The "Screw the South" Amendment

I knew that this amendment was the "equal protection under the law" amendment, but I never realized that this part of the overall "screw the South" Reconstruction thing, which I frankly think was a good idea. It's interesting that it led the way not only to Brown vs the Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, pro-privacy decisions, and all sorts of cool and progressive things.

Section 2 never got enforced too much, so we needed a Voting Rights Act. Section 1 has come back into the news, since it is this section that has permitted the mass insanity of tens of millions of "anchor babies" of illegal Mesoamerican immigrants.

Sections 3 and 4 are not relevant anymore, but they were clearly intended to screw the South bigtime. I never realized that Robert E. Lee had his citizenship revoked. This section is obviously the source of the conservative "giving aid and comfort to our enemies" bullshit during the Vietnam War.

Section 4 is of historical interest because the South claimed that the human property that they owned was capital and they said they needed to be compensated for it. Freeing their human property with paying the slavemasters off was a "taking". Yes, Americans actually had great big arguments about bullshit like this. Hard to believe, huh?

Neo-confederates, Republicans and other nefarious characters have advanced arguments against the 14th Amendment. One was that the Southern states only ratified as they were occupied by Northern troops with Northern-installed Reconstruction regimes in office, hence the votes were fraudulent.

Samuel Alito, a frighteningly reactionary man who was treacherously allowed onto our Supreme Court by wimpy Democrats, hates the 14th Amendment and has called for its repeal. The 14th Amendment is the boogieman of the Southern-dominated Federalist Movement that came out of the Reagan years.

On the more literate White nationalist sites, the Amendment comes in for regular excoriation. It's always been a voodoo doll for the neo-Confederates.

It's nice to understand why.

What Would a Sane Pro-White Movement Look Like?

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

A pro-White movement (whatever that means) could go somewhere in the US. Recall my quote in an earlier post from a Time Magazine poll that found that 77% of US Whites were ethnocentric and felt that White culture was valuable and deserved to be preserved.

Now I don't know exactly where these folks stand, or what policies they would support, but I assure you that even out here in California, among liberal and even Leftist and Communist Whites, there is support for the 77% fraction of that poll.

A reasonable pro-White movement would be expected to speak for those 77% of US Whites who are "ethnocentric, and think White culture is valuable and is worth preserving", without offending them or turning them off with a bunch of racist crap.

The problem is that there is no such movement. When any group or webpage says "pro-White", prepare your gag reflex and get ready to take off running. Even if they aren't praising Adolf Hitler, they are surely praising Bull Connor. The pro-White movement in the US is not moderate - it's only extreme. Even the most moderate elements are far too extreme for even the ethnocentric Whites that I know.

Let's look at what the pro-White movement in the US supports, who they like and who they dislike:

The WN movement supports segregation, hates MLK, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, loves apartheid, cheers the genocide of the American Indians and pours scorn on the Indians defending their land, loves White colonialism and praises it to the skies, supports White separatism, cheers on the South in the Civil War and Jim Crow, minimizes lynching, hates civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws, hates Blacks and almost everyone who isn't White except for maybe some Asians, and hates interracial dating, sex and marriage as "race mixing" or "miscegenation".

Further, many even moderate WN's support throwing out all non-Whites from the US, and especially sending Blacks back to Africa. And it's standard White nationalism across the board that the only real Americans are White people.

Jesus man.

Do you have any idea how that resonates with the ethnocentric Whites I know? Like a lead balloon.

Let me tell you where they stand, who they like and who they hate:

They hate segregation, love MLK, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, they're voting for Obama, hate apartheid, hate the conquest of the American Indians and support the Indians' defense of their land, hate White colonialism (in general - anyway, they don't praise it to the skies), think White separatism is idiotic and laughable, hate the South in the Civil War and side with the North even if they had relatives on both sides, hate Jim Crow, think lynching was "terrorism against Blacks", support civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, are indifferent to interracial dating and marriage, though they were initially dubious about it (because so many young Whites are doing it, including their relatives), don't hate other races or groups - even Blacks, find even primitive groups in the Third World fascinating and are sympathetic to them, and will give you a hate look and walk out of the room if you even say the words "race-mixing" or miscegenation.

If you start talking about throwing non-Whites out of the US or sending Blacks back to Africa, they will probably swear at you, may try to hit you, and might either throw you out of the house or just walk out of the room. If you tell them that only Whites are real Americans, they might try to hit you in the head with a frying pan.

And yet, they are ethnocentric, feel White culture is valuable, and feel it should be preserved. Who will speak for them? Apparently no one. Way to go, guys.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Why White Nationalists Hate Communists

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

I'm going to use the word White Nationalist for White racist, but it's true - 98% of White nationalists are racists. On the other hand, many WN's are not neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis are one end of the spectrum and the American Renaissance types are at the other hand. Whatever you say about the Amren guys, they're not Nazis.

I gave WN's the benefit of the doubt and studied them with an open mind for a long time, assuming the null hypothesis that they are not racists, but it's true. Most WN's don't like anyone who isn't White. A lot only like Europeans. There are some who like NE Asians, and some others who like SE Asians too.

I don't think any of them like Arabs or North Africans, Afghans, Pakistanis, or Indians. Some like Iranians, but usually only a few. All WN's really hate Black people. If there is one thing that holds WN's together, it's their hatred of Black people.

I finally realized, too, that a lot of WN's are just not really very nice people, so in that sense, the whole "hater" thing is sort of true.

But I always objected to calling them "haters", because I don't think there is anything wrong with hating per se. I'm a Leftist; we hate all kinds of stuff! But a lot of these White racists really are just mean, nasty people deep down inside.

I think that whole "hater" term was thought up by the anti-racists, and I would bet most of them were Jews, just to make these guys look way more evil than they are.

Truth is that whole huge swaths of societies all down through time have been very racist and therefore "haters". One could argue that American society up until the 1960's was a racist, and therefore a "hater" society. Does that make any sense? If you see pictures or movies of Americans from the pre-1960's era, do they look like horrible, mean, ugly, nasty, cruel, "hater" people? Well, of course not.

Probably all societies up until our modern era have been "hater" societies, since some degree of racism was probably the norm in historical human societies. Tribal societies were typically racist "haters" too, since most were locked in tribal war with, or at least despised, their neighbors. The typical Amerindian word for the tribe next door means something like, "Those no-good scumbag wife-stealing bastards over the hill".

So we ought to quit calling these people "haters", quit calling their groups "hate groups" and quit waging insane, Hollywood and ADL (Jewish) paid-for "wars on hate". The Jews should talk anyway. Israel isn't exactly a hate-free zone. It's more like the land of the KKK version of the Jews. It's a Jewish mirror of the KKK, except instead of being White supremacists, they are Jewish supremacists.

Let's just call these groups what they are - racists. Racists can seem like very nice people, and their societies can be warm, friendly and caring, towards the people they like that is. But they're still racists.

One thing I noticed after a while is that almost all these White nationalists really, really, really hate Communists.

It took me a while to figure this out. I think this is because in the US the civil rights movement was always said to be led by Communists. If you were for civil rights, you were a Commie. Period.

Also, Communists really are fairly egalitarian, and White nationalists, and racists of any kind, hate any form of equality. They are very much into inequality and hierarchy. Fascists also are very much against egalitarianism, are into hierarchy and actually worship inequality, though they do their best to lie and say they don't.

After Communists, White nationalists hate socialists and liberals. So, really, White racists just hate the whole Left. I can't see why any self-respecting leftwinger would want to defend these clowns too much. They're basically our enemies, you know?

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Some Choice: Nazi or PC Nutjob

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated August 23:

Boy, the Left has really gotten us into a pickle here, haven't they?

If you are on the Left, support any degree of socialism, or are even a liberal, you are obligated to go along with the whole PC nutjob package: support for the craziest notions of man-hating Western feminism, for White-hating and non-White-worshipping lunatic anti-racism, for the insanity of mass immigration, not to mention illegal immigration of all things, for the idiotic and suicidal notion of Open Borders.

I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.

And fanatical Western feminism is increasingly trivial to the lives of hundreds of millions of non-Western women who labor under the horrors of misogyny and male supremacy vastly worse than what American women endure.

What I have noticed is that Western feminism seems irrelevant to the realities of how heterosexual males and females negotiate sex and relationships in modern times. It is as if Western feminism is broadcasting from some bizarro alternative universe that has nothing to do with the one most of us negotiate on a daily basis.

What I am trying to say is that the Western PC Left, as its constituted, is irrelevant.

It's hostile to men and Whites, and double so to White men. Any White man who buys into the bullshit of the Western Left must be out of his fucking mind.

It says right on the sidebar that I'm heterodox. You got it. For one thing, I'm a race realist. There are differences between the races and even within the races in terms of minor races and even ethnic groups. These differences are observable on a wide variety of metrics. It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.

To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I'm almost done reading it. It's pretty entertaining, but I'm warning you, this is toxic stuff.

While most of us don't even want to think about stuff like this, he does marshal an awful lot of data showing that there are significant differences between the races. Philippe Rushton has done something similar lately and has been raked over the coals for it.

I will say right now that Rushton, Fuerle and the rest may be correct in some of what they say: there are more differences in the races than the obvious ones such as skin color. A quick rejoinder to this argument is typically shot from the Left: that in saying so, we are classifying ethnic groups and races in the same way we classify species and subspecies of animals - as having invariable behavior.

Like most Left rejoinders, this is garbage, but many racists sadly do think this way. I'm not much of an artist, but if I was, I would draw a scatterplot for you. That is what differences, particularly behavioral, psychological, intelligence and other such, but also including athletic ability, would look like between the races if you plotted them out on a graph.

On athletic ability, you would find Blacks more likely to plot superior on certain variables. Some Whites and even Asians would be over with the Blacks. Some Blacks would have very poor athletic ability. Racial and ethnic tendencies are only averages, and there will always be all sorts of individuals who will fall outside the stereotypes for their races.

Unless you understand what a scatterplot looks like, or unless you understand averages and statistics, you can't discuss racial differences at all.

Why discuss racial differences at all?

Because, for one, the Right keeps throwing them in our faces.

And because the Left's reaction to any racial or ethnic differences in outcome is wrong. The Left says that all races and ethnic groups are equal, and therefore, any differential outcomes must be the result of racism.

This leads the Left into insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.

All you can do is reduce or increase things like that. I am certain that when I die, racism, sexism and homophobia will be alive and well, and the Left will be insanely waging war "to rid them from the Earth".

Scientifically speaking, it is certainly not true that if one race or ethnic group scores worse than another or does worse on any sort of variable, it must be due to racism. Surely there are all sorts of reasons why this might happen. The folly of the Left is its refusal to consider that there may be things other than racism causing this.

Problem is that almost anyone online taking a race realist position is simply a racist. And almost all such folks are Whites who are arguing at least for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation and and at most for outright White separatism, apartheid, race war, or ethnic cleansing.

Wow. Breathtaking. You mean that if one acknowledges differences between the races on a variety of controversial variables, one must be a racist, a separatist, a fascist or a Nazi? Yes. This is what it means. Any socialist who steps outside of PC idiocy on race will find himself embraced by some other funny socialists. Almost all such persons will be sympathetic towards White racism, White separatism, fascism and Nazism.

Whew. Well, allow me to step out of the box here for a second. This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist assholes, much less racial separatists.

There are specific, subspecific and racial differences all across the natural world of biology, and none of it necessarily leads to hating this or that brand of organism or critter. For instance, here in California, we have various threatened and endangered species that I know a lot about. We have Tipton Kangaroo Rats and California Red-legged Frogs and Alameda Whipsnakes.

I assure that all of these damned critters act different. I will assure you that a California Red-legged Frog acts a Hell of a lot different than a Foothill Yellow-legged frog, and an Alameda Whipsnake acts a Hell of a lot different than a Pacific Gopher Snake, and a Tipton Kangaroo Rat acts a lot different than a Dusky-Footed Woodrat. I, lover of nature, love all of these critters.

Why be a speciesist, a critter racist, lining up with the Tipton Kangaroo Rats and swearing to drive the California Red-legged Frogs to extinction? I, lover of humans, love all humans. Why should I be a human-critter racist, lining up with the White human critters against this or that non-White human critters? They act different. So? So do all the other critters.

The reason for the Left's opposition to race realism is quite simple. All we have to do is look at the agenda of those big names promoting hardcore race realism. They're all White, and almost all, or all of them are on the Right or the Far Right, and I haven't found one yet who was not a hardcore racist.

Furthermore, every prominent race realist out there supports getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. The reason being that if there are average differences between races, people ought to be able to discriminate racially or ethnically against individuals on the basis of those averages.

But average differences mean nothing when it comes to individuals. Individuals are individuals and groups are groups. You can't tally up group stuff and use it to thumbs up or thumbs down on individuals in the group. Forget it. Group differences be damned, one still must treat individuals as individuals.

With such a bunch of ugly creeps running the show, is it any wonder that decent people run away from race realism in droves?

It's really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There's got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.