STRENGTH IS THE RELATIVE AVOIDANCE OF DIVERSITY

by Colin Liddell

Every now and then the blue check marks on Twitter pipe up with the mindless mantra that “Diversity is our Strength.”

Erm…yes and no.

DID THE USS FITZGERALD CRASH BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

by Alt-Right News

A US guided missile destroyer, worth approximately $1.5 billion dollars and equipped with every form of navigational and detection device possible, nevertheless managed to collide with a massive container ship in the Pacific Ocean to the South of Japan.

The extremely high improbability of such an occurrence has everyone scratching their heads, trying to think of a vaguely plausible explanation for the accident, which almost sunk the ship, the USS Fitzgerald, and cost the lives of seven of its crew. The Fitzgerald, a 8,315-tonne ship with a crew of 300, was hit by the 29,060-ton CX Crystal, manned by 20 Filipinos.

There are a number of speculative possibilities. It could be that the captain was just a complete moron (unlikely) or a druggie (slightly less unlikely), or that there was some weird anomaly in the area of the collision, either physical or electromagnetic that interfered with the ship's navigational equipment in some way. Perhaps it was some kind of "waterspout"—a mysterious rotating column of water and spray typically formed by a whirlwind occurring over water—or maybe the Fitzgerald's guidance systems were hacked by "evil Russians" or shut down by alien interference from the planet Zog, etc., etc.

OK, this is just getting silly...

Let's stop beating around the bush and instead focus on the most likely cause of maritime mayhem in the modern US navy, namely the old bugbear of "diversity" and the organisation's well-known policies of fast-tracking women and minorities.

Remember, the military services in the US don't merely exist to defend the country against its enemies and carry out globalist wars. They are also a handy tool to remind the very divided United States of America how "united" they are—or should be.

Accordingly, a search for crew shots of the USS Fitzgerald, suggests that the ship was in fact being used as something of an "affirmative action" guinea pig and showboat.

Hillary on the Fitzgerald: If Zimbabwe had a navy it would look like this.

This picture from 2011, shows then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on board the Fitzgerald with what looks like a "more diverse than normal" crew—and enjoying every minute of it, naturally.

Of the 17 naval personnel in the photograph only 6 can be said to be White males, with the rest being mainly Blacks, and at least 2 women. The presumption of course is that these "diverse" elements were there not entirely on merit but instead to present the desired "optics."

Of course, this photo was taken six years ago and a lot may have changed in that time, but usually when it comes to "diversity" things tend to move in only one direction.

The US navy today is now around 15% female and 34% non-White. Contrast this with its main rival navies—the Russian and Chinese navies, which are overwhelmingly male and core ethnicity.

But even if the Fitzgerald's crew was less diverse than this picture suggests and more in line with the general demographics of the navy—which is still the least White and second least male of all the services—it only requires a few unsound individuals to cause disasters. "Affirmative action" provides the means by which such individuals can be placed in positions of great responsibility and danger. We have to now see if that was the case with the USS Fitzgerald.

HATE WINS!

by Daniel Barge

Get used to it. Hate is on the rise. It is now endemic and ever present, like the very air we breathe. This is what the last Presidential election proved, and all subsequent elections will only hammer that nail in further until the plank it is embedded in splinters into a thousand shards of wood.

This new ever-present hatred is continually showing up in opinion polls, like the latest one from Suffolk University, Boston, where everyone and everything is more disliked than liked.

DEFINING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

by Keith Preston

A FB friend recently asked me to provide a definition of “political correctness.” Here’s the definition I would use...

I would define “political correctness” as the common term for the institutionalization and enculturation of progressive moral norms in such a way that their transgression generates ridicule, disproportional feelings of outrage or indignation, ostracism of the supposed offending party, an inclination towards persecution on the part of the offended, and the possible imposition of social, economic, professional, institutional, or legal sanctions against the alleged offender, perhaps accompanied by mendacity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, or double standards on the part of the offended.

PROMOTE MASS WHITE IMMIGRATION TO THE THIRD WORLD TO SAVE NON-WHITE COUNTRIES

These people are literally breeding themselves into extinction.

by Colin Liddell

According to population projections, within this century, the population of Africa will soar from around one billion to over four billion. This means that it is projected to catch up with and overtake that of Asia.

Of course, we all know that that is unsustainable, and that African nations are completely unable to limit their excessive population growth in the same way that China, or even India, did in the late 20th century. We also know about the way in which excessive population growth is corrected. Hint: it doesn't taper off gently. Instead what you get is total system collapse on a massive scale. (Refer to the example of reindeer on St. Matthew Island, Alaska, for the likely effect this has on population.