Monday, November 20, 2017

SLAVERY: RACIALLY INCORRECT FACTS -Front PageMag




Truths that Obama and BLM revile.

   
As was recently shown, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, with its central claim that police around the country are hunting and killing innocent black men, is a lie. 
Yet the BLM myth is enmeshed within a larger narrative, a narrative of eternal White Racism. And couched within this tale are distortions and outright crucially false ideas of slavery. 
In the interest of that “honest discussion” of race that the Eric Holders and Barack Obamas of the world claim to want, I submit considerations without which no such discussion can be had.
One glaringly inconvenient truth that, odds are, few folks of any race are aware is that the very first legal slave owner in America was one Anthony Johnson—a black man.  More specifically, Johnson was an Angolan who himself had been an indentured servant in the colony of Virginia before he became a tobacco planter himself.  One of the African indentured servants who worked Johnson’s 300 acre plot of land was John Casor.
When Casor had completed his seven year term of service to Johnson, he asked to be freed. Johnson refused. The latter did, however, agree to lend him out to a local white colonist, Robert Parker. Yet not long after having made this agreement Johnson had a change of heart and took Parker to court where he charged him with having robbed him of his “negro servant.” 
In 1655, a white court sided with the black African over a white man and, in addition to making him pay damages to Johnson, ordered Parker to return Casor to Johnson. 
However, Johnson v Parker issued a dramatic legal change: While making his case, Johnson, in referring to Casor, insisted that, “Thee had ye Negro for his life.”
Casor became the first legally recognized slave in the American colonies.  Johnson, then, was the first slave owner.
And Casor did in fact spend the rest of his natural existence toiling for his master.
Johnson was the first American slave owner, black or white.  Yet he certainly wasn’t the last black man in America to own slaves.  Joseph E. Holloway, a professor of Pan-African studies at California State University, is among those who note that there were thousands of black slave owners during the antebellum period.  But Holloway also reveals some other startling—politically incorrect—facts:
Relative to their numbers in the population (27 million according to the 1860 census), a miniscule number of whites owned slaves.  Eight million whites lived in the South, but of these, fewer than 325,000 owned slaves.  What this means is that only 1.4 percent of the total white population consisted of slave owners, and only 4.8 percent of the white Southern population did so.
In glaring contrast, in this same year, there were 4.5 million blacks living in America, and 500,000 blacks in the South. Over half of these—261, 988—were freed men.  In the city of New Orleans alone, more than 3,000 blacks owned slaves.  That is, 28 percent of the free black population consisted of slave holders.
In 1830, the Census Bureau notes that free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in the states of Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.  As Halloway remarks, “Large numbers of free Blacks owned black slaves in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society.”
In some cities during some decades in the 19th century, more than 75 percent of the free black population was comprised of slave holders, and some of these black masters owned property in slaves that rivaled that of some of their wealthiest white counterparts while far exceeding that of most slave owners.  The widow C. Richards and her son, to cite the most notable example, owned 152 slaves.
Some other interesting—racially incorrect—facts:
For four decades (1630-1670), those Africans who became freedmen owned white indentured servants.
The majority of urban black slave owners were women.
Virtually all of the black slave masters were mulattoes who not only enslaved their darker brethren, but refused to marry or even attend church with freed men of darker hue.
This last fact, you can bet, is a particularly troubling one for the light-complexioned Holder and Obama.
But there are others. 
Europeans didn’t get involved with African slavery until the 15th century—very late in the game, historically speaking.  For at least the preceding 800-900 years, Arab Muslims had been trafficking in African slaves—all, of course, as even Obama’s friend and black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates is at pains to show, with the cooperation of African leaders who had been enslaving their fellow Africans for even longer than this.
In their Peoples and Empires in West Africa: West Africa in History, 1000-1800George T. Stride and Caroline Ifeka show that while slavery was endemic throughout the continent, there were several groups like, to note just some examples, the Oyo, Kaabu, and the Imbangala peoples that were particularly ruthless and brutal at enslaving.  Some African slave holders, as the black American thinker Thomas Sowell has noted as well, used their slaves as human sacrifices in religious rituals.
In his Black Rednecks, White Liberalsin a chapter titled, “The Real History of Slavery,” Sowell’s commentary on the brutality of Arabic Muslims’ treatment of African slaves is particularly difficult to digest.  Muslims, he says, “marched vast numbers of human beings from their homes [in Africa] where they had been captured to the places where they would be sold, hundreds of miles away, often spending months crossing the burning sands of the Sahara.”
Sowell adds: “The death toll on these marches exceeded even the horrific toll on packed slave ships crossing the Atlantic.”
But it wasn’t just scores of black Africans who were brutalized by Muslim slave traders. As books like Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, The Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 and White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives confirm, so too were millions of white Europeans and, in the 19thcentury, white Americans.
After all, it’s not for nothing that the very word “slave” derives from the experience of mass enslavement suffered by the Slavs, i.e. white people.
These are some racially inconvenient truths that neither President Obama nor any other RIC representative would ever want included in an “honest discussion” of race and “racism.”
There are, though, others that will be noted at a future time.   
   

Friday, November 17, 2017

Rational Prejudice

RATIONAL PREJUDICE: The reason why people dislike and avoid black people is not their color. They are being judged by their character, precisely as Martin Luther King would have wanted it.
Black people being 13% of the population, they commit almost 50% of the crime. Black people do tend to be louder and aggressive and in many enjoy intimidating white and each other. Which may be much of the cause of the high rate of black on black crime.
The argument can be made as to why they are such a violent race of people, but there is no argument to the fact that they are a brutal race of people. Crime statistics prove it.
Not all of them. Not every one of them, but if you knew people that had blue thumbs we're 6 to 7 times more violent than everybody else, would you avoid people with blue thumbs? Of course, you would. Common sense.
. If people fear you because of your violence, it's a causes hate, a natural reaction to fear. It is only wise to stay away from dangerous people. Since one cannot know another's heart-based on appearance then it is important to stay away from that blue thumb group. Hence, rational prejudice.

(in 2018) There were 593,598 interracial victimizations between blacks and whites last year. 537,204 of those interracial felonies were committed by blacks or 90% of them. Whites committed
53,364 or  less10%
City Journal
A platform of Urban Decline

Blacks are also overrepresented among perpetrators of hate crimes by 50% whites are underrepresented by 24%, according to most recent Data from 2017 the Justice Dept. this is especially true of anti-gay and anti-semitic hate crimes

Monday, November 13, 2017

Slavery + History... Oh my!


( Warning: These facts have not been independently verified )



Standingbearslo 




Below is a small slice of Slavery and History...
A practice that most likely goes back as far as prostitution.
Who was the first to have his lifetime ownership of a slave legally sanctioned by a court in what would become the united states? Note.. (see #1 at bottom)
Fact
Answer = Anthony Johnson (colonist) 1600-1670 Black man
Fun little FACT. Dear old Anthony Johnson owned a total of 5 indentured servants 3 of them were white. Turns out Our buddy Anthony Johnson didn't want to give up his brother from another mother so he went to court In 1653 to force John Casor (A black Indentured man) to remain his slave forever... So history was made when the court said to a black man..OK you can enslave for life this other black man. (Note #2)
Google indentured servitude... You Will find out that many people both white and black were slaves all but in name under the system.
Fact
South Carolina’s largest Black slaveholder in 1860 was a black plantation owner named William Ellison.
William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina. According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as “Ellerson”), he owned 63 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina.
Fact
American Indians owned thousands of black slaves.
http://www.slate.com/articl...
Fact
There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 percent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.
Fact
The truth on how Black slaves were bought/captured in Africa.
Some independent slave merchants did, in fact, stage raids on unprotected African villages and kidnap and enslave Africans. Most professional slave traders, however, set up bases along the west African coast where they
purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on
the West African coast.

Sunday, November 12, 2017


US

A Dozen Times Good Guys With Guns Stopped A Massacre

A man armed with a rifle walked into the First Baptist Church of Southerland Springs, Texas, Nov. 5 and killed 26 congregants, fleeing in an SUV after exchanging shots with a church neighbor.
The neighbor retired NRA instructor Stephen Willeford, and Johnnie Langendorff have been named heroes after the tragedy. Willeford shot the gunman and caused him to flee, while Langendorff drove his truck about 95 miles per hour in a high-speed chase to catch the killer.
In honor of the Texas heroes and the 2nd amendment that secures the right for good people to carry guns, The Daily Caller News Foundation has compiled a list of 11 other times in the past decade where a tragedy was cut short or wholly averted because of good people with guns.
Some of the following were originally gathered by Eugene Volokh for his column in The Washington Post:
  1. July 2017 – A politically motivated gunman attempted to massacre Republican congressman during a congressional baseball practice. He struck four people, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Congressional police attending the practice because of Scalise returned fire, pinning the shooter down until officers from the Alexandria Police Department arrived, eventually killing the shooter.
  2. September 2017 – An immigrant shot and killed a woman walking to her car in a church parking lot after the service. He entered the church where 22-year-old Robert Engle confronted the killer. Engle fought the gunman, suffering a blow to the head. The gunman, however, accidentally shot himself in the chest during the brawl. Engle, permitted to carry a pistol, retrieved his gun from his car and held the shooter until police arrived.
  3. May 2015 – Two gunman targeted a “Draw The Prophet” event in Texas where local artists were drawing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed. An off-duty traffic officer working security for the event saw the would-be killers pull up in a black van, and he got out of his police cruiser to investigate. The two gunman then exited their van and opened fire. The traffic cop answered with his handgun, killing both assailants.
  4. April 2015 – An gunman fired into a crowd in Chicago’s Logan Square. An Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit drew his pistol and shot the assailant six times, knocking him down and ending the threat.
  5. March 2015 – An argument in a Philadelphia barbershop escalated until one man pulled a gun and began firing wildly. Another man with a concealed-carry permit brought out his own weapon, shooting and killing the attacker.
  6. July 2014 – A psychiatric patient entered a “gun-free” hospital alongside his caseworker. The patient had an appointment to see Dr. Lee Silverman, his psychiatrist. After arguing in the doctor’s office, the patient took out a gun and began firing, trying to kill Silverman. The attacker killed his caseworker instead, only grazing the doctor. Silverman took out his own gun, shooting and incapacitating his patient.
  7. September 2012 – A man in a Plymouth, Penn., bar, angry at being kicked out, took out a gun and began shooting, killing one and wounding another. He then trained his gun on others when bar patron Mark Ktytor, who has a concealed-carry permit, took out his gun and shot the attacker several times, dropping him.
  8. March 2012 – A man armed with a shotgun kicked open the doors to a church in South Carolina. Before any shots were fired, the pastor’s grandson, Aaron Guyton, pulled his gun on the man and held him at gunpoint while several other parishioners disarmed him. Guyton has a concealed-carry permit.
  9. May 2009 – Two armed robbers broke into an apartment filled with 10 people attending a party. The gunmen made everyone lie on the floor while they stripped people of their valuables. The accomplices then took two women into a back room where one of the armed me intended to rape and kill them, and then the rest of the hostages. One of the partygoers, Marine Sean Barber who was participating in a military program for Marines to attend college, retrieved a gun he had hidden in the apartment. Barber shot one robber, who fled. Barber then went to the bedroom where the other robber was about to rape the women, shot the man and chased him out of the apartment, where he later died of his injuries.
  10. May 2008 – A man killed two people in a bar in Winnemucca, Nev. When he stopped firing to reload his weapon, a concealed carry permit holding patron shot and killed him.
  11. December 2007 – A disgruntled man entered a church in Arvada, Colo.,, and proceeded to kill four people before being shot himself by volunteer church security guard Jeanne Assam. The man committed suicide after Assam hit him multiple times.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

National Day for the Victims of Communism

S & RELEASES
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

National Day for the Victims of Communism

Today, the National Day for the Victims of Communism marks 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution gave rise to the Soviet Union and its dark decades of oppressive communism, a political philosophy incompatible with liberty, prosperity, and the dignity of human life.
Over the past century, communist totalitarian regimes around the world have killed more than 100 million people and subjected countless more to exploitation, violence, and untold devastation. These movements, under the false pretense of liberation, systematically robbed innocent people of their God-given rights of free worship, freedom of association, and countless other rights we hold sacrosanct. Citizens yearning for freedom were subjugated by the state through the use of coercion, violence, and fear.
Today, we remember those who have died and all who continue to suffer under communism. In their memory and in honor of the indomitable spirit of those who have fought courageously to spread freedom and opportunity around the world, our Nation reaffirms its steadfast resolve to shine the light of liberty for all who yearn for a brighter, freer future.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

It's not the Guns It's the Movies.

 I think everyone misses the point where they speak about gun control. As if fewer guns less violence when we know that is just not the case.  Our problem is not guns, but what people do with them.
I think it would be more useful to look at two other items that are causing the motivation  One' is mental problems that are increasing with the everyday pressures of modern life, the disintegration of the family and the increased use of drugs with mental illness.
 Two is the media, movies television and violent video games. The glorification of weapons and guns comes from the film and television. In ordinary life, the motivation to use guns is about domestic uses hunting and sports.
 We know that the media has tremendous power to motivate people's actions. Hundreds of thousands of companies spend billions of dollars every year influencing people's behavior with the media. To deny that is ludacris.
 So with the thousands hour of the glorification of gory murder and Mayhem is it any wonder that some unbalanced Minds go over the edge.
 This young man dressed in black military/police gear, carrying a black plastic AR15.
 What was the motivation for him to wear that getup To dress end all black battle gear and scream "Die M........er F...........kers."
 Seems to me to be a very similar line in many movies:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b15qxrLJ7aM
Every time we are approached about reducing guns lets talk about a PG-18 on all gun violence movies. Let's see what Hollywood will say when they have some skin in the game.

Monday, November 6, 2017

Angry White Frail


Comment Magazine Christine Rosen

After Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded more than 500 in Las Vegas in October, many of the headlines made note of his race. “White American men are a bigger domestic terrorism threat than Muslim foreigners,” one Vox headline read. “America has silently accepted the rage of white men,” CNN posted. “Stephen Paddock was an angry white man with a gun,”
magazine noted, denouncing “toxic white male violence.” The Intercept’s headline described “The White Privilege of the ‘Lone Wolf’ Shooter,” and the progressive website Think Progress featured a story with the headline “When we talk about mass shootings, we are talking about white men.” Salon promised to tackle “America’s White Man Problem.”
Even actress and perennial attention-seeker Lena Dunham inserted herself into the news cycle, posting a link to a
article, “White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings than Any Other Group,” and tweeting: “No way not to politicize this tragedy. It’s about gender & race as well as access to guns. Considering it random is comforting & dangerous.”
This is in stark contrast to the headlines that appeared after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando last year, when American-born Muslim and ISIS sympathizer, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people. “Don’t throw the blame on Muslims for the Pulse Shooting in Orlando,” one HuffPost headline read. “Orlando Gunman Attacks Gay Nightclub,” the
reported, making no mention of the fact that the gunman was Muslim. Even one year later, long after Mateen’s radical Islamic views were common knowledge, the
recalled the attacks in Orlando as an incident of “gun violence.”
It’s not a surprise that the culture pivots quickly to embrace murderous depictions of white men. For years, the Angry White Male has been the left’s favorite culture-war villain. He’s expected to perform a particular role, prompted to denounce his white privilege and “toxic masculinity” early and often, and treated punitively if he dares go off-script. (Remember footage of the crowd of angry students in 2016 who surrounded Yale University professor Nicholas Christakis and screamed expletives at him when he tried to engage them in a conversation about race?)
Male students on college campuses are frequently denounced as potential rapists and told to “check their privilege”; “white supremacist” is now the epithet of choice, deployed by members of the progressive left to manufacture outrage about policies such as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s support of charter schools (even while real and reprehensible acts of white supremacy, such as the white-nationalist march on Charlottesville, Virginia, occur). Today, the unfair dominance of the white male is used to justify everything from toppling statues to replacing the literary canon with “herstory.”
And yet, for such a monolithic and terrifying oppressor, the white male looks surprisingly weak. In many arenas—educational, economic, emotional—he is flailing. For example, women now outnumber men on most college campuses, which, as economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, has been true for some time: “The huge gender inequity in higher education for the Class of 2017 is nothing new,” Perry wrote. “Women have earned a majority of U.S. college degrees in every year since 1982 and since then have earned an increasingly larger share of college degrees compared to men in almost every year, so that men have now become the ‘second sex’ in higher education.” Mortality rates for whites—and especially for white males—are rising sharply. A 2015 study by Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton outlined how “diseases of despair” such as drinking, suicide, and drug addiction have led to a dramatic increase in mortality rates for middle-aged, white Americans. Writing in the
about the study, Alana Semuels noted that by 2015, non-college-educated white people ages 50 to 54 had a mortality rate “30 percent higher than that of all blacks in that age group.”
As for Angry White Males as perpetrators of violence, even here the facts belie the popular narrative. Although men, on average, are far more violent than women, Daniel Engber at Slate
recently pointed out that “Asians and black Americans are overrepresented among mass shooters by about the same proportion (a bit more than one-fourth) that whites are underrepresented.” Another inconvenient fact often left out of the hot takes about “angry white men” and violence after a mass shooting: the stark reality of race and murder rates. As Engber notes, “Overall murder rates among black Americans are 6.3 times higher than they are for whites, according to a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.…In other words, white Americans may be somewhat underrepresented among mass shooters, but they’re even more underrepresented among all killers.”
The notion of the Angry White Male conveniently overlooks some inconvenient facts about hate crimes as well. The overwhelming victims of race-based hate crimes aren’t black people: They’re Jews. In fact, hate crimes against black people have been declining for the past decade. According to economist Robert Cherry of Brooklyn College, FBI statistics reveal a 60 percent decrease in hate crimes against black people in the past 10 years. (And it is worth asking: If the Las Vegas shooter was motivated by white-male rage, why did he attack a concert featuring country music, a genre heavily favored by white people, during a performance by a white male country singer?)
If our narratives about white men don’t work anymore, why do they persist?
Identity politics must have its villains, which is likely why we have we seen an escalation of the demonization of whiteness just as white men’s power has started to wane. Among the leaders of this race-mongering is James Baldwin wannabe Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose essays and books argue that white racism is an inescapable and pernicious force in American culture. As Thomas Chatterton Williams recently argued in the
, Coates’s efforts have mainstreamed a dangerous notion: “No matter what we might hope, that original sin—white supremacy—explains everything, an all-American
.” The result? “Whiteness and wrongness have become interchangeable—the high ground is now accessible only by way of ‘allyship,’ which is to say silence and total repentance.”
This is why someone like Coates can describe neighborhood gentrification in cities such as New York and Washington, D.C., as “a more pleasing name for white supremacy,” liken it to Jim Crow, and accuse gentrifiers of “exulting in a crime” and yet receive nothing but praise from the white liberal elites who live in those very same gentrified neighborhoods.
The Angry White Male narrative is attractive to the left because it fits a worldview that sees vague “structural forces” and “inequalities” as the source of all of the world’s ills. As Engber argued, after an otherwise thoughtful assessment of violence and race statistics, “structural inequalities related to education, employment, housing, and healthcare, along with de facto segregation and a history of discrimination and bias, create conditions under which black Americans, in particular, are more likely to be both the perpetrators and the victims of this violence…white privilege kills, at least in part, through the reciprocal cost it imposes on to other groups.”
White privilege doesn’t kill. People do. Reducing people to categories (white, male) to explain their actions might be intellectually convenient, but it rarely increases understanding. Demanding that people atone for a “privilege” they might not have experienced—while telling them that they will always bear the taint of a racism they neither feel nor practice—isn’t a path toward reconciliation or racial harmony. And the glorification of black racial identity favored by Coates and his ilk brings us no closer to what multiracial America should be. Both traffic in essentialist notions of identity-based on race.
It is here where a conservative sensibility offers a better approach, one that recognizes the realities of human nature. Such a worldview recognizes the existence of evil, of bad intentions and of bad behavior at the individual level as well as the ways in which bad intentions can multiply via bad choices, bad policies, and bad governments. It argues that acts of violence, such as what occurred in Las Vegas (or Charlottesville, or in other cities throughout our nation’s history) cannot be explained away merely by pointing to vague structural forces or to the color of a person’s skin. That is too convenient. These crimes must be confronted and punished each time as evil acts of individual human beings—people should never be used as pawns in a larger race or gender war. If you want to be “woke,” then wake up to the fact that the Angry White Male is more fiction than reality.

Friday, November 3, 2017

Scientists Look For A Cure For Politically Undesirable Behavior

Scientists Look For A Cure For Politically Undesirable Behavior







Tyler Durden's picture
The ‘Free World’ has taken on where the Soviet scientists and psychiatrists left off.
German and American scientists of renowned Universities in Bonn and Lübeck do research on treatment for politically undesirable behaviour like their Soviet colleagues from the infamous Serbsky Central Research Institute in Moscow. In the Soviet Union people who protested the system had to undergo psychiatric treatment.
Vladimir Bukovsky, a world-known dissident survived one and described it. The same will be the fate of the so called Free World’s citizens if they fail to conform to the idea of a multi-cultural society. The powers that be have given a signal, and obliging, complaisant scientists are already busy working on bettering our collective and individual psyche. Apart from homophobia and Islamophobia, xenophobia is another psychiatric condition that needs to undergo therapy...hormonal therapy.
Throughout history, the world has been torn by two opposing factors that face each other with daggers drawn. These are natural biological, and unnatural forces, or reality and dystopia. It is natural for a human being to want to possess things and work as little as possible; to counter it, dystopian socialists, communists or Christian heretics came up with an idea of a society governed by the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
It was supposed to work. And it failed miserably everywhere it was installed and implemented, from Cuba to East Germany, to the Soviet Union, to North Korea. 
The human being, an evolutionary extension of the animal world, is endowed with certain indelible features at the genetic level. Group loyalty and fear of aliens are among them. Man cannot survive alone. Mankind is not a biologically monolithic, homogeneous family. Rather, it is made up of human groups (clans, tribes, nations, races) that as a result of their long development are moving apart from each other. Biology is the basis on which human communities create culture and ultimately civilization, not the other way round.









Human groups, which have come into being as a result of living separately from each other for ages and so have developed incompatible cultures and religions, compete for resources i.e. for survival. Since man cannot make it through life on his own, he is a part of a group (clan, tribe, nation). In order for the group to function well and safeguard its (and simultaneously its members’ survival success), each group member is equipped with two psychological mechanisms (i) in-group loyalty and (ii) out-group enmity.
Group members collaborate, and support each other even to the point of sacrificing themselves for the whole. That’s the origin of altruism. Defection to another group means weakening one’s own group and strengthening the alien group, which has always been regarded as the gravest mortal sin: treason. (Dante’s hell has Judas Iscariot in its center, which is the severest punishment for it). Altruism towards members of the out-group is something between in-group loyalty and defection. Its exuberant instances are technically referred to as pathological altruism.
The phenomenon can be compared to the rivalry among soccer teams. The team’s (survival) objective is to win the cup. The prize will be shared by all team members. In order to achieve it, each one of them has to cooperate with the others: no cooperation with members of any other, opposing, team is thinkable. A team’s player may want to sacrifice his personal career for another player from the same team by helping him to score as many goals as possible and thus becoming the team’s star, or by fouling the opposite team’s player and thus risk being sent out of the playground (death), thus enhancing the chances of his team’s win, but the same will not make things easier on the playground for any member of the opposing team. Helping members of the other team means lessening the chances for winning the cup (survival) of one’s own team and, ultimately one’s own chances.
If my well-being and survival depend on that of the group that I am a member of, and, conversely, if my group’s survival is contingent on the cooperation, altruism, and self-sacrifice of its members, including me, then in-group loyalty is in high demand whereas out-group (pathological) altruism is detrimental. That’s evolutionary mechanism. That’s game theory. That’s common sense. Everybody knows it. So do social engineers.
Since social engineers have come up with the idea of building new, multi-racial, multi-national, multi-religious, multi-cultural societies, they have encountered the natural barrier: xenophobia, which is another name for in-group loyalty and out-group avoidance. Xenophobia is a biological mechanism imprinted at the genetic level that carries a survival advantage. It tells an individual to create bonds with members of the same group and be on his guard against aliens. To put it in plain language: xenophobia is practised at the very basic personal level each time parents warn their offspring to be wary of strangers: not to open the door to them, not to trust them. So modern social engineers have a problem. They need to overcome this deeply rooted biological barrier.
A sign has been given, most probably followed by substantial grants and other financial incentives, and so scientists got down to work to find a cure for xenophobia. One of the research teams included psychologists and psychiatrists from Bonn, Tulsa, and Lübeck scientific institutions. Urged by the increasing globalization and the mass migration of peoples, as they say, the mentioned scientists, who otherwise dutifully recognize the evolutionary advantage of the in-group loyalty/out-group exclusion, nevertheless set themselves a task of demonstrating whether oxytocin can enforce the acceptance of aliens and reduce xenophobic out-group rejection. To this end they devised experiments in which subjects were asked to donate a certain amount of money to people in need, either compatriots or refugees. Before the experiment the subjects were screened for the level of xenophobia. During the experiment the subjects were either allowed to act on their own, or were exposed to peer pressure or were administered oxytocin intranasally. It turned out that (i) refugee-directed donation among the subjects scoring low on xenophobia were significantly increased by oxytocin, whereas (ii) oxytocin alone was not enough in the case of the subjects scoring high on xenophobia: their out-group avoidance (or parochial, as it is patronizingly named, altruism) could only be overcome by the orchestrated operation of oxytocin and peer pressure.
The conclusions are obvious.
Citizens of host countries must be forced to accept the influx of aliens whether they like it or not. If they do not comply then, in the name of high-flown ideals of universal brotherhood of men, they will be forced either by peer pressure or by oxytocin or by both.
Oxytocin suits this purpose very well as this hormone raises the emotional well-being, it so to say oh-so humane. Like Aldous Huxley’s soma in his book Brave New World. The human being with his biologically-driven likes and dislikes is not to be tolerated, he must be changed. By ideological interaction or by chemistry. He must not be left alone. He must accept what he does not like not merely passively. He must be made to like what he previously disliked.
There was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem. The ‘Free World’ has taken on where the Soviet ‘scientists’ left off.

Black Fragility (Def.) by Mark Dice

  Discomfort and defensiveness on the part of some black people who live in a predominately White culture. Due to fixating on long gone past...