I freely admit to being a fan of race realism. Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire do a great job laying out facts, as opposed to the wishful thinking, so popular with the ruling classes. I guess reading outlawed ideas is always going to appeal to a unconventional mind, but race realism has the benefit of being right. Understanding the broad difference between groups of people makes it possible to navigate through the world and make predictions about people and situations. Race realism is useful.

That said, I wonder, what’s the point? This Taki column by Fred Reed is mostly stupid, but it does brush up against this question. I’ve never understood the attraction to the cornpone offerings of Fred on Everything, but that’s an issue of taste. He does have a big following and his opinions probably track with what most white people think with regards to the human condition. Here’s the part that got my attention.

While I want to regard all of humanity as inferior, with regard to particular groups, vile ripples of unwanted evidence occasionally raise their ugly heads (if ripples have heads). Consider Latinos. After living for eleven years in Mexico, I cannot see that Mexicans are any stupider than anyone else. (This, of course, leaves ample leeway for being stupid.) The assertion among fans of IQ is that because of their admixture of Indian blood, Mexicans, and for that matter all mestizos of Latin America, are stupid. I don’t see it.

I know some Irishmen who never touch alcohol, but that does not change the statistics on Irish drinking. There are some black physicists in the university, but that does not change the fact that blacks are under represented in cognitive fields and wildly over represented in the crime stats. Averages are just a general representation of the whole, not an exact description of everyone in the set. How is possible for someone to not understand this? Well, belief is very powerful magic.

In a disorganized way, however, he does touch on three problems that face the race realists. The first is what you see in the Fred Reed column. Unless you are a liberal, you know lots of pleasant people outside your tribe. Most of the people I know are outside my tribe. Whatever the statistical differences, whatever the cultural differences, pretty much everyone has a soft spot in their heart for someone outside their tribe.

That makes discussing this stuff tricky, but not impossible. Where things get dicey is when you move from listing facts to forming public policy based on those facts. Think about it. Let’s say population X is not very bright and prone to violence. Let’s say you lay out the facts to everyone’s satisfaction and there is general agreement that population X is not very bright and prone to violence. Then what? What policy arises from these facts? What would be the point of the policy?

Let’s pretend you can come up with some policy, say for education, that handles the violent stupid people in a humane and productive way. They get some benefit without placing a burden on the rest of society. I don’t know, maybe a colony of some sort where this population is placed. What about the exceptions? What about those pleasant people who are not dimwitted or dangerous? Do you ship them off to the colony too? If so, how do you sell that to the people in your tribe?

Starting in the 1990’s, America started building and arming paramilitary units around the country. Most point to the North Hollywood Shootout as the genesis, but you can probably put the start date in the 1970’s when Daryl Gates formed the Los Angeles SWAT unit after the Symbionese Liberation Army ran wild in Compton. Radley Balko wrote a good book on the subject last year. Here’s a Wall Street Journal article from him last year that covers the important ground.

The foolishness of building these paramilitary units is obvious in retrospect, but at the time it was just the normal consequence of allowing public sector unions. To get the cop endorsement, pols promised them every toy on the market. The result is we are one step closer to warlordism. This piece from William Kristol, of all people, is a good example of what’s coming to a town near you. Washington is now a Renaissance capital with armored limousines instead of gilded carriages. I

This story from California is yet another example of the police ignoring the law. Who is going to stop them? Apparently not the courts.

With a search warrant in hand, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confiscated computers, customer lists and the questionable polymer 80 percent lower receivers from four Ares Armor store locations throughout San Diego County over the weekend.

“There were women and children inside our retail establishment when the (ATF) agents came in with guns drawn,” said Ares Armor Executive Officer Dimitrios Karras. “They came into our manufacturing facility with their guns up like they were invading Iraq.”

The raid happened three days after Ares owner was granted a temporary restraining by a judge to stop ATF agents from searching their stores.

The ATF confirmed they were investigating the stores for federal firearm violations.

The case stems from the sale of what is called an 80% lower receiver, which gun enthusiast use to build their own rifles and guns.

Building a rifle with specific versions of the 80 percent receivers is legal.   The polymer lower receiver appears to be manufactured differently with two parts, making them a firearm and illegal sell, according to the ATF.

“We did ask the court to clarify if these things were firearms or not,” said Karras. “We did ask for protection as this gets resolved within the court system.”

Karras said they had their polymer lower receivers locked in a closet ready to turn over to the ATF since Wednesday.  He was more concerned about the federal agents taking lists of his customers’ information.

“If anybody is a criminal organization that should be investigated, I think they should look in the mirror. We gave them a black eye publicly,” Karras said. “They tried to do an underhanded deal with us. They said, ‘Hey hush, hush. Keep it secret and nobody’s going to know that we took the customer list from you. Nobody’s going to know we took this from you.’”

The investigation has some customers nervous about their right to bear arms.

“I’m on that list, and I’m waiting for the knock on the door to tell me they are here to remove my second amendment rights,” one customer told Fox 5.

It is already happening.

An Ohio high school student has already been jailed and kicked out of school for having a pocket knife in his car, and now he fears he could lose his dream of serving in the Army.

Jordan Wiser, a student at Ashtabula County Technical School in Jefferson, is finishing up his senior year from home after school officials searched his car in December and found the folding knife and an Airsoft gun. School officials called police, who charged him with illegal conveyance of a weapon onto a school ground based on the three-inch knife.

“I declined to allow them to search myself or my car and that I wanted to talk to my lawyer or my father,” Wiser told FoxNews.com. “They told me it wasn’t an option.”

You don’t get the rest of those rights in the Bill of Right either, it seems.  The American ruling class has not cared for our Constitution since the outbreak of Progressivism in the 19th century. It has steadily grown worse to the point where the current president is openly hostile to basic guarantees in our Constitution. The courts laugh at the very idea of a restraint on government authority. Now, the cops look upon the masses with contempt. It’s not hard to see where this going to end.

You may say to yourself, “As long as you obey the law it is not a problem. These isolated issues are just that.” That’s not the concern. The trajectory is the concern. A century ago the average American rarely bumped against agent of the national government. The Post Office was his only regular interface with Washington. He infrequently had dealings with his local government. Today, everyone of us bumps into government at all levels We must get permission for everything we do now.

A feature of modern times is the fake nerd. That’s the guy who dresses and talks like he was a geeky kid growing up and now busies himself with science and math. The TV show Big Bang Theory plays on this. In reality these fake nerds are almost always toting liberal arts degrees of the soft kind, like sociology or psychology. These people are brought onto news chat programs to repeat conventional wisdom, but salt their language with statistics or references to science.

Sports TV has been infested with the fake nerds. Pablo Torre on ESPN is the prime example. He majored in journalism, yet pretends to be a math guy on TV. It is a fair bet he cannot do basic math with any degree of confidence, but there he is every day pretending to be a stat-nerd on TV. These guys cherry-pick language and concepts from stat-heavy sites that analyze trends. They don’t understand the math behind them, but they don’t have to, as their job is to play a role, like an actor.

The good news for the fake nerds is their rabbi is back in business. Nate Silver’s racket is back up and running with the help of ESPN. Silver is a bright guy, for sure, but he is an ideologue and that gets the best of him. He’s a lot like Richard Lewontin, who was undeniably smart, but consumed with ideology. So much so it led him to lie about his work and do so brazenly. That’s not to say Silver is a liar, but it shows the risk of allowing an ideologue to assume the role of empiricist.

The application of statistics to human activity seems like a fool’s errand. Sports is a great example. Using advanced metrics has not helped gamblers. It may have helped some gamblers for a short time, but gambling is not just a math puzzle. Games of chance rely on human fallibility. That’s true of sports. The key to winning at sports gambling, for example, is to find the game outside the 90%. That means the possible outcomes within the 90% probability are not going to be winners for the gambler. You need the upsets and unexpected blowouts.

That said, the new religion of economics is legitimizing the use of statistics to public policy, because it opens the debate to corruption. Instead of focusing on desired ends, the focus is on process. The statistics make people think the outcomes are ordained and that what matters is how you get there. It’s why economics often looks a lot like tarot card reading. That assumption the future is written is never said, but it is often assumed, so process is all that matters.

It is a bit ironic. The last time this sort of materialist zeal got a purchase with the public was in the 19th century with Taylorism. That was the application of engineering to the work place to eliminate waste. Sounds a lot like what the new religion means by efficiency. Taylorism eventually gave us The Efficiency Movement. Progressives “such as Herbert Croly, Charles R. van Hise and Richard Ely sought to improve governmental performance by training experts in public service comparable to those in Germany, notably at the Universities of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Schools of business administration set up management programs oriented toward efficiency.”

Herbert Hoover was a big fan of this. Contrary to Progressive mythology, he was not a small government conservative. Like Nixon, he accepted the main arguments of the Left. He just picked the wrong party and, it turns out, the wrong time to be President. The point being that the last time our elites had a religious zeal for a new science of efficiency, promising to bring heaven on earth, they almost destroyed civilization. For that reason I wish Nate Silver and his fellow monks nothing but the worst.

Kevin Williamson is not an honest person. At least he is not an honest writer, which does not make him extraordinary. Honestly in professional writing is a sure way to become an amateur writer. Publications like National Review are hoping to persuade people to a particular position. They are most concerned with rich people, who give them money for writing the things rich people like reading. As a result, the writers there are forced to make up nonsense like this.

A lefty friend once asked me whether I thought I held any subconsciously racist opinions. One should always be on the lookout for one’s own intellectual and moral defects, so I’ve been thinking about it, and I have a possible candidate: As I suggest in my NRO piece today, “Asian-American” seems to me to be an obviously nonsensical category, because it includes people of origins ranging from Pakistani to Japanese. But “African-American” has never seemed immediately nonsensical to me in the same way. This may be because I know a little bit more about Asia than I do about Africa, or it may be because Indians and Koreans strike my white American eye as obviously and visibly different in a way that is not true of members of many African groups. It should go without saying that I detest racism, and it is also the case that racial and ethnic feeling, even of the benign, St. Patrick’s Day variety, seems to me atavistic and primitive. My self-analysis here is not meant to be taken as normative, but rather an examination of the semi-subconscious impressions of what I believe to be a fairly typical middle-class white guy from Texas.

The new religion has made race awareness into mortal moral sin. if you notice anything about racial or ethnic differences, even the most innocuous things, you will be marked as a racist, and no one wants that. The ridiculous bit of squid ink in the first paragraph is a good example. It is absurd to think that Kevin Williamson is losing any sleep over his “subconscious racism.” In fact, even people who are dedicated anti-racists are not worrying about their subconscious racism. It’s just an act.

While I don’t buy the race-as-a-social-construct position entirely, there is a great deal of cultural specificity to racial perception. Surely I am not the only white American guy in the history of the world to meet a Somali or an Ethiopian and have his brain simultaneously register “black” and “not black.” And I believe that that is the real psychological fault line for white Americans: not white vs. not-white but black vs. not-black. Ethiopia, Wikipedia informs me, recognizes more than 80 different ethnic groups on its census and, for whatever reason, members of some of those groups only push some of the buttons of perception associated in my particular brain with “black.” I think it probably says something about the culture that at some level my mind really wants to make that distinction in absolute terms. We all know that Barack Obama has one black parent and one white parent, but my impression is that people generally look at him and see black, rather than biracial.

This is akin to saying “I don’t buy this gravity-as-a-social-construct position entirely” while tossing a ball into the air. In fact, the concept of the “social construct” is really just hand waving. The term was invented by people who no longer wanted to deal with facts and reason. Regardless, race is real.There is a reason we can use a mouth swab and tell the origin of your ancestors. In some cases, their origin can be plotted on a map with great accuracy. This says race and ethnicity are in your DNA.

The fundamental fact, I think, is that when a white American sees a black American, he sees history, and that history looms far more significantly over black Americans than it does over Hispanics or Asian immigrants or other minority groups. Conservatives see that history and generally don’t want to think about it; progressives see that history and want to use it for their own political ends. And I don’t have the imaginative capacity to guess what the view looks like from the black perspective. In that sense, it’s hard for me to believe that black-white relations in the United States will ever be normalized, as much as I wish it were otherwise. The fact that “black” exists in my internal taxonomy as a unitary and exclusive category — even though at some rational level I know better — suggests to me that while “Asian” maybe be only a geographic term in the American political mind, “African” is a very different kind of term, one that has more to do with realities on this continent than realities in Africa.

This is the least ridiculous portion of the post. He is right that people with a long history with one another tend to remember that long history with one another. This is true in the same way that people who have evolved here on earth tend to look like us. Armenians and Turks will forever have opinions about one another that outsiders will never fully appreciate, because of their long history together. The same is true of Jews and Europeans, but not true of Jews and Samoans.

Of course, the whole post is made up nonsense. It is an effort to inoculate himself against future changes of bad think. He’s not the smartest guy in the world, but he is a not a dullard, so he sure knows the truth about race and biology. Instead of writing that, he makes up this stuff that no doubt makes the donors happy and lets his masters on the Left know he is not having unapproved thoughts. The fact that this stuff never works is not what’s important. he thinks it works and that’s what counts.

It used to be that the counter to the homosexual marriage was it would lead to every pervert and nutjob demanding special treatment too. After all, the point of defining anything is about setting limits. The difference between an apple and an orange is not open for debate. The difference between two guys playing house and your aunt and uncle raising a family is obvious. The former is a fruitless transaction that serves no social purpose, while the latter is about creating children.

Removing the biology renders the term and the institution meaningless unless you can come up with some new limiting definition. Since the whole point of the effort is to destroy the institution, there will be no new definition of marriage. The goal is to destroy the white middle-class by destroying white middle-class institution. The whole point of homosexual marriage is open the flood gates to all of the other freaks and weirdos, demanding the right to occupy the space of the white middle-class.

Right on cue, the parade of degenerates is on it s way.

An independent commission led by a former U.S. surgeon general has concluded there “is no compelling medical reason” for the U.S. armed forces to prohibit transgender Americans from serving and that President Barack Obama could lift the decades-old ban without approval from Congress, according to a report being released Thursday.

The report said Department of Defense regulations designed to keep transgender people from joining or remaining in the military on the grounds of psychological and physical unfitness are based on outdated beliefs that require thousands of current service members either to leave the service or to forego the medical procedures and other changes that could align their bodies and gender identities.

“We determined not only that there is no compelling medical reason for the ban, but also that the ban itself is an expensive, damaging and unfair barrier to health care access for the approximately 15,450 transgender personnel who serve currently in the active, Guard and reserve components,” said the commission led by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who served as surgeon general during Bill Clinton’s first term as president, and Rear Adm. Alan Steinman, a former chief health and safety director for the Coast Guard.

Now, Joycelyn Elders has been pushing perversity for a long time. According to Wiki, she has a masters in biochemistry, but one should assume that was the result of other factors than intelligence. Regardless, even if her credentials are legitimate, she is still unqualified to discuss this issue. It’s not about science. it is about public morality and the fitness of the military. The absurd claim that there are 15,000 trannies in the service is going to get passed around as fact, even though the source is a nut.

The panel, convened by a think tank at San Francisco State University, said the ban has existed for several decades and apparently was derived in part from the psychiatric establishment’s consensus, since revised, that gender identity issues amounted to a mental disorder.

People come in two sexes. Yes, there are extremely rare cases of people with peculiar genetic defects that lead to them having both male and female sex organs or an extra X chromosome. That’s not what were’ talking about here. These are men, it’s always men, who think they are something they are not. if they though they were invisible or giant bunny rabbits, no one would question their mental fitness. Yet, in this newly created exception, we’re supposed to believe it is normal?

The ban also appears based on the assumption that providing hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgeries would be too difficult, disruptive and expensive. But the commission rejected those notions as inconsistent with modern medical practice and the scope of health care services routinely provided to non-transgender military personnel.

I’ll just note that the press swallows this nonsense down whole. If Liberty University had a commission that issued a report calling trannies perverts in need of psychiatric help, the media would be leading a boycott and protest rally in Lynchburg. Fruitcake University drags in an old black hustler to promote liberal agit-prop and they treat it like the Sermon on the Mount. Regardless, the parade of perverts will be in your town soon, leering at your kids, daring you to say something. Welcome to the new normal.