The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
 iSteve Blog

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine about a huge new database of school achievement test scores that answers the old question: Is there any single place in America where blacks (0r Hispanics) outscore whites on cognitive tests?

Crevasses in the Classroom
by Steve Sailer
May 04, 2016

Where are racial gaps in school test scores worst? Ironically, where liberals are most dominant.

The new national database of school-district test scores created by education researchers at Stanford and Harvard reveals that the single widest white-black racial gap in American public school districts is in the city most synonymous with leftism since 1964: Berkeley, California.

How badly do blacks lag whites in Berkeley public schools? Berkeley’s white-black gap is 1.60 standard deviations. In other words, the median black student would score at only the 5th percentile if he were white.

Yet, Berkeley is ferociously antiracist. It was the first to have a Black Studies Department at the high school level. In the 2012 election, Berkeley voted for Obama over Romney 90 to 5. Berkeley Unified school-district administrators obsess over any data showing that black students get punished more than other races.

Still, the racial gap is bigger in Berkeley than anywhere else. …

The worst white-black gaps tend to be found in old-money liberal towns like Berkeley, Chapel Hill, Shaker Heights, Asheville, and Evanston (the five worst examples of racial inequality in America according to the new Stanford test score database) that can afford a lot of liberal white guilt, which attracts black welfare moms.

Read the whole thing there.

The examples where NAMs score above or just below whites are pretty funny.

I also point out the school district where blacks and Hispanics score highest in all of America, which is pretty ironic.

I love writing these kind of articles where I take an academic’s database, re-sort it, and point out what’s really going on.

 

An anonymous commenter responds to an insult of “Trumpkins:”

So after months of misspelled rantings by gullible Trumpkins

Can I ask you a serious question? It’s something I’ve wanted to know for awhile.

Why do you all say “Trumpkin”? Why is it supposed to be insulting? Is it like “pumpkin”? Do you think we feel bad because you compared us to pumpkins?

I like pumpkins. They remind me of Halloween.

Is “Trumpkins” supposed to be an insult of Trump supporters?

I didn’t actually know that. I’d seen it used a lot on Twitter by people who were obviously worked up over something, but I couldn’t tell from the word “Trumpkins” which side they were on. (140 characters has certain limitations, like — unless you are as hardworking and witty as @DemsRRealRacist — it’s hard to tell what you mean.)

“Trumpkin” doesn’t sound bad. Indeed, most neologism that include “Trump” don’t sound bad. “Trump” is a really good name.

Whichever patrilineal ancestor of Trump changed the family name from Drumpf to Trump was obviously a marketing genius.

Is there a Branding Gene on the Y-chromosome?

My vague impression is that the Trump and Sanders campaigns are causing America to undergo a popular culture efflorescence, comparable to William Henry Harrison’s wonderful “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” campaigns of of 1836 and 1840.

When my son was taking American history in high school, I reread Admiral Professor Samuel Eliot Morison’s Oxford History of the American People.

The second volume was fairly dull until the democratic age arrives with Andrew Jackson, after which it’s consistently comic.

For example, here’s a bit on the 1836 campaign by Vice President Richard Johnson, whose supporters chanted in answer to William Henry Harrison’s claim to be the Hero of Tippecanoe, where he defeated the Indian chief Tecumseh:

Colonel Johnson killing Tecumseh

Rumpsey dumpsey, rumpsey dumpsey
Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh!

But this slogan, never surpassed for electioneering imbecility, failed to give him a majority in the Electoral College.

Yet the Senate then elected Johnson as Van Buren’s vice-president anyway.

Vice President Richard Johnson is most famous for:

(10) Always wearing a red vest,

(9) Proposing an expedition to the Great American Desert to find a chasm leading into the Hollow Earth in order to conquer the inside of the Earth and all its lands and peoples,

(8) His octoroon slave/mistress and illegitimate children upon whom he publicly doted, and for

(7) Disappearing from Washington for almost a year during his vice presidency to manage a tavern in Kentucky.

Johnson sounds like a David Letterman Top Ten list come to life.

And that reminds me: it’s Day 6 of my April iSteve fundraiser. Yeah, okay, it’s May now, but Trump has won the GOP Presidential nomination, fair and square, so snotty technical rules about asking for money for the April fundraiser only during April are temporarily suspended. It’s an extended May Day.

Nothing more encourages me to keep up the good fight than your support, intellectual, moral, and financial. I greatly appreciate it.

Here are seven ways to contribute:

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Fourth: You can use Bitcoin:

I’m using Coinbase as a sort of PayPal for Bitcoins.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Seventh: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address(that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: “You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps.” You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don’t need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone
app (Android and iPhone — the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google’s free Gmail email service. Here’s how to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Thanks!

 

She who laughs last, laughs best.

 

Screenshot 2016-05-03 20.42.48

From the Daily Caller:

The Man Behind The Hilarious Conservative Pundit Parody Account Speaks Out

Interviewed by Scott Greer

You can follow Conservative Pundit at https://twitter.com/DemsRRealRacist

Screenshot 2016-05-03 20.48.40

 

The AP has called the Indiana Democratic primary for Bernie Sanders.

Will he hang in there or give up? The next few weeks look pretty good for him to win a few before mighty California in five weeks. Can Hillary start to pivot back to the center if Bernie is still in the race? Does Bernie have a strong enough hand to demand the VP nomination in return for endorsing Hillary now?

I’m not exactly sure of the mechanisms, but I think Bernie’s candidacy has been good for Trump.

 

With Ted Cruz apparently dropping out, I have to say that I think Cruz ran a relatively strong campaign from a technical standpoint. He’s not a natural leader of men, so for him to come in second out of almost a dozen and a half candidates shows a cunning and resourceful mind. Nixon would have been impressed. Cruz outlasted Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio plus a whole bunch of people whom I’ve forgotten already.

Cruz early on in the campaign figured out that Donald Trump and the immigration issue were for real, so he did what he could to avoid running headlong into those intertwined juggernauts. Unfortunately for Cruz, Trump figured out fairly early that Cruz was his most formidable opponent and turned his fire on him.

 

That looks pretty likely. Labourite Sadiq Khan is well ahead of Tory Zac Goldsmith in the polls.

The current mayor, Tory Boris Johnson, wants to be prime minister someday. If Sadiq Khan wins Boris’s office, that would start to raise the question of whether Britain might have a Muslim prime minister someday.

There are two nuclear armed Western European powers: the UK and France. Both have growing numbers of Muslim voters. Houellebecq’s Submission sketches out one path by which a Muslim politician might luck into getting his finger on a nuclear button in Europe.

American Jews really ought to start thinking about whether immigration schmaltz and refugee worship might someday in the distant future put Israel at odds with a Muslim-led Western European nuclear power?

But that doesn’t seem to have yet dawned upon organized Jewish interests in America. For example, the Anti-Defamation League is currently pushing its We Were Strangers Too campaign to browbeat the West into taking in more Muslim refugees.

But is it good for the Jews?

 

From Vanity Fair:

BRO CODE MAY 3, 2016 4:23 PM
Ellen Pao’s Next Venture Takes Aim at Silicon Valley’s Old Boys’ Club

Project Include will hold tech companies accountable for their commitments to diversity.

BY MAYA KOSOFF

Last year, Ellen Pao took her former employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, to court and sued the venture-capital firm for allegations of gender-based discrimination. Though she ultimately lost, Pao’s case prompted discussions about diversity in tech and Silicon Valley. Months later, Pao stepped down from her job as the interim C.E.O. of Reddit after factions of the online community revolted against her leadership. “Ultimately, the board asked me to demonstrate higher user growth in the next six months than I believe I can deliver while maintaining Reddit’s core principles,” Pao said at the time.

Nearly a year later, Pao is back in the spotlight, and she’s embarking on a new venture: Project Include, a nonprofit that will track the diversity numbers of different tech companies and report on the data over time, with the goal of making companies hold up their diversity commitments, according to The New York Times. Venture-capital firms will also be asked to participate, by checking in on their portfolio companies. “The standard mantra for every company on diversity statistics is, ‘We’re not doing well, but we’re working on it,’” Pao told the Times. “People don’t learn anything from that. Can you tell us what are you actually doing?”

… In recent years, more individuals have spoken out about the paucity of female and non-white workers in the tech industry.

South and East Asians are considered white for the purposes of diversity statistics (except Ellen Pao, of course), but they’re told they’re People of Color for the purposes of hating Republicans and evil white men.

Still, every so often something happens that serves as a reminder of how much work is yet to be done. Sequoia Capital’s Michael Moritz came under fire last year when he said that his firm was “not prepared . . . to lower its standards” when it came to hiring diverse candidates.

Still no pictures of Pao and her gay black diversity litigant scam artist husband Buddy Fletcher.

 

From Marginal Revolution:

European countries that refuse to share the burden of high immigration will face a financial charge of about €250,000 per refugee, according to Brussels’ plans to overhaul the bloc’s asylum rules. [From the Financial Times:]

The punitive financial pay-off clause is one of the most contentious parts of the European Commission’s proposed revision of the so-called Dublin asylum regulation, due to be revealed on Wednesday …

According to four people familiar with the proposal, this contribution was set at €250,000 per asylum seeker in Monday’s commission draft.

 

The Indiana primary is today. It’s a winner-take-most format. Here’s the NYT Upshot model as of 16% of the vote counted:

Screenshot 2016-05-03 16.31.10

Bernie is holding on to a narrow lead over Hillary.

Turnout on the GOP side is almost double turnout on the Dem side.

 

From the AP/Washington Post:

Clinton’s top priorities: Gun control and immigration reform. Could she deliver on either?
Anne Gearan and Paul Kane Article Last Updated: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:35am
Associated Press,

(c) 2016, The Washington Post.

With Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s campaign turning fully toward the general election, the candidate is speaking in increasingly strong terms about immediately tackling one of her party’s most challenging domestic policy goals: gun control.

Clinton says just as forcefully that immigration reform will be her top priority upon entering the White House.

Without a dramatic Democratic sweep of Congress, few Democrats or Republicans believe either of these giant promises has a chance in January. That puts Clinton in the somewhat tricky position of making promises that many doubt she could meet.

But the Clinton campaign believes that public opinion has shifted on these two nationally divisive issues, making them winners for her to talk about in the general election. There is even hope among some Democrats that if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee they could win enough seats in the House and Senate to put gun and immigration reform back on the table.

Privately, Clinton aides and allies are more circumspect, quietly prioritizing what is actually possible at the outset of a Clinton presidency – and which promises she would put on hold.

The campaign says there is no trade-off between immigration and gun control, and that she has not overpromised on either. There is plenty of time to decide what comes when, campaign chairman John Podesta said.

“That’s what the transition is for,” Podesta said, referring to the period between the election and the inauguration.

Clinton is campaigning as the candidate of continuity – preserving what Democrats generally see as President Obama’s gains and making changes on his domestic agenda only at the margins. She is also promising to fix and finish what he has left undone, and suggesting to different audiences that she could do so immediately.

Immigration reform, though anathema in the Republican presidential race, is still a better legislative bet than gun control, both Republicans and Democrats said. …

As a result, Clinton and her allies in and out of Congress are gradually building a legislative agenda that would focus on immigration issues in Congress while mostly relying on the executive power of the presidency to further gun restrictions that would have little chance of becoming law. …

She has been more specific about an overhaul of the immigration system at the outset of a Clinton presidency, promising to advance comprehensive reform that offers a path to full citizenship for illegal immigrants within her first 100 days.

“If Congress won’t act, I’ll defend President Obama’s executive actions and I’ll go even further to keep families together,” Clinton promised in January. “I’ll end family detention, close private immigrant detention centers and help more eligible people become naturalized.”

Clinton also has been mildly critical of Obama’s deportation program, promising to stop deportations of almost everyone, aside from violent criminals or terrorists. ….

Immigration and gun control are the issues she points to most frequently, and often with emotional stories and examples. …

Gun control and immigration met with interlocking fates early in Obama’s second term, when he and Vice President Joe Biden made a pitch for legislation strengthening background checks on gun purchases – and when the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators began work on a sweeping rewrite of immigration and border-security laws. …

Democrats ditched the gun legislation and pivoted to immigration reform. Two months later, the Senate approved the immigration overhaul on a bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. The legislation included a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants. It never went anywhere in the House. …

Clinton’s allies agree that immigration is more ripe for change, particularly if Republicans lose seats. But opposition remains fierce among the House’s more-conservative Republicans. Hopes for approving some version of that legislation in the House cratered two years ago when the sitting majority leader, Eric Cantor, R-Va., lost his primary contest to an underfunded, little-known professor whose main issue was Cantor’s support of legalizing undocumented children who were brought into the country illegally by their parents or relatives.

Ever since then, conservatives have vowed to thwart any effort by Clinton to move a sweeping immigration bill through a Republican-controlled House next year.

“The American people would have an absolute cow,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., who defeated Cantor, openly laughing at the idea, because in most Republican districts immigration is a “70 to 80 percent issue” toward opposing any leniency. “I mean, it’s not even in the ballpark.”

 

Screenshot 2016-05-01 19.17.37

From the Washington Post:

‘This can’t happen by accident.’

For generations, African Americans have faced unique barriers to owning a home — and enjoying the wealth it brings. In Atlanta, where predominantly black neighborhoods are still waiting for the recovery, the link between race and real estate fortune is stark.

By Emily Badger Wonkblog May 2, 2016

SOUTH DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — When the new subdivisions were rising everywhere here in the 1990s and early 2000s, with hundreds and hundreds of fine homes on one-acre lots carved out of the Georgia forest, the price divide between this part of De­Kalb County and the northern part wasn’t so vast.

Now, a house that looks otherwise identical in South DeKalb, on the edge of Atlanta, might sell for half what it would in North DeKalb. The difference has widened over the years of the housing boom, bust and recovery, and Wayne Early can’t explain it.

The people here make good money, he says. They have good jobs. Their homes are built of the same sturdy brick. Early, an economic development consultant and real estate agent, can identify only one obvious difference that makes property here worth so much less.

“This can’t happen by accident,” he says. “It’s too tightly correlated with race for it to be based on something else.”

The communities in South DeKalb are almost entirely African American, and they reflect a housing disparity that emerges across the Atlanta metropolitan area and the nation. According to a new Washington Post analysis, the higher a Zip code’s share of black residents in the Atlanta region, the worse its housing values have fared over the past turbulent housing cycle.

It’s sad, but true: blacks tend to be bad for property values. One reason even in well-kept up, low crime middle class black neighborhoods is because people aren’t just buying a house, they are buying schoolmates for their children. There’s also a bigger danger that a middle class black neighborhood will slip into an underclass neighborhood than in a comparable white neighborhood, since middle class blacks are more likely to have nephews and so forth come live with them, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air style. A foreclosure issue is that blacks have fewer affluent relatives to borrow from to help them get over life’s bumps.

Part of the bursting of the Housing Bubble in 2007-2008 was the unexpected rediscovery that old stereotypes about black and Hispanic neighborhoods being poor investments tend to be true.

 

One of the curious aspects of New York Times articles is that they are often organized in the reverse order of how the same material would be reported in, say, the Daily Mail. NYT articles tend to start off boring and depressing, with only vague hints of why the reporter is interested in the subject, and don’t get to the good stuff until late in the article, by which point, no doubt, most readers have given up. For example:

In Congo, Wars Are Small and Chaos Is Endless
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN APRIL 30, 2016

That’s not a very appealing headline, unless you somehow pick up the scent that the word “small” is key to what this article is eventually going to be about. But first we get hundreds of words of intentionally tedious NPR-style scene setting.

NYUNZU, Democratic Republic of Congo — Deep in the forest, miles from any major city, lies an abandoned cotton factory full of the dispossessed.

There is no police force guarding it. No electricity or running water inside. No sense of urgency or deep concern by the national authorities to do much about it.

Instead, as the days pass, hundreds of displaced people make cooking fires or sit quietly on the concrete factory floor. Dressed in rags, they stare into space, next to huge rusted iron machinery that has not turned for decades. They are members of the Bambote, a marginalized group of forest dwellers who are victims of one of the obscure little wars that this country seems to have a talent for producing.

Little wars …

“It’s like we don’t exist,” said Kalunga Etienne, a Bambote elder.

Bambote? I never heard of them. But “marginalized group of forest dwellers” sounds like NYT code for something.

I looked up Bambote and it turns out it’s an uncommon spelling of Bambuti.

This is what the Democratic Republic of Congo, the biggest country in sub-Saharan Africa and one that has stymied just about all efforts to right it, has become: a tangle of miniwars.

Small, little, mini … seems to be a pattern. But of what?

More than 60 armed groups are operating in North Kivu and South Kivu Provinces, including a growing Islamist insurgency, whose fighters have hacked hundreds of people to death. Beyond that, there are remnants in the Uele area of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group that specializes in abducting children and turning them into killers; predatory rebels in Ituri; Bakata separatists in Katanga; armed factions in Maniema; fighters in the Nyunzu area; and youth militias in the capital, Kinshasa.

I’m sorry, my eyes glazed over. People in the Congo hacking each other up has been going on since the 1990s at least.

By the way, Bambuti is an uncommon spelling of Mbuti.

Few nations in Africa, if not the world, are home to as many armed groups. Even after billions of dollars in aid, one of the largest peacekeeping missions in United Nations history and substantial international attention over two decades, Congo’s government is incapable of providing the most elemental service: security.

Fragmentation. Factionalization. Decay. Ungoverned space. Ungovernable space. These are the terms used by aid workers and academics to describe Congo today. And it is likely to get worse.

And then come 7 paragraphs I’ll leave out about all the fighting caused by the upcoming election. There’s always an election coming up in the Congo and that’s always cause for violence. But then we get to:

Nyunzu, a territory in the southeast, a bone-crushing day’s drive from Lake Tanganyika, used to be safe. Many of the people who live here are members of the Bambote, one of several forest-dwelling hunter-gatherer groups in Congo widely known as pygmies for their short stature.

Pygmies!

Why didn’t Gettleman tell us upfront that this article is about pygmies?

Well, one reason is no doubt because a lot of NYT readers aren’t sure whether or not they’re supposed to get offended when they read the word “pygmy.” I mean Donald Trump referring to “the blacks” is supposed to be an outrageous linguistic anachronism proving his despicable racism, so it would seem like “pygmy” ought to be a hanging offense. Except it is the only word that exists for pygmies as a whole, as poor Gettleman explains:

The term pygmy is often used in Congo and in other parts of Africa, although the forest dwellers tend to refer to themselves by the names of their groups.

“This is our first war,” Lumbu Baruani, a Bambote elder, said with a sad shake of his head. If it were up to him, he said, he would be in the forest, hunting antelope or catching grasshoppers for a snack.

Pygmies hunt the tiny dik-dik antelope with nets.

According to several analysts, it says a lot about Congo’s state of affairs when a local war draws in members of a traditional hunter-gatherer group.

“Their existence is so dependent on cooperation,” said Barry S. Hewlett, an anthropologist who has spent decades researching hunter-gatherer communities in Central Africa. “Sharing and giving is essential to their way of life. If there is a conflict even in the camp, one of the individuals just moves.”

The war started, the Bambote say, in 2014. What set it off was an extramarital affair.

The elders in Nyunzu said a man from another ethnic group, the Luba, had impregnated a Bambote woman.

Lubas are Bantus — i.e., normal full-sized blacks. Everybody is supposed to go around talking about how sub-Saharan Africans have the most genetic diversity on earth, but nobody is sure if it’s respectable to talk about physical diversity among Africans. I first noticed this decades ago in articles about the Dinkas and Nuers of what is now South Sudan. Reporters were weirdly leery of mentioning that the Dinkas and Nuers are really tall.

Similarly, the three photos of the Bambotes in the NYT article are chosen to provide no sense of scale of how short they are. Evidently that would be in poor taste.

Isn’t it obviously self-defeating to downplay the main thing about this story that would elicit attention and sympathy to the plight of the Mbuti — that they are pygmies?

This caused a scandal, not least because the woman was married, and inflamed tensions between the groups.

Where have I heard that story before? Oh, yeah, the Trojan War. It’s a good story.

For generations, some men from the Luba group have chosen brides from communities such as the Bambote.

“Chosen brides” might not be the frankest term. Kind of like the Romans chose brides among the Sabine women.

Many elders complained that Luba men had not shown enough respect to the women’s parents.

Scientists believe that the few remaining hunter-gatherers living in Central Africa’s vast rain forest were its original inhabitants. Their adherence to tradition has kept them far behind other groups in education and wealth. At the same time, they have maintained an unusual degree of harmony among themselves and with their environment.

When the Bambote elders confronted the Luba adulterer, he did not apologize. Instead, the elders said, he killed the woman’s husband, setting off a wave of killings between the two communities.

Deeper problems were clearly driving the feud. Analysts point to long-simmering conflicts between the Bambote and the Luba over issues like land rights and labor practices.

“Labor practices” probably isn’t the frankest term.

The local authorities in Nyunzu said it had been customary for the forest dwellers to work for the Luba as field hands for as little as 50 cents a day. Sometimes, they were even paid in salt or cassava scraps.

“Historically, they have been exploited,” said Pierre Mukamba Kaseya, the head of Nyunzu’s local administration. “All of a sudden, it was as if they woke up and saw the light.”

For the first time anyone could remember, the Bambote banded together in militias and began attacking Luba villages with torches and poisoned arrows.

Awesome.

I was hoping that “poisoned arrows” meant blowguns and poisoned darts, but blowguns appear to be restricted to Southeast Asia and the New World. (By the way, it’s illegal to own a blowgun in Washington DC.)

The Mbuti shoot their poisoned arrows with bows, not blowpipes. But they also have fairly elaborate crossbows, which is cool. (On the other hand, some sources claim African pygmies hunt with blowguns, so I don’t know. I haven’t found any convincing phots yet.)

What would the Daily Mail’s headline look like? Something like:

Pygmies Firing Poisoned Arrows Rebel against Exploiting Slaver Rapists

Then there’d be about four sub-headlines about adultery and murder.

The Luba fought back.

A wave of anger and violence rippled across the green hills. This area is spectacularly beautiful, the Congo often imagined by outsiders — sharp hills, surging rivers, towering forests and lush paths that snake off the road into other worlds.

But soon it was a gruesome killing field.

Some victims’ genitals were cut off. Other victims were skinned. According to a Human Rights Watch report, one survivor heard members of a Luba militia cry out, “We will exterminate you all this year.”

Threatened pygmy genocide is kind of bad.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of homes were burned. So were many schools. People fled in all directions.

Few, if any, guns were used — axes and arrows were the weapons on hand …

Poisoned arrows, let’s not forget.

Poor Gettleman goes all the way to the Katanga province of the Congo to get this great story about a pygmy rebellion and he has to write it upside down and bury all the good parts at the end.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Africa, Pygmies

Screenshot 2016-05-01 03.20.59Day 5 of my April iSteve fundraiser.

Nothing more encourages me to keep up the good fight than your support, intellectual, moral, and financial. I greatly appreciate it.

Here are seven ways to contribute:

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Fourth: You can use Bitcoin:

I’m using Coinbase as a sort of PayPal for Bitcoins.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Seventh: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address(that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: “You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps.” You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don’t need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone
app (Android and iPhone — the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google’s free Gmail email service. Here’s how to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Thanks!

 
Screenshot 2016-05-01 00.38.50

If you are in D.C. on New Year’s Eve, don’t go east of Rock Creek without a steel helmet

From the Brookings Institute:

Gun violence in major U.S. cities is massively underreported

Jennifer L. Doleac | April 27, 2016 9:00am

… In a new working paper, Jillian Carr and I use data from a technology called ShotSpotter to present new evidence on the underreporting of gun violence. ShotSpotter uses audio sensors to detect and triangulate the location of gunfire incidents. Because it doesn’t depend on victims, witnesses, or police to report shots fired, it provides a more complete and accurate picture of gun violence in communities across the country than do other crime data sources.

We combine ShotSpotter data from Washington, D.C., and Oakland, CA, with the next-best data available on gun violence from those cities: reported crime data and 911 calls. Using individual gunfire incidents as initial events, we estimate the likelihood that each incident results in a 911 call or crime report.

Few gunfire incidents in Washington D.C. and Oakland result in a 911 call

It turns out that the reporting of gunfire incidents is extremely low. Based on data from January 2011 through June 2013 in D.C., only 22 percent of gunfire results in a 911 call, which could include calls for an ambulance.

The map of Washington D.C. above shows all the gunshots recorded by ShotSpotter on 12/31/2012. The red and orange dots indicate gunshots that weren’t called into 9/11.

Obviously, New Year’s Eve knuckleheadedness (firing guns into the air as well as heavy drinking) contributes to this particular map.

It would be interesting to know for year-round what fraction of unreported gunshots are due to:

1. ShotSpotter error (firecrackers, car backfires, random errors)

2. Unintentional discharge of weapon (dropping a loaded gun, kids playing with gun, etc.)

3. Celebratory firing into the air

4. Target practice, shooting television Elvis-style, etc.

5. Attempted murder that the intended victim doesn’t want to report for affection for shooter (e.g., wife tries to shoot husband she catches in flagrante)

6. Attempted murder that the intended victim doesn’t want to report for fear of the shooter

7. Attempted murder that the intended victim doesn’t want to report for fear of arrest for whatever it is that inspired the shooter

8. Shootings intended to intimidate (e.g., a drive-by shooting where an enemy’s windows are shot out with little attempt to hit anybody inside).

The last three overlapping categories might be particularly abundant. L.A. Times homicide reporter Jill Leovy’s book Ghettoside reported:

… there were few mysteries among Southeast cases. The homicides were essentially public events—showy demonstrations of power meant to control and intimidate people. They took place on public streets, in daylight, often in front of lots of people. Killers often bragged.

 

Thilo Sarrazin, author of the 2010 megaselling book Germany Abolishes Itself, has a new #1 bestseller in Germany, Wishful Thinking. Like all of Sarrazin’s books, it probably will never be translated into English. This article from DW.com suggests that Establishment response to Sarrazin has shifted from “too unthinkable” to “too obvious to think about.”

Thilo Sarrazin’s new book: a case of wishful thinking

The enfant terrible of non-fiction German literature is back. Thilo Sarrazin’s latest book examines the “big mistakes” in current German and EU politics – but his provocative statements no longer surprise anyone.

The most recent tome written by divisive German author Thilo Sarrazin has hit the shelves this week, and critics have been quick to dismiss it. The book, titled “Wunschdenken” (Wishful Thinking), builds on the controversy surrounding his 2010 explosive work, “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany does away with itself).

German newspaper “Bild” had a heyday over the publication, declaring “Sarrazin is at it again.” Others in the German press were more critical: The political magazine “Spiegel” accused the economist and former politician of being egocentric and spreading “cold aggression with a scientific veneer.” The daily “Süddeutsche Zeitung” degraded his work to a mix of “cute, terrible and good.”

Sarrazin is apparently settling a number of accounts in his new book: The 71-year-old author seems to have created a 400-page-long list of reasons why Germany’s government is failing to address key issues. Sarrazin alleges that “Germany’s future is highly contingent upon hot topics like immigration, demographic changes and education – but not equality, gender politics or any debate on climate change.”

His conclusion: Germany has started to waste away its affluence and level of education as well as its cultural heritage. And who is to blame? Sarrazin accuses unequivocally Chancellor Angela Merkel as the main perpetrator behind all the ailments he observes.

Sarrazin believes that Merkel’s approach to the refugee crisis was a fundamentally wrong move. He goes as far as referring to Merkel’s “crude refugee and immigration policy” as the “biggest mistake in German politics since the end of World War II.” Sarrazin also accuses Merkel of putting the nation as well as the European Union under increased risk.

He seems to take particular issue with the increasing number of Muslim migrants arriving in Germany. Sarrazin looks at these developments as an experiment that is bound to fail. He postulates that the majority of asylum seekers arrived from the Middle East and Africa with a low standard of education.

“Their cultural and cognitive profiles are similar to those of the Muslims who already are in Europe. Therefore, it is to be expected that their development in terms of education, integration into the work force, dependency on government assistance, criminality and susceptibility to fundamentalism will follow similar patterns as those who are already here,” he writes.

Sarrazin’s outlook is a gloomy one, accompanied by dystopian statistics: If one million refugees continued to come to Germany each year (as they did in 2015), their numbers would skyrocket to 134 million people by 2050 – his figures include family reunions and offspring.

The author admits that this is an unlikely scenario, but insists that such numbers exemplify how easy it would be to apparently lose control over Germany’s immigration issues. “Gaining back full control over our borders (…) will become an existential issue for our culture and the survival of our society,” he writes.

When Sarrazin first published his theories in 2010, his party, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), investigated whether he should be expelled because of his views, but it was decided that he could remain a member of the center-left party. Although he does not discuss the case directly in his latest book, he does express animosity towards established political values.

“If, as a German politician, you believe that everyone in the world should have the same rights according to Germany’s Basic Law and should be allowed to expect the same services from the welfare state as soon as they cross the German border, your immigration and refugee policies will be different than those of a politician, who truly chooses to work for the best interest of the German population.” Sarrazin fails, however, to specify who may or may not be included in his interpretation of the term “German population.”

… Six years ago, Thilo Sarrazin inflamed the country with his first publication on his views on immigration, “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany does away with itself), where he specifically targeted migrants from Muslim countries. Two other books followed in 2012 and 2014. The once so media-savvy Thilo Sarrazin is now beyond his peak: His views on immigration policies are so well known that this book will fail to attract as much attention.

Sarrazin should have given his new book the title suggested by Kingsley Amis to Robert Conquest for a second edition of Conquest’s history of Communism.

 
• Tags: Merkel's Boner

A few days ago, Ross Douthat blogged about “Why Is Reaction Taboo?

My reaction was that you can just redefine a reactionary like Alexander Hamilton as an Honorary Nonwhite and make him cool.

Now Ross is back with:

Give Us a King!
Ross Douthat APRIL 30, 2016

EVERY era gets the heroic founding father it deserves, and thanks to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s celebrated musical, ours has Alexander Hamilton — the immigrant striver, the political genius, and of course, the closet monarchist.

Now “monarchist” is a little unfair. Hamilton floated the idea of a presidency-for-life during the fraught debates over the Constitution, and favored a powerful executive throughout his tumultuous career. But he was probably only a true royalist in the propaganda of his enemies.

Nonetheless, the Hamiltonian influence on our constitutional order — his vision of a highly centralized government with an energetic executive in the saddle — has contributed mightily to the rise of our imperial presidency, the gradual return of what the historian F. H. Buckley calls “crown government” in the land of the free.

And that legacy is at work in the current political moment. Executive-branch Caesarism has been raised to new heights by the last two presidents, and important parts of the country have responded by upping the ante, and — like ancient Israelites in the Book of Samuel — basically clamoring for a king.

That clamor is loudest from the Trumpistas and their dear leader. Donald Trump is clearly running to be an American caudillo, not the president of a constitutional republic, and his entire campaign is a cult of personality in the style of (the pro-Trump) Vladimir Putin.

But the response to Trump is equally telling. The alleged wise men of the center keep imagining that the problem with Trumpism is just its vulgarity and race-baiting, and that a benevolent technocrat could step in and lead the country out of gridlock and polarization, into the broad, sunlit uplands of reform.

Michael Bloomberg sensibly recused himself from this role. But the dream lives on, most recently in the former Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei’s Wall Street Journal op-ed urging the formation of an “Innovation Party,” to be led by our Facebook-Google overlords and our best military minds.

VandeHei’s piece was deservedly mocked on political Twitter, but his impatience with the two-party system as we know it is shared across the country’s upper class, from Silicon Valley to the (ahem, Hamiltonian) world of finance.

Meanwhile, his enthusiasm for military expertise is shared by a portion (the richer portion, in particular) of the #neverTrump movement, which in casting about for a political savior fastened on the retired Marine Corps general James Mattis. Sure, Mattis has neither political experience nor stated positions on any issues, but if you’re going to have a caudillo, why not one with an actual uniform? (Sensibly Mattis recused himself as well.)

Tellingly, none of these Trump-era enthusiasms involve a reinvigoration of congressional prerogatives or a renewed push for federalism and states’ rights.

Quite the reverse: They all imagine that the solution to our problems lies with a more effective and still-more-empowered president, free from antique constitutional limits and graced with a mandate that transcends partisanship.

And equally tellingly, they are enthusiasms of the center-left and center-right rather than the ideological extremes. This is obviously true of the people pining for a Bloomberg era, a Silicon Valley-led administration, or a Mattis man-on-horseback presidency. But it’s true of Trump’s constituency as well: While the G.O.P.’s staunch ideologues are mostly voting for Ted Cruz, Trump is winning with Northeastern moderates and blue-collar populists, with voters who may be xenophobic but on many issues are closer to the political middle than to the poles.

It’s not that our ideologues are averse to an imperial presidency when their side is in charge. (The theory of Bernie Sanders’ campaign assumed a rather … remarkable level of presidential influence.) But the cult of the presidency is clearly strongest in the American center.

Many countries find the American system of combining Head of Government and Head of State in one individual to be imprudent. They typically have a Head of State who is either a hereditary constitutional monarch or an elected or appointed Head of State who is supposed to embody the continuity and majesty of the republic without getting too involved in policy and politics.

Back in the 1990s, I proposed that America have a Head of State distinct from the Head of Government, who would embody the ceremonial majesty of the country.

I think a ten year appointive term with an unwritten tradition that it would be filled by senior black celebrities would be satisfying to the public: such as in 1996 James Earl Jones, in 2006 Oprah, and in 2016 Samuel L. Jackson or Denzel Washington, with, say, Will Smith or David Robinson on deck for 2026; for 2036 LeBron James, Russell Wilson or Viola Davis?

This might be a good solution to the problem that has been emerging for the Democratic Party of white candidates having to abase themselves in front of demented black protestors, which is related to the problem the Academy Awards have been having: the black feeling of megalomaniacal entitlement that once you go black you can never go back.

But of course there’s not such a surplus of black competence that these strongly felt emotions can safely be accommodated.

However, there is no shortage of blacks with kingly or queenly affects.

So, create important ceremonial positions only open, by tradition, to black celebrities.

 

From the NYT:

Racism Is Real. Trump Helps Show It.
By JENÉE DESMOND-HARRIS APRIL 29, 2016

Jenée Desmond-Harris is a John S. Knight journalism fellow at Stanford University.

I have a confession: When Donald J. Trump swept five primaries on Tuesday, I was a little bit excited. And I don’t think I’m the only person who despises the role racism plays in American life who feels this way.

Let me explain.

For a certain group of voters, part of Mr. Trump’s appeal is obvious. They hear their own views echoed in his divisive and bigoted rhetoric. They’re the ones who nod in agreement that Mexican immigrants are rapists who are “bringing drugs” and that all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States.

What’s striking, however, is how little evidence the Trump haters can gather that Trump is in any way biased against African-Americans:

They’re people who think the linguistic anachronism “the blacks” sounds appropriate. They yearn for the return to a long-lost “great” version of America that it’s safe to guess existed before the implementation of the Civil Rights Act.

Okay! If that’s not Proof with a capital P I don’t know what it.

I’m not in this group. The prospect of a Trump presidency horrifies me. Like many others, I find the bigotry behind the Republican front-runner’s most controversial views infuriating and frightening.

But I also find it familiar. I’m a journalist who writes about race, so I spend a lot of time thinking about the way racism shapes American life, both in individual interactions and in the way institutions operate. What’s most frustrating is that, despite all the evidence, convincing people who would rather not believe that this is real can be hard.

Let’s see what this Stanford’s fellowette’s first example is:

Last March, I reported on the Department of Justice’s findings that the police and municipal courts in Ferguson, Mo., had consistently violated the constitutional rights of the city’s black residents.

Yup, the Ferguson Fiasco.

The article included a summary of the abuse of power investigators uncovered, as well as the content of public officials’ emails. (One example: a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, captioned “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”)

Simply for presenting the investigation’s findings and the cops’ and court officials’ revealing words, I received a barrage of angry messages asking why I had to “make everything about race.”

Because that’s what Stanford pays her to do.

I’ve heard the same sort of thing in response to news stories about police killings of unarmed African-Americans, black girls facing disproportionate school discipline, record numbers of anti-Muslim attacks. Stop being divisive. People who focus on these things are the real racists. Racism is in the past.

One thing has been made very clear to me: Many people resent being confronted with information about how racism still shapes — and sometimes, ruins — life in this country.

And other people, many of them Establishment journalists, aren’t very skilled or unbiased about evaluating information.

Tomás Jiménez, an associate professor of sociology and comparative studies in race and ethnicity at Stanford University, uses what he calls the “ghost metaphor” to describe the quandary of people who personally experience or aim to draw attention to racism. “It haunts every aspect of your life, but nobody else sees it and they don’t believe you” he said. “Sometimes it makes a very pronounced appearance, and that’s why people seize on it.”

I don’t really think this metaphor of believing in pervasive, omnipresent racism is like believing in pervasive, omnipresent ghosts is really optimal from the point of view of justifying your belief in racism, but, apparently, nobody at Stanford is willing to point that out to Ms. Desmond-Harris.

That, he told me, is why Mr. Trump is refreshing to people who share his views, as well as to people who have always known that views like this exist.

In a world where racism and discrimination — both personal and systemic — shape opportunities and can even determine life or death, but are often denied, they’re rarely owned so boldly as they have been during this campaign.

As Professor Jiménez put it, “Trump and his supporters have turned the racial dog whistle into an air horn.”

The air horn is so piercingly loud that few can pretend they don’t hear it, or understand what it represents about the country.

A lot of people seem to see Trump’s run as a referendum on truthfulness of The Narrative about race.

He’s a test case, the street urchin in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” If Trump can’t be silenced, who knows what he might say. And he might make it fashionable for Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights. Journalists must take a stand against that.

And yet, there’s little evidence that Trump is challenging The Narrative when it comes to race. He seems to have a more functional view that we ought to be able to discuss frankly the merits and demerits of permitting various foreigners into America, but he hasn’t wanted to get into the strengths and weaknesses of African-Americans, who are, after all, his fellow Americans.

But that is apparently too sophisticated a concept for the news media establishment to grasp.

Mr. Trump and his supporters have reignited that fear, even in people who claimed they couldn’t hear dog whistles. Even in people who swore they didn’t believe in ghosts.

Great concluding metaphor!

Here’s a counter metaphor: Trump as the Scooby-Doo show. As you’ll recall, the usual plot on this cartoon show is for the gang to investigate reports of a ghost, but it usually turns out to be some self-interested hoaxster instead.

Of course, there’s little evidence that Trump is interested in doing that.

 

Gary Venter: “A Quick Look at Cohort Effects in US Male Mortality”

Via Andrew Gelman, here’s a graph highlighting changes in male American mortality (all races) by year of birth. It shows a spectacular spike among later baby boomers in mortality.

I’ve been pointing out since November that the spike in increases in deaths by (especially) drug overdose, suicide, and alcoholism seem to be centered in whites who turned 18 in the late 1960s through the early 1980s: i.e., the long Sixties. I may be totally overlooking something, but it makes sense to me that your odds of dying of a heroin overdose in the 2000s are related to how many people you knew who were into drugs when you graduated from high school.

In contrast, the lucky duckies born in 1946 turned 18 in pre-Sixties 1964, which was a few years before the Drug Era really hit home across America.

Say you are a middle-aged man who has had a bad back for a long time. You got hooked pretty heavily on prescription painkillers so your doctor has finally cut you off. But now the pain is back. If you graduated from high school in 1964, you probably don’t have many friends your age who knew back then where to buy drugs. It would be kind of embarrassing to start randomly asking your old high school buddies about where to get heroin.

But if you graduated in 1975, you’d know a bunch of people from high school who, if they are still alive, know about drugs and might clue you in to where to get heroin.

 
• Tags: White Death

Commenter Cwhatfuture opines:

I like the name “hate fraud” better. A hoax is just a trick, a prank. But a fraud is a lie told in order to gain something. And in American law, you do not need privity to suffer damages from a fraud. Anyone can suffer damages, not just the intended victim. And the people perpetrating these lies are most assuredly trying to gain from them. And we all are victims. Is it too late to vote for “hate fraud” (which admittedly does not have the benefit of the two h initial letters).

 
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


Past
Classics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007