Category Archives: Intelligence

The Feminized Society Is Silly, Loose, Libertine, Institutionally Rotten & Ungrateful

Affirmative Action, Culture, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intellectualism, Intelligence, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Logic, Science

The better responses on Facebook to this indubitably crass indictment of the feminized society harped on the mistake of collectivism in reasoning.

In aggregate, however, this seemingly obnoxious statement attributed to one Bob Wallace (?) is still largely true. For, from the fact that vast individual differences exist between people—and that there are many magnificent women—it doesn’t follow that one cannot make accurate aggregate statements about groups of individuals.

This is, very plainly, the basis of science: deductions about the aggregate characteristics of representative samples. Maybe not the most comprehensive definition, but you get my gist.

A priceless excerpt from Norah Vincent’s book comes to mind. Its title is self explanatory: Self-Made Man: My year Disguised as a Man.

Vincent, a lesbian in her regular life, describes dating women while disguised as Ned:

“I listened to [the women] talk literally for hours about the most minute, mind-numbing details of their personal lives; men they were still in love with; men they had divorced, roommates and co-worker they hated…. Listening to them was like undergoing a slow frontal lobotomy. I sat there stunned by the social ineptitude of people to whom it never seemed to occur that no one, much less a first date, would have any interest in enduring this ordeal …”

Seconded in my VDARE.com article, “The Silly Sex?”:

Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world’s population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics. During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world’s population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.

UPDATE: A man’s work: Corralling logs with a boom boat. How can one fail to be impressed by the strength, skill, calm and staying power this job takes? To do all this competently and single-handedly? Mike Row’s show is genius in what it shows.

The MeToo ingrates should take note, too. Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 are currently prohibited from leaving the country. Drafted. This is what men have been doing stoically and dutifully for centuries: defending the women folk. (Who gets drafted is another matter. Read “Support The Drafts.…”)

FRED REED: A Democracy Of Fools Is No Democracy

America, Democracy, Education, FRED REED, Intelligence, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race, Science

A quarter of the American population are at the level of an undiscovered tribe living in the rain forests of the Amazon Basin and eating grubs fished from rotting logs.

By Fred Reed

Listening to Biden prattling about democracy, democracy, democracy, and how we must save American democracy from swarming threats to democracy, with the insistence and urgency of a starveling aluminum-siding salesman, I am filled with wonder. Convincing people that they live in a democracy is a lot of work, like pumping air into an inner tube with a leak. America is no more a democracy than it is a potted plant.

Functional Illiteracy at Fourteen Percent in America: Department of Education

Functional illiterates cannot fill out a job application, manage a checkbook, read a simple story in a newspaper, or use the social media. Those who can’t read don’t, and another large number who can barely read don’t either. At a low estimate they must amount to a quarter of the population. They vote.

Democracy is best suited to towns of a few hundred people who, however dim of wit in many cases, may understand such questions as should we build a new school which will cost me so many dollars in higher taxes. Even here the more crafty and avaricious will likely prevail.

Shocking Facts: 23 Statistics on Illiteracy in America

A problem in democracies—“democracies”—is of course that the dim, the inattentive, and those who are both dim and inattentive, will always outnumber the bright and informed. However, the syndrome worsens as the domain upon which the electorate is to make judgement expands from town to state to country to world. The number of unintelligent is constant. The number who are insufficiently attentive rises with the complexity of things needing attention. A cardiac surgeon is no fool, but has work, medical literature he needs to read, family, and a hobby or two. Little time is left to worry about semiconductor sanctions against China or Washington’s desire for Russia to invade the Ukraine.

Americans Know Literally Nothing About the Constitution

“Take your pick from this bouillabaisse of ignorance:

* More than one in three people (37%) could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

* Only one in four (26%) can name all three branches of the government. (In 2011, 38% could name all three branches.)

* One in three (33%) can’t name any branch of government.“

People so innocent of political grasp can have only the most vaporous notions of pressing political questions. They are either fools with minds best suited for working as gardeners or so little engaged with the surrounding society as to achieve the effect of being fools while still able to find their way home at night. Still others are not unintelligent but not interested. None of these should vote.

One in Four Americans Thinks the Sun Revolves Around The Earth

“A quarter of Americans surveyed could not correctly answer that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, according to a report out Friday from the National Science Foundation.”

This is so astonishing that one might suspect it of coming from some crackpot blogger with no girlfriend living in his parents’ basement. But no. The National Science Foundation is about as respectable as they come. A quarter of the population are at the level of an undiscovered tribe living in the rain forests of the Amazon Basin and eating grubs fished from rotting logs. Little prospect exists that people in such darkness know much of anything else. Yet we encourage them to vote.

Several Baltimore Schools Report No Students Proficient in Reading, Math

“Six Baltimore City schools — five high schools and one middle school — were found to have not a single student who scored proficient in math or reading in 2016, Fox News reports.”

Others schools had only a handful of literate students. Math results were as grim. These “students “will be around for another fifty years if they are not shot, virtually unemployable. Yet they can vote.

The schools mentioned are all black, and similar figures would come out of similarly black schools in many other cities. What does this say about “democracy “in America?

Gallup: Forty-six Percent of Americans Believe in Creationism

The distribution of intelligence being symmetric, half of the population are below average. A man with an IQ of 90 is not actually stupid, doesn’t mumble or bump into things, and can successfully raise a family and drive a truck. Yet he is unlikely to grasp the foreign policy of the United States or, really, to have heard of it. If he has any knowledge at all of public affairs, it will be at the level of The Russians are bad, wherever exactly Russia is, so we need to spend more on Our Boys in Uniform.

A lot of people get their news from television, the medium of the illiterate and semiliterate. Obviously, not everybody who watches television is illiterate, but everybody who is illiterate watches television. Many don’t watch the news at all, it being complicated and mysterious and talking about the inexplicable and unknown, such as Kazakhstan and Nordstream Two. The consequence is that if MSNBC and CNN say over and over that the Chinese are doing something terrible, most will believe it. Judging by the intellectual level of much of television, a sentence with a dependent clause will exceed the capacities of many. They vote.

Lincoln famously said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” You don’t have to. Being a politician, he didn’t add that you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, and that is enough. This is the basis of American democracy.

77% Of Students At One Baltimore High School Read at Elementary, Kindergarten Level

”In reading, 628 Patterson High School students took the test. Out of those students, 484 of them, or 77%, tested at an elementary school reading level. That includes 71 high school students who were reading at a kindergarten level and 88 students reading at a first-grade level. Another 45 are reading at a second-grade level. Just 12 students tested at Patterson High School, were reading at grade level, which comes out to just 1.9%.”

Democracy? A democracy of fools is no democracy. It allows the very smart, concentrated in New York and Washington, the governing suites of major corporations and, nowadays, the distributed wunderkind of the tech firms, to run the country from behind the scenes. Whether intended or not, the drive to lower the voting age and enfranchise the ghetto populations serve only to further diminish the pitiable competence of the electorate and allow the elites to keep these untermenschen out of the hair of their betters.

Pelosi says she backs lowering voting age to 16

“I myself have always been for lowering the voting age to 16,” Pelosi said. “I think it’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school, when they’re interested in all of this, when they’re learning about government, to be able to vote.”

The less bright, less informed, and less experienced of life are easier to mold and manipulate. Who could be better than children?

If America wanted a functional democracy, which it doesn’t, it would, first, raise the voting age to 25 or 30. The idea that adolescents of eighteen with no experience of life beyond libidinous frat parties, much less sixteen-year-olds,  can vote intelligently is silly. (Not that I have anything against libidinous frat parties. They just aren’t qualification for voting.)

This would require a recognition that voting should be a privilege, not an entitlement and that government should be done by people able to do it.

Second, a demanding version of the old literacy test would serve wonderfully.  This should demonstrate at a minimum a reading fluency of political ideas express in standard English. A reasonable grasp of world geography and American government might profitably be required. Perhaps a measured IQ of 120 or better should be in the mix.

This would make the bamboozlement and competitive shooing of the puzzled much, much harder, which is why it will never fly with the elites who find an electorate of the easily led congenial.

These measures would also screen out various minorities disproportionately. They would also ignite the resentment against the bright and cultivated that forms the bedrock of American society.

Comprehensive ignorance extends to groups many of whom are presumably well educated. Consider the following:

Poll: 44% of liberals say more than 1k unarmed black Americans killed by police in 2019

“According to the Washington Post database, regarded by Nature magazine as the “most complete database,” 13 unarmed black men were fatally shot by police in 2019. According to a second database called “Mapping Police Violence”, compiled by data scientists and activists, 27 unarmed black men were killed by police (by any means) in 2019.”

This shows that forty-four percent of liberals are incompetent to vote. If the misestimate is reduced to five hundred, many more believe it. Similar numbers could probably be compiled for conservatives on other questions, conspiracy theories being promising candidates.

Race is the most dangerous, destructive, and intractable problem facing America, yet these people are too stupid, lazy, inattentive, emotional, or worm-eaten by ideology to have even a faint grasp of what is happening. But they vote.

If liberals, a category including academia, the media, and a great many of the highly educated believe such wildly erroneous numbers, it is likely that blacks, a group in large part poorly educated, believe these things at a higher rate. Do you suppose convincing them that they are being slaughtered en masse improves race relations?

The very bright will always rule, though not always obviously. An IQ of 140 is said to be entry level for Wall Street. This excludes well over ninety-nine percent of the population. Mike Pompeo, while a wretched human being, was first in class at West Point and editor of the Harvard Law Review,  Hillary a National Merit Finalist, putting her in the upper .5 percent of test-takers in Illinois. Bill was a Rhodes scholar.

Intellectual mediocrities will often be in prominent positions, Joe and Kamala being examples, in Congress and the White House, these being storefronts for the very smart. The brains, and the power, are in the shadows. But, methinks, a genuinely bright electorate would be less likely to anoint freaks and rogues.

Interesting question: What would be the effect of requiring an IQ of 130, the cutoff for Mensa, to vote? The idea will arouse shrieks from an American public famously resentful of excellence except in football. (I am reminded of a fellow fourteen-year-old in Athens, Alabama who, seeing me reading a book on biology, said angrily, “You ain’t no gooder’n me.”) A test for voting of course runs against the current policy of enfranchising the mentally lame and halt. Would the upper two percent of the population do a better job of electing leaders? They would certainly be much more difficult to con.

I will now go to the American Legion in Chapala, which makes really good huevos rancheros, which I will accompany with a double bourbon, and pretend that things aren’t as they are. Sometimes, it works.

Read Fred’s Books! Or else. We know where you sleep.

******************************************

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE

Killer Kink

Hardboiled is back! (The exclamation point is to arouse wild enthusiasm int the reader, a boiling literary lust.) Gritty crime fiction by longtime police reporter for the Washington Times, who knows the police from nine years of riding with them. Guaranteed free of white wine and cheese, sensitivity, or social justice.

* Image credit

FRED REED: Probing the Fever Swamps of Evolution Orthodoxy: Things One Mustn’t Ask

Argument, FRED REED, Intelligence, Logic, Pseudoscience, Science

In which Fred Explains why the sting of a hornet is an example of ‘irreducible complexity’ and a problem for Darwinians

By Fred Reed 

Writing about evolution is likely an expression of literary masochism, but has its rewards. The difficulties are several. For one thing, for many people belief in evolution indicates to them that they are not of the unwashed, but rather one with advanced thinkers. For another, most people accept nature-show evolution in which in a sort of biological Coeueism: we are getting better and better, when in fact evolution says no such thing, but rather that organisms become progressively better adapted to their environments, making tapeworms, cockroaches, and perhaps politicians pinnacles of successful evolution. Further, many questions involved the Cambrian and Ediacaran fauna, developmental gene regulatory networks, the mathematics of multiple simultaneous mutations, and so on, which few have studied.

When faced with questions, the faithful do not answer. Instead they respond with lofty silence, or hauteur and harrumphing, or assertions of authority. These variations on squirming amuse me, so I ask questions. I am doubtless a bad person.

But the Darwinists don’t answer. When doubters among mathematicians and biochemists express doubts they are likely to be fired for bio deviationism. They don’t get answers either.

Why?

Many people need overarching explanations to provide a sense of security in a world that doesn’t make much sense. To protect these beliefs they accept contradictions and logical lacunae while ignoring evidence inconsistent with desired doctrine. Among such ardently defended beliefs are religions, capitalism, socialism, feminism, communism, conspiracy theories, and…Darwinism.

Some questions about evolution are accessible to anyone. Herewith a few of my favorites. The reader will note that in comment sections, amongst all the deprecation and holding-of-breath and turning-blue and name-calling, the evolutionary faithful…

Don’t answer the questions.

There will be much of, “Alas, poor Fred, not a bad fellow but not quite right in the head.” Yes, yes, no doubt. I will remember to take my Thorazine. Answer the questions. Then there will be, “Fred, you know absolutely nothing about….”  But what I do or do not know is irrelevant since I am asserting nothing but asking Darwinians what they know. Answer the questions.

They won’t. They will evade, wriggle, wax wroth. They don’t answer because they can’t. If they could, they would. I sympathize with them since without Le Grand Chuck, biologists would lose all sense of structure, order, and certitude.

All right, to work.

Of the many problems with Darwin, the most easily accessible without a lot of technical reading is “irreducible complexity.” Orthodox Darwinism holds that evolution proceeds by small, incremental, beneficial steps. For example, a slightly smarter bushman, smarter because of a fortuitous mutation, might survive more readily than his fellows, get more girls and thus pass on his superior genes. This, so far as it goes, is plausible. It is just selective breeding.

The problem of irreducible complexity arises when a biological system consisting of several interacting parts would have no useful purpose if one of the parts were missing. All of the parts would then have to appear simultaneously, which is astronomically unlikely.

For example, consider the sting of a hornet. It consists of several parts: a biochemical mechanism to make the venom, a sac to hold it, muscles to eject it from the sac, the stinger, muscles to insert the stinger into the victim, nerves to control the first muscles, and nerves to control the second.

If any one of these parts is absent, the mechanism is entirely useless, and so all had to appear simultaneously. This is irreducible complexity.

I ask Darwin’s minions to tell me how this elaborate arrangement evolved. The reader will note that in all the fury and contempt and vile remarks about my maternal ancestry, the Darwinists…

Won’t answer the question.

The thoughtful will additionally note that many of the hornet’s parts would in themselves prove difficult chores of evolution. For example, the stinger is an elegant, precisely formed, long pointed tube of exactly the right diameter. How many simultaneous mutations of what would have to occur to form the thing?

Examples of irreducible complexity litter the natural world. Bugs in particular are rife with it. Consider metamorphosis in insects. There are two kinds of bugs, two-cycle bugs that lay eggs that hatch into tiny replicas of the adults, which grow, lay eggs, and repeat the cycle. Then there are four-cycle bugs that go through egg, larva, pupa, adult. Question: What are the viable steps needed to evolve from two-cycle to four-cycle? Or from anything to four-cycle?

Let us consider this question carefully.

We begin with a two-cycle bug, that for convenience we will call a roach, which will endeavor to evolve into a bug that, also for convenience, we will assume to be a butterfly. From a spirit of charity we will assume that it is a flying roach to give it a head start toward butterflyhood.

To achieve that exalted end, our roach would first have to evolve a larval form—that is, a caterpillar. It is difficult to see how this could occur at all, or why. To become a caterpillar, our roach would have to lose its jointed legs, chitinous exoskeleton, and head-thorax-abdomen body plan. Since not even the most dewy-eyed, dappled evolutionist could attribute such sweeping changes to one mutation, the transformation would have to proceed by steps involving at least several and probably dozens of mutations. Losing the exoskeleton would leave it unarmored and unable to walk, not an obvious selective advantage. It would also have to be able to reproduce to continue evolving, which means become a free-standing species.

Then, for reasons most mysterious, the pupa would have to decide to pupate and become a butterfly. And the butterfly would have to lay eggs that became caterpillars.

Which could not possibly work. Metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is complex and if you don’t get it right the first time, it’s curtains. It would depend on a great many steps which would have to appear simultaneously. First, our caterpillar probably would have to use its spinnerets (of mysterious provenance, but never mind) to make a cocoon, in which it would proceed to die because it hadn’t yet evolved metamorphosis. Why a caterpillar would think of doing this is not clear. To turn successfully into a butterfly, it would need the biochemical machinery to transform a mushy, legless, wingless, head-thorax-abdomenless worm into an utterly different creature. Where would it have gotten the impossibly complex genetic blueprint of the butterfly? Or the machinery to construct it?

Methinks something is going on that we do not understand. But to admit not understanding might give satisfaction to snake-handling evangelical Christians with three teeth in the mountains of North Carolina (though actually it wouldn’t) so we mustn’t admit that we don’t understand.

Note that the questions posed by these bugs are not merely pleasant musings on a slow afternoon. Either the Theory of Evolution can explain them, or the theory fails.

I’m waiting.

If I may dive briefly into technoglop, consider genetic coding for proteins. Each amino acid in a protein is coded for by a codon consisting of three nuclear bases. There being four nucleotides, a codon of three allows four cubed or sixty-four triplets, enough to code for the twenty aminos, some control codons, and redundancy. From what simpler system can this have evolved—two nucleotides per codon, allowing for sixteen aminos and no controls? The current system seems a clear and unambiguous case of irreducible complexity, incapable of simplification.

This, note, is a clear question about a simple and well understood coding system. I assert nothing, but ask. An honest Darwinist has three possible responses: answering the question, explaining why it is meaningless, or saying, “I don’t know.” Or he can duck and dodge, shuck and jive, huff and puff, call names, invoke herd authority, or cower in stolid silence. Watch.

Another question: The human bot fly is a squat, ugly, hairy fly that (in one version anyway) catches a mosquito, lays its eggs on said mosquito after positioning it correctly, and attaches them with a kind of glue. It releases the mosquito. When the little syringe lands on, say, a human, the eggs drop off, hatch, and burrow into the host. These make nasty raised lumps with something wiggling inside them. Later the larvae exit, fall to the ground, and pupate.

How did this evolve? Did a grab-a-mosquito gene occur as a random mutation (assuming that a single mutation could cause such complex behavior)? It would have to be a grab-a-mosquito-but-don’t-cripple-it gene. That is a lot of behavior for one mutation. At this point the bot fly would have a mosquito but no idea what to do with it. It would need simultaneously to have a stick-eggs-on-mosquito mutation. This would seem to require another rather ambitious gene.

Catching the mosquito without laying the eggs, or sticking the eggs to the wrong part of the mosquito, or laying eggs in midair without having caught the mosquito, would seem losing propositions. None of these awfully-lucky mutations would be of use without the others. How do you evolve this elaborate dance by gradual, beneficial steps?

Once again, I ask the reader to ignore for the moment the matter of whether I am a bad person, want to tear down science, am the lowest sort of unevolved moron, or adherent of the Cargo Cult. Instead, ask: Did the Darwinists answer the question?

A final example: How did the rhinoceros evolve its horn? “No, I didn’t plagiarize this from Kipling. Honest.)

The horned rhino presumably evolved from a large, rhino-like hornless mammal. Nature-show evolutionism will assert that the horn obviously came about to allow defense. Oh. But how? Since the horn is of keratin, not bone, presumably it arose from either skin or hair. But by what small, incremental, advantageous steps? It would be useless until long and pointed. Whatever the mutation that began horn-formation would have to have done it precisely centered laterally on the beast’s forehead, or have managed to move there later. Why here and not, say, on the left hind leg? Why not over the whole body? ¨This is a serous question. The horn would be useless until long and pointed enough to poke lions. To become pointed it would need a mutation, or some number thereof, to make it grow faster in the middle, and then stop growing. Anyone who actually thinks about this mystery will come up with further questions. If the horn evolved by gradual incremental steps, intermediate fossils must exist. Do they?

I invite the reader to note whether Darwinists give clear, non-metaphysical answers to these simple and straightforward questions.

******************************************

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE

Killer Kink

Hardboiled is back! (The exclamation point is to arouse wild enthusiasm int the reader, a boiling literary lust.) Gritty crime fiction by longtime police reporter for the Washington Times, who knows the police from nine years of riding with them. Guaranteed free of white wine and cheese, sensitivity, or social justice.

* Image credit

FRED REED: The Possible Virtues Of A Salutary Distance

Affirmative Action, Conflict, Crime, Education, English, FRED REED, Intelligence, Law, libertarianism, Multiculturalism, Race

By Fred Reed

Most of the profound anger and apparent actual insanity afflicting the United States stem from racial antagonism: The Floyd riots, the tearing down of statues, affirmative action, the renaming of buildings, hostility to everything Confederate, racial attacks on whites by blacks, critical race theory, the fury over trials. Racial policy isn’t working and isn’t going to. America had better find another approach before, one day, the guns come out.

Sez I, a massive step toward racial reconciliation could be achieved simply by deregulating the schools. The races have very, very disparate cultures and want different things. In the integrated schools, either blacks must be forced to learn things of interest only to whites, or whites must be prevented from learning these things. It is hard to see why black students or their parents would have any interest in Jane Austin, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, or Beowulf. Nor is it clear why whites, of either generation, would care more than passingly about Africa. Why, unworkably, force each to do something both alien and of no interest to it?

Many object that the study of mathematics constitutes racism, or is a means of oppressing blacks. Why force math on blacks or, more importantly, prevent white kids from learning them? Similarly, English grammar is now said to be racist. Why should black young of a background having no interest in such things have to be burdened with it?

These difficulties could within an administrative district be remedied by allowing different groups to establish such schools as they chose, for such students as they chose, teaching such material as they chose. Charges of discrimination could be avoided by requiring by law that all students be subsidized at the same per-pupil rate. Further, allow schools to select such students as they choose. If some schools wanted only white students, or black, or racially mixed, so be it. As long as they were given equal resource’s, it would be their business. If some parents preferred schools of mixed race, it would be their business.  Evangelical schools? Fine. Jewish? Equally so. Chinese? Equally.

The right of schools to choose teachers without governmental bureaucracy—most importantly, certification—would be crucial. Certified teachers are often of low quality and always carriers of industrial-strength political correctness. The teachers unions are just that—unions, interested chiefly in the good of the membership, not the students. I would not be allowed to teach either writing or journalism whereas a half-literate political hire would be.

This would also allow parents of very bright kids to use such tests as they chose to find the extraordinarily smart and then to teach them at their level.  Those opposed to testing could avail themselves of schools not engaging in testing. Forcing kids of IQ 140 or better to agonize in classes at the level of “Mommy Beaver had two sticks and Daddy Beaver had two, how many did that have in all” is child abuse. A child in that range in the second grade is reading at the ninth-grade level and school is nothing but an obstacle. Why do this?

In aggregate these measures—we could call them “freedom”—might go far to reduce hostility.

Smaller and seemingly less important matters count in racial relations. Blacks often deprecate other blacks for “acting white.” This is not unreasonable. People naturally want to be around others who share their culture, manners, and ideas of consideration and propriety. I don’t want my children, or people around me, “acting black.” I don’t know what “acting white” means and I don’t care. I don’t want my children wearing their pants below their knees and saying “muggafugga” every second word. These practices do no actual harm, but are extremely disagreeable to most whites. While I do not want to dictate the culture of blacks—it isn’t my business—neither do I want them transgressing mine. Would not separation be the comfortable solution?

Housing is another matter in which less government would be of use. Here again, policy is disastrous. The races obviously do not want to live together. When blacks move into white neighborhoods, the whites leave. When whites move back into the city, “gentrifying,” blacks are enraged. Upon reaching university, blacks often demand dormitories only for blacks, courses only for blacks, student centers only for blacks, and graduations only for blacks. If whites had the same privileges, friction would diminish. By (again) providing these things on a rigid and transparent basis of equal money per student, discrimination could be avoided.

Since the races usually want to live apart, why not simply let them? Those who wanted to live in mixed neighborhoods could, but if a black neighborhood wanted to avoid gentrification, it could vote to do so.

The voluntary separation of races would greatly reduce the very high rates of crime against whites by blacks, and the fear and intensifying hostility caused by this crime. I don’t know how to end crime, but reducing the fear of blacks would go far to encourage racial reconciliation.

Blacks say that white police discriminate against them.  Whether this is true would make no difference if blacks policed black neighborhoods and whites, white. Cities typically burn because white policemen have beaten or shot a black. The blindingly obvious solution is, in racially homogeneous regions, to have the local race do the policing. Friction might in some degree continue between police and policed, but at least it would not be racial.

Further, though it will at first sound strange, I suggest that black and white neighborhoods be permitted to decide what laws to enforce, at least in those matters affecting only the neighborhood. If blacks chose to ignore use of marijuana, drinking in public, selling crack, or driving without a license, why should they not? Do they not know their neighborhood, its needs and problems, better that I? Why are these things my business either way? The result would be vastly fewer arrests of blacks by whites and fewer blacks in prison, both of these contributing greatly to hostility between the races.

I am not recommending the abandonment of black neighborhoods to crime, but rather letting those affected decide. For example, blacks often hate stop-and-frisk policing. Why not let those affected make the decision? This would reduce the impression of the police as an occupying army, often white.

Nor am I suggesting the subjection of blacks to a punitive regime. I believe that all citizens should have access to good medical care, that providing schools with textbooks of their choice is a proper function of government, as is maintenance of streets, water supply, and electric supply. If a black university wants microscopes or a computer, it should get them. And universities should be free to hire any staff they choose, depending only on the willingness of the staff to be hired. The various forms of welfare should be continued as there is no choice other than causing great hardship–even hunger.

Since the races are in America, and none is going to leave, finding a workable approach to amity would seem a good idea. What we have hasn’t worked, is not working, shows no sign that it ever will, and indeed things are getting worse. A little distance might go a long way. If there is ever an explosion of the very real, very deep anger in the country that the media are hiding from themselves, it might make Floyd’s uprising seem trivial. In the Floyd riots, the guns didn’t come out.

 

******************************************

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE