Reflections: Part II

What the Peter Tefft affair cemented in my mind was the indelible truth that “racist” had become the new and predominant racial slur (funnily enough) for “white” Americans, that is to say, Americans of European lineage. A highly ironic development that the term which was originally deployed (at least ostensibly) to denote a position of atavistic group aversion and denigration should now be utilized specifically for that very purpose. I’ve written on this topic fairly extensively. There is little left to be said. For all practical purposes “racist” now connotes the same meaning for whites as “nigger” did, and still occasionally does, for blacks. A slur. Nothing more. But even those who dispense with the word “racist” in it’s entirety realize that there are real attitudinal proclivities which fall under the aforementioned rubric that are neigh wholly negative. We might as well utilize “bigotry” for these attitudinal vectors and should also remark that the primary problem with “bigots” is not that they are “prejudiced,” that is to say, it is not primarily that they pre-judge someone or group of X race.

Pre-judgement (of both individuals and groups) is absolutely essential to social navigation and, in extreme scenarios, to one’s own/one’s groups survival. For instance, consider you are driving along a lonely road and you spy a man waving for you to pull over. Some scraggly hitchhiker. You see he has a axe and a wild-eyed look. Shirt collar and pants are speckled with blood. The stench of screams hangs about him like a cloud of mist. You inquire where from the blood came. He responds: “From the seven others I butchered,” before he leaps at you, ax arcing murderously towards car window. You speed off, dazed with fear. A months later, you are driving down the same road and spy another man waving you over; as you pull up to him you notice that he too is carrying a ax, has a wild look in his eyes and wears cloths speckled with blotches of dried blood.

What to do? It would be most unlikely for anyone, given their previous experience with the aforementioned madman, to open up their doors, saying, “Hop in partner! Where to?” Rather, it would behoove you to drive away without stopping. This would be a prime example of a reasonable pre-judgement – you do not know if the second hitch-hiker is a rabid killer like the first but given that their appearances and modes of comportment are similar enough to warrant caution why would you chance it? If you know poisonous snakes live within the bushes that occasionally shake, it is best to always jump aback when they do and not assume the wind was there mischievously at play.

Now, obviously, it is highly unlikely for two serial killers to appear and be active in a given area and both appear with the same utensil (ax) on the same road only a month apart from each other, but it isn’t impossible. More likely is that the second man was a butcher (which would account for the blood) who was out collecting firewood (which would account for the ax) who was frantic because he was poor and didn’t have money to get his car fixed and was also stranded far from home (which would account for his wild eyes). To pass up such a man because of his similarity to a real killer would be a unfortunate occurrence (since he would continue to be stranded) but it is far from unreasonable.

I observed such behavior on a fairly regular basis when I lived in Pittsburgh near Squirrel Hill. Despite it’s quaint name, Squirrel Hill and the slums which surrounded it were rather dangerous territory, drug gangs roamed the streets peddling narcotics underneath the auspices of the moon and violent crimes were frequently reported (at least whilst I lived there). Demographically speaking, the crimes were almost always committed by Hispanics and blacks and so I would often observe college students making way for a group of young American men of African extraction who were quite obviously putting on airs – wearing heavy chains, low-slung pants, dew rags, grills, outlandish and awkwardly placed tattoos whilst walking with exaggerated swagger, a inexperienced and Hollywood soused young man’s idea of a confident, powerful male moving through the world  – most people, especially the well-to-do students from the local colleges would walk off the sidewalk and cross the street so as to avoid them. Thus the “prejudice” was that the violent crimes in the area appeared to have been committed largely by the black, gang affiliated population – the kind of people who say “I’m from the streets!” with pride – and given that the men who were publicly, subtly avoided well matched the profile, it made sense to take more caution around them than any other segment of the immediate population, (I might here note that the majority of the saggy pant-wearing, be-dew-ragged individuals whom I ever met there were perfectly well adjusted normal individuals who were just as spooked about criminals as anyone else).

The over-sensitivity which western men and women have cultivated towards notions of “prejudice” is thus based upon a fundamental repudiation of reality mapping. Being against prejudice, in totality, is a facade, a game, wherein all the players understand the reality and thus value of pattern recognition, but who pretend they don’t so as not to disrupt the idyllic fantasy their peers have constructed in the heads of their neighbors and whom they, themselves, unwittingly perpetuate; those who can present the most convincing facade are the only winners whereas those who are most astute and honest in their observations of reality are penalized. This is in sharp contrast to what we might call “postjudice” that is post-judgement as opposed to the pre-judgement of “prejudice.”

Consider the hitch hiker scenario once more, only this time let us say that the second man who you spotted as you drove along the road was a familiar face, a neighbor named Bill who you’ve know for years. Let us say that you knew he was a butcher and woodsman and no killer. But let us also say that you still drove on anyways because the spectre of the actual killer loomed so large in your mind. In this passion-subsuming-reason scenario there is no pre-judgement since you already know Bill. There is only a misfiring of your instinctual, primal, lizard-brained urge to move, to jump, to flee.

The Opposition Identity of the Anti-Tribe

I’ve long been skeptical of the negation crew, the “anti” crowd, those individuals or groups who when asked who they are and what they stand for reply, “I am against X!” There are the “skeptics” who are wholly against all and any religions; the SJWs who are wholly against anything that they perceive as masculine, aggressive, racist or sexist; there are the puritanical religious – the deniers of the body – who gasp and flail at the faintest stirring of erotic passion; then there are the “new ageists” who are perhaps the epitome of the skeptic foil, those who languish in a jellied slush of “mystical” half-measures, neither a creature of faith nor truly one of hard verticality. There are also the anti-statist who, like Rousseau, seek to see man placed outside the grasp of “The Tyrants,” who pervert his very nature by their iron programs and thus stymie his ability to live in the rightful state of peace and freedom. Then there is the ironycel, who wages total war on forthright meaning and serious (“I was just joking – don’t take everything so seriously, bro…”) and also the hedonist who stands in total opposition to any and all impulse restraint. The list could go on and on; reams upon reams, enough to fill up the center of the earth, with enough left over to blot out the sun.

It is not for our purposes to trace the origins nor map the structures of any of the aforementioned groups – rather it is to remark upon the one thing they all share – they are all, without exception, defined either largely or entirely by what they oppose. Theirs is a identity of opposition. They are reactive, rather than proactive. Defined by circumstance rather than defining it. For stable construction, in any serious political sense, such tribes can offer one nothing, for they have nothing but derisive jeers – hardly the solid stuff one should be seeking. They have not the glue to hold a body politic together for they do not themselves know who they are nor what they stand for all that they know is that they are not what they oppose. They are NOT X, but not necessarily Y or Z.

What defines a body politic is its identity, this also drives such entities to oppose others; that is to say, when tribe X’s culture (the manifestation of their identity) finds itself incongruent with tribe Y, it behooves tribe Y to push back against it and make X conform (at least to some more desirable degree) to their outward expression of collective self. Failing this, there can be naught but war. But the anti-collective – the group who knows not who they are, nor what they stand for, nor where they are going – can not take the path of reprisal for they can not form a coherent political body (and even if they could they could only keep it so long as “the other” whom they opposed remained a active and present force, whether actually or mythically). The ephemeral formalism of the anti-tribes, useful for short-span guerrilla combat of the mind, is wholly useless for times of peace (and there should be little distinction made between peace from real-world combat and combat of a more ideological persuasion) as they do not have internal structure to their various, tangentially related collectives (often they have no reason for being a collective at all once their “threat,” their pet-problem, is removed). Due to the fact that the anti-tribes persist only so that X,Y & Z shall not, when another problem arises that is falls not within the purview of their own problem-set, they are like to ignore it or sublimate themselves to it (the case of the modern American Christian who constantly wails about Muslim “invaders,” but shows little to no concern about Zionist radicals destabilizing his nation).

It is, for all these aforementioned reasons, pertinent for those who are seeking a more stable ordering to things to treat the anti-tribes with the greatest of caution. For, as the old adage goes, it takes but one rotten apple to ruin the entire barrel.

Towards A Program of Great Works: The US-Mexican Border Wall

Pertinent First Questions.

Much has been said about the current US President’s proposed border wall, with opposition commentary generally running along the lines of, “A border wall is inherently racist!” Let us, from the start, dispense with such foolishness. Walls, no more than doors, columns or cornices, are in any cogently definable way classically “racist” meaning, presumably, bigoted (not that I think much of the term – it means little enough these days, a symptom of Prog Boy-Who-Cried-Wolfism). Furthermore, there are several very good reasons to wish to tighten border security, the opioid epidemic (covered in my previous article, American Deathscape: The Drug Scourge & It’s Sources) being pushed by the Mexican drug cartels that is currently ravishing the nation being just one prime example among many. Others include the prevention of sex trafficking and contraband smuggling operations and the countless injuries, mutilations, thefts, rapes and murders that come along for the ride, and, perhaps most importantly, the future cultural impact which massive Hispanic immigration will undeniably bring; indeed, it has already brought it (consider the curious case of the NCLR, or, The National Council of La Raza; which, literally translated, means, The Race).

Either a nation is sovereign or it is not; it is axiomatically impossible, given a long enough period of time, for any nation to maintain its sovereignty if it does not secure its selfsame borders. Thus, if the United States secures its borders it is taking a potent step in protecting its sovereignty. Yet, some crucial questions here must be asked, such as:

  • Would a wall really greatly aid in securing the border? That is to say, do fences work?
  • How much would such a construct cost, how long will it take to construct?
  • Would imminent domain be invoked or private property need be governmentally purchased?
  • Who is going to pay for it?
  • How would Mexicans and Americans respond to it during its construction and after its erection?

 

The Efficacy of Walls.

To answer the first question: Yes.

Yes, walls greatly secure whatever areas they are built upon from unwanted intrusion; that is their sole purpose. For thousands upon thousands of years civilizations have been using walls to deter unwanted migrants, undesirable criminals and warring invaders (ect. Great Wall of China, the walled keeps of the Scottish Lords, Hadrians Wall, The Berlin Wall, The Israeli West Bank Barrier as well as the twisting fences of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, all spring instantly to mind). Clearly they work. This doesn’t mean that they work everywhere, however, as some portions of the US-Mexican border are simply too hilly and uneven for a proper wall to be erected – but where walls can be built and utilized effectively they most certainly should be.

Financing the Project.

Now, unto a trickier topic – the cost. Estimates for the total cost of the wall to be constructed, were initially placed somewhere in the ballpark of the 15-25 billion dollar range (Mitch McConnell, in 2015 placed, the estimate far lower at around 12-15 billion). More recently, the estimated average price has moved to 21.6 billion dollars which is somewhere in between these extremes – still, it isn’t chump-change. Current estimates place threshold for completion at around 3 years. Mexico won’t pay, that is clear. Not directly anyways. Trump’s strong-man approach has utterly failed; Nieto made that clear when he spurned the President’s invitation to meet in January in the White House after Trump said he should only come if he was prepared to pay for the wall. With talks about the US pulling out of NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) the relationship between Mexico and America have only disintegrated further which has left many wondering if US taxpayers will end up drawing the short straw and footing the majority, if not the entirety, of the bill. Not good, but hardly hopeless.

Prospective Solutions.

While Mexico may not pay for the wall directly that does not, however, mean that they can’t be tapped to furnish it. Such a statement might sound both strange and more than a little ominous but such worries are easily remedied by taking a clear-eyed look at the sheer amount of money which the United States of America lavishes upon Mexico. Currently Mexico receives around $ 320 million a year from the US in foreign aid. A hefty sum by any measure. It would therefore be highly advantageous to the security of the American people to cease funding, in some portion or in sum total, to the arid federal republic. While some may cry that this would only grant further power to the various Mexican drug cartels – of which the Sinaloa Cartel is easily the most influential and hence, the most dangerous – this argument falls relatively flat by its very admission. If Mexico, since the la Década Perdida of the 80s, has been unable to crush the cartels, even with massive foreign aid from the United States, one can scarcely be expected to believe they will solve the problem in the immediate future. Funding Mexico IS funding the cartels. Thus one is left with a rather cut-and-dry binary decision: fund a failing state and its attendant criminal shadow-lords or fund the defense and further prosperity of one’s own nation. The proper choice here is clear.

Retracted foreign aid alone, however, will not cover the wall in its entirety as currently proposed so what other avenues of action could the government take that would circumnavigate the US taxpayer footing the bill? Remittances, of course! This is a highly promising area of inquiry for our purposes as Mexican Remittances alone make up around 2% of the countries total GDP, such payments by Mexicans living abroad generated $ 24.8 billion for Mexico in 2015 alone (which is more than the country generates in sum total from all of their oil reserves). If the President where to place a sufficient tax on this revenue source in conjunction with the surplus funds to be had after retracting foreign aid, the wall would be well on its way. This is to say nothing of the billions which our government could potentially utilize from the seized assets of Mexican drug lords such as the infamous Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. Whether or not there is the political will for such a arduous undertaking is, of course, another matter entirely. But as the old adage goes, where there is the political will, there is a way.

It is now lies with us generate that will and foster a return to an era of great public works that, for generations, will reverberate throughout the world. This newest prospective monument should be a codification of our nations strength and pride, of our indelible spirit of industry and order. A signal to noise.

Kaiter Enless is a novelist and a contributing writer for New Media Central & Thermidor Magazine. He is also the founder & chief-editor of The Logos Club. Follow him here.

The ism Conundrum: A Checkmate of Words

In the Western World there is seldom anything anyone fears being called more than a racist. But the phrase is quite confusing due to a ever growing multiplicity of meanings. As far as I can discern, however, all of these various differentials can be boiled down to two basic meanings, what we can call small racism and capital R racism.

Here’s the difference:

  • racism simply means the belief that there are biological differences between races outside of skin color.
  • Racism means one hates/and/or/wishes to destroy/suppress/enslave another individual(s) or group(s) due to their genes alone.

So one can see that the first, and quite benign, example would cleverly ensnare nearly everyone! And this word bears consideration, thus I use it quite expressly ensnare. The word is a trap, a checkmate that would fall like a spiked ceiling upon the inbred hilljack as easily and efficiently and destructively as the refine biologist or the discerning anthropologist! It is, in short, nothing more than a linguistic trick, a verbal illusion. Consider the Merriam Webster’s description of Racism:

  • a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
  • racial prejudice (that is, unfair/illogical/ideologically driven disdain)

You can see quite quickly that only one of these beliefs is inherently irrational. There is a big difference between posting a sign saying: “No Dogs Allowed,” and saying that that the aggregate IQ for the Irish is 92 (this coming from studies conducted between 2002 and 2006, carried out by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen). Even if you disagree with the IQ researcher’s results, or even with the very concept of IQ itself, the distinction between prejudice and reasoned inquiry within these instances is still as stark as day and night. So too is the distinction between a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits (which it does not seem to be) and simple racial prejudice, equally stark. Therefore, the question begs itself – why conflate these two very distinct approaches to the topic of human biodiversity? Why not use racism as a synonym for racial prejudice and bigotry alone and use some other phrase or word for those who believe (rightly or wrongly) in racial differences?

There are a wide array of answers which are both historical, financial and political – I am unconcerned with any of it. The reason why is that this conflation of meanings is dangerously important, not just because it’s faulty and unfair but also because it actively tamps down on the ability of serious scholars and researchers to delve into topics such as aggregate population IQ, disease prevention (for instance Black Africans and Arabs have higher rates of Sickle Cell than other ethnic groups as a side effect of malaria resistance) which could potentially improve or even save lives.

I am hopeful that we can all agree on this: No amount of offense evasion is worth the death of single human. If this is so then why should offense create a barrier to something as inoffensive as serious intellectual study? And make no mistake, these checkmate words do indeed create a barrier to serious intellectual study. But it’s not just racist/racism rhetoric that is shutting people down, there is a whole slew of checkmate words: islamaphobe, homophobe, sexist, misogynist, institutionalized, the list goes on and on.

Take, for instance, the curious case of Daniel Dennet, a prominent author, analytic philosopher and cognitive scientist, who gave a speech in early 2015 entitled Information, Evolution and Intelligent Design. Midway through the Q&A a particularly well informed member of the audience put a most irregular question to the academic darling, that being, does Dennett believe that there are intelligence quotient differentials between males and females which arise due, primarily, to biological factors. Dennett’s reply was shocking, as he responded by saying only, “-I don’t think it matters-” and, “I don’t think there is any scientific value in pursuing that question and I think there is social dis-value in purusing that question. I don’t think we need to know everything and I think this is one of the things we don’t need to know.” [Dennett, 2015]

This was quite extraordinary to me – the baldfaced cowardice of it all! This is supposed to be one of the Western World’s brightest minds? This social-gadfly who kowtows at every turn to the prevailing academic orthodoxy! And make no mistake, it is an orthodoxy. However it is not one which stems from academia, but rather from the prevailing culture. Much like with politics, culture is upstream from academia. And the orthodoxy of the prevailing culture in the Western World is one of fanatical Deconstructionist Egalitarianism. There is some biting irony in the fact that Dennett, a stalwart critic of the dogma inherent in organized religion, consciously acknowledges that the tendrils of social doctrine control him as a puppeteer might any given marionette! But he doesn’t stop there, he also advocates for the academic doctrine of egalitarianism by stating that questions of human intelligence differentials are of no scientific value! It would be hard to think of a more patently absurd thing for such a highly lauded scientific and philosophical luminary to say.

Consider also the case of James Watson, the biologist that co-discovered the fundamental structure of DNA and spearheaded the Human Genome Project, who gave a newspaper interview in 2007 that effectively ended his career and made him a social pariah. What James Watson said was that he worried about the future of Africans due to the fact that a mountain of research pointed to the fact that, on average, native Africans have an IQ of around 70 (markedly lower than the average IQ of most Western countries). So great was the furor surrounding Watson’s fairly innocuous, albeit completely blunt, statements that he was forced out of his job and shunned as if he were some fetid leper. Indeed, the British based newspaper, The Guardian even released a article about how Watson deserved everything he got and that he should be shunned for his, “Racist and sexist views!”  So deep was the pit into which Watson had fallen that he was forced to sell the Nobel prize he had won in 1962 to sustain himself. If you find this to be poetic justice you might just be insane.

These examples (and there are many, many more) provide the starkest proof of just how powerful these checkmate words can be. James Watson, a juggernaut in the field of science, was brought to heel not by argumentation or reasoned analysis but by being called but a name. A word. The pen is, indeed, mightier than the sword, but might does not necessarily translate to truth.

When one’s foe attempts the game of words and makes his move, his checkmate, the response should not be to assume a defensive strategy, it should be to attack. Violently and aggressively. In making unsubstantiated accusations about another person one is not being dignified, clever or intellectually upright, one is being immoral. For to consistently accuse another man of being a bad person without evidence is the surest evidence that the accuser himself is a bad person. More distressingly, perhaps, than the fact that such people are moral infants is that they care very little for what is true and seem to be exclusively concerned with what makes them feel good. They are, these irrationally outraged word-game players, nothing more than hedonists garbed in the thinnest veneer of intellectual veracity. Such fools do not deserve even to be told the moral and factual distinctions between the words they purport to know and should, themselves be shunned like the cancerous cretins they are.