Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Egalitarian Closet Hereditarians

Even if all human races originally were created equal in intellect by the Nature God, they've since been diverging due to differences in migration and fertility patterns. Oh, and then there was the selective racial breeding that occurred during slavery. To claim that all races have remained static in innate intellectual capacity relative to each other in every country is beyond fantastic.

James Flynn has noted a dysgenic tendency in black fertility, encouraged by government welfare programs.  The government has been doing on a small scale exactly what David Suziki talked about -- engineering a lower-IQ race.

All group differences are caused by some proportion of inheritance and environment. If a population experiences a depressed IQ average relative to other groups due in any part to dysgenic inheritance, then a 0% genetic model for all group differences is obviously untenable.

Yes, the low black IQ average is remediable in the long term through eugenic policies. But because egalitarians hold dogmatically to a fixed 100% environment/0% genetic model for explaining racial gaps and refuse to believe that blacks on net have any genetic disadvantages, genetic remedies (through incentives offered on a voluntary basis, for example) aren't even considered.



Friday, December 6, 2013

Letter to Pacific Science Center

Update -- Pacific Science Center's response:





I recently toured Pacific Science Center's exhibit “RACE: Challenge Your Perspective.”  I found errors in the display pertaining to Samuel George Morton’s skull measurements.  The display states that Morton “skewed the results.”


In fact, the scientist who made that accusation, Stephen Jay Gould, was found by University of Pennsylvania researchers to have skewed his own data.  The researchers came to the conclusion that Morton’s original results were accurate.

The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

The same exhibit display in question states, “Today’s science indicates there is no link between skull size and intelligence.”  That is false.  Scientists have found a .33 to .45 correlation between brain size and IQ.  Positive correlations between internal cranial volume as well as external cranial circumference with various measures of intelligence have also been demonstrated.

Bigger Brains Make Smarter People

I document these and other problems with the science presented in the exhibit in this video:

RACE Exhibit Displays Misinformation 

I don’t expect a response for all of the issues I raise in the video, but I do think the two issues referenced above merit some action.  Until the exhibit’s language can be corrected, I would suggest removing or covering up the portion of the display that contains erroneous information.

Please let me know how you intend to proceed so that I can inform my readers and viewers. Many of them take a keen interest in the science of human racial differences and are as concerned as I am about the inaccuracies I found.

I thank you in advance.




RACE Exhibit Displays Misinformation 



Science Gone Wrong: 
 White Abolitionism, Forced Fluoridation, and other Well-Funded Abominations 

Monday, October 7, 2013

Immigration Insanity


Those who assert a global “right to travel and settle anywhere” seek to erase all national borders, or at least render them functionally meaningless.

Sheldon Richman

But why stop there?

All property boundaries restrict movements under the implicit threat of retaliatory force against trespassers.  Wealthy individuals or groups of individuals banding together can buy up vast chunks of formerly open land for themselves and declare it off-limits to whomever they please.

If the principle is freedom-of-everyone-to-move-anywhere-at-will, then the policy prescription that follows is communal or government ownership of all land.  After all, countries where governments own the beaches and provide public access to them enable greater geographic freedom of movement of more people than countries where beaches can be privately owned, with access restricted.

Of course, if you are an advocate of private property, then you recognize no such thing as a global positive right of movement, let alone a global positive right of permanent settlement, let alone a global positive right of citizenship.

In a society where property is owned privately, a foreigner’s desire to be let in is irrelevant.  A foreigner’s desire entails no obligation on the part of property owners to actually let the person in.

The notion of global open borders is alien to propertarian conceptions of liberty, because in reality open immigration could only exist as an artificial creation of government.  (I don’t think large-scale voluntary communism is feasible.)  Advocates of open immigration assume the existence of a powerful central government to prevent local governments from erecting their own settlement criteria.  They also assume the existence of public entryways into the country rather than the private fences, gates, and other barriers that would be erected in a country consisting entirely of private property.

Appeals to a proffered global "right to settle" are appeals to positive rights made possible only by large-scale statism.  In the U.S., the central government forcibly prevents states, towns, and private communities from erecting their own sovereign borders and expelling people.  The U.S. government coercively imposes open borders in areas where the landowners and local governments would prefer to have restrictive borders.

The borders between all the states of the United States are open because of federal supremacy. The U.S. government prohibits the states from exercising sovereignty.  If the Unionists hadn't won the War Between the States, then there probably wouldn't be completely open immigration between the Northern and Southern states.  And if the feds dropped their guns and stood down now, then odds are some states would start to exercise more sovereignty, and some regions of some states might break away on their own.


If the feds and the states respectively took a completely laissez-faire approach and allowed the Minutemen and other volunteers to stand guard along the U.S.-Mexico border, that border wouldn’t be open.  Open borders on a large scale require a large and powerful government to thwart the will of all the pockets of people living along the border.

Open-borders globalists who call themselves libertarians invoke the rhetoric of free markets, small-government, and individual rights. But in practice they betray libertarian principles. They are quite willing to see the liberties of citizens trampled for the sake of the global ideals that actually animate them.

http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm

Open immigration entails granting government an open-ended power to turn unlimited numbers of foreign nationals into voting citizens. Voting is not a natural right and is not a market transaction.  It is a potential act of aggression. Neither politicians nor immigrants nor their employers have a positive right to expand the electorate at their will and at the expense of those of us who find ourselves increasingly outvoted by a burgeoning non-native demographic that favors bigger government.

Voting and citizenship can and should be restricted under a libertarian framework to whatever extent best safeguards national liberties.  If restricting immigration and voting privileges to people with IQs over 120 results in more freedom and more prosperity, then there are no libertarian grounds for opposing democracy restrictions of such a nature.

What we’re dealing with in the open-borders camp are not libertarian purists; rather, they are moral purists whose creed is altruistic egalitarian humanism.  They believe that it’s morally wrong for the people of any nation to pursue a self-interested immigration program.  They regard any restrictions by any nation on inflows of poor and oppressed people as cruel and unconscionable.


Now there are billions of poor and oppressed people in the world.  The problem is logistically insurmountable through the mechanism of mass migration.  What do the open-borders prescribers believe – that it’s the duty of Americans to invite literally billions of the world’s downtrodden into their neighborhoods?

Well, actually, yes.  That is what they believe!

It’s enough to make you question the sanity of the global open-borders idealists.  But no psychological evaluation is necessary in order to come to the conclusion that open-ended mass-immigration policy prescriptions are insane.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Why Are Jews So Overrepresented at Elite Universities?

A critique of David Duke's charges of "racism" against Harvard and other elite institutions for exhibiting disproportionate ethnic representation.

The burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion (in this instance, the existence of a powerful and far-reaching Zionist conspiracy that explains Jewish overrepresentation). Duke didn't meet his burden of proof in the chapter I reviewed. Nor did he give me good grounds for believing he would meet it elsewhere.


Whites who manufacture narratives of oppressive institutional power when they observe Jews getting ahead are operating on the same mentality as blacks who racially resent white success and blame black shortcomings on "racism." They adopt the methodology of Diversity auditors who set out to infer Institutional Racism entirely from statistics showing underrepresentation. Of course, NFL running backs could be 90% black and Fortune 500 CEOs could be 33% Jewish and both outcomes could be entirely merit based and explainable largely by innate factors.

"It's amazing how many white nationalists start adopting the same arguments as egalitarians...attributing Jewish success to societal privilege rather than IQ.
"Blacks blame whites, and whites blame Jews. Same BS. Different color. You have my respect for being consistent." 

-mcfrandy

I do think that Affirmative Action can explain some of the lopsided Jewish representation vs. gentile whites at Harvard. Below the cutoff point for being admitted on merit (IQ  ~140?), the ratio of whites to Jews should be larger than it is among the higher scorers who are admitted.  (Assuming Jews have a mean IQ 10-13 points above the white mean of 100.)  Meaning, applicants who are rejected on behalf of black and brown Diversity will be relatively more white, less Jewish.

The following video, from NewEuropeANP in response to mine, illustrates estimated IQs for Europeans and Jews at 2 and 3 standard deviations above the mean (the right tail of the bell curve).  The video attempts to derive a European:Jew ratio for Ivy League schools that would be predicted by IQ, but it overestimates the idealized ratio.



The more important point is that one can't validly infer institutional bias from the observation that particular institutions in particular parts of the country don't reflect national demographics in a particular IQ range.  Jews are demographically more concentrated in the Northeast.  Perhaps high-IQ non-Jewish whites are more likely to apply at and be able to afford universities outside the Ivy League.

"...the Jewish portion of Harvard’s entering class dropped from nearly 30 percent in 1925 to 15 percent the following year" when restrictions on Jewish enrollment were imposed.
-Ron Unz

In the absence of evidence that Jews are being systematically admitted with lower grades and test scores than their white peers (as blacks demonstrably are under Affirmative Action), hypotheses of systematic Jewish favoritism in college admissions aren't well supported.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Real Independence


Orania is a private town in South Africa.  In contrast to the violence-plagued country that surrounds it, Orania enjoys peace and prosperity.  Its motto is “Working for freedom.”  The town leaders hope one day to become an independent state.  Toward that end, Orania already circulates its own currency, the Ora. 

The people of Orania embody the independence, self-reliance, and love of freedom that libertarians celebrate.  What kind of libertarian wouldn’t? 

Well, some self-described libertarians are ambivalent or even hostile to the notion of proprietary communities.  Libertarian open-borders universalists assert a positive right of anyone to migrate anywhere, while simultaneously claiming to be defenders of property rights.  The existence of private towns such as Orania forces libertarians who assert a positive right to migrate into an ideological dilemma.  Do they seek to impose open immigration into these jurisdictions?  Or do they defend the right of communities to be selective about who gets in?    

Orania's success is tied to its policy of restricting residency to white Afrikaners who meet certain criteria.  Whereas the city of Detroit in the last century saw its white population displaced, its total population decline, its wealth erode, and its crime rate explode under the open borders policy forced on it by the Michigan and U.S. governments, Orania has experienced the opposite (albeit on a smaller scale) -- rising wealth, rising population, and very low crime.   Fortunately for Oranians, the South African constitution explicitly guarantees the freedom of association and disassociation, at least when it comes to establishing residential communities (a freedom U.S. citizens have been denied since the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

The evidence of a town’s high quality of life being tied to its explicit restriction of inflows is a bitter pill to swallow for open-borders universalists.  They tend to be steeped in anti-Racism ideology and hold idealistic egalitarian conceptions of human nature borrowed from the cultural left.  But if they are political libertarians, they must permit Orania to exist, at as long as it remains privately owned.

As of now, Orania exists as a private entity within the context of a state to which Oranians still owe taxes.  But what if Orania moved to secede and become fully independent?
  
As soon as Orania became a completely self-governing sovereign jurisdiction, it would be sovereign nation, just like the United States.  If all nations are morally obligated to the rest of the world to let in anyone who wants in, then how could Oranians retain their right to be selective? 

Only by remaining part of the socialistic state of South Africa, according to these so-called libertarians.  Because only then could their exercise of their right to exclude people from their property be tolerated.  Once they declare independence, a different set of rules apply – including the one about erecting no barriers to foreign migrants.  An independent Orania would have to bulldoze the fences that formerly served as boundaries and declare itself part of a single world community of people. 

Of course, this isn’t independence at all.  But it’s what the global egalitarian idealists prescribe. Some do so quite consistently in the name of socialism, communism, or communitarianism.  Some do so quite falsely in the name of liberty.

The open-borders prescription carries with it an inherent hostility to the principles of private property.  A propertarian advocate of liberty would not demand that an independent Orania open its doors to the whole world.  Nor would a propertarian advocate of liberty insist that Oranians remain attached to an overbearing state that only tenuously recognizes their property rights.  

If your conception of liberty is grounded in private property rights that fully honor freedom of association and disassociation, then you should endorse full self-determination for private communities.  That means the right of Oranians to exclude people from the state and the surrounding populations from which they seek total separation.  To work against their ambitions of being independent is to work against freedom.

The Principle of Self-Determination

Private property owners, including private communities, have the freedom to be exclusionary. If they didn't, then "ownership" would be a meaningless concept.  

Yet the moment a private community separates entirely from the state and becomes a self-governing sovereign jurisdiction, global immigration egalitarians suddenly claim the moral authority to tell this fledgling micro-nation that it must let anyone in the world live there.  In effect, proprietary communities retain the freedom to exclude only so long as they remain under the jurisdiction of an overbearing government they don't want!

Any universalized “open immigration” prescription is incompatible with the freedom to secede and retain the full exercise of private property rights. The attempt to pre-determine immigration policies for every conceivable sovereign community -- big or small, rich or poor, in paradise or in a war zone -- emanates from dogmatic apriorism and eviscerates the libertarian principle of self-determination.



Friday, September 6, 2013

Should Immigration Policy Be Based on Individualism or Collectivism?

The Real Question Is: Egalitarianism or Selectivism?

Championing an immigration policy that takes account of group demographic characteristics makes me guilty of empirical thinking.  Does it also make me guilty of collectivist thinking? If so, then anyone who advocates age of consent laws is guilty, too.  So is anyone who grants even the potential for a legitimate war waged by one nation against another.

http://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld

Immigration policy is a branch of foreign policy. It pertains to a nation's relationship to other nations, which are collective entities. It's not feasible to judge every person in the world individually. No one self-identifies as a future rapist on immigration forms. But the immigrant populations responsible for disproportionate quantities of rapes are identifiable.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/63520

Western civilization is being raped, is being replaced, is committing cultural suicide in the name of egalitarian non-judgmentalism.  If we know that people from Muslim country X are consistently more prone to be rapists, terrorists and moochers than people from Free country Y, then is an “individualist” morally obligated to act as though the two populations are equal?

If so, then “individualism” serves as a Trojan Horse for egalitarianism – which prescribes a single collective value judgment to be heaped upon all humanity. 

Those who recognize individual differences and act accordingly – but pretend not to notice patterns of differences among groups of individuals – are operating on the premise that trees exist but forests don’t.  A well-functioning mind not only processes the particulars it perceives; it also categorizes them.  It forms concepts of types of trees, cars, dogs…and humans.  A rational individual judges based on his values.  I value liberty and judge individual and group threats to it negatively.

I seek to prevent my country from being overrun by tribalistic aggressors, through a selective immigration policy that takes probabilities into account.  If that’s collectivism, then so be it.  Only a farcical form of individualism would require individuals who value their freedoms to stand idly by and allow themselves to be slowly conquered by leftist-aiding Islamists, who state explicitly that their aim is undermine and destroy Western freedoms through demographic conquest. 

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/french-socialists-pay-back-new-mega-mosque

If individuals inhabiting a geographical area can justly form a government for the purpose of securing their individual liberties, then there is no such thing as an open-ended “individual right” of foreigners to become citizens at will, irrespective of the consequences they impose on the liberties of the inhabitants.  Rather, it is the job of government to discriminate among all residency seekers – on any individual or group basis that is relevant to the objective of ensuring that immigration inflows don't cause a net erosion of liberties.  


Monday, September 2, 2013

Sponsor My Work

Help Fund the Creation and Dissemination of New, Hard-Hitting Videos on Topics Such as These...

  • IQ
  • Racial Profiling
  • Racial Science and Crime
  • Immigration
  • Sports and Athleticism
  • Black History
  • Race Mixing
  • Obama
  • Diversity
  • Race/Human Evolution Denial
  • Demographic Decline
  • Educational Decline
  • Cultural/Aesthetic Decline


Thank You for Your Support!  


Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The Formula for Defeating "Racists"



The following post was intended for Sam Owl, in response to his video:

You've got the formula down:  

-Dig up some quotes from a few unhinged nobodies.
-Label their peculiar worldviews with the vague, catch-all term, "Racist."
-Position yourself as a righteous crusader against Racism, even though these Racists have little influence and no means of implementing their agenda.  
-Engage in debates with them over their Mantra so that you don't have to debate the realities of racial differences and take the untenable denialist position.

It's all too familiar.


The fact that I was preemptively blocked and thus unable to deliver the post to the Owl and his viewers demonstrates that he follows the fourth point in the formula -- the one about avoiding debates with people who ground their views in reality -- quite rigidly.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

The "Racism" Bubble

Racist!”: The Rise and Fall of a Politically Loaded Epithet

By Brad Trun (Libertarian Realist)

Does anyone who isn’t in the business of hurling accusations of “Racist!” take such charges seriously anymore?  When the people who cry “racism” for a living are more racially bigoted than the people who individually and collectively stand accused, the term’s primary function becomes the perpetuation of a grand farce – one that white Americans are increasingly recognizing and rejecting.

The media-fueled racial hysteria over a mixed-race Florida Hispanic’s self-defense shooting of a young black troublemaker named Trayvon may go down as the moment when “racism” officially jumped the shark. The racial grievance industry injected the pre-packaged narrative of pervasive white Racism to stir up a national Civil Rights crusade over the 7% of black gunfire deaths that are caused by non-black gunmen.  

The manufactured cause célèbre climaxed in political surrealism when Barack Obama addressed the nation.  The half-white U.S. president, who identifies exclusively with his black half, said following the acquittal of George Zimmerman that “Trayvon Martin could have been me.”

In his “Trayvon” lecture, Obama admitted that higher rates of violence persist within America’s African community.  But he implied they were attributable to “a history” (of white oppression) “that doesn't go away.”  Apparently, Obama didn’t learn much real history while on an Affirmative Action ride at college thanks to his black half.  Fact: Young-black-male crime rates were lower (and the presence of black fathers was much higher) before it became politically popular to demonize whites as Racist and bestow blacks with legislated racial entitlements.

The history of the “Racist!” epithet tells the story of the explosive rise (and nascent decline) of Political Correctness and the white-guilt and black racial entitlement mentalities it inculcated.  “Racism” first entered the English lexicon in the 1932 translation of Leon Trotsky’s The History of the Russian Revolution.  By the 1990s, “racism” became universally recognized as the worst thought-crime of which a person could be accused. 

Through Google Books Ngram Viewer, we can graph the frequency with which terms appear over time within Google’s entire corpus of digitized English-language books.  In the Ngram graph below, “heretic” is plotted against “racist” from 1776 through 2008 (the most recent year in which search results are available), with 10-year smoothing.


“Racist” is the new “heretic.”  As the graph Illustrates, the “R”-word wasn’t in general use prior to the 1930s.  Yet by the 1960s, it had overtaken “heretic” in frequency of appearance in books.  And by the 1990s, references to “racist” proportionally exceeded “heretic” references in the mid 1800s, when concerns over heresy peaked coinciding with the Second Great Awakening.

Americans haven’t become less religious or less concerned with denouncing perceived immoral behavior over the decades.  Textual references to “immoral” in English-language books have held relatively constant since 1776, even as terms associated with traditional Christian morality (e.g., “blasphemy,” “debauchery”) have appeared with less frequency. 


“Racism” is the new “blasphemy” – and then some.  (Additional Ngram comparisons can be viewed in the video that preceded this article.) 

As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, argues, secular leftists approach race issues with a sense of moral self-righteousness that causes them to reject the methods of science and resist its findings.  Anti-Racist academic Stephen Jay Gould’s attempt to refute 19th century racial scientist Samuel George Morton notoriously backfired when a team of academic researchers validated Morton’s original findings of racial differences in cranial volumes and exposed Gould as a deeply biased, if not outright fraudulent, researcher.  Racial egalitarians had cited Gould’s junk science enthusiastically, and some still do.

Leftists treat the Politically Correct idea of racial equality as sacred in the same way that conservative Christians sacralize the Ten Commandments.  Practitioners of the religion of Political Correctness issue faith-based denials of any biological racial differences that extend to the brain and denounce with vitriol heretics who blaspheme against egalitarian scripture.  Following in the footsteps of 17th century Puritan book burners, some evangelical egalitarians even call for the publications of racial scientists to be destroyed and for all future studies of racial IQ differences to be banned.

The tactics of egalitarian crusaders are backfiring.  For example, the ugly visual propaganda produced by the Duluth-based Un-Fair Campaign (“It’s hard to see racism when you’re white”) served to bring national attention to the unfairness of anti-white attitudes and programs that are institutionalized by universities and governments.

The charge of “Racist!” is losing its sting as its overzealous hurlers render it a farcical construct.  “Racist” is, for the first time since the neologism’s inception 80 years ago, starting to fall out of favor.   Zooming in on the post-1930 period in Google Ngram Viewer and eliminating smoothing reveals that “racist” references topped out as the calendar switched to the new millennium.


Even more encouraging, a trio of code words for Political Correctness enforcement (“racism,” “discrimination,” “diversity”) now garner less mention in books than three terms representative of our nation’s Jeffersonian roots (“liberty,” “happiness,” “glory”).


Further confirmation that Cultural Marxism is on the wane comes from studies showing that whites increasingly see themselves not as the perpetrators of racial discrimination but as the recipients of it.  In a 2011 paper titled “Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing” (Perspectives on Psychological Science), authors Norton and Sommers write, “Changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.” 

Public support for race-based Affirmative Action now stands at a record low.  A Gallup poll just released in July found that two-thirds of Americans – and fully three-quarters of whites – disapprove of racial preference schemes aimed at engineering more Diversity on college campuses.

Make no mistake, the high priests of PC orthodoxy still control academia, government, and establishment media.  They will continue to militantly push their agenda through the institutions they control, even as they lose their grip on the minds of whites. 

And they are losing it.  They have revealed themselves to be pre-Enlightenment moral dogmatists who push pre-Darwinian views of human evolution.  Having failed to persuade us through evidence and argumentation, they can only resort to force and intimidation to try to silence the growing numbers of us who hold heterodox views.  

They have lost the intellectual battle.  The neo-Trotskyites should now lose their undeserved positions of power.  Let them be replaced by neo-Jeffersonians who embody the principles of free inquiry and unapologetically pursue truth, wherever it may lead.



A version of this essay appeared as The "Racism" Bubble on Alternative Right

Monday, July 22, 2013

The New Blasphemy

"When you enter phrases into the Google Books Ngram Viewer, it displays a graph showing how those phrases have occurred in a corpus of books (e.g., "British English", "English Fiction", "French") over the selected years."


"Heretic" vs. "Racist" 



"Discrimination" Overtakes "Liberty" 


Is Cultural Marxism Waning?
Are Jeffersonian Principles Back on the Ascent?



Thursday, July 18, 2013

Trayvon and Profiling

George Zimmerman's profile of a likely troublemaker proved to be accurate. Trayvon did indeed have a history of troublemaking and reacted violently when approached by Zimmerman.  

Profiling is what a functioning mind does in order to relate to unknown persons based on limited information. The establishment media, the race racket, and Eric Holder are engaged in full-time maniacal efforts to exempt blacks not from violence (93% of which is perpetrated by other blacks), but from being cognitively processed.



93% of black homicide victims are killed by blacks (Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008).

In the United States, black males between the ages of 16 and 36 are no more than 3% of the population.  They commit 33% of all crimes.

52.4% of all murders are committed by blacks (FBI Uniform Crime Reporting), even though blacks are only 13% of the population. 

Of all victims of white violent crime, 3% are black. Of all victims of black violent crime, 45% are white.

In 85% of interracial violence incidents between blacks and whites, whites are the victims. 

In 2011, 13,406 black-on-white rapes were reported.  There were fewer than a dozen cases of white-on-black rape.   

New York City police have been told by politicians and the media that they must pay less attention to blacks in order to avoid "racial profiling."  Which means police are spending more time pursuing less likely sources of violent crime, as truth teller Heather Mac Donald illustrates: 

"Blacks, who constitute 23% of the city’s population, committed 66% of all violent crimes and 73% of all shootings in 2011, according to victims and witnesses, but they were only 53% of all stop subjects.

"Whites, who constitute 35% of the city’s population, made up 9% of all stops in 2011, though they committed only 5.5% of all violent crimes and 2.5% of all shootings."

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Justice for Zimmerman

I find the establishment media Guilty in the Trayvon Martin case.  There would have been no nationwide media coverage and no mass protests demanding charges be filed if Tryavon had been white or Zimmerman had been black.



What if your son was Trayvon?  If the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof, then Not Guilty is the correct side to take.


The charges against Zimmerman would never have been brought had Gov. Rick Scott not intervened due to outside political pressure.
 "Justice for Trayvon!" they shouted. 
The pressure prompted Gov. Rick Scott of Florida to remove local prosecutors from the case and appoint Ms. Corey, from Jacksonville. She ultimately charged Mr. Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html 

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Libertarian Suicide

Occasionally, advocates of an absurd position reveal its absurdity better than any intellectual adversary ever could.  A case in point comes from a recent commentary by libertarian economist Don Boudreaux, who supports open immigration at all costs.   Literally, at all costs.



Boudreaux acknowledges that some populations of immigrants may impose negative political externalities for liberty via their reliably statist voting patterns, among other things.  A free society would face an existential threat from mass immigration from populations hostile to liberty.  For example, immigrants from backward Muslim countries tend to commit high rates of rape and other crimes, tend to set up no-go Sharia zones within cities, and tend to riot and issue death threats in response to Muhammed cartoons and other expressions of free speech. And if only 0.01% of foreign-born Muslims are terrorist threats, then you better hope a free society's foreign-born Muslim population stays under 10,000. 

Why should advocates of liberty tolerate any such threats to or erosions of their liberties? In a worst-case scenario, such pathological libertarian tolerance results in a free society becoming demographically controlled by hostile authoritarians.  Libertarian suicide is the potential price that must be paid for an a priori, acontextual prescription of open borders for all comers.

Libertarian economist Don Boudreaux illustrates this observation perfectly.  He writes, "I still support open immigration.  I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal."


This is an expression of pure idealism untempered by any regard for what consequences may come from it.  His open borders prescription is deduced from a first principle and rendered forevermore impervious to any conceivable empirical critique. Putting an abstract principle that is supposed to lead to liberty above the actual survival of liberty in reality is a gross inversion. 

Boudreaux claims to be a voice of sanity.  But his belief that we must be willing to accept fatal consequences for liberty in the name of liberty is insane.

When open-borders policies result in an erosion of liberty for a given country, a substantive libertarian abandons open borders.  Libertarians should aggressively oppose government programs that artificially add new criminals, terrorists, welfare dependents, and statist voters to the electorate in higher proportion.

Someone who is willing to accept substantively less liberty because of egalitarian political correctness, or moral rights, or Austrian economic axioms...or any other rationale...is sacrificing libertarian concerns for something he operationally believes to be more important.  That something is his real ideology. 

If he can be described as any kind of libertarian, it would be phony libertarian or dysfunctional libertarian.

I don’t cede the premise that libertarianism is an inherently suicidal ideology.  To anyone who would argue that fatal consequences are acceptable under libertarianism, I would say this: Stop.  You’re doing it wrong.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Letter to Don Boudreaux

Mr. Boudreaux,

In your post “Amnesty Intranational,” you ask, “Why are poor Hispanics not accorded the same humane treatment for committing ‘crimes’ that are equally as victimless as are the drug-taking ‘crimes’ committed in the past by presidents, governors, celebrated artists, and, quite likely, several of your neighbors and co-workers?”

You equate deportation of foreign nationals to imprisonment of U.S. citizens for doing drugs.  However, unless these poor Hispanics are from North Korea, deportation back to the countries from where they came isn’t even remotely equivalent to a prison sentence.

You imply that anything less than full amnesty for foreign nationals illegally residing here isn’t “humane.” But amnesty entails, ultimately, citizenship.  It is not an inherently libertarian position to favor adding millions of new statists hailing from the Third World to the voter rolls. Fully 67% of Hispanics say they want a bigger government with more services (Washington Post/Kaiser poll).

Amnesty is, in substance, a Big Government program.  Democrats want to issue voter ID cards to millions of undocumented statists and then shower them with benefits.  The total cost of the Amnesty program to taxpayers could run as high as $6.3 trillion in the years ahead, according to the Heritage Foundation.  Even if the estimate is wildly inflated (I don’t think it is), any package-deal program that on net grows government spending even a little should be opposed by libertarians.

The Amnesty program isn’t libertarian in theory or in practice.  Supporting it because you think some aspects of it are good (e.g., helping poor Hispanics) is a compromise that results in a net loss of liberty.  It also hinders the long-term prospects for liberty going forward.

Low-IQ immigrants from Third World countries constitute a permanent and growing underclass of government dependents.  Racial IQ gaps have not narrowed in decades.  Charles Murray and other researchers into IQ heritability expect that they won’t narrow in the future.  To believe they will is blind faith.  A First World nation won’t sustain itself or its freedoms with a Third World population.

I realize that none of this is likely to convince you to abandon your support of the Amnesty program.  But maybe I can convince you to take a stand on an aspect of current immigration policy on which we (and all libertarians) should be united in opposition, both philosophically and practically.  And that is the U.S. government’s participation in the United Nations Refugee Resettlement Program.  

Under this program, the government transports people from some of the most volatile places in the world (e.g., Somalia) and sets up communities for them here.  These are among the lowest-IQ, least self-sufficient, and highest-risk immigrants we receive in terms of their rates of engaging in violent crime and terrorism.  They weren’t invited here by any private citizens and would have no means of getting here without the intervening aid of government.

Have you or will you make the libertarian case against the Refugee Resettlement Program?



Boudreaux's response: "I know too little about the program that you mention to comment upon it."



My response: It is not even necessary to come to the conclusion that Chechen, Iraqi, Somali Muslim, etc. refugees are a net threat to our freedoms in order to come to the conclusion that the government shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to bring more of them here.  Refugee Resettlement is a Big Government welfare program.  What more do you need to know?


Saturday, June 22, 2013

Needed by Libertarians: More Race Realism

The left always seeks keep the discussion locked inside the confines of what they've pre-determined to be politically correct.  This is their friendly confines, their field of play, where they have the advantage.

If you are an advocate of liberty and you oppose positive government discrimination on the basis of race in the form of Affirmative Action...if you oppose federal and state efforts to mandate equal educational outcomes by race, then you need to understand IQ heritability.  Black adults possess average IQs that are 15-18 points below the white average in the United States, where IQ is approximately 75% heritable. This explains why the achievement gaps have been so persistent and consistent for more than 100 years, why they aren't narrowing despite herculean efforts by social planners, and most importantly, why they can't be eliminated through social interventions.

If you don't ground arguments against government racial-outcome redistribution programs in the science that shows racial differences are natural, then all you can do is engage in a debate about which social remedies to pursue, which is a debate that takes place on the left's home field.




CATO Institute Exposed

Cato's left-libertarian Beltway policy analysts try to attach themselves to the nation's Founding documents. But they aren't Jeffersonians in substance.




 Borders 
 Genes 
 Freedom 
 Aesthetics 

Sunday, June 16, 2013

The Principle of Selectivit​y

Immigration egalitarians would give government the power to make voting citizens out of whoever shows up from anywhere in the world by any means (invited or not). I wish to deny government bureaucrats the new clients and the new voters they seek for their racially and economically redistributive programs. I wish to restrict democracy and therefore citizenship.

I employ the same principle that any rational property owner would: selectivity.  A selective, libertarian immigration policy would spare a free society from being subjected to the high rates of crime, Islamic savagery, Democrat votes, and congenitally low IQs of the Third World. 

Open immigration is not libertarian, and no valuer of liberty who owned a private island in a sea of hostile neighbors would proclaim a policy of unrestricted migration into his micro-nation.  Globalist left-libertarians who prescribe open immigration a priori for all countries -- from Israel to Iceland -- are demanding that the people inhabiting them sacrifice their rational self-interest for a set of ideals that carry destructive consequences.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Scientific Aversion to Science

The following is from my recent exchange with professed scientific skeptic sofiarune.  I'm not going to make this post unduly long by also including her replies to me.  If you know who she is, you can pretty well guess what she says.  If you don't know who she is, it doesn't matter what she says -- because, as I suggest, she's rendered herself irrelevant in the race and IQ debate. 



...it's sad that you think it's the job of scientists to keep people ignorant of the findings of racial science. I seem to recall you allying with the forces of suppression in advocating that Rushton be fired for his research.

This is the epitome of the anti-scientific mindset:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/16/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/

 ---

I thought Rushton's argument that darker pigmentation helps explain higher rates of aggression in blacks was a bit of stretch. I also found it curious that he used surveys of public perceptions as evidence.

But Nisbett's failings in pursuit of his egalitarian thesis are far more obvious, egregious, numerous, and systematic: 

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf

Nisbett refuses to believe that SSAs have IQs of 70. Maybe more complete, more reliable data for some of these countries would show that their IQs are actually higher. Maybe not. 

But the people who assert that Rushton and Lynn come up with these IQ figures because they are biased reveal just how clueless they are about the hereditarian case. It would be a lot easier for us to make if we could assign all SSAs IQs of 85.  [That way, even the huge environmental differences between Africa and the U.S. could be shown to have no effect on black IQs.]

---

The issue isn't whether you cite Nisbett, but whether he should be stripped of his academic credentials because of his biased and shoddy research. That's why I brought him up, and you changed the subject instead of addressing the issue. Same goes for L. Lieberman and these other unscientific social activists that your friends on YouTube (Hannibal, et. al.) cite as if they were doing science.

I am not convinced that Rushton and Lynn were "frauds." Did Lynn ever claim that his IQ estimate for Equatorial Guinea was based on IQ tests administered directly to Equatorial Guineans? 


I can roughly estimate the IQ average of any city in the world if you tell me its per capita GDP and its racial makeup. It's not fraud; it's just a rough estimate that stands to be refined if actual, reliable testing data become available.

What about all the academics who arbitrarily assert as fact that there's no genetic basis for racial IQ differences? They're saying 0% without any basis for such a figure other than their opposition to "racism." 


It's not even a rough estimate. It's just scriptural dogma masquerading as a claim about reality. Egalitarians are no more reliable than young earth creationists at explaining human evolution. They come to the table with certain sacred notions that bias everything they do.

And if you won't call for any of these egalitarian social activists who are corrupting science to be fired, then your claim that calling for Rushton and Lynn to be fired was just about scientific rigor is fraudulent.


 ---

If you have an argument for an actual, substantive position in this debate, I'm open to it. So far, all you've done is critique one side of the debate while advocating that its most prominent exponents be excommunicated from academia. 

Calling them "frauds" doesn't disprove their heritability estimates. If you have an estimate for gene/environment apportionment that explains the IQ gaps better than Rushton and Jensen's 80/20 model, then let's hear it.

The last time I asked you to make a substantive argument, you said you had bowed out of the race debate and were no longer interested. If you have no argument, then you're irrelevant. 


"I don't know" isn't an argument in this debate anymore than it would be in the debate over what proportion of the observed global temperature increases over the past 100 years is due to human activity. Of course, no one knows precisely. But you'd still argue, I presume, that it's greater than 0%. I would.

You think that just because I'm more open about my political views than you are, that I'm more biased in my assessment of facts. That's not the case. I wouldn't care if it was discovered that there was some population of blacks somewhere in the world with IQs of 100. I don't hold any particular race gap to be sacred.

"Racist" scientists (such as S.G. Morton) tend not to be as biased in their actual handling of data as their impassioned critics. It is because Racists don't care about the social taboo against Racism that they are able to mentally free themselves to go where the data leads them.

You've got self-imposed constraints on what you're willing to acknowledge. And no amount of evidence for the role of biology in shaping non-superficial racial differences would cause you to break out of them. It's not about the evidence. It's about the barriers you've erected to taking in the evidence objectively -- double standards, raising the bar to unreasonable heights, etc.


You're just as guilty as a cruder, more overt social activist, of bias.  And just as guilty of endorsing the use of bully tactics against advocates of politically incorrect viewpoints to try to silence them.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Not Shocked by Andrew Sullivan's Pedestrian Views on Race


Popular blogger Andrew Sullivan has weighed in on the Jason Richwine thoughtcrime affair,  tepidly taking the controversial position that there should be free debate on the subject of race and IQ while trying to minimize its importance.  He writes:

There’s a very solid case against race as anything meaningful in our culture... 

I respond: Yeah, the case is so very solid that it sinks like a rock the moment one endeavors to find actual evidence of race becoming meaningless in our culture.  Let’s see...racial disparities in crime, academic achievement, and incomes aren’t narrowing; the Diversity and Affirmative Action industries aren’t shrinking; and the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses haven’t yet announced any plans to close up shop.

...and an even stronger case that in the process of constant miscegenation, we are rendering the whole idea of race moot. I sure hope so.

You can hope for anything -- a winning lottery ticket, world peace, immortality...something grand.  You hope that one day after you’re long dead from complications related to HIV, we’ll all turn brown.  Do you also hope that all varieties of tigers and bears, that all subspecies of finches and sea turtles, get blended out, too?  Or is it just human biodiversity you fantasize about extinguishing?

Fortunately for those whites, blacks, American Indians, and others who value the continuation of their unique phenotypes, respectively, you've refrained from engaging in the kind of sexual behavior that could have resulted in a population's gene pool being polluted by your DNA.

There’s also a strong argument that IQ is of extremely limited use – and, in fact, misses a whole range of intelligences that are often more important to our lives and cultures as humans.

IQ is extremely (highly) correlated with performance on a whole range of standardized tests that elementary schools, high schools, colleges, employers, and the military use to gauge mental skills that are important to our lives and cultures as humans.

I just refuse to wish the data away. The data shocked me when I first read it, and shocks me still.

You’re shocked…still shocked...that IQ scores covary with race.  Yet the persistent academic achievement gaps that have been well documented for decades have been well known by you for years.  Racial variation in the distribution of cognitive traits should only be surprising (or alarming) to someone who is ignorant of (or ideologically averse to) the basic biological fact that evolution didn’t stop at the neck. 


I suspect you’re just feigning shock. You’re pretending to be shocked to have discovered that the races aren’t cognitively identical because you don’t want your politically correct readers to suspect you of having committed the thoughtcrime of assuming that not everyone and not every group are endowed equally by nature. You’re reassuring the enforcers of political correctness that the egalitarian fairy tale you grew up believing in was and still is your default assumption.  

Meanwhile, the realities of racial differences that won’t go away are causing you to suffer under the agony of cognitive dissonance.  You wish the realities would go away, but you know you can’t actually wish reality away.  All you can do is express a hope – a hope that one day racial distinctions will cease to be so that the egalitarian fairy tale can come true.

But why should we even hope for it to come true?  Equality seems like a rather uninteresting and uninspiring ideal to contemplate for humanity. Equality didn’t build Rome.  Equality didn’t send a man to the moon.  Equality didn’t give you the ability to make a living blogging over the Internet.  And equality-worship won’t save civilization from what now ails it.

An overriding intellectual deference to the strictures of political correctness is what ails civilization presently.  I am not optimistic about this dogmatic creed of unreason being overthrown anytime soon.  Few actual heretics exist. The masses of any civilization can be counted on to absorb and embody the civil religion of the times, however irrational it may be.  

That’s why I’m not shocked by your post.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Caplan: Open Debate on Open Borders Isn't "Just"

I referred to Bryan Caplan as a champion of open borders.  A champion of open debate he apparently is not.

I just came across this recent post of his: "In a just world, however, researchers would be fired for arguing that people with below-average IQs should be denied their basic human right to accept a job offer from any willing employer."

Fired for...arguing?

This display of Puritanism is rich, coming from a guy who collects a paycheck from a government-funded university -- meaning his real employer is unwilling taxpayers.

Given his willingness to engage with me, I'm disappointed that Caplan has resorted to dogmatizing his view that all Congolese are born (at a rate of 5.5 children per woman) with a right to live and work in Switzerland.  But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Left-libertarians (Murray Rothbard's term for globalist egalitarian, open-borders types) such as Caplan are indeed leftists at heart. Silencing opposition is straight out of the leftist playbook.  So are Caplan's appeals to global standards of value (e.g., "human rights" and "people") instead of Americans' rights, interests, and freedoms -- the proper primary concerns of an American government and an American libertarian.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Libertarian Realist vs. Bryan Caplan



Open borders champion Bryan Caplan responded via email to my response to his tweet.  In this post, I quote (with Caplan's permission) from his emails to me and include my responses back to him.



Suppose, however, that I was a freedom-loving PERSON, who cared about the freedom of Haitians as well as Americans.  Would advocacy of open borders be "crazy" then?

Would you similarly say that a "freedom-loving white American" would be "crazy" to oppose the exile of black Americans who share the same undesirable characteristics you attribute to Haitians?  Why or why not?

If you valued the freedom of Haitians and U.S. citizens equally, then I suppose open immigration for Haitians would be justified if Haitians gained more freedom than they subtracted from U.S. citizens.  To me, it's an irrelevant question.  It is not the purpose of a libertarian government to help redistribute freedom more equally around the world.  It is to secure the freedoms of the people under its jurisdiction.

Do you value the freedom of Islamists to impose sharia law wherever they want?  Presumably not, since it would be crazy to value a person's freedom to take another person's freedom away.  

Do you favor more Muslim immigration into Western Europe?  The Muslim influx is having disastrous consequences for freedom there, ranging from skyrocketing rates of rape in Scandinavian cities to sprawling polycentric Sharia zones in London, where drinking is banned, women must be covered, and gays can't exist openly. 


Would you similarly say that a "freedom-loving white American" would be "crazy" to oppose the exile of black Americans who share the same undesirable characteristics you attribute to Haitians?

No, but Thomas Jefferson was a freedom-loving white American who favored both the emancipation of black slaves and their deportation back to where they were illegitimately taken from.  That opportunity has passed.  I don't favor forcibly exiling people unless they've actually committed a crime.

But the granting of citizenship to the foreign born is the granting of positive rights and privileges (to vote, etc.), to which the entire world population isn't  automatically entitled.  Being highly selective as to who gets citizenship is an aspect of national security.  Citizenship selectivity would be especially important for a libertarian country that exists within an overwhelmingly non-libertarian world.

Indiscriminately open immigration can result in rapid political and economic deterioration if the immigrants are overwhelmingly low-IQ, crime prone, statist, and/or culturally hostile.  Imagine that Detroit circa 1955 -- which was majority white, relatively safe, prosperous, and widely considered to be one of the greatest cities in the U.S. -- became a sovereign city-state.  Should it have adopted a policy of open immigration?  We don't have to speculate about the consequences of such a policy.  It was in place by default.  And it was catastrophic.  

My informed speculation is that Detroit's death spiral of rising crime, declining property values, a collapsing economy, white flight, and depopulation would have been averted with immigration restrictions.  Detroit today might still be a jewel of a city.  I think you'd have to admit that it's hard to imagine a sovereign Detroit with selective citizenship being worse off than Detroit today actually is.  

I'm not saying that every city should be its own nation.  But if the people who reside in a given nation -- however delineated -- value their freedom, they should favor an immigration system that selects for a population with compatible characteristics.


If you're a libertarian, where does this "jurisdictions" stuff come from?   I'd think that the purpose of a libertarian government would be to respect *people's* freedom.  And even if you think freedom in a jurisdiction is a priority, that hardly means it's an absolute priority.  In the worst case scenario, full Haitian immigration make Americans mildly less free.  In the status quo, American immigration restrictions make Haitians vastly less free.

It seems pretty straightforward to me: A government exercises authority over a particular geographic area whose inhabitants pay it to provide certain services for them requiring the use of force.  The only type of government that would operate on a mandate as broad as securing freedom for all people in the world would be a global government. 

 Global government is the logical conclusion of the movement to break down all borders.  If you view any effort of any nation to resist migrant inflows as a human rights violation, then the purest manifestation of your one-world ideology would be a single world government to prevent all the other governments from defending their obsolete borders.  But a world without borders would mean there would be nowhere left for anyone to escape from a one-world, all-equal utopia turned into a one-world tyranny.


But keeping out all Muslims because a few of them are nutjobs is much crazier.

Taking into account statistical risk profiles in immigration policy is quite sane.  Insurers do it all the time.  They don't treat all people or all neighborhoods as equals.  40% of British Muslims want to impose Sharia law.  24% of of British Muslims and 35% of French Muslims believe suicide bombings are justified.  That's more than a few.  

A private company charged with providing border security and terrorism insurance for a libertarian nation whose people insisted on results -- insisted on an immigration policy that resulted in no increase in crime rates from its immigrant inflows, no increase in levels of economic parasitism, and certainly no growth in freedom-restricting Sharia zones... If a private company were to implement an immigration policy that best protected the freedoms of the people who paid for its services, and it were to choose between open immigration for Muslims and no immigration for Muslims, it wouldn't take a lot of sophisticated risk analysis for the Muslim immigration that's now being pushed by statistically averse governments to be halted.


If you think people aren't entitled to *more*, why not complain about the welfare state instead of immigrants?

I do complain about the welfare state.  I also complain about the efforts to grant voting privileges to millions of foreigners residing here who want to expand the welfare state.  67% of Hispanics want bigger government (Washington Post/Kaiser Poll).  Your complaints about the welfare state are not merely futile, but are undone many times over, by your support of immigration policies that result in more votes for the expansion of the welfare state.  You can try to separate immigration and citizenship conceptually, but in practice more immigration means more Democrat votes for generations to come.  You can't stop immigrants from having kids and you don't want to ever deport them anyway.  So, pretty soon, there will be no Congressional districts left in Texas where it is demographically feasible for a Ron Paul to get elected.  


What you call "catastrophe" is, by world and historic standards, a paradise.  Would saving Detroit have justified depriving blacks of the freedom to live and work where they like - and whites the right to trade with them?  No. 

You are helping to accelerate the demographic demise of libertarianism by supporting a globalist egalitarian immigration policy based on altruism.  You've admitted that you're willing to see negative consequences for freedom here due to Haitians...would have been willing to prevent Detroit from deporting violent populations in order to save itself from ruin...all for the sake of what you call freedom to migrate.  

Of course, all property rights restrict people's movements.  What you're demanding is a positive right to transcend property boundaries, which is alien to libertarian conceptions of rights.  It's no more restrictive of my freedom if the Singaporean government denies me entry into the country than if an owner of some private island denies me entry into his island.  I have no positive right to move anywhere I want to in the world.  If the whole country of Singapore was a privately owned community and it announced that it was no longer taking in new residents, would the rest of the world suddenly become less free?   

Not according to a libertarian conception of freedom.  To the contrary, any person who decided to break into Singapore without permission would be a transgressor of property rights.  Whether Singapore is a private community or a state that limits who can come in has no bearing on the freedom status of anyone outside of Singapore.  People can be forcibly denied entry  just the same.  There is no positive right possessed by everyone in the world to live within the particular area of land called Singapore.  

Turning away Haitians at the U.S. border does not violate any of their negative rights.  But any Haitians who come here to mooch, mug,  or murder violate U.S. citizens' rights.  The statistically greater likelihood of Haitians committing acts of aggression as compared to other potential sources of immigration is all the justification that is needed for disfavoring Haitian immigration.  

So the question is whether we as libertarians want libertarian results for ourselves.  Are we willing to be suicidal martyrs for a grand global idealization of liberty that never will be, anyway?  If not, then we must do what is necessary in order to maximize and sustain our freedoms in practice to the extent that we can while we still can.  Advancing immigration policies that demographically aid freedom's sworn enemies is libertarian suicide.