Race

District of Corruption

Rand and Race

The news of Rand Paul's big primary win (in a randslide) was certainly positive, tempered by his unclear foreign policy message. Now that he finds himself in the general election, the media is starting to ask questions about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Politico reports on his waffling on the CRA:

Moving from the Republican Primary to the general election means, for Rand Paul, addressing a broader set of issues than the anti-tax, anti-spending focus of his campaign.

And while he's answered this question before, I'm not sure he's going to be able to get away with an evasive response to a question today on whether he would have voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in public places and in the workplace.

Paul has suggested in the past -- and been attacked for suggesting -- that the federal government has no place regulating private business decisions, even on issues like race and accomodations for the disabled, and was pressed on the question -- three times -- on NPR just now:

"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have -- if I was alive at the time, I think -- had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, ad I see no place in our soc for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.

"You woul have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.

"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of I'm in favor of -- everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights -- and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

Paul explains his position further on the CRA at the one hour mark of this video interview with the editors of the Louisville Courier-Journal. He says he supports the parts of the bill that fought discrimination in the public arena and on public property, but disagrees with telling private business owners what to do. He then goes on a bit of a rant about his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and explains how he gets emotional when watching his speeches.

I have no doubt we will begin to see the media paint Paul as a racist, just as they attempted to do to his father. But the reality is that Rand , despite his positives as a candidate, is riven with many of the modern multi-culti pathologies that infect political discourse. Absent from his views on the CRA is any bit of understanding about the major cultural upheaval that resulted from the Act, and absent from his views on MLK is an understanding of the racial redistribution of wealth King advocated. Instead Paul tries to paint him as some anti-government crusader. In the end, I have no doubt that Rand is telling the truth about his views on the CRA; that it merely clashes with his ideological views on private ownership.

At any rate, Rand's clash with the media on the CRA is a healthy reminder of how hard it will be for a real alt-right candidate to infiltrate the PC state.

District of Corruption

Is Rand Paul a GOP Mole?

The title to this piece is a joke, of course, and I am glad that Rand Paul won the Kentucky Republican primary. I would have voted for him if I lived in the Blue Grass state. Paul's victory is also indicative of the power of the Tea Party movement, which originated with his father's 2008 presidential campaign but has taken on a life of its own. 

This said, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Rand secured victory, in part, by earning the endorsement of Sarah Palin, as well as that of RedState.com's terror warrior Eric Erickson. Maybe those two know something we don't? In his major TV spots, Rand promised not to close Gitmo, stated (albeit vaguely) that "fighting back" was the proper response to 9/11, and flashed a lot of images of Military-Industrial-Complex fighter planes soaring through the sky. Though I thought this kind of stuff was on the wane, the GWOT, "standing tall against Islam," and even Christian Zionism still remain integral parts of the identity politics of Red-State Christian white people. If he wins the general, Rand won't be riding into Washington on a wave of antiwar sentiment, and it's likely that many of his voters would feel surprised, if not betrayed, if there's a major Senate debate on attacking Iran, and Rand comes out staunchly against.    

Unfortunately, Peter Schiff, who's running for Senate in Connecticut, isn't faring as well as Rand (though interestingly, polls reveal that he'd do much better in a general election, in which he could draw on independents, than in a Republican primary.) Filled with rich SWPL liberals and blue-collar union types, Connecticut lacks a real Red State base, as well as a Ron Paul/Goldwater-ite constituency, which is mostly focused in the South West. In the face of this, Peter should be given kudos for running as exactly the man that he is -- an anti-Washington libertarian who wants to drastically shrink government, end the Federal Reserve, and promote capitalism. There are few people who run for office who actually don't want to manage and control the lives of their constituents. Peter is one.    

As many know, I think it's much more likely that the United States government will hyperinflate its currency and collapse than the Ron Paul movement and/or Tea Party will reform the GOP and reinstitute "limited government." Politics is a distraction for us, and nothing I've seen over the past year has done much to change my mind.  

Zeitgeist

Multiculti Beauty Queens

There's something going on with these pageants. For two years in a row, beauty contents, which one would think would have gone the way of vaudeville in the feminized West, have become veritable Kulturkamps in which healthy, blonde representatives of the Great White, Christian American Middle stand up to the dungeon masters of the Dark, Gay, Secular-Lifestyle-Choice Post-America. Just last year, Carrie Prejean made her opinion of "gay marriage" amply known to perhaps the most vile exponent of celeb culture, Parez Hilton. Even Miss Teen South Carolina 2007 appeared to be making a populist argument, I think, about how we shouldn't waste resources on "the Iraq" and instead bring the money home to educate "U.S. Americans." And now we have Miss Oklahoma, Elizabeth Woolard, who, despite her PC reservations about racial profiling, still declared to a Latino Hollywood type named Oscar Nuñez her approval of "states' rights" ("that's what's so wonderful about America!") -- and to the roar of the crowd.

There's, of course, something completely useless about such a culture war, and I've always found it vulgar and ridiculous when Sean Hannity & Co. embrace such people as heroes. But the phenomenon does at least prove that in the starlet incubation center of the Mid West, young Nordic women are still instilled with decent values. And I could sense that Elizabeth really meant it. 

Miss Oklahoma was runner up to our first Arab Miss USA, Rima Fakih, who hails from her state's burgeoning Muslim center of Dearborn. I can't say that such a choice surprises me -- indeed, it's a fairly typical PC move in which a somewhat Western looking girl (Rima's from Lebanon) is given the prize, and white Americans are assured that these new foreigners are all cute and not too uppity or scary.

Neocon Daniel Pipes drew cackles from the liberal commentariat when he noted "this surprising frequency of Muslims winning beauty pageants makes me suspect an odd form of affirmative action." I wasn't aware of this trend, but affirmative action and social engineering in public entertainment is nothing new, and has been in effect at least since Vanessa Willaims became the first "black Miss America" in 1984. (Williams, by the way, was a mulatto with blue eyes and not exactly a representative of the African beauty ideal.)

And Pipes might be getting at something bigger as well: The American culture industry seems to be moving away from promoting multiculti beauty queens who essentially approximate the Occidental ideal to women who are manifestly unattractive (or at least, don't conform to any European standard of beauty.) In a world in which most every other traditional value has been inverted, it was only a matter of time before what is obviously ugly is declared beautiful.

Take for instance the hijab-wearing black Muslim Miss A&T at North Carolina, Anisah Rasheed

Excited and jittery, Anisah Rasheed of Roanoke pondered a fashion dilemma that few beauty queens have faced before: Matching her coronation gown with her hijab. ... Rasheed, 20, was crowned Miss A&T for 2005-06 on Thursday night in a sparkling fishtail gown-with a tiara glittering over her golden hijab-during homecoming ceremonies at North Carolina A&T State University.

Untimely Observations

Putting Whitey in His Place

attachment-5254afc4e4b04e8c16153408

Just as I was forgetting how much I loathe the GOP, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell brought me back to my senses. Although McDonnell had previously declared April to be "Confederate History Month," he apologized in a revised proclamation for having failed to mention the enormous evil of slavery. His mea culpa contains this characteristic PC statement:

Whereas it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhuman practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history.

McDonnell seems to have been driven to public contrition after the NAACP and former Democratic governor Tim Kaine complained that he had slighted Democratic voters -- also known as American blacks. Apparently Southern whites, whose ancestors fought and bled in the Civil War, should not be allowed to commemorate their ancestral event without having to apologize to black civil rights leaders, for not being obsessive enough about atoning for white racism. But aren't there already occasions for exhibition of white guilt? Doesn't black history month serve this purpose? Then whites are encouraged to abase themselves for their sins and for those of their ancestors against non-whites. This updated form of Lent comes in the wake of the celebration of the epiphany of MLK, which also encourages the outpouring of white guilt. Why then are McDonnell's voters not permitted a single month in which to celebrate their ancestral experiences?

It's not even the case that McDonnell was giving us good history, as Pat Buchanan explained in a syndicated column. Although slavery contributed to the War Between the States, it was not the only cause, as the revised proclamation strongly suggests. There were regional and tariff differences that led to the struggle. But clearly McDonnell was not offering self-evident historical facts but some NAACP concoction intended to make Southerners feel even guilty about their onetime institution of slavery.

McDonnell could have provided Kaine with a dignified, manly response (and then challenged him to properly organized duel!) He should have explained that the two of them had radically different constituencies. Unlike Caine's followers, his constituents were delighted to have a Confederate History Month. McDonnell had the same right to tend to his people that Kaine had to please his.

Moreover, Southern whites do not gain the respect of white liberals and neocons by doing the PC cringe. I was strongly reminded of this while reading David Brooks's harangue against the Pellagra Belt in his recent New York Timescolumn "The Limits of Policy." There Brooks belabors us with these undocumented assertions:

The region you live in also makes a gigantic difference in how you will live. There are certain high-trust regions where highly educated people congregate, producing positive federal loops of good culture and good human capital programs. This mostly happens in northeastern states like New Jersey and Connecticut. There are other regions with low social trust, low education levels, and negative feedback loops. This mostly happens in southern states like Arkansas and West Virginia.

Although McDonnell's southern state is left unmentioned, like Arkansas, West Virginia and other regions located south of the Mason-Dixon Line, it is presumably a place for Untermenschen. Southern states in general are not the places in which Jewish Yuppies like Brooks and his likeminded or ethnically related buds would want to spend time. And presumably the Confederate Museum in Richmond is not the kind of spot that radiates "good culture" and "human capital programs." Such a site would not have the morally redemptive value of, say, a brand new conservative synagogue in West Hartford equipped with photos of Joe Lieberman or a Starbucks' in West Orange, New Jersey. Although I've spent summer vacations in the mountains of West Virginia and met scads of Washingtonians in nearby Canaan Valley, it seems that we were sojourning among "untrustworthy" people. I'm happy that Brooks has set us straight on this. From now on I'll spend my summers walking the streets of Newark, Camden, and Waterbury, CT among "good human capital."

Besides reflecting his Jewish liberal parochialism, Brooks's comments skirt some very important issues in the matter of "regional differences." The critical factor for understanding violence in particular parts of the country, as Steve Sailer and others have explained until the cows come home, is the level of concentration of minority and particularly black populations. Noting this reality is not to be unfairly judgmental. It merely points out what creates an environment of distrust.

The crime rate in West Virginia is on par with that of Connecticut. In fact the violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants in West Virginia is slightly lower than that of my native state (279.7 as against 280.8), but then so are the proportions of blacks and Hispanics relative to whites in the two states. Further: New Jersey's crime rate (351.6) is higher than that of Connecticut or West Virginia but considerably lower than that of Arkansas (551.6), one of our poorest states and also one that contains a very large black population. Brooks and his fellow-geeks seem to hang out in the northwestern section of the District. They might however know that the rate of violent crime of all sorts in DC (1,508 per 100,000) is considerably higher than that of any state. States with particularly high rates of violent crime, such as Maryland, Tennessee and South Carolina, also have high percentages of blacks in both rural and urban areas. The border state in which Brooks's home is found is one of our leaders in murders, rapes, and armed robberies. Needless to say, Maryland's black population is considerably higher than that of West Virginia or Connecticut. And gun control in Maryland and the District is far more intrusive than in the very low-crime state of West Virginia, where having access to weapons may be creating safety, if not Brooksian "trustworthiness."

There is nothing original about these findings and presumably Brooks and even McDonnell know the data as well as I do. In his monograph Why Race Matters (1997) and in an essay "Recent Fallacies in Discussions of Race" published in The Real American Dilemma (1998), Michael Levin provides an illuminating, mathematically documented case for how black crime has spiraled in a changed cultural political environment. Since the 1960s, black crimes has become a national problem, in proportion to the emergence and establishment of lenient attitudes toward criminals and particularly toward black criminals as "victims of racism."

Levin does not argue that black malefactors in the American South in the 1920s were treated kindly. They most certainly were not. But the knowledge that blacks who stepped out of line would be punished anywhere in the U.S. (and not only in the Deep South) until the 1960s had an impact on lessening black crime. It is not changed genetic differences but environmental variables that account for changed rates of black crime, and among these factors Levin stresses the changed attitude toward blacks, who were once viewed as an unruly minority and now as WASP victims, in causing black crime to soar in the 1960s and 1970s.   

If changed white attitudes -- that is the rise of PC -- has a positive relation to black crime, then perhaps McDonnell should reconsider his reaching out to the NAACP. He should explain to its bigwigs that they didn't vote for him and that he owes nothing to them as preferred constituents. Moreover, beating his breast over slavery and spitting in the faces of the proud descendants of Confederate veterans will do nothing to make the Old Dominion State more tranquil or more prosperous. It will simply reinforce the unproductive impression that whitey is back on his knees again kowtowing to the NAACP, a group that has done nothing to contribute to racial harmony or low crime rates.

var disqus_url = 'http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/putting-whitey-in-his-place/';

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Lynn and Rushton on British TV

Some readers might remember that in 2009 there was some coverage in the British media about a TV special on race and intelligence.  I just found the videos online.

The host is the Somali-British Rageh Omaar and the poor fellow seems genuinely hurt by the suggestion that blacks are less intelligent.  The most unintentionally funny part of the show is when he goes to take an IQ test and is stumped.  It doesn’t stop him from concluding at the end that scoring well on intelligence tests is all about having adopted middle class values.

He has a teacher tell him that there’s a one to one correspondence between parental involvement and academic success.  What that shows is intelligent and conscientious parents have intelligent and conscientious children, not that parental involvement makes people smart.  And the host actually mentions cross adoption studies in the first half of the show but then forgets them during the second half when he comes to the conclusion that it’s all about culture.

J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Richard Nisbett all make appearances.  While Omaar comes to the “right” conclusion in the end I don’t think the intelligent and open minded viewer will find his “discrediting” of the hereditarian hypothesis, which consists of him telling us that Asian parents encourage their kids to study, to be that convincing.  I’m sure LeBron James practices basketball a lot more than I do; it doesn’t mean that if I got equal training I’d be just as good.

The Magazine

The Myth of the Old Republic

Pat Buchanan expresses the hope that "in the womb of white America" a "new people is gestating and fighting to be born." He is convinced that Middle America is already "beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically" as an ethno-nation alongside African-Americans, American Indians, native Hawaiians, and Hispanics. 

In fact, what we are witnessing are the death throes of homo Americanus. Mr Buchanan recalls that another "new people ... the Americans" was born two hundred years ago in the colonial struggle to achieve independence from Great Britain. Then, the American Adam declared himself free of the excess historical baggage accumulated during the Dark Ages of Anglo-Saxon Christendom. Middle America is reaping the whirlwind sown in the revolutionary Enlightenment.

The Tea Parties are not symptoms of restored vigour in the body politic. Instead, middle-class white people, drawn mainly from the "founding race" of their senile, degenerate nation-state, are searching for a magic political elixir to bring the decrepit Constitutional Republic back to life.

Unlike Pat Buchanan, Jared Taylor doubts that Tea Party America represents a resurgent ethno-nationalism. but he's keeping an open mind. He acknowledges the implicit whiteness of the Tea Party movement, while noting that it shares that characteristic with opera companies and Renaissance festivals: "everyone there is white, and most like it that way but would never admit it -- even to themselves." America's pre-eminent racial realist will believe that the Tea Partiers are developing an explicit and unapologetic racial consciousness the day they "dump Sarah Palin and make Pat Buchanan their champion."

Despite their differences, both Pat Buchanan and Jared Taylor harbour the hope that racial identity will no longer be forbidden to whites in contemporary America. They also share a confused and confusing understanding of the relationship between racial consciousness, ethnic identity, and American nationality.

It is not at all clear, for example, whether the "embryonic people" who may be slowly awakening in the American heartland will be moved by racial or by ethno-nationalism. Both men employ the terms "racial identity," "racial consciousness," and "ethno-nationalism" almost as synonyms. 

Taylor implies that the Tea Partiers would show unmistakeable signs of both "racial consciousness" and "ethno-nationalism" were they "to echo the motto of the Vlams Belang Flemish-identity political party in Belgium -- "Eigen volk erst!" ("Our people first!") But, rightly or wrongly, that slogan surely was not meant to include the Walloon population of that country who are no less "white" than their Flemish fellow citizens.

Like everybody, Jared Taylor possesses both an ethnic identity and a racial identity.  Were he to rally the troops under the slogan "Our people first!" one wonders whether he would be addressing WASPs, or whites, or American citizens generally? His political role model, the Vlams Belang, seeks to secure an independent state for the Flemish people. But, surely no one expects Jared Taylor to call for the constitutional recognition of an exclusively Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation-state on American soil any time soon. 

Nor is it clear that he favours the creation of an explicitly white ethno-state. And Mr Buchanan does little to resolve such confusion. Having first bruited the possibility that white is becoming the new black, he concludes by claiming that the "coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal."

Of one thing we can be sure: the rise of a new tribalism within Middle America must signal the imminent demise of homo Americanus. That "new people" created by the Declaration of Independence boasted of their own immaculate conception and effectively excommunicated any and all forms of ethno-nationalism from the civil religion of the Constitutional Republic.

Shedding his ancestral allegiance to throne and altar, the American Adam sundered the transatlantic, Greater British, community of, blood and faith, memory and tradition.  All American citizens, whether of German or Huguenot, Dutch or Swedish ancestry, henceforth stood on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority population.

The American Republic did, indeed, create a new people but it was to be a people finding its poetry in the future not in the benighted past and outworn traditions of the Old World. The first new nation sneered at the "sectarian" ethno-patriotism characteristic of every "backward" province of Christendom born under the auspices of the early Church. Seeking a secular substitute for the age-old union of English blood and Christian faith, the American revolutionary regime invented a form of statist idolatry known as constitutional patriotism

At first, of course, America's constitutional faith was a "white" thing from which Indians and Negroes, whether slave or free, were almost entirely excluded. But its most avid acolytes were -- and are -- Anglo-Saxon Protestants whose fanatical devotion to the sacred cause of liberty, equality, and fraternity set them in permanent opposition, first, to racial slavery then to segregation and, finally, to discrimination and exclusionary practices generally. 

Anglo-Saxon Protestants in America ceased to be an ethno-nation; they found a novel civic identity anchored in the political theology of a federal republic. Although they enjoyed de facto political, economic, and cultural hegemony within the Constitutional Republic, people of British ancestry were never recognized de jure as members of America's founding race. 

When, following the Civil War, Anglo-Saxon Protestant opinion leaders in the progressive North made a colour-blind Constitution the touchstone of political decency it was inevitable that, sooner or later, other racial, religious, and ethnic groups would be admitted, along with women, to full membership in the Constitutional Republic.

Buchanan and Taylor still feel the need to wrap themselves in the foundation myth of the Old (White) Republic. Somehow, they hope, a return to a long-since superseded stage in the constitutional development of American civil religion will become possible. 

At the same time, by linking the Tea Party movement with the rise of a new tribe, Buchanan implicitly recognizes that the Constitutional Republic is no longer the exclusive property even of white America. But he must understand as well that, if there are to be white tribes, they will have to constitute themselves as autonomous loci of legitimate authority within civil society, outside, apart from, and even against the trans-national structures of state and corporate power. 

The USA is no longer an "Anglo-Saxon country." Inter-ethnic rivalry has become an inescapable fact of life for most Americans. But WASPs generally, and the Tea Partiers in particular, remain reluctant to play the postmodern game of identity politics, still preferring to think of themselves as the unhyphenated avatars of homo Americanus.

But WASPs, like other human groups, have distinctive biocultural interests. The refusal of contemporary American WASPs to recognize that obvious fact has transformed the complacent self-deception of their grandparents into outright ethno-masochism.  Sooner or later, they will have to defend themselves not just against such obvious enemies as the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Council of La Raza, but also against renegade kinsmen, not least of all the neocommunist leadership of the contemporary Church of England. It must never be forgotten that it was with the blessing of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, that a spiritually enfeebled WASP governing class installed the worship of the Other at the core of America's constitutional faith. 

WASPs resigned their stewardship of the Constitutional Republic, suffering from the peculiar ethno-pathology that I call "Anglo-Saxon Anglophobia." America's constitutional faith turned into a secular parody of religion; the founders' reign of civic virtue degenerated into a racial spoils system in which fraud and deception became the norm; the federal republic morphed into a corrupt confederation of mutually antagonistic interest groups. 

For far too long, WASPs have treated their constitutional faith as a surrogate for their ancestral ethno-religious identity.  But WASPs can no longer depend upon the nation-state either as the fons et origo of their collective identity or as the guarantor of individual and collective security. 

Accordingly, heavily WASP Tea Partiers should aim not just to secure the survival of their widely-despised and resented ethny but to restore their former condition as a people of destiny.  Faced with the accelerating decay of the nation-state, American WASPs can still reconstitute themselves as local, resilient communities whose deep-seated biocultural affinities fit them to participate in a global network of Anglo-Saxon Christian tribes.

Less than a century ago Hilaire Belloc dared to describe The Jews as "an alien organism within the society they inhabit." He went on to propose that Jews should segregate themselves in their own communal institutions and public spaces -- for their own good as much as for that of the host culture. Needless to say, neither the Jews nor the English governing class took up his suggestion.

In our altered circumstances, it is time to revive and revise Belloc's Christian prescription for inter-ethnic peace. Over the past century, the world has been turned upside-down. Now, it is the WASPs, not the Jews, who "must foster, they must even propose, institutions which will better mark them off from a society not their own and restore to them the dignity of a nation."

The task of inspiring the regeneration of an Anglo-Saxon ethno-nation is one that must not be shirked by American WASP intellectuals and opinion leaders. Harold Cruse, easily the most incisive black-nationalist thinker of the Sixties, warned Anglo-Saxon intellectuals that their continued refusal to acknowledge openly the tribal identity of their group had "led this nation to the brink of self-destruction." The frantic spread of the Tea Party movement is but one more sign that homo Americanus finally fell off the cliff.

*
* * *
*  *  *  *

Thirty years ago, Peter Brimelow advised English-Canadians nationalists -- most of whom were WASPs -- that they should abandon the "patriot game" they had been playing for the past century. In Brimelow's view, the Canadian state is an artificial construction that is bound to fail: it makes no sense, he said, for English-Canadians to tie themselves permanently in knots in futile efforts to mollify Quebeçois separatists when their natural home is with their Anglo-American cousins in an Anglophone North American Republic. But Anglo-America has itself self-destructed -- and done so in the most spectacular fashion. Homo Americanus lies on his deathbed. Mr Brimelow may be loath to concede the point but the patriot game is up for American WASPs as well. 

Trapped in a zombie state, American WASPs should abjure the cult of the Constitutional Republic.  But, having lost faith in the myth of the White Republic, they must not succumb to their chronic ethno-anemia.  Even now, some WASP intellectuals conclude that because "my people gave away this country...they cannot take it back, nor do they deserve to get it back."

WASPs need to overcome such compulsive self-loathing. With the grace of God, they can develop a "fighting spirit" of their own.  To do so, however, they must abandon the secular faith of homo Americanus in the Constitutional Republic.  That is to say, deracinated WASP individuals must die to themselves in order to be reborn as members of Anglo-Saxon tribes steeped in the Old Faith of their forefathers. 

Men such as Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and Richard Spencer should help their co-ethnics in the Tea Party movement to recognize that the American Revolution is over.  The American Constitutional Republic has transmogrified into the post-American, transnational corporate welfare state. We must expect that, from now on, ancestral bonds of blood, language, and religion between American WASPs and Anglo-Saxon Australians, the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists in English Canada, as well as their kith and kin in Britain will carry much more weight than any contrived connection to the many-hued, multiplying mass of miscellaneous Others transformed, by force of law, into their fellow citizens.

White nationalists urge WASPs to dissolve their ethnocultural heritage into the statistical aggregate that they label "European-Americans."  The fact is that all "white Americans," of whatever ethnicity, will be better off if their own kith and kin manage to reconstitute themselves into socially cohesive tribal networks.  Closely-related European ethno-nations, in turn, can enhance their economic and security interests through political alliances, commercial relationships, and cultural partnerships.  Every chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

WASPs, collectively, are now the 98 pound weakling sitting alone on the beach while other groups kick sand in his face.  In the aftermath of the soon-to-be failed American nation-state, it will be good both for the WASPs and for other "white peoples" if they start to muscle up.

Who knows?  There may yet come a time when Anglo-Americans, living amidst the ruins of the Constitutional Republic, proudly stand with their ethnic kinsmen "at home" and in the British diaspora to sing "God Save the King!"

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Sailer Hits the Mainstream

Nice to see Steve Sailer writing for CNN.  People are starting to finally recognize his genius.  

Washington (CNN) -- When Arizona police ask suspected illegal immigrants for IDs, they are protecting your grandchildren's economic future.

Three years ago, ETS -- the people who administer the SAT -- released an alarming study. It combined information on test scores with demographic trends to predict that the U.S. work force of 2030 would be less literate, less skilled and worse paid than the U.S. work force of 1990.

ETS reported: "[B]y 2030 the average levels of literacy and numeracy in the working-age population will have decreased by about 5 percent while inequality will have increased by about 7 percent. Put crudely, over the next 25 years or so, as better-educated individuals leave the work force they will be replaced by those who, on average, have lower levels of education and skill. Over this same period, nearly half of the projected job growth will be concentrated in occupations associated with higher education and skill levels. This means that tens of millions more of our students and adults will be less able to qualify for higher-paying jobs."

Why?

One word: Immigration.Since 1970, America's largest source of immigrants has been Latin America, especially Mexico. More than half of these Latino immigrants lack a high school diploma.

Compare the U.S. experience with Canada's. More than half of all immigrants to Canada possess a university degree. Half of all Canada's Ph.D.s are foreign-born.

Why does America choose poorly educated immigrants? The short answer: America does not choose them. They choose themselves.

In the last decade, half of all the immigrants to the United States arrived illegally...

By contrast, Canada (a country of 1/10 the U.S. population that takes proportionately many more immigrants than the United States) allows almost no illegal immigration.

The result: While immigration has enhanced the average skill level of the Canadian population, it has detracted from the average skill level of the U.S. population.

Many Americans carry in their minds a family memory of upward mobility...This story no longer holds true for the largest single U.S. immigrant group, Mexican-Americans.

Stephen Trejo and Jeffrey Groger studied the intergenerational progress of Mexican-American immigrants in their scholarly work, "Falling Behind or Moving Up?"

They discovered that third-generation Mexican-Americans were no more likely to finish high school than second-generation Mexican-Americans. Fourth-generation Mexican-Americans did no better than third.

If these results continue to hold, the low skills of yesterday's illegal immigrant will negatively shape the U.S. work force into the 22nd century.

The failure to enforce the immigration laws in the 1990s and 2000s means that the U.S. today has more poorly skilled workers, more poverty and more workers without health insurance than it would have generated by itself.

And they let him touch on all his main points besides genetics: demographics is destiny, Mexicans don't assimilate no matter how long they're here, even the praise for Canada's system.

Actually, David Frum wrote that.   Whether he reads Steve or came up with these conclusions independently, give credit where credit is due.  

If you keep telling yourself you live in a Stalinist country that doesn't allow debate, you start to hate the world and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  A good lesson for some of us to learn.

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Problem Solved?

Call it the Obama Effect.

A poll released Thursday by Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., found that 70 percent of black students ages 15 to 18 thought their standard of living would be better than their parents, compared with just 36 percent of white students.

Overall, 39 percent of respondents thought they would have a higher living standard.

Those numbers and the level of optimism among black students appeared to be closely tied to their enthusiasm for President Barack Obama, making for what some called the "Obama effect."

Asked about the president's performance, more than two-thirds of black students rated his performance as "good" or "very good," compared with 23 percent of white students. Overall, about a quarter of the students who were surveyed rated the president highly.

The mainstream believes that there are psychosocial reasons for why whites do better than blacks, among them African American being less hopeful about what they can accomplish in a society conspiring to hold them back.  Now that we find they’re more optimistic than their white counterparts, and assuming that this is a new development, will any brave blogger, writer, TV pundit, liberal activist, or professor put forth a prediction that the pesky achievement gap is going to be significantly cut within the next few years?  If so, why not?  Honest people with theories about the world make predictions consistent with those theories.  Let's see those who deny inherent race differences show how confident they are in the alternative.

If you're thinking "of course nobody would be foolish enough to think that a poll on attitudes can tell you anything about test scores," then you understand how silly theories like the stereotype threat are.

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Diversity and the Size of Government

Bryan Caplan has responded to my previous post on attempting to reconcile an acceptance of HBD with an open borders position, disagreeing with my assertion that increasing the numbers of voters who believe in a welfare state will lead to a bigger welfare state.  He reasonably claims that support for redistributionist policies drops when the haves differ ethnically and/or culturally from the have-nots.  Caplan brings up the intriguing possibility that the presence of black voters in America has actually led to a smaller state than we otherwise would have had since it has helped turn whites against government.

Immigration is likely to have an even stronger counter-balancing effect on natives' policy preferences because, as far as most Americans are concerned, immigrants from Latin American are much more of an "out-group" than American blacks. Faced with the choice to either cut social services or give "a bunch of foreigners" equal access, natives will lean in the direction of cuts. In fact, I can't think of anything more likely to make natives turn against the welfare state than forcing them to choose between (a) helping no one, and (b) helping everyone regardless of national origin.

The problem I see with this is that the black percentage of the population has remained pretty stable over the last fifty years.  The mostly white non-black population has been able to veto most attempts to adopt the worst statist excesses of the more homogenous European democracies.  Had blacks grown to sixty percent of the population while voting the way they do it would be a different story.

Right now whites are projected to become 46 percent of the American population by 2042.  If Caplan had his way, there would be twenty times as much immigration.  The non-statist haves would be completely outnumbered and outvoted, no matter how enraged they might be by the newcomers who are reaching into their wallets.  In addition, one has to only look at Jews in Nazi Germany, whites in South Africa or the Chinese in Southeast Asia to see that a welfare state is one of the least of a group’s worries when it’s a small visible minority that’s noticeably better off than the general population.  Current immigration policy is at least keeping a Malaysia/South Africa doomsday scenario from happening for the foreseeable future, but if we followed the wishes of open borders libertarians things would possibly get very bad for white and Asian Americans fairly quickly. 

Caplan wonders whether I’m the one being unrealistic by hoping for more immigration restriction and whether it wouldn’t be better to advocate “humane ways to mitigate specific drawbacks of immigration.”  For example, instead of worrying about how immigrants vote we could simply take that right away from them.  There may be some countries in which you’re more likely to deprive some citizens of the right to vote than enact tougher immigration laws, but America isn’t one of them.  One of the beliefs of America’s civil religion is the doctrine that everybody should have the right to participate in elections and make his voice heard no matter how ill-informed, a fact that Caplan is aware of and laments.

Caplan also says that if we're afraid that immigrants use too many social services, "the simplest solution is not [to] get rid of immigrants, but to make them ineligible for benefits."  That's precisely what the voters of California tried to do in 1994 (and only regarding illegal immigrants to boot) before the courts struck Proposition 187 down.  If not the ballot box, what other avenues are available to push for what Caplan recommends to deal with this specific grievance?

Finally, even if the “diversity leads to small government” argument was correct and we saw the state shrink with an increase in immigration, we should think about what’s implied here.  Basically, we’d be hoping that citizens learn to dislike and distrust one another to the point where wide scale redistribution schemes became impossible.  This mentality sees goodwill between citizens as a problem to be solved.  I like the idea of cutting government as much as anybody, but this to me seems the most socially unhealthy way to try to do it.

Untimely Observations

It Takes a Tribe

This is the second in a series of articles on the question, raised most publicly by Patrick Buchanan, whether the Tea Party movement nurtures white consciousness and unity and will become the political basis for whites as a people.

I am mostly an observer of Tea Party events, but have participated in a few in the past, since the movement corresponds well enough with my libertarian values. Whether they will lead to the rise of a "new tribe," as Pat Buchanan argues, remains to be seen. In many ways, his intriguing column reveals more about what Buchanan wishes the Tea Parties to be than about what they actually are. 

As a Tribal Nationalist, I sympathize with the efforts of tribes, old and established or new and in formation, to create autonomy for their own people. The Tea Party crowd is definitely a collection of like-minded tribes that share the same cultural background and economic self-interest. But the question is whether the Tea Party will evolve into anything other than a voting bloc. Buchanan's hope is that the movement will become an agent of revolutionary (for lack of a better word) neo-Americanism.

What's most surprised me about the Tea Party phenomenon is the vitriolic manner in which prominent social commentators have attacked the protestors. Noam Chomsky, for instance, recently dismissed the Tea Party as a "fascist" movement. Though unlike the current President in office, the Tea Party isn't demanding more government control over healthcare, the economy, and our daily lives.

Politically speaking, it would be far wiser for libertarian-minded and antiwar people to get behind the Tea Party. Same for left-wing anarchists who -- despite what they call themselves -- are against the Tea Party's call for less taxes and less government.

At any rate, the best thing the Tea Party has done has been to provoke the "culture warriors" of the Establishment to show their true partisan colors. Eventually, Tea Party activists will notice who is consistently on their side and who is against them.

They might also stop denying the fundamentally ethnic character of their movement and begin to analyze who is in control of the media and why the media makes such spiteful accusations against European Americans exercising their democratic rights.  

And that's a good thing.

I disagree with Buchanan that the "charge of racism" is not working to intimidate the Tea Partiers. For the leadership seems to expend quite a bit of energy parading black conservatives at rallies and announcing that Tea Partiers reject of forms of ethnic solidarity. Again, Buchanan writes about the traits he'd like the Tea Party to have.

This said, the Tea Party movement's ultimate ideology is yet to be determined. I, for one, hope that Tea Partiers, and other mainstream conservative leaders, might step forward and endorse a new Tribal America that rolls back Federal mandates and supports states rights as an absolute necessity to our constitutional republic.  Were this to happen, the Tea Party could go on to become a history-making agent for the good of all Americans.  Sadly, there's little about the current leadership that leads me to believe that they're capable of this.

District of Corruption

Yes to Racial Profiling, No to Amnesty

It looks as if Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, the first to make coming into this country a crime one can be arrested for at the state level, is going to force Obama to take on immigration reform.  The Washington Post reports that Harry Reid is going to introduce a Democratic amnesty bill within three weeks if a bipartisan one can’t be worked out.

Holder’s Justice Department is in the process of “examining the Arizona law to see if questions about racial profiling might require federal intervention.”  Jan Brewer, the Arizona governor, to her credit says that ethnicity can be used as one factor in deciding whether to suspect someone of being in the country illegally.  The idea that the federal government is going to allow this strikes me as very unlikely.

The only real alternative to ensuring there’s no racial profiling is simply not enforcing immigration laws at all, which is what libertarians, globalists and liberals want anyway.  The vast majority of the people in the U.S. illegally are from Latin America: 57 percent come from Mexico, 4 percent from El Salvador, 4 percent from Guatemala, 2 percent form Honduras and 2 percent from Brazil.  These percentages are certainly higher in a border state like Arizona.  Police are obviously going to disproportionately suspect Hispanic looking people of being illegal immigrants.  You may make cops scared of profiling and render the law toothless the way trying not to be racist against blacks leads to us exaggerating everything they accomplish, but it’s impossible to imagine a world where law enforcement agents don’t take race into consideration either way and instead treat everyone the same.  If that’s the case, then as long as the federal government declares that it’s going to stop the states from enacting any law that leads to racial profiling very little that’s significant can be done at the local level to deal with the illegal immigration problem.

Regardless of whether this law holds up, this is now a national issue.  And if you thought that the elites were spooked by the implicit whiteness and pure rage in the opposition to health care reform, just wait for the upcoming battle over immigration.

As Pat Buchanan points out, whites are slowly becoming desensitized to the charge of racism.  An immigration battle every two or three years for the next few decades, which is what we’ll have as long as the border isn’t secured, can only be a good thing for that end.

Stopping amnesty is important, but not for the reasons people think.

Its means little as far as population figures are concerned.  If a Hispanic comes to America illegally and dies without ever reproducing, there’s no effect on the next generation.  If a Hispanic comes to America and has children, they’re citizens anyway regardless of the status of the parents.  So either way, whether amnesty is given or not doesn’t mean much for the future demographics of the country. (There are other considerations.  For example, a promise or passage of amnesty might draw more illegals, etc.  But birthrates by ethnicity are still the most important factor in determining America’s future ethnic makeup)

On the other hand, this battle is important because as I wrote a few weeks ago,

when there’s a white minority, people must know that Americans never gave their consent through either public opinion or their elected officials.  That could be the basis of a mass movement to revoke the citizenship of anchor babies and their descendants.

While such a movement would be nice, now that I think about it more carefully the odds of this happening seem impossible.  What would we do with people who are half or a quarter descendant from illegals?  Or those that don't know who their fathers are, since many Hispanic children don't?

No, all these tens of millions of people descended from illegals won't ever have their citizenship revoked.   But the idea that we never wanted this and didn't abet the Hispanic demographic wave will still always be a powerful one.

HBD: Human Biodiversity

On Debating Race

It sounds as if The History of White People, reviewed by Kevin Lamb, is more of the same PC nonsense we’re used to on race.  

Reading Lamb reminded me of how dishonest and incoherent I find the “No Such Thing as Race” (NOSTAR) arguments.  Once we notice that people look different, whether there are important inherent cognitive or behavioral differences becomes an empirical question.  Race is socially constructed?  Ok, in that case, I believe that those we happen to “socially construct” as white are on average naturally smarter and less criminal than those we “socially construct” as black.  We can look at the evidence and see whether I’m right, but there’s no way one can argue that the question is meaningless.  

Another favorite of the NOSTAR crowd is Lewontin’s Fallacy.  Richard Lewontin argued that most human variation occurs within a population.  One can read the Wikipedia article to see where he went wrong.

When arguing against HBD smart people make logical mistakes they would see right through if they were discussing any other topic. 

I’ve found that it’s relatively easy to convince people of HBD one on one and difficult to do so in front of a crowd or say on a blog.  In cases where there are three or more people in a discussion, there will always be at least one who has drunk the Kool-Aid and will right away turn the scientific questions into moral ones. If you’re in a crowded lecture hall, somebody will groan or mumble something.  Most people are unsure about their own intellects, so they’ll go along with ideas which they wouldn’t defend with their own intuitive reasoning one on one if those opinions are held by a majority in the room they happen to be sitting in. 

Another interesting thing I've found is that many race realists say that “The day is coming soon when there will be no way anybody can deny race differences.” For example, Sailer has quoted James Watson as telling the President of Harvard that within fifteen years the latter's successor would have to "handle this very hot potato" due to advances in genetics.  There have even been articles about scientists forming rapid response teams to go to the media and explain to everybody why they can still be liberals if/when there’s conclusive proof.  I disagree.  As is, there isn’t anything in the social sciences more proven than black/Eurasian differences in intelligence.  How many other questions in sociology or psychology can give you the same answer when looking at the problem from ten different angles and remain controversial?  If one day we wake up and find that genetics has made the case 100 instead of 99 percent certain I don’t think that Harvard, NBC and the NYT are going to throw their hands up and say “oh, they’ve got us now!”  They'll have to do little more than adjust a few of their lies, distortions and logical fallacies, none of which will be much more ridiculous than the ones they rely on now.  

HBD: Human Biodiversity

The NFL Shows its Colors

The big story in the upcoming NFL draft is the prominence of Toby Gerhart, the first elite white running back in a long time. Steve Sailer has previously noted that sports journalism is by far the most PC of any type of journalism--and that's saying something--so naturally the mainstream sports media like ESPN and Fox Sports, known for their regular coverage of baseball's "race problem" or discrimination in NFL coaching jobs, has ignored the anti-white mindset hurting Gerhart's chances. Yahoo, however, reports on Gerhart's debacle:

When NFL scouts look at Gerhart, they see a 6-foot, 231-pound power back who ran for 1,871 yards and 27 touchdowns last season, getting edged out by Alabama's Mark Ingram in the closest Heisman vote in history. When they look at Gerhart's numbers from the NFL scouting combine, they see that he ran a 4.50-second 40-yard dash and registered a 38-inch vertical leap, both impressive numbers for a player his size.

Yet they also see a white guy trying to make it in the league as a feature back, something that has become increasingly rare in this era. Peyton Hillis, now with the Cleveland Browns, led the Denver Broncos in rushing yards in 2008, but was limited to just 54 last season in part because of 2009 draft pick Knowshon Moreno's addition.

Race shouldn't be an issue, of course, but Gerhart can't help but believe that it has colored the opinions of at least some potential employers.

"One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back," Gerhart says. "They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I'm just out there playing ball. I don't think about that.' I didn't really know what to say."

One longtime NFL scout insisted that Gerhart's skin color will likely prevent the Pac-10's offensive player of the year from being drafted in Thursday's first round.

"He'll be a great second-round pickup for somebody, but I guarantee you if he was the exact same guy - but he was black - he'd go in the first round for sure," the scout said. "You could make a case that he's a Steven Jackson-type - doesn't have blazing speed but he's strong and powerful and versatile."

Sailer had a great write-up on Gerhart last October.

Euro-Centric

More "Facecrimes"

Peter Brimelow has discussed the expansion of speech codes to cover not just "hate speech" but "hate facts" -- that is, data that is objectively true, sometimes even deriving from government sources, but which might darken the public's outlook towards multiculturalism and thus must never be mentioned. Pointing out, for instance, that in America, blacks commit roughly 85 percent of interracial crime, which the New Century Foundation documented not too long ago, is certainly not allowed at the New York Times and would probably get most undergrads suspended.

"Hate facts" can be visual, too, as in you're not allowed to believe your lying eyes.

In Sweden, the press is regularly suppressing and altering pixelated crime photos in which the race of the alleged perpetrator is still discernible. Blurry images of brown and black faces are being digitally bleached in order to make criminals seem less African and Arab.    

The European blogger Cordelia For Lear writes,

The left who constantly claims race doesn't matter, doesn't seem to be consistent with their claims when they deliberately blur (pixel) the non-whites photos in the press whilst adding the photoshop effect of bleaching the skin, giving the reader the impression that the alleged Swedish criminal trully is a Swedish man, white male. The opposite of course occours whenever there's white Swedish men who has committed a crime. Then the individual will be overly exposed, name, real, uncensored photoes and it will be written about for days.


Why stop at making pixilated images of black and brown people seem white? Most people can guess a criminal's race by hearing the neighborhood in which the crime occurred. Why doesn't the Swedish press simply take the next logical step and start falsely reporting on a white-on-Arab crime wave sweeping Scandinavia.

Perhaps I shouldn't give them any ideas...

Zeitgeist

Race Riots 2.0

If you live in one of America's "vibrant" big cities, you've probably become aware of an alarming new trend in violent marauding -- flash mobs. If you're a tech geek, you've also probably become aware of this term, though in a far more benign context. More on that below -- but first to the kinds of flash mobs that threaten your life.

This is one of those social phenomena, like immigrant crime, that the national media either ignores or else treats with heavy doses of misdirection and euphemism. One must thus turn to the less refined local news for the raw footage -- such as these image from last summer captured by a Philadelphia drugstore's surveillance camera.


Clearly, something more than shoplifting was going on there.

And once the snow began to thaw in Philly, the flash mobs returned, weekend after weekend after weekend. The city's CBS affiliate interviewed a pizza baker who spoke about wild gangs coming out of nowhere and attacking for no reason. He has the scabs to prove it.

Flash mobs have, in fact, gone national, evidenced by these reports from Kansas City, Missouri, in which mobs attacked an up-scale shopping district called "The Plaza." And there was yet another flash mob at the same place just this past Saturday, which resulted in a young women in a prom dress being thrown into a fountain and a man beaten in the face with a lead pipe.

Philadelphia mayor, Michael A. Nutter, has tried to downplay the phenomena: "This is bad decision making by a small group of young people who are doing silly but dangerous stuff." Kids these days! The people caught unawares in the flash mobs probably sensed that these riots signaled something bigger... After a prolonged period of falling crime rates in the big cities -- exemplified by Rudy Giuliani's squeaky clean Times Square -- we might be headed back to the '70s: chaotic urban centers, plummeting real-estate values, white flight, and not a trace of "New Urbanism."

Each Flash Mob depicted above has two defining characteristics:

  1. It is spontaneous yet tightly organized, mostly through "viral" instant messaging and status updates on Twitter and Facebook.
  2. The participants are almost entirely black.

As urban crime goes, #2 isn't all that surprising. What is different, though, is that unlike the riots in Watts and LA of yesteryear, this time around, the rowdy black gangs have been traveling outside their own neighborhoods to smash stuff up. As the New York Times gingerly put it,

The flash mobs have raised questions about race and class.

Most of the teenagers who have taken part in them are black and from poor neighborhoods. Most of the areas hit have been predominantly white business districts.

Indeed. I've never been to Kansas City, but "The Plaza" sounds like it features a Ralph Lauren and multiple Starbucks.

Obviously, things like Flash Mobs have an "economic component" of some kind, and the black unemployment rate, which is, no doubt, higher than the 20 percent reported by the Bureau of Belabored Statistics, doesn't help matters. But these incidents of crazed mayhem aren't exactly perpetrated by out-of-work fathers trying to feed their families. It's significant how many teens are taking part -- and disturbing how many black women are participating. At base, the Flash Mobsters are rioting for fun, symbolic racial revenge, and profit.   

And there's a whole other sociological element at play. Whenever a reporter has gone into any depth, she'll usually say something like, "What was once about social networking has now turned deadly"...

What statements like this are alluding to is that fact that Flash Mobs didn't originate last summer, but back in 2003, when an enterprising Harper's editor, Bill Wasik, conceived of performance art about mass collectivity in the age of the Internet ... or something like that.  The original Flash Mobs are usually "cute," featuring mass pillow fights and choreography to '80s music -- akin, it seems, to the antics of the crazy kids in Lars von Trier's early film The Idiots. In other words, Flash Mobs are exactly the kind of pseudo-revolutionary adolescent bullshit that over-educated, under-employed white people are interested in.

And there was that "technology" element. In a country that's noticeably declining economically, well-off whites never tire of boldly claiming that their favorite new gadget that's able to capture their verbal diarrhea will "change everything." For a whole two weeks last year, hip people everywhere thought that Twitter had just overthrown the evil Iranian regime.

To get a sense of what the Old School Flash Mobs looked like, here is the most famous Flash Mob of them all, in which hundreds of New Yorkers froze in place for a couple of minutes in the middle of Grand Central Station.

Here's a Sound of Music flash mob in Antwerb.

Here are some kids from Seattle acting like they're in an Gap commercial.

Before Kansas City blacks got caught up in the Flash Mob craze, there was an earlier one in the city. It was put on by the United Way and didn't result in injuries.

It's hard to know if urban blacks actually learned about Flash Mobs by watching white people do it -- they certainly could have come up with it on their own. But if hipsters did pass on this knowledge them, then a notable societal trend has just been reversed.

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Pulling the Plug on White Grandma

During the healthcare debate, I wondered whether if the government ever got enough power, it would try to close health care related gaps between whites and minorities. Just as we supposedly can’t tolerate school achievement disparities, Washington would eventually use statistical analysis to decide that whites were similarly advantaged in the kind of medical treatment they received relative to others.  And just as how conservatives may oppose more education spending in general but not “gap closing” schemes, they would be silent about all this despite having originally fought tooth and nail against the original government take over of medicine.

I expected all this to happen, but not so soon.

NEW YORK - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that she is developing a national plan of action that would focus for the first time on reducing health care disparities between minority and white populations.

HHS has been writing reports for 25 years documenting the gap in health care services between white and minority communities, but there never has been an action plan to address the gap, she said in an address to the National Action Network convention.

"I'm here to say that's going to end this year," Sebelius said.

In other words, the federal government has been collecting data for 25 years, rubbing its hands together in anticipation that one day they would be able to “do something” about healthcare disparities between NAMs and whites.  Here, now, is their chance.

When “reducing gaps” and general welfare together rather than general welfare alone become the goal of government, then every question gets seen through the lens of “how can we make X do as well as Y?” instead of simply “how do we help P?” when P is a population that includes X and Y.  That means that with this new paradigm, the concept of population Y doing too well enters into any equation.

If, say, the elderly are disproportionately white, Washington may go and decide that taking money away from programs helping older Americans to fund health clinics in inner-city neighborhoods would contribute to reducing healthcare gaps. Both the advantage accrued to blacks and the reduced life expectancy for whites would be seen as pluses.

What’s interesting about gapology is the phrasing. Government could just as easily say that they were simply going to help blacks and Mexicans. Why talk about a "gap," which implies that the goal is for equalizing populations whether by making minorities do better, making whites do worse, or some combination of both? This is a rare instance of liberals phrasing something in the worst possible way, a sort of anti-euphemism. They are explicitly acknowledging that for the situation of their favored races to improve, it may be necessary, albeit regrettable, for whites to end up worse off than they would be otherwise.  The reason that they don’t have to defend these declarations of race war to the electorate is that making these logical inferences smacks too much of “racism” to the conservative mind.

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Cooley Vs. U.S. News

Some of the less prestigious law schools are getting rid of the LSAT requirement in the hopes of, you guessed it, increasing diversity.

Considering that the standard line on IQ is, or was, that it’s a meaningless concept, it’s interesting how important standardized test scores are for college and graduate school admissions in this country.  We say one thing but do another.

I wonder if we have US News & World Report to thank for that.  Every year the paper ranks undergraduate and law programs, considering test scores as an objective measure of student quality.  Colleges report their 25th and 75th percentile scores for the ACT and SAT in the case of undergraduate institutions and the same numbers for the LSAT in law schools.  In practicing affirmative action, you better keep the black/Mestizo school population below 25% so that their lower scores don’t show up and hurt your ratings.  And a university that actually had a decent ranking, unlike the colleges mentioned in the article linked to above, would be laughed down the list if it stopped requiring standardized test scores all together.

The brilliance of the US News & World Report system is that it plays on the natural human craving for status.  Professional degenerate Tucker Max recounted the time he took a verbal cheap shot at a stranger sitting next to him at a hockey game.  At the time of the story Max was a student at Duke Law School.  The person in the seat adjacent to his revealed that he was also a law student, but at the University of Texas-Austin.  Max replied something along the lines of “it’s ok, not everybody can go to a good school.”  Duke is currently ranked 10th and Austin 15th.  95% of law applicants don’t have the numbers for either, but every JD hopeful in the nation knows that Duke is more prestigious than Austin.

As soon as you make a list and start ranking institutions, humans are going to start paying attention, in some cases even obsessing about or insulting one another over minuscule differences.  Tom Wolfe captured ranking-mania in his I Am Charlotte Simmons where he puts the following into the head of the president of the fictional Dupont University.

U.S. News & World Report—what a stupid joke! Here is this third-rate news weekly, aimed at businessmen who don’t like to read, trying desperately to move up in the race but forever swallowing the dust of Time and Newsweek, and some character dreams up a circulation gimmick: Let’s rank the colleges. Let’s stir up a fuss. Pretty soon all of American higher education is jumping through hoops to meet the standards of the marketing department of a miserable, lowbrow magazine out of Washington, D.C.! Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Dupont—all jumped through the hoop at the crack of the U.S. News whip!

There have been calls for USN&WR to add a diversity component to its ranking system and rival lists do pop up.  The most infamous is Judging the Law Schools, put out by the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law.  By ranking JD granting institutions by such criteria as number of chairs in the library, total applications received, campus square footing and the ever-holy concept of diversity, a school given the lowest possible rating by USN&WR is able to rank itself 12th in the nation.  Cooley’s website hits the expected egalitarian notes when explaining why its system is better than the more popular USN&WR rankings, complaining that the latter credits a school for rejecting large numbers of applicants, thereby making “[e]xclusivity...an asset under this view.”  (See what law students think of Cooley here and here.)  Unsurprisingly, the “Cooley rankings” are a punch line among aspiring attorneys.

In a world without college rankings based largely on test scores, I suspect school prestige would simply be based on reputation-Harvard would keep its name no matter who it let in.  In that case college administrators would find it easier to create their own little socialist utopias, making being non-white and/or having a Leftist past even more advantageous than either is now.