Another Raceless Criminal

In Rock Hill, a city near Charlotte, a woman wore a bikini that featured the design a Confederate flag to an apartment swimming pool with some friends.  The Charlotte Observer says that a group of "people" came up, surrounded them, and called them racists.  When one of the woman's friends stood up, a "suspect" pointed a gun at him before fleeing.

The Charlotte Observer doesn't give the race (or any other description) of the suspect, but his race was probably the same as most of the people who went wilding over Memorial Day weekend (including in Charlotte, where one man was killed and 70 people arrested after a gang melee).

The readers of the Observer's website aren't as clueless as the commissars of political correctness.  The article has a postscript:

Editor's note: Comments have been disabled because of repeated violations of site policies. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, racist remarks, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

In other words, someone mentioned that the gunman was black, which prompted a discussion of blacks and crime in the comments, leading the horrified liberal editors to shut down the comments to prevent the spread of politically incorrect ideas.

(h/t Rebellion)

The Thousand Year Reich Comes to an End

Paleocons and white nationalists are taking note of a demographic prediction that places 2066 as the year in which whites in Britain will be a minority.  It couldn't happen to a more deserving nation.

The media portrays the English as a refined people, but they are nothing more than well-dressed barbarians who spent the last thousand years conquering as much as the world as they could - from their medieval Celtic neighbors to modern Iraq.  Imperialism, which greatly contributed to nonwhite grievances and liberal self-hatred of Western civilization while doing nothing to civilize the Third World, was enthusiastically embraced by England.

In addition to imperialism, the English enthusiastically embraced every form of feminism, multiculturalism, and racial egalitarianism.  Political correctness has replaced the Church of England as the state religion.  The English have progressed from arresting heretics to those who utter hate speech.

 England isn't worth saving.  Paleocons, race realists, white nationalists, and HBDers should focus on the nation that is.

Is There Anything Liberals Won't Start Boycotts Over?

It seems like every time I visit a liberal website, someone's calling for a boycott of some business, state, or organization due to a slight against some facet of liberalism.  Over at Feministing, they wrote last week about a boycott of Old Navy by "breastfeeding activists" (aka "lactavists") who are angry because they sell baby clothing with "Formula Powered" printed on it.

No, I'm not joking.

Ever since the boycotts and sanctions helped to end apartheid in South Africa, liberals have gotten the idea that boycotting is an effective tactic against anything that offends them, no matter how trivial.  And it will continue to be an effective tactic until people are willing to stand up to the political correctness at the core of liberalism.

Fun With Feministing: Lookism Edition

Yesterday, over at Feministing, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, their token nonwhite, is upset because American Apparel requires you to e-mail them a picture of yourself if you want to work there.

Just When You Thought American Apparel Couldn't Fail Any Harder... They manage to.To work at American Apparel you must email a full body shot to some mysterious email address after which you are approved or rejected. Failure.

Via Gawker.

Clearly, that standard leaves a lot of wiggle room. Now, a source tells us that American Apparel has a new hiring policy. For the past several months, they say, job applicants at AA have had their photos taken--photos which are then sent to the email address work@americanapparel.net, where they are "approved" by a nameless person for hiring. The applicant's resumé is a distant second when it comes to hiring decisions, our source says.

Our source also tells us that a new policy now says that in order for current AA employees to be approved for a promotion or raise, they must also have their photos approved. As they put it, "Your looks determine your position and pay rate, not how effective you are at your job."

Douchey D Charney even had the audacity to say last time he was questioned on judging employees by looks that his employees must, "have good fashion sense...But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive." What do you have to say for yourself this time? And I have been to American Apparel. If what their employees are wearing is a "good sense of style," then I color me anti-fashion.

Not satisfied with fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, agism, cisgenderism, and ablism, leftists are now fighting against lookism - the practice on judging people based on their physical appearance. I've always wondered, if it's wrong for men to judge women based on their looks, is it wrong for women to judge men based on their alphaness?

However, it's perfectly understandable why Samhita is fighting lookism:

For comparison, here's what she looked like four or five years ago:

Talk about letting yourself go. I guess she decided to fight the lookist patriarchy by making herself ugly, Andrea Dworkin style.

Wherein I Lay Bare My Prejudices

Whenever a liberal discovers this blog, they inevitably leave a comment calling me a racist, sexist, etc. and whenever I comment about HBD on non-HBD blogs, the same happens. I have found that being called a racist, sexist, etc. does not bother me, because I basically am a racist, sexist, etc.

I decided that, unlike most people who hold such views, I would openly admit to being a racist, sexist, etc. and would openly write about the prejudicial views I have towards certain ethnic, racial, sexual, and social groups.

Blacks: I've written my thoughts about blacks many times before. I freely admit that I hold racist views with regards to them and rarely associate with them. The fact is, blacks commit crime at very disproportionate rates, possess an average IQ of 85, speak proper English worse than most Mexican immigrants, have turned spawning bastards into a form of art, have a culture that would make Idiocracy look like ancient Athens, and are basically a drain on America. And thanks to the liberal elites, black culture and its vices have been enthusiastically accepted by self-hating, young white lemmings.

Women: I admit I hold some sexist and maybe even misogynistic views. I detest feminism and the prominent role it has played in the destruction of America. I dislike young American women - and foreign women who have assimilated into American culture - since they are sluts. Does anyone even bother to disagree about that point anymore? Even young "conservative" women are slutty.

Mexicans: I have a more positive view of Mexicans than I do blacks. I've worked with and managed both and if I had the choice of eight blacks or four Mexicans, I would go with the Mexicans. They are indeed hard-working, but I don't want to live in an area that is mostly Mexican. Also, I like Mexican immigrants better than I do American-born Hispanics, since large portions of the younger population of the latter tend to basically be brown niggers.

White trash: I dislike them, but so does the liberal elite, whereas it celebrates equivalently trashy black culture.

Guidos: A blight on humanity.

Mudsharks: They disgust me.

East Asians: With the exception of chiggers, they are a benefit to America.

Indians (Asian): American-born ones have all the vices and virtues of white Americans. Ones actually from India tend to smell badly. If you don't believe me, go into a computer lab in an engineering building on a college campus.

Indians (American): Native Americans were savages until little more than a hundred years ago. Of course, so were my Celto-Germanic ancestors.

LGBT: Gays and bisexuals I do not have a problem with. Transsexuals are freaks and disgust me. Some lesbians are okay, but a lot of them are man-hating feminists.

Low-class people: Whenever I have the misfortune of entering a Wal-Mart, as a thought experiment I often ponder the benefits and drawbacks of various methods of rendering most of the individuals I encounter incapable of spreading their noxious genes. I am highly classist. I loathe the poor-worshipping that liberals and many conservatives possess. The fact is, despite the myth of poor people who spend all their time working just to make ends meet, most poor people are lazy, stupid, and spend their time smoking marijuana, smoking cigarettes, drinking, and engaging in dysgenics. Pretty much every self-described poor person I have ever met spends copious amounts of money on marijuana and alcohol.

Fat people: I abhor the concept of "fat acceptance." Fat women repulse me and fat men usually possess a stench.

In Defense of Stephanie Grace (Or Business As Usual in the Modern University) - UPDATED

Pictured: Stephanie Grace

UPDATE: Yelena Shagall has been revealed as the leak source. She appears to be a conservative or Beltway libertarian. For much more information on her, please see the end of the post.

When I first read about the Stephanie Grace controversy a few days ago, I didn't bother to write about it because there didn't seem to be any point. White people get attacked for being "racist" all the time. The only difference was that this person was a young female student rather than an older white man with a PhD. I figured that someone in the HBDer/paleocon/alt right blogosphere more eloquent than myself would write everything there is to say about it. Surprisingly, no one has, so combined with the fact that the liberal attack on Grace has taken on an enormous intensity, I figured I would give the story a shot.

Upon Googling "stephanie grace harvard," I was greeted with headlines screaming about how this young college student had sent a racist e-mail. This sounds serious. Did she advocate lynching? Did she recruit people to join the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement? Did she refer to blacks as "cockroaches" and advocate killing them all? Did she advocate the forced repatriation of blacks back to Africa?

Well, no. It turns out she broke the Commandment of Liberalism: Thou shalt not dishonor a Negro. Six months ago this Harvard law student had engaged in a conversation about race at a private dinner party. Following the party she sent an e-mail to participants clarifying her views in which she stated "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent."

Eventually, she got into a fight with a person she had sent it to, a certain Yelena Shagall, who then leaked it to the Black Affirmative Action Recipients Association Law Students Association. From there it got spread accross the Internet, apparently first to Above the Law.

Let me reiterate. A student attending a PRIVATE dinner is being crucified over a single PRIVATE e-mail she sent SIX MONTHS AGO in which she described the POSSIBILITY of racial differences in intelligence. Yet, liberal blogs responded to the e-mail with a fury matched only by that of a crowd of blacks who have just learned that KFC has just run out of chicken in the middle of the lunch rush.

The first blog I read about this story on was Feministe, where Jill Filipovic (a female attorney who writes about how evil the rich are on her blog, while at the same time posts literally thousands of pictures on her Flickr account of her travels all over the world, meaning she is either very upper-middle class or rich herself) noted that the racism was "self-evident" and proceeded to write about how law schools are basically racist themselves and they should focus more on "social justice" and "racism." Apparently, in her view universities don't waste enough hours and gigadollars to propogandize multiculturalism. It's obvious Jill has never taken a sociology, history, or English class at a modern American university.

She updated her post and laughably attempted to tackle the subject of race and intelligence. This gem is an example of her thoughts on the topic: "Intelligence, too, is impossible to separate from environment and socialization, again making it impossible for anyone to say with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no biological or genetic difference at all ever between racial and ethnic groups." Well, the fact is, even when blacks grow up away from the ghetto, they still have low IQs relative to whites of their social class. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and plenty of other studies have demonstrated this.

The next paragraph down, she claims "I take people who argue that maybe there are race-based genetic differences that determine intelligence about as seriously as I take people who argue that maybe God did create the earth in 7 days with all humans and animals in the exact same form as we find them today." HBDers will of course see the irony in that statement. Liberals claim to support evolution, but they really do not. They believe that it ended the moment the first human crossed the Sinai. They are the ones who are like creationists, not the people who believe evolution continues to this day.

Various other liberal websites picked up on the story. Gawker reported in its typical method of gossipy, contentless-writing. The harpies of Jezebel published their own smear piece. Note that neither of them bothered to refute her statement regarding the possibility of black intellectual inferiority. Maybe they did some research in order to disprove her views and they discovered that research on race and intelligence has proven her to be correct, so instead, they just smeared her as a racist. The reaction from these two websites is understandable. Jezebel and Gawker have always struck me as the type of websites frequented by people residing on the left half of the bell curve who only care about gossip and headlines rather than substance.

Eventually, the Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow, learned of it and naturally condemned it and gave the typical liberal discourse on diversity and equality, once again without actually bothering to refute anything Grace wrote. It seems to me that the dean of a major university should have better ways to spend her time than by making statements regarding private e-mails of students, but enforcing liberalism is far more important than education in modern American universities.

A couple mainstream conservative blogs covered this story, too. Ann Althouse, a law professor and antagonist of Feministe and Feministing, didn't even bother to defend her views. Instead she attacked Minow for her hypocrisy regarding the diversity of ideas, being too cowardly to actually discuss the possibility that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

Unfortunately, like James Watson and most other people who bring up the idea of HBD in public, she ended up revealing herself to be a coward by grovelling before political correctness. According to the Boston Globe, she sent the Black Law Students Association an apology containing the following: “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my e-mail. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.’’ Then Grace distanced herself from her previous comments by writing "I emphatically do not believe that African-Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive."

Despite her pathetic, sniveling apology, liberals want her to loose her clerkship with a United States Circuit Court Judge. Liberals always demand apologies from the politically incorrect, but they never end there. As the sagas of Trent Lott, Don Imus, Larry Summers, and James Watson attest, whenever liberals receive an apology from someone who offends Negroes, they then seek to destroy that person. In her original e-mail's conclusion, she asked its recipients to not "pull a Larry Summers on [her]," so it is obvious she knows how the liberal smear machine works. Instead of giving them what they wanted, she should have stood her ground and defended her views. She wouldn't have been any worse off. Maybe she even would have provoked one of those "dialogues about race" liberals are always clamoring for.

Since she won't defend her own views, I will. The fact is, Stephanie Grace was right.

It is "self-evident," as Jill of Feministe would say, that blacks are intellectually inferior to virtually every other race (save Australoids). Virtually every measurement of intelligence, from the various IQ tests, to SATs, to simple high school graduation rates has demonstrated that there is an intellectual gap between whites (and Asians) and blacks. Since the 1960s, billions of dollars have been spent to close this "achievement gap," with very little change in black performance compared to that of whites. The chasm is still gaping.

Even disregarding all of the statistics from decades of testing, historical and contemporary events demonstrate that is undeniable that any country or region inhabited primarily by blacks is a cesspool of violence, crime, poverty, corruption, and virtually every other ailment of humanity. Even when blacks inherit a prosperous land, they ruin it. Zimbabwe, the Breadbasket of Africa when it was called Rhodesia, abandoned its currency last year due to hyperinflation. South Africa developed nuclear weapons under Afrikaner rule, but now they have trouble merely keeping the power on. Detroit was a prosperous city in the 1950s, but forty years after white flight the wilderness is reclaiming much of it. If blacks were, as liberals claim, intellectually equal to whites, then they should have had no problem maintaining these white civilizations. Instead, they trashed them.

Compare Europe's black colonies with its Asian ones. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau were European-ruled for a long time. The modern cities were essentially built by the Europeans. Yet, when they were decolonized, instead of running them into the ground, the Asians who took over maintained them as modern cities. Coincidentally, East Asians have a higher average IQ than blacks (and whites, for that matter).

Additionally, its worth noting that Grace doesn't fully endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence. She just thinks that it is possible. I wonder how liberals and blacks would respond if a true believer in human biodiversity such as Richard Lynn or Jared Taylor were to speak at Harvard Law?

This whole story is utterly ridiculous. The fact that this received national attention demonstrates yet again how pathetic and delicate liberals and blacks are. A student at a private university sent one private e-mail six months ago. Big. Fucking. Deal. These liberal crybabies need to grow the fuck up and stop turning every slight against blacks into a national controversy.

I think the reason why they did so in this case has to do with the fact that it was young woman at Harvard who wrote this. Note that Feministe, Gawker, and Jezebel were basically the ones who covered the story first. All three are havens for educated, liberal feminists. And the only thing educated, liberal feminists hate more than white men are conservative women.

Regardless of the reason for the controversy, the lunacy of the modern university has been revealed once again, just as it was in 2005 with Larry Summers and again in 2009 with Henry Gates. Had Grace defended herself, we might have had a minor improvement in its situation. Instead, she struck the colors, as most whites do against blacks, granting liberals and blacks yet another victory in their war against White America.

The full text of her e-mail follows:

.. . .. I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don't think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn't mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

I also don't think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to "explain" away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me.''

UPDATE:

I managed to find the name of the leaker via a comment on a posting of OneSTDV and confirmed it with other sources. Her name is Yelena Shagall. She is a Belarusian-born Jew from Skokie, IL.

Her Facebook page indicates she is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago (class of 2006), where she majored in political science and mathematics (winning an award in that department), and is a Harvard graduate student in the class of 2010 currently living in Cambridge, MA. Her Facebook profile pic (above) is the typical slutty picture that a lot of college girls seem to put up on Facebook, replete with pseudo-gang signs.

She is a right-leaning individual having ties to numerous conservative organizations. She has ties to various Beltway libertarian groups, too. At UIC she dabbled in Objectivism, was involved with the College Republicans (she was UIC's CR vice president in 2003), and attended Cato University in summer 2004. She had a column in the Chicago Flame through which she expressed viewpoints that were a mixture of snarky collegiate neoconservatism and economic libertarianism (the combination of viewpoints that get libertarians seen as just Republicans who like to party), including the typical female conservative criticism of feminism (where they bash feminism while reaping all of its benefits to women). She wrote at least two articles regarding race, though neither of them express support for HBD. Her libertarian views are pretty much a joke, though, as she supported the war in Iraq and when Bush won in 2004, remarked that "it's going to be OK."

At Harvard Law, she was an officer of its Federalist Society in 2008. More interesting is the fact that she worked with the Institute for Justice, a Beltway "libertarian" law firm, as a "summer clerk or intern" in 2008. She is the woman in the green suit jacket in the picture below. (As an aside, why is it that young women are incapable of dressing professionally? The men in the picture are wearing full suits, but the women are wearing short sleeved shirts and one has a skirt with bare legs. They look pretty unprofessional contrasted with the men.)



She appears to be a Zionist, having led a counter-protest at UIC against a pro-Palestinian protest.

Her e-mail address is Yelena.Shagall@gmail.com

Yelena, welcome to the Internet.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.

Wal-Mart "Hate Crime" Perpetrator Arrested

And it turned out to be a 16-year old boy. I don't believe the police. It must have been the KKK or Republicans! Everyone knows that 16-year old boys don't go out and commit stupid pranks. /sarcasm

This whole mess is ridiculous. I wonder how many thousands of dollars were wasted by Wal-Mart and several police departments were wasted just to track down some teenage kid who did a dumb prank that harmed no persons or property. Now, he's being charged with "bias intimidation and harassment" and could be sentenced to up to a year in juvenile detention if convicted. So he could get a year in jail for offending a bunch of blacks. Where are the liberals decrying the harshness of America's criminal justice system now?

If a black kid had told all white people to leave Target (there's not enough white people at Wal-Mart to make a prank there worthwhile), it is safe to say there would not have been an investigation and there would be be no hate crimes charges.


I previously blogged about the prank here.

Politically Incorrect Old Movies

I enjoy watching many older movies and one thing I notice is how despite the content restrictions placed on movies prior to the mid-1960s, they often contain political incorrectness that would either get them never made today or would cause people to picket theaters showing them. Today it's acceptable to show dozens of men being graphically killed in action films and show completely gratuitous sex scenes and nudity in any R-rated film. Yet, if you happen to offend one of the myriad victim groups or show something that the elites object to, expect to be badgered by myriad liberal or religious conservative activist groups.

Last night I watched Battle of Britain, a 1969 film. There's a scene where a British pilot is shot down over London and parachutes to safety. A young boy witnesses this, runs into his house, and returns with a box of cigarettes, offering one to the pilot.

If that had been scene had been in a modern movie, the reaction would have been enormous. Various "public health advocates" would have been decrying the fact that the film glamorized smoking. Liberals would rant about Big Tobacco corrupting children. Even the religious right would find something to find offensive (they always do).

Speaking of old movies in the modern era, the 1950s film The Dam Busters is being remade, produced by Peter Jackson. They are running into trouble because the name of the squadron's commander was "nigger." Of course, the studio will probably have the remake be much more violent than the original was, yet they probably won't be able to say the word "nigger."