Before I dive in today, I suppose it would be a little suspect if I didn't at least mention that the Stanley Cup and NHL season ended with of course Florida winning it all. From a betting perspective, I made about 3 units total on NHL props for the year spread across something like 8 weeks. So it's in the neighborhood of around $5 an hour which is an eye opening stat to see. Blocks I did good on, SOG bad, and game/other props I did ok. I will probably attack NHL Blocks again next season, I actually do think that model is profitable and have some ideas to improve it, plus the fact that I have to literally be one of the only people on the planet betting on it. And when NFL starts and the PPH's start flowing again I'll get back into betting, but for now I'm taking a prolonged hiatus of sorts.
{There is going to be a lot of links in this post. Each one opens a new window so you can click on any of them and save them for later reading if you want.}
Today I want to talk about something else. One of the biggest taboo, 'not allowed to discuss' topics in the Western world today. Race, IQ, immigration, and how we got where we are. With the ongoing ICE arrests and protests going on, the Muslim Rape Gang scandal in Britain (what an absurd sentence. Imagine explaining something called The Muslim Rape Gang story to an Englishman from the 1800's. He'd assume you lost a war) finally, kind of, making its way into the mainstream news, immigration is top of mind for a lot of people. I say 'immigration' but that isn't actually exactly right, is it? It isn't just that people are simply moving. It's subsidized and encouraged immigration by a pretty specific group of people into exclusively White/European/Western countries. 'Non-Western' people moving, en masse, to places like America, Canada, Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Scotland, Australia, etc. And predictably, changing the places they move to. So what is that all about, really? Immigration and to a larger extent race are such third rail topics so you rarely see any real, honest discussions about it (although that is changing), but why is that, exactly? Why is it seemingly so difficult and uncomfortable for White people to talk at all about race or immigration? And what is this debt that we tacitly, apparently, agree that we owe? How much, for how long, and to whom, exactly? How much have we paid so far and is it making a difference? Get a snack, sit back, and come along this journey with me. This will be long and quite different from the normal programming around here, but if we can't speak freely and openly on semi anonymous, ad-free blogs on the internet, where can we?
So let's dive in. Why not.
To understand a big piece of the genesis of what's going on today and what shaped Americas (and by extension, the worlds) general attitude towards race, you have to know about a famous book from 1944 called 'An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy' by a Swedish economist named Gunnar Myrdal. The book is massive, 1500 pages, sold over 100k copies and went through 25 printings before going into its second edition in 1965. A new, two volume edition was published in 1966 with an introduction from Myrdals' daughter, who doubled down on her fathers commitment to 'changing human behavior by improving social institutions/welfare' (aka forcing people, at gun point, to give their money to people who's only qualification is that they do not work). The book and its ideas spread like wildfire throughout the kind of people who read books like that and then make decisions for all of us that last 80 years and counting.
From wiki: "The book was enormously influential in how racial issues were viewed in the United States, and it was cited in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case "in general". The book was generally positive in its outlook on the future of race relations in America, taking the view that democracy would triumph over racism. In many ways, it laid the groundwork for future policies of racial integration and affirmative action.
Myrdal believed he saw a vicious cycle in which Whites oppressed Blacks, leading to poor standards of education, health, morality, etc. among Blacks that was then used as justification for prejudice and discrimination. The way out of this cycle, he argued, was to either reduce White prejudice, which would improve the circumstances of Blacks, or to improve the circumstances of Blacks, which would then reduce the reasons for White prejudice. Myrdal called this process the "principle of cumulation"."
'The principle of cumulation.' Always a dopey sounding little quip or acronym or sound-byte to distill the nonsense for the masses.
Here's a good summary:
"In Black-White Relations: The American Dilemma, economist Junfu Zhang gives this description of Myrdal's work:
According to Myrdal, the American dilemma of his time referred to the co-existence of the American liberal ideals and the miserable situation of blacks. On the one hand, enshrined in the American creed is the belief that people are created equal and have human rights; on the other hand, blacks, as one tenth of the population, were treated as an inferior race and were denied numerous civil and political rights. Myrdal's encyclopedic study covers every aspect of black-white relations in the United States up to his time. He frankly concluded that the "Negro problem" is a "white man's problem". That is, whites as a collective were responsible for the disadvantageous situation in which blacks were trapped.
Myrdal, writing before the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, alleged that Northern Whites were generally ignorant of the situation facing Black citizens, and noted that "to get publicity is of the highest strategic importance to the Negro people". Given the press's pivotal role in the movement, this proved to be strikingly prescient".
Basically, an 'economist' from one of the Whitest, most racially homogeneous nations on Earth, pulled a "Hey, you made the rules!" on America. His entire argument was that our 'creed' was that all men are created equal, yet we don't treat everyone as equal in America. 'Ah, but sir, *lowers fedora* there is a flaw in your logic'. And really, that point about all men being created equal was all it took. This book got accepted as 'proof' that race was meaningless, somehow, was cited in the Supreme Court in Brown vs Board of Education, and had its ideas accepted and spread across the intelligentsia, virtually 'officially-in-the-mainstream' unchecked for a good 50 plus years. I guess you could say until 1994 with The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein. (The Bell Curve is so damaging to them, by the way, because it's completely un-refutable. That was the real reason for the hysterical reaction to Charles Murrays lectures, in my opinion. It's two grade-A, Harvard (when it meant something) scientists, completely respected and accepted by the mainstream before the book, just painstakingly, meticulously, and as thoroughly as possible providing fact after fact after study after study, all proving without a shadow of a doubt, that race is real, IQ is real and genetic/at least partially heritable and quantifiable and massively important in todays world, that American society is efficient in finding and rewarding people with high IQs, and that the common denominator of the underclass of America is low intelligence, not 'racial disadvantage'. I've been slowly reading The Bell Curve for a couple years now {it isn't the kind of book you tear through and it is gigantic}, but my favorite point in it so far is that modern American society is generally very good at finding and rewarding high-IQ/productive people. Our economic output is evidence of that. So the idea of these would be-geniuses held back only by some murky, racist system is just nonsensical. Different people are different. Also, the lefts absolutely over-the-top reaction to this book and Charles Murray is the only reason I and many others, I presume, even heard about The Bell Curve. This whole incident kind of got memory holed, but at one of Charles Murrays lectures at Middlebury College, amidst an angry mob of students who had just got the lecture shut down and mobbed Murrays car, a female professor who was simply walking with Murray got physically attacked and had her hair yanked so hard she had to go to the hospital and was diagnosed with a concussion. She's had ongoing issues with her neck ever since. Do you know how hard you have to pull someones hair to have their brain hit their skull? Imagine a mob of over a hundred masked, right wing students physically attacking a 'left-wing' speaker at a college and sending a female colleague of his to the hospital with permanent injuries. You think that would have been a big story?)
Also interesting about this Gunnar Myrdal guy; his ideas on the economy were exactly what you'd expect. He was a Keynes guy before Keynes. He wanted big government and a 'welfare world.' From his wiki: "Myrdal suggested that we need to evolve from the welfare state to the welfare world, which would enable the redistribution of income and wealth not only within a country but also on a global scale. During the Cold War era, in Beyond the Welfare State, he proposed the idea of the welfare world to overcome the limitations of the welfare state in the West."
He was a shit-lib before shit-libs existed.
So you've got this OG shit-lib and his shit-lib daughter telling the world that race is a social construct and the only reason for poor outcomes for Blacks and Hispanics in America was prejudice from Whites. Everyone just says 'okay!' This leads to all kinds of massive changes in social policy here, including the entire Civil Rights movement, the Hart-Cellar act (which 'reformed U.S. immigration law by abolishing the national origins quota system that favored certain European immigrants. It established a preference system based on family relationships and skills, significantly changing the demographics of immigration to the U.S.' This act probably changed the very fabric of America more than any other one law or program), 'disparate impact laws', affirmative action, all of which gave way to every goofy, CRT, DEI inspired law or program or officially-unofficial-race based hiring practice going on in 2025. The machine grinds on and on.
Did you know that since 1960, the United States taxpayer has given African countries something like $1-2 trillion in aid? (It's impossible to find a remotely concrete figure for that total number which tells you something right there. Various sources/studies give wildly different numbers that differ from each other by a factor of more than ten. It's at least $600 billion from 1960-2005, and about $10 billion a year since then. So the very lower bound of the estimate is $800B, just in official aid. When you throw in charities and NGO's and other voluntary expenditures, I think it's fair to say $1 trillion and quite possibly a lot more). That is about the equivalent of Ten Marshall plans, adjusted for inflation (which, by the way, is another hidden cost of diversity. The inflation that is a result of government spending). {The Marshall Plan came out to about $14B in 1948 dollars which translates roughly into about $187B of todays money (just casual thirteen hundred percent inflation). Ten of those equals $1.87 Trillion}.
And I mean, just think about that for a minute. The total amount of money (stored energy) that went into successfully rebuilding all of Europe after WWII, the location of the biggest, most destructive world war the planet has ever seen...TEN OF THOSE. And that's just U.S. aid to Africa! Can you imagine what we could have done here with the equivalent of TEN Marshall Plans? Almost anything the left pretends to want, yet you never hear a peep from them on this. In their defense, I really haven't heard much of a peep about this from anyone though I suppose. Isn't that unbelievable? Nearly 2 Trillion dollars spent with basically nothing to show for it. I mean, maybe literally nothing to show for it. And again, this is just money going from America to Africa. Never mind the money that goes to other non-Western countries, or the money that also flows out of Europe. Altogether, since Gunnar wrote that book, probably something in the neighborhood of 10 trillion dollars has gone from America and Europe to Africa and other non-Western countries.
How's the ROI on that money? Did anyone think to remotely check in on that? Has it made a fucking dent? And at what point do we admit failure, stop throwing good money after bad, and go back to the drawing board? Or throw the drawing board in the trash? I mean, there has to be a time frame and a dollar amount here. If not, then you're quite literally advocating for slavery. If your argument is that I owe nameless, faceless strangers in a foreign country an infinite amount of money for an infinite amount of time, you're going to have to have some 'uncomfortable conversations'.
We've had about 65 years of racial discrimination being (very) illegal in America and massive increases in social spending and other forms of welfare. Disparate impact laws which ban 'unintentional discrimination', or anything even resembling discrimination. Read this story if you feel like being outraged today. The city of NY paid 129 MILLION dollars to Black and Hispanic applicants of the FDNY who said they were discriminated against because the fire department had all applicants take two written tests, and Blacks and Hispanics did worse than average on them. This, according to law of the land which was heavily influenced by Gunnar Myrdal, is apparently evidence of discrimination. $129 Million!
I'll reserve any comment on that, but suffice to say, we've done our part here. You really can't argue otherwise. The amount of money that flows (largely involuntarily) from White people to Black people in the form of foreign aid, welfare, Section 8 housing, SNAP/EBT, fraud, subsidies, taxes, higher insurance rates, 'discrimination' lawsuits, employment, commerce, voluntary charity etc. is staggering. Think of what the NGO's spend alone. Not only have we thrown a truly jaw dropping amount of money at the problem, we also put our ballot box where our mouth is. We've elected literally countless Black and Brown people into various positions of power, all the way up to the President. Minorities in America today are given preferential treatment in schools, housing and hiring across almost all industries. White kids today lie on their college admissions that they ARE Black in order to get in, not the other way around! (And Ibram X. Kendi (real name Henry Rogers) tweeted that fact out thinking it helped his cause! Think about that for a minute. A leading 'race activist/author and professor' named Henry Rogers, who The New York Times called "one of the country's most in-demand commentators on racism" and was also included in Time's 100 Most Influential People of 2020, changes his name to Ibram X. Kendi. He becomes a celebrated multi-millionaire quasi celebrity for his books and views on race, is given a $55 million endowment by Boston University {where he has since been fired from after producing quite literally nothing at the 'Center for Antiracist Research'} and tweets out the fact that White kids are pretending to be Black to get into colleges as if that helps his cause. It's the combination of shameless race grifting and utter, laughable incompetence that always gets me).
So imagine if in 1945, a year after his book came out, you told Gunnar Myrdal that between 1960 and 2022, the equivalent of ten Marshal plans in aid would be sent from America to Africa; that in 2025, something like a half-trillion dollars a year was flowing from White people/countries to Black people/countries; that in 2008 we would elect a Black president, twice; that in 2020, the President of the United States would say proudly and openly to virtually no pushback that the ONLY qualification he was looking for in his VP pick was that it be a 'black woman.' That the White population of America would go from 80% in 1980 to 58% in 2020, and in 2021, among those ages 18 to 29, around three-in-ten (29%) White people say the fact that White people are declining as a share of the U.S. population is good for society. I think it's safe to say Myrdal and his ilk would agree that that is enough to remedy the problem he wrote about. (If not, what would be? Twenty Marshal Plans? Two trillion dollars a year? Three? Four terms for a Black President? I mean, there has to be a number.)
Imagine this debate in 1945: Gunnar argues that White people owe Black people for the sin of slavery and for their prejudice ever since. We say 'okay Gunnar, we'll agree, how much money do you think they're owed?' Do you think Gunnar would have said no to 'over the next eighty years and counting, about two Trillion dollars in 2025 dollars'? The median wage in 1945 was about $2 thousand a year! In other words, we've paid something in the neighborhood of one billion times the average yearly wage the book was written, in todays dollars. If we used that same math and say $100k is the average salary today, that would be like agreeing, today, to spending roughly one hundred trillion dollars over the next 80 years. And we don't even talk about any of this! (For context, the total market cap of the entire S&P 500 is about $50 Trillion. So if every single stockholder of every single stock of every single company in the S&P all liquidated 100% of their stocks, that would be HALF the amount of money we'd be agreeing to send to African countries we don't even know exist over the next 80 years.)
In other other words, the results are in. This debate is settled. Gunnar and his OG shit-lib crew got their wish and then some. We spent more money than even ol' Gunnar ever could have possibly imagined. WAY more, in fact. Has it helped? How are Black majority countries doing, on average? Has the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks in America closed? How are their communities doing? Driven by any "Martin Luther King JR. Streets" lately? How are their schools? Arrest records? Income earned? Test scores? How about the home life? Did you know that as of 2023, 73% of African American children are born out of wedlock? Blacks make up less than 13% of the US population yet commit over half of all solved murders. That is an over representation of nearly 400%! Since 1976, Blacks have committed 88% of all (solved) inter-racial rape-and-murders, and 98% of (solved) inter-racial rape-and-murders of women aged 65 or older (one of the most depraved violent crimes one can commit). That's all with a ton of cities not reporting the racial make up of their criminals, AND a huge amount of Hispanic and even Black criminals being classified as White. It never goes the other way around. You'll see stuff like this all the time:
I'm not going to throw a ton of stats at you. You don't even need statistics. You went to school, you go to work, you've been out and about, you see the news. You have eyes and a brain.
The left concedes the point that non-Western minorities underachieve still. You really can't argue that. The debate, still, is what causes that underachievement. Since race isn't really real, they say, it can't possibly be the root cause of anything. (Funny how that never works for something like sports. No one would ever seriously argue that the NBA or NFL discriminates against Whites. Apparently, according to them, evolution stopped at the neck.) Their argument is that poor life outcomes for Blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics is somehow still due to mistreatment from Whites.
Now, that argument may have held water 80 years ago. Not really, but maybe. Before two terms of Barak Obama, before the Civil Rights act, before affirmative action, before disparate impact laws, before DEI, and over one to 10 trillion dollars ago. But now? How can anyone still make that claim with a straight face? Again, what amount would be sufficient?
*takes a gigantic breath*
Modern day America is probably the most racially diverse, least racist country that ever existed. If you disagree, name which country beats it in those areas. It's easy to call yourself 'tolerant' when there's nothing to tolerate and you can't compare America to a fictional utopia. Only country you could possibly say is maybe modern day Great Britain, but they're having these same problems and conversations that we are, plus a population one fifth that of America. Every single race of people in the world practiced slavery at some point (some still do to this day. Like, a lot of people still do). White people were the first and largely only people that stopped ourselves from doing it. Actually fought one of the deadliest wars of all time (still) to put an end to it, against ourselves.
Now before I continue, let me remind everyone one thing. The left specifically asked for this.
'White Fragility' author Robin DiAngelo says we need to be willing to be uncomfortable in order to discuss race.
'Yes, We Really Do Need To Talk About Race'
Holder: U.S. 'a nation of cowards' on race
How to Have That Tough Conversation About Race, Racism and Racial Identity
I could go on and on with links like that. Yes it's uncomfortable to talk about, but you know what else is uncomfortable? The way the entire world talks about White people. Openly celebrating our dwindling population numbers. Professors gleefully talking about killing us. Politicians and activists literally calling for abolishing the White Race. 'Psychiatrists' at Yale giving lectures about dreaming about shooting White people in the head:
"A psychiatrist who in an April lecture for the Yale School of Medicine said she “had fantasies” about killing white people defended her remarks this week, arguing that they were meant to be a hyperbole and “metaphor to evoke emotion.”
The April 6 livestream talk, audio of which was leaked online over the weekend, was titled “Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind” and was initially advertised by the school as a way to engage in conversations on race in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and the murder of George Floyd, which sparked months of civil unrest across the country.
During the event, Aruna Khilanani was scheduled to discuss the “Karen” and “right not to wear masks” videos that have circulated online in the past year, according to The Washington Post.
During the address, Khilanani reportedly said she “had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step.”
Can you imagine someone saying that at Yale about ANY other race? Picture this headline: "A White Yale psychiatrist gave a lecture titled The Psychopathic Problem of the Black Mind. During the address, the speaker said 'I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any Black person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step.'" It's pretty shocking when you see it written out like that. Notice the very end of that sentence, too. 'Guiltless with a bounce in my step' after fantasizing about murdering someone in cold bold, solely because of the color of their skin. And this is a public lecture at Yale college! And the speaker wasn't even punished! Am I the only person seeing this stuff? That is legitimately terrifying.
This was Yales response, by the way: 'The school said it had also added a disclaimer to the video warning audiences that it “contains profanity and imagery of violence” and, “Yale School of Medicine expects the members of our community to speak respectfully to one another and to avoid the use of profanity as a matter of professionalism and acknowledgment of our common humanity." They put a disclaimer about the use of profanity! This is the kind of stuff that when you tell people about it, they think you're making it up.
People would be ashamed to talk about endangered animals the way they talk about White people.
Here is Bloomberg celebrating employers being racist. Again, imagine this headline about any other race of people. 'People of color' quite literally means everyone except White people.
Either we're a colorblind meritocracy or we're not. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to declare things like 'all White people are born racist' and demand that we have honest conversations about race, you don't also get to decide which parts of the conversation are off limits.
If pulling down World War II murals specifically because 'they show too many [W]hite people' is ok, then so is citing factual crime stats.
If Ilhan Omar can be a proud ethno-nationalist and declare that her Number one job is to look out for Somalia, I can say that I don't like the idea of being ethnically replaced in my home country.
If '1,288 public health professionals, infectious diseases professionals, and community stakeholders' can sign a letter in 2020 condemning anti-lockdown protests as 'white supremacy' while also demanding that protests against 'systemic racism' be supported, I can talk about the changing demographics in America and throughout the Western world. (Seriously, read that letter. It's easy to forget how insane things got in 2020. Their argument was that protesting the lockdowns was an 'act of white supremacy' and anyone congregating, even outside, was literally killing innocent people. But at the same time, protests about 'systemic racism' should be allowed and even encouraged. They aren't even putting up the guise of being ideologically consistent anymore. Also, notice how far out of their way the authors go to not capitalize the W in White and do the opposite with the B in Black. And that's not a random tweet or some obscure article. Nearly 1,300 'professionals' signed that letter. Just the signatures alone took up 13 of the 15 pages.)
If the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York can say, to virtually no pushback, that he wants to “Shift the tax burden to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods,” I can talk about the trillions of dollars that have already been sent from White people to Black people.
If a Black teenager can stab a White teenager to death in cold blood, raise over half a million dollars, be allowed to post bail and graduate high school, I can post graphs from the FBI. Oh and also have the father of the teen victim get his house SWATTED five times.
To head off the most common counter argument to all of this, and because we're barreling down this road anyway, poverty is not the primary factor for racial crime differences. Have a look at this:
And these: (source)
Those graphs are truly astounding if you think about 'em for a minute. You don't really hear the Meadow Soprano 'it's a function of poverty!' line of defense anymore, do you?.
I haven't even mentioned the absolute con that Black Lives Matter was. The fact that nearly all of the money that BLM raised either disappeared or ended up in the hands of one woman who used it to buy multiple houses in White, gated communities is one of those stories that seem too on the nose to be real. This sentence from this (pro-BLM) article is a doozy too: "BuzzFeed News reported in 2020 that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations nearly donated $4 million to an entity called the Black Lives Matter Foundation before realizing it had no connection to the group started by Cullors." Mostly White People were throwing millions of dollars at any sort of charity or group with the word 'Black' in its name.
So, again, the left asked for this. Explicitly. They have made race and the very concept of racial identity a massively important topic and a major part of their platform for a long time now. It's probably their number one thing, really, aside from opposing Trump which is really just a symptom of the disease I'm discussing. Demanding we discuss it nonstop while also heavily policing who is allowed to say what. Even the Nobel Prize winning scientist who discovered DNA, the worlds most leading expert on DNA and genetics, isn't allowed to state facts:
James Watson, now 92 years old, is an acclaimed Nobel Prize winning scientist who basically discovered DNA. Dubbed the 'father of DNA', he and the team he led were the first to discover the double helix structure of DNA, which was one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of all time. His accomplishments helped usher in a whole new era of knowledge in biology and genetics and his career arc is one of the most glorious arcs in 20th century science. He made some remarks about DNA and genetics, which, again, he basically discovered in a PBS documentary. He said: "There's a difference on the average between blacks and whites on IQ tests. I would say the difference is, it's genetic." In 2007, 'Watson created a furore after he was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."
These statements are, basically, facts. If they're not facts, they're about as close you can possibly come without being one. I mean, they're statements supported by all kinds of different, credible, robust data. Those are generally called 'facts.' There really isn't anything factually controversial about what he said. At all. So how did the scientific community, his peers, his family and the world react? Relieved of all duties at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) - the pioneering research lab he led for decades and, by the way, also saved from going under. "In 1968, Watson became the director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. At the time, the institution was struggling financially, but Watson proved to be very good at raising funds for research. Under Watson’s leadership, Cold Spring became one of the world’s leading institutions for research in molecular biology." He was stripped of all honorary titles, forced to publicly apologize multiple times, and even was the first person EVER to sell his Nobel Prize in an attempt to further apologize (the guy who bought it graciously gave it back to Watson). He also needed the money because he was so broke after being ostracized. (How depressing is that?) Even his own son, Rufus, got in on the action, telling the Associated Press that his father's views 'just represent a rather narrow interpretation of genetic destiny.'
Look at this statement from CSHL, stalwart defenders of liberty, dripping with contempt and disrespect for the man who not only saved them from being turned into a Pizza Hut, but put them on the map. "It is not news when a ninety-year-old man who has lost cognitive inhibition, and has drifted that way for decades as he aged, speaks from his present mind," CSHL Michael Wigler told The New York Times. "It is not a moment for reflection. It is merely a peek into a corner of this nation's subconscious, and a strong whiff of its not-well-shrouded past secrets."
"Celebrate science when it is great, and scientists when they deserve it," geneticist Adam Rutherford wrote. "And when they turn out to be awful bigots, let's be honest about that too. It turns out that just like DNA, people are messy, complex and sometimes full of hideous errors."
'Awful bigot.' 'Full of hideous errors.' Again, this guy discovered DNA. Whatever 'errors' these people think that Watson made could only have been discovered through research that was made possible by Watson in the first place. That lab, these people, an entire field of research, the whole community would not exist in their present form without this guy. And he was practically socially assassinated for his statements, which, again, no one can disprove! And that is to say nothing of the fact that if the literal father of DNA has reached some conclusions about DNA and genetics and IQ after a lifetime of studying it at the very tippy top of his field, maybe we should, I don't know, listen? Maybe it's a bit presumptuous to automatically assume he suddenly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and has been talking about for a while now? I mean, if the Nobel Prize winning scientist and 'father of DNA' isn't allowed to make factual statements about DNA and genetics, do we all really have to pretend that this is an honest conversation?
This isn't all just a theoretical issue for stick armed nerds in stuffy classrooms to debate over, either. The United States is now a country that produces these headlines, taken only from 2006-2009 (I have a source for each one if anyone is interested and not just completely fucking bewildered as to what you're reading right now. It's a lot, I know I said it before but it is a lot.) Headlines:
Baby Dies in Bucket of Moms Vomit
99 Year Old Woman Among Rapists Victims
Mom Allegedly Microwaves Baby
Town Stunned As 8-Year-Old Charged In Two Killings
Woman Accused Of Using Infant As Down Payment For Car
LA Police Say Killing of 3 Year Old in Gang Attack Was Intentional
Mother, Daughter, Grandmother Teamed Up For Attack
Boston Police Say 7 Year Old Shot 8 Year Old Dead
The people in these stories are about evenly split between Blacks and Hispanics.
So look, I'm not trying to go all Storm Front on everyone. This stuff was never remotely on my radar until around 2020 when the idea of race was shoved down everyones throats, non-stop. (It's somehow both a meaningless social construct but also the single most important fact about everyone). It's not even something that interested me all that much, nor is it something I really want to be concerned with. And I should mention that group differences don't mean anything when dealing with individual people, and the average Black or Brown person is not a criminal. Also, IQ isn't everything and Whites don't even have the highest IQs. Azkani Jews, on average, have the highest IQ's in the world, followed by East Asians. Some subsets of Indians test higher than Whites. We barely make the top 3.
I also think that the typical leftist views on race are actually racist. They seem to view minorities as helpless entities incapable of surviving without our help. They have the same exact abilities and capabilities as Whites, we're all just blank slates, yet Whites also owe them trillions of dollars, in perpetuity. In their view, Whites are the cause and solution to every problem that minorities have. They're an inch away from saying 'they don't know better.' This is considered the 'moral' position.
And I have barely even scratched the surface of immigration yet. A changing population will change everything in America. A country is its' people. The United States could easily come to resemble a developing world and in some places, it already does. We cannot have the same America with different people as different populations build different societies. The principle of European derived societies; freedom of speech, the rule of law, respect for women, representative government, low levels of corruption, do not simply take root like magic everywhere. They were born out of centuries of struggle, false starts, wars, civil wars and massive setbacks. They cannot be taken for granted. A poorer, dirtier, more desperate America, rife with racial rivalries and increasingly populated with people who come from non-Western traditions and societies could easily turn its back against those principles. Can you imagine emigrating to Saudi Arabia or Ghana or Cambodia and assimilating perfectly? Of course not. Yet everyone on the planet is thought to be a 'potential American.' Even if there is only a small chance that non-Western people will dominate our country and establish their own unsettling practices, why take the risk? So Wal-Mart can make its shitty widgets for 10% less? So Kelly Osburne can have her toilets cleaned for a little bit cheaper than it would normally cost? So stateless, faceless corporations can save a percentage point on their cheap labor byline while outsourcing the societal cost on everyone else?* (some of that paragraph taken from Jared Taylor's 'White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century').
Also, even if we take the argument of the Myrdals-of-the-world at face value, even if we assume that White prejudice is still the cause of underachievement for Blacks and new immigrants, it still would not justify immigration. If Whites really are such vicious oppressors that high rates of crime, disease, school failure, obesity, illegitimacy, etc. are our fault, why would you want to bring in more non-Whites? Why would Blacks want to live around Whites? It's an absurd proposition. It would only create more victims and bring out the worst in Whites. Unless the purpose of immigration is something other than improving the host country. If that is the case, then what is the purpose, exactly?
America is the greatest, most prosperous country on the planet. It should be next to impossible to immigrate here. Anyone trying to come to America should have to prove why they would be an asset to us, not the other way around. We should be flexing and exploiting our competitive advantage in every single deal we make with foreign countries, to the benefit of the people of America. Instead, what do we do? Let middle men profit off of Americas wealth and reputation for their own personal gain? Why? Something is seriously off here with the whole equation and it has been for a while.
20 years ago I would have argued against myself here. 10 years ago it wasn't on my radar. 5 years ago I would have been too chickenshit to say anything. But now? I mean, what's the plan here? Just shrivel into oblivion? Die forever because we were too polite to say anything to people who gleefully and publicly celebrate dozens of White children being killed?
I'm not okay with sitting on my hands, watching quietly and meekly as my culture gets mocked, destroyed and erased, as statues of my countries founding fathers are ripped down, as WWII murals of men who literally gave their lives to save the world are removed. I don't agree that I owe nameless, faceless strangers in foreign countries an infinite amount of money for an infinite amount of time. Like John Galt, I am free of pain and guilt. I'm not on board with handing over the keys to America to invaders who openly despise me because of the color of my skin. I'm not more afraid of saying 'no' than I am of dying. I'm not looking to be a hated minority in my own country and I'm not ok with disappearing, forever. Are you?
