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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?)

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.

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.