You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

In this section of our Analysis of the Democratic Party Platform of 2016, we will mainly look at their Social Policies and views on Race. I do acknowledge that these are sensitive issues for some people. Nothing is more frustrating than realizing that there are factors that you cannot control that determine who you -and your group- are. Alas, it is important to approach with an open mind and realize that sometimes, the truth does hurt.


Institutional Racism does exist and is one of the biggest problems of the US. The anti-meritocratic Systemic Racism that is embedded in the US should come to an end. Democrats proposed to end this; yet it seems like they’ve misunderstood what the issue is at this stage because they talk about a “racist past”, but what about the “racist present”? The majority of White Americans do feel that they are discriminated against. This is not a new phenomenon. In 1997, being black was worth 230 points on the SAT:

“The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.”

Discrimination against whites in top colleges is a 20 years old reality, such a prime example of white privilege!


The story gets uglier when you factor in the Jewish population and the Middle Easterners which were up until recently regarded as White by the U.S Census. When you take out the Jewish population from the white demographic group in these studies, the result is even more shocking (and, dare I say, racist).


I wish the Democratic Party Platform used citations when they make matter-of-fact statements such as:

“The racial wealth and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people of color and constrain their ability to earn income and build assets to the same extent as other Americans”.

We are to believe that the existence of Affirmative Action itself forces policies to be “colorblind”.

“For example, African Americans and Latinos lost more than half of their net worth as a result of the housing crisis and the Great Recession, because they lost jobs at a much faster rate than white workers and because they were disproportionately targeted for subprime, predatory, and fraudulent mortgages during the run-up to the housing crisis.”

Black Americans were targeted for subprime loans due to their low-income, not because of their race. The Financial Crisis got to the state that it was because, during the run-up of the financial crisis, lenders had to “lower the standard” for their subprime mortgages due to high demand from investors. This meant that people whom were previously rejected for being low income, which a lot of Blacks happened to be, were now able to get mortgages.

But that itself creates another issue, why is there a racial income disparity in the first place? A lot of people claim that it is because of “institutional racism”, but there is a lot more nuanced than that.

We have to be honest with ourselves here, if America -and the rest of the world for that matter- wants to solve the issue of race, we have to acknowledge the facts instead of pretending that the truth is false, otherwise we will go nowhere, and the issue will end up intensifying with no solution in sight.


Today’s view on race is based on the long-debunked Lockean thought of "Tabula Rasa", the idea that the human mind is a "blank slate" that is purely shaped from its environment. Having such a view creates the modern liberal ethos of “everyone is inherently equal”. This is absolute “enlightenment era” nonsense, and should never be taken seriously. One reason is that Genetics, which goes against the blank slate claim, has a severe importance, not only when it comes to height and physical appearance, but also when it comes to your actions. An example of this can be shown when you observe that the lives of twins that were separated at birth are pretty much the same. The famed Minnesota Twin Studies also supports this research, showing that this is not just a one-time selective anomaly.


Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate, is a recommended book for this subject. Mr. Pinker manages to debunk the silly idea of Tabula Rasa nonsense that has become a dogma today; but for those who do not want to read a 500 page book, here is a TED presentation from Steven Pinker that is an excellent summary of his argument.

What has genetic inheritability got to do with the Democratic Party Platform? The Democratic Party Platform assumes that phenomena regarding racial aspects of incarcerations, net worth and many other events are a result of systematic racism. For the Democratic Party, Racial Profiling is a bigoted method to oppress people, where in reality, Racial Profiling is using statistics to increase police efficiency. If you wanted to stop potential suicide bombers in your airport, you’d naturally prioritize screening people from the Middle East, or people who look like they are Middle Eastern since a lot of terrorist attacks do happen in Middle Eastern/African countries. It makes sense to assume that people of Middle-Eastern appearance come from the Middle East. Screening Europeans for Islamic Terrorism just as much as screening those who appear to be from Muslim nations is as illogical as ignoring racial profiling for crime. If you cannot use statistics to enhance your efficiency because "racism", then this hinders your ability to protect your country from future attacks.

Speaking of racial profiling, it is quite interesting to see that whites in TV crime shows are "disproportionately portrayed as criminals five to eight times more often on police dramas compared to actual crime statistics for the city of New York". That seems to be a bigger proof of "systemic racism" than all this other nonsense that the Democrats keep spouting.

“We have been inspired by the movements for criminal justice that directly address the discriminatory treatment of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians to rebuild trust in the criminal justice system.”

There really is no tangible proof to argue that the police oppresses and discriminates against minorities.

On consulting the FBI 2016 crime table, other than the fact that Blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime, we can notice that there are no “Hispanics” tab. This makes it difficult to analyze what’s going on with their crime rates. Coupled with the fact that the criminal system is incredibly ill-equipped when it comes to demographics analysis it almost makes one think that it is intentional. Here are a couple examples that the Democrats should target to solve when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system:


How are Hispanics who look Hispanic and have Hispanic names counted as White? Fortunately, the research has been done for us by the Bureau of Justice Statistics:


Another piece of evidence we can use to understand the differences between races is by using the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey:

“Because such a large number of adults participated in this survey, it is possible to report performance results for many more racial/ethnic groups than has been possible in the past. The average prose literacy of White adults is 26 to 80 points higher than that of any of the other nine racial/ethnic groups reported here. Similar patterns are evident on the document and quantitative scales. On the document scale, the average scores of White adults are between 26 and 75 points higher than those of other groups, while on quantitative scale they are from 31 to 84 points higher. With the exception of Hispanic/Other adults, the average proficiencies of the Hispanic subpopulations are not significantly different from one another. On average, Mexican and Central/South American adults were outperformed by Black adults. In contrast, Hispanic/Other adults outperformed Black adults on the prose and document scales by more than 20 points. (On the quantitative scale, the difference is not significant.) Their performance was, on average, similar to that of Asian/Pacific Islander adults and American Indian/Alaskan Native adults.”

One could counter this observance by stating that because of the lower incomes fewer non-whites are able to attain higher education which results in lower earning averages for the next generation. That is a fair statement. Yet, when we factor in the environment by comparing the races by their educational standard, the same result is still maintained:


One of the more shocking parts of this study is that even whites that were born outside of the US have higher scores than US-born Blacks, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans.
Intelligence is one of the most important measures to explain a person’s success and his/her ability to make good decisions overall. Fully 50 percent of the difference between the intelligence of individuals are due to heritable genetics. The heritability of intelligence also varies from age to age, but perhaps the biggest proof that there is a racial connection to intelligence is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study and its results:


Despite the average US Black IQ being 85, despite having two well-off white parents, adopted black children in this study wound up presenting a lower IQ than the black average. If that still does not satisfy you, then here is a table of SAT scores:


Other than intelligence, what are the other qualities that differ depending on race? Brain size, psychological traits (even The New York Times reported on this in 1986), gray matter decline, bone geometry, bone density and many other scientifically quantifiable factors.

To conclude my criticism on the Democrats’ opinion on race, they should stop creating scapegoats for minorities under the presumption that we are all equal and the same. We are not the same, we have differences that we cannot control and instead of running away from the core issue of race -the very existence of race the first place- we should acknowledge it. This would allow the different races of man to at least strive for peace, together.


On the issue of Immigration, the Democrats make a false start at the gun:

“The United States was founded as, and continues to be, a country of immigrants from throughout the world.”

That is wrong, the US was never founded as a country of immigrants from all around the world. It has to be quite embarrassing that a foreigner like me has to educate an American political party on their own legalistic history. the Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly stated that:

That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen...

5 years later, the government increased the time needed to be in the country to gain citizenship to five years. In 1798, they extended it once again to 14 years, and reduced to 5 years once more in 1802. In 1870 (80 years after the first Naturalization Act) this right to gain citizenship was extended for people of African descent; it is this bill that allowed freed slaves to become citizens. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, which, as the name itself states, banned all legal immigration of Chinese workers. Between the 1880's and 1920's, there indeed was a massive influx of immigration coming to the US, but this was mostly, if not all, from European countries; not the entire world itself as the Democrats like to claim.

The US wanted to limit immigration once more with the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act. the aim of this piece of legislation was to "preserve the ideal American homogeneity" by restricting immigration from Southern Europeans, Jews, countries with Roman Catholic majority (which proves that the US restricted immigration based on religion), Eastern Europeans and Arabs. Asians were completely banned from immigrating also. This act was revised in 1952 and with the 1965 Immigration Act, it was effectively terminated. This itself proves that America only had "open borders for the rest of the world" for 50 years of her history, what about the other 190 years?

"The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security."

There is a good reason why one would be quite skeptical of this statement, as the Democrat president Lyndon Johnson stated before signing the 1965 Hart-Celler act:

"[This is] not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."

A massive demographic change occurred that affected the lives of millions. when the Democrats say "within reasonable limits", one has to ask "whose reasonable limit?"


"Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country."

If the US managed to create a path to citizenship for law-abiding illegal aliens, then none of those aliens would manage to get citizenship; they have already broken the law by being in the nation without having the legal right to do so.

"We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants. Those immigrants already living in the United States, who are assets to their communities and contribute so much to our country, should be incorporated completely into our society through legal processes that give meaning to our national motto: E Pluribus Unum."

I might be wrong here, but it seems like the Democrats are putting illegal immigrants in the same basket with legal immigrants. Either way, reading the immigration policies of the Democrats, it is fair to say that they are a party that supports illegal immigration. They contend that a person who jumps the border or is smuggled in to illegally live in the US should have an easier time to immigrate into the country than a person who follows the legal process. Speaking of those whom want to immigrate legally, how long does it take for them? Here is an article from Litwin & Smith Law Corporation on this issue. If you have an immediate relative in the US, then you are lucky because you only (!) have to wait 9 to 12 months. If you are over 21 year old, a son or a daughter of a permanent resident, it will take you 6 years, same for those under 21-year-olds. Work-based permanent residency takes a long while also, if you are a professional/skilled worker, then it will take you between 2 or 3 years, not to mention that the average processing time is 1½ to 3 years. Knowing this, why would someone who wants to live in the US try to legally immigrate at all when they can just come to the country illegally and be granted free citizenship? The Democrats state that regardless of their immigration status, people should be able to have access to health care and other services as well. It is quite interesting how it is permissible for a political party to advocate for breaking the nation’s law in their own election manifesto.

A 2017 Federation for American Immigration Reform report states that the total economic impact of Illegal Immigration has been $116 Billion. The federal government annually spends $45.8 Billion on Aliens and their children. Illegals in the workforce depress wages, as an illegal alien is more willing to work for lower wages, further causing economic issues in the nation. Additionally, a significant sum is sent out of the USA to relatives living abroad. Remittances, or contributions sent by Mexicans living abroad, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico comprised $28.5 billion in 2017. Legal immigration it must be said also causes all of the above effects. More workers can cause a strain on the labor market, the big difference is one is controlled and can be ameliorated by the federal government, whereas the other is illegal and cannot be controlled via legalistic fashion if there is no agency able to enforce those laws.

"We reject attempts to impose a religious test to bar immigrants or refugees from entering the United States. It is un-American and runs counter to the founding principles of this country."

As we have observed the US’ past history, this is anything but “un-American”, immigration from Roman Catholics were willingly barred in 1926.


I have already written in the first part of this series about how feminism and egalitarianism negatively affects women and families. Feminism has ultimately failed. The happiness of women has been on a downward spiral since 1975, despite the improvement in living standards for all demographics. If your goal in life is to maximize happiness (which is the proclaimed goal for secularists), then feminism clearly isn’t how you achieve it.

Women are do not generally make reliable workers (aside from "people” oriented tasks). This is mainly due to higher levels of neuroticism, higher agreeableness, and openness to feelings and emotional goals rather than objective goals. they are generally less suited to work in fast-paced, high-stakes business environments. One of the more important things is that employed women severely damage either marriages, or their workplace environment, and sometimes even both.

Firstly, The fact that women can get pregnant means that as an employer, there is a potential risk that one of your employees can enter a six-month stage of low or zero productivity, where you have to pay for her wages even if she doesn’t work for you. That is one of the big reasons why employers generally are not keen on hiring women.

Secondly, women find themselves in a war on two fronts; one with family and another from the working world. Managing a family is a difficult task, so is performing well in a job. Trying to accomplish both is one of the closest things to hell. Men historically didn’t need to have a major stake in family management, since they were responsible for bringing the money to keep the family, whereas the woman was responsible for maintaining the house and the children. As all parents know, raising children to an adequate standard is very difficult. Now that a woman is trying to do what the man used to do, she is in a worse spot than ever. Very few women manage to perform well in their job whilst maintaining the house and the children. The super-mom is a myth perpetuated to promote tensions between the sexes and force women into the workplace through shame. By working, women are not using their maximum potential to nurture their children to the maximum capacity, so it is still a losing battle, even for the "supers".

Thirdly, Let us say that the employer is happy to hire a worker that became pregnant, had to take maternity leave and is now back to work. That employee, who is now a mother, has a much harder task. She has to have a consistent relationship with her child, else her child will be more likely to have long-term mental illnesses and unhappiness. All the while, she has to work well enough to keep and excell in her job. What is even more inconvenient for the employer is that due to the fact that women produce oxytocin during childbirth, and that lactation helps reduce anxiety via the increase of parasympathetic activity, women are predisposed to bond and show bonding behavior. The “just share the work with the father” theory does not work, women by nature will want -and need- to do more for their child than the father.

At the end of the day, "trying to combat biases that hold women back and limit their opportunities" is tilting at windmills. It would be more correct to state that the Democrats are trying to force women to be more like men, which in the end, makes them more miserable. Even in an egalitarian world, the self-regulation of our people will create to inequality between the genders because we are biologically predisposed to do so. The fact that feminists tout "equal rights" without talking about "equal responsibility" is one of the proving points. I am certain that not a single egalitarian woman would approve strict equality. That would mean that they would be fine with removing the social taboo of men hitting women. It would also mean that they’d have to advocate quotas for jobs, including those that have a higher risk of a fatal work injury. I haven’t seen a single feminist advocate for women being able to work those jobs, nor a serious advocacy for more male nursery workers.



Nothing helps mentally ill people more than telling them that they are not mentally ill. I can hear the objections to my statements since officially, homosexuality and transgenderism are no-longer classified as “mental illnesses”. There are several reasons why I state that this is in fact the case. Homosexuality and trans-sexuality being declassified as mental illness was not done because of a new scientific discovery; it was political correctness to save the psychological institutions. In the 1970s, the homosexual community was at war with the APA (American Psychological Association) because being homosexual was classified as a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance”. A member of the gay community stated that:

“Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate, Psychiatry waged relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

Dr. Nicholas Andrew Cummings admitted that there was no research to prove that homosexuality was not a mental illness. It is simply disgusting to see that a group of mentally ill people, supported by neo-Marxists, have shut down proper debate within the psychological circle for years. It is even more disgraceful to see medical professionals cave to the pressure, abandoning truth and reasoning in favor of political correctness.

The popular media formed notion of gay people is that the norm is Anderson Cooper or Neil Patrick Harris. However, the truth about homosexuality is less flattering. Homosexuals, bisexuals and other men who have Sex with other men account for 70% of all HIV cases. For syphilis, that number is more than 58%. Homosexuals dominate gonorrhoea statistics as well.


Homosexual men are not only more promiscuous, they are also terrible when it comes to fidelity. Homosexuality itself is a package of health issues, it is not only itself a mental health issue, it also brings health risks that are a result of a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle.


The popular claim for why homosexuals haven’t fully integrated to become healthy members of society is that we haven’t been tolerant enough. This is certainly one of the core talking points of the Democratic Party Platform. This is also demonstrably false. One only needs to observe and compare the Dutch homosexuals and homosexuals of other countries to see if their depression is truly because their community is not “inclusive enough”. The Dutch are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, yet the homosexuals of Netherlands are not that different from homosexuals of other countries in terms of happiness and health. It cannot be solely inclusivity and tolerance that is sought, and it is a political ploy to claim that this is the panacea to cure our culture of historical sins.


Homosexuality comes with a lot of potential and particular health issues. This means that the US government needs to spend more money per capita -from the taxpayers, who are mostly not homosexual- to combat these health issues. Homosexuality therefore is not only a moral issue, it is also a budgetary issue and the importance of it is very much understated in the mainstream.

The conclusion here is that by pretending that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, the Democratic Party and its supporters are doing a massive disservice towards homosexuals. Instead of helping them, they are actively assisting in perpetuating misery for many gay and transgender people. Imagine depressed people rioting and suppressing academic meetings and conferences by psychologists, just because they don’t want to admit that they have a mental disorder. Worse, imagine that the APA caves under the pressure and decides to remove depression as a mental disorder without even doing the necessary research to prove that hypothesis. It is the Democratic Party who are lacking, in their much-vaunted ideals of empathy and compassion. To ignore the evidence that someone is ill and in need of aid is an inhuman abomination.


Theódoros Trapezountos

by Theódoros Trapezountos

Ted Trebizond is an Orthodox Christian Reactionary with a deep distaste for the modern world.