Outside The Domain

     When I was much younger, I tended to think in universal terms. That’s common among the young and bright. We grasp a powerful idea; we see its possibilities for improving things; and we want to apply it everywhere, to everyone. The appeal of a powerful idea stems from its apparent prospects.

     But ideas are human artifacts. Humans being not universal but partial, everything we produce is partial as well. And anything partial will have a proper domain: a set of conditions within which it applies, but not outside it. Outside its proper domain, the idea will become irrelevant or worse.

     An idea doesn’t float free of all other things. It’s founded on premises about the natures of the things it addresses, and about reality itself. An idea divorced from its foundation premises is worthless if not destructive.

     This is so basic that we never think about it. We merely live in it, as we live in a particular space and time. Because of that, when we step beyond our habitual space and time, we all too easily lose our moorings. The ideas we carry around with us, largely unexamined but relied upon even so, can become our enemies.

     The idea I have in mind this morning is one of the greatest ever propounded. It made possible the emergence of Western Civilization. Without it, we would still be in Hobbes’s “state of nature,” in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Indeed, before the earliest, incomplete versions of the idea were enunciated, that’s exactly what Mankind endured.

     That idea is the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

* * *

     The Golden Rule is founded on an unspoken assumption: i.e., that the unnamed “others,” were your position and theirs exchanged, would do unto you as they would have you do unto them. But how can you know what they would “do unto you?” Well, they might already have done it. That would be applicable to persons near to you – your neighbors — and to others with whom you’ve interacted in the recent past. For all others, it would require fresh interactions: not one, but enough of them to be reasonably sure of them.

     The famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” studies provide a way of arriving at the answer:

1. Be benevolent upon initial interaction.
2. On further interactions:
   1. If they were benevolent toward you in the previous interaction, be that way toward them;
   2. Else be hostile or aloof toward them.

     For you cannot maintain a benevolent posture toward one whose response is to attack or exploit you. That’s suicide, albeit prolonged. Christ Himself, the formulator of the Golden Rule, said so in the Sermon on the Mount:

     Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. [Matthew 7:6]

     The Redeemer wasn’t talking about animals. He was defining the domain of application for the idea He enunciated next: The Golden Rule. For that Rule is only applicable within a context of reciprocity. Should reciprocity fail, you must withdraw from further interaction, at least for the present.

     This has implications for many settings.

* * *

     The greater part of any man’s learning is done by doing: i.e., by living, experiencing, and coping with necessities and opportunities as they arise. That’s equally true for Robinson Crusoe and for persons in an advanced First World society of many millions. Among the things we learn is the domain of application of our personal benevolence: when it applies, and to whom.

     Everyone capable of comprehending the crap here at Liberty’s Torch is familiar with the concept of the enabler: one who makes it possible for some other person caught in a pattern of destructive behavior to continue in that pattern. Among the things we learn through experience is which of our fellows are enmeshed in such a pattern, and whether they can do so due to the contributions of an enabler. Many Americans can count one or more such persons among their acquaintances.

     No decent person actively wants to be an enabler. Yet a great deal of destructive behavior is possible only because enablers make it so. Moreover, the idea applies at scale: to individuals and to whole societies as well.

     First World societies were premised on ideas of great power: from Christ’s message to the Enlightenment, and more. They worked, when they worked, because they were “inside the domain of application.” That is, the persons who held them lived and worked among other persons who held them. Exceptions were few and reliably dealt with.

     But when individual responsibility was pushed aside for collective responsibility – notions that “society is to blame” rather than the actor for his bad actions – it changed the game. Suddenly everyone but the bad actor was “on the hook” for disruptive and destructive behavior. Mass immigration from Third World countries to our own has highlighted the perniciousness of that change, but it was already at work before the tides of Third Worlders reached our shores.

* * *

     Hearken to an unusually perceptive and intelligent young woman:

     White males have ENORMOUS difficulty in not projecting their nature onto others and so will always do so to some degree or another. They seem almost incapable of grasping that difference. And they THINK they know, but they rarely do.
     If you think I'm wrong, and if you're a White fella I just know ya do, ask yourself just how much of your suffering... how much of your blood and treasure, as a person, as a culture, as a genetically distinct group of people, has been spent with the expectation that they are as you are.
     That if you just spent more, if you just tried harder, if you just found a way, if you just did this, if you just did that that the outcome would be different because if if they're not YOU that they're enough *like* you that there's a bridge that could be crossed.
     And you might be like "Well, we spent an awful lot, but we learned eventually..." and THAT RIGHT THERE is an example of how different you are because they would have NEVER done that for you. Never, not once, not in all of history.
     They *started* with the assumption that they would never do that for you, and they never have, but it's taken you decades and trillions to JUST NOW come to that realization, and most of you *still* don't get it.

     Black Dumpling has laid it out plainly.

     For the umpteenth time, I’m put in mind of a passage from C. S. Lewis:

     If Ransom said nothing, it was because he could not speak. He saw a man who was certainly not ill, to judge from his easy stance and the powerful use he had just been making of his fingers. He saw a man who was certainly Weston, to judge from his height and build and coloring and features. In that sense he was quite recognizable. But the terror was that he was also unrecognizable. He did not look like a sick man: but he looked very like a dead one. The face which he raised from torturing the frog had that terrible power which the face of a corpse sometimes has of simply rebuffing every conceivable human attitude one can adopt towards it. The expressionless mouth, the unwinking stare of the eyes, something heavy and inorganic in the very folds of the cheek, said clearly: “I have features as you have, but there is nothing in common between you and me.” It was this that kept Ransom speechless. What could you say—what appeal or threat could have any meaning—to that?

     [From Perelandra]

     Ransom had come face to face with something that was wholly Other. It was not Weston as Ransom had known him. Indeed, it was not a man as he knew men to be, but an entity that shared nothing with men but Weston’s shell. Ransom knew at once that there could be no arguing nor bargaining with it.

     Our problem with those who disdain the key premises of our society – responsibility, honesty, good will toward others – is not quite as severe as Ransom’s. However, it requires a comparable quality of understanding. We cannot treat them as though they were “just like us, but misguided.” They lie outside the domain.

"If Diversity Means..."

     Good morning, Gentle Reader. Yesterday was extremely strenuous. I give thanks this morning for a solid night’s sleep and a zero agenda for this day in the Year of Our Lord 2026. Those two blessings don’t often coincide.

     This morning I’d like to talk about settled ideas. Individuals have them: decisions they’ve made and carved into stone, such that they seem not to require reconsideration. When such an idea becomes prevalent among a group of people, it insinuates itself into other arrangements and customs. A challenge to it can seem like an insurrection.

     The settled idea itself may have superseded a previous idea that seemed equally settled – fundamental to “the way things ought to be.” Such a process is almost never sharp or sudden. It usually takes hold of a society gradually, as events mass force behind the new idea. There’s often a period of antinomy, during which both ideas coexist and appear equally strong and settled. When that period passes, the superseded idea becomes unpleasant to contemplate, in a “how could we ever have believed that?” fashion.

     It’s in the nature of settled ideas that they’re never logically incontestable. They’re not mathematical theorems with solid modus ponens proofs behind them. They develop from events, the patterns in them, and our reactions to them.

     Now for today’s graphic:

     The United States and the European cultures from which it originally sprang were not “diverse” in today’s sense. They were as racially, ethnically, and creedally exclusionary as anyone could possibly imagine, though in this case imagination is unnecessary. We have the history, and it is unambiguous. The treaties that make up what’s known as the Peace of Westphalia, which gave us the modern nation-state, are explicit in that regard.

     Today’s situation arose from an idea that was never really “settled,” in the sense I have in mind. Rather, it was politically imposed on the American people. It took hold due to a lingering sense of guilt – undeserved guilt – over “the legacy of slavery” and, to a lesser extent, the history of Anglo-Saxon exclusion of “lesser peoples.” It was one of the first fruits of post-World War II political activism among persons on the Left. The 1964 Civil Rights Act provides a convenient date of origin for that idea’s period of “settled-ness.”

     The sixty-two years since have brought us to the graphic above. Let it suffice to say that the “settled idea” of 1964 that “We’re all alike and we can all get along” has fallen.

     The new idea, “Whites should have their own homelands!” is not yet absolutely settled, but it’s getting there. Anti-“diversity” sentiment has risen sharply and appears likely to become socially dominant before I die. It didn’t spring from political activism or some current of thought in the universities. It arose from the events of recent decades, from crime statistics, from social and cultural clashes, and from the growing sense among Americans – especially Euro-Whites – that their nation is no longer safe for them… that, in a practical sense, it’s being taken from them by hostile forces.

     When an idea settles upon a people as a result of objectively observable events, it’s likely to have longevity. When it displaces a diametrically opposed idea, political upheaval and violence are often among the consequences. Indeed, we should expect them.

     That’s the enveloping significance of the graphic above. It didn’t take elaboration or promulgation by intellectuals to foster this rising idea. It was a grass-roots development if there’s ever been anything of the kind. It’s being fought by the full force of the elites and the political Establishment. It will take quite a bit of battering before one side wins and the other loses.

     While the battle rages, those Lucite shields over the deodorant will proliferate. Decent Americans will have to cope. The longer we must cope, the more intense will the combat become. And don’t kid yourself: there will be bloodshed. Don’t let any of that blood be yours, Gentle Reader.

     “No force is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” –Victor Hugo

Race War News

     My gentler Gentle Readers don’t like for me to write about this stuff. Yet I have, and I will. From where I sit, we’re looking at a civilizational crisis. I can’t watch without commenting.

     Have a couple of tweets:

This is how we live. This is how all of us live. This isn't some random street in Peoria, Illinois..

This is the entire world.

As you watch the video you'll feel the tumblers click into place, one by one, over and over, it will be reinforced. As you become angrier.

Consider..… pic.twitter.com/j8jhnOEwkL

— BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) June 26, 2026

     And even worse:

A pack of blacks surround two White girls sitting on a bench.

One White girl is holding her baby.

The blacks recording are telling the others “take the baby, take the baby, that’s why she not fighting, dam Dey really dat scared to fight, take the baby.” (They think it’s… pic.twitter.com/ojnG66Vn7r

— White Girl (@WhiteGirl1776) June 26, 2026

     These are representative of the trends in recent events. They are not exceptions to a more civilized pattern. Neither are they far from the behavioral norm among blacks.

     Do you remember the “knockout game?” It hasn’t vanished. It’s just that with Colin Flaherty having passed away, no one is writing about it. And it’s blacks attacking Whites: in nearly every case, a young black male attacking an older White man.

     Armed robberies and home invasions have been “colorful,” too. There are plenty of reports of such. Usually, the races of the perpetrators go unmentioned. If there’s a video, it’s even money that the faces of the perps will be blurred. If a White homeowner shoots and kills a black invader, the invader's mother will immediately scream to the media that “he din’ do nuffin’ to deserve that.”

     American Whites haven’t been idle. They’ve been on the move. Residential segregation is making a comeback through White relocation. Demand has made White neighborhoods ever more expensive. Blacks with sufficient means have sought to follow Whites to their new neighborhoods… and have found that they’re not welcome.

     The prevailing residential quest of our time has been to live where there are no blacks, or as few as possible. That’s even the goal of well-civilized, law-abiding blacks. And as young blacks are proving repeatedly that they’ve bought the “White oppressor” propaganda, the trend will continue.

     To regular readers of Liberty’s Torch, this doesn’t come as news. I’ve been on this beat for years. But now and then, it seems important to emit a reminder:

     Whites are not safe around blacks.
     The police are still afraid to act.
     The media are still suppressing reports.
     The courts are still releasing offenders with no or low bail.
     The prisons are still furloughing and paroling violent criminals.
     And should you dare to defend yourself, race-hustlers will call you the real criminal.

     Always, always go armed. No exceptions.

Did It Happen That Way?

     The jury has returned its verdict in the case of Austin Metcalf and Karmelo Anthony: Anthony has been pronounced guilty of first-degree murder. The crowd of black protesters outside the courtroom, who have been stridently vocal that Anthony is “innocent,” was upset.

     I stopped myself from prefacing the previous sentence with “Needless to say.” Yet it was predictable that people protesting on the defendant’s behalf, would be unhappy that he’s likely to be imprisoned for the rest of his life. A few of them had some “interesting” things to say: e.g., that Anthony should have killed Metcalf’s twin brother as well.

     Austin Metcalf’s family must be wary henceforward. Threats have come at them from several directions. This is the way of things in these United States in the Twenty-First Century. Even peripheral contact with a case of interracial violence makes your future uncertain.

     Yet the entire incident was video-recorded, from several angles. There’s no dispute that Anthony pulled a knife and killed Metcalf. Even several of the witnesses for the defense testified that Metcalf had not attacked Anthony – that Anthony was not defending himself from a credible threat to life or limb. Those demanding that Anthony be freed cannot argue away the facts of the case.

     Their beef, of course, is that Metcalf was White and Anthony is black.

     There were no blacks on the jury that convicted Anthony. Those who were called to the voir dire all admitted freely that they would have trouble “putting a brother in jail.” The prosecution challenged them off for sufficient cause. As the resulting jury was all-White, the blacks incensed about the verdict are screaming “racism.”

     It’s unnecessary for me to comment on that aspect of the case. We’ve seen it before. But it is necessary to ponder something commentator Matt Walsh observed:

     Now go back and consider every supposed racist atrocity from decades or centuries ago. Every “innocent” minority wrongfully persecuted by racist whites. I’m not saying that all of those stories aren’t true. I’m saying that you can’t assume that they are true. If they can lie about the stuff we all witnessed with our own eyes, imagine what they can do with the things none of us witnessed.

     Enough such incidents were reported by a single source to make them disputable. The sources themselves were sometimes of dubious credibility.

     The justice of a verdict is often disputed. In these days of ubiquitous security cameras and cellphones that can video-record, the facts of a case are less disputable than ever before. But those conditions have only obtained for about three decades. Everything before that is a matter of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.

     And recent interracial incidents, many of them meticulously filmed, have undermined the credibility of the record.

     When we speak of things that happened long ago, credibility is less important than credulity. People are inclined to believe accounts that accord with their beliefs and convictions. Written records are often disputed on the grounds that the writer “had an agenda.” The most thoroughly reported and recorded event in all of history, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, is frequently waved aside on that basis, even though the chroniclers were almost all put to death for maintaining it.

     Today, credulity is less important than an activist agenda. The activists vocal about the Anthony verdict have such an agenda. What they’ll do, now that that agenda has been thwarted, remains to be seen. Apparently there was some violence immediately outside the courtroom when the verdict was announced.

     Now, with a number of thoughtful people openly inquiring whether we can trust the historical records of “minority persecution,” the matter will be further inflamed. Yet there is justification for re-examining those accounts, to the extent possible. The record is almost purely one of White persecution of blacks. But the purity of the record itself provides grounds for dispute. Was it really that way in every case? Is there no possibility that in some cases the “victim” was objectively guilty of a heinous crime? Or were the recorders themselves pushing a particular viewpoint on the rest of us?

     Unpleasant, distasteful food for thought. In our current climate, it will be spoken of more openly than ever before. I fear to imagine the consequences.

“A Decent Place To Live”

     [In light of the rising discussions about whether compulsory integration has been a mistake, I’ve decided to repost this piece. It first appeared at the “V2.0” site on October 12, 2021 – FWP]

---

     Fairly recently, a dear friend became troubled about the way his neighborhood was changing. He was reluctant to speak of it at first, because it involved the anthropological and sociological third rail of American public discourse: race. Several homes near him had recently been purchased by Negro families. After that, several more homes in the neighborhood went on sale. My friend was alarmed, as he saw an influx of black families as destabilizing to what had been a peaceful, safe environment for his wife and children.

     I agreed with him. Even prosperous, seemingly stable black families can bring with them the problems for which their race is known: noise, disruptive behavior, drug abuse, high traffic of nonresidents into and out of the neighborhood, fights and petty crime. The problems arrive with the youth of their race. Many of the same phenomena accompany the arrival of Hispanic families.

     The above are established facts. Charles Murray has put hard numbers to them in his recent book Facing Reality. If my friend wanted to secure his family and home against a degradation in their quality of life, he would have to move. He was reluctant to do so, as it would involve accepting new debt, but in the end he saw that it was the best course.

     Which brings us to today’s topic.

***

     Among the mechanisms prosperous communities have used in attempting to secure themselves, zoning is preeminent. A neighborhood that excludes all but residential properties on large lots has guaranteed that anyone moving into it will at least possess the financial wherewithal to do so. The desirability of the neighborhood will then make the price of such lots high. The exclusion of multiple-family structures raises another significant barrier to entry.

     So-called minority-rights groups have attempted to pierce the barriers created by zoning with “lawfare.” To this point, they’ve been largely unsuccessful. However, the Left is attempting a Samson-smash of the walls around such neighborhoods by outlawing single-family zoning:

     [In Virginia,] in the midst of the high-stakes McAuliffe vs. Youngkin race for governor, the conservative group Frontiers of Freedom Foundation is running an ad that highlights Terry McAuliffe’s support for Joe Biden’s plans to undercut single-family zoning.

     The ad, which I found powerful, reminds voters that attacks on local control of zoning can come from states as well as the feds. In fact, this has happened in California which recently abolished single-family zoning. The anti-McAuliffe ad pointedly reminds Virginia voters of this news from California.

     As commentator Paul Mirengoff notes:

     Few issues matter more to voters than the character of their neighborhoods and the character of their schools. The second issue — schools — has become a high-profile one. Maybe now the first one — neighborhoods — will come into prominence.

     Possible – but expect massive blowback in the form of racism-shouting and claims of “discrimination” and “exclusion.” As it has become an act of extreme courage to reply to such attacks by saying “You bet your ass I want to exclude your kind. You bring trouble wherever you go,” those attacks have more power than usual. Nevertheless, that is the intention, and a perfectly valid one it is.

     In the past, the attack on protective zoning has come via the courts. A case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974, Warth v. Seldin, is illustrative. Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong noted it in The Brethren:

     In one case (Warth v. Seldin) civil-rights activists in Rochester, New York had challenged a nearby suburb’s zoning law. The ordinances required all homes to be single-family residences on large lots, in effect barring low-income minorities. The challengers sued to overturn the ordinance as discriminatory. Two lower courts had denied them standing and refused to hold a hearing on their claims. [Associate Justice Lewis] Powell was assigned the majority opinion for his fellow Nixon appointees and [Associate Justice Potter] Stewart, who agreed with the lower courts that the activists didn’t have standing to sue in federal court. His opinion said that the challengers had failed to allege and prove they could not buy a particular residence; the case was hypothetical; the alleged injuries were intangible and speculative....

     As Stewart explained it to his clerks, the case called for a value judgment, not a legal one. The challengers were asking the courts to rule on economic differences that kept low-income minorities from living near affluent whites. “What they are actually asking us to do is to overrule the capitalist system,” Stewart said....

     [Associate Justice William] Brennan’s dissent argued that Powell was using legal technicalities to prevent the disenfranchised groups from pressing their claims. And there was a Catch-22. In order to have the standing to sue, you had to have the money to begin building a low-income housing project and be willing to go to the inconvenience of filing a plan so the local zoning board could reject it. In order for the poor to sue, they had to be rich. Brennan found the whole idea absurd and deceitful. It was the ordinance being challenged—not neutral economic factors—that insured that the housing market would never change....

     Brennan saw this as the extension of a disastrous trend. The lower courts would get the message that the poor must prove precisely how they were affected before they would even have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court would no longer be the final protector of rights, the guarantor of fair play.

     Those paragraphs from The Brethren express a tremendous amount: first about legal principles and judicial procedures, second about the attitudes and orientations of the Justices. Potter Stewart, a moderate conservative, was aware of the underlying intent of the suit, but in voting on the verdict stayed within the established rules of jurisprudence: The plaintiff must prove that he has been injured, or definitely will be irreparably injured, to have standing. As there was no provable injury from an ordinance that effectively prevented low-income residents from becoming close neighbors to high-income residents, the plaintiff lacked standing and the suit was without merit.

     William Brennan, a left-liberal, saw things differently. He felt the exclusion of low-income people from high-income neighborhoods was itself an injury: a moral wrong. He saw the zoning ordinance as a denial of “minority rights.” That this is an extreme, wholly unjustifiable creation of a right, which Brennan sought to assign to “low-income minorities” against more affluent persons, is at the heart of the greater part of today’s racial and ethnic conflicts.

     Compare Brennan’s implied assertion of a “right” for low-income persons to live cheek-to-jowl with high-income persons with the outcries of exactly the same persons against “gentrification.” Could the hypocrisy be any clearer? But more pointed still is a John Derbyshire essay about the “theory of magic dirt:”

     In the past couple of decades we've seen the rise of one particular explanatory strategy. That strategy recently acquired a name—or possibly it's had the name for a while and I only just recently noticed. Whatever, I really like the name: Magic Dirt.

     The core idea is that one's physical surroundings—the bricks and mortar of the building you're in, or the actual dirt you are standing on—emit invisible vapors that can change your personality, behavior, and intelligence.

     That's why, for example, you read so much about "bad schools" or "failing schools." The thing to be explained is that schools whose students are overwhelmingly non-Asian minorities—blacks and mestizos—get much worse results on academic tests than schools whose students are majority white and East Asian. This has been so for decades, defying even extravagantly expensive efforts to change it, like the Kansas City fiasco of the 1990s.

     Parsimonious explanation: innate differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality between the races.

     Magical explanation: Bad schools! The bricks and mortar of these schools, the asphalt of their playgrounds, are giving out invisible noxious vapors that enstupidate the kids!

     Gentle Reader, it cannot be said better than that. If one’s physical surroundings or neighbors determine one’s one “behavior, intelligence, and personality,” then pace William Brennan, it would be at the very least unkind to deny “aspiring” low-income Americans the chance to improve themselves by living next door to high-income Americans. But unkindness has no legal weight, so the Left has to represent the claim as a denial of “minority rights.”

***

     Most people would prefer not to live among criminals, drug addicts, the dissolute and irresponsible, or politicians. These persons tend to “lower the tone” of a neighborhood, rendering it displeasing to those of us who like order, responsibility, and privacy. Thus we save as much as we can from what we earn, use it to buy “a decent place to live” when the opportunity presents itself, and thereafter do our best to protect our new homes and their environs from the kind of maltreatment that comes from criminals, druggies, etc. This is in keeping with the American conception of private property rights: You can have what you want as long as:

1. Someone is willing to sell it to you;
2. You have the means to pay for it.

     But groups do not have rights as such. Neither do “neighborhoods.” So when a prosperous district coalesces and the residents resolve to limit what changes can occur there, the usual recourse has been zoning ordinances. While the decisions of zoning boards are not always received with approval, preserving the character of neighborhoods for their existing residents is the predominant use of zoning.

     Zoning ordinances can legally specify:

1. Permitted uses (e.g., single-family residential; multiple-family residential; commercial; light industrial; heavy industrial; mixed);
2. Minimum lot size.

     They may not say “No parcel in this zone may be sold for less than $X.” And they may not make any mention of race or ethnic heritage. So it’s at least possible, if against the odds, to find a parcel in a “prosperous” neighborhood that’s available dirt-cheap. Legally, if the owner is willing to sell it to you, your neighbors-to-be can do nothing about it no matter what they think of you or yours.

     But dirt-cheap parcels in affluent neighborhoods are exceedingly rare. The demand for such parcels is high. The Law of Supply and Demand functions to make them dear. And your neighbors-to-be probably like it that way, so you’d better have the means.

     As matters stand, Negroes are less likely than Whites and Asians to possess the means to purchase parcels in very affluent neighborhoods. That’s been the case for many decades. Often the minimum lot size dictated by the zoning ordinances is part of the reason. Other things being equal, large lots are more expensive than small ones, for the same reason that large diamonds are more expensive than small ones: there just aren’t that many of them. If the zoning ordinances forbid breaking up such a lot and selling the fragments, there’s nothing to be done about it.

     But the key is not race nor ethnicity; it’s finances. Low-income Whites and Asians face the same barrier to entry. Affluent residents are no more eager to live next to low-income Whites or Asians than next to low-income Negroes– and there are a lot more low-income Whites than low-income Negroes. But you don’t hear them on the six o’clock news. “White trash” is dispreferred by the rights activists as a group to champion.

     All that having been said, this remains: when a formerly all-White neighborhood is first penetrated by Negro families, the residents look to their defenses. Even if the initial penetration is by solidly middle-class Negroes with intact families, homes will swiftly go on the market, often in great numbers. The demographics of the neighborhood tend to change rapidly, as does the prevailing level of law-abidingness, public order, and general civility. Whites have learned to fear what comes with a Negro incursion, and all the wishes of the bien-pensants will not prevail against that hard-won lesson. Good intentions are powerless before the desire for “a decent place to live.”

     See also the meaning of the venerable term blockbusting.

The True Bastion Of Liberty

     I hadn’t planned to write anything today, despite it being “1984 Day:”

     April 4th, 1984. Last night to the flicks. All war films….

     George Orwell had important things to say about liberty, despite being socialistically inclined. Nevertheless, he omitted mention of one thing that, sadly, a great many Americans have failed to appreciate. Indeed, the majority of us squirm to escape involvement with it. And for that reason among others, we’re losing its protection:

     The jury functioned as a localized check on state power, granting the common citizen the authority to temper the rigid application of the law with communal common sense. The historical power of jury nullification, whereby a jury refuses to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, was historically celebrated as a triumph against state overreach. Cases such as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the Royal Governor of New York, cemented the jury’s role as a bulwark of liberty. The jury possessed the ultimate veto, ensuring that the laws enacted by the sovereign could only be enforced if they aligned with the moral intuitions of the populace.
     As detailed in the University College London (UCL) academic paper, “Decline of the ‘Little Parliament’: Juries and Jury Reform in England and Wales” by Sally Lloyd-Bostock and Cheryl Thomas, the jury was vigorously defended as an ancient right and a bastion of liberty, a mechanism whereby the ordinary person’s moral compass could inform legal decisions and contain the powers of government.

     If you follow the news from the United Kingdom, you’re probably already aware of how badly the right to a trial by jury has been abraded:

'So judges are just better at finding facts?'
'They're experienced at it.'

Sir Brian Leveson, who led the criminal courts inquiry, explains why he thinks Lammy is absolutely right to scrap jury trials. pic.twitter.com/qDTQFw7acY

— LBC (@LBC) December 2, 2025

     But Celina’s essay, quoted above, makes a shattering point about the preconditions required for trial by jury to exercise its protections:

     Nonwhite jurors display clear ethnocentric bias against white defendants and in favor of their own. The data is undeniable. The elites know it. That is why they are quietly abolishing peremptory challenges, gutting jury trials, and now planning to scrap them for almost everything except murder and rape. Demography is destiny, and if the English, Americans, or Australians become a minority in their own courtrooms, there will be no justice left.

     From here, I could light off in several directions, but I’ll content myself by quoting an earlier tirade:

     The combination of the Constitution plus the Common Law, which we inherited from England, had a consequence few persons have openly articulated. Under their combined principles and terms, and from the then-customary definition of a government, the United States was an anarchist nation. The argument is simple: A State must have the recognized authority to decree punishment. But under the Constitution's requirement for a jury trial for all penal offenses, plus the Common Law's traditions concerning the jury's freedom to nullify any law it finds noxious, only a jury of private citizens can do so. Therefore, U.S. governments lack an essential qualification for being States -- and therefore, we are an anarchy by the strict meaning of the word.

     Now consider what would follow the abolition of the jury trial. No longer would a jury’s assent be required for the State to punish a defendant. Thus, defendants irritating to the State would be at great hazard, for an indictment would guarantee a subsequent conviction. Worse still, jury nullification would vanish. The State could proclaim arbitrary laws that would not have survived a jury’s veto. The worst features of feudal systems would be laid atop our advanced, information-oriented societies.

     But let’s not stop there. Let’s ask about the driving influence Celina has cited:

     When a society is fractured along ethnic and cultural lines, the jury ceases to be a microcosm of a unified nation. Instead, it becomes a contested battleground for competing tribal loyalties. Historical nullification, which used to be a noble tool against state tyranny, has mutated into ethnic nullification, where jurors refuse to convict members of their own in-group regardless of the evidence. This weaponization of an ancient right paralyzes the state’s ability to maintain basic order and shatters the epistemic foundation of the legal system.

     Juries have stood in the way of unbounded State power since John Peter Zenger. They who seek unbounded power would naturally be averse to the right to a trial by jury. Were our “elites” aware that unlimited immigration from the Third World would destroy the jury trial as an instrument of justice? Was it part of their planning?

     The U.K. is already far gone toward the abolition of the jury trial. Given travesties of justice such as the acquittal of O.J. Simpson for his murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and the willingness of a largely nonwhite jury to convict Donald Trump of a slew of felonies even if they had to invent them, Americans’ right to a trial by jury cannot be deemed safe from demolition.

     And I have no doubt that, whether or not this demise of an ancient, liberty-preserving right was a planned consequence of open immigration, our “elites” will find the outcome to their tastes.

Regaining Peace

     Have a little something to pin your outrage meter:

This young black girl attacked, then k*IIed a McDonald's employee over the employee accidentally putting onions on her burger.

A person lost their lives because this savage animal couldn’t communicate that she didn’t want onions on a burger. pic.twitter.com/HacaG4whp0

— Liberacrat™️ (@ViralVideos) March 23, 2026

     Murder over onions! We’ve reached a new nadir in social relations. I’ve no idea of the race of the victim, but does that really matter?

     It’s not possible for anyone to concoct a defense of such behavior. But of course, the ever-vociferous defenders of black savagery will try to defend it anyway. Probably with something about “the N-word.”

     The apologists for “chimping out” behavior have a slightly easier time:

This is absolute hell on earth.

- No social decorum
- Loud
- Violent
- No respect for authority
- Incompatible with civilized society

I completely understand segregation now and why Americans didn’t want it to end.

Someone should run on it. It would have my vote.

You? pic.twitter.com/wTSzuWpdQs

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) March 24, 2026

     “It’s just high spirits.” “They were celebrating.” “Nobody got hurt.” And of course, “It’s racist to criticize it.” But what if the crowd of revelers were White and the critic were black? Then we would be told this:

“Black women CANNOT BE RACIST to white women…are you kidding me?”

Ummmm….anyone wanna tell her? pic.twitter.com/p04FVdWtK5

— Ashley (TeamTrump47) (@TeamTrump47) March 23, 2026

     I have acquaintances who struggle over these things. They’re desperate to believe that it’s not a racial difference. The racial correlation must be explained away. But how? The usual fallback is “culture:”

We can't even have nice hotels anymore.

Shalonda and Shakeesha assault a police officer after he tries to break up a hotel squabble between 7 or 8 reprobates.

How do we fix this violent culture? pic.twitter.com/pS282rgTZ6

— Shane (@shane7777ssss) March 23, 2026

     He who asks “But aren’t we all immersed in the same culture?” will usually be dismissed with the usual denunciation (“Racist!”). That’s just the way it goes, these days.

     Smart Whites are done with trying to civilize the uncivil. We’re also done with excuses like “systemic racism” and “the legacy of slavery.” Now all we hope for is peace.

* * *

     How do American Whites get peace when our environment is permeated by savages? I suppose we could exterminate them, but that’s a distasteful prospect. All that rotting flesh… no, there must be an alternative.

     Time was, the prescription was segregation. They have their part of town and we have ours; they have their businesses and we have ours; they have their institutions and accommodations, and we have ours. It worked reasonably well. Yes, there were still occasional violent incidents and spells of “acting up.” But judged by the standard of peace, it was preferable to what we endure today.

     Legally, bringing it back would be next to impossible. Practically, the degree of interpenetration of the races makes it a challenge. Yet it’s already happening. New, all-White enclaves are being formed, often by older Whites and usually in less populated areas. Many of them, though not all, are also all-Christian.

     When blacks attempt to move into such an enclave, they soon find that it’s not possible. No one will sell or rent to them. Cries of “racism!” change nothing, for the residents are all private persons who cannot be compelled to sell. No cooperative complex or homeowners’ association was ever more stringent in its admissions policy.

     There are problems, of course. Municipal police, regulators, and zoning boards are hostile to such communities. Ambitious politicians use them as whipping boys when “on the stump.” They’re sometimes targeted by black racial activists. Yet they remain attractive for what they offer: peace and public order.

     Niven and Pournelle’s Oath of Fealty offered a vision of such a community, albeit without racial segregation. While their depiction had many virtues, a single-race arcology of that sort would undoubtedly be targeted for abortion while in its planning stage. It would need too many approvals from too many local and regional authorities.

     And as I write this, I find myself looking toward the sky. Toward Luna and beyond.

* * *

     Please don’t think too harshly of me, Gentle Reader. I’m old. The old are more desirous of peace than the young. I sense that many other older Whites feel the same as do I. It’s very hard for us to get peace in any quantity, these days.

     To any younger readers: please imagine a state of society in which older Whites who’ve “made their piles” elect to relocate to some airless planetoid rather than endure the Sturm und Drang of our ever more violent and disorderly Earthside environment. Think about what it would signify that we would rather render ourselves inaccessible to you – and you inaccessible to us, of course – than remain exposed to race-based crime and chaos. Are you really so sure that “solidarity” with “our black brothers” is worth losing touch with us? Think of how hard it is to find a babysitter these days. (Never mind what they charge.)

     That’s all. I’m tapped out for the present. Do have a nice day.

The War News

     No, it’s not about the conflict in Iran. You can read the newspapers for that. This is about the war against American Whites.

     This is a few days old, so you may have seen it already:

Iryna murals keep getting vandalized

Her crime? Being white pic.twitter.com/aDvb9YPgwz

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 4, 2026

     Iryna Zarutska was a beautiful young White woman. Yes, she was a recent immigrant, but a legal one. She was employed, was self-supporting, and to the best of my knowledge was entirely innocent. And she was killed by Decarlos Brown Jr.: a black savage who’d served five years in prison for two felonies, who’d been arrested fourteen times in Mecklenburg County alone. Brown killed her for no reason whatsoever.

     To cap the ironies, Iryna was an immigrant to the United States from Ukraine, who’d come here in search of safety.

     Now someone is vandalizing murals and posters that depict Iryna. Why?

     I don’t know who’s responsible for these defacements. I wouldn’t care to guess the race of the people responsible. But to my mind a single a single question exposes the moving force behind such villainies:

Would this have happened
If Iryna had been black?

     White victims of crimes by blacks are anathema to those who hate Whites and want to see us exterminated. Only blacks are allowed to have martyrs, you see. George Floyd? Michael Brown? Trayvon Williams? They’re okay. They can have murals, statues, memorial plaques, streets named after them. But not a White. Especially not a White woman as young, beautiful, and innocent as Iryna.

     I can’t imagine how American Whites can tolerate this. Yet we are tolerating it. We’ve been subjected to unconscionable discrimination, the vilest slanders, the most execrable treatment… and we’re told over and over that it’s our fault. Somehow, these things are justified by our “white privilege.”

     There’s a good chance that the life of Decarlos Brown Jr. will be spared on the grounds of mental illness. He has been diagnosed as schizophrenic. Though it would be the denial of justice, it’s likely all the same. But what of that in the face of “diversity, equity, and inclusion?” Who cares when there’s “systemic institutional racism” to be fought?

     It’s just a few days back that a couple of black boys raped a 12-year-old black girl. Yes, this time the victim was black. They admitted they’d done it. One of the rapists is 12 years old. Here’s how his father – yes, some of them do have fathers, or at least men who claim to be their fathers – argued in his defense:

"This is a 12 year old boy. A black boy!! You gonna put him in jail?!?"

Father of a 12-year-old r*pist: pic.twitter.com/QlDbFKOXrC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 3, 2026

     Got that? Mustn’t incarcerate a black boy! He might suffer. Other inmates might abuse him. And the black mark will follow him throughout his life! You can’t do that to him, just because he raped and brutalized a young girl and left her scarred for life. It would be unfair!

     Can you imagine the volume of the cacophony blacks would raise if the rapists were White?

     I have to “wipe the foam off.” Here are my earlier pieces on race and racial conflicts. Have fun.

New For 2026!

What do you think, Gentle Reader?

Undiscussed

     I was maundering over the rising White Identity movement, and the fierce resistance to it on the Left, when a memory from long ago returned to visit.

     The year was 1967. I was a senior year in high school at the time. There was a scholarship available to seniors who’d expressed an interest in becoming teachers. My school submitted me as its contestant. The award decision would be made by a committee of three, after meeting and conversing with all the contestants as a group. The get-together was held in New Paltz, a “college town” in Ulster County, New York, on the western side of the Hudson River.

     There were a dozen contestants. There were three on the award committee. I was the only one from a “downstate” school. I was also the only male present.

     Needless to say, I found the atmosphere somewhat intimidating. What was I, a mere male, doing among all these women? Conversation among the women, young and old, continued freely for over an hour without anyone addressing or even looking at me. Finally one of the committee members turned and addressed me directly: “What about you, Fran? Don’t you have anything to say?”

     I can’t remember what I said. No doubt it was something bland. I don’t remember what followed. About fifteen minutes later I was on my way home.

     Though I didn’t participate, I do remember the thrust of the conversation. It was about dealing with “colored students.” Everyone in the room agreed that they were a taxing problem, both pedagogically and behaviorally, and were becoming ever more so.

     I suppose I should include that all of us present were White.

     Now, that was what we of today fatuously call “the Civil Rights Era.” Which is to say: We had been propagandized out of our natural rights, such as freedom of association, in favor of “civil rights” defined by legislators and courts. We didn’t grasp the implications of having politicians tell us what our “rights” would be. We would find out soon enough.

     But “civil rights” or no, the eleven “upstate” young women in that discussion group were tacitly unanimous that educational institutions’ problems with non-Whites were real and rising. They had no solutions. Their unstated premise made a solution impossible. It was just something, they quietly agreed, with which future teachers would have to cope as best they could.

     Most of that was indirectly expressed, sotto voce. Yet there could be no doubt about the consensus. It bewildered me somewhat, but then, there were only three “colored” out of the two thousand students in my high school. The problem had yet to become visible in Rockland County, New York.

* * *

     Nothing reveals group differences as effectively as forcing disparate groups together. Fifty-nine years after that group talkfest, the quiet prognostications of those young women have proved accurate. America’s “public” schools have largely been reduced to daytime housing for minors, some of whom are determined to fight with others and abuse the rest. White kids in such an environment are in peril throughout the day. Many don’t make it home unscathed.

     But let’s leave the disorder and violence problems to the side. In an attempt to achieve some education, at least, the schools have steadily “dumbed down” their curricula. What was fifth-grade material a century ago is now being taught in high schools. The scandals about schools where no student meets grade literacy or numeracy standards, and about college entrants being unable to read, write in cursive, or do simple algebra, are legion.

     The few “colored” with a real interest in learning are intimidated out of it by their fellows: “Why you actin’ White?” The important subjects are to which gang you belong, how to deal with the members of other gangs, and how to treat the White kids. Better take those subjects seriously; the tests are frequent.

     But hearken to our political class! Do any of our Establishmentarians even hint that there might be a problem with all this “diversity?” Not to my knowledge. But let anyone mention the rising White-identity movement, and the condemnations are immediate and plentiful. Apparently the worst thing one can be is White and proud of it.

     If the cries of “Racist!” and “Xenophobe!” are losing their effect, it’s not yet evident from their frequency of use. Demographic-geographic trends tell us that some Whites are “voting with their feet.” An unfortunate number of us are pinned in place by occupational or familial considerations. These must be prepared to cope with being members of a shrinking community.

     Fifty-nine years ago, a group of young women in their senior year in high school could clearly see what was coming. Their voices were soft. Their words were measured. But their opinions were unanimous and clear. They foresaw what would happen to the trade they sought to enter.

     Those that are still on the sunny side of the sod would be in their mid-seventies today. I should remember to pray for them.

From Little Acorns

     Time passes swiftly for those of us in our seventies. Sometimes we don’t notice the passing of a whole decade… and this was more than a single decade ago:

Woman: ”OJ. Simpson represented something for the black community in that moment, in that trial, particularly because there were two White people who had been killed”

Eh, what? pic.twitter.com/zt8VAtLjAe

— Taya (@travelingflying) February 2, 2026

     The murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman took place in June, 1994. Yes, Simpson was acquitted of them, but a subsequent civil suit held him responsible for the deaths even so. In 2008 he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping, and served a prison sentence for them.

     Now we have the nonsense above.

* * *

     I just snagged this:

what is it with third worlder obsession of having a servant https://t.co/qfngwNVbGb

— miritsua (@m1ritsua) February 1, 2026

     Immerse yourself in that image for a moment. The question posed by “miritsua” is relevant and staggeringly important. It’s not just Third Worlders who think they deserve servants.

     Have a snippet from a novel that should be more widely read:

     “It was a world in which there were only two models, slave and master. A master is not the same thing as a free, independent man. A master is himself contaminated by slaveholding. When the slaves were freed, they were only technically free. They're right about that. They continued as spiritual slaves — most of them, not all — right until the Civil Rights Act, until they could vote. Then they started acting like masters.”

     If you have only two models for human relations – master or slave – then you will see yourself as one or the other. You’ll have no alternative structure into which to fit yourself.

If you’re not a slave, you must be a master – and masters have slaves.

     That is the African experience. It was brought here by imported Negro slaves. It’s been perpetuated by Negroes as well. What else could their ceaseless demands for “reparations” mean?

     Thinking yourself a master, but having no slaves, makes you resentful and angry.

* * *

     In one of my novels, there’s a character who was raised from birth to see herself as a slave. She was conditioned to accept it as her proper place. When she managed to escape her captors, she stumbled by chance into the protection of a very good man. Her conditioning compelled her to take that good man as her master. The limitations it compelled upon her left her no third model. When she was presented with freedom as a third way, she rejected it. It would mean rejecting everything else she’d ever been:

     “Miss Celia, I don’t understand!”
     The shorter of the visitors cringed. “There’s nothing to understand, Fountain.” She rubbed the backs of Fountain’s hands with her thumbs. “It’s just the way it is. I’m free, Juliette is free, and Trish is free. You’re free too. No masters. No lords. No slaves. Just people, doing whatever they want to do.” Her expression darkened. “Don’t you like the idea that you’re free?”
     Fountain glanced furtively at Juliette. The tall girl leaned against the wall with her arms crossed over her breasts. She nodded.
     “It’s true, Fountain. Nobody owns anybody here.”
     The notion found nowhere to lodge among her lessons.
     I was trained to be his. To serve his pleasure. I have no other purpose.
     I want to be his.
     “I cannot leave my lord,” she murmured. “I will not.”
     Celia grimaced. “You might not have to. I mean,” she said, “he might not tell you that you have to go away. But he’s free too, Fountain. Free people don’t own slaves. We settled that a long time ago. Whoever taught you different was...bad. Taught you bad stuff. Probably a lot of it.”
     How can this be? Their bodies are like mine. Their beauty is no less than mine. Yet they claim to have no master. They could not possibly be masters themselves, so what else could they do? What else could they be?
     The clash between her lessons and this new instruction became insupportable. A high, shrill siren issued from her backbrain, a response instilled in her by years of merciless conditioning designed to deny her any outlet for rebellion. It surged at once to disabling pitch and volume. She ripped her hands free of Celia’s, put them to her ears, and howled in torment.
     The others crowded close around her and wrapped her in their arms, probably in an attempt to calm her. It only increased her anguish, but her wriggling failed to free her from them. She endured it as she must.
     When the siren in her head and her responding howl ceased and the others’ grip upon her slackened, she shook herself free, rose, said “I must use the bathroom,” and strode out of the room. Once she had closed and locked the bathroom door, she sat upon the toilet lid and waited for her tears to dry.
     They do not understand. They cannot understand. I cannot be free. I am his.
     I must be his.
     The thought that she might be forced to be as they were—to be apart from her lord, without his protection and guidance, even for a brief interval—threatened to break her self-control once again. She forced it away before it could drive a wedge into her slowly returning composure.
     She had been a good student, attentive to all she’d been taught and diligent about the practice of her lessons. Her teacher had seldom spoken the mildest word of reproof. It had not been necessary. The pains of the chastisements her teacher could inflict, once they’d been demonstrated upon her flesh, were forever after vivid in her memory.
     Yet Fountain possessed interior resources that went well beyond what one might have expected from her history. Her resolve had been the key both to enduring her training and to effecting her escape. She knew the forces at her disposal, even if only dimly. She marshaled them to the unprecedented challenge.
     I will not listen to them.
     I will not be free.
     I will not let them take me from him.
     I will not let them take him from me.
     With that thought, a curious sort of circuit completed in her brain. It snapped into being with a firmness that spoke of an immutable solidity.
     I am his.
     I will remain his.
     Now and forever.
     She rose from the toilet, unlocked the bathroom door, and returned to the bedroom her lord had assigned her, where two earnest young women, well meaning but incapable of understanding her, waited to resume their tortures.

     Yes, the story of O.J. Simpson and his crimes is part of that. So is the seething resentment expressed and encouraged by blacks with a public platform. It’s all they know. Therefore, if you are not their master, you must be their slave. They will compel it upon you.

     Never forget it.

“Why So Racist, Fran?” Part 2: Let Them Sink

     Appeals such as the following are everywhere, especially in December:

Black children are suffering all over the world.
Imagine if it was a white child pic.twitter.com/r6r0Y0rVxj

— Fighter Rakgadi 🇿🇦 🇧🇫 (@Rakgadi_EM) November 25, 2025

     Oftentimes, they’re proximate to statements such as this: “You stole everything from us.” Of course, you means Whites, and us means blacks.

     Such claims are clearly nonsense, yet they’re repeated endlessly by black racialists and propagandists. They can’t be refuted; they’re utterly counterfactual and nonsensical, so there’s nowhere to start. What is there to say in response?

     Nothing. Silence, cold and absolute, is the proper response. Yet Whites continue to try to reason with them.

     Blacks claim to be our superiors. Yet not one of the advances in science, technology, philosophy, or society came from the Dark Continent. They say we owe them “reparations” for historical slavery. Yet slavery is still practiced in Africa; only in White nations was there an end to it. More, blacks in this country alone have absorbed trillions of dollars in “public assistance,” to say nothing of the many preferential treatment laws and programs that have awarded them privileges over Whites.

     Our forebears were mistaken ever to listen to them.

---

     On this Black Friday, among the things I’m thankful for is the surging White anger and resentment toward blacks – and their sad-sack White apologists – that blacks’ claims and demands have elicited. We’re finally getting close to the cold stare and folded arms that say “Watch out. We’ve had enough of you and won’t tolerate your savagery any longer.”

     Of course, there’s a lot of social and political inertia to be overcome. If blacks had intelligent representatives, they’d know better than to “double down.” They’d turn to their own and say “Cool it! You’re about to provoke a pogrom, with us on the losing end.” But they are doubling down. Violence against Whites, shoplifting and destruction, disruptions of White-owned and operated stores, restaurants, shopping centers, and so on are all on the increase.

     I’ve written before that there’s a race war in progress. The “It’s On” pieces are clearest in that regard:

• It’s On
• It’s On: What Now?
• It’s On Part 3: Where Explanation Remains Required
• It’s On, The Ongoing Saga
• It’s On: No Longer Just My Mad Notion

     It doesn’t have to be a flying-lead war. Indeed, it shouldn’t be. It can and should be conducted with Whites’ traditional weapons: exclusion when it suffices, and impersonal, objective enforcement of the law when it’s required. That would leave the Negro race to its own devices: i.e., to whatever order or chaos / prosperity or squalor it could maintain in the absence of interaction with (or support from) Whites.

     The cessation of the war wouldn’t necessarily be evident to everyone. There wouldn’t be an armistice, or a peace treaty. There would only be a steady diminution of offenses against law and propriety, and a lessening of screechy demands from black racialist mouthpieces. It would take a while, and afterward there would be some ugliness. Unless the radical solution is applied, Whites would still have to endure some savagery. Hopefully, it would fall to an irreducible minimum that ordinary law enforcement can handle.

     But blacks might not permit Whites such a peaceful war.

---

     “No one wants war” is a phrase we’ve heard many times. It’s one of the perennial lies, a pleasant dream that’s utterly false-to-fact. Many people have wanted war over the centuries. They’ve usually gotten their wish.

     Good people have never wanted war; it’s practically a defining characteristic. Yet they’ve been forced to fight wars many times. They haven’t always prevailed.

     To say that “no one wants a war” when we’re demonstrably already embroiled in a war is the height of folly. It’s like closing one’s eyes and chanting “Make it go away.” Once a war has begun, it must be fought to a conclusion.

     If there’s a race war in progress, it must be fought. To refuse to fight is to surrender pre-emptively. Unless you want to live in a nation in which Whites are a designated rightless victim class, to be abused and expropriated by blacks whenever the urge comes upon them, you must fight.

     If you choose not to fight, don’t expect to keep the respect of others who’ve taken up arms to defend you and yours.

“Why So Racist, Fran?”

     People have asked me that very question.

     There are a number of reasons. Some, I’ve expressed in these pieces. Others arise from personal experiences of which I’m reluctant to speak. But all arise from a pattern that, over time, I grew weary of trying to deny.

     American blacks – i.e., residents of this nation descended from sub-Saharan African ancestors; henceforth simply blacks – are hostile to Whites and Asians. Many of them are openly, violently hostile toward us. The danger is more evident in some places than others, but nowhere that blacks reside is it absent.

     Thomas Sowell and others have pointed out that starting after the Civil War / War Between The States / Late Unpleasantness, blacks had an ascending history: steadily rising economically and socially. Of course if the baseline is rightless slavery, ascent is to be expected. However, even during those ascending years, unwed motherhood was much more prevalent among blacks than Whites: roughly 19% compared to Whites’ 6%. Today black illegitimacy stands at approximately 72%. Nearly three-quarters of all black infants are born to an unwed mother.

     Fatherlessness being an excellent predictor of future crime, blacks’ participation in crime figures has always been out of proportion to their numbers. It’s at its highest today; slightly more than 50% of all violent crimes and crimes against property can be attributed to black perpetrators. Ann Coulter has noted that the great majority of incarcerated offenders – of all races – were born out of wedlock; many never knew their bio-fathers.

     Black participation in various federal and state welfare programs is disproportionate to their percentage of the population. So is black employment by state and federal governments. Despite many subventions, including “equal opportunity” laws and similar preferential-treatment provisions, blacks are net-negative participants in the American economy.

     Heavily black neighborhoods are known to be disorderly and unsafe for Whites or Asians to visit or pass through. “Casual” assaults and harassment of Whites and Asians by blacks are commonplace. Disorderly behavior by blacks, including pointless vandalism, in retail establishments is becoming a major detriment to the retail sector.

     Black youth are highly resistant to education of any kind. This open letter by a White schoolteacher depicts a degree of disorder and pointlessness that’s almost never observed in a classroom of Whites. A typical case:

     Anyone who is around young blacks will probably get a constant diet of rap music. Blacks often make up their own jingles, and it was not uncommon for 15 boys to swagger into a classroom, bouncing their shoulders and jiving back.

     They were yelling back and forth, rapping 15 different sets of words in the same harsh, rasping dialect. The words were almost invariably a childish form of boasting: “Who got dem shine rim, who got dem shine shoe, who got dem shine grill (gold and silver dental caps)?” The amateur rapper usually ends with a claim—in the crudest terms imaginable—that all womankind is sexually devoted to him. For whatever reason, my students would often groan instead of saying a particular word, as in, “She suck dat aaahhhh (think of a long grinding groan), she f**k dat aaaahhhh, she lick dat aaaahhh.”

     So many black girls dance in the hall, in the classroom, on the chairs, next to the chairs, under the chairs, everywhere. Once I took a call on my cell phone and had to step outside of class. I was away about two minutes but when I got back, the girls had lined up at the front of the classroom and were convulsing to the delight of the boys.

     In sum, blacks’ propensity toward aggression, their lack of impulse control, and their unwillingness to accept responsibility for themselves impose a heavy toll on American society. Yet they forever demand special preferences and special programs to cater to them. Black racialist mouthpieces never cease to “blame Whitey,” as if the crimes and destruction blacks perpetrate would never occur had there never been slavery in the United States. And of course there’s the drumbeat for “reparations,” which appears likely to go on to the end of time.

     Charles Murray, the bravest sociologist of our time, put hard numbers to some of the above in his recent book Facing Reality. Others, both credentialed and informal, have added data to the pile. Particularly notable is the late Colin Flaherty’s contribution: White Girl Bleed A Lot, which documents the epidemic of black-on-white violence. The work of Jared Taylor and others also deserves recognition.

     In response to all this, the black activists and racial promoters simply scream “racism!”

     Call it what you will. It’s a response to the depredations and social toll blacks have imposed on America – particularly on Whites. Many have tried in vain to explain those burdens away. Many have declared themselves done with all such efforts.

     Including myself.

The Evidence Is Plentiful And Explicit

     I never would have expected to say this here – or anywhere – but the hour has come for segregation of the black race away from whites.

     Have just one item of evidence:

“You don’t deserve black culture…” pic.twitter.com/QHIeER5Nj7

— Dark Side (@not_rekt_11) September 17, 2025

     Oh all right, have another:

Is this “we’re all the same” thing in the room with us now? pic.twitter.com/3RVtJrY4KB

— Dark Side (@not_rekt_11) September 17, 2025

     There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of such videos. There are videos of blacks trashing supermarkets, outdoor grocers’ stalls, fast-food places, convenience stores, and hairdressers’ salons. There are many videos of blacks attacking a lone white man or woman, sometimes in packs. There are videos of blacks deliberately vandalizing cars. There are many videos of gangs of black women brawling in public. There are videos of blacks challenging white cops to a fistfight, usually getting shot or Tased for it. There are videos of blacks disrupting restaurants, of blacks acting up on mass transit, and of blacks deliberately halting traffic on a busy street. You can find as many of these as you can stomach on X/Twitter.

     There are plenty of videos of black smash-and-grab robberies and strong-arm robberies, if you prefer.

     Many will say “But in a nation of 330 million, surely these are just scattered incidents.” They are not. They’re commonplace and growing more so as you read this. Iryna Zarutska wasn’t a tragic outlier; she was representative of today’s norm.

     Around blacks, whites and our property are not safe.

---

     The “root cause” of racial “disharmony” will remain a matter for dispute. Some will insist it’s cultural. I continue to believe it’s at least partly genetic. But does it really matter? Must civil society continue to suffer while we struggle toward a consensus about it?

     When I wrote this piece, I still had hope. I didn’t think that outcome, or anything like it, was inevitable. After all, I told myself, there are still many intelligent, well-socialized blacks. Perhaps they’ll finally realize that they must take their unruly fellows in hand, discipline them, and bring an end to their disruptions of our society.

     Then I started to think seriously. I asked myself the key questions: Who is teaching the unruly ones to hate whites? Who is encouraging them to victimize us? Who is shielding them from the consequences of their actions?

     It was a long and painful pondering. I sought answers other than the obvious one. I couldn’t find any that were consistent with the available evidence. Then I wrote this piece. No, it doesn't explicitly mention race. Does it need to?

     We cannot have them among us.

---

     I’m old. The old are often cynical. I’ve tried to resist that temptation. But cynicism often comes of a particular phenomenon: a pattern of pieties repeated to rationalize the avoidance of an unpleasant or uncomfortable conclusion. The pious ones keep saying “We can’t go that way” to that conclusion even as their preferred explanations fail and the “solutions” they proffer crash and burn beyond recognition.

     It’s when the pieties are inflicted upon oneself that they become truly intolerable. I’ve had that experience.

     I once had a couple of liberal friends. Liberal in the Sixties sense: tolerant, generous, well-meaning – liberals are always well-meaning; ask them and they’ll tell you so – and certain that America could “solve” its race problem. They ascribed that problem to racism: that is, to white racism toward blacks. It was liberal doctrine; anyone who refused it was “read out of the church.”

     I was politically unaligned back then. I’d begun to question that doctrine. At that time I worked near the border between Nassau County and Queens. I’d been mugged several times, always by blacks. Even then, I was willing to notice a pattern, though I still held back from what it implied.

     So I asked one of them, a woman not much older than myself, what she thought about racial matters. She responded with liberal doctrine: we must understand blacks’ grievances, we must be tolerant and forgiving, we must compensate for the legacy of slavery, we must give them a “hand up” to balance the scales, and so forth. We must, we must, we must.

     Must we? I asked myself silently. My interlocutor lived in a lily-white district and worked as a high-ranking bureaucrat at a prestigious university. She might never have brushed against racial hatred personally. I forbore to ask her about that, of course; it would have been “insulting.” So I asked her something else.

     “Suppose my neighborhood,” I said, “were about to find itself home to a couple of black families? Knowing what usually results from that, what would you say I should do?”

     She reacted indignantly. Indignation is common among liberals when they’re challenged on one of their dogmas, even indirectly. She insisted stridently that I would have a moral obligation to remain where I am, not to sell my home and move.

     Why would I be under such an obligation? She never got there. But she was adamant. That obligation, she insisted, was absolute. It superseded my responsibility for my own well-being.

     You might try my query on a liberal of your acquaintance. I can’t recommend it, mind you; the consequences occasionally go beyond simple disagreement. But give it some thought when you’re not otherwise engaged.

---

     I know some highly intelligent persons. More than one of them has echoed that old Sixties-liberal racial doctrine at me. As I once did, they resist the conclusion that the black race cannot mingle peacefully with America’s other races. They want to keep trying. They maintain, sometimes explicitly, that racial separation is simply unacceptable. They insist that there “must be another way” – and that whites are morally obligated to keep trying until we find it.

     I no longer feel any such obligation. The obligation I feel is to defend myself, my loved ones, my neighbors, and American civil society. That’s where I have planted my flag.

     Your conclusions are your own.

The Shelter Problem

     Yes, yes, I know you’re tired of hearing about Charlie Kirk’s murder and what’s followed. Sorry; it’s on my mind, and I write about what’s on my mind. You see, there are parallels between the situation that produced Charlie’s murderer and the ones that make both black predation and Muslim violence so rampant.

     The explanation starts with an insight from Brigitte Gabriel:

     I think I’ve embedded this video before, but never mind. Gabriel’s explanation of the sheltering character of a population that protects and enables its violent fraction is on point. When Mao Tse-tung wrote that “The people are the sea in which the revolutionary fish swims,” he had the same idea in mind. The larger mass of that population need not be violent. It needs only to provide concealment, protection, and sustenance to its violent members. That greatly increases the willingness of the violent to go forth and slaughter.

     When black or Muslim violence erupts, the rejoinder from the peacefully inclined among us is often “But they’re not all like that. We can’t punish all of them for the deeds of a few!” This response is so common that it’s generated an Internet acronym: NAXALT. And indeed, by American standards of justice that rejoinder is correct.

     But the phenomenon has killed the degree of mutual trust that made America the social, economic, and political envy of the world. When it’s unwise, for the sake of one’s own well-being, to trust in the good will of strangers, trust will disappear. And that is exactly what has happened.

     We cannot trust blacks.
     We cannot trust Muslims.
     Worst of all, we cannot trust those on the Left – and we have no reliable way of distinguishing them from the others around us. Any of them could be an assassin or an enabler of assassins. Any of them might cheer at seeing one of his fellows brutalize or kill us. The culture that shelters them has reduced the risk of those things to them.

     That has increased the risk to the rest of us.

---

     Retail establishments and restaurants are beginning to sense the dangers. Some have already gone to what I’ve been (mistakenly) calling a “kill box.” Properly, it’s a delayed-admission security entrance. Below is a picture of the sort of thing I’m describing:

     The outer door is unlocked. The would-be entrant steps inside. The inner door remains locked against him until a security guard can decide whether he should be allowed to pass into the establishment. If the answer is no, he can proceed no further; he must leave.

     The “kill zone” where the would-be entrant must wait is of course transparent. It can be made as large as the proprietors think appropriate for their application. The walls are usually made of Lucite. In the future they may be made of armor glass, given how many guns there are in the world. I know of one such retailer, a furrier, who has already imposed such a control on his potential customers. He won’t be alone for long.

     Such controls, openly designed to separate dangerous elements from the rest of us, are a stopgap solution. They can only protect enclosures; they cannot protect public places. With Muslim violence and black “chimp-outs” becoming more frequent and more widespread, the long-term solution can only be a complete, enforced separation of the populations, such as this. Popular sentiment won’t yet support that, but time will tell.

---

     Trust in the good will of strangers is a social requirement. The loss of it atomizes us, as it’s doing today. An increasing percentage of Americans are unwilling to leave their homes to shop. They fear what may await them. Many such have ample justification. (Say what you will about Jeff Bezos, but thank God for Amazon.)

     Do you hate the idea? I do. But anyone with a better idea, a better vision for restoring public peace and amity is welcome to present it. In this regard I must hope that there are keener eyes than mine... though I’ve seen no evidence to that effect.

Matt Walsh Goes Part Way (UPDATED)

     It cannot be made clearer than this:

Time for MASSIVE change in America
pic.twitter.com/IyUpNRHB2e

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 10, 2025

     Note that Walsh is unsparing about the grisly reality of the crime. Note that he is unequivocal in condemning the mainstream media’s desire to turn the attention away from the crime and onto “conservative racism.” But note also that he shies back from the conclusion that the statistics he cites would force upon any of us: i.e., that whites cannot and must not have blacks among us.

     The black race is incompatible with the white race. Yes, some of its members have adapted to the norms of the advanced civilizations whites have built. But generation after generation, young black males have reverted to the norms of the jungle. When they do, their forebears fail to restrain or discipline them. Whites are left to clean up the mess... and, to add insult to injury, to hear ourselves denounced for “racism” for daring to notice the obvious.

     It is no longer possible to believe, after all these years and all our efforts, that the black race can be rendered safe for civilized society. The “not all of them are like that” deflection must be dismissed with prejudice if whites’ lives and property are to be protected.

     In a different context, Ronald Reagan asked pointedly, “If not now, when? If not us, who?” Those are the questions of the hour. The subject is different, but the urgency is just as great.

     What awaits us should we delay further will be too grim to bear.

     UPDATE: Don’t think for a moment that other blacks aren’t wholly behind Decarlos Brown Jr.:

I really hope @dbongino and @FBIDirectorKash know about these things. https://t.co/IyiK9vrp8a

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) September 10, 2025

     Young black men lap that stuff up. It’s their license for doing whatever they please to the rest of us.

     They must go. Even if it takes the imposition of martial law and a “Two Doors” scenario, they must all go. Where, I don’t know or care.