The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGregory Hood Archive
An Insulting “Platinum Plan”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Eight-year-old Reagan Pete listens while President Donald Trump speaks at the Black Voices for Trump Coalition Rollout on Friday, Nov. 8, 2019, in Atlanta. (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)
Eight-year-old Reagan Pete listens while President Donald Trump speaks at the Black Voices for Trump Coalition Rollout on Friday, Nov. 8, 2019, in Atlanta. (Credit Image: © TNS via ZUMA Wire)

I understand that President Donald Trump must try to win black votes. “Outreach” doesn’t offend me. If he can win over just 10 percent of blacks, that may be enough to take Pennsylvania or Michigan. Nonetheless, “outreach” is pointless if it doesn’t also turn out white voters, especially the Rust Belt working class that broke the Midwestern “Blue Wall” in 2016. There’s no sign President Trump’s campaign is doing that. Instead, he’s got a race-specific “Platinum Plan” for blacks that would mean hundreds of billions in handouts. This is an insult to whites.

The Platinum Plan would:

  • Make “Juneteenth” a federal holiday
  • Make the Minority Business Development Agency permanent, increase the number of black-owned government contractors, and increase loans and technical assistance
  • Promote “second-chance hiring to get rehabilitated citizens with a criminal record back on the job,” thus building on the “First Step Act
  • “Eliminate long-standing healthcare disparities,” whatever their cause
  • “Continue to protect the vital role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities

There are many other provisions, for a total price tag is $500 billion. There are about 44,270,000 blacks. Why not just mail each black man, woman, and child a check for $11,295? Some of them would probably vote for him.

Another section of the plan says that the KKK would be designated a terrorist organization and lynching would become a federal hate crime. The KKK is impotent, and already infiltrated by federal agents; the FBI brags about this. The KKK is a boogeyman for the media. We don’t need a federal anti-lynching law. In case the President hasn’t noticed, murder is against the law in every state.

The Ku Klux Klan on parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, 1928.
The Ku Klux Klan on parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, 1928.

Designating any group a “domestic terrorist organization” because of its beliefs is ominous. It would not stop with the KKK. Such a legal weapon would probably be used against white advocates, Second Amendment groups, and possibly even Christian and pro-life groups. We’ve seen “mission creep” before. The National Organization of Women used the RICO Act, originally intended to fight the Mafia, to launch a civil suit against a pro-life group.

President Trump’s “Platinum Plan” would also designate antifa a terrorist group. It’s an odd addition and is perhaps intended to show (with some accuracy) that most antifa are white. President Trump’s campaign is probably trying to create a wedge between black protestors, who want police reform and white anarchists who want property destruction and revolution. However, there are three problems with the “antifa” terror designation.

  • First, President Trump said he would declare antifa a terrorist group in May; nothing happened.
  • Second, antifa is more of a “brand” or front group than a formal organization. Antifa groups clearly have hierarchies, funding sources, and organization, but there’s not one ruling Antifa™ group that can be held accountable. (I say this with authority.)
  • Finally, we don’t want the government creating “domestic terrorist groups” based on ideology. It will be used against us. Much as with illegal immigration, the government doesn’t need new laws. It needs to enforce the ones that exist. Anarchists should be arrested and charged if they assault people, destroy property, or commit other crimes. They shouldn’t be charged simply for being anarchists. The federal government is already persecuting people based on ideology rather than actions, and we don’t want another tool it can use against white advocates.
June 27, 2020, Boston, Massachusetts: A man holding an Antifa flag at Black Lives Matter rally in Boston. (Credit Image: © Keiko Hiromi / AFLO via ZUMA Press)
June 27, 2020, Boston, Massachusetts: A man holding an Antifa flag at Black Lives Matter rally in Boston. (Credit Image: © Keiko Hiromi / AFLO via ZUMA Press)

The Platinum Plan probably won’t make more blacks vote Republican. A recent poll suggests that black support for Joe Biden, already overwhelming, is intensifying.

The $500 billion price tag is ridiculous. Republicans in Congress are fighting a second coronavirus stimulus bill because they say they are worried about cost. The gap between the two sides is about $500 billion. It would make far more sense for President Trump to spend the $500 billion on another stimulus bill. Sending Americans, especially working-class whites, more stimulus checks is better politics. If President Trump and his team aren’t worried about spending this much money, adopting Mark Cuban’s plan for $1,000 biweekly payments for the duration of the pandemic would also be more effective.

However, ultimately, it’s not really about winning the black vote or economic populism. It’s about us. Where’s our cut?

Whites are neglected by “our” own government, including “our” political leaders. Most politicians don’t even discuss basic nationalist measures such as eliminating race preferences, making English the official language, and enforcing immigration laws. Instead, the American Right is asking whites to support this “Platinum Plan,” which looks like a stepping stone to reparations. Evidence suggests whites are net taxpayers, while blacks and Hispanics are a net drain. Our media, academic, and cultural elites keep telling us about “white privilege” even though people are faking their racial identity to become part of the “oppressed.”

Ensuring whites have a future may require vast change. We should demand the impossible, because romanticism and idealism inspire men to act. And while we are still in this system, we must advance demands as whites for whites. We can’t let any party take our vote for granted nor should we keep propping up a system that is hostile to us.

What would some of our demands look like? Call it the “Rhodium Plan” for whites.

  • All whites from South Africa, especially Afrikaner farmers, should get refugee status.
  • The federal government persecuted German-Americans and during World War II and especially World War I. Japanese-Americans got reparations; German-Americans should too.
  • There should be payments to residents of once-white cities who fled to the suburbs because of demographic change. White Americans living in suburbia lose uncounted hours driving to work in the city, have to pay transportation costs, and must rebuild the infrastructure left behind in cities such as Birmingham, Baltimore, and Richmond.
  • Because whites are net taxpayers, white families should get subsidies once they have had their third child. Hungary’s policies could be a model.
  • Historically White Colleges and Universities should get the same treatment as Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  • Most Anglosphere nations recognize December 26, “Boxing Day,” as a public holiday. The United States should too, not just because it would give Americans a day to recover from Christmas, but because it would recognize the WASP founding stock. The government should tell Americans to fly the “Grand Union” flag on this day in recognition of our British roots.
  • Establish a White Congressional Congress to analyze all legislation for its effect on whites.
  • Give white and other segregated neighborhoods the right to stay that way.
  • If we must have race preferences, whites should have quotas in public employment. Washington Metro employees are almost monolithically black. Whites are more than a third of the city’s population, so they should get a third of the jobs.
  • Racial quotas must apply to professional sports.
  • It should be illegal to fire any white person for his or her private pro-white advocacy.
  • Given the anti-white messag e in popular media, every crime committed by a black person against a white should be investigated for possible hate crimes charges.
  • There must be federal action to find out why so many whites are dying of “deaths of despair.”
  • All American businesses must do business in English. No one should be denied a job because he doesn’t speak Spanish unless there is a specialized requirement for a foreign language.
  • We need our own flag and anthem. Desecrating or insulting them would be a civil rights violation.

Whites and whites alone have no representation or protection, even though we built and sustain this country. If we must live under this system, we want the same rights as others. Would that break the system? Yes. Let it break, and let the various peoples go their separate ways. If the rules can’t be applied equally, we should have our own country.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 25 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Establish a White Congressional Congress

    I take it Hood mean caucus, not congress. I’d suggest the correction at Amren, but I’m apparently banned there (probably because I let loose with immoderate criticism at the editors/moderators for giving obvious anti-white maggot John Engelman free rein).

  2. Civil rights laws should be extended to political beliefs. If they break no laws, not even Communists or Nazis should be denied employment.

    • Agree: Exile
    • Replies: @Wyatt
  3. MarkU says:

    @ Gregory Hood

    I understand that President Donald Trump must try to win black votes. “Outreach” doesn’t offend me. If he can win over just 10 percent of blacks, that may be enough to take Pennsylvania or Michigan. Nonetheless, “outreach” is pointless if it doesn’t also turn out white voters, especially the Rust Belt working class that broke the Midwestern “Blue Wall” in 2016. There’s no sign President Trump’s campaign is doing that. Instead, he’s got a race-specific “Platinum Plan” for blacks that would mean hundreds of billions in handouts. This is an insult to whites.

    Some advice for you.

    One of the weaknesses of the BLM movement is the ethnocentricity revealed in the name and the propaganda, a point which is surely not lost on people from other ethnic groups. I really don’t think it helps matters when a similar level of ethnocentricity is displayed by their white opponents. If a big handout to blacks is an ‘insult to whites’ it is surely also an insult to asians and hispanics. You are framing the issue as a struggle between whites and blacks with other ethnicities as bystanders, I think that is a mistake.

    Surely the greater majority of the population is becoming tired of the continual handouts, the special treatment and a free pass on criminal behaviour being conferred on what is only 13% of the population, you should be capitalising on that. Instead, you are allowing, nay contributing, to the framing of the narrative as whites v everyone else, I regard that as a colossal shot in the foot.

    Am I right? or am I right.

    • Agree: silviosilver
  4. Exile says: • Website
    @MarkU

    You are wrong. The answer to anti-White activism is not colorblind civic-nationalism and “no identity politics.” It’s been tried for decades. It’s tactically lolbertarian kool-aid deployed to morally disarm, demoralize and confuse Whites.

    I really think it does help when Whites are ethnocentric. Neutrality toward actively hostile groups in the name of muh principles amounts to retreat in practice as your enemies advance their agenda while you tut-tut about your superior manners & morals.

    There is nothing wrong with ethnic identity politics. The problem is that everyone tells Whites it’s a mistake while everyone else gets to swing that club at them.

    Anti-Whiteness has become a religion. Anti-anyone-else is not even a blip on the radar.

    Renouncing our identity when it’s the very thing we’re under attack for is a perfectly wrong strategy.

    • Agree: 3g4me, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @MarkU
  5. @MarkU

    Good points. Since I live in a Hispanic majority area (far west Texas, rural that is…but I’ve also lived in El Paso), I hear what you are saying about Hood’s ignoring Hispanics…and there are lots of Asians in El Paso as well. Only thing I agree with that Hood stated was about making English the official language since folks are denied jobs since they can’t speak Spanish or whatever…I was denied a school counseling job because my “Spanish wasn’t good enough.”

  6. @MarkU

    Instead, you are allowing, nay contributing, to the framing of the narrative as whites v everyone else, I regard that as a colossal shot in the foot.

    I have often criticized WNs for framing the racial issue as whites vs the rest of the planet. WNs generally assume that no one else could ever possibly agree that whites have legitimate grievances, so they don’t even bother looking for allies on various issues. I think a major part of the reason for that is that WNs have traditionally wanted everyone else gone, and so they (correctly) assume that no one else is going to cooperate with them to achieve that end.

    If we allow that there can be a ‘softer’ brand of WN that doesn’t set its end goal as the removal of everyone else, then it would certainly make sense to seek out allies where they can be found. WN is at something of a transitional point, in which the sheer demographic weight of non-whites has combined with (genuine) cross-racial friendship, intimacy and mixed families to make the traditional goal of wholesale removal of non-whites less plausible than ever, so it’s reasonable to think that as that goal is progressively abandoned, we’ll see greater (and more sincere) efforts by WNs to cooperate with other groups.

    • Agree: MarkU
    • LOL: 3g4me
  7. KenH says:

    Designating any group a “domestic terrorist organization” because of its beliefs is ominous. It would not stop with the KKK

    That’s a critical point because what will happen is that pro-white advocates will be deemed to be de facto KKK members since it will be argued that their beliefs are similar to the Klan’s. They will be labeled as the Klan by another name and suddenly find themselves “terrorists”.

    The FBI and DHS will take great liberties with any power they are given especially since they will be under pressure from the brass and the ADL to start collecting scalps. And if it’s up to the corrupt judiciary then we’re already screwed since there’s more partisan judges than they’re are honest ones who are loyal to the Constitution.

  8. MarkU says:
    @Exile

    We both agree that whites are on the receiving end of blatantly racist criticism but why make it easier for them to isolate us? Nobody said that one must renounce ones identity in order to have allies. There are many issues in which the interests of other ethnicities are entirely convergent with our own. For example it has recently become mainstream that both whites and asians are heavily discriminated against with respect to college admissions.

    I was talking about the framing of arguments and narratives, I will give you an example.

    Anyone who has not spent the last few years living under a rock must be aware that if a black person is killed by the police then it is immediately headline news, the police are denounced as racist even before any of the facts are revealed, the deceased is presented as an innocent victim regardless of their character and the killing is presented as gratuitous regardless of circumstances and provocation. A common argument used in these circumstances is that the incident wouldn’t even be reported if the deceased was white. That argument, whilst it is true, is totally artless. What would it cost to argue instead that the incident probably wouldn’t be reported if the deceased wasn’t black? or that it wouldn’t be front page news if the deceased was white, asian or hispanic.

    One does not have to renounce ones ethnic identity in order to argue intelligently. I think I am beginning to see what Ron Unz meant when he talked about the intellectual bankruptcy of white nationalism.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @silviosilver
    , @Exile
  9. polistra says:

    Trump says a whole bunch of stuff. Some of it sounds good, some of it sounds bad. It’s all meaningless noise. Nothing ever changes.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  10. KenH says:
    @MarkU

    I think I am beginning to see what Ron Unz meant when he talked about the intellectual bankruptcy of white nationalism.

    Except Ron said so for different reasons. In Ron’s bizarro analysis he tries to claim that WNs lose credibility because according to Unz his beloved hispanics aren’t as violent and unassimilable as WNs claim. Ron continues to assert that hispanics are really brown skinned whites using his “age adjusted” models for crime.

    I doubt Ron rarely leaves the tony haunts of Palo Alto and has little understanding of the net negative impact the hispanic invasion has had for much of the nation.

  11. Wyatt says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Nah. The commies offer absolutely nothing of value and their modus operandi is built on violent revolution determined to overthrow the government and impose a tyranny of the tards. There’s no point to ever giving them a voice or say in how anything works because they take any leeway and use it to undermine functional civilizations.

    At the very least, the Nazis taught us all about animal welfare and how not to build a gas chamber.

  12. American Citizen 2.0 says:

    The biggest problem with KKK in my opinion was that they did in fact go around bullying normal people who were not conforming to protestant norms interpreted in puritanical and extreme ways, as if anyone who was not a fervently believing teetotaler Christian homeowner was somehow worthy of nothing but getting beat up. That way of asserting their faith alienated pretty much everyone. Do I want to live in a town where a bunch of mean spirited hicks beat up gay people and harass black people and shun divorced people? No. Basically nothing whatsoever would attract anyone to the KKK unless they wanted to be a part of that kind of bullying. That’s why the organization died. It was all but a Christian version of the Taliban-for-White-People a hundred years ago.

    • Replies: @Gordo
  13. Advocating for a 3rd party as some kind of solution makes no sense when what’s needed is getting rid of the two we have. Similarly, advocating for a ‘White Lives Matter’ or similarly intended group is the opposite of what’s really needed – get rid of the BLM. The way to do that is to get rid of the civil rights laws that have done nothing but encourage the blacks to coast through life voting to give themselves new ‘free stuff’.

    Every law on the books should be analyzed to see if it is discriminatory, for or against any person. All laws should be equal with respect to ALL the people. That would end all the nonsense that currently favors one group over another.

  14. @MarkU

    One does not have to renounce ones ethnic identity in order to argue intelligently. I think I am beginning to see what Ron Unz meant when he talked about the intellectual bankruptcy of white nationalism.

    As KenH notes, Unz has his own reasons for looking askance at WN. Aside from that, I’m not sure that intellectual bankruptcy is the right word for it. WNs are adept at describing the racial landscape, but have proven utterly inept at changing it. WNs are certainly correct about the reality of racial differences, they can cite endless racial statistics and indices of achievement and decline, they have correctly identified the causes of white demise, they can talk at length about how the prevailing anti-white ethic harms whites, and yet they’re all almost equally stumped about what the next step should be. They’re all dressed up and have nowhere to go. Political – rather than intellectual – bankruptcy is probably a better term for it.

    Now, regarding Exile here, he comes across as something of an old school WN. In old school WN, you establish your WN bona fides by being more ruthlessly rhetorically uncompromising than the last guy. If the last guy said “this wouldn’t even be news if the victim wasn’t black,” then if you say “no, no, no – this wouldn’t even be news if the victim were white,” you’ve one-upped him. He either has to match your rhetoric or else risk losing relative status to you. Of course, once you start off down that road, before you know it you’re hiding out on the chans and preaching to the converted because no one else is interested in anything you have to say. You may as well not even exist for all the pro-white difference you’re making.

    • Agree: American Citizen 2.0
    • Replies: @Exile
  15. KenH says:
    @MarkU

    You are framing the issue as a struggle between whites and blacks with other ethnicities as bystanders, I think that is a mistake.

    Actually BLM, the Jew controlled media and political establishment has framed the issue as blacks and all non-whites against whites. Asian leaders like Andrew Yang and latinx politicians like AOC and others support BLM.

    Whites are the only group being attacked as a race. Nobody else is. You say we should go big tent and reach out to Asians and hispanics but they aren’t defending whites from unwarranted attacks and they aren’t reaching out to us. They instinctively understand that multiracial societies are a zero sum game and are acting accordingly (i.e., in their own interests only) whereas whites foolishly think we’re all in this together or can find common ground.

    Asians aren’t complaining that whites are victimized by affirmative action but whites are complaining that Asians are victimized. Asians care primarily about other Asians while whites and WNs are expected to show concern for everyone else otherwise they’re “intellectually bankrupt”.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  16. Exile says: • Website
    @MarkU

    Whites are being shot in the streets execution-style, dragged out of their cars and beaten, terrorized, raped, abused and silenced all over America.

    But you’re going to tut-tut about our “intellectualism” and our manners like another effete Con, Inc. tea-pinky poseur at some salon like National Review?

    I find terrorist violence against White people more objectionable and disgusting than the honest rude speech of Whites who are sick and tired of the one-way manners and morals ratchet you faint-hearted sycophantic suck-up libertarians and conservatives have jammed us into for the last 50 years.

    Cry or cope or sell us out as usual, I don’t give a damn. You poseurs no longer matter. Things have gotten real.

  17. Exile says: • Website
    @silviosilver

    Cynical centrism and damning the extremes – another typical pose in these debates.

    Honesty in preference to tepid virtue-signaling and “big brained centrism” is no vice.

  18. Because whites are net taxpayers, white families should get subsidies once they have had their third child.

    Net-taxpayer-ness has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with household income and employment status (anyone who works for government is not a net tax payer).

    If you’re obsessed with trying to trick smart (productive, net tax paying) women to reproduce more than they would otherwise, by all means give a subsidy to any private-sector employee in the top income quintile who squirts out three kids.

    It won’t do anything, because their propensity to reproduce is not affected by some piffling subsidy. The personal cost of reproduction to a top-quintile woman is so large (in terms of career progression foregone and skill atrophy) that to make the subsidy ‘bite’ it would have to be an integer multiple of their average income.

    So I only favour the retarded subsidy it because it’s a way for the top quintile to claw back some of the labour coerced from them by the parasites. Whether they’re black, white, or brindle, private sector employees in the top income quintile are carrying literally everyone else.

    Regardless of race, anyone in the bottom 80% who shits out another spare idiot, contributes additional net drains on the tax base; subsidising them is dysgenic and is a retarded idea.

    Also-regardless of race: anyone who works for government, should be discouraged from reproducing in case being a parasitic lickspittle is heritable. Maybe give them temporary sterilisation shots as part of their employment contracts – if they subsequently manage to get a top-quintile job in the private sector, the injections can stop.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  19. @Kratoklastes

    Regardless of race, anyone in the bottom 80% who shits out another spare idiot, contributes additional net drains on the tax base; subsidising them is dysgenic and is a retarded idea.

    True enough, but dysgenic considerations don’t rank highly enough – to put mildly – in the existing hierarchy of values for the mainstream to be willing to tolerate the effects of people being cut off from welfare if they have offspring.

    I therefore propose that we continue to pay the poor and indolent if they have children, but to pay them more if they forego childbearing altogether.

    It would be open to abuse, since even if annual payments were staggered by age, a woman could still ‘cheat’ by having no children till, say, 35 and then pumping out three in quick succession, but the plan isn’t to prevent the poor from having any children at all, it’s just to lower their fertility by some significant fraction.

    This could be improved in two ways:

    (1) By offering women a lump sum (rather than annual payments) or simply a higher rate of annual payments if they voluntary sterilize.

    (2) By paying women for every abortion they have. This too could be abused, but it would still be worth it, since only the most desperate and economically useless women would put themselves through the trauma of an abortion on multiple occasions just for the money.

    (I’m presenting this rather starkly, of course, but if it ever came to be seriously considered, we could dress it up in whatever moral language was deemed necessary.)

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  20. I hope this platinum plan is a final nail-in-the-coffin statement about who Trump really shows up for. Any handout to blacks at the expense of whites only benefits one group: Jews. That’s why we have the “Other” category on every employment form.

  21. 1. Trump is not a white nationalist, never has been.
    2. Trump’s trying to win an election, not lose it.
    3. Peeling off even small numbers of black voters upsets the Democratic applecart.
    4. Black outreach is however more about the non-black voters: whites: fence-sitters, civnat boomers, women, etc: by conspicuously appealing to blacks, Trump neutralises the accusation of racism, which means those worried about being racist can vote for him comfortably; Asians, Hispanics: Trump demonstrates that he’s not just the white candidate, and hopefully prompts the Democrats to take steps to shore up their black vote with BLM-grade shenanigans that tag the Democrats as the black party and drive racist Asians and Hispanics to Trump.
    5. $500 billion is small change and will probably never get spent anyway. Nobody should ever actually believe a politician’s promise, especially on the fine print, especially when the politician is Donald Trump.
    6. OP is an idiot.

  22. Gordo says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    That’s why the organization died. It was all but a Christian version of the Taliban-for-White-People a hundred years ago.

    White Sharia?

  23. Iva says:

    I think that this game of race fights  is being wound up by one specific group of people who believe that race is for animals just like races of dogs. So, this group doesn’t consider themselves “white”, even if their skin color is whiter than mine. However, the group who ignite these fights consider themselves as the only group that are human species. So, I ask all the people, of all the races, let’s get along, and do not let these “humans” manipulate us to hate and violence against each other. This will lead to more violence. Yesterday in NY a 30 years old Polish man was bitten and robed. Polish general, one who set up West Point, Gen. Kosciuszko fought for freedom of blacks. Before he left for France all what he owned in the US  left in trust with Jefferson  to be used to buy the freedom to black slaves. Trump was right canceling the “training” to implant guilt in our conscience just because you are white. People attending the course were very disturb by this and this is why they called the president to stop this farce at taxpayers cost. 

  24. @silviosilver

    I agree – the economics of has always been unimpeachable, and it would work… which is why it would never be implemented, because it’s not consistent with the actual aim of any policy.

    Getting incentives structured so as to discourage offspring-squirting by the stupid, is a better policy – by several orders of magnitude – than trying to trick smart women into having kids.

    I think it was on Jayman’s blog (a long time ago) that I saw a nice proposal that would serve as a terrific starting point if the actual aim was to improve the human herd:

     • set some cutoff IQ (or an IQ proxy, but not something stupid like WORDSUM);
     • for those under the cutoff, offer a bounty per IQ point to voluntarily sterilise;
     • [my additional term] stop all reproductive subsidies after 1 child, exempting those who already have more than 1 (but do not subsidise additional kiddies).

    (I would make the bounty amount a bit higher for males, because a man can impregnate a dozen women in a year, and/or generate fifty offspring in a decade… whereas a woman can only be impregnated about once a year, and is limited to roughly 1 a year)

    No backsies – surgical sterilisation, not chemical. Publicly-fund the surgery, so that there is no cost hurdle for volunteers to overcome.

    So if the cutoff was set at 115, say, you might offer $5k per point – so a woman of median intelligence could pocket $75k to permanently take herself off the board. A woman with an IQ of 85 gets $150k.

    That’s not a trivial sum: it’s more than a person of median intelligence could save in a decade, and for the 85IQ that’s a lifetime’s saving.

    Given that these people would not face the significant cost of rearing their pointless wastes-of-ejaculate, they would be “doubly blessed” (as I believe stupid women say on Facebook).

    These folks could then fuck to their hearts’ content: consequences would be limited to transmissible diseases – which impose a purely-private cost.

    Productive people would not be saddled with a tax burden required to pay to warehouse the useless offspring of midwits for a decade each @ $15k/yr.

    Downside: firms who sell those fucking awful stick-on inspirational slogans that stupid people put on their walls, would probably need a bailout.

    (There are problems when you get down to IQs in the 70s: can these people give consent? There are relatively few of them though: the majority of the social cost comes from the middle of the cognitive distribution, just because of the numbers involved)

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  25. @Kratoklastes

    So if the cutoff was set at 115, say, you might offer $5k per point – so a woman of median intelligence could pocket $75k to permanently take herself off the board. A woman with an IQ of 85 gets $150k.

    I like it, but the problem with proposals like this is that they incentivize test-takers to get as low a score as possible.

    School grades might be a better alternative. Although they’re imperfect, at least the incentive is to do well on them. It’s doubtful kids would deliberately tank their grades in order to hit pay dirt so many years later.

    If people somehow overcame their resistance to eugenic thinking, the next hurdle is the seemingly exorbitant price tag of these schemes. The same people who are perfectly willing to flush untold trillions down the drain on useless programs like Head Start or even just the education system in general (as it’s presently set up), would suddenly balk at having to fork out what would in all likelihood be a much smaller sum on a program that would actually work.

    We’re cursed.

    PS – another possibility is pay poorer women to have kids through eugenic donor sperm. This way they can still have their little bundles of joy. (And if they’re black, they would most likely have been raising the kids alone if they had had them the traditional way anyway, so this wouldn’t impose any added burden on them.)

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Gregory Hood Comments via RSS