of history to greater safety or greater opportunity.

In short, why is the claim of the Ottawas memorialized by the federal bureaucrat in a speech downtown last week – in what ought to have embarrassed him –  over those of the King of France? Is anyone yet making a claim that I owe rent or acknowledgment to the remnants of the Ottawas or Hurons who still live around here? Or by contrast do I owe the same to the Bourbon pretender to the throne of France? Should I acknowledge  the claims of the Count of Paris to the former New France? Perhaps I can send my loyalty by bank transfers to the Stuart Pretenders to the throne of England? For some hundreds of years the Stuart claim has been held by the Ducal House of Wittelsbach of Bavaria, and according to a certain friend of mine they are the rightful sovereigns of Canada.

Is it any more absurd to start one’s speech acknowledging the traditional rights of the Bourbons or the Wittelsbachs to the ground I stand on than to a bunch of Canadian Indians?

And what about the claims of the Iroquois Confederacy to the lands of the Hurons, whom they exterminated in the 1650s? Do I owe recognizance to the heirs of Joseph Brant, Mason, Loyalist, and Mohawk, in preference to those of the Ottawas? Or is the Roman Catholic style of the House of Wittelsbach more to your liking? Your call. The next time you make a public speech, throw in some other claimants to the ground you walk on.

Joseph Brant

joseph_brant_painting_by_george_romney_1776_2

Franz, Herzog (Duke) von Bayern at his investiture as a Knight of the Holy Grail of Jerusalem

franz_von_bayern

 

 

 

 

Elites and Brexit

marie-antoinette

 

 

There is a strange notion going about, which has only been gathering strength for twenty years or more, that common people do not have a right to be concerned, let alone express concern, for the enormous hidden (to the upper classes) costs of living with aggressively intolerant minorities, of having one’s peace disturbed by the over-privileged spokespeople for those minorities, for the decayed social trust, the increased need to lock your house,  for the inability to enforce social norms – like taking out the garbage in a timely way or keeping the common halls clean – for fear of being accused and taken away to the police station for racist incitement. Not to mention the costs of de-Christianization in terms of tribal/national solidarity, and the increasing atomization of society under the impact of multi-culturalism, and its intolerant legal requirements imposed on the native population. What else? A general contempt for the native working classes and an apparent desire to see them replaced with cheaper foreign workers.

There has been, and continues to be, a stupefaction as to why people are becoming upset, and Marie-Antoinette’s “Qu’ils mangent du gâteau” seems to be a widespread reaction among  the beneficiaries of these changes.

The people have just told the elites to stuff it, and the elites are flabbergasted at their effrontery.

 

 

Racist Trees and other items of leftist dementia

Let’s face it: it is open season on whites, whiteness, and everything built by whites, which means in essence that the forces against civilization have the upper hand. To be clear, if you magically replaced every white person in North America with Japanese people, the Left would be railing against Japanese-ness. The hatred of order is the point, not the racial or cultural targets of it. Leftism is a revolt against standards first and foremost. Those who uphold standards of whatever nature are the Left’s targets.

Today’s lunacy is this article in Sultan Knish

Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance, made headlines when he claimed that black people don’t visit national parks because they associate them with slaves being lynched by their masters.

Yellowstone, the first national park, was created in 1872 in Wyoming. Slavery was over by then and no one had ever been lynching slaves around Old Faithful anyway. But false claims die very hard.

Now Alcee Hastings, an impeached judge, and a coalition of minority groups is demanding increased “inclusiveness” at national parks. High on their list is the claim that, “African-Americans have felt unwelcome and even fearful in federal parklands during our nation’s history because of the horrors of lynching.” What do national parks have to do with lynchings? Many national parks have trees. People were hung from trees. It’s guilt by arboreal association.

Sultan Knish concludes:

The Obama era has seen the “Sharptoning” of America as the same ugly shakedown scams that were being practiced in New York or Chicago were suddenly national policy. This is the Sharptoning of the National Park Service. It’s happening in every agency and arm of government. We just don’t notice it…

Forests and lakes are not about where we want to go collectively. They are where we once were. They represent spaces of imagination and reflection that have nothing in common with Finney’s compulsion. They don’t have to represent Finney’s demands for “demographic and ethnic diversity”. They allow us a freedom from the confining urban spaces of leftist identity politics that deny our humanity. They show us that life is pure and simple in ways that defy the convoluted nonsense of political correctness.

It’s not hard to see why the left, despite its hollow environmental posturing, hates them.

I am waiting for Trump to correct this nonsense, to offer a spirited defence of normal thought, and to remove – as US politics allows Presidents to do so – every leftwing nutjob appointed to advisory boards to the US government.

The election in the United States will be about race. We have seen the face of black racial privilege and we don’t like it. They will call the supporters of Trump racists, and there is a sense -however limited – in which the accusation is true. The supporters of Trump were people who did not use to feel that way, but they have judged the Obama regime by its fruits (Trayvon Martin, Ferguson Missouri- cop killings and celebrations of black mayhem, affirmative action for overprivileged blacks, starting at the President) and have decided to repudiate it.

Trump will beat Hillary like a baby seal.

 

Race and IQ: changing my mind

This is an official announcement: I have changed my mind about something. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that new evidence is opening my mind to other possibilities – as it should. For the longest time I was persuaded, on rational grounds, that the gap in the United States between whites and black IQ scores was a largely genetic issue (approximately 70-80 percent) . After all, better scientists than I argued this way in The Bell Curve. Richard Lynn also argued this way, on possibly weaker statistical grounds.

The success of a couple of generations of children of African immigrants in the United States has damaged the credibility of theories predicated on inherited IQ.

I cite Chanda Chisala in the Unz Review:

 

The fact that black immigrants to the United States have shown achievements that are superior to native black Americans has been a phenomenon studied since at least the 1970′s. At first it was just the Caribbean blacks who were a subject of this unexpected outcome. As black Africans kept immigrating into the US, they showed even higher levels of achievement than the native blacks. Many scholars theorized on the reasons for these differences, from Thomas Sowell’s proposal that this disproved the validity of discrimination against native blacks as an explanation for their underachievement (Sowell, 1978), to other scholars who suggested that these immigrants were just the most highly driven members of their home countries as evidenced by their willingness to migrate to a foreign country (Butcher, 1990).

What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions. What has been missed in the IQ debate is the full logical implication of these achievements: they have effectively nullified any arguments for a racial evolutionary explanation of the well-known IQ test score gap between blacks and whites. Even more fatal for the racial hereditarian side of the debate has been the corroborating data of school children performance in the UK, particularly when the black Africans are divided into their respective nationalities and tribal ethnicities, as reported in the latter section of this article.

The article is long but worth reading for those who concern themselves with such issues.

 

Thomas Sowell, a thinker and researcher at the Hoover Institute at Harvard, has argued that American blacks adopted the culture of the Scotch-Irish crackers who surrounded them. The book is called Black Rednecks and White Liberals, published in 2005. Thus a good deal of what is blamed on black ghetto culture is ascribed to ne’er do well hillbillies from whom the African slaves picked up ideas of work, child rearing, and social display. Sowell’s argument says that African Americans should not be indulged by white liberals in what he thinks is a loser culture; whether that culture arose from contact with rednecks or whether it arose from other causes is not ultimately of vital interest to Sowell. He is concerned of the use made by white liberals of American blacks.

“A crucial fact about white liberals must be kept in mind: they are not simply in favor of blacks in general. Their solicitude is poured out  for blacks as victims, blacks as welfare mothers, criminals, political activists against the larger society, as well as those blacks who serve as general counter-cultural symbols against the larger society.” (p.57)

Sowell’s concern has been the development of a black identity fetish since the 1960s, where being authentically “black” has been associated with low achievement, where earning and culture have been depicted as “acting white”. Harry Belafonte, a Caribbean immigrant to the United States, turned  on Colin Powell, another successful Caribbean black immigrant, who had been Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff of the US military, by calling him a “house nigger”.

Sowell maintains a strongly “culturalist” explanation of apparent racial differences. The interesting thing about Chanda Chisala’s article and the evidence it cites is that we have a much stronger basis for considering cultural explanations to be better grounded now than the genetic one, for supposedly racial IQ differences. This is a cause for hope, perhaps, that some things can be changed for the better.

Anti-white racism

Watch this. A debater from some second tier university argues at Harvard that whites should kill themselves because of “white privilege”. There has been and continues a completely frank anti-white racism in Obama’s America, which is only growing. People are getting fed up with it. And no one seems to be linking the rise of Trump with the reaction of the white people in America to this devaluation wrought by the political left. Whom you would destroy you first denigrate. To me the link seems obvious.

The violence at Trump rallies

For years, in the Obama regime, naturally, blacks have been attacking whites and Asians in sudden but premeditated assaults, which came to be called “the knockout game”. You can read all about it here. Have you just heard about it? In that case you may have been dwelling on the planet of liberal media.

But one Trump supporter attacks a black agitator being removed from a Trump rally, and we have a national crisis of violence? No, what we have is a member of the white race punching a member of the liberal mascot victim group, American blacks. That is the crisis. Liberal victim groups are sacred! It is the only sacredness admitted by the Left to exist. And when whites, the most despised social group in Obama’s America, finally summon the courage to react to anti-white racism and discrimination, to the flooding of their country with uncontrolled immigration, to the decline of their living standards, and most important of all, to the endless attacks on their moral integrity for the crime of simply being white, well, folks, that is a a crisis of the most serious kind in the hegemony of leftist thought.

Here is a link to Ezra Klein’s heavy breathing on Trump’s “ideology of violence”. Klein writes:

 

The topic was protesters, and Trump’s frustration was clear. “They’re being politically correct the way they take them out,” he sighed. “Protesters, they realize there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences. There are none anymore.”

“Our country has to toughen up folks,” he continued. “We have to toughen up. These people are bringing us down. They are bringing us down. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea.”

This is more than an aside; this is the core of Trump’s ideology. The protesters who interrupted his rally, the political correctness that kept the police from cracking their skulls, the press that takes the hippies’ side — this is why America has stopped being great. We were strong, and we were tough, and we didn’t take this kind of shit from anybody. And now we are weak, and we are scared, and we take this kind of shit from everybody.

I know intimately the tactics of the Left. They demonize, since rational opposition to their views is impossible. They never argue; they only seek one’s social exclusion. They incite the violence and then blame the victim of their violence for causing it. Trump had to shut down a rally in Chicago because of the threat of violence from a Left-wing organization, funded by Soros, yet that lickspittle National Post is blaming Trump.

03-15-16cle

 

This will continue and intensify until Trump wins the election. Make no mistake what this election is about: it is the reaction of the white race (and all other sensible people, but whites especially)  to its systematic denigration and exclusion from its place in the moral universe. The Left wants a racial fight? It has got one, and it is going to get more vicious, because it MUST be won, for the future of the American people. America will not long survive if its founding political culture is  destroyed by the destruction of the white race. Since the Left insists there is something particularly evil in being white, I am allowed, and Americans are allowed, to insist there is some particular virtue in the political order it upholds. Race-ism is a grievous moral distortion, but as a short-hand way of saying it, the political culture that made America great will not long survive the moral extinction planned for whites by the political Left. The attack on political correctness by Trump is an attack on everything that is wrong with America under Obama: of which the ideology of Saul Alinksy, Michael Moore, and Black Lives Matter are but exemplars.

You wanted this fight, you commie nihilists. You got one. Let liberals deplore all they want. This is a fight that must be allowed to play out.

All Trump, all the time,,,part (8)

A friend and I have a bet on Trump being the next Republican candidate and the next President of the United States.Over beers yesterday he expressed his belief that Trump was a racist for his views on Muslim immigration and building a wall to keep Mexicans out, and claims that Mexican criminals were raping white women.

Here is my reply.

We all live in a common space. We share the nation we live in with many peoples of foreign extraction. They are busy assimilating and making their lives better by being here, or not. It is the ones who are not assimilating that we have to worry about.

The energy behind Trump is the conviction on the part of many Americans that they have been deserted by their political class, both Republican and Democrat. Cases in point:

And I need hardly go on about the Obama regime suing banks for declining to lend money to blacks and Mexicans at the same interest rates as they do whites, the persecution of the Ferguson police department and others that use force to suppress black crime, the generally anti-white, pro-black tenor of public discourse and academia.

These, and the Islamic terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, are driving white people to say “enough!”. They are tired of a  President who always strikes the note that Muslims are persecuted in America, that black thugs could be his son, and his multiple attempts to make America as much like the third world as he can in the time available to him.

And when a white politician arises to say this is all stuff and nonsense, if only by implication, he is automatically labelled a racist and a bigot.

When, on top this, the claim or racism and bigotry comes from a man who double locks his doors and has a loaded gun in his house, as a general protection from welfare recipients, many of whom are black, who live across his fence in a sketchy neighbourhood, I think a claim of hypocrisy is well founded, even if he is ready to live among them in an armed redoubt.

For myself, I want to live where I do not have to fear my neighbours or the people across the nearby boulevard.

Americans want to live in a nation and not a set of multi-racial Belfasts separated by freeways. They want to live as much as possible without having to pack a gun, and carry one in the car. They will if they have to but most would rather not. Unlike the chattering classes, who live at great remove from the people who rape and kill for sport, or who rob stores for the money for a quick fix, the ordinary people of America have noticed a deteriorating situation and will do something about it.

They are Americans. They have already fought one war of independence, and a civil war whose death toll still exceeds the death toll of all other wars they have ever fought.

They will face what is wrong and fix it. Right now, Trump looks like the only candidate even talking their language, except for Sanders.

 

Life is unfair, chapter 3832

Intelligent people are genetically predisposed to be healthier, sez the Telegraph.

For the first time, scientists have shown that intelligence is linked to good health, so those blessed with brains are also less likely to become sick, develop disease or die early.

The reason is down to genes. An international team, led by the University of Edinburgh, have discovered that the same gene variants which make people smart, also protect them against illness.

Those who performed the best on memory, verbal reasoning and reaction time tests, were less likely to have genes linked to high blood pressure, develop diseases like Alzheimer’s, diabetes or have poor overall health. They were also likely to be taller and have larger brains, the study found.

The only conditions that intelligence appeared to increase were schizophrenia, autism and bipolar disorder.

Which is reasonable considering that those three conditions are misworkings of the mind itself.

When are we going to abandon the notion that we are are equal in anything but a moral sense? Genetics – the instructions that make our bodies and minds – largely determines intelligence, health, personality and character.

Culture is what turns us from savages into citizens, and I am in favour of higher, broader and deeper culture, but it cannot be attained without good genetics.

Otherwise we are in Straight outta Compton. Or 21st century Kandahar. Or 14th century London, in a violent, brutish, impoverished life.

So here’s a toast to culture, self restraint and public order! And three cheers for good genes!

_______________________________________

Another must read for Barrelstrengthians: Norbert Elias’ The Civilizing Process which is worth reading at almost any price. Elias’ book is the basis of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature, which debt Pinker freely acknowledges.

Quotas for Oscars

There will be quotas of Oscar awards for black film makers and actors soon enough. The spread of identity politics is inevitable until some social convulsion repudiates them. So it is not surprizing that the Oscars are blamed – in this tail end of Obama-dom – for not having enough black (specifically Afro-American) nominees.

As Sir Ian McKellen noted, with irony, gay men do not get Oscars for portraying straight men, and Mark Reina, a self-proclaimed gay Latino member of Oscar-granting Academy got on his high horse about accusations of racism in the choice of Oscar contenders.
I suppose Reina has double the victim credibility as McKellen for being Latino and gay.

This will not end well, people. Once the media fasten on like lampreys to an equality of result issue – as this one is – there will be no way to settle it except by affirmative action for minorities. All minorities, that is, except white people. Be sure of that.

Best film for catering to  Afro-American self- victimization this year goes to – breathless pause – Straight outta Compton!!

Straight outta Compton, the invaluable Wikipedia informs us, concerns the rise of the rap music group NWA, or Niggers with Attitide, whose lyrics were accused of  glamorizing black on black violence.

Many critics feel that the album’s lyrics glamorize gang violence. The Washington Post writer David Mills wrote: “The hard-core street rappers defend their violent lyrics as a reflection of ‘reality.’ But for all the gunshots they mix into their music, rappers rarely try to dramatize that reality — a young man flat on the ground, a knot of lead in his chest, pleading as death slowly takes him in. It’s easier for them to imagine themselves pulling the trigger”. However, Wichita Eagle-Beacon editor Bud Norman noted that “They [N.W.A] don’t make it sound like much fun… They describe it with the same nonjudgmental resignation that a Kansan might use about a tornado.”[10]

To speak of young black men killing each other for sport or imagined offences against their dignity, as if these actions  were morally equivalent to damage from tornadoes, captures something gravely horrible about black American gang life: morons with pistols and no emotional control, coupled to savage instincts, killing each other for very little purpose.

Yessirree, Oscar committee, reform thyself, and put Straight Outta Compton on your Oscar list, ahead of ten other films of merit which did not make the list. This effort is one of the last gasps as the baneful Obama regime lives its last days.