Defending Our Own

For the longest time, the argument against the Progressive project, which in America means multiculturalism as a civic religion, is that the various tribes in the coalition of the ascendant would turn on one another. The laws used to punish white people for being competent society builders would be used by the new tribes against the coalition and the whole thing would collapse. Then there was the point that the people leading the coalition are the most tribal people on earth. This is now playing out in the lawsuit against Harvard.

Harvard is not about education. It is about the credentials. When you major in math at Harvard, or any elite college, you are not learning a different math from the math majors at UMass/Boston. Look through the course catalog of an elite college and it is noticeably less rigorous than most state universities. Entrance to an elite university is both a proxy IQ test and social proof. If you get accepted to Harvard, you are smart enough to be in the elite and you have the correct combination of innate virtues to be in the ruling elite.

What’s playing out in this Harvard lawsuit is that the dominant tribe in the coalition is fighting to defend its position against this insurgent tribe, that has figured out how to game the admissions system. In order to prevent Harvard from becoming 50% Asian, they have rigged the system to prevent that from happening. The trouble, of course, is this is just the same sort of discrimination that Jews argued against last century. Instead of WASP’s blocking Jews from admission, it is Jews blocking Asians on cultural grounds.

It’s important to remember that this is not about access to an education. Exactly no one thinks you learn more at Harvard than at UCLA or the University of Virginia. In fact, land grant universities, like Michigan or Wisconsin, offer vastly better education facilitates than the Ivy League colleges. What Harvard has is a credential that opens the doors to the nation’s ruling elite. At Harvard, you are with the future rulers of this land and that’s not something the current ruling tribe is interested in sharing with the newcomers.

The most probable outcome of this is the court eventually sides with Harvard, by fashioning some ludicrous exception to the laws that govern everyone else. After all, the current Supreme Court is made up of six Harvard grads and three Yale grads. Look down the roster of the Federal bench and you won’t see many guys name Wong who graduated from Cal State Fullerton. The whole point of seizing power is to use it to reward your friends and punish your enemies. The people in charge have always known this.

Now, this is amusing from the perspective of the Dissident Right, but it is also useful, in that it proves an essential point. That is, individualism is a sure way to get trampled by a motivated identity group. The people on top of the Progressive coalition got there by sticking together and working for their common good. The people suing them over admissions practices are doing so as a group. In the world of Progressive politics, group identity is the top level domain, it trumps everything else in the fight for position.

The same thing is happening to America as we slide into majority-minority status. As of 2011, America was 60% non-Hispanic white. A majority of school aged children are non-white. Given the endless flood of migrants into the country, the die is cast. Within the next generation, whites in America will be a minority. Given the level of nastiness we see towards whites all over the popular culture, while whites remain a majority, imagine how aggressive and violent our new overlords will be when we are a clear minority.

This proves the other point about the multicultural creed being imposed on us by our rulers. It inevitably must lead to lawlessness and group identity politics. Lee Kuan Yew was right, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” That is the lesson of history. Look at majority-minority places around the world, or even cities in America with large minority populations. Everyone puts their tribe above all else.

For whites in America this will be tough to accept. For generations now, white people have been bathed in the poaching liquid of individualism. Subversives like Ben Shapiro still preach this stuff, even while he sports a yarmulke and fingers his two passports. The frontier mentality has become a part of the romantic mythology of an America most white people cling to like a life raft. Libertarianism is really just a weird romanticism for a past that never existed and future that has been foreclosed by multiculturalism.

This will change as reality becomes more clear. The general lawlessness we see among our ruling classes is not unnoticed. When white people enter “white couple” in a google image search and it returns all race mixers, a white identitarian is born. This battle between our would-be over-class and our current over-class is the sort of thing that opens the eyes of white people about the reality of America. Those notions about individualism and a frontier culture are giving way to a sense that it is time to defend our own.

Happy Homelands

I will be on the Happy Homelands show hosted by RamZPaul and Tiina Wiik. The other guest will be Junes Lokka, a Finnish activist. The show will be in English, not Finnish, in case you were wondering. The show is a censor-friendly operation, which means the language and topics are what you would find on television. The format is current events, with an emphasis on topics related to nationalism and populism. You can post questions in the chat window. It is a one hour show and it is archived for later viewing.

Update: I had a great time. Thank you to Paul and Tiina for having me. It was very interesting hearing Junes talk about politics in Finland and the challenges they are facing with immigration. We tend to think that our issues are peculiar to our situation, but their deluded globalists are just as deluded as our deluded globalists. At the same time, it is invigorating to hear nationalists from other countries say the same stuff we say here in America. I also had my best NPR voice going so if you need help falling asleep…

The Dissident Right

This week I thought I’d try something different and do an entire podcast on just one issue, rather than pulling segments together from stuff that caught my eye during the week. The reason is mostly variety, but I’ve also been seeing the phrase “Dissident Right” turn up around the internet. Before some millennial tries to define the term into some bespoke sissy philosophy, I wanted to put some markers down about what the term means.

I’m not sure if this will be a regular thing. If I get a good response, then maybe I’ll do other podcasts on single topics like this. If people hate it, then I’ll forget the whole thing and pretend it never happened. The goal here was to put together something that people could think about, but also send to their confused normie friends and family to help them make the journey to our side of the great divide. I’ll be doing some posts on the topic as well.

I have one special announcement this week. Tomorrow I will be on the Happy Homelands podcast hosted by RamZPaul and Tiina Wiik. It is a censor friendly live show about the news items of the day. Someone named Junes Lokka will also be on the show. He is a Finnish activist. You can post questions in the YouTube chat window and maybe someone will answer them. This is my first live show, so we;ll see how it goes.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

This Week’s Show


  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: The Prevailing Orthodoxy
  • 12:00: The Dissident From The Orthodoxy
  • 22:00: Race and Ethnicity
  • 32:00: Sex and Gender
  • 42:00: View From The Right
  • 52:00: Our Mt. Rushmore
  • 57:00: Closing

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The Immorality of Immigration

In all times and all places, the people in charge have certain primary duties, obligations that come before anything else they like to do. It does not matter what form of government is in place, the rulers, for example, have to maintain public order. Being the tribal chief is useless if your people and lands are in chaos. For that matter, having a tribal chief is useless if it means living in chaos. Therefore, one of the primary duties of all rulers in all times and all places is to maintain public order by enforcing laws and local customs.

There are other primary duties of the ruler, like organizing the common defense that are universal to all people and forms of government. Then there are primary duties that are peculiar to a people or to a form of government. If the ruler is understood to be a god, then the ruler and his people have a duty to maintain that myth. A central part of that social order is the transcendent nature of the order itself. In modern western countries, protecting property rights and enforcing contracts is counted as a primary duty of the state.

One of the more destructive things to happen to America over the last half century is the sacralizing of immigration by the followers of Emma Lazarus. The endless repetition of the nonsense phrase “nation of immigrants” has turned a temporary necessity a century ago into an essential element of the nation’s founding mythology. The fact that immigration is a violation of the state’s primary duty to the people is excused, because the immigrant now has a superior place in the moral order. The state is now in service to foreigners.

In a nation like America, one that allegedly is built on consensual government, citizenship has great value. In fact, the most valuable thing to a citizen of a representative democracy is his citizenship. The reason for this, is that citizenship is an ownership stake in the nation itself. In theory, the American government was voluntarily founded as an agreement among individuals, invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare and to regulate the relations among its members. In short, we are shareholders in America.

If you had the option of selling your citizenship, let’s say at some sort of auction, where you get money for your place as an American citizen, there would be no shortage of bidders. For example, there is no shortage of buyers for the EB-5 visa, which costs $500,000. That’s right, you can buy citizenship from the US government. Your citizenship is something of value and therefore, the state has a duty to protect it, just as they have a duty to protect your property rights. This is a primary duty of government.

When the American government willy-nilly hands out citizenship papers to millions of foreigners every year, it is, in effect, stealing the value of your citizenship and giving it to someone else. This is no different than a company diluting the value of its shares, by selling additional shares. It’s why open borders fanatics swear that immigration makes us all richer, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. They know it is essential that people believe this as even the sacred immigrant is not enough to justify theft.

Now, the argument from open borders people and libertarian loons is that immigration is not just holy and beneficial, but that the duly elected officials are passing these laws, so it is legitimate. The trouble is, we don’t live in a democracy. When 50% plus one vote to rob the 50% minus one, it is still theft, even if it comes after an election. This is why America is not a democracy and it is also why democracy was famously called two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. The very nature of democracy makes it an immoral form of rule.

Additionally, a primary duty of the modern state is the maintenance of equality before the law. In fact, this is what makes the law legitimate. Not only do all citizens have a say in what laws are passed, but those laws apply to all citizens equally. The very nature of immigration violates this principle. Immigration steals from some citizens for the benefit of foreigners and the benefit of a small number of connected citizens. This is true for quasi-immigration schemes like guest workers, as well as for permanent settlement.

If the primary duty of the state is to safeguard the citizens, including the value of their citizenship and maintain equality before the law, then immigration by its very nature is a direct violation of the social compact. It makes a mockery of the very idea of consensual government and sows distrust among the people. It is why all mass immigration quickly leads to a breakdown of order, because it erodes the legitimacy of the ruling authority, as the people see they are no longer willing or able to fulfill their basic duties as rulers.

That does not preclude all immigration. It’s just that the bar is is extremely high. In order to justify that which is naturally and always immoral, the offset must exceed the cost of the deed. Since this is impossible in the modern age, the followers of Emma Lazarus have been forced to turn morality on its head, claiming the first duty of the state is to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. It has turned America into a bust out where everything of value, including citizenship, is sold for the benefit of a few.

The White Not

When one people conquer another people, there are a number of ways they can cement their dominance. One is for the ruler of the winning side to make himself the ruler of the losers, maybe marrying a high ranking female of the losers. If the ethnic differences between the winners and losers are small enough, this can work out well. In this case, it is not really one people defeating another, so much as one set of rulers besting their relations, who happen to be rulers of another wing of the family. It’s a family squabble.

Of course, the other end of the spectrum is when a totally different people defeat another people. The most likely outcome is some form of genocide. The winners kill off the males or maybe sell them into bondage, while distributing the women as wives to their men. The alternative to this is to simply kill off the losers. Genocide is a lot easier when the vanquished are alien to the victors. Most likely, the point of the conflict was to take the land the losers had been occupying, so killing them off makes perfect sense.

A third way of cementing your dominance over a conquered people is to erase their language and culture. Instead of killing off the men or committing full scale genocide, you take away their religion, ban their customs and force them to use your language for any official business. The first generation is going to resist, but the second generation is going to see the opportunity and adopt the new ways. The benefit of this approach is it turns some portion of the vanquished into an asset that works to support the victors.

The British tried a form of this with the Welsh in the 19th century. For centuries, the Welsh had been a thorn in the side of the English. Despite their numerical advantage, the English were never able to drive them off. King Offa of Mercia built a giant earth works to wall off the Welsh from the English in the 8th century. That was not because the Welsh were a trouble free population. In the 15th century, Owain Glyndŵr led his people in revolt against the English. For Shakespeare fans, he is Owen Glendower in the play Henry IV.

The English solution in the 19th century was something called the Welsh Not. The British used it in Welsh schools to discourage the use of the Welsh language. A kid caught speaking his native tongue was given the “Not” which was usually a piece of wood on a string he hung around his neck. If he heard another boy speaking Welsh, he could rat him out and the “Not” would pass to him. At the end of the day, the boy with the “Not” got a beating. Alternatively, children were caned whenever they were caught speaking Welsh.

Something similar is happening in English speaking countries today, except the people in charge are attempting to rub out the native culture by un-personing anyone who says or does normal things. People are routinely punished for noticing the obvious or speaking truths about reality. The point of the punishment is to discourage normal behavior, just as the British wanted to discourage speaking Welsh. Everyday, we get examples like this one, where the the bizarre and deranged are elevated over the normal culture.

The systematic effort to turn bathhouse doggerel into art, at the expense of respectable Western literature, is not so much about elevating the depraved, as it is an assault on the culture. The people doing this are not motivated by a desire to help the degenerates. The point of the exercise is to discredit literature that comports with the norms of Western society. It is the same motivation behind larding up movies and television with vulgarity, even though the audience finds it revolting. Contempt for the audience is the motivation.

It is tempting to assign rational motivations to the PC idiocy, but that’s always a mistake when talking about the clash of cultures. The motivations are purely emotional. When the Left flips out over someone noticing a logical flaw in their education policy, it is not the flaw the angers them. It is who is pointing it out. It’s why pointing out the endless contradictions and hypocrisies of the Left is a waste of time. In a world of “who? whom?”, the only logic at play is determining who is attacking whom. The point of the attack is manifest.

Like the banning of bagpipes and tartan in Scotland, the Welsh Not probably did more to build Welsh nationalism than break it. It provided a motivation for the Welsh to preserve their language. The rallying point was the Welsh-language bible, which was used in Welsh churches. Instead of the language and customs being erased as intended, the British ended up inculcating a deeper sense of identity in the Welsh people. The long term result has been a modern revival of Welsh and a drive toward greater autonomy for Wales.

It remains to be seen if the current assault on normalcy has the same effect on the normal white people in English speaking countries. Tommy Robinson may be a flawed player in the great battle over immigration in Britain, but he has become a rallying point. The alt-right in America may be a dumpster fire, but the outlandish treatment of them by global corporations has opened a lot of eyes to what’s happening in America. Perhaps the war on whiteness has reached a tipping point and white people are becoming race aware.

Squid Ink

If you scan the so-called conservative sites these days, the remarkable thing is the dullness of them. The writing is mediocre, at best, and the arguments are mostly washed out ideas from the 80’s with a heavy dash of libertarianism. The major issues of this age, immigration, identity, populism and nationalism are largely ignored. When they bother to pick them up, it is to take swings at the growing army of people to their right. The main role of so-called conservatism is to confuse and discourage the rank and file conservatives.

This old column from Jonah Goldberg is a good example. It is in the style that he has become mocked for of late. It’s where he lards up his text with Borscht Belt gags, along with a bunch pointless dissembling. The post is supposed to take a stab at defining conservatism, but he just does a bunch of name dropping, while making a hash of the subject. His jocular style is intended to put the reader at ease, while his hemming and hawing is supposed to make it seem like conservatism is up for debate.

Now, Goldberg is just an affable guy, who does not want to cause any trouble, while pretending to be an intellectual. I’m surely giving him too much credit for suggesting his incoherence is intentional. His latest book is so bad that I suffered from vicarious embarrassment while reviewing it. Even so, he is not alone. If you look around the so-called conservative intellectual space, it is a parade of mediocrities spouting banal nonsense that mostly defends the status quo against criticisms from the Right.

One argument against mediocrity is Ben Shapiro, who is pitched to us as a pint-sized wunderkind. He has a billionaire backer for his web site, a perch at National Review and the full support of Conservative Inc. If that stuff does not impress you, Shapiro did manage to get into Harvard at 16 and graduate at 20. Even the Left has started promoting him as the conservative voice of his generation. Here he is explaining the core principles of conservatism at a Young Americans Foundation event a couple of years ago.

In that speech, he starts out by claiming conservatism is about fairness of opportunity, rather than fairness of outcome. Then he says conservatism is about individual rights and individualism. He makes the point a few times that group identity is invalid, which is rather amusing coming from a guy who sports a yarmulke all the time. He actually says we should target people who discriminate and use the law against them. Not so long ago, conservatives warned that this was the ultimate goal of the Left. Now, here we are.

Individualism sounds fine, especially if you are a member of small group hoping to topple the large group. If you can convince the large group that it is immoral for them to stick together, then you can pick them off one at a time. That’s why there’s never been a military organized around individualism. It’s also why conservatism never embraced individualism. A deracinated and atomized people are easily conquered, which is why his people have made group loyalty their defining characteristic for a thousand years or more.

Shapiro is a smart guy so he surely sees the contradictions. That means he says things about conservatism that he knows are false, or at least at odds with what has been the core of conservatism for centuries. Maybe it is just what sells and he is just an ambitious person willing to do anything to get ahead. None of that really matters, because the net effect is the same. The well-meaning young people who look to guys like Shapiro to put structure around their temperament are swimming in squid ink.

One reason conservationism is now a dog’s breakfast of libertarian nostrums and reworked liberal platitudes is that conservatism is short of conservatives. The people carrying the banner for Official Conservatism don’t know the first thing about what it means to be conservative. It is as if they have spent their lives trying to avoid the great conservative thinkers. There is no trace of the intellectual giants in the ideas of the modern conservative. Take for example the great quote from the  philosopher Michael Oakshott.

To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

Now, it takes immense talent to write something so powerful and insightful with such an economy of language. No one can be blamed for not having that skill. On the other hand, how is it possible to read that, as a conservative, and not immediately understand that being on the Right is not about individualism or anti-racism or any of the other ridiculous fads popular on the Left? The answer is they are either too dumb to see it or they hope their readers don’t see it. In other words, the squid ink is intentional.

The Cost Shifting Economy

When most people think of business, they think of people buying and selling, making something and selling it or maybe selling a service. The old adage of buy low and sell high is still the basic idea of business. Rich people, however, like the people who currently rule over us, don’t think about any of that stuff when they hatch a business scheme. Instead, they think about how they can shift the cost of doing business onto the public or some unsuspecting suckers, like the American taxpayer. It’s how rich people do business.

This is not a new idea. Cost shifting was an integral part of the Industrial Revolution. The factory owner was not covering the full cost of his labor, for example, because he did not have to cover the cost of workplace health a safety. Building a bridge was a lot cheaper, because the cost of worker deaths was not the responsibility of the builder. No one thought about the costs of environmental degradation in the 19th century, so companies were free to dump poison into rivers and pump pollutants into the atmosphere.

It is not unreasonable to argue that the great fortunes made during the Industrial Revolution, at least in America, were made in large part from cost shifting. After all, it was not just the direct costs like labor, that were shifted onto the public. Once a man got rich, he could afford to buy politicians, who would pass laws giving the rich business owners leverage over their smaller competitors. It’s not an accident that those great fortunes were created early in the industrial age and none were created in later stages.

The political class in the early 20th century was still strong enough to push back against the industrial barons. It became politically popular to push through trust busting to weaken the industrialist. Then it became popular to push through reforms and allow unions to organize labor. Conservative proselytizing against these policies over the decades has obscured the fact that much of it was an effort to push those private costs back into private hands. The end of the industrial age corresponded with the end of cost shifting.

Today, cost shifting is everywhere in the economy. Tech companies have exploited pubic utilities, like the internet, to provide media services, without having to pay distribution costs. Amazon built its business, in part, on not having to collect sales taxes like every other retailer in America. Currently, their shipping costs are subsidized by the US Postal Service which loses billions every year. Then there are the many rackets that rely on government subsidies. Higher education is just one big upper middle-class subsidy.

The biggest cost shifting racket today is the use of imported labor. Recruiting, hiring and training Americans is expensive, because America is a first world society.Citizens expect first world working conditions. That makes it hard to shift labor costs onto the public, so companies prefer foreign labor. That way, they can pay lower wages and they avoid having to deal with employees who know their rights or have ideas about forming a union. Plus, foreign workers don’t sue for things like discrimination or poor safety conditions.

There’s a cost to this sort of predatory labor system, but those costs are shifted to the public in the form of depressed wages and high social costs. The migrants in every hospital emergency room are not having their bills picked up by their employer. When Pablo decides to get drunk and drive over an American, his employer is not paying the victim’s family or covering the cost of Pablo’s incarceration. The fact is, there is nothing more expensive to a society than cheap labor, it’s just hidden from public view.

The question though is if it is possible to get rich in a mature economy without massive cost shifting. No great fortunes were amassed from the end of World War Two until the technological revolution. That was a period when business costs were shifted back onto business. The tech revolution made it possible to get around the regulations and laws, because government never anticipated a digital economy. That’s starting to change just as the technological revolution is winding down and the public is pushing back.

Take a look at the newspaper business. Prior to the digital age newspapers could be run profitably, but they had high labor and capital costs. In theory, the digital age offered the chance to slash those costs. The internet does not require printing presses and delivery trucks. But, the internet also slashed their revenue stream. All those ad dollars are now at eBay, Monster and so forth. Newspapers, without monopoly power and with no ability to shift their costs to the public, are all losing money and headed for extinction.

That does not mean it is impossible to turn a profit without cost shifting, but it does suggest it is impossible get rich without it. At least not billionaire rich. That would certainly explain the fanatical commitment to migrant labor by American business. It also explains the increasingly opaque financial system. It’s not so much about reducing costs as hiding them in the costs of other goods and services, like taxes and health care. It’s a lot easier and profitable than trying to make a better product or become more efficient.

The Dumbening

An important project of the Left for a long time now has been to discredit the idea that intelligence is genetic and therefore heritable. In order to maintain the blank slate, they have to argue against genetics and evolution. Anytime someone can produce a study showing that environment alters life outcomes, Progressives rush to the internet to trumpet the study as if it was holy writ. That has been the response to this Norwegian study on intelligence, that claims to observe a reverse in the Flynn Effect.

There is confusion in the commentary, because there is confusion about the meaning of the Flynn Effect. The Left likes to claim that the Flynn Effect shows that better schools and ideological indoctrination make people smarter. That’s false. What the Flynn Effect observes is that populations get smarter as environmental conditions improve. People also get taller when environmental conditions improve. In other words, an improving physical environment means more people able to reach their genetic potential.

On the other hand, the other side often leaps to the conclusion that things like immigration and fertility rates exclusively drive population IQ. This is true in the aggregate. Import large numbers of Africans into Iceland and the average intelligence of Iceland will decline. That does not mean the native Icelander got dumber, although the decision to import Africans could be proof of that claim. The Flynn Effect observes that children will be smarter than their parents, when environmental conditions improve. A better life means better kids.

The reason this Norwegian study is causing blank slate believers to hyperventilate is it claims to show a decline in IQ within families. Specifically, the children are dumber than their parents and younger brothers are dumber than older brothers. Children born in the 1960’s had an average IQ a little over 99, while children born in the 1970’s had an average IQ of 102.Since then, IQ’s have declined to the 1960’s level. Because this was measured within families, the researchers rule out genetics, dysgenics and immigration as causes.

Now, the first thing to note is that blank slate people employ the same tactic we used to see with the intelligent design people. The ID’ers would hunt around for anything they could hold up discrediting Darwin or natural selection, no matter how trivial or tangential, so they could claim evolution was not science. This was supposed to “prove” that intelligent design was therefore a valid theory. Blank slate people play the same game by trying to poke holes in genetics, believing it will prove the blank slate to be valid.

There’s a word for this sort of argument. It is called sophistry. Just because natural selection cannot solve every puzzle in the fossil record, that does not mean magic is the default explanation for the fossil record. Similarly, just because IQ’s appear to be declining within Norwegian families does not mean IQ is not heritable. It has always been known that intelligence varies within families. The question posed by this study is whether this is caused by subtle changes in environment or some unknown randomness in the genome.

Further, it has been observed for a long time that average intelligence within Western societies have been declining since the 1970’s. Overall IQ appears to have peaked in the 1970’s and been in decline ever since. Immigration is one cause. Another is the habit of smart successful people having fewer children. The opening scene to Idiocracy is not entirely wrong, even though fertility among the poor has declined. From the late Middle Ages into the early 20th century, smart people had big families, because they could.

Again, this Norwegian study is not reporting this sort of result. Instead, they are picking up a decline within families. The one potential flaw is that it measures only male intelligence, which means sons are dumber than fathers and younger brothers are dumber than older brothers. The Flynn Effect observes increases in IQ within families due to improved environmental conditions. Therefore, a decline would logically be linked to some unknown environmental changes. In other words, maybe television really does rot the brain.

Of course, the changes are quite small, so it could simply be the Breeder’s Equation at work. The uptick in the sample population used in this study could have been driven by a bit of environmental luck. The decline is simply a reversion to the mean. The recent uptick you see in the above graph could also indicate a natural variance between a maximum and minimum for this group. The observable difference between a 99 and 102 IQ is zero outside of a testing environment, so it has no impact on social outcomes and reproduction.

All that said, there are two things we know are true about overall human intelligence. One is the population of this earth with low-IQ’s are breeding like bunnies. Simple math says mankind is getting dumber on average. The other thing we know is that the load the smart fraction can carry is finite. Pile in enough stupid people in a population and eventually they overwhelm the efforts of the smart people. The puzzle is in figuring out the tipping point and the goal is to make sure your country avoids reaching that tipping point.

Prison Reform

One of the under discussed topics floating around Washington is prison reform, which has the support of President Trump. His son-in-law has been quietly whipping support for a bill backed by the White House. Trump’s photo-op with Kim Kardashian was part of the effort to get Democrat support for the bill. The point of the reform plan is to put more money into training and counseling for inmates, in an effort to reduce recidivism and decrease the prison population. America has 2.2 million prisoners which is the highest in the world.

Prison reform in America is a loser of an issue, mostly because all previous prison reform efforts have been nothing more than opening up the jails, so blacks could run wild in the streets. Even if you are not old enough to remember the crime wave of the 1970’s, the “soft on crime, bleeding heart liberal” is a stock figure in pop culture. As a result, whites are solidly against anything with the name “prison reform” in it. That’s why you never see blacks on TV making demands for prison reform. Their handlers have no interest in it.

Republicans in the House and Senate are in no hurry to pass anything. Even the open borders fanatics, who want to fill your neighborhood with criminal aliens and MS-13 gang-bangers, are not in a hurry to pass anything. Instead, they are doing the “comprehensive reform” dance, which is how politicians manage to do nothing, while endlessly talking about the need to do something. That means the odds of something getting done in the near term is not good, even if Trump is behind the effort. It’s bad politics right now.

That does not mean the status quo is workable. We have roughly 2.2 million people in jail at anyone moment. There are roughly 4.7 million people on parole, house arrest and court supervision. In a country of 300 million, that’s not a huge number, but seven million people is more than the population of Paraguay. It’s close to twice the population of Ireland. There are 125 countries with less than seven million residents. One reason we have so many people in jail is it is a lot easier to manage criminals in jail than when they are on parole.

Of course, the prison population is about 40% black. That means about about 2.5% of black people are in jail at any one time. Another 5% are under court supervision of some sort. As has been pointed out for decades, eliminate black crime and America is suddenly as docile as any other Western nation. That brings us back to the politics of prison reform, as everyone knows the stats on black crime. Since addressing the realities of the black population in America is forbidden, we maintain a massive human warehousing system.

The looming problem is demographics. In the 1990’s, getting tough on crime mostly meant longer sentences for smaller crimes. The “broken windows” approach to policing is mostly mythology, but getting crime under control does have a real impact. It works the same way the death penalty worked to pacify Europe. By handing out long jail sentences, cities like New York culled the herd, so to speak. Eventually though, the people sent away for 20 years get out on parole or served their time. What happens to them at that point?

A useful example, although not representative, is Joseph Konopka, who went by the name Dr. Chaos in his criminal career. He recruited a groups of young people he called The Realm of Ch@os, who committed acts of terrorism and vandalism in Wisconsin and Illinois. Konopka was arrested plotting a mass cyanide attack on the Chicago transit system. He is serving a 20-year sentence at ADX Florence. He will be released, having served all of his sentence, in August of next year. How is that going to work out?

For those unfamiliar, ADX Florence is a prison for the worst the system has to offer. It is called a “supermax” prison, but the inmates call it the Alcatraz of the Rockies. It holds people like Larry Hoover of the Gangster Disciples, Barry Mills and Tyler Bingham of the Aryan Brotherhood. They also have Zacarias Moussaoui, Faisal Shahzad, Ramzi Yousef, Ted Kaczynski and Eric Rudolph. In other words, when Konopka comes out, he will have spent 20 years living with some of the most dangerous and depraved men on earth.

This is an extreme example, but illustrative of the problem facing modern America. The solution to crime was to lock people up, which made sense at the time, but no one thought much about what those prisons would produce in 20-30 years. Granted, many men coming out of the system are going to be old, but they will still be useless, as the prison did nothing to ready them for life after jail. There’s zero chance the social justice warriors running FaceBook or Starbucks will be hiring Joseph Konopka upon his release.

The right answer, of course, is to start accepting reality about the last 70 years of social reform that started after WW2. Crime spiraled upward when the constraints on non-whites were removed and diversity was imposed on whites. Steve Sailer famously used Katrina and the subsequent collapse of New Orleans to illustrate this biological reality. Black crime would be half of what it is today, most of which is against other blacks, if whites were willing to reimpose the sorts of cultural  restraints common before Civil Rights.

That said, the diversity horse has left the barn. By turning America into a majority-minority nation, the ruling class of the last half century has condemned future generations to endemic crime problems like you see in Brazil. One solution to this is the return of penal colonies and criminal reservations. The people serving life terms should be housed on remote islands where they can live out their lives, without causing harm to other prisoners and prison guards. It is the alternative to the enthusiastic use of the death penalty.

Penal colonies would also mean a shift in sentencing. A guy like Joseph Konopka would not get 20 years. Instead, he would get life in the colony. In fact, a fair chunk of the 2.2 million currently in jail would get sent to the penal colonies. There’s simply no point in pretending that a man can come out after 30 years in a gladiator academy and be a normal person in society. There’s no point in pretending the rest of us wish to invest in the effort, even assuming it is possible. Penal colonies humanely address this problem.

Pure Politics

I have returned from the land of the perpetual 70’s. Newark is a strange place, in that it feels like it is trapped in a 1970’s blacksploitation film. Walking around the city, I saw lots of shucking a jiving. I saw people dressed like extras from a movie on the great heroin dealers of the period. Atlantic City has the same vibe. Maybe the 70’s was the peak for these places, at least for their current demographic, and they still have a residue of the era hanging over them. I had the theme song to Shaft in my head for the last week.

This week I wanted to do a show on politics. I have not been doing a lot of political stuff, so I thought it was a good time to swing back and do a show in political topics. In Newark, I was around some northeast Progressives, so hearing them talk about Trump got the juices flowing. There’s also been a lot of big stuff this week. The Korea summit and the IG report are a month’s worth of content for each event. Whatever you want to say about Trump, the guy is a man of action. He’s doing as much as he can, despite the opposition.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

This Week’s Show


Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube