The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
 Fred Reed Blog View

In reading the endless complaints by blacks about shootings by the police, I usually find it hard to know what really happened. As far as I am aware, the media never allow an unedited interview, or any interview, with the police charged with the shootings but allow endless commentary by people who weren’t there.

I am also often puzzled by the motivation of the cops. Do they confer in the morning and say, “Hey, let’s shoot some totally innocent black guy in front of witnesses who probably have cell phones?” And why are cops not brutalizing Latinos, only blacks, especially in LA, which provides a target-rich environment?

If I could, I would speak to BLM as follows:

I cannot determine what you want. There seems to be a great deal of anger but little clarity. Discussion usually wanders off into demands for justice, but without specifics.

Since I am looking for practical recommendations, let us begin by acknowledging the circumstances we face. You say that white cops mistreat blacks, sometimes brutally. This is true. I have seen some of it, and know of more. White cops seldom like blacks, nor blacks, white cops. The cultures are irreconcilably different. On the other hand, beatings of whites, Latinos, and Asians by gangs of blacks are far outnumber beatings of blacks by white cops. In sum, no love is lost and I do not see a lot of moral high ground. So:

Do you want white policemen excluded from black neighborhoods?

The available answers are “yes,” and “no.” I do not mean to be abrupt about this, but vague considerations of abstract justice, alleged discrimination, and racism do not provide usable answers. So, do you want white cops pulled from black neighborhoods, or not? It’s one or the other.

Personally I think it wiser not to have whites policing blacks. I don’t want to see white cops raped in media circuses. Nor do I want blacks to be mistreated by white cops. It seems to me that BLM should support segregation of police as it would eliminate any possibility of racist behavior. But, again, I will accept whatever choice you make.

Two New Jersey Teens Arrested for Brutal Knockout Attack on Elderly Man in Paterson

Do you want any policemen in your neighborhoods?

Here again a clear answer is needed. I have no stake in the question and do not want to impose my standards on you. Yet a concrete policy must be either no police, or police of some kind. Which?

If you asked my advice, I would suggest that without police your neighborhoods would turn into free-fire zones. Note that after Ferguson police have in large part stopped policing, so you can get a minor idea of what a police-less society will be like. However, your neighborhoods are your neighborhoods. I will respect your decision.

Do blacks want to recruit, train, and discipline police forces of blacks only in their neighborhoods?

Again, your choice. I do not presume to prescribe for you. However, it would eliminate complaints of racism. Should this plan be adopted, black forces would receive the same funding as white, the same pensions and benefits, so there would be no question of discrimination. They would better understand a black population. But do as you like. Just tell me, specifically, what it is that you want.

‘Black Lives Matter’ Thugs Who Beat Marine Unconscious in Race Attack WON’T Face Hate Crime Charges

What laws do you want cops to enforce in your neighborhoods?

Specifically what laws? Do you want the police to arrest crack dealers? Yes, or no. Again, I don’t care, and do not tell you what to do.

Yet cops need to know what they are expected to do. Should they stop people drinking in public, or allow it? Dealing drugs? Illegal parking? Public urination? Looting? Prostitution? I don’t care. Make any decision you like, but tell the cops clearly, and do not penalize them for doing what you tell them to do.

As a multiculturalist, I believe that different ethnic and racial groups should, within their neighborhoods, live by their own norms. That includes my neighborhood and my norms. For example, in my neighborhood I would want the police to shoot looters and arsonists. Perhaps this is a white thing, but I am a white guy and I am talking about white neighborhoods and white notions of civilization.

RacialMurder

Breitbart: “Three Young Black Women Accused of Beating 51-Year-Old White Man to Death” Hundreds of documented cases exist, carefully ignored by the media and the government. If you ignore a lump, it will go away. Ask any oncologist.

What should cops do when a criminal resists arrest?

This is an important question, in fact the important question. Nearly all of the complaints of shootings and beatings have involved resistance to arrest. It becomes explosive when white cops are involved. Here we need a clear answer. A cop cannot obey a vague abstraction.

Let us suppose that in a black neighborhood a cop sees a wanted drug dealer, rapist, killer, or burglar. He says, “You are under arrest,” and the rapist or wanted armed robber or coke dealer says, “Fuck off, white boy.”

What does BLM want the cop to do? Nothing? Something? What? Specifically, what? This is not a philosophical question. A cop in an actual situation has to do something, or nothing. I don’t care which. You tell me, and I will support your decision. But the cop has to know what is expected of him.

For a white cop, the best answer is “nothing.” Anything he does risks a brutality beef: Physically tackling a criminal, tasing him, pepper-spraying him, clubbing him, or shooting him all pose the risk of prosecution, lawsuits, and loss of career. There is no pretty way to subdue a strong male who doesn’t want to be subdued. A wanted killer is looking at a lot of time in slam and will be perfectly willing to hurt a cop to avoid being arrested.

What do you want the cop to do? Specifically what?

What does BLM want black cops to do?

This is your business, not mine, but you might think about it from the cop’s point of view. How should a black cop respond to resistance?

Other questions merit consideration. If you have ever walked beats with cops, which virtually no one has, you know that a cop faces ambiguities, murky regions of the law, and sometimes problems that cannot be resolved within the law.

For example, suppose that a drug crew is selling on the sidewalk in front of an old woman’s house, and she is afraid to go out for groceries. This is not hypothetical: I have seen it. What should the cop do?

Legally, he can do nothing. The sidewalk is public, certainly if they keep moving. They will not be selling openly, so he can’t arrest them. He can tell them to move on, and they may. The minute he is out of sight, they are back. What if they say, “It’s a free country”? Now what? The little old lady needs to eat.

What do you suggest? If it is your old woman in your neighborhood, it is your business, but the cop needs to know.

In sum, if you will say what concrete and specific things you want, we can discuss your desires rationally and perhaps come to a resolution. Some problems will inevitably remain, such as what to do in mixed neighborhoods. My take is that the quickest and easiest means of limiting friction is simply to separate white cops and black people, and black cops and white people, but this, if you agree that it is a good idea, cannot happen unless groups like BLM ask for it.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 

I love it: Donald Trump’s campaign reveals the establishment for what it is, a swamp of corruption as fetid as those of Latin America. It is better entertainment than Vaudeville. The frantic scramble to rig the primaries, change the rules, and thwart the voters–anything to defend their cozy entanglement of political tapeworms–makes absurd any pretense of democracy.

This morning in the Drudge Report: “Trump Highest Number of Republican Voters in History.” Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Trump.

On the same page a poll reports Trump tied with Hillary nationally. Who do the Republicans want to get rid of? Guess.

It’s wonderful. The GOP is looking for someone that Hillary can beat. She would squash Kasich or Cruz like stepping on bugs. Trump might actually win. This the Republicans strive to avoid. What could make more sense?

But it does make sense. The Republicans try desperately to ditch the only Republican candidate who could win the Presidency because…Hillary is one of them. Because, as every sentient being has by now noticed, the Republicans and Democrats are members of the same corrupt club of blood-sucking parasites, the action arm of the corporations, Wall Street, the Israeli lobby, and those who want the US to control the world at any cost–except, of course, to them. They are panicked at the rise of someone who might put first the interests of America. Better Hillary, a fellow parasite, than Trump, who isn’t.

The latest skulduggery is the Virginia governor’s allowing convicted felons to vote. The obvious intention is to increase the black vote for Hillary. In Chicago, the dead vote. In Virginia, the killers. This sort of thing of course explains the support for Trump.

Will the two parties succeed in blocking the Donald? Might they even resort to the Martin Luther King solution? My powers of political prognostication would be under zero if they could figure out how to get there. If the felony vote and delegate-tampering bring Trump to the convention with only 1236 delegates, and the Republicans broker-in some sad-sack compliant loser, well, the mask will be definitively, openly, for all time off. Welcome to Paraguay.

Which would be only another step in the country’s race toward the Third World.

What would the public do if Trump were robbed of the nomination? What could the public do? There might be protests, mass demonstrations in the streets, but so what? The Insiders’ Club would just wait them out. Once a society realizes that it has no power over its rulers, it lapses into resignation. Republicans do not loot malls or burn cities, and would soon go home. But all the world would see that the Americans have no recourse, that the Insiders do as they please. Welcome to China.

But the mask would be forever off. Very, very off.

If the Republicans deep-six Trump, and Hillary runs against Kasich, or or Cruz, or some other derelict, what then? Our choices will be not to vote, which will make no difference, to vote for either of the party candidates, which will make no difference, or to vote for Trump if he runs as a third party, which will make no difference. But at least we will have seen under the log, the squishy pale creatures scurrying. They will keep their grip on the country, but the world will know them for what they are.

And America for what it is: Corrupt to the roots of its teeth. The corruption is adroitly hidden, yes, or disguised as something else. Yet it is there. Consider the subprime disaster. To believe that it was an accident, or a cyclical downturn, or other artifact of econobabble, one has to believe that bankers, realtors, and Wall Street do not understand mortgages, credit, or defaults. You have to believe that officials of the Treasury, who slide back and forth between Wall Street and government like the motion of the tides, had no idea what was going on.

At the top, America is as corrupt as Mexico but American corruption is far more efficient. Among the white middle class, the rot is less. But within the clubhouse of insiders, at the level of the anointed, of the Adelsons and Epsteins and Clintons and Bushes, there is putrefaction most foul.

It is cleverly done, and seldom involves anything so sordid as open bribery. Yet the results are everywhere. Men who knew exactly what they were doing engineered the student-loan bubble. Yet it is legal, like so many scams. Huge military contracts for things not needed, the near-control of Mid-Eastern policy by Israel, poor medical care at high prices, the deliberate gutting of American industry so that corporations can enrich themselves in China–all of this is legal. You pay Congress and it makes legal anything you want.

Credit cards, which intentionally lure people into going deeply in debt and paying usurious interest rates, are legal. Big Pharma paid Congress to rule that Medicare cannot negotiate the price of drugs, opening a sluice to the Treasury. Corruption, but legal.

Under the rule of the Insiders Club, medical care is a fecund source of legal graft. Example: I once needed eye drops from Bausch and Lomb called Muro, which amounted to hypertonic salt water. A bottle of 1.8 (I think it was) ounces cost $23 in Washington, $19 in Winchester, Virginia. Exactlythe same product in Mexico, $6. Price-fixing, but where and by whom? What Congressmen were paid to make it legal, or not look into it too closely, or at all?

Welcome to Guatemala.

Corruption has come to be the purpose of government, and the Club battens on it. You want to see the political equivalent of a public latrine in Uganda? Try HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I promise that you will be horrified by the diversion of funds and lining of pockets.

You ask, Fred, why do you say this? Are you a student of HUD? No. I know nothing of HUD. I know much of government. HUD is an outfit with over thirty billion a year to spend, completely unwatched. Have you ever seen a newspaper story about HUD? I guarantee that it is dominated by the sacred ethnic groups who milk it like a prize Guernsey, and by big companies getting sweetheart contracts.

Or try Commerce, or Education, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Congress.

It is to preserve these overflowing rice bowls that we have elections without substance between candidates without a difference. Hillary is just Jeb Bush in a dress, Biden a universally applicable cipher, Cruz a compliant applicant for membership in the club. Since the parties collude in avoiding issues that people care about, the contest becomes a popularity contest of the sort found in middle school. Whoever wins, the Insiders win.

Of course Trump also is a billionaire,but he is a turncoat, a class traitor, the Benedict Arnold of billionaires. He addresses the issues that the Insiders want to remain unaddressed. He is indeed dangerous. He threatens the endless (immensely profitable) wars, the endless (immensely profitable) shipping of American jobs to China, the endless (immensely profitable) importation of cheap Mexican labor. He threatens the sacred rice bowls.

It is why he must be stopped.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Corruption, Donald Trump

To understand the arguments of capitalists against the minimum wage, follow the money. In all the thickets of pious reasoning about the merits of capitalism and the market, and of freedom of contract, and of allowing this marvelous mechanism to work its magic, and of what Adam Smith said, the key is the dollar. The rest is fraud. Carefully ignored is the question that will be crucial in coming decades: What to do about an ever-increasing number of people for whom there is no work.

There is of course much hypocrisy in the theoretical edifice. For example, businessmen arguer that the minimum wage constitutes intolerable interference by the government in the conduct of business—meanwhile sending armies of lobbyists to Washington to make the government interfere in the conduct of business. In fact capitalists have no objection to federal meddling. They just want it to be such meddling as puts more money in their pockets. Nothing more. Ever.

In like fashion they say that they want to protect the worker’s freedom—yes, his freedom, such is the capitalist’s benevolence, the worker’s freedom–to sell his labor at a mutually agreed price. Curiously, in practice this means the employer’s freedom to push wages as close to starvation as he can get away with. This miraculous congruence of high principle with low profit is among the wonders of the universe.

A capitalist will similarly object to zoning on grounds of protecting property rights–it’s his land, and he can do with it as he likes—but if you buy the lot next to his house and build a hog-rendering plant, he will shriek for…zoning.

In every case, without exception, his high principles will lead to more in his pocket. He will be against a minimum wage because, he says, it prevents young blacks from entering the job market and learning its ways. You can just tell he is deeply concerned about young blacks. He probably wakes up in the middle of the night, worrying about them. He doesn’t, however, hire any. Purely incidentally, not having a minimum wage saves him…money. And if he were truly concerned about young blacks, might he not express this concern by—paying them a living wage?

Nah.

The quest for cheap labor has perhaps caused less misery than war—itself a most profitable business, war—but it is neck and neck. Businessmen imported blacks as slaves to have cheap labor, with disastrous results continuing to this day. Businessmen encourage illegal immigration from the Latin lands so as to have cheap labor. They sent America’s factories to China to have cheap labor. And now they peer with wet lips and avid gaze at…robots.

These will drudge away day and night, making no demands, never unionizing,, needing no retirement or medical benefits. Actually, though, capitalists want robots because capitalists care about freedom and want to help young blacks.

A cynic might see this as intellectual scaffolding for social Darwinism and unaccountability–see, it’s all due to the workings of the market. and the capitalist is only a bystander But no. It is about freedom., and justice, and all.

Among the fantastic trappings of—”free enterprise” sounds nicer than “capitalism,” doesn’t it?–is that it rewards hard work and determination which if pursued will lead to prosperity. This is both believed and beloved by many who believe it in part because for them it performed as described. The intelligent, healthy, ambitious and–a major advantage–unscrupulous can usually get ahead. And so, talking with others like themselves, they ask, “If I can do it, why can’t they?” The underlying notion is that the poor are poor because they are lazy and lack ambition. Some fit the description. Lots don’t.

Here we come to Commentator’s Disease, epidemic among talking heads and columnists.

A woman of my acquaintance once said, “In Washington, you assume that everybody is in the 99th percentile.” Decompressed from the apothegmatic, it is true. Cognitive stratification is very real, though seldom noticed and never mentioned. The city attracts the highly bright. They hang out together. They date. They marry. They don’t know anybody who is not like them. The same holds in many places, and on the web, but Washington is where policy comes from.

By and large they are neither arrogant nor snobs. Since they are all in the same bracket, snobbery would be difficult. They include a great many journalists. It is fun to speak of the press as imbeciles, but, apart perhaps from babble-blonde anchors chosen for their looks, they are not. The duller probably clock an IQ of 120. Even at dismal publications like Army Times and Federal Computer Week, with both of which I was once familiar, you find very smart people.

What has this to do with the minimum wage? A fair amount. People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously–important word: “unconsciously”–that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can’t learn-much of anything. Not won’t. Can’t. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.

Few of the very bright have have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don’t really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.

Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination…..

It ain’t so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn’t when there aren’t. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things,. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.

As the stock market reaches new highs and the nation’s wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, we hear that a rising tide floats all boats. This is fine if you have a boat. Maybe it only looks as though capitalists flourish while the middle class sinks and the welfare rolls grow and kids have to live at home and they will have no retirement. Well, some boats leak, I guess.

When the theorists of free enterprise imagine that our dim-witted young lady should be permitted the freedom to sell her labor for what it is worth, they do not worry that her labor isn’t worth enough to feed her. Some who say this simply do not understand what her life is going to be if she is paid what her labor is worth. Others, with the lack of empathy that characterizes conservatives, don’t care. If you look at the godawful conditions of their employees in the sweatshops of, say, Bangladesh, you will see that not caring is common. Let them eat cake.

The question arises: What does the country do with the large and growing number of people whose labor is worth nothing? Or, perhaps more accurately, whose labor isn’t needed? We see this in the cities today. An illiterate kid in Detroit has no value at all in the market for labor. Assuming that he wants to work, a questionable assumption, what then? Endlessly expanding welfare? What about the literate, averagely intelligent kid for whom there are no jobs? If people working in McDonald’s can barely live on their wages, and strike, or the state institutes a higher minimum wage, McDonald’s will automate their jobs, is automating their jobs, and conservatives will exult—the commie bastards got what they asked for.

This is capitalism in its perfection.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics • Tags: Capitalism, Minimum Wage
Vietnam War Montage, Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Vietnam War Montage, Credit: Wikimedia Commons

War may be thought of in two ways. First, as a football game between armies, in which the function of the citizenry is to cheer for the home team. In football, success is measured in points scored, yardage gained, brilliance of play, and time of possession. In war as football, it is battles won, enemies killed, territory conquered. The crucial goal is to defeat the other side’s armed forces. Doing so constitutes victory.

To one who sees war in this way, as militaries invariably do, America will always come out ahead on points since we fight only countries hopelessly inferior in military terms. In Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, and Afghanistan the US killed vastly more people than it suffered dead, won almost all battles by overwhelming material superiority, and easily captured any territory it chose.

By this reasoning, it can be argued that America won in Vietnam. When the GIs pulled out, the South was a functioning country by the standards of the Third World. The Viet Cong were still blowing up bridges, but Saigon was repairing them. The VC had no chance of conquering the country unaided. America had won.

One may also view war otherwise, as an element in a struggle in which one country seeks to make another country do something it wants. Victory consists in accomplishing this. In Vietnam, America–or, important distinction, the US government–wanted to prevent South Vietnam from falling to the Communists. The North wanted the US to go away so that it could conquer the South. The US went, and the North conquered. It got what it wanted. The North won, QED.

From the footballer’s point of view, the United States won in Iraq. It killed huge numbers of people while losing few, destroyed whole cities, and never lost a battle. Yet it got none of the things it wanted: a puppet government, permanent large military bases, and the oil. A dead loss. If anybody won, it was Israel or Iran. In Afghanistan, America as usual devastated the country and killed hugely and with impunity, thus winning the football game–but accomplished nothing.

To those who see war as football, the principal target is the enemy’s military. To those who see war as a means of making the other side do something, the aim is to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. This includes the will of the enemy’s population.

In Vietnam, the North knew it had no chance of decisively defeating American forces. It might, however, drag the war on and on, and on, and on, steadily inflicting casualties, until the enemy’s will to fight collapsed. In the North, this was a deliberate strategy. To win in the sense of making the US do what it wanted, it didn’t have to win militarily. It just had to keep from losing–and inflict casualties, and casualties, and casualties. It suffered many more dead than it inflicted, but it had the will to keep fighting. And inflict casualties. And casualties.

There were about sixty kids in my graduating class at King George High School, Virginia, in 1964. Doug Grey died with a 12.7 round through the head. Studley Franklin, paraplegic. Ricky Reed, face full of shrapnel and severe eye damage. Chip Thompson, neck wounds. At least two others, whom I won’t name, became severe alcoholics. Many others went. Everyone knew all of these kids.

The military, with its football mindset, expects the public to rally round the flag and support the wars. As the antiwar rallies grew and became huge, and kids fled to Canada and sought deferments and hid in the Navy, the military felt betrayed. To this day many veterans remain bitter at what they see as treason, cowardice, lack of patriotism. They were fighting and dying, seeing friends bleeding to death, choking on their own blood, burned alive in flaming Amtracs–and college kids were smoking dope and getting laid and chanting “Hell no, we won’t got.” The vets were, and are, embittered. They won, they believe, but the hippies and lefties stabbed them in the back.

And this was what the North Vietnamese counted on. They couldn’t bomb American cities, as America was bombing theirs, but they could keep the body bags flowing. Two hundred dead a week was a modest figure, with others mutilated, and they came back to towns and cities in bags or wheel chairs. Many of them told friends, “Don’t go. It’s godawful. It’s pointless. Don’t go.” It added up. It was a Cold Warrior’s war, and a high-school kid’s fight.

America’s will to fight crumbled, exactly as the North hoped. They–you can read this in their documents from the war–knew what they were doing.

I was on campus for some years of this, both before and after going to Asia as a Marine. The boys didn’t want to fight in a remote war that meant nothing to them. Their girlfriends were against it. Usually their parents agreed. In Vietnam itself morale flagged. Fraggings came. Mutinies and things perilously close occurred.

Tet came. Seeing war as football, many insist, correctly, that Tet was a military disaster for the North. Vietnamese losses were huge and the Americans, taken by surprise, retook everything they had lost with comparative ease.

But, in the all-important terms of the will to fight, it was an American disaster. Soldiers don’t understand this. It convinced much of the American public–whether rightly or wrongly doesn’t matter at all–that the US was not winning and couldn’t win.

America declared victory and left–the first part of what the North wanted. In 1975 when Ban Me Thuot fell and the NVA rolled South, the more warlike in America wanted to send the Air Force to save the South and said that the US had weakened its allies by not supplying them with fuel and so on. Some said that the Democrats in Congress were treasonous and should be tried. As you like. But the public was so sick of that war than any attempt to restart it was going to have Congressmen hanging from lamp posts.

The strategy of the North, which might be regarded as a form of psywar, had worked.

Can America be defeated this way again? Unlikely. The all-voluntary military means that body bags will contain only elements of society that the ruling classes don’t care about. Wars now chiefly involve bombing enemies who have no way of fighting back. Reliance on drones means no casualties at all, and the use of robots in ground combat, long a pipe dream, is nearing reality. The media are under control. America still loses its wars in the sense of not getting what it wants, but the public doesn’t care and you cannot sap a drone’s will. Here is the lesson of Vietnam.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
shutterstock_207977668

“Behavioral genetics” is a science that seeks to demonstrate a physiological and genetic basis for human behavior—for liberalism versus conservatism and for religion versus irreligion, among countless other traits.

Some of it is well established, though not known to the general public, and other parts more-or-less established. Inevitably all of it is attributed to evolution and natural selection, the relevant discipline being called “evolutionary psychology.” The more serious devotees insist that all human traits are heritable—i.e., genetic—as well as derived by natural selection.

Perhaps because I am genetically obtuse, there are parts of the evolutionary tale that I don’t understand. Herewith some questions I am powerless to answer, in hopes that someone will help me. I look for concrete, demonstrable, provable answers, not vague, speculative, metaphysical ones.

(1) I do not understand populational altruism from the standpoint of behavioral genetics or evolutionary psychology. Populations in numerical decline—the French, for example—intentionally import genetically very distinct and faster-breeding peoples. Sweden, perhaps the whitest of nations, deliberately imports black Africans, and Germany, Moslems. The United States focuses its domestic policy on the upkeep of a black population.

What selective pressures bring this about? What is the reproductive advantage for the host populations? And since all traits are genetic, not having children must be the result of natural selection. That is, the reproductive advantage of not having children was so great that it spread rapidly through whole populations.

(2 ) Human evolution is said to be “ongoing”, and “both copious and rapid.” While any dog-breeder can attest that selection, natural or otherwise, can produce great genetic changes, I wonder why 2500 years of this rapid natural selection haven’t.

Romans and Greeks in the statuary of Praxiteles and Phidias, as well as Roman copies of Greek works, look just like us. Writers and thinkers of classical times both in style and cast of mind read like moderns: Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Archimedes, Julius Caesar, Ovid, Papinian, Ulpian, all the gang. The sense of humor is the same: Juvenal could be Mencken’s (very) long-lost brother. The ancients spent their time as we do, making war on anyone within reach. Twenty-five hundred years of rapid evolution seem to have produced a net of zero.

(3) Does not rapid evolution require intense selective pressure? What are these pressures? That is, pressures strong enough to cause greater rates of reproduction? In societies such as the white European, nearly everyone marries, nearly everyone has small families, and nearly everyone lives past reproductive age. This would seem to reduce selective pressures based on differential rates of survival and reproduction.

Would not such evolution as still occurred do so through things like assortative mating, in which for example the smart marry the smart, producing a caste of the increasingly bright? Do not liberals marry liberals, and conservatives conservatives, thus concentrating the genes for their respective furies? One does not easily imagine Bernie Sanders (or anyone, for that matter) marrying Ann Coulter.

(4) I do not understand the behavioral genetics of sexual selection.

For example, why do women have breasts? They are, as we say, a waste of metabolic resources, unnecessary for nursing young (neither chimps nor dogs have breasts except when nursing), and make running difficult (we have sports bras for a reason). That is, they are both useless and detrimental. Why do they remain in the population?

Well, see, it’s because men like them. This allows well-endowed women to mate with better men, and have more offspring. (The idea that a comparatively planar women can’t get laid suggests that behavioral geneticists need to get out more, but never mind.) Then why in 2500 years have not big hooters become general in the population? Or even common? And of course if they did become general they would lose their selective advantage since all women would have them. They would then constitute a species-wide disadvantage.

As a minor matter, I do not see how the masculine preference for big ones came about. In a population of cave people with flat women, presumably the response to the mutational appearance of biggies would have been, “Geez, Urk Urk, what’s wrong with Sally?” “Beats me, Ralph. Maybe it’s cancer.”

That is, big breasts would only be an advantage in the presence of a preexisting preference for them. But why a preference before there was anything for it to prefer?

(5) It seems to me that evolution currently takes place chiefly not through selective pressures but through the lack of them. For example, diabetes is said to be becoming much more common in because medicine keeps diabetics alive long enough to reproduce. Another example is intelligence, which is said to have fallen fifteen points of average IQ because the stupid dysgenically have many more children than the smart. (Of course, proponents of the Flynn Effect say that IQ has risen fifteen points. Either would have had huge observable effects, and hasn’t, but never mind.)

In short we are seeing the survival of the least fit, in both individuals and races, which seems a bit bass-ackward in Darwinian terms. And, again, since all traits are genetic, failure to reproduce and the encouragement of deleterious traits are products of natural selection.

(6) If traits that make for survival spread through a population, it follows that traits that do not spread do not make for survival. These would seem to include intelligence, physical prowess, and acute senses. Genes exist in the population—mutations not needed—for the phenomenal physical plant of Mohammed Ali, the intelligence of Hawking, the eyesight of Ted Williams, and so on. They remain exceedingly rare, and not obviously more common than they were in the time of Thucydides.

Meanwhile, traits of little or no advantage do become general. The epicanthial fold, for example, which makes the Chinese slant-eyed. This is said to be of advantage in survival by, according to who you talk to, either conserving energy or protecting the eyes from icy winds. I am unaware of actual evidence for either, but then I am unaware of many things.

If any advantage exists, it is vanishingly small. Do we really believe that people with squinty eyes had more children than the merely round-eyed?

(7) I do not understand the concept of the “dysgenic” and the “eugenic.” Both seem to imply value judgements–that evolution is going in a good or a bad direction. This smacks of teleology, entelechy. I thought evolution had no direction and that it could be neither good nor bad. It is the mindless, undirected adjustment of a system to its circumstances.

For example, the anthropologist Peter Frost argues, perhaps correctly, that North Europeans have become less violent because the hanging over centuries of violent criminals has reduced the genetic tendency to violence. He regards this as an improvement—as do I, if it has happened. But how is it an improvement in the sense of evolution, which has no such conception of betterment?

(8) Again, some behavioral geneticists assert that all human behavior is heritable—i.e., is to a large extent determined by genetics. Our behavior changes as our genes evolve. Weill, all right. You can breed dogs to be aggressive or friendly.

Yet obviously many sorts of human behavior change far too profoundly and rapidly for natural selection to be responsible. For example, Europe has gone from very to barely religious, sexual mores in America from highly restrictive to anything goes, family size in Mexico from fifteen-and-starve to two-and-university.

This, say the genetic determinists, happens because genes express themselves differently in different environments: same genes but different circumstances.

This means, if I do not misunderstand them, that genes (inferred rather than demonstrated) for one behavior are, under the influence of unspecified changes in the environment, genes for precisely opposite behavior—from belief to disbelief, large families to small, prudishness to libertinism. And what pressures cause this turnaround?

Refrigerators.

Yes. If a Mexican girl from a family of fifteen moves into the middle class and gets a refrigerator (and simultaneously the means to support a large family of her own) she has two children and sends them to university. Here is a fruitful field for further study: The Darwinian effects of Kelvinators. Exactly how kitchen appliances drastically alter the expression of genes for reproduction eludes me. It is also curious that prosperity is a contraceptive: Reproduction is inversely proportional to the means of supporting it.

Clearly I do not understand evolutionary psychology. This, I suspect, can equally be said of evolutionary psychologists.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology
shutterstock_103017107

Ages ago I read Hare and Cleckley on psychopaths, they then being canonical on the matter. Psychopathy tended to be somewhat vaguely defined but usually included lack of empathy, remorse, conscience, and the like. Today, it seems to be detectable. For example, say researchers, if you put a normal person on a polygraph and read him words like bread, tree, mountain, torture, dogs, and sidewalk, there will be a sharp response to “torture” but not to the neutral words. Psychopaths don’t have that response. This would seem to tie in with a lack of empathy.

Recent years have seen vast amounts of research into physical correlates of psychopathy as well as non-pathological traits of mind such as conservatism and liberalism. (Actually I’m inclined to regard both as pathological, but the demands of columnistic solemnity here prevent me from saying so.) One random example from the multitude, here. Further, men’s and women’s brains proved different. The differences are both anatomical, in size of different parts of the brain, and functional, as shown by fMRI scans.

By now this is old news, except perhaps to the general public. It seems to explain why conservatives all believe certain logically unrelated things, and liberals other logically unrelated things. For example, if you favor gun control, you very likely favor abortion, immigration, affirmative action, and sexual minorities. If you oppose gun control, your views will likely be the opposite. Political positions begin to look hard-wired.

Supporting the view, though hardly scientifically, is that in some four decades of writing columns of one sort and another, I remember only two or three readers who said that I had changed their minds on a matter of fundamental importance (the righteousness of America’s wars, for example). Columnists are often called “opinion leaders,” but actually our function seems to be to tell our readers what they already believe in stirring prose. Opinions generally are fixed, impervious to fact.

If brain scans can detect psychopathy, or if crazed mass-murderers have distinctive patterns of neural activity, what should we do when we detect such traits? Should we detect them?

Should we routinely screen, say, students in high school? It might prevent some baffled Ritalin-head from shooting half the school. But what do we do with the kid? Put him preemptively in jail? He hasn’t done anything wrong. He might never do anything wrong.

Psychopaths do enormous harm, only occasionally by outbursts of violence, but prophylactic incarceration does not fit well with our notions of how society should be run.

What if research shows that certain people have certain probabilities of antisocial behavior? Little Johnny, age thirteen, has a twenty-five percent chance, or fifty percent, or ninety percent chance of violent criminality. Do we jail him, tattoo his forehead, make him report to a parole officer? If his nature becomes public, it will keep him from being hired or, probably, getting married. If the condition is heritable, do we forbid him, or her, to reproduce?

Our legal system relies on the fallacious notion that if a man commits armed robbery, but serves his prison sentence, he is now a normal citizen. To those in law enforcement, it is well known that career criminals are exactly that, and will continue offending until perhaps their late thirties. They commit wildly disproportionate amounts of crime, usually starting around puberty. This underlies the badly-applied three-strikes-and-you-are-out laws.

But if brain scans reveal that some prisoners are highly likely to offend again, and perhaps kill someone, what do we then do? Should we base a life sentence on what a man might do rather than on anything he has actually done? On something that he may not do?

Knowing that a person is disposed to behave undesirably, and that the condition is heritable, as twin studies so often suggest, would inevitably lead to thoughts of eugenics. The idea is in bad odor nowadays, but might be less so in the case of preventing the production of multiple Teds Bundy.

There are of course levels of eugenics. A woman who marries a smart man partly in hopes of having intelligent children is practicing eugenics. If at a sperm bank she opts for that of a physicist, she is engaging in eugenics. So are a couple who refrain from having children, having learned they the offspring would have a genetic disease. Sterilizing the feeble-minded is eugenics, as is killing them. The spread is from common practice to first-degree murder.

The implications of genetic determinism for normal people, whatever exactly that means, are considerable. I like to think that I reach my political conclusions through godlike intelligence, unimpeachable logic, and exact information, all bathed in a rich syrup of peerless virtue. Now it turns out that I am just some mutt running a genetic program, probably written in Dartmouth Basic, not under my control. I am no autonomously enlightened than one of those lugubrious twerps at Salon.

The implications for commentators are grim. If we learn that our passionate support for capitalism, or passionate lack of support for it, is no more the product of thought than having blond hair? There go the book royalties. Webmasters could replace us with software.

Genetic determinism, or at any rate predisposition, can have detonative consequences. If the conservative’s tendency toward paranoia and truculent tribalism (as distinguished from the liberal’s characteristic googooing inattention to realty) is innate, we will have wars as long as we have generals. (It would be interesting to do brain scans of four-star generals. I recommend Xanax and a double Scotch before looking at the results.)

The Pentagon is notorious for finding existential threats to the United States everywhere: In Ukraine, in the South China Sea, in Syria, under the bed. Commies, terrorists, Chinamen, Islam, Russia and, off the record, Jews. Since their expressions of concern usually precede the cry, “Send money,” it is easy to dismiss their alarums as budgetary pretexts. But if soldiers are hard-wired to seek wars, what then? Their military decisions will be no more rational that a pit bull’s to bite.

And of course under brain-scan determinism there would be fruitful fields for abuse. A Democratic congress would find all Republicans to be potential serial killers and institutionalize them to promote public safety, probably after a forethoughtful sterilization. (Pondering the Senate Armed Services Committee, I can see the attraction of the idea. But that way lies fascism.) (Still….)

I need a Xanax. And a double Scotch.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Eugenics, Human Nature

Once upon a time there was a fairy kingdom that lived inside a place called The Beltway, and was surrounded on all four sides by a land called America. The Beltway was aligned with another kingdom called Manhattan, inhabited by disembodied heads that spoke from the walls of bars, and with yet another closed kingdom called Hollywood, the abode of half-educated narcissists. These kingdoms were in eternal political syzygy, and spoke not with the people of the surrounding lands, of whom they knew nothing. The following is a chronicle of what befell them, and why.

After years of peace, the Kingdoms were taken greatly aback by the rise of the Trump Monster, their surprise being proof that they knew nothing of the surrounding lands. They knew nothing for good reasons, of which there were two. The first was that they passed their lives with each other and among each other and talking to each other and writing about each other and reading about each other behind the high walls of their kingdoms. In organs like National Review and The Weekly Standard they endlessly wrote stories of the form “A soothsayer in Manhattan replies to what some other sayer of sooths said about yet another’s attack on someone else.”

They had all dwelt in monasteries called Harvard and Princeton, where they learned that they were the wisest of men, and inerrant. They had no idea that they were hated in the strange lands without the walls, which on their maps were drawn as fog with notations such as “Here dwelleth dragons.” They did not know that there were people who agreed not with them. For were they not right about all things?

The other reason for their puzzlement was a powerful spell called “Political Correctness.” This strong magic prevented the outlanders from saying anything that the Three Kingdoms did not want to hear. Anyone who engaged incantations called “slurs,” which were truthful thoughts about sacred tribes, or who said Inappropriate Things about a certain little country whose only importance was being that little country, was thrown into durance vile. Thus the Three Kingdoms never heard anything they didn’t like, and so believed that almost everyone without the walls loved them. They had scarce an idea what furies were roiling and boiling and stirring under the surface of the Outer Realms.

Now, until the Trump Monster appeared, the America was ruled by a pseudo-democracy of one bicephalous party with two names. The Only Party consisted of blackguards and Quislings and pickpockets bought and paid for by the plutocratic oligarchy of large corporations, AIPAC, and the. very rich. These told the two halves of the One Party what to do. Every four years there was played a great tournament in which candidates of the Two Names of the One Party engaged in the most savage combat imaginable. This was to distract the people outside the walls . Afterwards nothing changed and all went on as before, though the division of the spoils shifted a bit.

And in their ignorance and pride the Three Kingdoms engendered a monster called Trump, and it bit them.

The Only Party had always controlled the villeins because it controlled the choice of pretenders to the throne. A pretender gained the Presidency by buying it, and the rich who provided that money controlled as vassals those who accepted it. The pretenders were as straw and melons sold in a market.

Furthermore, the scribes and oracles of the Kingdoms said aloud only those things that were meet for the surrounding peasantry to hear. The puissant spell of Political Correctness amounted to a societal mute button and prevented the Holy Orders within the Three Kingdoms from noticing what stirred without.

Until the Trump Monster came raging, slouching toward Bethlehem, with which the Kingdoms confused themselves.

And there was afright and desperation and rending of teeth and gnashing of hair for many were the rice bowls threatened.

The darkest of horrors was that the serfs might come to choose the manner of their government. For long years the Bicephalous Party had presided over that most desirable form of democracy in which the people had no power. This laudable state they had maintained by never talking about anything of substance, such as unending wars in remote lands beyond the edges of the maps, or the importation of slaves from curious and unwholesome countries or the manufactures of all things by foreign dwarves.

A great broil ensured. The people saw for the first time a chance to manage their destinies and rose up for the Trump Monster. Inside the Beltway, the Wise and Good–for did they not so denominate themselves?–were greatly astonished. “What manner of wight can this be?” they asked in wonder. They said that the Trump Monster was beguiling fools, the cracked, and those who represented the worst in America. And the scribes and oracles were sore afraid, for most of the outlying populace appeared to belong to these tribes.

One of the Two Names of the One Party, the Democrats, sent forth a dreadful creature called Hillary to fight in single combat with the Trump Monster. Her very visage turned men to stone, it was said. She was held to be of one blood with Boadicea, Jeanne d’Arc, Lucretia Borgia, and Bonnie Parker.

The Three Kingdoms were at one with her, as she was corrupt, mendacious, criminal, and ugly, as well as suffering coughing fits and dizzy spells. Surely, said the scribes and oracles, any monster must fly screaming from her mere presence.

Yet it seemed that the Trump was no common monster. Every time he was beset by the scribes and oracles of the Beltway, he grew stronger, and a sulfurous smoke breathed from his mouth. With drawn swords the Trump Monster and the crumbling ruin yclept Hillary circled each other.

And beyond the parapets and crenellations of the Three Kingdoms the sky grew darker. Inside the Beltway and in Manhattan, the disembodied heads railed and raged, but with every blast the helots jointed the Trump Monster in larger numbers, for they hated the Insiders. In Hollywood the Half-Educated Narcissists said ever stupider things, but these had not their usual effect.

In their pride the Three Kingdoms had engendered Nemesis, and they watched in terror behind the ramparts as the sky grew darker and strange shapes twisted in the looming clouds and the Trump Monster strode ever nearer, breathing fire.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Political Correctness
shutterstock_212497480

How stable is the United States?

Things do not look good. The country is disintegrating. The borders are open, against the will of much of the population. Our universities are in sharp decline, the students a rebellious unschooled rabble portending a peasant future. The economy gutters and standards of living fall. Jobs are few and becoming fewer. Racial animosity is high and rising, with blacks out of control and looting at will.

We have that least American of Presidents, a marginally competent Afro-Indonesian confection of Moslem background who doesn’t like whites, has little in common with most of the country and is now a virtual dictator reshaping the country as he chooses. The Talking-Headocracy supports this. The decline will not stop.

Can this last?

The foregoing disasters are forced upon the many who hate it by a corrupt government of self-interested hacks, Northeastern in flavor, intent on outlawing Christianity and controlling the population by ever-tightening surveillance and police powers.

The national anger increases palpably: Islamophobes versus Islamophiles, gun owners versus gun controllers, sexual curiosities versus the traditionally moral, lesbian feminists against men and normal women. Viscerality is high. The contending sides hate each other m more than they care about the issues that provide pretexts.

As one example among many: If white Southerners genitally mutilated their daughters, practiced honor killing, and didn’t allow their girls to go to school, the Islamophiles would erupt in fury. They overlook these practices in Moslems because they are using Moslems as a means of punishing people they loathe, such as white Southerners.

It is hard to see how this can continue without Something Happening. Yet no sign exists that the tide will abate—that standards and discipline will be reimiposed in academe, that grade schools will cease being indoctrination camps, that immigration will be stopped, that blacks will become calm and content, that some new form of economic order will halt the slide into semi-impoverishment.

How could it turn around? “Political correctness” prevents discussion. Saying “nigger” is virtually a capital offense, while beating whites unconscious is a foible. The philosophy mysteriously called Cultural Marxism—very real but hardly Marxist—flourishes, and stultifies.

How can it stop? How will it end? Will the country slide into grey twilight with a few rich living in gated communities while the rest grub for a bare living in decaying and dangerous cities? Or will the solutions usual in such times appeal—civil war, secession, or a Man on a Horse?

I do not see how the rot can go on but neither can I see how it can stop going on. Consider the choices: Secession? Of what? Those favoring white European culture, high academic standards, and respect for law sometimes dream of a breakaway country of the states of the Northwest short of California. Many, sick of domination by New York and Washington, would like to see it, but it is hard to imagine the will to do it. Unlikely.

Civil war? Conditions will have to be much worse, methinks, and fragmentation sharper, before anyone would pick up a rifle. War requires virility, and little of it seems to exist. Unlikely.

Informal secession? “Just Say no”? Various states have chosen simply to ignore federal drug laws, for example, making marijuana legal. There is not much the feds can do short of military invasion. Washington can arrest small numbers of people who smoke dope, but not a hundred thousand, and if the state police refuse to help, the feds lack the manpower to impose their laws. This is the Vietnam Principle: Don’t give the enemy clear targets of high value, disperse your forces, and outwait him.

This solution is possible, but not, I think, likely on a scale grand enough to change the direction of the country.

A Man on a Horse? A dictator who grabs power and rules the country by decree? As so often is the case, only the military has the wherewithal, but it does have it and the grabbing might well prove easy: The Marines are within easy reach of Washington and have the firepower.

Yet the American officer corps traditionally has shown little interest in inserting itself directly into politics, and it has its wars and budget to keep it happy. Especially now, the generals seem much too effete, afraid of feminists and so on. Physically possible, but unlikely.

That leaves gray-sludge-and-twilight. The cultural level will continue to fall as waves of intellectually illiterate graduates pour from the universities. Schools of engineering and science will mostly resist enstupidation–the definite integral will prove an absolute barrier to affirmative action–but liberal studies, the heart of civilization, will remain dead. Hostility and perhaps mini-wars will erupt between Americans and the Somalis, Moslems, and Guatemalans brought in by the DC-NYC axis, but these will probably be inconclusive. Christianity will be reduced to a low level, though Judaism and Islam will flourish as their adherents have the will to prevent suppression.

The economy will continue its slide while the rich, no longer attached to any particular country, will become stupefyingly rich. (Someone recently paid $172 million for a Modigliani). If things go bad in Manhattan, they can easily move to the south of France.

I do not see how civil unrest (it won’t be civil) can fail to arise. Comfortable people, which white Americans still barely are, do not readily clash with others. But comfort dwindles. The young now often have to live with their parents. People with advanced degrees work as baristas at Starbucks. Universities use “adjunct professors,” academic migrant workers, to lower pay and avoid providing benefits. Many companies hire people as “individual contractors,” likewise to avoid paying benefits. Large numbers who want to work are on food stamps and unemployment.

Not parenthetically, I remember being in Italy at breakfast with a tour group. The restaurant had not ordered enough food for the buffet. These sophisticated and civil people began grabbing, reaching over each other, to get the yogurt and doughnuts. Civilization is a veneer, and not a thick one. Nationally, we are running out of doughnuts.

One thing is clear: America is no longer “one nation under God” (who is, I suppose, an undocumented alien).It is an unhappy land of warring tribes, of peoples who have nothing in common and do not like each other. Blacks, whites, browns, Syrians, Somalis, Southerners, Yankees, Christians, mostly detesting each other. The battle lines are drawn. The question is what kind of battle it will be.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness
Ava Carlyle Vernier, her own self. Eight pounds seven ounces, all systems go. A major advance in biology. The evolutionary progression: Al Sharpton, the Great Apes, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, Ava Carlyle. Estimated IQ: Low four figures. Nobility: Obvious. Does not look like every baby ever born. If respiratory capacity may be judged by volume of outraged squalling, she may have the best lungs on the planet. (“Where is this? I don’t like it. I’m hungry. Put me back. Give me something to eat. Now.”)
Ava Carlyle Vernier, her own self. Eight pounds seven ounces, all systems go. A major advance in biology. The evolutionary progression: Al Sharpton, the Great Apes, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, Ava Carlyle. Estimated IQ: Low four figures. Nobility: Obvious. Does not look like every baby ever born. If respiratory capacity may be judged by volume of outraged squalling, she may have the best lungs on the planet. (“Where is this? I don’t like it. I’m hungry. Put me back. Give me something to eat. Now.”)

Los Angeles–Back from Cedars Sinai Medical Center, which has ushered into this veil of whatever it is a veil of the world’s most advanced and meritorious granddaughter, the only credible evidence for Darwin. Helluva baby. A military-minded friend said I should regard her as “a howitzer round fired eighty-five years down-range.” See below for specifications.

Meanwhile I have been studying the Latino population of Los Angeles, something I have wanted to do for some time. Ever since the US set about merging with Mexico, I have wondered: Are Latinos going to form a separate country within the country, hostile to the white population? If so, God help us. Are truculent whites going to force them into said status? If so, also God help us. Or, since they are not going to go away, is amicable accommodation possible? To investigate these vexing matters, I and Violeta (my spousal unit)–spent many hours over two weeks walking the streets of Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks, East LA, and the like.

I had forgotten how much I liked California. The relaxed open friendliness appeals. Things work, it is usually warm, and nobody seems upset about anything. You could get used to it.

Anyway, profound anthropological observations: Anglos (which here means all whites) and Latinos get along well, apparently without much noticing that they are Latinos and Anglos. Browns work in stores, restaurants, drive cabs and trucks and do the ordinary things of life. No one seemed to think this curious. I saw no trace of wariness or resentment. (If you live in southern California this will sound hopelessly naive, but I haven’t been here much since hippy days.) There is no Knockout Game. Shoe stores rest comfortably by night.

This easy association may not exist in Arizona or Kentucky where the people are different. A friend in Winchester, Virginia tells me that Latino students in the high school do not get along well at all with the circumambient Anglos. California is not Winchester.

A space ship coming home. What Ava’s dad makes. Photo from SpaceX.

A space ship coming home. What Ava’s dad makes. Photo from SpaceX.

Now, spaceships. We must never forget spaceships. Ava Carlyle’s dad, Alex, makes them at SpaceX in Hawthorne. It is the kind of thing you would expect of the father of such an advanced life-form as Ava Carlyle. Think Lara, Jor-El, and Ava. Anyway, we got Alex to give us a private tour. SpaceX doesn’t allow photos or the taking of notes and says don’t talk about what you see, so I won’t, other than to say “Hooooo-aaah!” It was nice to see that at least some young Americans can do difficult things right despite the best efforts of the schools.

I noticed a lot of Latino techs, one of whom was named Jesús, pronounced in Spanish approximately Hey Zeus. Many of his coworkers pronounce it Anglo style, Jeez Us. I imagined conversations at the local bar, “Yeah, I was at work, and Jesus told me….”

We saw Cici, I will call her, a high-school classmate of Violeta. Now a citizen, at age eighteen she entered the US illegally along with about twenty young men (men being the criminal sex, young the criminal age) in harrowing fashion. She managed to get a job in a shoe factory, rose to be supervisor, dropped out to get married and make two babies, then got on as kitchen staff at a school and, taking English classes at night, and rose to be head of food management. Very middle class. Worse things have happened.

Over lunch I asked her whether there was friction between white and brown. “No.” This confirmed my observations and those of friends who live in LA and, for that matter, many other places. How about problems between Latinos and the police? “No,” she said, then added that the gangs and narcos had problems but, she said, that was because they were criminals, not because they were brown.

As in almost everywhere, the Mexican cartels are neck-deep in the drug trade and spend much time shooting each other. This is unlikely to change. America has a voracious appetite for drugs and somebody is going to service it.

The politics of the immigrants get complicated. Cici has no objection to illegals, since she was one, but she has strong opinions about those Hispanics, of which there are too many, who come to live on welfare. “I work and pay taxes to support them while they do nothing?” Of course, a country stupid enough to support freeloaders is not in a position to complain that it is supporting freeloaders.

Then there are the well-employed Latinos who oppose immigration because the newcomers will take their jobs at lower wages. Where have I heard that before?

I concluded, for what it’s worth: If you figure that since the Latinos are not going to go away whether you want them to or not, it is a good idea to have them be part of society, then LA is promising. If you detest Latinos and want to get rid of them, or to avoid mixing, LA is bad, because the Latinos are not being suitably intolerable. Mass deportations would require a lot of political support. Ain’t gonna happen.

And a real problem for racial purists is the hypothetical but common Anna Gonzalez, aged nineteen, born of illegal parents in LA and therefore a citizen. Anna speaks unaccented Californian English as well as Spanish. Or, increasingly, wretched Spanish. She works at the International Foods Market as a sales clerk. She is pretty. (Hey, I’m a guy, and anyway it has assimilational import). She doesn’t think she is a Mexican. Mexicans don’t think she is a Mexican. Because she isn’t. There are more of her every year.

The time for preventing Mexicanization of the state is long past, methinks. We can want to expel Latinos, or say we should have, but as a practical matter we are not going to throw out American citizens who sound like us.

The proud mother, Emily Anne, age seven. If you feed them all sorts of curious things happen, such as Ava Carlyle. The above wasn’t child-abuse: She has a solid top-belay and the wall is indoors. She actually got over the overhang.

The proud mother, Emily Anne, age seven. If you feed them all sorts of curious things happen, such as Ava Carlyle. The above wasn’t child-abuse: She has a solid top-belay and the wall is indoors. She actually got over the overhang.

Ava’s mom was instrumental in our demographic studies. Very short and very pregnant, she looked, said her friends, like a wrecking ball on sticks, bur nonetheless drove us around in her Jeep, a huge monster. She says it is like driving a pit bull. I suggested she use it to hunt Vovlos, and crush them.

We went to East LA, a huge and almost entirely Hispanic enclave, and walked for hours. I had been lectured by various nativist websites that Latinos throw trash everywhere, which they do not in Mexico, so I was interested to see whether they did in LA as claimed. Yes, they do. Both Eastlos and Van Nuys are liberally strewn. Why in LA and not in Guadalajara, I don’t know. Maybe the strewers are Central American, or maybe the illegals are dirtballs.

I wondered whether there would be more hostility when Latinos were in overwhelming numbers, as they are in East LA. No. In los callejones, the alleys, we found narrow streets lined with stalls selling clothes, toys, boom boxes, sloes. Dense throngs moved through, music came from countless stereos, children held their parents’ hands, and all was sound and color and life. Infrequent gringos or couples flowed along with the current, and no one seemed to care. Don’t try it in Detroit, amigos.

Conservatives are often horrified by this sort of thing, though I am not sure how walking through a crowded alley and buying toys for the kids portends the end of civilization.

The cultural difference is real. Americans are Nordic, efficient and good at space ships. They invent things. They are not good at flavor, flair, liveliness, and are usually described as chilly and distant. Norway doesn’t do flamenco. Yet there is a distinction between intolerable cultural differences, such as looting malls or not letting girls go to school, and differences that are merely differences, unfamiliar, or annoying, like listening to loud mariachi music too late at night.

So where are these people heading? Into the middle class, most of them, eventually, is my guess. It will be rocky at times. They aren’t studious and government wants to turn them into welfare parasites or impose damn-fool things like bilingual education. Immigration wasn’t a great idea in the first place, and wasn’t necessary, but what is happening, at least in many places, is a hell of a lot better than what could have happened.

Of course I was wrong once, back in 1927 I think it was, and maybe I’m due now.

And now off to help satiate a small localized famine. The kid grows like an unnecessary federal program. A most promising howitzer round.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hispanics, Immigration
“Cry havoc, and Let Slip the Frogs of Yore”

It is curious how little military men know about war. You would think they would think about it more. Yet, oddly, they regularly misjudge practically everything concerning the dismal trade. Their errors are not the sort that inevitably must occur in a contest, as when a quarterback doesn’t pick up a blitz. They are fundamental misappreciations of war itself.

The foregoing sounds both arrogant and improbable, like saying that dentists do not understand teeth. Actually it is neither.

The reasons are several. First, the military attracts certain kinds of men—authoritarian, hierarchical, conformist—who are not imaginative and do not think independently. Second, the appeal of the military is visceral, emotional, hormonal. Neither of these things is true of dentists.

This explains why wars monotonously turn out not to resemble expectations. In WWI, the German command expected a lightning victory via the Schlieffen Plan. It failed, but the foolishness does not lie in the failure. Rather it is in the complete incapacity to foresee that the failure would result in four years of inconclusive static war. Trenches, barbed wire, and machine guns took them by surprise. Yet the existence of all of these things was well known.

This sort of blindness is common, almost normal. At First Manassas in the American Civil War, the armies had no faint idea that they might be embarking on four years of horrendous war, or of the kind of war it would be. When America invaded Vietnam, the Pentagon did not foresee ten years of a losing war. Nor did it have any notion of what would happen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Militaries regularly underestimate the enemy and overestimate their own capacities. The reasons I think are several. One is that morale is important in war and a sober estimation of reality often does not conduce to high morale. For example, you do not tell your troops, “You are mediocre infantry and inferior man for man to the enemy but we have better technology and will rely on this.” Thus American troops are always the finest, best trained and best armed the world has ever seen.

Another and important reason is the Star Wars Effect. In movie theaters watch the audience, and particularly the male part, when the good space ships swoop in, dodging, maneuvering, firing, just on the edge of defeat, the music coming up, and blow the bad guy away. The watchers grip the armrests, sway with the turns of the hero’s spaceship. This visceral, adrenal response to war runs through humanity: The Ride of the Valkyries, The Sands of Iwo Jima, and the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Military training aims at the inculcation of a sense of invincibility. Years back at Parris Island a sign read, “The Most Dangerous Thing in the World: A Marine and his Rifle.” It was nonsense, the marines then being decent light infantry but no more, yet we were told endlessly that were unique in the annals of war. This sort of overconfidence has consequences. Sometimes it provides the elan needed to win. Sometimes it leads to disaster.

The unrealistic sense of power is instilled in training by, for example, running in close formation. The rhythmic thumpthumpthump of fifty pairs of boots unleashes something deep in males. It is the pack instinct, a call to savagery intensified by calling cadence, “Luke the gook comes marching by, stick your bayonet in his eye, lefryelefrylefryelef….” We are the toughest of the tough.

Often the belief in invincibility becomes almost mystical. In WWI the French believed in cran, in l’offensive a outrnce, the fighting spirit that was sure to lead to victory. More attention to heavy artillery would have been prudent. In Japan it was bushido. Yamamoto, who had been in the United States and knew what it was, suggested that starting a war with a country having ten times your industrial potential was not unduly bright. The Army ignored him.

Underestimation of the enemy is a military disease bordering at time on a death wish. Before WWII, the US military tended to regard the Japanese as funny little buck-toothed monkeys with thick glasses. The same monkeys had destroyed the Russian fleet in 1905, fought for years in China with an excellent fighter plane—the Zero—and conducted sophisticated carrier operations. None of this occurred to the Americans.

This, though not a military publication, sums up a common military attitude. At Parris Island, training for Viet Nam, we were told that the Viet Cong were dirty little men who didn’t know how to clean their rifles. Uh…yeah.  Credit: Fred on Everything.

This, though not a military publication, sums up a common military attitude. At Parris Island, training for Viet Nam, we were told that the Viet Cong were dirty little men who didn’t know how to clean their rifles. Uh…yeah. Credit: Fred on Everything.

Examples abound. In 1954 at Dien Bien Phu, the French army camped in a valley surrounded, as valleys are, by high hills. The French knew that les jaunes, the yellows, couldn’t get artillery up on those hills.

Actually, les jaunes could. They also did. There is footage of maybe twenty of them heaving on a rope attached to an artillery piece, which moved six inches upward. Another man quickly put a chock under the wheels to that it didn’t roll back. Pull, chock, pull, chock, pull, chock, boom. The French were slaughtered.

Another source of unrealism is loud noise. Modern armament is exciting, in the sense that cavalry charges once were. Tanks, fighter planes, aircraft carriers and such, aside from appealing to the male love of controllable complexity, appeal equally to the male love of the fast, powerful, noisy, and inexorable.

You have to feel it to understand it. On a flight line at night, jet engines howling, hot jet-wash smelling of burned kerosene blowing about, confident and competent men working together, fighters taking off with a thudding roar that you feel in your lungs.

It is very hard to imagine such loud, virile machines being defeated by those most dangerous weapons of our times, the AK, the RPG, and the IED, wielded by a tough little peasant pissed off because you are invading his country and have killed his mother and sister.

Militaries seldom learn. More correctly, they seldom learn anything that goes against their underlying view of the world. After the Viet Minh drove the French out by largely guerrilla tactics, the Americans, ignoring this, invaded Viet Nam and were defeated in the same way. The French suffered a similar defeat in Algeria. The Russians, knowing all of this, invaded Afghanistan and were driven out the same way. Whereupon the United States, aware of all of this…invaded Afghanistan. With the same results. It then invaded Iraq, with the by now predictable results.

A wise and unusual colonel (Carl Bernard for cognoscenti) once told me, “A soldier knows how to do one thing, and he does it in response to everything. If you ask a major in armor if he knows how to bake a cake, he will say, ‘Sure I do. First you adjust the track tension….’ If you ask an artillery guy, he will say, ‘Sure. First you align the battery….’”

Why does this happen? It is not actual stupidity since officers are not stupid. Part of it is the overconfidence that is the very heart of the military’s cast of mind. Did the French lose to the Viet Minh? What has that got to do with America? Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys couldn’t beat a troop of Girl Scouts. Victor Charlie? Rice-propelled paddy-maggots. Dinks, gooks, slopes, zipperheads. No problem.

A deeper reason I think is the Glorious Charge Syndrome, the clash of gorgeous cavalry and resplendent infantry of Napoleon’s days. It’s the excitement, Wellington on the reverse slope at Waterloo, la Garde advances, the Little Corporal drops back out of the pocket on fourth and one….Although wars are usually discussed as rational enterprises in pursuit of national goals, soldiers dream of glory, honor, and the overcoming of enemies in pitched combat. This has always been true. Read the Gilgamesth Epic, the Illiad, the Aeneid, El Cid, Orlando Furioso, and Beowulf. They all deal with climactic battles of heroic men. Sieges are all right, but soldiers want to get it on, steel on target, close and destroy, and they want an enemy they can get at.

A distributed war like that in Afghanistan, with nothing important to blow up and often nobody to fight because they are hiding, is not something soldiers easily get their minds around. Aerial combat, mano a mano is more to their liking, or commando teams moving silently through the night, or the Pacific fleet, alert, men at their stations, moving through enemy waters in search of trouble. Since war is no longer like that, the soldiers flail about for years, go home, forget what happened, and in the next war do it again.

(Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: American Military
Fred Reed
About Fred Reed

Fred, a keyboard mercenary with a disorganized past, has worked on staff for Army Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune, Federal Computer Week, and The Washington Times.

He has been published in Playboy, Soldier of Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Harper's, National Review, Signal, Air&Space, and suchlike. He has worked as a police writer, technology editor, military specialist, and authority on mercenary soldiers.


Personal
Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave