The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics/Categories Filter?
2012 Election 2016 Election Academia Afghanistan Alt Right American Media American Military Asians Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks China China/America Darwinism Diversity Donald Trump Drugs Economics Evolution Feminism Ferguson Shooting Foreign Policy Fred Reed's Cop Columns Gays/Lesbians Government Surveillance Gun Control Hispanics History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran Iraq Israel Mexico Military Spending Neocons Oppressing Boys Political Correctness Public Schools Race/Crime Race/Ethnicity Russia Science Slavery Reparations Terrorism Trayvon Martin 2000 Election 9/11 Abu Ghraib Affirmative Action Africa American Left American Presidents American Renaissance Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anthrax Anti-Semitism Art Arts/Culture Asian Americans Assimilation Automation Baltimore Riots Banking System Barack Obama Bilingual Education Bowe Bergdahl California Campus Rape Capitalism Censorship Charlie Hebdo Christianity Cincinnati Riot Civil Liberties Civil War Confederate Flag Congress Conspiracy Theories Constitutional Theory Cornel West Corruption Creationism Crime Cuba DC Sniper Deep State Democracy Electric Cars Elizabeth Holmes Elon Musk Emigration Environment EU Eugenics Europeans Evolutionary Psychology Free Trade Gay Marriage Gaza General Intelligence Genetic Engineering Google Government Incompetence Guns Haiti Hate Crimes Hbd Health Care Hillary Clinton Hispanic Crime Human Nature Hurricane Katrina Illegal Immigration Intelligence Intelligent Design Internet Interracial Dating Islam Israel Lobby James Watson Jared Taylor Jews Jim Webb John Derbyshire John McCain Larry Summers Latin America Latinos Left/Right Looting Marriage Martin Luther King Mass Shootings Maureen Dowd Mayans Meritocracy Mexican-American War Middle East Minimum Wage Miscellaneous Morality Multiculturalism Music Mysticism Nicholas Wade Nordics North Korea Obamacare Orlando Shooting Pedophilia Peru Police State Pornography Poverty Prostitution Race And Iq Race/IQ Racial Intelligence Racism Religion Reverend Moon Rick Perry Robots San Bernadino Massacre Scientism Secession Sexual Identity Slavery Social Justice Warriors Solar Energy South China Sea States Rights Supernatural Syria Technology Tesla The South Theranos Tidewater Timothy McVeigh Torture Transgenderism Ukraine Unemployment Vdare Vietnam War Virginia Welfare Western Religion White Nationalists Wikileaks
Nothing found
 TeasersFred Reed Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Reflections on the Custodial State
🔊 Listen RSS

A storm, methinks, is just over the horizon: The genetics of intelligence, perhaps of behavior. Geneticists know that intelligence is largely genetic. They know better than to say so. But research advances rapidly. Laboratories close in on the responsible genes. Things like genomic-sequence correlation proceed apace. Within ten or fifteen years, I will guess, the genetics of IQ will be firmly established. If the results turn out as seems likely…then what? What does a pseudo-democracy do when clearly stratified by intellectual capacity?

The mainstream media seem to sense the danger. We see descriptions of genetics as “pseudoscience,” hear muttering about ”scientific racism” and eugenics and just like Hitler. This is the bleating of child minds. Genetics is absolutely mainstream science. Following the field requires some knowledge of biochemistry which requires some knowledge of organic chemistry which requires some knowledge of general chemistry and some knowledge of eighth-grade algebra. Since few, even among the bright, wield these credentials, the public can still be told that genetics is racism. This won’t last.

The growing panic surfaced in the recent stripping of honors from James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA helix. His sin? He said that the measured gap in intelligence between blacks and whites is genetic. For this he was silenced. It is science by fiat, Lysenkoism.

The hostility to genetics springs entirely from the fear that Mr. Watson will be proved right–that it will show blacks to be less intelligent than whites. Of course the politically correct don’t really believe in the intellectual equality of the races. If they did, they would welcome genetic research as a way of establishing the equality. You do not fear investigation unless you suspect it will give the wrong answer.

A similar though smaller gap is suspected between whites and Latinos. For this there is evidence,and counter-evidence. A gap seems to exist between whites and various Asians. We shall see. But the black-white gap is the bombshell. Here the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no counter-evidence. Thus the furious repression.

That intelligence is genetic should be obvious regardless of technical knowledge. Any dog breeder will tell you that Border Collies are brighter than beagles, that if you mate smarter dogs to smarter dogs, within a few generations you will have a strain of smarter dogs. If intelligence were cultural as we are obliged to say, almost on pain of death, all the children who grew up in Isaac Newton’s neighborhood would have been towering mathematical geniuses. Were they?

A dread question: Is it not now obvious, has it not been obvious for a very long time, that blacks cannot function in a technological society? A few, yes. Most, no. This is the case worldwide. Low intelligence, perhaps accompanied by poor impulse control, explains well the urban chaos, the crime, the poverty.

We are accustomed now to the intractable gap between blacks and whites. The gap appears on all tests of cognitive capacity and academic achievement: all of the IQ tests, the SATs, GREs, MCATs, LSATs, ACT, National Merit, AFQT, and others. This is so predictable as to make the value of pi seem capricious . The politically correct attribute the disparity to racism, institutional racism, unconscious racism, structural racism, poor self-esteem, white privilege, slavery, colonialism, culture, environment, and different learning styles. Do we really believe this?

Yearly the horrible news pours from the schools. The results of Maryland’s state test of academic achievement are typical. In 2017 in Baltimore there were thirteen high schools in which not a single student tested proficient in math. Customarily this is blamed on poor schools, but every aspect of the Baltimore system, from the mayor to the students is controlled by blacks, and the per-student expenditure is high. Similar results from other cities–Detroit, Chicago–are common, normal, expected.

A question no one asks, at least not out loud: To what extent are blacks dependent on the charity of whites? What would happen if all public assistance, all programs specifically or de facto for blacks were withdrawn?

Without affirmative action, racial quotas formal and informal, blacks would almost disappear from universities and the white-collar world. I think we all know this, but most recoil from the implications. I don’t blame them.

I am not sure that we all understand the extent of the affirmative programs and the distortions they cause for society. For example, on exams for promotion in police departments, by a large margin the top scorers are white so that, if departments advanced the most qualified, blacks would almost disappear. The same pattern exists for any job requiring intelligence. This can easily be confirmed.

What would happen if Section Eight housing were abandoned, Head Start, AFDC, free lunch and breakfasts in inner-city schools, food stamps, and all the rest? I do not recommend doing this–the consequences would be hideous–but do suggest thinking about it. The conclusion will probably be that blacks are in custodial care. If this is not true, tell me why it is not.

Look, without averting your gaze, at our many cities in catastrophic and apparently irremediable racial dysfunction. Look at Boston, Newark, Camden, Trenton, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Milwaukee, New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland. These are the center of mass of black America, not the polished talking heads of the networks. These regions are huge, necrotic, barely touched by white civilization except through television. In eight hours of driving through them, you will never see a white face. The culture is not ours, the language, notions of civility. Another world. It doesn’t change. Apparently it can’t change.

The costs for America are high. Blacks, unable to compete, angry, hopeless, demand this, demand that. Streets must be renamed, statues torn down. . Attacks on whites continue, often brutal, always hidden by the media. Academic standards must be repudiated for them. Our cities become Haiti. In Chicago young blacks kill seven hundred of each other, in Baltimore three hundred. American culture coarsens under the angry grunting of rap. Now blacks demand the rewriting of our history.

The cultural degradation imposed to disguise inadequacy beggars belief. In a recent example among hundreds that could be adduced, American University will no longer grade the quality of writing. A brief quote will suffice:

“This plenary will argue against the use of conventional standards in college courses that grade student writing by single standards. Inoue will discuss the ways that White language supremacy is perpetuated in college classrooms despite the better intentions of faculty, particularly through the practices of grading writing.”

Detwaddled, this means that since literacy cannot be expected of blacks, it cannot be required of whites. Of course blacks can learn normal English, at least if raised in it. Mexican blacks speak normal Spanish. Learning a language as adults is cognitively much more difficult. Demanding it of them would be racism. Recognizing the impossibility of raising blacks to white (or Japanese, or Chinese, or Indian) levels, AU will pull whites down.

 
These Crazies Are Just Like Hitler
🔊 Listen RSS

One often sees the silly assertion by right-wing extremists that feminists, social justice warriors, and other “cranks” are enstupidating American education. The purpose, according to these fascists, who are just like Hitler, is “to make historically incompetent groups look competent.” The racism in these absurd claims is obvious. In particular such Neo-Nazis say that mathematical education is being destroyed to benefit “retards.” This “dumbing down,” they say, will hand the future to China.

This is conservative drivel. Nothing suggests that China is gaining on the US in science and technology, except the evidence, and this can be ignored. It is particularly important to keep in mind that the Chinese cannot innovate, only copy American technology.

Harvard-MIT Math Tournament Ordinary American kids, the best mathematicians in two of America’s best universities. Asia cannot match this.

Harvard-MIT Math Tournament Ordinary American kids, the best mathematicians in two of America’s best
universities. Asia cannot match this.

Face it: America’s young are the brightest in the world and attend the most advanced schools in the United States, the country that everybody wants to be like and live in. These youngsters will maintain American scientific preeminence through the strength of diversity. Anyone who doubts this can note that the Harvard-MIT math wizards are almost one hundred percent diverse. The Chinese cannot keep up with this degree of talent. Especially since they cannot innovate.

I hate to use this phrase, but it fits–conservative lunatics overvalue elitist subjects pervaded by racism and sexism, such as engineering, math, and information technology. Theirs is a narrow view, and does not recognize the value of human elements, such as safe spaces. Experts acknowledge that American safe spaces are safer than Chinese safe spaces. In fact some indications suggest that Chinese universities do not even have safe spaces, so you can imagine how dangerous they are.

America’s 2018 Championship Math Olympiad Team: Adam Ardeishar, Andrew Gu, Vincent Huang, James Lin, Michael Ren, and Mihir Singhal
America’s 2018 Championship Math Olympiad Team: Adam Ardeishar, Andrew Gu, Vincent Huang, James Lin, Michael Ren, and Mihir Singhal

With minds like those above on our side, America has nothing to fear from a pack of funny-looking Asiatics who can’t innovate. All several billion of them.

Crispr bombshell: Chinese researcher claims to have created gene-edited twins.

While alarmists point to this as evidence of Chinese capacity in advanced research, it is in fact evidence of their inferiority. Crispr (Clustered Regularly Intersperse Palindromc Repeats) was invented by a pair of Western women. Consequently anything the Chinese do with it is derivative and not to be taken seriously. Sure, a fundamentally primitive country can get lucky. There is nothing to worry about.

China Shatters “Spooky Action at a Distance” Record, Preps for Quantum Internet

“In a landmark study, a team of Chinese scientists using an experimental satellite has tested quantum entanglement over unprecedented distances, beaming entangled pairs of photons to three ground stations across China—each separated by more than 1,200 kilometers.”

This is just an example of China’s outmoded male linear thinking, obviously sexist and probably transphobic. While the Chinese focus on tour de force gimmicks, American universities never lose sight of their primary task of getting rid of Confederate statues. These offend students who can’t spell “Confederacy.” The inability of American students to do eighth-grade algebra is probably a result of these statues: China, with no Confederate statues at all, does well mathematically. Anyway, mathematics is elitist and should be replaced by cooperative games led by a caring adult.

There is good news for those interested in social justice: American universities are de-emphasizing mathematics in fields like astronomy to encourage the entrance of women and people of color into the hard sciences. This policy is clearly necessary for social justice. The need is made obvious by the lack of students of color in the photographs above. The result will be a flood of black, Hispanic, and female scientists who, by sheer numbers, will overcome a lack of talent. They will overwhelm their Chinese competition through socially progressive inclusiveness.

The Chinese, notoriously racists and sexists, cannot achieve this democratization as they admit only the “brightest” students through biased IQ tests. By contrast, America is unleashing the power of its morons.

Chinese Researchers Achieve Stunning Quantum-Entanglement Record

“Scientists have just packed 18 qubits—the most basic units of quantum computing—into just six weirdly connected photons. That’s an unprecedented three qubits per photon, and a record for the number of qubits linked to one another via quantum entanglement.”

It is fortunate for the United States that the Chinese cannot innovate. Anyway, quantum computing is just a fad. Yes, they can manufacture washing machines and even assemble iPhones with white supervision, but the squinty-eyed little bastards cannot invent things. They steal all their technology which invariably originates in the West. Cars, airplanes, and computers were all invented by white Europeans. Asians can make little paper umbrellas for expensive drinks but nothing more challenging.

More evidence of the superiority of Americans: The 2016 World Champion Math Olympiad Team–Ankan Bhattacharya, Allen Liu, Ashwin Sah, Michael Kural, Yuan Yao, Junyao Peng, and coach Po-Shen
More evidence of the superiority of Americans: The 2016 World Champion Math Olympiad Team–Ankan Bhattacharya, Allen Liu, Ashwin Sah, Michael Kural, Yuan Yao, Junyao Peng, and coach Po-Shen

Despite right-wing alarms, America’s lead in the sciences is not in peril. In both 2016 and 2018, the United States, not China, won the world championship. As inclusiveness increases in American universities, with admission of anything arguably a primate, and more women and minorities of color go into mathematical fields, US superiority will increase.

China Drives International Patent Applications to Record Heights; Demand Rising for Trademark and Industrial Design

“China moved into the second position as a source of international patent applications filed via WIPO in 2017, closing in on long-time leader United States of America, in another record year in the use of WIPO’s intellectual property services for patents, trademarks and industrial designs.”

This is nothing to worry about. These patents must be of low quality, since the Chinese can’t invent anything, and were probably stolen in the first place. American education is far ahead in all fields of importance, especially its policies regarding transgender bathrooms, which in the course of things will be more important than definite integrals, whatever those are.

 
Papua New Guinea Looks Better and Better II
🔊 Listen RSS

Having just returned from two weeks in the curious environs of Washington, DC, I offer a few observations on the national lunacy deposit:

The de-Christianization of the country, or at least this part of it, is almost complete. I can think of hearing the word “Christmas” only twice in two weeks of trough-inciting retail advertising.

Culture shock: We stayed with friends who for various reasons, such as being in the business, always had a television on. At home in Mexico we got rid of the lobotomy box some fifteen years ago, seeing little advantage in paying seventy dollars a month for 250 channels, none worth watching, adorned with twenty minutes an hour of stupid commercials. Coming back to this was like jumping into raw sewage. Perhaps the worst of it was the contempt for the public manifested in running the same ad twice in one commercial break, and in the loving close-ups of pizzas with dripping cheese. Buy, buy, buy.

An astonishing proportion of the hucksterism was for medicines. I assume all Americans are inured to such predatory swill (if swill can be predatory) but after a year off, it is awful:

“Ask your doctor about Caligulon. Clinical trials show that it will make you perfect in every way. Your eyeballs may explode, Peritonitis and asphyxiation sometimes occur. If you suffer heavy nasal bleeding stop taking Caligulon and consult your doctor. Gangrene of the genitals may occur….”

Gangrene of what was once an occasionally honest journalism has certainly occurred. The hostility of the media to Trump was absolute. Having spent decades in the trenches with Washington’s scribblers I am hardly inclined to senior-civics fairy-tale expectations of truth. Still, this was something new. Rachel Maddow, railing against Trump. Some other panel show, railing against Trump. Another called Hardball, railing against Trump. Minor talking heads, headlets if you will, using highly prejudicial wording: Trumps wants to “gut” Obamacare.

It is a lynch mob. In two weeks I saw not the slightest attempt at impartiality.

The customary arrogance of the Beltway Bubble runs strong. The city seems isolated from the rest of existence. It talks to itself about itself and isn’t particularly aware of the rest of the world. (“The Bubble” is shorthand for New York, DC, and Hollywood, the tripartite beating heart of political correctness.)

The city obsesses over twaddle about Russian malignity, over who grabbed whose ass, and transgender bathrooms. I heard nothing of the roiling currents of growth and change in Asia, of the incipient onslaught of new Asian airliners, the BRI, and de-dollarization. The focus on trivia seemed almost adolescent.

A disdain for the rest of the country, nonexistent twenty years ago, now flourishes. It is a virulent snobbishness of class and region. “Flyover land” is the most common name for the rest of America. Hillary made the scorn explicit with her Deplorables, but it shows in casual conversation in which people here speak of Mississippi and Arkansas as “the middle of nowhere.”

This is a different country.

Curiously, despite the seething antipathy, Trump hasn’t done much that would not have been expected from any Republican. He engineered large tax breaks for the rich, reversed environmental regulations to benefit corporations, and growled about immigration while doing little. He is firmly in Israeli pockets, as any Republican would be. He appointed Bret Kavanaugh, a mildly conservative judge, to the Mini-Legislature of the Nine Cadavers. Whoopee do.

Yet he committed two serious Bubble sins. First, he humiliated the media, laughing at them, taunting them,.He got elected while, and by, holding them in contempt. They will not forgive. Second, he threatened to have good relations with Russia, very dangerous to the Empire which needs an enemy. A primary rule of American politics is Never threaten the big rice bowls.

A wag once described DC as “a federal enclave surrounded on all four sides by reality.” Just so. It is one thing to think Trump a terrible President–I do–but quite another for the national media to have no idea why he was elected. So far as I can tell, none of PC Washington has the slightest idea. This certainly includes the media. Their thinking, if it quite is, comes down to, “They’re stupid. They’re ignorant. They’re racist. They’re sexist. They’re fascist.They’re…evil.

This is reflexive honking and blowing used in response to anything the media don’t like. It should be a cellphone app.

Washington is fascinated by Washington, by Congress and the Supreme Court and some of the bureaucracy. It has little interest in the rest of the country or the rest of the world. Or knowledge of it. A friend familiar with the Congress bets that ninety percent of the Senate don’t know where Burma is. A member of Congress I know told me of going to Thailand with another member who kept confusing it with Taiwan. This is crazy. But it is Washington.

The city has become a Gotcha polity in which the media look for any actionable “gaffe” as they say, or a “slur,” and then pile on to the malefactor. The preferred sins are racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism. The miscreant is expected to squirm like a puppy that has wet the rug, apologize profusely, and beg forgiveness. Trump didn’t. It galls the city.

For example, PC women still boil over his “Grab’em by the pussy” remarks. Not only did Trump say it–aaagh!–but he got away with it, more aaaaagh!, and didn’t apologize. This earned him points with Flyover People sick of the media and their endless priss. It did not go down well in the Bubble.

The idea apparently accepted in Disney World North is that Trump would walk down the street in Manhattan, see a pretty woman, and…grab! But what he obviously meant was that when you are very rich, getting laid is easy. Ask any rock star. It is one of the benefits of wealth. A billionaire with a known interest in sex will attract many, many women eager to provide it. People use what they have to get what they want. There is a confluence of interest between gropers and gropees. The women had sex, and Trump had a private jet and penthouse in Paris. QED.

Here we have another example of the gap between the Bubble and the country. The talking heads exultantly said that because of the groping comments the Donald had just lost any hope of election by insulting women. Which he only barely did, if at all. Yet fifty-three percent of white women voted for Trump. How could this be, wonder the Bubblists?

Easy. White women (outside the Bubble) are intelligent and independent agents who vote according to their politics, circumstances, needs, and beliefs. They did. Apparently they thought immigration, the economy, jobs, education and so on more important than a couple of lines of dirty talk. Washington, huge on identity politics and political correctness, expected them to be herdable ninnies. Which it expects of most of the country. Well, they weren’t.

Finally, methinks the Byzantine Kindergarten has badly underestimated the influence of internet. Among the many intelligent people I know (a fair few, eeeeeek! supporters of trump) the Net has become primary, the media secondary. When the New York Times says something nauseatingly PC, well-informed rebuttals surge across the Web. People on the Net, not constrained by political correctness, can speak of the many topics forbidden in Washington. Sites like the Unz Review, however idiosyncratic and whatever their leanings, attract writers of high intelligence and great expertise, and appeal to similar readers. (In a bid for a place in the Hall of Fame of Linguistic Vandalism, I call this “distributed cognitive stratification.” Is that embarrassing or what?)

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Today, fun with genetics, specifically genetic determination of intelligence and behavior. In doing this we will seek to annoy as many people as possible. (This column prides itself on being an equal-opportunity irritant. ) First, reference to amusing contradictions in IQ theory as offered by IQists and such as the Human Biodiversity Movement (hbd).

Let’s start with Colombia, since I know the country reasonably well. Colombians are said to have a mean IQ of 84. This is quite dim, below hamsters but better than turnips. Yet they run airlines, telecommunications, and all the things one associates with modern cities. How is this?

There is no contradiction here provided that IQists say clearly, without the usual evasion, that a mean IQ of 84 is sufficient to produce enough people with enough intelligence do these things. But then it follows that American blacks, mean IQ 85, can also run modern cities and airlines and so on. Why don’t they? Since the cause is not low intelligence (they are a bit smarter than Colombians), it must be because of social factors, such as discrimination, or institutional obstacles.

This is great fun as it has the invariably conservative IQists agreeing with their liberal opponents. Hbd folk thus become Social Justice Warriors.

A common response from IQists is that, Fred, any population will produce a few intelligent people, and these obviously are the ones doing the mentally demanding work. Well, yes, any distribution will produce some, bright folk but can it produce enough? (And would this not also apply to blacks? The money question here is why two populations with essentially equal IQs produce such very different outcomes.)

Those espousing the theory of a few intelligent people doing all the thinking may not realize how much intelligence of various levels one needs to operate a modern society. Consider:

Most countries have large numbers of banks, often several in towns of any size. The clerks in these do not need to be geniuses, but they have to understand exchange rates, SWIFT codes, intermediate banks, interest rates, and so on. They cannot be dummies. The computers on their desks are networked to each other, so someone must establish and maintain the network. They are also linked to corporate, probably in the capital city, requiring wide-area engineers and programmers who can maintain the software. Banks have ATMs, requiring more technicians and networking. Again, not Stephen Hawking, but all pulled from a population (mean IQ 84) in which fewer than one in six has the average white American’s IQ of 100.

The same considerations holds across the economy. Dentists can’t be stupid, nor can their professors in dental school, nor the people who sell and maintain their equipment. The Honda dealership needs people who can repair engines covered in mysterious wires and tubes like malign linguini, who can use diagnostic computers, who can maintain same, who can handle accounting and inventory. The telecom net needs very smart programmers, hardware geeks, and the helpline techs who talk distraught customers through the innards of their modems when something goes wrong. The airlines need pilots, people to train pilots, to maintain radar and avionics and high-bypass turbofans. Hospitals are littered with surgeons and specialists who had to be trained by others, as well as CAT scanners and MRI and optical-coherence tomography machines. And someone maintains these.

At what point as we go down the IQ scale does the distribution cease to provide enough people at various levels of intelligence to make the society function? Below 84 obviously. Eighty? Seventy? Determining this would be statistically tricky, but the failure of IQists to tie theory to observation, or to address glaring contradictions, makes their arguments unconvincing.

Or might there–shudder–be something wrong with IQ as a measure of intelligence?

A staple of hbd theory is that people came dim-witted out of Africa and then, moving to cold regions, evolved intelligence to stay alive in harsh conditions. (It seems to me they would have to be stupid to go live in frigid lands. After all, Africa was big, warm, full of food, and largely unoccupied. But what do I know?) Curiously, Eskimos live in about the coldest places around and, say IQists, are not too bright.

Something that confuses me, as a depressing number of things do, are the Indians of the Americas. The northern ones never did much of anything brain-wise. They are supposed to have a mean IQ of 85–that is, higher than that of Colombians, who repair avionics. Most odd. The Indians of Mesoamerica, meaning sort of southern Mexico and Guatemala, have mean IQ 83. Yet they invented writing, a base-twenty exponential number system complete with zero, the wheel, five floor buildings of poured concrete, and big cities. I would not have associated vigesimal exponentiation with an IQ of 83. Yet today they exhibit substantial mental torpor. Go figure.

Another and somewhat disconcerting belief of hbd is that our personalities, and therefore behavior, are largely genetically determined. That is, we are not moral of not, conservative or liberal, religious or atheist because of thought and free choice but because our genes dictate these things. Psychologists have compiled tables purporting to show, for example, the heritability of openness to new ideas is at .8, sexual promiscuity .5, and so on. (I made those up, but you can google for tables.)

The disconcerting part is that the evidence seems to support this. Any dog breeder will tell you that both character and intelligence are innate: Border collies, Chihuahuas, and timber wolves inherently have different approaches to things. Blank slates they are not. In humans, twin studies clearly show a high degree of genetic determination of character. Further, I note before going into hiding, races are subspecies of humans as breeds are subspecies of dogs.

The belief in genetic control leads to a couple of interesting situations. The first is the problem of the observer being part of the system observed. The conservative hbder (almost all are) is arguing that his political views are not the result of logic but of his genetic make-up, like eye color. This makes unnerving sense. People raised in the same suburb, attending the same school, watching the same movies and similar home lives often end up with diametrically opposed politics.

A second curiosity is this: Suppose that as genetics advances, as it rapidly does, we find that certain sequences indicate an eighty percent chance that the individual will engage in violent behavior. When he commits assault and battery, should the court give him only twenty percent of the normal sentence on the grounds that eighty percent was genetic and thus beyond his control? Then there is the question often asked of what to do if the genetic profile of a six-year-old shows him unmistakably to be a psychopath.

On the subject of violence, hbd types point out that rates of homicide are substantially higher in Latin America than in, say, white Europe and the white population of the US.. This is true. It is exceedingly true in Mexico. Inevitably hbders conclude that the violence must be genetic in provenance.

Perhaps. However it is entertaining to pick a date–1900 will serve–and ask how many wars, with how many accompany dead, have been launched by a Latin American country against any other country. Then do the same for the white race. Add up the dead. Start with WWI and WWII. How many wars are white countries fighting now? How many are Latin American fighting?

One might easily conclude that whites are far more violent than Latin Americans or Orientals, though given to doing their killing in organized groups. Since the pattern holds over long periods of time, it might seem genetic.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Race and Iq 
Defending Women Against Bat-Brained Viragos
🔊 Listen RSS

In my capacity of shade-tree anthropologist at large, I am trying to make sense of the far Left. It is tough sledding. Most of it makes as much sense as lug nuts on a birthday cake. Help me. I am really confused.

I can’t see that the Left actually is Left, I mean. The Left in its more practical embodiments used to be the champion of the working man. It fought for unions, good pay, benefits and job security. Conditions were horrible in America’s mines and factories. Things were ugly, and Leftists often got hurt or, occasionally, killed trying to remedy them.

Today’s “Left” is the party of Bill and Hill, of George Soros and the half-educated narcissists of Hollywood rolling in dough, of excessively comfortable academics and the media, all of whom use ethnic minorities as voting fodder but want nothing to do with them. When do you think was the last time Hillary or Megyn Kelly was in a truck stop or Legion hall, or had dinner in a restaurant where most of the diners were black?

The Left is now hostile to working men, called “deplorables” in an unwise moment of honesty by Hillary. Can you imagine Saul Alinsky or Leon Trotsky worrying about transgender bathrooms or cultural appropriation? And it is a weirdly teenage Left in which most seem ten or fifteen years younger that their chronological age. Oh good.

But now, feminists. They sound as crazy as Aunt Prudence, who thought she was a geranium, and we used to keep in the attic.

Feminists say they represent women. Oh? What possible reason do they have for thinking this deelusion? They have almost nothing in common with (most) women. Almost all feminists are of the extreme Left. Few women are. Feminists seem to be predominantly lesbians. Few women are. Most women want to marry (men) and have children. Few feminists do or will. Feminists are heavily invested in identity–i.e., bloc–politics, and think women should vote the straight femme ticket. When this doesn’t happen, they babble about “traitors to their gender.” In fact most women are independent agents who make up their own minds. Note the fifty-three percent of white women voted for Trump.

Do feminists represent anyone but themselves? What are they smoking? I want some of the seeds.

I assert that I am more of a feminist than today’s variety. Yes. You can think of me as Fred Dworkin Lite (by about three hundred pounds). Let me exlplain wny.

A question that needs to be asked is Do femiloons care about women at all? On the evidence, no. Consider female genital mutilation. You probably don’t want to, but just for a few seconds. In this charming ethnic custom, several women grab a terrified pubescent girl, pry her legs apart, and cut her private parts with a razor blade and no anesthetic, thus screwing up her sex life forever. The girls only occasionally die from an ensuing infection, so it doesn’t really matter. Unless, of course, you are the girl. .

Now, I grant that I am of little understanding, but the procedure looks to me like misogyny, extreme child-abuse, actionable assault and battery, and sadism.

But it doesn’t bother feminists I, Fred Dworkin, would take a ball bat to the women, and a ball bat and tin snips to the father who allowed it. This would create jobs in the wheelchair industry, grow the economy, and make America great again. But the harridans of the Left say not a word against this grotesque and kinky horror.

Why not? Here we come to the class system of the sinister set. Most of the people who slice their girl children are Muslim and, often, black. See map. In the weird hierarchy of today’s Leftists, blacks reign as the most sacred, trumping (forgive the expression) Muslims, who are more sacred than women, who are at the bottom in the rankings, after transgenders. No femiloon in good standing would dare criticize dark Mohammedans for torturing girl children. What kind of solidarity would that be?

Well, I, Fred Dworkin, will damned well criticize them, with a bat as noted above. So will easily ninety-five percent of white men. But not feminists, who don’t care. Neither would Ted Bundy, who liked to do that sort of thing.

Does no ne see an inconsistency here? Actually mutilating kids is OK. But when Trump was accused of possibly groping women who flock around an available billionaire for the purpose of being groped, the batty spinsters of the Left went berserk. Admittedly this was a minor adjustment to their usual demeanor, but it increased their volume. Why was this?

Now, if a white man refers to a hussy as a hussy, or says that a well-endowed woman is really stacked, he will be taken under siege by battalions of squalling potty-mouthed termagants as a misogynist, and likely remanded for psychiatric counselling and probableysubjected to reeducation.

But let’s look at some rap lyrics by blacks. I’m not sure “artists” is exactly the word, but we will overlook this for now:

“BITCHES AIN’T SH*T BUT HOES AND TRICKS / LICK ON THESE NUTS AND SUCK THE D*CK.” – SNOOP DOGG

“ONCE AGAIN I GOTTA PUNCH A BITCH IN HER SH*T / I’M ICY BITCH, DON’T LOOK AT MY WRIST / BECAUSE IF YOU DO, I MIGHT BLIND YOU BITCH.” – JASPER DOLPHIN OF ODD FUTURE

How lyrical. I, Fred Dworkin, feminist of the old school, would tolerate this sort of thing for about a Silicon Valley nanosecond. After which I would apply my utility bat, both to the lower primates who grunt this soaring sludge and to the music executives who disseminate it. No civilized society or, in our case, approximation thereof, should allow its women to be subjected to such gunch.

But feminists don’t say a word. Why?

Because out on the stranger reaches of the Left wing, where the feathers run out and giddy space begins, women rank below blacks. To criticize a black for treating women as vilely as the human mind can conceive, as sluts, hos, and worse–why, that would be eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!–.racism. In the fever swamps of the Silly Left, women suck hind tit, as we used to say in the country.

Eons ago, when I was in high school and fragments of the first amniote egg wete still scattered about, we had a concept called “gentility.” Not everybody could spell it, but it was expressed in two forms, called “ladies” and “gentlemen.” As country kids,, we didn’t know were doing these things, or being them. And we weren’t elaborate about it, no bowing and hand-kissing. But boys didn’t use foul language around girls, or they around us. We all knew about sex, or strongly suspected, but we just knew that girls were, well, sort of special, and there were things you didn’t do around them. It civilized us, something boys of that age greatly need.

Well, feminists weren’t having any of that. I saw a while back that some high school had a sign that said, “The more you act like a lady, the more he will behave as a gentleman.” Just so. If girls expect respect, they will get it.

But feminists honked and yowled and the sign came down. See, it was sexist. Yes. It implied that girls and boys were different. What a concept.

So we have: Fred Dworkin, against torturing girls. Femiloons-, ontent with it. FD–wouldn’t allow reference to women in language that would embarrass a sewer rat. Femiloons,,content with it. FD–would treat women with good manners and respect. Femiloons, against it.

Fred Dworkin 3, Feminists 0. Point, set, match.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Feminism, Political Correctness 
Economies Diverge, Police States Converge
🔊 Listen RSS

I have followed China’s development, its stunning advance in forty years from impoverished Third World to a huge economy, its rapid scientific progress. Coming from nowhere it now runs neck and neck with the US in supercomputes, does world-class work in genetic engineering and genomics (the Beijing Genomics Institute), quantum computing and quantum radar, in scientific publications. It lags in many things, but the speed of advance, the intense focus on progress, is remarkable.

Recently, after twelve years away, I returned for a couple of weeks to Chungdu and Chong Quing, which I found amazing. American patriots of the lightly read but growly sort will bristle at the thought that the Chinese may have political and economic systems superior to ours, but, well, China rises whlle the US flounders. They must be doing something right.

In terms of economic systems, the Chinese are clearly superior. China runs a large economic surplus, allowing it to invest heavily in infrastructure and in resources abroad. America runs a large deficit. China invests in China, America in the military. China’s infrastructure is new, of high quality, and growing. America’s slowly deteriorates. China has an adult government that gets things done. America has an essentially absentee Congress and a kaleidoscopically shifting cast of pathologically aggressive curiosities in the White House.

America cannot compete with a country far more populous of more-intelligent people with competent leadership and the geographic advantage of being in Eurasia. Washington’s choices are either to start a major war while it can, perhaps force the world to submit through sanctions, or resign itself to America’s becoming just another country. Given the goiterous egos inside the Beltway Bubble, this is not encouraging.

To compare the two countries, look at them as they are, not as we are told they are. We are told that dictatorships, which China is, are nightmarish, brutal, do not allow the practice of religion or freedom of expression and so on. The usual examples are Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and North Korea, of whom the criticisms are true. By contrast, we are told, America is envied by the world for its democracy, freedom of speech, free press, high moral values, and freedom of religion.

This is nonsense. In fact the two countries are more similar than we might like to believe, with America converging fast on the Chinese model.

The US is at best barely democratic. Yes, every four years we have a hotly contested presidential election, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. The public has no influence over anything of importance: the wars, the military budget, immigration, offshoring of jobs, what our children are taught in school, or foreign or racial policy

We do not really have freedom of speech. Say “nigger” once and you can lose a job of thirty years. Or criticize Jews, Israel, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, or transsexuals. The media strictly prohibit any criticism of these groups, or anything against abortion or in favor of gun rights, or any coverage of highly profitable wars that might turn the public against them, or corruption in Congress or Wall Street, or research on the genetics of intelligence.

Religion? Christianity is not illegal, but heavily repressed under the Constitutionally nonexistent doctrine of separation of church and state. Surveillance? Monitoring of the population is intense in China and getting worse. It is hard to say just how much NSA monitors us, but America is now a land of cameras, electronic readers of license plates, recording of emails and telephone conversations. The tech giants increasingly censor political sites, and surveillance in our homes appears about to get much worse.

Here we might contemplate Lincoln’s famous dictum, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Being a politician, he did not add a final clause that is the bedrock of American government, “But you can fool enough of the people enough of the time.” You don’t have to keep websites of low circulation from being politically incorrect. You just have to tell the majority, via the mass media, over and over and over, what you want them to believe.

The dictatorship in China is somewhat onerous, but has little in common with the sadistic lunacy of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. In China you do not buck the government, propaganda is heavy, and communications monitored. If people accept this, as most do, they are free to start businesses, bar hop, smoke dope (which a friend there tells me is common though illegal) engage in such consumerism as they increasingly can afford and lead what an American would call normal lives. A hellhole it is not.

Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America’s racial diversity, its cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street crime.

America’s huge urban pockets of illiteracy do not exist. There is not the virulent political division that has gangs of uncontrolled Antifa hoodlums stalking public officials. China takes education seriously, as America does not. Students study, behave as maturely as their age would suggest, and do not engage in middle-school politics.

In short, China does not appear to be in irremediable decadence. America does.

An intelligent dictatorship has crucial advantages over a chaotic pseudo-democracy. One is stability of policy. In America, we look to the next election in two, four, or six years. Businesses focus on the next quarter’s bottom line. Consequently policy flipflops. One administration has no interest in national health care, the next administration institutes it, and the third wants to eliminate it. Because policies are pulled and hauled in different directions by special interests–in this case Big Pharma, insurance companies, the American Medical Associatiion, and so on–the result is an automobile with five wheels, an electric motor but no batteries, and a catalytic converter that doesn’t work. After twenty-four years, from Bush II until Trump leaves, we will neither have nor not have national health care.

China’s approach to empire is primarily commercial, America’s military. The former turns a profit without firing a shot, and the latter generates a huge loss as the US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter the planet into submission via tarifffs, sanctions, embargos, and so on. Whether it will work, or force the rest of the world to band together against America, remains to be seen. Meanwhile the Chinese economy grows.

America builds aircraft carriers. China builds railroads, this one in Laos.
America builds aircraft carriers. China builds railroads, this one in Laos.

A dictatorship can simply do things. It can plan twenty, or fifty, years down the road. If some massive engineering project will produce great advantages in thirty years, but be a dead loss until then, China can just do it. And often has. When I was in Chengdu, Beijing opened the Hongkong–Zhuhai-Macau oceanic bridge, thirty-four miles long.

The bridge. The US would take longer to decide to build it than the Chinese took actually to build it.
The bridge. The US would take longer to decide to build it than the Chinese took actually to build it.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

This is my second column on the two weeks that Vi and I just spent in Chengdu, China. It is meant not so much as a travelogue as a snapshot of what is going on in an economic juggernaut. Judging by email from readers, many do not realize the scope and scale of China’s advance. Neither did I: Since I was last in the country twelve years ago, much has changed. Reading journals is one thing. Walking the streets is another.

Having heard much about China’s high-speed rail, we bought tickets to Chongqing, a mountain town of thirty million at a distance of 250 miles from Chengdu.

Chongqing. Well, a small part of it. Like Chengdu, it is largely new and, as cities go, quite agreeable
Chongqing. Well, a small part of it. Like Chengdu, it is largely new and, as cities go, quite agreeable

At risk of sounding like a shameless flack for Chinese infrastructure, I can report that the rail station in Chengdu was huge, attractive, well-designed, brightly lit, and full of people. I know, I know, I keep saying things like this. Well, dammit, they are true. As a self-respecting journalist, I don’t like to tell the truth too often, but here I will break with tradition.

Having gotten tickets beforehand we waited until our train was called, in Mandarin and English, as was true also in the city’s subway. Apparently Chengdu wants to be an international city and someone thought about it.

Anyway, the train pulled in and looked like a freaking rocketship. We boarded and found it to be clean and comfortable, with most of the seats filled. Off we went, almost in silence, and shortly were sailing through countryside.

At a cool 180 miles an hour. It was like stepping into a future world. I thought about buying one of these trains and entering it in Formula One, but I suspect that it would not corner well.

You can book here.Fast rail is hardly unique to China, but the scale is. So  far there are 17,000 miles of fast rail in China, aiming at 24,000 by 2025. The United States couldn’t finish the environmental impact statement as quickly. The Shanghai maglev line reaches 267 mph.
You can book here.Fast rail is hardly unique to China, but the scale is. So far there are 17,000 miles of fast rail in China, aiming at 24,000 by 2025. The United States couldn’t finish the environmental impact statement as quickly. The Shanghai maglev line reaches 267 mph.

The Chinese passengers seemed no more impressed by the train than by a city bus. They are used to them. They think such trains are normal. As an American, I was internally embarrassed. A few years ago Vi and I went from Chicago to the West Coast on Amtrak. It was not uncomfortable, but slow, appearing to use about 1955 technology. We went through the mountains often at barely more than a walking pace.

There were until recently regular flights from Chengdu to Chongqing. When rail went live, the flights died. Nobody wanted the hassle and expense of flying. Here is much of why the US has not one inch of fast rail: It would kill of a lot of business for politically well connected airlines.

For example, Chinese fast rail from DC to Manhattan would close down air service in about fifteen minutes. Fast rail between many American cities would be faster than flying when you added in getting to the airport hours before, and from the destination airport to the city afterward. And much more agreeable.

On another day we rented a car and driver and drove three hours to a town near the Tibetan border. A tourist burg, it was not interesting, but the ride was. The highways were up to American standards, when America had standards. The astonishment began when we reached the mountains. The American response to mountains usually is to go over them or around them through valleys.

This is not unreasonable, but neither is it the Chinese way. They go throughmountains. We went through–I’ll guess and say a dozen–tunnels, all of four lanes, all miles long (one said to be nine miles) lighted and straight. This was done in two parallel tunnels, each carrying two lanes in one direction or another.

Valleys? We crossed them on bridges or elevated highways. The result was that a heavy truck would not have to gear up and down. Yes, I know, this probably would not work everywhere, but it worked there.

If there is anything in the US remotely resembling this, I am unaware of it. There may be a long list of things the Chinese can’t do. Building stuff won’t be on it.

Internet: Almost everybody uses WeChat (“Connecting a billion people….” says its website) an app similar to WhatsApp that does the usual things but lets you pay bills electronically. You hold your phone up to the taxi driver’s, information is exchanged, and your account debited. (“I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.”) This is not new technology, but the scale is. People go out at night without cash, which may cease to exist in a few years. China seems to have leapfrogged the credit card. The government monitors WeChat and you can definitely get in trouble for plotting to kill the Politburo. (Both Alibaba and Baidu have competing systems.)

The country invests hard in electric cars, but you seldom see one. (They have green license plates instead of blue.) The reasons, say people here, are the objections one hears in the West: Charge time, and expense without governmental subsidies, which exist.

Obesity does not exist. In two weeks we did not see a single example. Maybe porkers are arrested and ground into sausage–I don’t know–but they ain’t none in sight. The reason may be diet. Or bicycles. See below.

Bicycle deposits like this one are everywhere. Each ride has an electronic gizz which that lets you rent it using–what else?–WeChat. The system is not robustly communistlc: Different companies paint their bikes in different colors, and have sales to compete. Phredfoto.
Bicycle deposits like this one are everywhere. Each ride has an electronic gizz which that lets you rent it using–what else?–WeChat. The system is not robustly communistlc: Different companies paint their bikes in different colors, and have sales to compete. Phredfoto.

Chengdu’s claim for international attention is its pandas. These were thought to be on the way to extinction when apparently the government decided extinction wasn’t a good idea. Boom, the panda zoo appeared. As my friend in the city says, when the government decides to do something, it happens.

Panda zoo. If you are a panda, you ought to look into this. ViFoto
Panda zoo. If you are a panda, you ought to look into this. ViFoto

In the National Zoo in Washington, the animals live in smallish enclosures of glass and cement bearing little resemblance to their natural environment. By contrast, the pandas live in what seem to be acres of forest. This means that you cannot always see them. They do what pandas think proper in the manner they think proper. Visitors walk through, in forest gloom, on walkways overhung with branches. One never feels sorry for the animals. While I think we were the only round-eyes we saw, the throngs of locals were sometimes oppressive.

OK, that’s the snapshot. The lesson to take away, or at any rate the one I took away, is that this is a very serious and competent country and not to be underestimated.

 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: China, China/America 
🔊 Listen RSS

Vi and I have just returned from Chengdu, a Chinese village of seventeen million and the gateway to Tibet. Since China is of some interest to the US these days, I thought a description of sorts, actually more in the nature of a disordered travelogue, might be of interest. I hadn’t been to the country for twelve years and, before that, not since living in Taiwan in the mid-Seventies. Each time, the changes were astonishing. Herewith some notes:

A caveat: we never got more than three hundred miles from the city and do not pretend to describe the country beyond what we saw.

Despite Trump’s trade war we had no problems in getting visas in Guadalajara or getting through customs in Chengdu. Nobody showed us the slightest hostility. Although China is assuredly a dictatorship and vigorously represses dissent, we saw virtually no police. A friend who lived in Chengdu for several years until recently asserts that there is close to zero street crime. (White collar crime is a very different matter, he said, and seems built into Chinese culture. There are books on this.)

China is often described as a developing country. Well, sort of. Chengdu is decidedly of the First World, modern, muscular, appearing to have been recently built because it was. The downtown is beautiful, at least as cities go, and livable. In many hours of walking aimlessly we encountered everything from elegant high-end stores selling upscale Western bands to noodle shops. It is not a poor city. A considerable number of people wear worn clothes and clearly are not overly prosperous, but nobody looked hungry and most appeared middle class. We saw no beggars or homeless people of the sort common in the US. Whether this is because there aren’t any, or because the government doesn’t allow them on the streets, I do not know.

For anyone who knows what China was before Deng Xiaoping took over in 1978, after Mao made his greatest contribution to his country–he died–the growth of prosperity astounds. Many criticisms may be made of the Chinese government, some of them valid, but no other government has lifted so many people out of poverty so fast.

When I lived in Taiwan, I wondered why the Chinese, especially the mainlanders, were so backward. They seemed to have been so almost forever, certainly since well before Legation days. At the time Taiwan had a Five Year Plan for development, but so did all sorts of dirtball counties, mostly consisting of a patch of jungle, a colonel, and a torture chamber.

I noted, though, if the reader will forgive me a digression: Taiwan was actually meeting its Plan. In the Third World of the time, this was a novel idea. The Jin Shan reactors were going in, the new port, the steel mill, the highway. I interviewed the head of the nuclear program for the Far Eastern Economic Review–Harvard guy. Other officials were from MIT. Idi Amin they were not.

Young and dumb as I was–the two being barely distinguishable–I thought Hong Kong looked like Manhattan with slanted eyes, hardball financial turf, and I knew Taiwanese students in America were excelling in science courses. I concluded that Mousy Dung was the greatest American patriot who ever lived since, if he ever stopped holding these people back, what has happened might.

But back to Chengdu.

A perfectly stunning number of clusters of apartment buildings like these swarm on the horizon. The only round–eye  I met who lived in one said that her apartment was quite nice.
A perfectly stunning number of clusters of apartment buildings like these swarm on the horizon. The only round–eye I met who lived in one said that her apartment was quite nice.

The first thing we noticed in the city was the enormous scale of everything. Buildings downtown were huge. The elevated highways everywhere were huge. The numbers of people were huge. There were literally hundreds of hugely tall apartment buildings. The principle seemed to be that if you have too many people to spread them out, stack them up. Said a Chinese guide we hired, they weren’t there twenty years ago.

Conspicuous to both Violeta and me was evidence of Intelligent Design. Chengdu clearly did not evolve randomly as cities do in the West. Somebody thought about things beforehand. The overhead highways kept heavy traffic flowing. Very wide sidewalks downtown made pedestrianism pleasant. The subway was nothing special but well designed to be easy to use even if you don’t know how. (Well, it does have sliding glass doors to keep you away from the tracks until the train comes. This way, you can’t throw things onto the tracks, such as your mother-in-law.)

A characteristic of the Chinese is that there are lots of them. The photo is deceptive since only in a few old, narrow-streeted market regions do you see this. But I liked the picture, so you have to look at it. (Due to a camera missetting, I got video, but it seemed descriptive, so I kept it.)

In a country that thinks it is communist, or pretends it is to save face in case you notice that it isn’t, you might expect horrible architecture. You know, like the awful Stalin Gothic of Moscow. Or Franco’s mausoleum that looks to have been designed by someone channeling Albert Speer. Actually no. (Except maybe sorta for the huge apartment buildings, mentioned above, that cluster together in sometimes groups of twelve that could hold the population of Guatemala).

Thing is, the Chinese have a well-developed aesthetic sense, at least in the visual realm (not so hot musically, and Beijing opera is a crime against humanity). Somebody, which means the government, said that considerable green space would be left, and it was. Planters with (unsurprisingly) plants in them are everywhere, and patches of what look like manicured forest. The result is curious. You can sit in cool shady woods a few yards from an enormous overhead highway.

Communism, which China once had, pretty much forbids religion, so I wondered what we would find in the faith line. Buddhists. We visited Buddhist temples, meticulously maintained, with worshipers, mostly women, obviously worshiping. How was this, I asked my round-eyed friend. Well, he said, Christianity was strongly disapproved as being Western, but the government was nervous about public reaction to a crackdown on Buddhism. So they decided that Buddhism wasn’t a religion, see, but Chinese culture, and thus OK. I don’t know whether this is true, but thought it a nicely practical waffle.

Huge. Here we go again. Chengdu has what it says is the world’s largest building, 1.5 million square meters. This is the Global Center. It is the damndest thing I have ever seen, maybe. I suspect it was built to overcome an international short-man’s complex. I bet it did, too. It was like going into the VAB at Canaveral, unlimited space, with hotels, stores, offices, wide open space. But–the aesthetic thing again–it was wonderfully colorful and just–“gorgeous” comes to mind. It was not designed by corporate in New Jersey.

The Chinese conception of wide-screen video, at the Global Center. Note the man just to the left of the video button. I am not sure why the blonde is there. I think it a good idea, though. Violeta thinks it has to do with Victoria’s Secret. It isn’t clear where she could hide more than a very small secret.

 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: China, China/America 
I’d Rather Be Ruled by Autistic Hamsters
🔊 Listen RSS

The United States seems to be contemplating war with Russia, Iran, China, or all three. Washington pushes NATO ever closer to Russia, leaves the nuclear-missile treaty and tries to destroy both countries and China economically. Why the push for war?

Simple. Asia is awakening. China (from which I have just returned) grows economically at a scorching pace–and all power rests on economic power. China is a large country, America a medium-sized one. America’s roughly two hundred million whites do virtually all of the scientific work on which national power depends. China has a billion increasingly educated Han Chinese, a five-to-one advantage. China’s stated aim is to united Eurasia among other places in one vast commercial union. Washington’s pugnacity has pushed China, Iran, and Russia together. The chain of nations, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey all totter between looking east and looking west. If Washington doesn’t stop this growth, the American Empire will be marginalized within decades.

This doesn’t threaten the Amercan public. It threatens the Empire and Israel.

What would a war with Russia look like, even assuming that it didn’t go nuclear? A great military thinker–me, actually–once said that military stupidity comes in three levels: normally stupid; really really stupid; and invading Russia. From Chuck XII to Adolf I it has proved a poor career move.

The US military has not won a war since 1945, with the exception of the First Gulf War, which the LAPD could have won. It lost decisively in Vietnam. It got run out of Lebanon with 241 dead Marines as its only accomplishment. After seventeen years it shows no signs of defeating barely armed Afghan peasants. Iraq has been a complete botch, achieving none of its goals, control of the oil, permanent bases, and a puppet government. Just now the military is losing in Syria.

Nothing short of genius can account for losing so consistently given the enormous resources available to American forces. In light of this very low level of military competence, maybe wars are not our best choice of hobby.

What sort of war is envisaged? The United States cannot fight a sizable land war. Iran can. Russia can. The American military means air power and little else. The Army hasn’t fought a serious war since 1973, the fleet since 1945. In long periods of inaction, things deteriorate because they do not seem important. Crucial supplies cease to exist, spare parts aren’t there, the logistics train quietly becomes inoperable. Money goes instead to pricey weapons of little practical use.

The Army recruits from a soft millennial population. America is no longer a country of tough rural kids. Social engineering has rotted the ranks. The military has suffered years of feminization, SJW appeasement, affirmative action, lowered physical standards, and LGBTQ insertion. Conscription is politically impossible. The Army cannot defeat Afghans even with the advantages of unlimited air power, artillery, gun ships, medevac, helicopters, and drones, It would last a very short time if it had to fight the Afghans or Iranians, on even terms. Muslims are more virile than today’s Americans and have proven tenacious.

A military that never fights a war that it has to win, that never encounters an enemy that can dangerously hit back, inevitably deteriorates.

Militaries come to believe their own propaganda. So, apparently, do the feral mollycoddles in the White House and New York. The American military’s normal procedure is to overestimate American power, underestimate the enemy, and misunderstand the kind of war it is getting into. Should Washington decide on war with Iran, or Russia (unless by a surprise nuclear strike) there will be the usual talk of the most powerful, best trained, best equipped etc., and how the Ivans and towel-heads will melt away in days, a cakewalk. Bet me.

Militaries have a very poor record of predicting outcomes of wars. This might provoke thought. The American Civil War was expected to be over in an afternoon; this was wrong by 650,000 dead and four years. When Napoleon invaded Russia, he did not expect Russians to occupy Paris. Germany thought that WWI would be a war of movement over in weeks; in fact a ghastly war of attrition lasting four years. When Japan attacked Pearl, it was not intentionally inviting GIs to the geisha houses of Tokyo. When Germany invaded Poland, occupation of Germany by Russia and America was low on its list of expectations. When France re-invaded Vietnam, it did not foresee Dien Bien and utter defeat by les jaunes. When America invaded Vietnam, it did not expect a decade-long losing war. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect to lose to Afghans in sandals. When America invaded Afghanistan, having seen what had happened to Russia, it did not expect the same result.

We do not know what a war with Iran, or Russia, or China would look like or what the Iranians might do. An overconfident military and an inexperienced government in Washington will predictably predict a short war and speak of precision weapons and surgical strikes. The Navy will guarantee that it can keep the Straits open, and speak of its advanced technology. The expectation will be that there will be nothing unexpected. The white House will believe that Iran will lie there and be bombed without response. Russia? The nukes will fall on the European countries from which the attack came. Germany might ponder this carefully.

America could of course destroy much of Iran and kill millions of the defenseless. This is what America now calls “war.” It would be amusing to see what would happen if the Air Force had to fight an enemy that could fight back, but this would mean only Russia or, perhaps, just possibly, barely, to some extent, China. It is a coward’s way of war and, to judge by South Vietnam and Afghanistan, not very effective. Killing lots of people and winning a war are not the same thing.

What if Iran did stop petroleum traffic in the Persian Gulf with, say, missiles mounted on pickup trucks. Is this possible? I don’t know. Neither, I suspect, does the Navy–which will insist that it can handle mere pickup trucks with its superb this and that, its best trained, best equipped, the only hyperpower, and so on. But tankers are not going to run even a small risk of going up in flames.

How long would the Straits have to be closed with the world screaming for oil before Washington, desperate, its vanity bruised, full of huge egos, would have to do something stupid to save face?

Further, American leadership is of dangerously low quality. An essentially absentee Congress, the sordidness and criminality of the Clintons, Trump’s utter crassness and shady past, the submission to Israel, the widespread and never punished corruption. In this sorry brew no one seems interested in the well-being of the county, only unseemly grasping at benefits for the arms industry, big oil, Wall Street, Tel Aviv, and the Empire. Note that wars generate huge profits for the arms makers and the longer the war can be kept going, neither winning nor losing, the greater the profits. War against Iran would be a magnificent profit center. Since American casualties are extremely low , permanent war has few downsides.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Neocons, Russia 
College Boys in KKK Robes Chant “Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!”
🔊 Listen RSS

Oh God. Oh God. Is there no surcease? I know, silly question. Squalling protesters: Half of the country seems fifteen years younger than its chronological age. Staged ire. Sordid passion of the herd. Hysteria. Irrationality. Weird accusations. Savage feminists. As per custom, it is all about how horrible men are.

One of the sillier sillinesses of feminists regarding us men, of whom they seem to know little, is that we hate women, scorn them, want to abuse and hurt them and, most especially, gang-rape them. See, men view rape casually. It’s just something to do in a moment of boredom. Like scratching, or wondering where we left our keys. It’s because of our misogyny. The Sisterhood seems to love misogyny, pray for misogyny, invent misogyny because without it life would be bleak and devoid of meaning.

What is wrong with these baffled ditz-rabbits? Men hate women? By and large, our mothers have been women. Yes, check it out. Also our wives and girlfriends, grandmothers, granddaughters, daughters and–this will astonish the more ardent among feminists–even many of our friends. And, often, our collies.

As for regarding rape causally: If some dirtball raped anywoman close to me, I would favor subjecting him to a sex change with a propane torch, knee-capping him as a mobility-reduction measure, giving him a beating of the sort popular with dentists who want Porsches, and putting him in Leavenworth for thirty years. Sensitive readers will suggest that I am a psycho for proposing such effective and extremely meritorious measures. Admittedly they run counter to the trade winds of American jurisprudence. But a great many men will quietly say, “Right on, Fred.”

But: Rape is a crime. The standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As well as I can see, the Kavanaugh charges do not even meet the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, since there seems to be little evidence to preponder. The accuser doesn’t remember when it was, or where it was, or just who was there, and those she thinks were there don’t remember the party.

It would be uncharitable of me to note that she sure did pop up at a politically convenient time. So I won’t note it, as I am very charitable. Anyway, such is the nobility of our democracy that no one would make phony rape charges to derail a judgeship. In Guatemala, yes, but not in America. Heaven forfend.

Since I am actually in a mood for noting things, I will note that any girl in my high school class–King George High, class of 1964–could accuse me of raping her at a party, and do it with similar evidence: none. Equally with Kavanaugh, I would have no way to defend myself. How could I prove what I hadn’t done at a party nobody remembered after 55 years? This would be no defense against the presumption of guilt. Girls I dated would report that I had no such inclinations. Surviving teachers would remember–well, perhaps imperfect behavior, but nothing lubricious. This would prove nothing.

However, this first accusation against Kavanaugh has the virtue that it could have happened, since there is no proof that it didn’t happen. The same could be said of course of the charge that I raped whoever some girl might say that I had. Ah, but now we come to the gang-rape business. We have:

“Swetnick, who attended High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, swore under oath that she attended at least 10 parties where she says she witnessed Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others “cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.” She added that she has a “firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room,”

First, “cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented.” This displays a common theme among feminists, painting girls as helpless, easily manipulated victims, having no will of their own. Is this not truly insulting to girls? “He didn’t tell me beer had alcohol in it and I didn’t know boys were interested in sex, I thought it was just us girls….”

But, just as the problem with the first story is no witness, the problem with the gang rape is too many witnesses. “At least ten parties….” Since it is unlikely that a girl would come back to be gang-raped a second time, this implies at least ten victims. While it is true that a rape victim often will not come forward because of embarrassment, it is curious that not one of the violated multitude said anything, even though everyone at the party would have seen the line-up. None of the other girls at the party said anything either, even though this was a frequent occurrence. Is it not odd that the author of this story, seeing long lines of boys engaging in rape, at party after party after party, saw no particular reason for reporting it? That the many other girls witnessing this also said nothing? This is a song sounding mightily of fabrication. Which must be obvious to senators who, though morally challenged, are not stupid.

With this many victims, perpetrators, and witnesses, it is impossible that the FBI will not find proof. If Kavanaugh, and other boys, did it, they belong in jail. Bill Cosby went to the slam for proven rape committed many years ago So can Kavanaugh. But if they did not, perjury charges against the accusers would be salutary, or at the very least civil actions for libel. Given the immense hardship and often irremediable consequence of being falsely accused, the penalty for false charges should also be harsh.

False accusations of rape are not uncommon. A few gain national attention. Most do not. A few: Tawana Brawley, a black woman, was gang-raped by four white (of course) men, except that she wasn’t. Next there is the Duke Lacrosse case, Then at Rolling Stone a feminist writer and a magazine not greatly given to fact checking published the story of rape at the University of Virginia, also discredited. It cost them a libel settlement. And so on.

Again, if the accused men and boys had been guilty, long prison terms would have been a good idea. But they weren’t. The presumption of guilt for men and innocence for women are convenient for those who want to prevent confirmation of a judge but do not reflect reality. People, assuredly to include women, use what power they have to get what they want.

The editor of a major paper once told me that he never allowed a woman into his office unless the door was open and a third person present. Why? If a disgruntled reporter says, “He groped me,” it will go viral. (Joyful headline headline in competing paper: “Editor of Daily Blatt allegedly….”) Months of furor will ensue. He will have large legal bills. The suspicion arising from that “allegedly” will never die. The paper’s board may well decide that regardless of guilt he is having too serious an affect on the advertisers. He will be permitted to resign, never to get a similar job. The Daily Blatt will settle as quietly as possible for a quarter million.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Feminism, Political Correctness 
Fred Reed
About Fred Reed

Fred, a keyboard mercenary with a disorganized past, has worked on staff for Army Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune, Federal Computer Week, and The Washington Times.

He has been published in Playboy, Soldier of Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Harper's, National Review, Signal, Air&Space, and suchlike. He has worked as a police writer, technology editor, military specialist, and authority on mercenary soldiers.


Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave