From Womb to Tomb
“A diverse mix of voices leads to better discussions, decisions, and outcomes for everyone.”-Sundar Pichai, CEO, Google
“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”-James Damore, Ex-Google Software Engineer
“These days, the American Dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger.”-Bernie Sanders
I’d like to test that hypothesis, Bernardo. Last time I checked, Venezuela was on fire, its citizens rioting in the streets, with the country’s trillions in oil wealth flushed down the toilet of lavish public spending and gross governmental misuse. Things in Ecuador appear to be following a similar trajectory, and the Argentinian kleptocracy has left the country with a lower GDP than Azerbaijan. So the incomes may be more equal, but what does that matter when everyone’s standard of living is bottoming out but for, as ironically always seems to be the case with socialism, the very few. The free market produces a natural stratification due to specialization and innovation, among other factors, where in about every example of “real world” socialism I can find, the very rich are artificially made so through confiscatory practices that leave the people impoverished…equally. It is actually not so different from crony capitalism.
The shelf life of a socialist state is a maximum of seventy years. It cannot sustain itself after the energies from the free market of which it’s leeched have been exhausted. In many cases, like the three above, the shelf life is even shorter, with the shelves of Venezuela, indeed, cobwebbed and bare as the people starve. Bernie has said bread lines aren’t so bad, and I’d venture a guess the people of Venezuela would kill to feel the Bern in a bread line right now. Even Denmark, one of “Mr. Weird Porn” Bernie Sanders’s favorite examples of a socialist society we should seek to emulate, has distanced itself from that most toxic of labels, with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen stating bluntly: “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” That said, Denmark’s massive entitlement program is slowly crippling the country, and the same pattern is being repeated across the Western world, as massive state leviathans crush the average person under their ponderous weight. Market economy or no, the creeping socialism of wealth re-distribution in the form of vast, endless “entitlements” kills innovation and represents legalized theft in the form of taxation abuses. I’m pretty damn far from an economist, and even I know that income equality has nothing to do with the health of an economy.
Countries that embrace free markets are typically those that are most open and prosperous, though this does need to occasion a brief aside regarding certain nuances of globalism and regulations. A borderless world is the Third World, run by a few mega-multi-nationals with the rest of the planet competing for scraps. A wide-open global shopping mall is not what I have in mind in terms of a free market. When I refer to the market system as being the ideal, I’m speaking specifically in the context of each individual nation prioritizing the fiscal health of its own people by setting economic policy on free market (not crony capitalist) principles, as of course “pure” capitalism, like any “ism,” needs to be mediated by some compromise—in this case enough regulation to protect people and the environment, perhaps some protective tariffs, and certainly the prevention of the native work-force from being under-cut by both international competition and/or domestic flooding of the labor market. The key is striking the right balance between regulated and unregulated, and though I am certainly not in favor of policies that artificially prop up dying industries, I also don’t think we should be incentivizing outsourcing and allowing the unions to continue to stagnate everything they touch. I don’t have all the answers, far from it, but what I do know is the private sector almost always reacts more nimbly than the public sector, and the move to centrally planned economies is without a doubt the wrong answer, as has been proven time and time again.
Turning public problems into private solutions is not always ideal, such as the privatization of prisons, which must have a steady supply to meet demand, but with these constraints in mind, less government intervention and regulation by-and-large will result in greater prosperity for a nation. Another issue is that mass unskilled immigration is having a depressive effect on wages, and the stultifying effect of a flooded labor market is having dramatic consequences for the most vulnerable Americans. Once again, a responsible solution is needed, whereby immigration is dramatically curtailed and subsequently overhauled. Some comparable reform would certainly benefit the other embattled Western nations as well. If we are going to allow a certain (very low) number of discretionary immigrants from the Third World, we want to be damn sure they are more like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, and Sarah Haider, and less like Tashfeen Malik, Mohammed Abdulazeez, and Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; only very low levels of immigration will allow us to do the due diligence and extreme vetting needed to ensure only those prospective immigrants or asylum seekers/refugees who will assimilate and contribute have the privilege to eventually become American (or Canadian, or Australian, or British) citizens. Hell, I wouldn’t have any objection to a full immigration and refugee moratorium because we’ve been so irresponsible for so long. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I can clearly see the direction we’re headed, and it’s not good. Things have gotten completely out of control and we need to rationally address the demographic situation, divorced from the sentimentality that passes for policy these days, before it can deteriorate any further.
But the sentimentalization of politics is precisely what happens when people have been spoon-fed platitudes their entire lives and have never been challenged in any meaningful way—they become the very manifestations of weakness and fragility with their lazy thinking and bad bodies, their powers of deductive reasoning as neutered and flabby as their physiques. Their hands, with nary a callous, limp and slick with cold sweat, cradle their expensive devices, condemnations of capitalism and exploitation and accusations of “bigotry” and “Islamophobia” hurled into cyberspace from smartphones assembled by ten-year-olds for six cents an hour. Given a free pass on adulthood and trapped in the cul-de-sac of hedonistic excess and navel-gazing narcissism, these policy experts waste no time on research but spend hours crafting the ideal public personae, with not an ideological hair out of place.
What we’re witnessing is the criminalization of reality. There are specific patterns and basic truths that govern our existence. It is only because of the privilege of peace that these Leftists can delight in their virtue, congratulating each other, often on television, for their nonsensical beliefs of how the world works. Their vision, put into practice, doesn’t. Invariably, the more true something is, the more triggered the Left will get. Remember, the same people who were (rightfully) screaming about George W. Bush’s economic policies and his tax breaks for companies that outsourced jobs overseas are the ones having a conniption over Donald Trump’s populism and America First agenda.
If you’re born tabula rasa, as so many on the Left believe, then you’re nothing but a hunk of flesh, infinitely malleable, no agency, governed only by your basest impulses, needing to be shepherded and controlled for your own good. It’s pretty obvious to see what road that kind of thinking leads to, though we should of course also be wary of strict biological determinism, which also has manifestly ghastly consequences. That’s just it, though—if we can’t have a nuanced discussion about something as fundamental as human nature and the human condition, no amount of hand-wringing over the “achievement gap” or moral posturing will ever advance beyond cheap point-scoring. In fact, it’s far more likely to provoke an inverse reaction; keeping a lid on healthy debate has a way of radicalizing people, especially when that “lid” doesn’t cover everyone equally.
Facts are not racist. It is in the interpretation of information that we often fall into the trap of, if you’ll pardon the pun, coloring for our biases. It is absolutely vital to be able to take a step back and see if we can evaluate issues dispassionately. As human beings, we are inherently emotional creatures, and it is only with the greatest of care that we are able to dispense with our pathologies and biases and engage with the facts as they are. For example, there are real, quantifiable differences between the races and sexes. Mentioning this publicly, or even under the ostensible protection of company feedback in the case of ex-Google software engineer James Damore, is tantamount to white supremacy.
Mr. Damore, we hardly knew ye. It turns out writing a benign, slightly-right-of-center, well-reasoned, fact-based intra-company memorandum with all of the necessary qualifiers, questioning Google’s practices regarding “diversity and inclusion,” is beyond the pale. Who knew? Simply pointing out that, “At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases” and that, “Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology,” which creates an echo chamber and an environment hostile to different views and opinions, is cause for Google doing exactly what Damore feared: “Our shaming culture [creates] the possibility of being fired.” This possibility was realized swiftly and resolutely by the company, with Damore axed more or less instantaneously once his identity was revealed.
The reactions to Damore’s memo spoke volumes about where we are as a society. The memo has been called “inflammatory” and “sexist” and “anti-diversity.” It was labeled a “screed.” I would be willing to venture the vast majority of those, including those in the company, reacting to the memo either hadn’t read it, or have lost the plot so badly that the mere suggestion of chromosomal or biological differences sends them into a fit. The guy was obviously well-intentioned and he clearly cared about the company he worked for, enough that he was willing to put his job on the line as it turned out to share his views on why there might be discrepancies within the company; he also offered a number of solutions to help rectify said disparities, particularly between the sexes, beyond the blatantly discriminatory programs and policies the company currently practices, with proactive measures that would emphasize women’s relative strengths, including more collaborative and more “out-facing,” customer relations-based work.
It wasn’t good enough. It never is. The relentlessly virtue-signaling eunuchs and cucks rushed to the defense of these women who are so empowered they need…men to come to their aid? A paternal overlord to intervene on their behalf? Need the day off from work for being emotionally traumatized? New Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance (yes, evidently that’s a real position), Danielle Brown, informed her triggered colleagues that, of course Google is committed to, “Building an open, inclusive environment [which] means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions.”
Just as a point of reference, let’s take a look at the sexual and racial break-down of Google, to see how this whole “inclusivity agenda” is playing itself out:
· Male: 69% (81% of technical positions)
· Female: 31% (19% of technical positions)
· White: 59%
· Northeast Asian: 32%
· Hispanic: 3%
· Black: 2%
· “Other”: 4%
Women are a little over half of the U.S. population; as Middle Eastern and Arab-Americans are oddly classed as white by the U.S. Census Bureau, the rest of the Asian continent accounts for 5.6% of the population. Now, again, just as a point of reference, let’s look at IQ break-down between sexes. Men are 1.438 times more likely to have an IQ over 120 than women and 2.525 times more likely to have an IQ over 140; women, however, are far less likely to have lower-end IQs than men. In general, men are more task-oriented and score higher in spatial reasoning involving “things” (“systematizing”), whereas women prefer people (“empathizing”) and aesthetics. Men also have lower levels of neuroticism and have a greater propensity to work more hours, seek advancement as a sign of status in order to find a mate, et cetera, et cetera. All stuff anyone who’s lived on this planet for five seconds knows.
Now for a run-down of average IQs and median income of some of the major races in the United States:
· Ashkenazi Jews (no, they are not white): IQ 110, Median Income $97,500
· Northeast Asians (including Mongolians): IQ 105, Median Income $76,260
· Whites: IQ 100, Median Income $60,256
· Mestizos/Hispanic: IQ 90, Median Income $42,491
· “African-American” Blacks: IQ 85, Median Income $35,398
Other races’ IQs (incomes unknown):
· Pacific Islanders: 85
· Arabs: 85
· Sub-Saharan Africans: 70
· Australian Aborigines: 62
· NOTE: Mental retardation is defined as having an IQ of seventy or below.
Now do we think, in light of both the evidence presented and Damore’s memo, that it’s possible biology might have at least a little to do with the sex and race disparities at Google, in tech, and in STEM more broadly? Is there a correlation between IQ and earning potential? I never hear anyone kvetch about the fact that three-quarters of humanities degrees are conferred on women, or that over 20% of the black population works for the government. Equity of outcome, like multi-culturalism, only works one way, evidently.
The harsh reality is that there are intractable issues that go beyond mere policy-making. An uncomfortable truth for many people is that there is an average IQ threshold under which civilization cannot be maintained. I’ve seen different figures, generally ranging from 92-97; we know an average IQ of 85 is needed for a group to independently invent agriculture. Whites have, on average, IQs of 100, and sub-Saharan blacks have average IQs of 70. Is it any coincidence that South African agricultural productivity has plummeted alongside the death and displacement of the “Settler” population? For the would-be egalitarian, merely sensing a correlation is enough to send them into a cognitive dissonance-induced “episode.”
As the global non-Western population explodes but the means to provide for it continue to erode along with Western confidence and capability, the next century has all the makings of a hellish reckoning for mankind. If we can’t move beyond our institutional guilt-induced paralysis we are finished. There won’t be anywhere left to go. While I’m sympathetic to the plight of the world’s oppressed and down-trodden, no amount of population importation is going to ultimately alleviate the planet’s suffering. It can’t outpace Third World birthrates, and as it is Western public spending is already stretched close to snapping. It is not a long-term solution, and it only results in the impoverishment of the host countries.
The Third World is, empirically, a horror show. I’m sorry to be so harsh, but that’s largely a nightmare of its own design. Haiti killed off their whites too quickly, but at the rate South Africa and Zimbabwe are deteriorating, it probably wouldn’t have mattered if they were kept around a century or two longer. In all seriousness, at what point can we say colonialism and a “history of exploitation,” and all the buzzwords, are not the problem, but that there is something inherently defective in these societies? Africa isn’t declining, it’s reverting to pre-colonialism. In a rare moment of honesty, you might get someone from one of these countries to admit they were better off under colonial rule. Colonialism, in fact, often represented an infrastructural, economic, and organizational improvement. In the era of post-World War II independence movements, the standard of living has dropped precipitously in most of the former European colonies, with Africa hit the hardest.
This is obviously not to excuse or justify the practice of invading and ruling another country and removing its right to self-determination, but a mere observation and statement of fact that colonialism, for all of its injustices, cannot be the sole cause of the continued impoverishment of the Third World. If you do buy the cosmic retribution for colonialism and imperialism line, though, then why don’t you favor foisting millions of migrants on the Japanese or Chinese, or curse the descendants of the Aztecs, or bemoan Bantu privilege? Where are your lines of demarcation? Or is it only whites who are uniquely singled out for oblivion for crimes real and perceived? White Guilt is just a societal manifestation of self-pity, and self-pity is the ugliest of emotions.