It's an illusion, you see.


Anyone who has spent even a marginal amount of time arguing about the concept of race has surely run into the rally cry, “Race is a social construct!”. It is often a retort on the behalf of some race deniers (who are we kidding, I mean leftists) to dismiss the concept of race and rid it of any meaningful biological correlate, or those who seek to pass race off as a malleable idea that can be molded at societal whim. It may come as a surprise to some, but the proposition that race is a social construct (a ‘social reality’ is much more accurate of a term) does possess some truth. Although, those who deny race are blind to the actual implications behind their most religious hymn.

First, let us arrive at an operational definition of a ‘social construct’ (herein, a social construct will be referred to as a ‘social reality’), so the usual, stupid ambiguity is removed. A social construct is a reality insofar as…

It is ontologically subjective in that the construction and continued existence of social constructs are contingent on social groups and their collective agreement, imposition, and acceptance of such constructions. 

Basically, a social reality is more or less an institutional fact, the existence of the fact relies on societal acceptance i.e. money for barter. (however they are also dependent on the existence of corresponding brute facts). Institutional facts are contrasted with brute facts, or facts that exist regardless of whether or not there is agreement i.e. a mountain or train. What a sight it would be, to see someone deny the existence of an oncoming train, good riddance I say. I’m sure an anti-racist or two would try it.

How exactly are brute facts and social facts connected to each other?

A social fact’s ontology is contingent upon the existence of a brute fact AND social acceptance. For example, “money” corresponds to brute facts that distinctly constitute it such as: pulp, paper, green ink, markings, and rag. Money’s use as a form of barter and trade, however, is contingent on the relevant people’s (i) collective will and intention to merely use it and not something else (ii) their imposition of money to serve a particular function (iii) and by rules that lay atop its “brute facts”. So, of course, we know that the raw materials that represent ‘money’ are not valuable in and of themselves. This is why the new age hipsters that declare ‘money is just paper’ are technically correct, but are functionally stupid. Money is valuable because people allow you to trade some of their stuff with it, like food, boob jobs, and sex (occasionally).

Another important concept to remember is that institutional facts ultimately rely on brute facts, i.e. social reality is ultimately defined by physical reality. For example, to say that a particular black person committed a robbery, we must have confirmed the occurrence of a physical event which we call a robbery. I’m assuming for my readers that wouldn’t be too hard to imagine now would it?. Searle, a prominent modern philosopher on social constructivism, explains that brute facts have logical priority over institutional facts. If there are no brute facts to provide a foundation for social facts, then there is no logical basis for the structure of social reality.


This is a brute fact.

Now that we know what makes up a social fact, we may make sense of what the “race is a social construct” meme really refers to. If race is a social reality, then some brute facts must lay at its foundation. Without brute facts to back it up, the social reality lacks a logical structure. Fortunately, race does indeed have several brute facts to back it up.

A list of racial biological correlates include but are not limited to:

– brain size

– average intelligence quotient

– personality and temperament

– sexual behavior

– rates of fertility, maturation, and longevity

– differences in cranial morphology

– skin color

Differences in race have established themselves across time and national boundaries, at both the behavioral and anatomical level. If race was simply ‘socially constructed’ with no adherence to brute facts, there would exist no correlation between the “races” and the biological facts. Therefore, you can not simply do away with race like you could with an ideology (like women’s rights), or a social tradition kept alive by them ‘evil white peeps’.

The differences, in and of themselves, are not what is important in this context. What is important is the fact the social reality of ‘race’ is indeed tied to some brute facts that no person can coherently deny (although that doesn’t stop the idiots from trying). The classical objection, therefore, is not only unsatisfactory, but tautological (saying the same thing twice). Sure, ‘race’ isn’t a mountain i.e. object, but neither are the words coming out of your mouth, which brings me to my next point.

To drive the point home (I’m operating under the assumption ‘race is a social construct’ theorists have an average IQ of 70) , let us look at another social construction.


This car doesn't exist.

Language is a social construct. Language is not a ‘brute fact’ per se, as cursing at a sub-Saharan African person in Spanish would mean nothing to him (speaking from personal experience of course). Now, does that mean language is not ‘objective’ (in a loose sense)? Well, yes it does, but people do functionally act as if the words used in everyday language have some ounce of societal objectivity. When two people are conversing and one of them mentions the word ‘car’ because it is in sight, there is no debate about the ‘car’s existence and how it is a social construction. If a person were to raise such an objection, he would be ridiculed, scoffed at, and promptly told to shut the fuck up and rightly so. Because it is so incredibly obvious the utterance is referring to something that is right in front of their eyes. We know very little haziness exists with these kinds of references, and we are willing to bet most languages have words that refer to ‘car’. Social construction may account for language, but in society, we know words carry meanings which usually refer to ‘brute facts’. Is it really so hard for ‘race is a social construct hurr durr’ theorists to believe that race is the same way? What these ‘theorists’ are really engaging in, is an obfuscation of language, to the point of absurdity. They desperately attempt to make it seem like they are expelling such a grand and enlightened statement from their inane mouths. When in fact, their sanctimonious boast is akin to saying fucking car doesn’t exist.


Reality is racist.

Reality seems pesky to the ‘race is a social construct’ theorist that I have characterized in this piece. Even with significant evidence that shows race is correlated with certain biological facts, they seek to downplay the facts by appealing to how language works. What they don’t realize is, and this is fortunate for the sane folk out there, is that reality is in fact racist. No, I’m not saying ‘reality’ hates black people or makes slavery jokes (that would be cool though, you have to admit), but the ‘brute facts’ I mentioned earlier seem to match up with the ‘social fact’ of race quite well. I hope the people who scream the mantra with indignant pride realize their foolishness.

If this trend continues, we will have gems like:

A white man invented gravity to keep the black man down.

More on social reality:  John Searle. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995, pp. 29, et seq.


ADL Logo

The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.

A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups, carrying out its mission through a network of 30 Regional and Satellite Offices in the United States and abroad. [1]


Paging Orwell!

Although it has become quite cliché to reference Orwell and his conception of agents of ‘thought police’ in worlds, I believe the ADL fits the criteria almost perfectly. They are a group that decrees a ‘multiculturalist’ message, but in fact they are a group of nationalists who use “Antisemitism” to crush any criticism of their agitation for Jewish interests. It is devious, but also brilliant.


Let us define the category of ‘thought police’ first.

It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance […] to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority. [7]

This is the definition used the 1984 fiction, so it will need some modifying for the real world (although not much).


The ADL’s main mission, we can deduce from above, is to prevent the spread of anti-Semitic messages throughout society. Let us get one thing clear, the ADL claims it opposes all forms of bigotry, but it is more useful  (and clear) to look at them as a Jewish nationalist group. The ADL claims anyone who criticizes the Israeli state and its actions, is simply trying to exhibit their anti-Semitism through a different medium.  On their home website, they even provide resources to assist Jews who wish to agitate for pro-Israeli legislation to their representatives [2].  They also have cookie-cutter responses ready on their website to counter anti-Israeli sentiments [3]. It is obvious, if we look at the ADL’s mission statement and web entries, that they are Jewish nationalists that advocate for their own interests without regard for others. I am not saying this (ethnocentric nationalism) is a bad quality to possess, but in the media the ADL portrays itself as a shield of tolerance and an example of a ‘victimized’ people that fights back against cultural and ethnic repression. The ADL is not anything special, they are a group of nationalists.

If you are not convinced of the ADL’s efforts to silence any anti-Israeli sentiment, take a look at this instance:

In the 1970’s, the group was caught distributing lists of persons deemed as enemies, according to SF Weekly in its February issue. Among those who were defamed for being “pro-Arab propagandists” was the highly renowned professor Noam Chomskey. In 1993, according to the same source, the ADL was caught illegally spying on nearly 10,000 people “including members of socialist, labor and anti-apartheid groups.” [4]

As early as the ’70s, the ADL has been on a mission to quell any anti-Zionist dissent, and it makes sense. The ADL is agitating for a Jewish state, and since they are not criticized for their clandestine spying behavior, they have succeeded in being able to amass significant censorship operations to meet their objective. Notice how the group views their opposition as ‘enemies’, not simply as people who differ ideologically, but ‘enemies’ who are vehemently opposed to them. This is a great tactic, demonizing your opposition and categorizing their dissent as ‘anti-Semitic’ in the mainstream effectively destroys any method of your opposition being able to voice their opinion in a significant medium. Again, there is a common theme, the ADL is a devious group, but brilliant! The Gestapo would be proud!

It seems the ADL even crusades against intellectuals as well! I wouldn’t call Chomsky a ‘pro-Arab’ propagandist (since he is fucking Jewish himself), but since Chomsky is slightly influential to the intellectual mainstream, the ADL responds to his criticism with a little extremism.

And take a look at this interesting partnership:

“YouTube is an incredible tool for sharing videos and giving individuals an opportunity to broadcast themselves, but like other social networking sites it can be abused or used for sinister and dangerous purposes,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “There are those who may try to exploit the technology to spread racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of hate.” [5]

Exploiting technology, eh?

Having a stake in the popular video-sharing website makes sense as well for the ADL. Foxman, you are the one using technology as exploitation, using it to demonize your opposition and protect Jewish ideological interests whilst hiding under a veil of altruistic endeavor!

They have even tried to get their hands into American libraries, by going after the ALA for ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment.[6]


Now, let us see if the ADL sufficiently meets the conditions for ‘Thought Police’.

Thoughtcrime is the most obvious similarity, the ADL calls its thoughtcrime ‘anti-Semitism’. Anyone who exhibits any anti-Israeli sentiment is immediately deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ (as if it were a crime) and dismissed as such. In this instance, thoughtcriminals would be those who express said anti-Semitic attitudes. The ADL’s mission statement I provided makes it pretty clear what their objective is.

Does the ADL use psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate who challenge their authority?

You bet your ass they do. The earlier examples of ADL espionage and target listing, I believe, are sufficient evidence that shows the ADL relies on cloak-and-dagger surveillance to obtain awareness of their opposition’s activities. The ADL also uses psychology to undermine their opponents, to see this one must simply look at the example of the ADL’s attack on Chomsky. The ADL accused Noam of expressing ‘pro-Arab propaganda’ and simply reduced his position to political meme-spreading. Chomsky, however, makes it clear his anti-Israel position is one based on his general attitude towards imperialism [8]. The ADL uses black and white thinking, the classic fallacious mentality of  ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’. They undermine their opponents by making anti-Semitism (or anti-Israeli sentiment) akin to a pathological disorder, a disease. Obviously, opposition to Jewish nationalism can and is more complex than that, but people like Foxman would rather not debate the merits of his people’s nationalism, he just wants to call dissenters names and leave it at that.


There you have it.

The ADL is nothing but a group of Jewish nationalists who use psychological tricks and manipulation to advance their interests. Personally, I would not mind Jewish nationalism if, at least, they were HONEST about their mission. If they did not demonize other racial groups and their attempts at nationalism, (like say, white people) then their nationalism wouldn’t seem so sinister. Hiding under a veil of tolerance and ‘anti-bigotry’ is a lazy tactic, because it allows groups like the ADL to advance their own interests without having to actually discuss why their interests ought to be agitated for. Why argue with someone when you can just call them an ‘anti-Semite’?

Groups like the ADL really suck because they give malicious representations of Jewish people. It seems as if Jewish intellectual and political leaders do more to portray a negative Jewish Stereotype than fight it, and damn do they do a good job.

The ADL is one of the greatest examples of any agency coming close to the category of ‘Thought Police’.


As eloquently described by Noam Chomsky in his book Necessary Illusions (1989):

The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities…. The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them). …
The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming “one of the main pillars” of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel’s refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement. [9]

ADL charged with defamation in Colorado, largest punitive damage payment in Colorado legal history ($10 MIL!):

A civil lawsuit that began with a neighbors’ dispute over garden plants and fighting dogs has ended in a judgment against the Denver-based chapter of the Anti-Defamation League — and what is believed to be the largest defamation judgment ever awarded in a Colorado trial.

On April 28, a 12-member jury in U.S. District Court here sided with the plaintiffs, William and Dorothy Quigley of Evergreen. The Quigleys had sued the Mountain States chapter of the ADL and that chapter’s director, Saul Rosenthal.

The jury awarded the Quigleys damages, mostly punitive, of $10.5 million — a figure that astonished defendants and plaintiffs alike in the drawn-out and complex case.

The jury found that several public statements made in 1994 by Rosenthal on behalf of the ADL defamed the Quigleys and resulted in actual and punitive damages. [10]












I fucking hate feminism.

Posted: April 7, 2011 in Uncategorized

A new feminism meme on the internet? No way!

The video above contains a long, emotionally driven “apology” from a group of male feminists named “Conscious Men”. These “conscious men” took it upon themselves in the video to apologize for the supposed centuries of oppression women have had to endure (of course men are to blame). The men – I would not even call them men – appear in the video all with empathetic gazes, as if they were pretending to stare into women’s eyes to prove how their apology is sincere (and not trying to score some points, even though that is what it seems like).

I don’t understand the drive necessary to push such an anti-masculine message. I mean, masculinity within men is mostly innate,  a complete fruit can still possess remnants of manhood that exist on an instinctual level. Now of course, these fellows define masculinity differently and distinguish between the status quo masculinity and “conscious” masculinity. Nowhere do they define what the hell they mean by this exactly, but I should expect that. To them, ‘conscious’ masculinity is probably masculinity accepted by feminists, which is the antithesis of the pursuit in the first place!

This desire to maintain a state where you offend no group and no person infects all facets of society now. Although this is just one video of some crazy group, I think this is political correctness evolving. As of now, we are aware of PC and the  it exhibits at times, however, it is still commonplace in both the media and society for people to respond to arguments with “that’s offensive” or “I”m offended” or “that’s racist” or “that’s sexist”, as a counter-argument. What if the next wave of political correctness is an even more ridiculous revision of social histories; are the new wave of feminists going to say they were mathematical geniuses and Amazonian warrior women before male patriarchal oppression begun?


Diversity in schools.

Posted: April 5, 2011 in April, Uncategorized

How important is cultural diversity in your school?

(watch before reading)

Currently, I attend a public high school, right in the minority-laden district of a densely populated Southern California city.

As a minority myself, of Mexican/Amerindian descent, I may with utmost certainty say that “diversity” lingers around campus thought and policy. “Diversity”, in its idealistic form, hovers around the campus as if questioning the premise would entail you clamor for the return of segregation, or worse, slavery.

Diversity plagues our textbooks, with pages and pages full of people of all different skin colors and varying cultures; all neatly arranged holding hands in a proverbial group circle as if our interracial and cultural history resembled a bonfire on one of California’s many sandy shores. Diversity, of course, also manifests itself in the student body; blacks, whites, Asians, Mexicans (who make up the most), Filipinos, Indians, and even some native Americans are thrown in for good measure, all walk the campus.

Diversity and the message of “equality” among the student body acts as a daily prayer preached by the principal and the army of administrators. The students are given a collective, scholastic identity through the school and her mascot; the common drivel we are persuaded to accept is that since all of us attend the same school and receive the same education, we share some type of bond, and out of this bond somehow an ethic arises. The ghastly ethic of dishonest equality rears its head, or the claim: “we all ought to view each other as equals”. We are supposed to accept forceful integration; we are forced to act and remain content with associating with folks that we probably wouldn’t have any intention of associating with given the choice.

Yes, on my campus, “diversity” is viewed as an end in itself, a goal, a purpose, or a telos; although the name might change, the idea does not. The schoolwide SAT scores plummet, yet, our administrators are at a loss for an explanation outside of “the kids don’t study hard enough”. Constant fights and rumbles between gangs – mostly graffiti enthusiasts and vandals – break out, and yet, the remedy is a menial cascade of anti-violence and pacifist lectures? The major cause of unrest within the school remains ignored, however.

I am not over-simplifying the issue either, obviously other factors may come into play. But for the most part, forced integration (or diversity) seems to take on the role of an obstacle or weakness more than a strength. All that one needs is a brisk walk across the quad areas during the lunch break; one panoramic glance reveals mini-colonies of kids all separated from each other, mostly separated by similar appearance and race. You can name it a tendency of teenagers to clique up because of a stereotype threat, you can call it an adolescent desire to belong to a group; I call it the natural predisposition to segregate with those whom you feel most comfortable around, and my school administration aims to suppress this very natural instinct, to achieve an unattainable moral ideal.



Posted: April 5, 2011 in Uncategorized


Generations yet unborn,
feel the effects of forceful integration.
The conflict, and the dishonesty,
cuts through cultures and dismembers those that are most vital.
The contributors and the producers;
thieves and fools take their credit and rewrite history with themselves as the  victors.
Language robbed, thoughts chained,
speech gagged, all the while your supposed protectors remain still.

Idle, engaging in idolatry;
worshiping the new waves of malicious cults armed with scythes;
that cut and cut and cut,
at thine future’s womb,
and yet they possess the gall to remain idle,
assuming the lack of action will benefit.

Where is the outrage? Where is the instinct to protect thine home?!
There will be a day when it comes,
but by the time men become brave,
the world will be too late to save.

The Mexican is here

Posted: April 5, 2011 in Uncategorized

And he has brought facts.