Sixteen Volts

I have been aware of the site "Turnabout" for a long time, but was reminded of it recently and took a closer look, and I have to say I had forgotten how excellent it is. For example, we can note the essay "Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ". Myself, I would add to this FAQ something from an old observation of The Danimal, in which he noted that the principle of inclusiveness implies that you get to choose other people's thoughts and don't have to allow them to freely choose and exercise their preferences. This is both funny-haha and funny-strange when you note that the most ardent advocates of inclusiveness and tolerance also tend to be the most ardent advocates of sacredness and inviolability of their own preferences. (The Danimal: "When men make the mistake of thinking they can do this to women, and they act on this mistake, we call them "rapists" and throw them in jail. That is an extreme example of invalidating someone else's right to have and exercise a preference.")

Speaking of rape, during the infamous Duke lacrosse rape case, leftists and feminists demonstrated their upside-down logic and worldview by claiming that because the alleged perpetrators were rich and white and the victim was poor and black, the case will not get as much media publicity as it would have if the races were reversed. Don't laugh, they really believe this in all seriousness. Fortunately, Steve Sailer links to a column "What propels rape stories to wide attention?" that discusses another recent gang rape case that seems to be very similar in content to the Duke lacrosse rape case but for some mysterious reason, has not received equal media attention. I am certainly looking forward to the feminist blogosphere demanding that this patriarchal and phallocratic football team is disbanded and all its members are kicked out of the university, or at least the players are subjected to diversity training sessions so that they will abandon their woman-hating attitudes. Hell, just take a look at the music videos that many of these players probably like to watch.

Speaking of interracial relations, Panu's new post about the insanity of allowing Muslims to have their own legal system and courts inside Western nation contains one notable observation:

Generally the most important reason for the hatred and suspicion that Muslims face is in the fact that they don't allow others to have sex with their daughters. By definition, a human being is somebody who belongs to a species that other human beings can screw and create fertile offspring with. When Muslims forbid us from having sex with their daughters, they voluntarily exclude themselves outside humanity, in which case certain other groups will also begin treating them as subhuman.

The problem could be effortlessly solved by actively using the resources, laws and the executive branch of the state to defend the Muslim girls right to have sex. Unfortunately, nobody wants to do this. Feminists certainly will not advocate anything that could lead to Finnish men having a better chance to have sex with nonwhite women. The votes of racists and populists, on the other hand, emerge from the Muslim breeding scare; they do not want a future in which the Muslim women have sex with Finnish men to give birth to children who then become Finns.

The post then goes on to discuss libertarianism and make a few observations about it that are perhaps worth another post in the future. Heck, perhaps I should write a longer post that explains Panu and his views, since a culturally very literate leftist man who is at the same time an ardent anti-feminist is such an interesting combination.

Correct me if I am wrong, but based on what I have read and heard, I have understood that white separatism is a very common ideology in America these days, as many white people opt to live in de facto apartheid neighbourhoods that are lily white, with the possible exception of the occasional gardener or cleaning lady. Another Mark who is also a newspaper columnist, Mark Morford of San Francisco Gate, has a column "My Life Above Pottery Barn" in which he laments the fact that middle class people don't want to live in graffiti-laced ugly grit among the homeless people and criminal gangs, but opt to move to planned and gated communities. Those nasty and selfish bigots! Curiously, Mark forgot to use the words "disneyfied" and "gentrification" that often seem to occur in these laments. I have never really been able to decipher what these words mean, but apparently they have something to with the fact that people can walk around freely in beautiful garbage-free (both literal garbage and human garbage) environments and don't have to worry about getting mugged or raped. Why this is supposed to be a bad thing, I will probably never be able to comprehend.

Myself, I am a city boy and fortunate to live in big a city in which leftist policies have not protected the rights of every sociopath, criminal and howling and schizophrenic homeless person over the rights of the middle class. Hence this city is alive and teeming with decent middle class people throughout the week, the way that late Jane Jacobs would have wanted it. The local lefty rags constantly lament the fact that new condos are built for the people who are willing to pay for them instead of the poor, which is somehow a bad thing because this decreases "diversity" in the city by driving the poor people outside the city. I don't see why this is a problem, since a scarce resource such as condos in the city should be given to those who are willing to pay for them. As for the diversity argument, I have visited the Mecca of this gang, the area at Sherbourne and Dundas, a few times during my walks. Instead of the words "charming" and "authentic" to describe this area and its inhabitants, I would rather say "sad" or "depressing". I especially wouldn't claim that the area is some kind of hotbed of hipsterish creativity and urban life.

As Steve Dutch once put it, if the problem of the American cities is that the middle class doesn't want to live in them, perhaps a good solution would be to return the control of the cities to the middle class to advance their interests, eh? The group that others would hate to see going away gets to set the rules, whereas the groups that others would be ecstatic to see going away don't really get to demand anything. Exit and voice is the principle here.

The blog "Inductivist" has a couple of interesting posts about homosexuality and tolerance towards it among different races. The figures in the post "Whites have become much more accepting of homosexuality--blacks have not" didn't surprise me (of course, leftists will now put their hands over their ears and go "La la la, I can't hear you, all minorities are tolerant and love each other and only the straight able-bodied white males oppress them"), but those in the post "Blacks have the most gay men" did, since I would have assumed the prevalence of homosexuality to be roughly equal in all groups. The figures in the post "Blacks have the most gays and the fewest lesbians" were also surprising when we remember that as a group, black women face the most serious shortage of men who are husband material. We should also note Steve Sailer's obvious-once-you-see-it comment in this post: the large percentage of lesbians among Native Americans can be explained by noting that white lesbians are overwhelmingly extremely left, so they might have a tendency to "to stick it to the white male patriarchy by declaring themselves not just a lesbian but a lesbian of color".

Monday is always the day for a new Kunstler post. In "Progress", he explains why in the near future, Democrats and progressives will not be able to take political power away from Republicans:

The group that used to composed the broad American middle class of industrial workers and managers is disintegrating economically. What will concern them in the years just ahead will be their ability to barely hang on to what they've got, including the roofs over their heads and their health. They will be in no mood for a political movement that is preoccupied with pseudo-psychotherapeutic exercises in self-esteem building along racial and gender lines.

Writing from Mexico, Fred Reed has noted the often-mentioned news article that says that half of five-year-old Americans are now nonwhite. He comments on this factoid in his new post "Multiculturalism And Alligators".

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 8:12 AM