Aztecs Were Destroyed By Food Poisoning

The colonization of the New World remains a historical point of contention. Some say it was genocide, while others point to the role that disease played in destroying large numbers of the Amerinds of Siberian Mongol descent who occupied the Americas at the time the Europeans arrived.

Recent evidence suggests that at least one great die-off was caused by food poisoning more than an exotic disease, leading to the collapse of the Aztec empire:

Scientists say as many as 15 million people – an estimated 80 per cent of population – were killed when an epidemic known as cocoliztli swept Mexico’s Aztec nation in 1545.

…Ashild Vagene, of the University of Tuebingen in Germany, said: “The 1545-50 cocoliztli was one of many epidemics to affect Mexico after the arrival of Europeans, but was specifically the second of three epidemics that were most devastating and led to the largest number of human losses.

…Vagene co-authored a study published in the science journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.

The cocoliztli outbreak is considered one of the deadliest epidemics in human history, approaching the “Black Death” bubonic plague that felled some 25 million people in western Europe in the 14th century — about half the regional population.

Analysing DNA extracted from 29 skeletons buried in a cocoliztli cemetery, scientists found traces of the salmonella enterica bacterium, of the Paratyphi C variety.

Salmonella enterica Paratyphi C causes symptoms similar to those of typhoid fever, but is relatively unknown in our present time:

Typhoid and paratyphoid fever are most often acquired through consumption of water or food that has been contaminated by feces of an acutely infected or convalescent person or a chronic, asymptomatic carrier. Transmission through sexual contact, especially among men who have sex with men, has been documented rarely.

…Cases of paratyphoid fever caused by serotypes Paratyphi B (tartrate negative) and Paratyphi C are rarely reported. Approximately 85% of typhoid fever and 90% of paratyphoid fever cases in the United States are among international travelers; of those, 75% of typhoid and 90% of paratyphoid fever cases are caused by serotype Paratyphi A acquired by travelers to southern Asia (such as India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh). Other high-risk regions for typhoid and paratyphoid fever include Africa and Southeast Asia; lower-risk regions include East Asia, South America, and the Caribbean.

In other words, they were done in by a fever resulting from food poisoning arising from fecal contamination of food or water. While this does not look like a deliberate genocidal act, the effect was indubitably devastating.

Kentucky Shows Us The First Cracks In The Entitlements State

Reuters tells us that it will tie healthcare to work status in a reversal of norms:

Kentucky on Friday became the first U.S. state to require that Medicaid recipients work or get jobs training, after gaining federal approval for the fundamental change to the 50-year-old health insurance program for the poor.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued policy guidance on Thursday allowing states to design and propose test programs with such requirements.

Kentucky’s waiver, submitted for federal approval in 2016, requires able-bodied adult recipients to participate in at least 80 hours a month of “employment activities,” including jobs training, education and community service.

This reverses the entitlement mentality which holds that all citizens “deserve” certain benefits paid for by other citizens, and instead ties benefits to duty, requiring that people contribute before receiving rewards. That takes our policy to only a step away from, as many have suggested, simply using government power to purchase insurance in bulk and then re-selling it to citizens.

In America, as in Europe, the Entitlement state began in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century as nations attempted to quell the rising tide of socialism by adopting “socialist lite” policies. While this preserved capitalism and individual liberty, it also guaranteed a gradual slide toward full socialism which really accelerating in the 1960s.

With the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, this kicked into full gear because there was no longer a negative example of socialism in the news. This allowed politicians to buy votes with free stuff provided by a group too small to outvote that process, and gave industry a subsidy so that its cheap labor could be paid for by tax dollars:

Here’s a stark number for understanding how low-wage employers are relying on the kindness of taxpayers: $153 billion.

That’s the annual bill that state and federal governments are footing for working families making poverty-level wages at big corporations such as Walmart (WMT) and McDonald’s (MCD), according to a new study from the University of California Berkeley Labor Center. Because these workers are paid so little, they are increasingly turning to government aid programs such as food stamps to keep them from dire poverty, the study found.

In reality, this has been going on for a long time, since low-income families have always relied on food stamps, public school as daycare, progressive taxation, and other forms of wealth transfer. Industry and Leftism benefit because both are based on the idea of mobilizing masses to conform to the same behavior patterns, and so both forces act along similar lines and in support of each other.

The Entitlement State draws people from afar because it enables them to live comfortably in the first world without doing much for themselves. Instead of struggling to fix their nations and build wealth, they can simply come to the West and live on welfare or subsidized minimum-wage jobs.

Since adopting these policies, Western nations have spent themselves into debt:

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely.

That reckless spending and out-of-control debt has made the West subservient to China, which holds the notes on much of our debt:

China added to bond investors’ jitters on Wednesday as traders braced for what they feared could be the end of a three-decade bull market.

…China holds the world’s largest foreign-exchange reserves, at $3.1 trillion, and regularly assesses its strategy for investing them.

…A top Treasury official signaled confidence in the U.S. government debt market, which at $14.5 trillion is the world’s largest.

As this realization settles in, people in the West are becoming increasingly unwilling to fund the Entitlement State, and equally more supportive of having a strong military to counter foreign control. This leaves us with the option of cutting the nearly 60% of the budget that goes to entitlements, and setting ourselves free from these threats again.

Why Europe Suicides: Nobodies Becoming Somebodies

Finally we are seeing some attention to the genocide of European peoples by their elected leaders, revealed in a new book by Douglas Murray which explores Euro-suicide as a psychology:

The in-migration was initially hailed as an economic boon; then as a necessary corrective to an aging population; then as a means of spicing up society through “diversity”; and finally as a fait accompli, an unstoppable wave wrought by the world’s gathering globalization. Besides, argued the elites, the new arrivals would all become assimilated into the European culture eventually, so what’s the problem?

As British journalist and author Douglas Murray writes, “Promised throughout their lifetimes that the changes were temporary, that the changes were not real, or that the changes did not signify anything, Europeans discovered that in the lifespan of people now alive they would become minorities in their own countries.”

…A key point of the book, reinforced through anecdote and abundant documentation, is that Muslim immigrants have not assimilated into their European host countries to any meaningful extent. Indeed, there is a growing feeling among many of the new arrivals that these aren’t host countries at all but merely lands ripe for Islam’s inexorable expansion.

…Murray explains the motivation of those who engage in such flights of moral dudgeon thus: “Rather than being people responsible for themselves and answerable to those they know, they become the self-appointed representatives of the living and the dead, the bearers of a terrible history as well as the potential redeemers of mankind. From being a nobody one becomes a somebody.”

In other words: individualism.

To be pro-diversity is to assume the role of a wise sage, a powerful king, and a godlike emperor all in one. It makes people feel smarter and more powerful than their neighbors and, in an age where everyone is made equal, the only real resource is being unique or more powerful than someone else. They need to find someone else to be better than.

In the meantime, all of the excuses for immigration turn out to be lies, because the real goal of those in power is to destroy any impediment to the expansion of their commercial, political, and social interests. How did we get leaders like this? We elected them, and by doing it repeatedly, created a political environment so toxic that no one of any sanity would enter it because they knew they would lose.

And so we have elevated to the level of elite those who are merely opportunists and actors willing to pantomime the play onstage. They know the right thing to say after every tragedy; they know how to connect powerful people, siphon money, reveal opportunity, and manage a system in which the conclusions are extensions of the assumptions. “More equality” and “more business” are always the right answers.

Original Western European society kept individualism in check with a strong sense of culture, religion, heritage, and purpose. With egalitarianism, purpose was lost, because it created a hierarchy based on who could achieve it, and that debunked and invalidated equality as a notion. So we junked it, and now, we have criminal actors on a stage made up of insanity as the whole thing sinks into the mire.

Corporate America, Like Our Democratic Leaders, Wants Obedience — White Males Do Not Fit

James Damore, author of a controversial memo that pointed out how conformist Google’s corporate “culture” had become, is now suing the company not for wrongful termination, but for discrimination while he worked there. This strategy enables him to win his case and, despite being likely awarded no real money, having proved his point.

The suit — which seems balanced on the whole, and confined to the factual — reveals what a hostile work environment at Google that Damore had to endure:

According to his filing, Google employs “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.”

The suit also claims that the “numerical presence of women celebrated at Google” was based “solely due to their gender” while the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”

…To underscore her point that Google’s policies need to be amended, she cited so-called TGIF meetings at Google, telling reporters that during Damore’s tenure, “managers were called out and shamed and mocked if they didn’t have 50/50 gender parity in [their respective] units.” She called the goal “fair” but asked, rhetorically: “How do you get there? Job fairs. Making yourself more attractive. Not by saying, ‘White guy, you can’t have that job because that’s reserved for a woman or [other] minority.’”

Nothing here is surprising. Tech has left the years of innovation behind; Google is messing around with AI and other tech that will mature in a few dozen years, but that is being handled by unwashed geeklings hidden in back rooms. The rest of Google has become as corporate as Monsanto, GM, or Microsoft, and for that, they need obedient little tools to carry out the detailed tasks handed down from above.

As a result, they are turning to women, Asians, and other minorities because these groups tend to be detail-focused but oblivious to the big picture, which means that they will carry out paradoxical or pointless instructions to the letter, which is what administration needs in order to remain in power.

Although this seems like Google is strong, what is really announces is that Google has become weak. It has moved from the youth of a company to old age, mainly because its existing product does not produce enough money, and its future products are not yet realized. This is a company in crisis, and James Damore is bringing that to light for the benefit of all, including Google itself.

Ethnic Ties Are More Important That Alliances With Other Races

Diversity makes people isolated and withdrawn, conditions that go alongside paranoia. Xenophobia, or the pragmatic recognition that other groups want to dominate your group, can also coincide with paranoia. But in the end, ethnic allegiance is more important than cross-racial alliances. We can see this in the case of Donald Trump and John Lewis:

Shortly after arriving in Atlanta, Trump signed a bill that grants Georgia its first national historic park at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site near downtown Atlanta. He signed it shortly after Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, boarded Air Force One.

The measure was long championed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and vocal Trump critic, who praised the bill without mentioning the president.

In theory, Trump is reaching out to another ethnic group, but this is not praiseworthy in the eyes of a member of that group. If he acknowledges the help of a cross-racial ally, he is ceding some power to that other group, so he cannot both recognize the help and maintain his own action in the self-interest of his group. This is yet another reason why diversity will never work, but in the meantime, will make unintentional enemies of us all.

The Grief Exception: Diversity Causes Depression

At The Guardian, buried deep within an article on depression lurks a shocking admission of its causes, including diversity.

Then, as the years and decades passed, doctors on the frontline started to come back with another question. All over the world, they were being encouraged to tell patients that depression is, in fact, just the result of a spontaneous chemical imbalance in your brain – it is produced by low serotonin, or a natural lack of some other chemical. It’s not caused by your life – it’s caused by your broken brain. Some of the doctors began to ask how this fitted with the grief exception. If you agree that the symptoms of depression are a logical and understandable response to one set of life circumstances – losing a loved one – might they not be an understandable response to other situations? What about if you lose your job? What if you are stuck in a job that you hate for the next 40 years? What about if you are alone and friendless?

The grief exception seemed to have blasted a hole in the claim that the causes of depression are sealed away in your skull. It suggested that there are causes out here, in the world, and they needed to be investigated and solved there. This was a debate that mainstream psychiatry (with some exceptions) did not want to have. So, they responded in a simple way – by whittling away the grief exception. With each new edition of the manual they reduced the period of grief that you were allowed before being labelled mentally ill – down to a few months and then, finally, to nothing at all. Now, if your baby dies at 10am, your doctor can diagnose you with a mental illness at 10.01am and start drugging you straight away.

…We act like human distress can be assessed solely on a checklist that can be separated out from our lives, and labelled as brain diseases. If we started to take people’s actual lives into account when we treat depression and anxiety, Joanne explained, it would require “an entire system overhaul”. She told me that when “you have a person with extreme human distress, [we need to] stop treating the symptoms. The symptoms are a messenger of a deeper problem. Let’s get to the deeper problem.”

The grief exception points out that depression cannot be purely chemical because people experience it in response to grief, which is an external stimulus. If grief can cause the effects of depression, then we cannot universally say that those effects cause depression, because that is a cause-effect error. If when it rains, the sidewalk is wet, it does not mean that the if the sidewalk is wet, it has rained; there are other ways in that the sidewalk can become wet.

As it turns out, that is not all. Instability caused by diversity causes people to fear for their future, and this makes them depressed and paranoid:

We all know that every human being has basic physical needs: for food, for water, for shelter, for clean air. It turns out that, in the same way, all humans have certain basic psychological needs. We need to feel we belong. We need to feel valued. We need to feel we’re good at something. We need to feel we have a secure future. And there is growing evidence that our culture isn’t meeting those psychological needs for many – perhaps most – people. I kept learning that, in very different ways, we have become disconnected from things we really need, and this deep disconnection is driving this epidemic of depression and anxiety all around us.

…Professor John Cacioppo of Chicago University taught me that being acutely lonely is as stressful as being punched in the face by a stranger – and massively increases your risk of depression. Dr Vincent Felitti in San Diego showed me that surviving severe childhood trauma makes you 3,100% more likely to attempt suicide as an adult. Professor Michael Chandler in Vancouver explained to me that if a community feels it has no control over the big decisions affecting it, the suicide rate will shoot up.

As time goes on, we are seeing that diversity is destructive to all groups involved and that our attempts to fix the situation only make it worse. Like any other crusade against a condition of life itself, this one is doomed to fail because it has no condition for stopping, thus will continue to accelerate in manic intensity until it self-destructs.

Why Invasive Species Prosper: Less Specific Knowledge, Fewer Enemies

A new study on the genomes of reeds gives us an insight into what gives invasive species an upper hand over native ones:

“Smaller genomes are more nimble,” she said. “They can grow in variable environments and at almost all latitudes.”

The findings of the research team raise the question of why plants with small genomes are more likely to become invasive. She thinks they have the answer.

“The main theoretical reason has to do with minimum generation time,” she explained. “The idea is that a smaller genome can be replicated more quickly than a larger genome. So if a plant is in a stressful environment, it can be replicated more quickly than if it had a larger genome. It needs fewer resources and can use its resources quickly to reproduce before its luck runs out.

“On the other hand, a smaller genome also means that it may lose genes that are potentially beneficial,” added Pyšek, the first author of the paper. “So there may be a trade-off.”

Smaller genomes means fewer instructions, which means a generalist — “can grow in variable environments and at almost all latitudes” — with fewer genes coded to specific adaptations such as would anchor a plant in one environment. This generalist status means that the plant has a lower burden of fitting into an ecosystem and therefore, more energy to reproduce, and a simpler form to reproduce as well.

As time goes on, such plants become adapted because the ones that develop specific adaptations become more efficient. They therefore have more energy than their less-specialized cousins, and gradually genetically predominate. The same will be true of invasive animals, including humans. The ones that are least adapted to their specific country of origin, and therefore most generalized and simplest, will arrive in new lands and out-reproduce the natives, displacing them and eventually, genetically absorbing them.

In effect, this is a “race to the bottom” where simpler species constantly overwhelm and destroy more complex ones, unless the environment is hostile enough that generalists do not thrive in it because they lack the specific adaptations.

Invasive species have another advantage, which is that they lack the predators and enemies that they had back in their homelands, while invasive species must contend with such others, meaning that all of the energy which would have to go to defending the invasive species can instead be invested in reproduction:

“Our native Phragmites in North America is getting hammered by both native and introduced insects, whereas the invasive Phragmites in North America suffers far less herbivory than it does in its native Europe,” she said. “That’s partly because when invasives are introduced to a new place, they leave their enemies behind and can devote their resources to greater growth.”

The same applies to immigration. People of simpler genomes, with fewer specific adaptations, can abandon their enemies at home and gain an easy foothold abroad. At that point, the only thing that holds them back is xenophobic elitism on the part of the natives, who will recognize assimilation in progress and resist it, at least if not restrained by government and media.

How The Hippies Made A Once-Thriving Society Into Idiocracy

Back in 1968, a seismic shift occurred across the West as we transitioned to the values system of individualism instead of social order:

In 1968, the baby boom generation came of age and started making its mark. The “Me Generation” had arrived. The men, sons of the “Greatest Generation,” did not want to fight communism in Vietnam as their fathers had fought fascism in Germany, Italy and Japan. The women wanted new social equality and freedom concerning sex, marriage and work that their mothers had never dreamed of.

The “Protestant ethic” of self-discipline and personal responsibility was rejected by many boomers. In its place was thrust forward a culture of entitlement and “self-actualization” as the New Jerusalem for America. Duty to family and country was old-fashioned, not “hip,” while “if it feels good, do it” became a norm for progressive minds to embrace.

Instead of responsibility to an order — social, natural, divine, logical — instead there was only individualism. Whatever the individual desired was right, and this replaced the notion of the individual adapting to its environment and having a civilization so that order could prevail. Not surprisingly, this caused people to revert to monkey behavior, essentially fornicating wildly, being parasitic, ganging up on non-conformists, and otherwise reverting to primal urges.

Sexual liberation led to a lack of trust between people, because when you are lover #64 you know that you are kept as a matter of convenience, not the eternal love that your grandparents had. That in turn led to divorce, which created unstable children from Generation X onward who spent most of their free time wondering how they could know if anything was real, true, good, or important, because they never really had any examples or stability in their lives.

The ethnic, class, and racial liberation also produced more hybrids, brought forth many ill-considered genetic mixes, and destroyed the notion of having culture at all. The hippie emphasis on drugs created not just a society strung out on weed, but a mentality from “big pharma” that there was a pill for anything. Better living through chemistry. We also cannot forget how the hippie ethos of personal laziness and the dogmatic pursuit of art, music, hedonism, and “new” ideas put us into a cycle of novelty-seeking culminating in Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO).

Even worse, the hippies introduced the idea that having the “correct” ideas was more important than being actually correct. This set us adrift from reality entirely, so that all that matters is the approval of our peers at the voting box, in the pub, at the cash register, or around the water cooler. Not surprisingly, now, insanity predominates in the West:

A group of Democrats in Congress held briefings on Capitol Hill with a Yale professor named Brandy X. Lee who, in admitted complete violation of the ethics governing her profession, has edited and contributed to a book claiming President Donald Trump is losing his mind. What’s the point of ethics when you have a product to sell?

Lee found a receptive audience among the more unstable liberals in Congress, including Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, who regaled CNN with tales of his “concern” for Trump’s mental health. Raskin, looking like he’d recently slept in a bag of potato chips, told CNN of his concern that the President was crazy.

What’s really crazy is advocating for policies that have failed throughout the world, as Raskin and his fellow travelers often do in government. Unstable is the mind calling for socialized medicine and extol the virtues of the UK’s National Health Service without acknowledging the fact that all non-emergency surgeries have been canceled for the month of January because their system is simply overwhelmed. That’s straightjacket-level insane.

Straightjacket-level insane is what happens when you destroy the breeding stock of your nations, shatter families, turn education into propaganda, bedazzle and befuddle minds with mental gymnastics to support a ludicrous ideology, and then saturate those people in propaganda through entertainment while working them into tedious oblivion with soul-sucking jobs. The West is no longer a civilization; it is an insane asylum, ruined by its own “well meaning” policies that culminated in the radical individualism of 1968.

Let us be clear: the rot had been coming for long before that. If the appalling carnage of WW1 did not wake us, and the grotesque waste of the Civil War did not snap us out of the daydream, then surely the horrors of WW2 and the Cold War would not either. That was the case; we slept through those, living in grim terror and denying it with all of our might, only to find that when the Cold War ended, we had no purpose left and so there was nothing to keep us from rushing headlong into full socialism.

And that rot was explainable back to the origins of democracy, which as Plato warned us, is not so much a bad system of government as it is a system that makes people go insane. Without orientation and boundaries, purpose and meaning, they drift into an oblivion of solipsism, navel-gazing as they self-destruct. This loss of character also leads to a loss of genetic integrity, which begins the gradual degradation of the group in ability. We are already seeing genetic degeneration:

In sum: at one time the best of Britons (aged 12–14) could cope with items on the formal level and blended into a smooth curve of performance. Now these items are beyond many of them and register as a huge decimation of high scorers.

Piagetian gains at the bottom of the curve should not be dismissed as simply a phenomenon that offsets losses at the top. Consider the British results for Equilibrium and Pendulum. The decimation of top scorers means that by the age of 12 to 14, fewer British schoolchildren attain the level of formal operations. This means that fewer could think in terms of abstractions (without concrete examples), which limits their capacity for deductive logic and systematic planning. However, the fact that these losses are made up by gains over the rest of the “curve” means that far more of them are at the concrete generalization level. They are better at on the spot thinking (e.g. in playing demanding computer games). Their understanding of the physical world is limited to simple causation between two variables, but they can draw inferences from observations to make generalizations.

The Piagetian results are particularly ominous. Looming over all is their message that the pool of those who reach the top level of cognitive performance is being decimated: fewer and fewer people attain the formal level at which they can think in terms of abstractions and develop their capacity for deductive logic and systematic planning. They also reveal that something is actually targeting that level with special effect, rather than simply reducing its numbers in accord with losses over the curve as a whole. We have given our reason as to why the Piagetian tests are sensitive to this phenomenon in a way that conventional tests are not.

Massive IQ gains over time were never written in the sky as something eternal like the law of gravity. They are subject to every twist and turn of social evolution. If there is a decline, should we be too upset? During the 20th century, society escalated its skill demands and IQ rose. During the 21st century, if society reduces its skill demands, IQ will fall.

In a civilization where stupidity, insanity, and narcissism are the norm, there is zero reward for intelligence, self-discipline, moral character, and insight, so those things will die out, being replaced with the ability to be funny at the bar, the capacity to memorize large amounts of disorganized information, and a creative impulse toward new sexual positions. 1968 cut us free from reality; we have found, to our surprise, that what was left — ourselves — was not only not that fascinating, but a path to stupidity.

Cosmopolitan Mentality Uses Tokens Of Identity To Exclude Others

David Brooks wrote a great book about how the 1968 generation became our new false elites in America. He also reveals to us the nature of cosmopolitanism:

Recently I took a friend with only a high school degree to lunch. Insensitively, I led her into a gourmet sandwich shop. Suddenly I saw her face freeze up as she was confronted with sandwiches named “Padrino” and “Pomodoro” and ingredients like soppressata, capicollo and a striata baguette. I quickly asked her if she wanted to go somewhere else and she anxiously nodded yes and we ate Mexican.

Lacking a culture in common, cosmopolitans instead invent a series of tokens of identity based on what they do share, which is shopping, media, pop culture, the public arts, and knowledge of fine varieties of food, alcohol, cigars, and other luxuries. They then use these tokens of identity to create a social hierarchy where the people who are “in the know” or “in the in-group” have the latest tokens and everyone else follows them as tastemakers and leaders.

They also use these tokens offensively, equating ignorance of cosmopolitan culture with ignorance in general, and using that to shame people who have not joined the cosmopolitan clique. This enables them to dominate others through social means instead of by actually being natural elites, or those who are in power because of higher ability.

Clarence Thomas: Race Is More Important Than Politics

From Daily Caller, an interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

In an epic speech some 20 years ago to black judges in Memphis, Thomas boldly stated that he came not to defend his views, “but rather to assert my right to think to myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black.” He wrote that speech, he says today, to draw attention to, “the right, among blacks, to think for themselves, the right to be that invisible man, to be the one who lays claim to his own thoughts.”

While this is a positive statement, it asserts the importance of race above all else, which is especially necessary as a thought process when one is from a minority ethnic group. Although he is rebelling against being defined by his race, he is also affirming it, because he sees blackness as essential to his choice of how to interpret his views. This rare honest insight into the ethnic crisis in America shows us how it is impossible to be “post-racial” even when thoroughly accepted.