The Failsafe Of Segregation

The case for segregation

Before I even dare try and approach this subject, I feel it necessary to make a couple of things clear. I am fully aware this concept is a hypothetical. The mere mention of “ segregation “ in the current political climate would likely spawn a mob, it being tainted with images and thoughts of backwards reactionary social barbarism.

However, I would advise one to pause and realise, that such reactions emerge from the wells of politics and emotion, the two most potent ingredients one could conjure up to ensure any conversation that requires finesse, nuance and frankly, observational reality, never comes to fruition. I have no desire to provide an intellectual justification for the events and actions of the past, but rather try and extrapolate from it, a vein of truth that could potentially be utilised as a failsafe in order to stave off an incoming disaster.

Anyone that knows my work knows I am an admirer of the likes of Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, so on and so forth. As far as I am concerned, information is black and white. Should it prove itself to be worthwhile and useful, then it should be utilised as such. Simple as that.

And so, I would politely ask the readers to do their best to leave the emotion and political dilemmas at the door, far away from a conversation such as this. They will cloud your judgement, and for this we will need active and clear mindedness.

Do please forgive me for starting off on an off topic tangent, but I’d like to comment on an observation. While I consider myself a more libertarian minded sort of fellow, it’s become increasingly clear that such a world view has some glaring defects that it would be wise to address.

Many would consider the most fundamental principle of Libertarianism to be that of the limited state, of small government and the maximisation of liberty as much as humanly possible. This world view, while admirable for its liberty above all beauty, is far more utopian than most libertarians would care to admit, it being predicated on a fantasy notion that the libertarian state as conceptualised by them contains a doctrine of social norms and an ethical way of life that seems borderline universalist in nature. A moral code that all humans beings are pre-programmed with and the citizenry would follow accordingly in a disciplined manner should a libertarian state ever be brought into being.

God bless the libertarians, but anyone who’s travelled outside of their familiar sphere would realise rather quickly how naive that world view really is. As best as I can tell, it stems from an individualistic perspective, specifically that libertarians see themselves as the model citizen, believing that what they consider good and fortuitous for their own development should be granted to their fellow man.

A very gracious proposal I am sure you’d agree, but nothing will snap you out of that utopian idealism quite as quickly as seeing that go kind of haywire in society as it is now. Let’s use abortion as an example. Previously, I have stated, that one can be both pro life and pro choice, seeing as whilst they both encompass abortion, their perspective arguments are coming from two different positions. One positions concerns itself with the state having no right to interfere with the bodily autonomy of its citizenry, whilst the other that the act itself is reprehensible. One position is political, yet the other is moral. Therefore, it’s possible to hold both positions simultaneously.

However, if one happens to espouse favour for the former position, under the auspice that pro choice means “ safe, legal and rare “, but this deteriorates into “ safe, legal and celebrated “, one should swiftly reconcile that the universalist ethic on which the libertarian world view is supposedly based on, isn’t quite so intrinsic after all and perhaps a re-evaluation of that libertarian world view such as it is, is in order. Naturally, if one were honest and pragmatic, a shift in thinking will occur, veering from idealistic to realistic.

Over the course of the last century or so, one would judge Western civilisation to have made disastrously bad changes to its orders at a pace that’s alarmingly nightmarish, were we to pause for a moment to examine them with clear and honest eyes.

In a recent podcast with Benjamin Boyce, Curtis Yarvin ( aka Mencius Moldbug ), made the astute observation that our society is essentially trapped in a sort of post 1960’s bubble. Naturally, in accordance with this deliberate limitation of acceptable thought and discourse, we’ve ended up being very cult like in practice.

It does not take a genius to recognise that the act of purposefully ignoring all intellectualism or thought prior to the 1960s is utterly illogical and frankly, stupid and insane. Not to mention culminating in a level of arrogance even I find challenging to parse.

It occurred to me but a few days ago, as I was further wrestling with this concept of cultish alienation, that our society repeatedly cycles through a particular type of phase. Has anyone else noticed the more our society is allowed “ to do “, the less we’re allowed to talk about the increasingly detrimental effects of that so called “ new freedom “ ?

The powers that be prime society for the “ new freedom “  injection, then slowly push the plunger over a period of time, allowing the idea to seep in like a venom and cripple society, allowing for this gestation period where the idea slowly begins to form into a newly accepted “ norm “ and once it does? Any criticism of it becomes verboten. Paradoxically, we claim to live in a “ free society “, where we’re allowed to seemingly do more, yet talk less, as the poison that is politics over time continuously erodes the grounds of what is considered acceptable discourse, all in the name of protecting a social vision that is completely at odds with observable and objective reality. ( You think it’s a coincidence the more insane, deranged and disconnected from reality the social vision becomes, conversely the more insane, deranged and disconnected from reality the attacks against its opposition becomes? Think again. )

How many of the most blindingly obvious social problems of today, can one freely discuss without fear of some reprisal or backlash?

Exactly, and yet we have the audacity to pride ourselves on being a “ free society “ ? What a joke.

Allow me to be a troublesome sort of character and pose to you all a very heretical question. We’re all very familiar I’m sure with the practice of using the “ fashionable “ hollowed out slogans of the day as a means to hamstring any and all discussions that would be even remotely classified as critical of the social vision. How old do you suppose this practice really is? How many decades back do you reckon you can go and perhaps stumble on the conclusion, that many previous voices also had concerns that were deemed socially unacceptable at the time? Might the reason for declaring works prior to the 1960’s radioactive be that should you read them today, a disturbingly high number of the issues of concerns they raised have indeed come to pass? Let that question percolate in your mind for a while..

Something I’ve come to believe our society is not particularly proficient at, is reconciling with the differences between rugged individualism and the collective. Rugged individualism is the key for ensuring further personal development, but outside of this process, its applicability begins to wane.

A lot of the faux attempts at racial harmony seems to stem from the MLK idea of “ judging by the content of one’s character rather than the colour of one’s skin “. While I may agree with the sentiment in theory, in practice however, it has a glaring problem:

The capacity to engage in that endeavour is conditional: It requires an environment to do so, safely. And here is where ones run into the problem of prejudice.

Walter Williams, God rest his soul, used this amusing anecdote in a lecture to describe prejudice. Asking the audience if upon leaving the building, should they encounter a wild tiger, what would their reaction be? Would they stick around for a moment to contemplate “ well, he might be one of the few rare friendly ones that won’t maul my face off “ or would they almost instinctively think “ get the fuck out of Dodge “. You’d obviously think the latter – get the fuck out of Dodge.

As it pertains to this kind of a scenario, when one is presented with a potential threat, all living creatures are hard wired to recognise and respond accordingly to danger. Self preservation is the number one priority of all living things. Our society now has access to a wide breath of data and we learn via pattern recognition.

Upon meeting a stranger of a different race, or hearing an accent that is foreign to your local environment for example, your inquisitive reaction to find out more about them is an instinctive one, designed to assess a potential threat. This type of a response is a perfectly natural, biological reaction that actually serves a protective function.

It is common knowledge in America ( though for obvious social reasons, seldom ever brought up in conversation ), that blacks have a lower IQ on average. Humans with a lower IQ are more prone to violence. Blacks, unsurprisingly then, commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime in America, not only against their own race, but they are more likely to attack those outside of their race, than any other race.

There are those who believe the black race to be genetically inferior and predisposed to violence, while others believe it to be a cultural issue. Past historical trends suggests the cultural theory has merit.

Ironically, however, post the 1960’s civil rights era, blacks have seen several decades of cultural stagnation and in some cases, even regression and becoming less civil, seeing the re-emergence of the white redneck culture brought over by the English several centuries ago during Americas early years, as mentioned in Thomas Sowell’s great book: Black Rednecks and White Liberals, with many blaming the problems that plague the black community today being further exacerbated by the creation of the welfare state.

This situation presents a problem on two fronts. On the one hand, this is a pernicious beast spawned by politics and so the chances of removing it via politics is next to impossible. No politician will ever get elected running on reducing the welfare state, let alone full on removing it.

Yet on the other hand, given that these problems still persist in the black community for over 60 years with still no sign of improvement, I suspect increasingly gives credibility to the suggestion that there is a genetic component to this after all. Whether or not it’s true is irrelevant, it’s the perception that matters.

Even the Hodge Twins a few days ago when discussing blacks during a segment on the high murder rate of an overwhelmingly black Jacksonville, Mississippi, Kevin said “ but at some point in time you have to realise, that, maybe it’s a capacity thing, you know? “ Followed by this amusingly awkward pause, as he himself just made the genetic argument. Given all of the above, it is not by any stretch of the imagination irrational then, to not want to be around this demographic.

Which brings us neatly to Scott Adams. As I’m sure many of you are aware, Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon was recently cancelled from all of “ civilised society “, for after citing a Rasmussen poll saying that roughly a quarter of blacks in America disagree with the statement “ It’s ok to be white “ to then “ get the hell away from black people “. The polling results are hardly a surprise seeing as minorities in Western societies can openly speak against whites in a brutally hostile and disparaging manner that, were it reversed, the mainstream media would collectively lose what little sanity they have left.

Essentially, Scott Adams was found guilty of committing the heinous crime of noticing all of the above, and instead of further escalating the situation ( a move which funnily enough is rather contradictory when you contrast it with the qualities of the white race as espoused by those peddling anti-white bigotry ),  he suggested people do what they can to get away.

For this, he was ostracised, stripped of his livelihood and branded a racist. A response that has left me puzzled, and having to ask a bunch of questions, starting with: How on earth does that make any kind of fucking sense?

What kind of a demented backwards society have we become, where anyone who wishes to disassociate themselves from a group of people who openly profess to finding their existence a problem, be branded a racist? It’s responses like this that leave me bereft as to why society can’t figure out why it’s tearing itself apart at the seams. From my point of view I can spot the reasons from a bloody mile off and I suspect a great many others can as well.

If one were to look at the reaction to Scott through the lens of politics and emotion, it makes no sense whatsoever. However, if one looked at Scott’s own words through a lens of de-escalation and self preservation? His suggestion was the sanest, most rational reaction possible.

Is cancelling him going to de-escalate the anti-white hatred? No..
Is cancelling him going to make the data any less true? No..
Is it going to make his suggestion look any less viable? No..

Which begs the question then, what the fucking hell was the point?

Here is something to note our society has a habit of doing almost instinctively at this point. Once someone is demonised, silenced and considered radioactive and never to be spoken of in the sphere of acceptable discourse, anything they’ve said, any concern that they’ve ever put forth is immediately disregarded and branded heretical, purely because it came from them. The machinery will do everything in its power, to ensure that even so much as acknowledging the problems existence can be met with punishment. This is by no means a rational response, as ignoring problems do not make them go away. To quote Lewis Black “ The longer you leave a problem, the more expensive it is to fix. “ Not only more expensive, but you’ll also make the extreme solutions not only look more attractive in the short term, but also in the long term, inevitable.

If white people notice that you are allowed to openly hate them with no social repercussions whatsoever, and they can’t even talk about being demonised in such a manner, hell they can’t even react defensively and try and de-escalate the situation by moving themselves away from people who openly profess to despise them, what exactly do you think the end game of this going to be?

It forces me to speculate that the powers that be have extremely nefarious intentions at play here. On the hand it, they wish to continue their parasitic existence of squeezing white society of every drop of productive blood and guilt they have, whilst also using them as a scapegoat to blame for every failure that comes about as a consequence for their idiotic reality ignoring world view. ( White supremacy anyone? )

·       They themselves believe whites to be the superior race to be squeezed whilst keeping the “ lesser races “ subservient, never allowing them to develop in a desperately psychotic bid to forever keeping their victimisation business going.

·       They believe the lesser races are indeed inferior and can’t learn to better themselves.

·       Or if they can, it would lead to some form of harmonising and reciprocity that
threatens their demented new world order and business model.

So the question to ask then is who exactly stands to benefits from all of this? If you claim to stand for diversity and inclusivity, peddling your empty sloganeering rubbish of being “ anti racist “ and yet you gleefully sneer at the thoughts of whites suffering, you look disingenuous at best, and an evil psychopath at worst. If you truly want to make people not racist, openly attacking whites while screaming white supremacy from the roof tops and cheering on the cancelling of people for merely suggesting to move away from the very people who are openly hostile to them, is clearly not the way to go.

It’s reactions like this, that push me to believe the reason why white people are not permitted to have a space to call their own, is because something truly shocking could unfold: They very well might be happier.

Imagine for a moment what a white society could look like. A society stripped of all of the ever escalating toxicity that accompanies multiculturalism. No more high crime rates, no more affirmative action, no racial politics, no more talk of “ diversity and inclusivity “, and all of the problems associated with this race baiting nonsense could simply fade away. Sure we might have the stupidity of gender politics still to contend with, but all of the freed up energy can be focused solely on permanently destroying that.

The mere possibility, that whites would create an objectively better society, the mere possibility, that all of those problems that plague minority communities would obviously still be there in the absence of white people, would not only prove cultural superiority at best, racial superiority at worst, but so many radioactive personalities of the past would be proven correct.

Those old so called racists and segregationists of the past would be smiling from ear to ear in their graves saying “ we fucking told you so “. That that is even a possibility, would crushingly undermine a progressive narrative that’s been pushed for decades and I will bet my life the thought of that scares the machinery to death.

We have two trains destined for a head on collision. On the hand we’ve spawned a cavalcade of problems, all in the name of a social vision that’s utterly failed to address their creation, and on the other, we’ve decided to demonise and silence those who dare have the courage to notice and point at them. We are not a serious civilisation. We are weak, cowardly and so incredibly stupid, that we would rather commit suicide than own up to uncomfortable facts or God forbid, admit that maybe, just maybe, we’ve been wrong, all along..