Jewish Decline and the Rise of China: In the US

Years ago, when I was tech writer for weird magazines such as Signal and for other more-normal techish pubs, Jews littered the intellectual landscape. They were all over high-end research, such as Bell Labs. The big names were often Jewish, Einstein, von Neumann, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Minsky. The staff list for the Manhattan Project read like a Yeshiva yearbook. The same happened in the arts. Bernstein, Landowska, Rubinstein, Stoppard (“Maidens in search of Godhead…and vice versa.”) 

Jews were smart, most people figured, not necessarily liking it.  I wondered why without great interest. Genetic determinists of course cooked up evolutionary explanations involving undiscovered genes acted upon by unquantifiable selective pressures to produce assumed results not correlatable with the pressures. Business as usual. 

Later I began to notice without thinking about it that the Jewish names were growing thin on the ground. These were not systematic observations. But Asian names were becoming prominent almost everywhere. The Feinsteins seemed to be in recession, if only anecdotally.

Something odd was happening, I barely noticed.

Then Ron Unz published The Myth of American Meritocracy, documenting a stunning turnaround of which I had been only vaguely aware. The book deals substantially with corruption in admissions to Ivy schools, with some (I think) good ideas for reform. It also charts the sharp decline in Jewish achievement and the meteoric rise of the Asians. (Actually I think falling is more what meteors do, but cliches are cliches.)

As one example, consider the NMSQT, the National Merit Scholastic Qualifying Test, given nationally to high-schoolers. To be a Semi-Finalist a student has to test in the top one half of one percent–sort of upper middle-brow intelligence.

in 2010  there were about 2000 Semi-Finalists in California, the state with the second highest Jewish population after New York. Citing an analysis of last names, Unz notes that there was only one Cohen, Levy, and Kaplan, but 49 Wangs and 36 Kims.

This pattern, Unz notes with lots of documentation, repeats across the country. For example, in the ultra-high-end high schools such as Thomas Jefferson in Virginia and Stuyvesant in New York. These places are scary smart, CalTech in short pants. Unz:

“Jews and Asians today are about equal in number within New York City but whereas a generation ago elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered at least several times over by Asians.”

“In 2012, Asians were 72.5% of Stuyvesant students, with all whites at just 24%, of whom an unspecified fraction were Jewish.”

Which is to say that even if all the whites were Jews and no HAGVACAS (House and Garden Variety (non-Jewish) Caucasians), the Asians would be outperforming the Jews by three to one.

Which is crazy strange.

Now the reader may say, “But Fred, this  objection and that objection, and what about…?” Fair enough, but in condensing a  book into three paragraphs one leaves things out. The sources are there and the analysis careful. And no, the book is not an attack on Jews, Unz himself being Jewish and a Harvard grad.

Methinks, subject to correction, that his findings shed considerable darkness on what we think we know about intelligence. Jews still perform better than Hagvacas, but less better than before, and the Asians are way ahead of the Jews. It seems unlikely that the Asians have suddenly risen in biological intelligence, or that Jews have gone down. Putting it otherwise, when one group falls almost overnight on a wide variety of tests thought to measure intelligence, and another rises, it follows that either intelligence can change very fast or the tests are not measuring intelligence. So what is happening? What do the aptitude tests measure? 

The easy explanation is that the Chinese kids are of about normal intelligence but just work harder. Yet when a kid gets into Stuyvesant or MIT, he can’t get by on hard work and modest aptitude any more than I could play for the Chicago Bulls by practicing hard. You have to be smart to do, say, computational fluid dynamics. Actually really, really smart with tensors and things.

Which is why I have trouble buying the explanation offered by a Jewish friend: “We’ve lost our hunger.” I think he means that in his day there were Jewish quotas in universities and no room in the country club so when those barriers lifted the Jewish kids  were going to show the goyim what was what and went at everything fang and claw and, well, showed the goyim. Then they got comfortable, moved to the suburbs, and maybe even watched football.

I have known people with very high pre-dumbing-down SATs, and Merit Semi-Finalists, and people with IQs in excess of 150. They didn’t just know stuff. They were bright. Was intrinsic intelligence raised in the Asian young by hard study?  

Whatever is happening, it is grave. Consider CalTech, which probably has the highest standards for admission in the country. Further, it does not practice affirmative action. The demographics of the studentry: Black, 2%; Hispanic, 12%; White (including Jewish), 28%; Asian, 44%. This is worse than it seems at a glance because Asians are only 15% of the population of California,and six percent of the national.

Whatever is happening, it is not a statistical  fluke. A couple of quotes from the book among many similar ones:

“For example, among Math Olympiad winners white Gentiles scarcely outnumbered Jews during the 1970s…but since 2000 have become over fifteen times as numerous.”

“Over forty percent of Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish…but since 2000 the percentage has dropped to under ten percent,  without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.” The Putnam is a very high-end math test.

Another of my friends has an Asian wife and thus entree  into the Asian community. He quotes their (wisely private) outlook: “Whites are lazy and stupid.”

If you like succinct, you just got it.

The curious thing is that the Asians are not just way ahead of Jews, but wayer ahead of Hagvacas. The gap is huge, and seems to me too large to be explained by the few points of extra IQ sometimes attributed to East Asians.

The Asian rise may have consequences. It is not thought proper to notice that the white population of America, numbering very roughly two hundred million, provides nearly all of the scientific advance, engineering, and entrepreneurship. China has, again very roughly, a billion Han Chinese–you know, the kind that dominate Hagvacas and Jews in the US.

I watch Chinese technology as best I can. In fifteen years, China has gone from having no supercomputers to having slightly more than the US has, including the world’s two fastest, the most rapid of which (TaiHuiLight) is a Chinese design using Chinese semiconductors. (Obama, ever brilliant, stopped Intel from selling them chips, so they apparently decided the needed to supply their own.) The quantum-crypto line from Beijing to Shanghai, said to have been spurred by a desire to keep NSA off China’s back, is noticeably more advanced than carrier pigeons. The type 093B nukey attack sub just launched seems a major improvement over its predecessor. The 300 mph plus Shanghai Maglev trains uses foreign technology, but now they know how to do it. China is by far the world leader in high-speed rail, of which America has none.

Beijing is trying hard to advance technologically and with success With Jews going dark, and Hagvacas worried about safe spaces and microaggressions, who is going to protect America against competition by potentially five times as many engineers as we have, especially if they perform as well as our Asians do? 

Walter Williams, Catholics, the Projects, and Schooling for Blacks: Something is Wrong Somewhere

Some time ago I read a column  on the schooling of blacks written by Walter Williams, the black economist at George Mason University, who grew up in the black housing projects of Philadelphia in the Thirties. I have read Williams for years. He is an absolutely reliable witness. He reports that all the kids could read, and that classrooms were orderly and teachers respected. Today, by all reports, in the urban black schools the kids can’t read and chaos reigns. Black kids have not gotten stupider since the Thirties. Something is wrong somewhere.

I read similar stories about chaotic, violent, illiterate Latino kids in American schools, these things being attributed to low intelligence. I live in Mexico, and see nothing even faintly resembling these stories. The statistics agree. (Mexican literacy, CIA FactBook: 95%. American literacy, US Department of Education: 86%) Something is wrong somewhere.

In 1981, I wrote a piece for Harper’s on the overwhelmingly black Catholic schools of Washington, DC, and found them to be exactly as Williams described the schools in his projects: well-behaved, and all the kids could read. The article follows. shortly.

I expected that liberals would applaud a piece demonstrating that black kids could learn far better than they did in the public schools. Instead, fury erupted. The success of the Catholics pointed up the incompetence of the teacher’s unions and the vacuity of accepted social theory. Whatever nits can be picked with the piece,  whatever one believes about the relative intelligence of blacks, whites, yellows, and ed majors, it is obvious that black kids could do far, far better than they are doing.l Something is wrong somewhere.

Anyway:

The Color of Education

Harper’s, February 1981

Should anyone in authority say anything sensible about racial policy, an event unlikely to occur before the next Ice Age, he would have to say that when it is not merely futile it often injures the people it is supposed to help; that it succeeds in antagonizing whites without benefiting blacks; that it has become more of an ideological battleground than a practical program; and, finally, that it is a fraud, serving principally to benefit groups that grow fat from racial programs. He might be tempted to add that civilized man has never seen such a monumental stream of unembarrassed twaddle.

An obvious observation, which hardly anyone seems to make, is that blacks suffer less from racism than from poor education. Harvard does not reject black applicants because it dislikes blacks but because they are badly prepared. Blacks do not fail the federal entrance examination because it is rigged to exclude them but because they don’t know the answers. Equality of opportunity without equality of education is a cruel joke: giving an illiterate the right to apply to Yale isn’t giving him much.

The intelligent policy is to educate black children, something that the public schools of Washington manage, at great expense, not to do. In fact the prevailing (if unspoken) view seems to be that black children cannot be educated, an idea whose only defect is that it is wrong: the Catholic schools of Washington have been educating black children for years. The Catholic system has 12,170 students in the District, of whom 7,884, or 65 percent, are black.

On the Science Research Associates (SRA) exam, a standardized test of academic achievement, the average reading ability of eighth graders in Washington’s Catholic schools in 1979-80 was at the 52nd percentile, compared to the national norm, and at the 72nd percentile, compared to big-city norms — that is, above average. In arithmetic, the percentiles were 60 and 75 above average. In science, they were 53 and 66 — again, above average. In none of the subjects tested, which included composition, “language arts,” and social studies, were scores as low as the 50th percentile.

Most people argue, incorrectly, that the overall scores are being pulled up by the scores of white students; it is remarkable how few people will accept that black children make good grades because they are bright and well taught. But it happens that Mackin Catholic High School, on California Street, N.W., is 94 percent black, and students there average at grade level or higher when tested in reading; they score similarly in other subjects. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Elementary School, in Anacostia, one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city, has only two white students. The students in the seventh grade read at the 40th percentile, or, to put it another way, rank 10 percent below the national norm. Ninth grade students in the public schools in Anacostia rank 26 percent below. St. Anthony’s, in northeast Washington, near Catholic University, is about 90 percent black. On a composite SRA score, its eighth graders rank at the 67th percentile against the national norm, and at the 76th percentile against big-city norms. When there are virtually no whites at a school, whites cannot be responsible for the scores.

Skeptics suspect that Catholic schools get good scores by accepting only promising students. There is a little truth in this, but not much. Catholic schools in Washington do not accept hopelessly bad students or students who have other problems, such as serious police records, which would cripple them academically or cause them to disrupt classes. Some schools are more lenient than others about admissions standards, but most accept students who score below average. They do not gather up the geniuses and neglect the rest.

Why do the Catholics get better results? One reason is that the students have parents who care enough to put them in superior schools. Another reason is that Catholic schools have superior staffs, with teachers generally required to have at least a B.A. in their subjects. Also involved are academic rigor — students are often assigned two-and-a-half hours of homework — and discipline. One disruptive student can reduce a class to chaos. Catholic schools, not being subject to educational bureaucracies and political pressures, can prevent disruption, resorting, if need be, to expulsion.

In my estimation, the Catholic schools also profit by their respect for the students — a belief in their potential, accompanied by a recognition that they are, after all, children. At St. Anthony’s I talked to the eighth-grade English teacher, Lorraine Ferris. Ferris seems to be half scholar and half drill instructor, about right for junior high, and strikes me as being about as good as teachers get. She knows English from the gerunds up, which puts her ahead of most college English departments. “The important thing,” she says, “is to make children believe in themselves, but you can’t do it by coddling them. I won’t accept a 95 from a student who should make a 98. It’s important to them to see that they can compete. And the idea that black children can’t do the work is baloney. I see red every time I hear it.”

If black children can be educated, the question arises: Why aren’t they? The usual answer is that racism and conservatism are responsible, and much ink is spilled in exorcising these evils. But racists and conservatives have almost nothing to do with educational policy in Washington. Until recently, we’ve had a Democratic president and Congress; we have a liberal National Education Association, a black city government, a black school board, and a black electorate. They, not conservatives or racists, bear responsibility for conditions in the schools.

One may argue that in general the chief hindrances to progress for poor blacks are misguided racial policies and the attitudes of those who make them. It is important to realize that things were different twenty years ago. In the Fifties and Sixties the civil rights movement was producing results-dismantling the prevailing apartheid, for example. Unfortunately the movement somehow became bureaucratized, then became self-serving, and finally became the problem. Today the obstacle to racial progress is not Bill Buckley; it is Ted Kennedy. It isn’t the KKK; it is the NEA.

Race has become an industry. CETA, EEOC, OMBE, and other forbidding acronyms with huge payrolls exist by presiding over the status quo. Various freelance acronyms, such as NAACP, SCLC, ACLU, and PUSH, derive their importance from appearing to galvanize the governmental acronyms. Politicians and influential subcommittees thrive by conspicuously giving their attention to racial matters. The Democratic party retains blacks as a largely docile voting bloc by maintaining the flow of money for racial programs. Billions of dollars, countless jobs, and the political balance ride on keeping things as they are.

The underlying difficulty is that when enough people are employed to solve a problem, means become ends. It becomes more important to continue solving the problem, which provides jobs, than to have solved the problem, which would result in dismissals.

Not all racial functionaries cynically exploit racial division, but many do. People are remarkably adept at aligning their principles with their pocketbooks. Racial bureaucrats will always manage to persuade themselves that their particular programs are of paramount importance in the struggle against oppression. Further, their principal interest being their own interest, they will oppose the elimination of unsuccessful programs to prevent the discovery that nothing very bad would happen if they were abolished.

They have all but silenced opposition with their insistence that He who is against me is against blacks. This argument, repeated often enough, results in something close to censorship, so that it is currently almost impossible to discuss racial programs on their merits — i.e., on whether they work. Whether, for example, the welfare system needs revision isn’t considered.

The national media and the major dailies do their best to enforce the ban on open discussion. They simply won’t publish serious criticism. Relative freedom from criticism encourages a preference for moralism in place of practicality. The tendency is to see racial questions as a conflict between abstract Good and abstract Evil, in which the most important thing is to display admirable intentions, usually to the exclusion of doing anything useful.

There is a further tendency among racial functionaries to do penance for sins they haven’t committed, such as tolerating slavery. Penance is fun, but marvelously useless.

When people are more concerned with seeming good than with doing good, symbols become irresistible. Racial policy abounds in symbols that express concern, cost a lot, and miss the point. There is, for example, the Martin Luther King Memorial Library — oversized, underused, short on books, with a grandiose lobby that has enough wasted space for several simultaneous games of basketball. The District, however, doesn’t suffer from a shortage of books but from a shortage of people who can read them.

The University of the District of Columbia, actually a school for remedial reading, is similarly a symbol. Ninety percent of its freshmen read below the ninth-grade level. Although a new university in the District is not necessarily a bad idea, a fraudulent university whose students are hardly beyond the level of junior high school is unquestionably a bad idea. The sensible policy would be to improve the schools so that the city’s children would be qualified to attend a university, and then to build a university or, for that matter, several universities. But establishing a bogus university is quick and easy; teaching a city to read is slow and difficult, and produces votes a decade later.

It is fascinating that the racial establishment systematically blocks the adoption of the educational policies that would most benefit black children. For example, when Vincent Reed, superintendent of schools in the District, urged the wholly admirable idea of a special school for children with the intelligence and energy to do advanced work, the proposal was defeated.

Such schools exist in cities across the country and have worked well. Readers unfamiliar with the workings of the socially concerned mind may not immediately see why bright children should not be educated to their own level. The reason, said those who defeated the idea, is that it would be elitist. Elitism is regarded as a dreadful thing by the wealthier members of the racial establishment, who send their children to Harvard to avoid it.

Preventing elitism by rendering children illiterate is a dubious favor to them and to the nation. The social effect, of course, is to delay the emergence of black leaders and therefore to retard the progress of the race. South Africa achieves the same result by the same denial of education but is morally superior in making fewer pretenses about its intentions.

The racial establishment also discourages the imposition of discipline in the schools, without which teaching is impossible. The problem is horrendous in some of Washington’s schools. The students need protection against marauders from outside, and the staff need protection against physical assault by students. Teachers tell of being attacked by students with knives, of being afraid to go to certain parts of the school. Vincent Reed recently voiced his concern over security. “When I have kids being shot in schools by outside intruders and teachers being mauled by outside intruders — last year we had a young girl ten years old taken out of the building and raped — I don’t have time for rhetoric.”

Others have time for rhetoric. Ron Dellums, a black representative from California, asked at a Congressional hearing whether the presence of policemen in the schools would inhibit discussion of ideas. (Maybe. So, presumably, do knives, guns, drugs, and rapes.) It is a commonplace argument among educationists that discipline is regimentation and a means of racial repression. Illiteracy is a far better means of repression, and disorder is a sure road to illiteracy.

The racial establishment also ensures that black students have poor teachers. One might expect racial politicians to insist on providing the best obtainable teachers for black children who, being behind, desperately need them. It would not be an unreasonable demand. Given the rate of white-collar unemployment, highly educated teachers can be gotten by whistling.

Unfortunately the racial establishment, never particularly energized about the quest for academic quality, is especially unenthusiastic about finding good teachers. There are several reasons, one being that many in the race business belong to the various species of pseudointellectual riffraff that multiplied during the Sixties — psychologists, sociologists, educationists, feminists, the whole touchy-feely smorgasbord of group-gropers, anxiety-studiers, and fruit-juice drinkers who believe that the purpose of education is emotional adjustment. They seem not to have reflected that an excellent source of maladjustment is to be an unemployed semiliterate without the foggiest understanding of the surrounding world.

Educationists, who have a well-developed sense of self-preservation, understandably do not favor higher standards for teachers. Hiring good teachers means firing bad ones. Any serious attempt to get rid of deadwood means bucking the powerful teachers’ unions, which, as a variety of tests have shown, would be gutted by any insistence on competence. Moreover, dismissal of incompetent teachers would mean a heavily disproportionate dismissal of black teachers. The bald, statistically verifiable truth is that the teachers’ colleges, probably on ideological grounds, have produced an incredible proportion of incompetent black teachers. Evidence of this appears periodically, as, for example, in the results of a competency test given to applicants for teaching positions in Pinellas County, Florida (which includes St. Petersburg and Clearwater), cited in Time, June 16, 1980. To pass this grueling examination, an applicant had to be able to read at the tenth-grade level and do arithmetic at the eighth-grade level. Though they all held B.A.’s, 25 percent of the whites and 79 percent of the blacks failed. Similar statistics exist for other places.

Another major reason for the slow progress of blacks is a prejudice, palpable in racial policy though unprovable, that blacks are incapable of competing with whites. Racial functionaries will deny this with fervor; yet if they believed blacks could compete, they would advocate preparing them for competition. Instead the emphasis is on protecting them from it. The usual attitude toward blacks resembles the patronizing affection of missionary for a colony of bushmen: these benighted people are worthy in the eyes of God but obviously can’t take care of themselves, so we will do it. Whenever blacks fail to meet a standard the response is to lower the standard, abolish it, or blur it –not to educate blacks to meet the standard. The apotheosis of this sort of thinking was the lunatic notion that black children should be taught in the gibberish of the streets because it, “communicates,” the implication being that English was too difficult for them. Nobody thought English too difficult for the Vietnamese.

Paternalism has practical consequences. The unrelenting condescension supports blacks’ view of themselves as worthless. (If anyone doubts that poor blacks do indeed regard themselves as worthless, I suggest he spend some time with them.) People who think they cannot succeed do not try.

Finally, the absolute unwillingness of the racial industry to police itself — to make sure that money accomplishes the intended results — has made racial programs a synonym for corruption, waste, mismanagement, nepotism, and undeserved preference. It is hard to find a racial program that is not grotesquely abused. The District’s annual effort to provide summer jobs is typical. The jobs don’t exist, nobody tells the youths where the jobs are thought to be, no work is done if the jobs are discovered, and the youths don’t get paychecks even if they happen to do the work. Last year the same thing happened, and next year, one wearily expects, it will happen again. The pattern repeats everywhere. CETA, for example, might better be called the Comprehensive Graft and Scandal Act. Some programs lapse into frank absurdity. Under “affirmative action,” group after group musters the clout to get on the deprived-species list until, on a quick calculation, 65 percent of the population qualify as mistreated minorities.

Corruption and mismanagement inevitably lead to resentment among whites whose money is being wasted. This resentment is currently called “white backlash,” which has a comfortingly vicious sound and implies that it is someone else’s fault. (In the race business, everything is someone else’s fault.) Antagonizing half the country by shoddy performance is abysmally stupid politics, especially given that the nation would probably have few objections to sensible programs that worked. I find it hard to believe that many people would object to giving a black child a good education at a reasonable price.

Hussein Obama, 50; America, 0:More Adventures in Multiculturalism

 

Orlando? So what else is new? Why the excitement? I am puzzled that everyone is  distraught over a perfectly ordinary act of terrorism by a perfectly ordinary Muslim terrorist. We have seen these attacks before and will see them again. They grow monotonous, like car crashes. They are as interesting as a commercial break.

Why the surprise? We know Muslims kill Christians. We know they stone adulteresses to death. We know they drive airplanes into buildings. We know they mutilate women. We know they bomb airliners. We know they destroy historic monuments. We know they kill their daughters for losing their virginity. We know they kill homosexuals. We know they make coordinated mass attacks on cities. We know they are incompatible with societies of the First World. We know they have no respect for our laws. We know they hate us.

Knowing all of this, what do we do? Why…of course! What else? We import more of them. Nothing could make more sense. Ten thousand Syrians, coming to your neighborhood. Thank you, Obama. Thank you in advance, Hillary.

More precisely, Hussein Obama imports them. A black President with Islamic roots, barely American, who dislikes white people and recruits immigrants of his two ethnicities as hard as he can. We get utterly unassimilable Somalis in Minnesota, and all the Muslims he can find. Fifty gay men have just paid the price.

For Hussein’s policy.

The man fascinates me. The two worst actors that America has suffered since Lincoln are Osama bin Laden and Hussein Obama. They easily fit into any list of history’s most effective and influential men, being true geniuses. For a few hundred thousand dollars and an army of a couple of dozen, bin Laden stunningly humiliated America on international television, turned the country into a police state frightened of everything, inspired abrogation of its Constitution, and sucked the country into unending wars. On a cost-benefit basis, it was astonishing. He up-throttled national decline and has Americans hopping barefoot in airports while recordings on subways tell us to watch each other and report “suspicious behavior.”

Hussein Obama is in the same majestic league. He has said that he wants to “transform” America, and he has, has he ever, by simply doing what he wants. He found and exploited the hidden weakness in American government, which is that nobody has the balls to tell him “No.” He has won by sheer force of will. You’ve got to hand it to the guy: he’s good.

He has set the stage for, at least, unending divisiveness and very possibly for civil war. He will bring in as many more incompatible savages as he can before leaving office, and Hillary, if elected, will be Obama continued by other means. Amazing. The combined militaries of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany could not do as much lasting harm as this one man. 

Why does he do it? Look at it as revenge for slavery. Obama bin Osama, I strongly suspect, does. Our post-racial President is in fact the most racial.

For those killed by Omar,and their families and friends, there is nothing amusing about the slaughter. In a certain abstract sense, there is. America is like a man beating on his thumb with a hammer and yelling, “Oh! Ouch! Oooh! It hurts!” Why doesn’t he just stop? Well, that would be hammer-phobic. Countries deserve what they tolerate. They even more deserve what they encourage.

From Drudge:Imam speaking in Orlando said gays must be killed out of ‘compassion’…

Hmmmm. Might this not be homophobic? I dare not say so, for fear of being thought Islamophobic. Which I am not. No. I suffer from Islamonausea.

It seems that gays have to be killed on the authority of some Fourth Century towel rack. It is because the Religion of Peace says so. If a televangelist in Kansas said that homosexuals had to be killed for Jesus, the entire zoo of talking heads would be on him like lice on a leper and the FBI would gin up fraudulent charges. Watch the media for the outrage that won’t exist as they cover up. You can bet that Hussein Obama will say nothing against his own people.

From the standpoint of a curmudgeon, to which ashen-souled tribe I belong, the events in Orlando provide the gray satisfaction of confirmation. We in our dismal trade derive no joy from unavoidable sufferings springing from the routine malice of existence—cancer, automobile wrecks, birth defects—but we thrive on the self-inflicted, on the finger-hammerings accompanied by cries of “Ouch!” We observe that Muslims are nothing but trouble anywhere, so we import Muslims. We observe that diversity is the chief source of bitter strife in the world, so we open the borders. When seeking employees, we deliberately hire people who can’t do the job. In our universities we purposely admit those who neither can nor want to learn. Then, when the obvious, the predictable, indeed the inevitable unexpectedly occurs, we insist that it really didn’t, or shouldn’t have, or wouldn’t have, or something, and do it again. In its way it is wonderfully funny.

Unless of course you are among the dead.

In Paris the day after Orlando, another Mohammedan emissary of peace stabbed to death a policeman and his wife. (“Allahu Akbar: ‘Mohamed Ali’ Stabs Cop on Street, Slits Throat of Wife…”)

Yes, Paris, the city in which heartwarming Muslims have carried out coördinated simultaneous bombings, killed editorial staffs of publications that irked them, burned banlieues and countless cars and successfully intimidate the police. Mon dieu! What can these isolated incidents have in common? Nobody knows. Perhaps the perpetrators were troubled youth.

Actually the comic people are only those who generate a personal reality-distortion field and do hilariously foolish things. At the top of the political dunghill it is not stupidity but design. Or so it must be…mustn’t it? One expects academics to gibber and squeak, and neurally-challenged columnists and rabble studentry and talking heads and so on. It takes some very serious believing to believe that the governments of England, France, Holland, Sweden, Denmark and America are too stupid to have noticed what Muslims do, and what they are doing to those countries. Yet governments cover up, hide identities, punish observation as “hate speech,” and keep pumping the barbarians in.

Why? Opening America’s southern borders make sense because it makes money for those for whom it makes money. Who profits from flaming arrondissements, explosions in subways, and dead gays?

Ah, but the irony is delicious. London, once master of most of the world, has become a branch office of Pakistan and now has a Muslim mayor, who sets about correcting the morals of the English. No photos of women in skimpy clothes, you degenerate rascals. Can caning be far behind?

It does a curmudgeon good.

A moderately comprehensive list of attacks by Muslim terrorists

Whither the Shards of America?: It’s Us, or Them

AntiTrumpMob

From the sewers they come. Anti-Trump animalia beating a supporter of Trump in San Jose. They have done the same to Sanders. Anti-Trump is legitimate. Beating up his supporters is not. Us or them.

From the Drudge Report, America’s thermometer, regarding the disruption  a campaign rally for Trump:

‘NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN AMERICA’…

TRUMP CAMPAIGNERS CHASED DOWN LIKE PREY…

DOZENS PUNCHED…

POLICE ASSAULTED…

SAN JOSE MAYOR JUSTIFIES VIOLENCE…

VIDEO: FEMALE PELTED WITH HUEVOS…

MEXICAN FLAGS RAISED AS AMERICAN FLAG BURNS…

Enough. This can’t last. If people want to demonstrate against anything at all, fine. If they detest any politician at all, fine. If they are vulgar subliterate rabble, let them be vulgar subliterate rabble where I am not. But when they run wild over and over and shut down politics, they need to be stopped, right now, with nightsticks and dogs and long jail sentences.

A country that allows a feral underclass to run unchecked, to attack and beat anyone it doesn’t like, to loot and burn and disrupt political rallies, to block highways and intimidate the citizenry, will not last. It is time to put an end to it. If we still can.

Look at them. They are the muck at the bottom of the national drains, stupid, half-educated at best, without regard for notions of law or democracy. Many couldn’t spell democracy. They need to be stopped, hard.

They do it because they can. They know there won’t be consequences because governments are afraid of them. They sense it and do as they please. They will do so increasingly. They are in charge, and they know it.

These things are no longer incidents in the cute “culture wars,” half amusing and half-exasperating. We see something more like Weimar Germany, with organized mobs making targets of politicians and breaking up rallies. It is a deliberate, conscious assault on what America is supposed to be and to a reasonable approximation, was. 

Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum  will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require  martial law  in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children.  These would take stomach, which we do not have.

It is probably too late.

Yes, there is a culture war. Behind the rabble, and supporting them, are the media, New York and Washington and Hollywood, the open-borders crowd, the racial lobbies and etiolated epicenes of academia, Obama and Hillary and the Neocons and Wall Street.

Asserting control would not be easy. The cities are powder kegs. The rioters hold too many hostages. If police shoot one black criminal, a city burns. Politicians know it. If Latinos become another hostile racial group, Katie bar the door. We face as part of the larger conflict a tricorn race war of, now, low intensity. This makes no sense as most of all races just want to live in peace, but the civilized inevitably get sucked into hostility started by extremists. White nationalists are spoiling for a fight, as are Black Livists and an indeterminate number of Latino hot-heads. 

Latinos are key in what is coming. There are at least 55 million in the US–I suspect the numbers are deliberately understated by the government–and most, being legal, are not going away.

Cracking down appears to be beyond the powers of governments whose politicians will temporize, back away, make polite noises, and hope it doesn’t blow on their watch. If we have Hillary, she will do nothing. It is not clear that Trump could change much, though he would try. 

TrumpRiot2

The  new Brown Shirts. Trump supporter being attacked by the mob. There is a large racial element in the social battleground no matter how much we pretend otherwise.

Race is only a part of the onrushing disaster. America is no longer a country, but a riot of hostile races, sexes, and political extremes, of self-serving politicians and extractive corporations of the extremely rich who have no attachment to the US. The mild competition between Republicans and Democrats of the Fifties has given way to hard Right and weird Left who bitterly hate each other. They are irreconcilable.

Somebody has to win. There is neither a desire for compromise nor room for it. Those who regard universities as centers for infantilism, inclusiveness and narcissistic political theater cannot live side by side with those who want rigorous schooling for the qualified. It is one or the other. A belief in free discourse is not compatible with firing people who say things offensive to the sacred sensitives. No happy mean exists between affirmative action and advancement by merit. The ghetto cannot cohabit amicably with the library.

America has become a three-ring circus run equally by Goebbels, Barnum and Bailey, and Caligula. Something is seriously out of whack when the President of the United States insists that boys pee in the girls’ room, when the National Basketball Association threatens to pull the All Star game from North Carolina unless it allows integrated urination. Does basketball now dictate to the states?  Arrayed against these are people who believe in what was once called common decency. They  do not want their daughters of twelve years going to a ladies’ room in which predictably will be hanging out men of doubtful intentions and intense interest.

Underlying all is the clash over dictatorship of the proletariat, the rule of the underclass. The culture that approved taste, learning, careful English and manners confronts the the  slums which increasingly prevail. Filth and illiteracy are not just tolerated but exalted.

Lyrics from the gutter, specifically  2LiveCrew, a rap group.

“Bend over and spread em, girl, Show-w-w me those pussy pearls, Rub that ass and play with that clit, You know I like that freaky shit” and so on.

Today’s America.

The intellectual and moral level of these bottom-feeders is not compatible with civilization, yet the country is bathed in their outpourings. To take it out of passive voice, the music industry of New York bathes the country in it. There is no nice way to escape because the courts will uphold the industry.

The conflict is  between freedom and social totalitarianism. Remote bureaucracies with whom localities have nothing in common write their children’s textbooks and decide what morality they should be taught.  People who want a say in the schooling of their children, who want to choose where and with whom they live, find themselves pitted against a political ruling class with power to decide almost every aspect of their lives.

Something has to give.

College Then and Now: Letter to a Bright Young Woman

Dear ___,

You asked how college was when I was a kid, in the late Epicene, and what I thought of schools today. Herewith an answer which I will probably post on my website as I think the matter important:

Much has changed.

Long ago, before 1965 say, college was understood to be for the intelligent and academically prepared among the young, who would one day both provide leadership for the country and set the tone of society. Perhaps ten percent, but no more than twenty percent, of high-school graduates were thought to have any business on a campus.

It was elitist and deliberately so. Individuals and groups obviously differed in character and aptitude. The universities selected those students who could profit by the things done at universities.

Incoming freshmen were assumed to read with fluency and to know algebra cold. They did, because applicants were screened for these abilities by the SATs. These tests, not yet dumbed down, then measured a student’s ability to handle complex ideas expressed in complex literate English, this being what college students then did.

There were no remedial courses. If you needed them, you belonged somewhere else. The goal of college was learning, not social uplift.

Colleges were a bit stodgy, a bit isolated from the world, and focused on teaching. Most had not adopted the grand-sounding title of “university.” Professors were hired for a few years to see whether they worked out with the expectation that if they did, they would get tenure. At schools I  knew, “publish or perish” did not exist. The students, almost entirely white and with the cultural norms associated with that condition, were well behaved within the limits imposed by late adolescence.

The purpose of college was the making of cultivated men and women who would understand the world to the extent that it has proved willing to be understood. This meant the liberal arts. “Liberal” didn’t mean “lefty” or “nice.” It implied a broad grounding in languages, literature, history, the sciences, mathematics, economics, philosophy, and art and music.

The emphasis was on “broad.” For example, if the student took a reasonably rigorous course called “A Survey of Art from Classical Antiquity to the Present,” he—or, most assuredly she—could go into any museum or archaeological site in the Western world, and know what he was seeing. In discussions of politics or literature he would not feel like an orphaned guttersnipe and, having a basis in most fields, could rapidly master any that proved of importance or interest.

There was of course, the young being the young, parallel interest in beer, the other sex, and the usual foolishness that we geezers remember with fondness.

That is how things were. Then came what are roughly called the Sixties, actually the late Sixties and early Seventies.

They changed everything.

The first and worst change was the philosophy that everybody, or much closer to everybody, should go to college. Disaster followed. There descended on the schools huge numbers of adolescents without the brains, preparation, or interest needed for college. They had little notion of what college was for. The very idea of cultivation seemed undemocratic to them, as of course it was. They set out to avoid it. And did.

Since they were not ready, and for the most part could not be made ready, colleges dumbed down courses. Remedial classes proliferated. These worked poorly.  When a graduate of high school can barely read, there is usually an underlying reason why he will never be able to read.

Colleges, which had not been focused on money, realized that these swarms of the intellectually bedraggled paid tuition. Schooling became a business. Tuition rose sharply, much in excess of inflation. Banks, seeing a vast new market, began making student loans and soon learned to tie these loans to the parents’ houses. This kept  the student from escaping by filing for bankruptcy. It was a gold mine.

The universities, become businesses, acted like businesses. They cut costs by using adjunct professors, often of low quality, as academic migrant workers instead of far higher-paid tenured staff. Academic quality dropped further.

Students became customers buying diplomas.  On the principle that the customer is always right, colleges gave them whatever they wanted. One thing they wanted was grades. Grade inflation boomed.

What the students didn’t want was an education, to the extent that they knew what the word meant. They wanted courses that were easy and fun. Soon there were things like “What if Harry Potter were Real?” and “The Comic Book in the Struggle for Gender Equality.” These were vacuous, but the students didn’t know and wouldn’t have cared. They were in a USP—a university-shaped place—that had the form of schooling, such as numbered courses with solemn-sounding titles, credit hours, and buildings with blackboards. They  thought they were in college. They weren’t really, but didn’t really want to be.

College, once a passage into adulthood, became a way of avoiding it. Immaturity and narcissism flourished well into the students’ twenties. This was perhaps because they had never had the experience of having to do things, such as work in a gas station or manage a paper route.  They confused universities with their parents and worked to outrage them. With the righteousness of the still-pubescent, they demanded justice for everything and, having no experience of rational argument, or of thought of any kind, called for the abolition of anything that didn’t suit them. To their delight, they discovered that administrations would cave. Expelling them would have been  a wiser course. They became the prissiest of prissy moralists.

Many professors were products of the Sixties and saw the role of universities to be the pursuit of social change. Students with little desire for learning were content with this. Black students were a particular problem, as they were usually even less prepared than the white. Largely to hide their deficiencies, universities began to abandon the SATs which made unpreparedness obvious. This was said to foster “inclusiveness.”

Universities recruited blacks competitively as evidence of social rightness.  These trophies lacked roots in European civilization, literature, history, sciences and mathematics. They demanded, and got, departments of Black Studies, academic ghettos lowering standards yet further.

Meanwhile the federal government had taken control, almost unnoticed. Washington taxed the states and then gave some of the money back to the universities, provided that they behaved as desired. They invariably did. The Supreme Court decided admissions policies. Big schools became research centers for the government, largely the military. The education of undergraduates took third place, behind football.

Oversupply of graduates raised its ugly head. When degrees had been scare, and went to the intelligent, they carried advantage. When everyone had a college degree, they didn’t. The number of jobs actually requiring an education was far smaller than the number of young who had diplomas, though not educations. Soon there were countless college-educated taxi-drivers, parking-lot attendants, and servers of over-priced coffee at Starbucks.

Potentially far worse, though this wave is just beginning to break, employers noticed the falling capacities of graduates. They began to think of hiring people according to what they knew and could do, instead of according to possession of diplomas that increasingly meant little. Survey after survey showed that graduates couldn’t read documents with understanding, didn’t know in what century the Civil War was fought, couldn’t name the three branches of government, and had trouble with arithmetic.

The result was that students who wanted to learn nothing did so, at great expense and to little advantage to themselves or society, and were ruthlessly exploited by banks and rooked for exorbitant tuition while failing to grow up.

I hope these cheerful notes answewer your question.

Love,

Uncle Rick

Here Comes Donald!: Duck.

 

8 U.S. Code § 1324a: (1)In general It is unlawful for a person or other entity—

(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3))….

Oh  God. Oh God. It’s Hillary or Trump. The first, a loathsome Gorgon paddling about in the  bubbling corruption and fetor of Washington, a political hooker in a plastic miniskirt crooning “I’ll l do anything for a donation to my foundation.” On this soiled caryatid we are going to rest the weight of the nation?

But…Trump? A huckstering bully growling, “I can whip any man in this bar.” He doesn’t seem to have looked around the bar very carefully. I’ll vote for him because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, but…but….

I read with astonishment his proposed policy toward Mexico. Truculence, ignorance, carney showmanship, and a weird view of Mexico. He sees it as both an enemy country and as a malign being, sentient, diabolical, bent on hurting the United States. This seems to parallel his approach to the rest of the world.

His goal regarding Latinos–the prevention of illegal immigration and the repatriation of illegal immigrants–is commendable. A country has the right to determine who enters. Some of his plans would effect this end. Yet he seems to have little understanding of the problem and believes that Mexico, which he despises, is the cause.

How so? America’s immigration mess is entirely self-inflicted.  In 1965 the United States changed its laws to encourage immigration. Mexico didn’t change America’s laws. Ever since, American businessmen have knowingly, eagerly hired illegal immigrants in large numbers and exerted influence to maintain the influx. The American government under Obama encourages illegal immigration, and former administrations have looked the other way. The Democrats push for naturalization explicitly to get the votes. States give illegals driver’s licenses, health care, and schooling. “Sanctuary cities” openly defy laws as, again, does the federal government. Border patrols have been ordered, by Obama, virtually to stand down.

None of this was done by Mexico.

He is mad about the use of welfare by illegals. Trump quote: “U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc.”

How much sense does this make? America offers these things and then complains when they are accepted. If you don’t want illegal aliens on welfare, don’t give them welfare. Is this a difficult concept? Why is Mexico to blame for America’s stupidity?

Yet we have Trump eagerly planning ways to punish Mexico.

From his web page: “There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs….”

Fact: American businesses have moved factories to Mexico. Mexico did not force them to do this. In the United States, American businessmen intentionally give jobs to illegals. The illegals accept them. They do not “take” them. How could they? At gunpoint?

Trump is either dishonest, naive, or thinks like a ten-year-old.

Then we have: “Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States.”

Always  Mexico is a conscious, malevolent being. Again Trump is blankly ignorant.

Fact: “Mexico” does not sell drugs in the United States. The cartels do. Mexico cannot control the cartels (as neither can the United States), which dominate large parts of the country, fight battles against the army and police, kill reporters and the families of soldiers known to take part in operations against them.

The cartels do far more harm to Mexico than to the United States. Wikipedia: “By the end of Felipe Calderón‘s administration (2006–12), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.”

That’s taking advantage of the US?  Mexican cops, soldiers, and reporters are dying in America’s drug war. Americans are not.

If Trump doesn’t know the foregoing, he is anpolitical gerbil proposing policy without bothering to do minimal homework. If he does know it, he is a con man.

Mexicans occasionally ask, “If Americans don’t want drugs, why do they buy them?” The market for drugs exists in the first place because Americans very much want drugs: high-school students want them, often middle-schoolers, college kids, high-dollar lawyers, Congressmen on the Hill doing lines of coke at parties, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, the residue of the Sixties. Washington doesn’t want Americans to have their drugs. It is America’s problem.

Trump’s plan to require proof of citizenship to remit money to Latin America makes sense and would be effective. So would eVerify. No reason exists to make life easy for criminal aliens–which, since illegal entry into America is a crime, includes all illegals. But he is going to force Mexico to, grrr, woof, to pay for his border wall, the brown bastards. 

Quote: “It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year.  “

This is extortion—he could equally say “Give us fifty billion or we will bomb Guadalajara.” We could profitably use the approach on Canada. It embodies his curious notion that Mexico has responsibility to enforce America’s immigration laws when the US makes no effort to enforce them.

Which would be easy, except that America doesn’t really want to do it.

It is illegal to hire illegals. See USC above. Heavy penalties are on the books. Nowhere, as far as I can determine, does Trump suggest applying those penalties to CEOs, farmers, rich women with illegal maids, and construction firms.

Leading a few dozen employers in handcuffs to the paddy wagon would have an immediate effect. Make it a rebuttable presumption that if more than ten percent of a work force are criminally in the United States, the employer knows it. In the case of corporations, deny federal contracts to companies convicted to hiring criminal aliens. As  President in control of the Justice Department, Trump could begin enforcing the laws on his first day in office.

If Trump won’t move against criminal employers–if you break the law, you are a criminal, and hiring illegals is against the law–how can one regard him as more than a grandstanding opportunist?

Over and over, the pugnacity, the threatening: Quote: “Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.” Over and over, if we do this, it will hurt Mexico (or China in other statements) more than it will hurt us. We have the leverage, the power. We can do what we want to them.

What if Mexico didn’t back down?

Here we have fertile ground for unintended and unpredictable consequences. There are things that governments cannot do and stay in power. Caving in to extortion may be one. The demand to pay for a wall would be a “Kiss my ass, Pedro” moment. It is clearly intended as such. If Mexico said “No” and Trump blocked remittances, his ego being threatened, it would be seen as a war on Mexico, Mexicans, and Latinos in general. Which  it would be. 

There are at least fifty-five million Latinos in the United States. Most are legal and not going anywhere. How wise is it for the President to attack them as Latinos, to describe them in insulting and inaccurate terms, to blame them for things they haven’t done, and create antagonism between the US and Mexico? All of this thrills white nationalists, many of whom seem to want revenge as much as they want an end to immigration. But America probably doesn’t really need another huge, hostile, self-aware racial group. Perhaps Trump should avoid creating one.

Also worth noting is that Mexico is not the banana republic of popular imagination. It is a major trading  partner of the US, a nation of about 120 million, the first or second economy in Latin America depending on what Brazil is doing at the moment, with a rapidly expanding middle class. It is also host to enormous investment by American firms. For example, Ford is about to build a $1.6 billion plant here. The Donald’s school-yard-bully approach plays well with many of his constituents, but making enemies to the south is not going to help either country.

But this is a grown-up consideration. We are talking about national politics.

Squids and the Inner Light of Being

It was an epochal moment for the military and perhaps for all of society. Screwing up her courage, Air Force First Lieutenant Kara-Ann McBee walked into her commander’s office on the D-Ring of the Pentagon and announced that she was a giant squid.

Kara was slender and tomboyish, with an upturned nose, freckles, and an attractive brush-cut hairdo. She could have been Tom Sawyer’s sister. She did not appear to be a giant squid.

“But I am, sir,” she said, rigidly at attention and clearly nervous. “I’ve known it since I was a little girl. I…sir, I am a squid trapped in a woman’s body. I’m trans-phylum, sir.”

The commander, Colonel R. Boyd Gittim, was stunned. He was a compact, graying man in his mid-fifties, a combat flier who had slipped through the screening process to high position in what insiders called the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel. He was not well suited to the complex personnel issues of the modern military.

He had to say something. What, he wondered?

“Squids have lots of arms. Ten, I think.”

“Yessir, ten. But…you see, sir, I feel their presence. Like ectoplasm or something.”

Colonel Gittim sighed. He knew of course about LGBT, which he thought of as Lettuce, Bacon, and Tomato, and he knew there existed crucial military questions about whether boys could use the girls room. Squids were too much.

It wasn’t his Air Force any longer, he thought grayly.  Wars were fought by remotely-controlled drones now, and the best pilots were probably fifteen-year-old gamers with no social life. They could do it from home by internet. He decided to retire and drink himself to death.

But consequences were to follow this modest beginning. Kara-Ann, not particularly militant, said that just wanted to be respected as a cephalopod, although she did say that she thought the Air Force ought to provide her an aquarium to sleep in. But, inevitably,  the affair came to the attention of DACOWITS. This was not a Polish mathematician, but the Defense Advisory Commission on Women in the Services. They were Boadiceas of social justice, fighting against the oppression, brutality, contempt and unremitting assault to which women were subjected everywhere, except anywhere that anyone could find.  

Dacowits needed something to do. Things were slow in the trenches of discrimination. Most victories had been won. A woman commanded the SEALs, who had been disarmed to prevent violence. The new main battle tanks had changing tables, and urinals had been outlawed throughout the services or converted to flower pots to preclude uncomfortable spaces. The warriors of social justice needed a Cause.

Virtual squids were just the thing.

But what to demand? There was no point in having a Cause if you couldn’t demand something outrageous and get coverage in the Washington Post. Perhaps, they decided, they  could insist that Kara-Ann should have uniforms with ten sleeves. After intense conferencing, they came up with “imputed tentacles.” After all, phylum was a social construct, and if Kara-Ann could be a squid without looking like one, then she could have tentacles without having any.

When an unwise major tweeted that the idea was “silly as hell and I don’t want to serve with any goddam octopus,” he was demoted. Wilhelmina Mikoyan-Gurevich, chairwoman of Dacowits, exploded. Who were men to decide how  many arms a woman had? Did men know what it was to be pregnant? Women knew their own bodies. If they thought they had tentacles, then they did have them.

A few within Dacowits thought this was over the top, even in pursuit of social justice. Maybe something simpler would do. Could they demand special diets for virtual squids? They weren’t sure what squids ate. Something unpleasant, no doubt.

Restaurants and chow halls throughout the military were forbidden to serve calamai when Kara-Ann broke down in hysterical crying and said it was just too…too horrible, and requested counseling. Trans-phylum bathrooms were a slam-dunk, but what exactly would such a loo need? How did squids…you know…do it? A commission was formed to study the question.

Things became complicated as more servicepersons discovered their inner zoology. Two giraffes, a kudu, and a Brahma bull came out of the closet, the last requesting a feeding trough in the mess hall. The kudu, a goggle-eyed computer nerd from Defense Intelligence named Howie Osfeiser, said he wasn’t sure what a kudu was, but he figured he probably was one. He just knew it.

An unenlightened Marine general said “the whole business is crazier than three monkeys in a bag. What is this freak show coming to?” The Washington Post ran an editorial comparing him to Hitler and saying that his attitude would lead to a second Holocaust. Of course, the Post thought that everything would lead to a second Holocaust.

The State Department announced that it would fund a recruitment drive to find trans-phylum ambassadors, and would modify embassies correspondingly, for example by increasing headroom for imputed giraffes.

In his last days in office, President Obama ordered that all federal buildings be equipped with litter boxes, saying, “A country as great as America was–is–that all the world wants to be like, and wishes it was, cannot seem to penalize citizens who think they are animals, even if they aren’t–though of course they are. Who are we to decide what kind of animals other people are? Praise Allah.”

This clarion call to probity and fairness echoed around the world and was adjudged to embody the clarity and internal coherence characteristic of Obama’s speeches.

A veritable storm of justice had left its imprint in the Pentagon. Calm gradually returned. Glitches continued, but they were minor. The Army’s Chief of Staff, Priscilla-Robert McFarley, came out of the closet as a Bolivian anteater and was discovered to be having termites flown in from La Paz. The computer nerd who had declared himself a kudu figured out that if he discovered himself to be a three-toed sloth  instead, the Army would have to give him more time to sleep.  

The furor finally died down and the nation entered a time of healing. The matter of inter-phylum dating caused a brief flurry, but abated when it was pointed out that the practice was common in the sheep country of Scotland. And of course national attention was diverted when an Armyperson who gender-identified as usually or somewhat male was caught trying to have sex with a vacuum cleaner. Phylum-neutral bathrooms were hastily equipped with chutes for emptying dust bags and….

America Goes Away: Fred Left Behind in Mexico

Mail arrives in my inbox all the time, telling me that by going to Mexico I have sold out, fled, abandoned the United States. I’m a coward and a traitor, just like Lord Haw Haw, and Kim Philby, and probably hate America more than Barack Obama does.

It is is irrational. They think that just because I went to Mexico, I left the US. They don’t understand. I didn’t leave the United States. It left me. It was a bait-and-switch operation. I signed on to one country, and they slipped another in under me. I want my money back.

In the country where I grew up, if you woke up and found a naked intruder headed for daughter’s bedroom with a Bowie knife and a hard-on, you shot him and arranged to have the rugs cleaned. The sheriff wasn’t greatly interested and the county prosecutor didn’t see anything to prosecute. The scum floating on the gene pool wasn’t a protected species. It wasn’t the driving engine of the culture. It was just scum.

Today you would be charged with the use of excessive force. The cadaver’s family would sue. They would end up with your house unless they just ran you broke with legal bills. The outcome would depend on the racial make-up of you, the intruder, and the jury. Your daughter would be married with grandchildren before the courts reached any conclusion.

Think I’m exaggerating? When I used to have the police beat for the Washington Times in the Yankee capital, the cops told me, dead serious, that if I ever shot an intruder, I should shoot him again to make sure: You can’t afford to have two stories, they said, especially if he’s black which, in Washington, was pretty much a foregone conclusion. They’ll hang you, said the cops.

In the country I grew up in, you got on an airplane by walking up these funny little steps with wheels on them. Then you sat down. That’s all you did. I know, I know: You don’t believe this. It’s true. You just walked on. Further, the stewardesses were not merely civil but — so help me — friendly and pretty. Flying was actually enjoyable. The seats were big enough that you didn’t sit with your knees beside your ears and your feet in your pockets.

Today, getting aboard is like going into max security at some ghastly penitentiary. I once flew a bit around the old Soviet Union, as distinct from our new one, on a junket. Security was less oppressive, though the food was marginally worse unless you liked green chicken. The service was just as peremptory.

Maybe that’s what I miss most about the Old Country. People were courteous. They could afford to be because everyone else was too. It’s hard to be pleasant when the odds are even that the next official you deal with will be an ill-mannered lout who knows he can get away with it.

I think people were courteous also because they lived in an agreeable country and were pretty happy with things. The new country seems angry — quietly so, not sure what to do about it, but looking for someone to hit.

Yet further still, in the Old Country they didn’t have these funny little Japanese cars with itsy-bitsy four-bangers. Nope. They had great virile monsters thirty feet long with eight huge cylinders like buckets. A dog could have slept in them. Sure, those rocket-barges were probably ridiculous and left a trail of parts that fell off because quality control wasn’t that great, but they were real cars. They embodied a spirit I liked. Today cars seem to be designed with hair-dressers in mind.

The Old Country music was vibrant, vigorous, much of it springing from the great black bluesmen of Mississippi and then Chicago, some of it from the mountains and from the jazz dens of the big cities. In the music of the new country, the whites whine and the blacks grunt angrily and the lyrics seem to have been written by a retarded computer. From Tampa Red to Eminem is a long way down.

In the country I signed on to, things worked on the principle of individual responsibility. If you robbed a bank, which people generally didn’t, everyone figured you did it because you decided to, and you went to jail and everyone was satisfied, except you, which was the idea. Most people knew how to behave, and did. It saved a lot on police departments and you could walk around at night.

In the new country of course everything is somebody else’s fault, unless you are a white male, in which case everything is your fault. Never mind that if it weren’t for white males everybody else would be living on low-hanging fruit and saying “ugga-wugga” because they couldn’t figure out how to make a big-block hemi to crash into things with. Or figure out how to make anything else.

In the Old Country, the government was pretty much benign or actually useful. It built roads and largely left you alone. The public schools were not great but neither were they terrible. People ran their own lives. The federal government tended to be somewhere else, which was a splendid place for it, and you mostly didn’t notice.

In the country that is now where America used to be, the government is the cause of most major problems instead of a solution, however inefficient, to a fair number of them. The government keeps you from educating your children, holds standards down, prevents you from hiring the best people you can find to work in your business. It won’t allow local jurisdictions to control crime, prevents localities from enforcing such moral standards as they see fit, virtually illegalizes the religion of most of the population, and generally won’t permit people to live as they like.

Now, I used to be fond of the United States. Granted, I wasn’t much of a patriot. The word nowadays seems to mean one who doesn’t so much love his country as to dislike other people’s. I figured live and let live. A lot of other countries struck me as fine places. But America was my favorite. It just suited me. I liked the people in their wild variety and the countryside and the music and the brash independence. It wasn’t perfect. Still, given the sorry baseline for comportment in human agglomerations, it was about as good as you could get.

I’m still fond of the United States. I just can’t find it.

Questions for Black Lives Matter:The Case for Separation

I reading  the endless complaints by blacks about shootings by the police, I usually find it hard to know what really happened. As far as I am aware, the media never allow an unedited interview, or any interview, with the police charged with the shootings but allow endless commentary by people who weren’t there.

I am also often puzzled by the motivation of the cops. Do they confer in the morning and say, “Hey, let’s shoot some totally innocent black guy in front of witnesses who probably have cell phones?” And why are cops not brutalizing Latinos, only blacks, especially in LA, which provides a target-rich environment?

If I could, I would speak to BLM as follows:

I cannot determine what you want. There seems to be a great deal of anger but little clarity. Discussion usually wanders off  into demands for justice, but without specifics.

Since I am looking for practical recommendations, let us begin by acknowledging the circumstances we face. You say that white cops mistreat blacks, sometimes brutally. This is true. I have seen some of it, and know of more. White cops seldom like blacks, nor blacks, white cops. The cultures are irreconcilably different. On the other hand, beatings of whites, Latinos, and Asians by gangs of blacks are far outnumber beatings of blacks by white cops. In sum, no love is lost and I do not see a lot of moral high ground. So:

Do you want white policemen excluded from black neighborhoods?

The available answers are “yes,” and “no.”  I do not mean to be abrupt about this, but  vague considerations of abstract justice, alleged discrimination, and racism do not provide usable answers. So, do you want white cops pulled from black neighborhoods, or not? It’s one or the other.

Personally I think it wiser not to have whites policing blacks. I don’t want to see white cops raped in media circuses. Nor do I want blacks to be mistreated by white cops. It seems to me that BLM should support segregation of police as it would eliminate any possibility of racist behavior. But, again, I will accept whatever choice you make.

Two New Jersey Teens Arrested for Brutal Knockout Attack on Elderly Man in Paterson

Do you want any policemen in your neighborhoods?

Here again a clear answer is needed. I have no stake in the question and do not want to impose my standards on you. Yet a concrete policy must be either no police, or police of some kind. Which?

If you asked my advice, I would suggest that without police your neighborhoods would turn into free-fire zones.  Note that after Ferguson police have in large part stopped policing, so you can get a minor idea of what a police-less society will be like. However,your neighborhoods are your neighborhoods. I will respect your decision.

Do blacks want to recruit, train, and discipline police forces of blacks only in their neighborhoods?

Again,  your choice. I do not presume to prescribe for you. However, it would eliminate complaints of racism. Should this plan be adopted, black forces would receive the same funding as white, the same pensions and benefits, so there would be no question of discrimination. They would better understand a black population. But do as you like. Just tell me, specifically, what it is that you want.

‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs Who Beat Marine Unconscious in Race Attack WON’T Face Hate Crime Charges

What laws do you want cops to enforce in your neighborhoods?

Specifically what laws? Do you want the police to arrest crack dealers? Yes, or no. Again, I don’t care, and do not tell you what to do.

Yet cops need to know what they are expected to do. Should they stop people drinking in public, or allow it? Dealing drugs? Illegal parking? Public urination? Looting? Prostitution? I don’t care. Make any decision you like, but tell the cops clearly, and do not penalize them for doing what you tell them to do.

As a multiculturalist, I believe that different ethnic and racial groups should, within their neighborhoods, live by their own norms. That includes my neighborhood and my norms. For example, in my neighborhood I would want the police to shoot looters and arsonists. Perhaps this is a white thing, but I am a white guy and I am talking about white neighborhoods and white notions of civilization.

RacialMurder

Breitbart: “Three Young Black Women Accused of Beating 51-Year-Old White Man to Death” Hundreds of documented cases exist, carefully ignored by the media and the government. If you ignore a lump, it will go away. Ask any oncologist.

What should cops do when a criminal resists arrest? 

This is an important question, in fact the important question. Nearly all of the complaints of shootings and beatings have involved resistance to arrest. It becomes explosive when white cops are involved. Here we need a clear answer. A cop cannot obey a vague abstraction.

Let us suppose that in a black neighborhood a cop sees a wanted drug dealer, rapist, killer, or burglar. He says, “You are under arrest,” and the rapist or wanted armed robber or coke dealer says, “Fuck off, white boy.”

What does BLM want the cop to do? Nothing? Something? What? Specifically, what? This is not a philosophical question. A cop in an actual situation has to do something, or nothing.  I don’t care which. You tell me, and I will support your decision. But the cop has to  know what is expected of him.

For a white cop, the best answer is “nothing.” Anything he does risks a brutality beef: Physically tackling a criminal, tasing him, pepper-spraying him, clubbing him, or shooting him all pose the risk of prosecution, lawsuits, and loss of career.  There is no pretty way to subdue a strong male who doesn’t want to be subdued. A wanted killer is looking at a lot of time in slam and will be perfectly willing to hurt a cop to avoid being arrested.

What do you want the cop to do? Specifically what?

 What does BLM want black cops to do? 

This is your business, not mine, but you might think about it from the cop’s point of view. How should a black cop respond to resistance?

Other questions merit consideration. If you have ever walked beats with cops, which virtually no one has, you know that a cop faces ambiguities, murky regions of the law, and sometimes problems that cannot be  resolved within the law.

For example, suppose that a drug crew is selling on the sidewalk in front of an old woman’s house, and she is afraid to go out for groceries. This is not hypothetical: I have seen it. What should the cop do?

Legally, he can do nothing. The sidewalk is public, certainly if they keep moving. They will not be selling openly, so he can’t arrest them. He can tell them to move on, and they may. The minute he is out of sight, they are back. What if they say, “It’s a free country”?  Now what? The little old lady needs to eat.

What do you suggest? If it is your old woman in your neighborhood, it is your business, but the cop needs to know.

In sum, if you will say what concrete and specific things you want, we can discuss your desires rationally and perhaps come to a resolution. Some problems will inevitably remain, such as what to do in mixed neighborhoods. My take is that the quickest and easiest means of limiting friction is simply to separate white cops and black people, and black cops and white people, but this, if you agree that it is a good idea, cannot happen unless groups like BLM ask for it. 

The Mask Comes Off: Putrefaction Most Foul

I love it: Donald Trump’s campaign reveals the establishment for what it is, a swamp of corruption  as fetid as those of Latin America. It is better entertainment than Vaudeville. The frantic scramble to rig the primaries, change the rules, and thwart the voters–anything to defend their cozy entanglement of political tapeworms–makes absurd any pretense of democracy.

This morning in the Drudge Report: “Trump Highest Number of Republican Voters in History.” Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Trump.

On the same page a poll reports Trump tied with Hillary nationally. Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Guess.

It’s wonderful. The GOP is looking for someone that Hillary can beat. She would squash Kasich or Cruz like stepping on bugs. Trump might actually win. This the Republicans strive to avoid. What could make more sense?

But it does make sense. The Republicans try desperately to ditch the only Republican candidate who could win the Presidency because…Hillary is one of them. Because, as every sentient being has by now noticed, the Republicans and Democrats are members of the same corrupt club of blood-sucking parasites, the action arm of the corporations, Wall Street, the Israeli lobby, and those who want the US to control the world at any cost–except, of course, to them. They are panicked at the rise of someone who might put first the interests of America. Better Hillary, a fellow parasite, than Trump, who isn’t.

The latest skulduggery is the Virginia governor’s allowing convicted felons to vote. The obvious intention is to increase the black vote for Hillary. In  Chicago, the dead vote. In Virginia, the killers. This sort of thing of course explains the support for Trump.

Will  the two parties succeed in blocking the Donald? Might they even resort to the Martin Luther King solution? My powers of political prognostication would be under zero if they could figure out how to get there. If the felony vote and delegate-tampering bring Trump to the convention with only 1236 delegates, and the Republicans broker-in some sad-sack compliant loser, well, the mask will be definitively, openly, for all time off. Welcome to  Paraguay.

Which would be only another step in the country’s race toward the Third World.

What would the public do if Trump were robbed of the nomination? What could the public do? There might be protests, mass demonstrations in the streets, but so what? The Insiders’ Club would just wait them out. Once a society realizes that it has no power over its rulers, it lapses into resignation. Republicans do not loot malls or burn cities, and would soon go home. But all the world would see that the Americans have no recourse, that the Insiders do as they please. Welcome to China.

But the mask would be forever off. Very, very off.

If the Republicans deep-six Trump, and Hillary runs against Kasich, or or Cruz, or some other derelict, what then? Our choices will be not to vote, which will make no difference, to vote for either of the party candidates, which will make no difference, or to vote for Trump if he runs as a third party, which will make no difference. But at least we will have seen under the log, the squishy pale  creatures scurrying. They will keep their grip on the country, but the world will know them for what they are.

And America for what it is: Corrupt to the roots of its teeth.  The corruption is adroitly hidden, yes, or disguised as something else. Yet it is there. Consider the subprime disaster. To believe that it was an accident, or a cyclical downturn, or other artifact of econobabble, one has to believe that bankers, realtors, and Wall Street do not understand mortgages, credit, or defaults. You have to believe that officials of the Treasury, who slide back and forth between Wall Street and government like the motion of the tides, had no idea what was going on.

At the top, America is as corrupt as Mexico but American corruption is far more efficient. Among the white middle class, the rot is less. But within the clubhouse of insiders,  at the level of the anointed, of the Adelsons and Epsteins and Clintons and Bushes, there is putrefaction most foul.

It is cleverly done, and seldom involves anything so sordid as open bribery. Yet the results are everywhere. Men who knew exactly what they were doing engineered the student-loan bubble. Yet it is legal, like so many scams. Huge military contracts for things not needed, the near-control of Mid-Eastern policy by Israel, poor medical care at high prices, the deliberate gutting of American industry so that corporations can enrich themselves in China–all of this is legal. You pay Congress and it makes legal anything you want.

Credit cards, which  intentionally lure people into going deeply in debt and paying usurious interest rates, are legal. Big Pharma paid Congress to rule that Medicare cannot negotiate the price of drugs, opening a sluice to the Treasury. Corruption, but legal.  

Under the rule of the Insiders Club, medical care is a fecund source of legal graft.  Example: I once needed eye drops from Bausch and Lomb called Muro, which amounted to hypertonic salt water. A bottle of 1.8 (I think it was) ounces  cost $23 in Washington, $19 in Winchester, Virginia.  Exactly the same product in Mexico, $6. Price-fixing, but where and by whom? What Congressmen were paid to make it legal, or not look into it too closely, or at all?

Welcome to Guatemala.

Corruption has come to be the purpose of government, and the Club battens on it. You want to see the political equivalent of a public latrine in Uganda? Try HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I promise that you will be horrified by the diversion of funds and lining of pockets.

You ask, Fred, why do you say this? Are you a student of HUD? No. I know nothing of HUD. I know much of government. HUD  is an outfit with over thirty billion a year to spend, completely unwatched. Have you ever seen a newspaper story about HUD? I guarantee that it is dominated by the sacred ethnic groups who milk it like a prize Guernsey, and by big companies getting sweetheart contracts. 

Or try Commerce, or Education, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Congress.

It is to preserve these overflowing rice bowls that we have elections without substance between candidates without a difference. Hillary is just Jeb Bush in a dress, Biden a universally applicable cipher, Cruz a compliant applicant for membership in the club. Since the parties collude in avoiding issues that people care about, the contest becomes a popularity contest of the sort found in middle school. Whoever wins, the Insiders win. 

Of course Trump also is a billionaire,but he is a turncoat, a class traitor, the Benedict Arnold of billionaires. He addresses the issues that the Insiders want to remain unaddressed. He is indeed dangerous. He threatens the endless (immensely profitable) wars, the endless (immensely profitable) shipping of American jobs to China, the endless (immensely profitable) importation of cheap Mexican labor. He threatens the sacred rice bowls. 

It is why he must be stopped.