This is an article of mine that was published in the Japanese English-speaking media back in 2005. In addition to evolutionary differences in DNA as a driver of HBD, it also posits faster biologial diversification through something called "neoteny."  Much of the political agenda of Liberal globalists and the Left is based on the view that we can't be all that different from each other having "branched out" from Africa a mere 60,000 years ago, giving us very little time to evolve significant racial differences. This theory of neoteny, which is still admittedly in its speculative stage, could represent a useful addition to the armoury of those who believe that differences between human groups are more substantial and should be recognized and respected in our social and political organization.

General Douglas MacArthur famously said that Japan was a nation of 12-year-olds. Well, he wasn't talking about fighting abilities, as the Japanese gave the Allies the fright of their lives in World War II. Nor could such a remark have applied to their level of intelligence, as Japanese consistently outscore Westerners by an average of 5 to 6 points in international IQ comparisons. Nor was it their business acumen, as, starting from the bombed out ruins of 1945, these "12-year-olds" built their economy into the second biggest in the world in a few decades. So, what the heck was MacArthur talking about? Whether he knew it or not, he was probably talking about neoteny.

Neoteny is a biological term that describes the retention of juvenile characteristics in adults, something that is widely recognized in the animal world. For example, we know that tadpoles mature into frogs, losing their juvenile aquatic character along the way. However, the axolotl species of salamander remains fully aquatic throughout its life, merely becoming a large version of a tadpole. A better known example of neoteny is the giant panda, which retains its baby-like cuteness into adulthood. Indeed, humans have juvenile characteristics relative to other primates. Our sparse body hair and enlarged heads are in fact reminiscent of baby primates.

When I came across the Daily Telegraph’s first report about Emma West’s cri de coeur aboard the Croydon tramlink, I was reluctant to comment for the reasons already outlined in Andy Nowicki’s latest blog.

However, the Telegraph report—since updated—did suggest to me that any mainstream media coverage, especially if it went viral, would be worth commenting upon, and therefore worth keeping an eye on for developments.

My instinct was not wrong.

Mainstream media reports since have predictably emphasised the shock of West’s fellow commuters and YouTube viewers as well as the illegality of West’s speech. The early Telegraph report, preceding West’s arrest, suggested she was motivated by irrational hatred and even that she may not be in full possession of her faculties:

During the footage the mother - who at times appears to slur her words - begins by ranting

Nabeela Zahir, a 29-year-old journalist based in London, writing for the The Huffington Post, has since chipped in, deploying a familiar double tactic. With her opening sentence, hardly neutral in tone, she telegraphs that expressing views critical of immigrants and immigration has no place in decent society:

The racist torrent of abuse that spewed out of the mouth of a woman travelling on a London tram has left many Brits horrified.

Further down, Zahir, who describes herself as ‘British Asian’, repeats the tired old cliché of White racial identity being a mental illness and paints a picture of her adopted country as being riddled with nasty racism.

It seems not to matter that she was able to obtain a full education in British universities, or that she has been able to find ample professional opportunities in her chosen career as a news producer, documentary film researcher, television co-host, assistant broadcast journalist, writer and contributor, sub-editor, and communications press officer, who has worked for Channel 4, Channel 4 News, Waddell Media, the BBC, and ITN, among others, as well been published by The Guardian and received a George Viner scholarship. According to her narrative, Britain’s nasty racism is everywhere, always, under the surface, not only in violent forms, but also in all manner of subtle forms, sometimes finding expression in socially acceptable discourse.

 This is more or less the message emanating from The Guardian, where Sunny Hundal, commentator on ‘British Asian’ identity politics and committed racial activist, who questions whether West should be arrested for expressing her views, but believes

there are still far too many Westminster commentators who think racism is a thing of the past

 and that West is a product of ‘the opinions of the rightwing press’ and its ‘biased reporting’.

The Mirror, a Left-wing tabloid, lays it thick with its biased reporting, broadcasting at full volume the message that West’s views are objectionable (highlights are mine):

Viewers disgusted at her comments brought it to the attention of the British Transport Police . . . Disbelieving viewers left comments on the video sharing website . . . One said: “She makes me furious”, while another posted: “So much hate, actually ashamed to be British.” … The woman begins her x-rated outburst . . . She then ignores a polite request from a second traveller to stop swearing in front of the children on the tram. And the mum's sickening rant then goes into overdrive . . .

None of the coverage herein cited, and least of all the self-serving commentary from non-White commentators, attempts for a moment to explore the motive of West’s frustrations, even though they are not unique to her. Evidently, for the mainstream reporters there is nothing to explore: West is a sick racist and that is all there is to say about it; she needs to be prosecuted, as Colin Liddell says, ‘to the full extent of the law’, lest others feel emboldened also to express their rage.

But why do these expressions of White rage at the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism never have anything to do with the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism?

It seems obvious to me that if the rage follows a given pattern, comes from members of an identifiable group, flows in the same direction, there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting the assertions made, and politicians, both in Britain and elsewhere across the West, are so scared of it being seen or understood that they feel the need to suppress it with heavy spin and heavy-handed legislation, there must be something to it beyond mere psychosis or irrational emotion.

The sheer popularity of the video and the amount of commentary it has elicited in the mainstream press suggests awareness that there are very many of who, put off by West’s vulgarity, dare not admit to sharing her sentiments. After nearly 6.7 million views and nearly 160,000 comments on YouTube since Monday, the evidence is clear.

The United Kingdom is marvelling at the enrichment being visited upon the country by the multicultural state.

Inexplicably, the politicians, who worked so hard for so many years to ensure Britons did not miss out on the joys of diversity, are proving shy to take credit for the creativity and skills they have imported into the country from all corners of Africa and South Asia. Instead, they have taken to invect against the displays of rapturous exuberance sweeping the streets of London and now other cities as well.

Be that as it may, Britons today must admit, however reluctant they may have been in the past, that state-sponsored multiculturalism has finally delivered what it promised.

One of the arguments for the multicultural policy was that racial and cultural diversity would add a variety of approaches to problem-solving, with each breed of immigrant bringing with him unique ways of looking at things, thus supplementing the apparently boring, stale, and predictable ways traditionally preferred by native Britons.

A conspicuous example has now been provided by the events that began in Tottenham last Saturday.

As we know, Tottenham is an economically depressed area of the capital, with many of its residents being poor, living in squalor, and depending on state benefits. It is, however, the most diverse area in the country, and possibly of Western Europe, with 113 different ethnic groups living cheek-by-jowl in an intensely urbanised area, where no fewer than 193 languages are spoken, not including hybridised varieties of broken Cockney, gang slang, and Twitter-pidgin.

Thus, out of this cauldron of multifarious religions, sects, backgrounds, cultures, dialects, and worldviews, idiosyncratic approaches to wealth-creation have emerged over the years, creating new industries and causing others to boom. Psychoactive drug and gun traffic are thriving, providing employment and raising the standard of living of many local entrepreneurs on a scale that would not have been possible prior to the advent of multiculturalism.

Yet this is all well known to native Britons, particularly those still remaining in this and other enriched areas, and even more so to the police, who now enjoy larger budgets and can offer more opportunities for employment than before. The same must be true of cremation services.

What has not been noted in the mainstream media, however, is the degree of ecological specialisation among local residents, which news reporting on the U.K. riots have brought into relief.

On the one hand, footage on the ground has revealed that Black youths have decided to specialise on wealth redistribution, focusing on the performance of thousands of unrecorded transactions at local businesses, at all hours of the day and night, without need for shop assistance or customer service. By means of chairs, bricks, and baseball bats, they have eliminated barriers to the free circulation of goods, and have transferred substantial amounts of wealth from unmanned shop floors and into their homes. Some have posted images of themselves on Twitter, showing off their newly acquired wealth. Others have travelled to other parts of the city, seeking new vistas and opportunities. And yet others, inspired by the pioneering spirit of these Black youths, have been seen by BBC news reporters on the ground arriving with bags and inquiring where the riots were.

On the other hand, the footage has also revealed that White folk have decided to specialise on urban repair and maintenance. Reports posted on the BBC News website have shown a clean-up operations organised by volunteers, 99% of whom appear White. While various Black youths have been interviewed or filmed by the BBC reporters, both photographs and footage have revealed a nearly unbroken sea of White folk hard at work with their brooms and spades, removing the debris left by several nights of multicultural ebullience.

It is there in black and white.

As I have remarked elsewhere, this will no doubt be interpreted by proponents of multiculturalism as convincing proof that they were right all along, and that they must now intensify their efforts to bring even more of it, and introduce it as soon as possible on diversity-deprived areas, so that as many Britons as possible can share in the bliss.

“Black people gotta lotta problems
But they don’t mind throwing a brick”

Joe Strummer’s longing lyrics to The Clash’s 1977 hit White Riot are a gross libel on a community, but they also contain a grain of truth. The diplomat’s son who always wanted to be a working class hero was waxing envious about what he saw as black willingness to rise up and take direct action against the ‘system’. He wanted both to join them and have a racially exclusive “White riot—a riot of my own”.

The long unheard song has been widely aired over the last four days, as Britons watched parts of their inner cities dissolve in partly race-driven unrest, in the worst rioting for over two decades.

The problems were sparked by the police shooting last Thursday of a 29 year old black man named Mark Duggan in Tottenham, north London. At first it was said the police had fired in self-defence, but now it seems both shots were fired by police. Duggan had been under surveillance, presumably because of his membership of the Star gang, which according to the Guardian’s Gavin Knight

. . . had a notorious reputation for being armed, dealing Class A drugs and intent on making money. It was affiliated to larger, older gangs in the area.

Tottenham gossip has it that Duggan was “a major player” in the local demi-monde, who “lived by the gun” and caused “grief”. These associations seem reasonable grounds for keeping an eye on him, although of course any death at the hands of the police is unfortunate.

As always with these incidents, there will be an in-depth investigation and normally an accurate account of the circumstances eventually emerges—as happened in the recent cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson. But there seems little appetite to await any such inquiry.

This is partly because there are especially painful echoes in Tottenham of previous confrontations between blacks (AKA “youths”) and police (called “The Feds” by youths who were playing computer games when they should have been doing homework—AKA “acting white”).

The most notorious incident was in 1985, when a white policeman called Keith Blakelock was macheted to death by youths on the Broadwater Farm Estate. The proximate cause of that violence was the death of a black woman during a police raid—and that raid had been designed to suppress rolling unrest after the police shooting a few days previously of Cherry Groce in Brixton, south of the Thames. In 1999, there was again unrest in N15 when Roger Sylvester died whilst being restrained by police.

And it is not only Tottenham which holds these memories, but large parts of black Britain. The idea that the Feds pick on the youths out of casual racism is endemic and ingrained amongst many whites as well as blacks, and is remorselessly fed by the political left.

Black-police relations are coloured (sorry!) by folk-memories of street battles going all the way to the first days of large-scale black immigration in the late 1940s. In 1958, there were the Notting Hill riots, when white Teddy Boys rocked and rolled along the streets in their blue suede shoes attacking random Afro-Caribbeans who quite naturally resisted, and since then there has been a sort of low level, sporadic ethnic intifada in parts of England’s inner cities, interspersed with outbreaks of worse violence exploited by the far Left, the mainstream Left and (counterproductively) by the far Right. The mainstream Right’s response has usually been to masterfully do nothing, trusting that the naughtiness will magick itself away.

While Conservatives alternately blustered and equivocated, and Labourites poured political petrol on all flames, inoffensive people (many black) were constrained to watch as their districts were periodically destroyed by youths AKA activists—Brixton, Toxteth, Handsworth, St. Paul’s, to name just a few once agreeable suburbs that have erupted before and have just erupted again.

Those who were (badly) paid to police these places were constrained to accept the blame for operational mistakes (rightly)—but also the far bigger mistakes made by politicians who expected them to do a Godawful job without giving them the tools they needed or even much thanks.

Not only that, but the police were accused of being at best indifferent to the needs of black people, or worse, having a “canteen culture of racism”. Anti-cop conspiracies cluster around any mysterious black deaths—like the 1981 New Cross Fire, when 13 partygoers were burned to death by a black man, which many in SE14 still believe was a police/National Front cover-up). Then there was Stephen Lawrence (which led to the 1999 Macpherson Report), Ricky Reel (Asian, but co-opted into African-ness for political purposes, who fell into the Thames and drowned in 1997) and Joy Gardner (a several times warned illegal immigrant who died in 1993 after struggling with immigration officials). The latter case inspired one of the great works of 20^th century protest poesy. Benjamin Zephaniah’s last lines are perhaps the best, and not just because they are the last:

I cannot help but wonder 
How the alien deporters 
(As they said to press reporters)
Can feel absolute relief.

Deaths of blacks while in police custody (and they are disproportionately likely to be in police custody for certain categories of crime) are especially controversial, even though 75% of such deaths are of whites. In these cases, the dead are always saintly and the police always guilty until they are proven guilty. So too with Mark Duggan – who somehow managed to combine being a criminal “major player” with being a model dad. 

There was a highly charged demonstration outside the local police station on Saturday, and afterwards vibrancy vibrated through Tottenham and adjacent areas, with what the media called “disaffected youths” setting fire to cars and buses, looting from and then torching shops. They were soon joined by shrewder others, using the “protests” as a cover to promote assorted adolescent agendas or obtain democratic discounts at JJB Sports.

On Sunday and Monday, the violence spread across London to encompass Camden/Chalk Farm, Bethnal Green, Peckham, Ealing, Deptford, Lewisham, Clapham, Croydon (a man found there with gunshot wounds later died), Bromley, Woolwich, East Ham and Stratford. Outside London, there were outbreaks in Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Nottingham.

Monday night was the London Fire Brigade’s busiest ever night (including the Blitz) and the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner admitted to the BBC “The Met was stretched beyond belief in a way that it has never experienced before.” The only good news was that several football matches were called off. London became quieter on Tuesday, thanks to the presence of 16,000 police, but there were problems in Birmingham again, and in Manchester and Wolverhampton—which could not even be headed off by the joyous news of David Cameron’s return from holiday.

The events brought in their train a half-horrible, half-hilarious farrago of fact and fantasy. There was the Russian reporter who claimed that the roaring of escaped lions and tigers from London Zoo could be heard in high streets. There was video footage of a gang of rioters who came to help a fallen man to his feet so they could go through his pockets more easily. There were stories of “vigilantes” tooling up with baseball bats to defend their families and premises. There were the girl geniuses interviewed by BBC Radio 4, sitting in the street at 9.30am drinking stolen rosé to refresh their maidenly parts after a hectic night of after-hours shopping:

It was madness, it was good fun . . . showing the rich people we can do what we want . . . it’s the governmen’s fault. The Conserva’ives, Yeah, wha’ever it is . . . who it is. I dunno.

Asked if these agreeable activities would carry on the next night, they reflected, with growing confidence.

Yeah, hopefully, definitely.

One tactician who criticized the police response seemed shy about revealing his alternative master-plan:

I don’ need to be talkin’ about wot they need ta be doin’

Another Napoleon put his finger on one of the inherent problems of “colour-blind” policing:

The police are bein’ abusive—they don’ like black people, they don’ like Asian people, they don’ like their own people.

There was an amusing disconnect between the widely quoted West Indian lady representing respectable Hackney opinion and the un-Bowdlerized Youtube actualité:

Why are you burning people’s shops that they have worked hard to build up?... Look at that shop over there, she has worked hard to make it work and you’re just going to go and burn it up?

Her impassioned addendum was less widely mentioned:

And for what, just to say you are warring and a badman? This is about a f***ing man who was shot in Tottenham. This ain’t about busting up the place. Get real, black people, get real…You lot piss me the f**k off.

There were small mercies, such as the Hackney shop-owner who found that the “feral rats” who had fingered through her stock had taken all the designer label stuff but left “the tasteful things”.

Behind this semi-comic carry-on lies a terrible story of decent people of all races besieged terrified in their own houses and waking up to find their homes, shops, streets scorched and littered with debris. On Tuesday, Channel 4 interviewed a Sri Lankan shopkeeper who had lost an estimated £30,000 worth of uninsured stock, and trembling young women trapped in Manchester city centre because their way home was blocked by hundreds of masked men breaking into shops.

And behind this again, the seriously irresponsible and unpleasant (and almost always white) hard left are at work. A leaflet entitled Don’t Panic; Don’t Talk! initially circulated in Bristol soon found its way to the Indymedia website, giving what must surely be illegal advice:

“Do think about changing your appearance…get rid ALL clothes you were wearing…spray cans, demo-related stuff, dodgy texts/photos on your phone. Don’t make life easy for them by having drugs, weapons or other illegal stuff in your house.”

The Socialist Workers’ Party (or should that be Worker’s?) jumped helpfully on the bandwagon, because “the state tries to discredit riots”. This cannot be allowed to happen, because “riots can win important gains”. They continued, with the brilliant reasoning we always hope for from this quarter:

It’s not about people smashing up their local area for no reason. It’s about them expressing their anger, wherever they happen to be.

After all, what is a riot compared with the violence dished out daily by the system?

The violence of riots is minor compared to the violence the system inflicts on a daily basis—like famines . . .  and wars that slaughter millions.

It’s all down to that Great Satan the “anarchy of the market” which As Any Fule No is “far more devastating than the supposed anarchy on the streets”.

Labour MP John McDonnell would seem to go along with some of this analysis, Tweeting sagely:

Reaping what has been sown over 3 decades of creating grotesquely unequal society with alienated young copying ethos of looting bankers.

Ken Livingstone, ex-London Mayor and again Labour candidate for that post, concurs:

[T]he economic stagnation and cuts imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division . . . [the rioters] feel no-one at the top of society, in government or City Hall, cares about them or speaks for them.

Gavin Knight of the Guardian at least realizes there are serious obstacles in the way of rehabilitation for disaffected youths wanting to be disinfected from criminality:

Youth offenders who try to turn their back on a life on the streets are constantly hampered by prospective employers doing Criminal Records Bureau checks.

Perhaps he should lead by example, and give a few of them jobs at the Guardian. At least they’ll all have nice new trainers to wear to the interview.

A recent Pew Research Center study has highlighted the widening gap in wealth between American Whites and Blacks and Hispanics. It inspired quite a few op-eds on why America isn't "post-racial" enough and why more work must be done.     

The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from 2009.

These lopsided wealth ratios are the largest since the government began publishing such data a quarter century ago and roughly twice the size of the ratios that had prevailed between these three groups for the two decades prior to the Great Recession that ended in 2009.

What's most interesting, at least to me, is the Pew Center's conclusion: the gap wasn't increased by a decline in federal employment, nor even corporate layoffs, so much as the housing bust:  

The Pew Research analysis finds that, in percentage terms, the bursting of the housing market bubble in 2006 and the recession that followed from late 2007 to mid-2009 took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than whites. From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households.

As a result of these declines, the typical black household had just $5,677 in wealth (assets minus debts) in 2009; the typical Hispanic household had $6,325 in wealth; and the typical white household had $113,149.

Moreover, about a third of black (35%) and Hispanic (31%) households had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15% of white households. In 2005, the comparable shares had been 29% for blacks, 23% for Hispanics and 11% for whites.

Hispanics and blacks are the nation’s two largest minority groups, making up 16% and 12% of the U.S. population respectively.

These findings are based on the Pew Research Center’s analysis of data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), an economic questionnaire distributed periodically to tens of thousands of households by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is considered the most comprehensive source of data about household wealth in the United States by race and ethnicity. The two most recent administrations of SIPP that focused on household wealth were in 2005 and 2009. Data from the 2009 survey were only recently made available to researchers.¹

Plummeting house values were the principal cause of the recent erosion in household wealth among all groups, with Hispanics hit hardest by the meltdown in the housing market.

From 2005 to 2009, the median level of home equity held by Hispanic homeowners declined by half—from $99,983 to $49,145—while the homeownership rate among Hispanics was also falling, from 51% to 47%. A geographic analysis suggests the reason: A disproportionate share of Hispanics live in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona, which were in the vanguard of the housing real estate market bubble of the 1990s and early 2000s but that have since been among the states experiencing the steepest declines in housing values.

Most who have cited the study have blamed evil subprime lenders for the plight of Blacks and Hispanics. Looked at another way, though, it was precisely this kind of affirmative-action lending (which Steve Sailer first talked about in his piece "The Diversity Recession") that was the primary means of racial wealth re-distribution throughout the first half of the 2000s. Taxing rich (mostly White) people, funnelling the money through Washington's massive bureaucratic apparatus, and then issuing it to minorities isn't as effective as, in essence, "financial socialism." America could be made more "post-racial" by giving minorities 30-year mortgages at 20:1 leverage, underwritten by a government agency and packaged as derivatives by Goldman Sachs.  

Since it's becoming clear to all that the housing bubble can't be blown up again, a new means of instituting equality will, no doubt, have to be found...    

While watching the video of efforts by left-wing thugs to disrupt Richard Spencer’s recent talk on affirmative action at Providence College, I was reminded of a conversation I had sometime in the late 1980s with a former member of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society who had been involved with the movement to oppose the Vietnam War since its inception circa 1962. He recalled how in the early days of the antiwar movement, protest organizers were thrilled if they could get fifty people to show up for a rally. To publicly oppose the war at the time was physically dangerous, and such rallies were always at risk of being physically attacked by vigilantes shouting epithets like “communist” at the protestors. If organizers of the rallies could get police protection at all, they were happy to have it. Not only were public demonstrations in danger of such assaults, but so were quiet and peaceful meetings of those who opposed the war held in church basements or on university campuses. Of course, we all know that the anti-Vietnam War movement morphed into a mass movement just a few years later.

So it is indeed ironic that half a century later it is those who challenge the established dogmas purveyed by the Left who similarly experience the disruption of their efforts to peacefully speak and organize, who become the targets of epithets like “racist,” “sexist,” or “classist,” and who are threatened with physical violence. Incidents of this type are exceedingly common. It is now widely known that conservative speakers on university campuses, even entirely mainstream neocon-friendly “movement conservative” types, are routinely shouted down and threatened by leftists. As most readers are probably aware, right-wing organizations outside the mainstream, such as American Renaissance, have endured even worse attacks. At times, simply attending an anti-illegal immigration rally can be all that it takes for one to become the victim of a physical assault.

A number of observations could be made concerning the demeanor and behavior of the disrupters of Richard’s presentation at Providence. One is the obvious fact that they are so certain of their own moral superiority and the nobility of their crusade that they feel ordinary rules of civilized discourse or common courtesy no longer apply to them. Another is that far from their image of themselves as enlightened, free-thinking rebels, they come across more like brainwashed zombies similar to members of the LaRouche cult or the Moonies I used to encounter selling flowers on the streets of Washington, D.C. years ago. Their level of intellectual prowess seems to amount to little more than thinking that merely throwing labels at people and ideas they find disagreeable counts as a valid refutation of the opposing viewpoints.

Judging from the hysteria of their reaction, one would think that Richard was advocating genocide rather than arguing for the fairly standard right-of –center position that affirmative action is a bad idea, a position that even some minority scholars and analysts hold. It is also rather difficult to see how Richard was arguing for “white supremacy” given that the data he was presenting actually showed Asians to be the top performers with regards to SAT scores. As Richard pointed out in his talk, it was he who was the moderate and the protestors who were the extremist nutjobs.

For the diversitarians, affirmative action is not merely a policy preference, but a sacred article of faith, like the Holy Trinity or the Immaculate Conception. Affirmative action is a political tool the liberal establishment utilizes to maintain the loyalty of one of its core allies and constituent groups, the black elite and the middle class professional sectors of the black population. Affirmative action is an entitlement used as a reward for political loyalty from these sectors. It is doubtful that AA is of much benefit to genuinely impoverished or disadvantaged blacks, many of whom do not even finish high school, much less attend college or obtain professional-level occupations. And as Richard pointed out, if the goal of AA was to help the poor and disadvantaged in the first place, AA would be class-based rather than race-based.

Indeed, “black conservatives” like Thomas Sowell and Elizabeth Wright have documented a myriad of ways in which policies implemented by the welfare state and civil rights bureaucracy that has meta-morphed in recent decades have severely undermined the organic economic, cultural, and family life of urban black communities, and contributed exponentially to the social pathologies often found in those communities. Likewise, the black libertarian economist Walter Williams has produced rather extensive evidence indicating the contribution of efforts at intrusive economic micromanagement to high unemployment rates among urban blacks.

Additionally, there is some evidence that black children who are educated in culturally specific Afro-centric schools perform much better than black children who receive conventional public schooling. The reasons as to why this is so are inconclusive but what is interesting is that the efforts of either conservative and libertarian black scholars like Sowell, Wright, or Williams, or of Afro-centrists with a nationalist or separatist outlook, are routinely attacked or dismissed by white liberals and the captains of the civil rights industry alike. Indeed, such people are often reviled by the Left. The obvious reason for this is the fanatical egalitarian-universalist ideology that has come to dominate the Left, an ideology that just happens to coincide with the political and economic self-interest of those who push it. It is an ideology that seeks a society where all resources are controlled and managed by the state and administered according to a spoils system the ostensible purpose of which is the imposition of bureaucratically-managed “equality.” The ultimate outcome of totalitarian humanism taken to its logical conclusion would be a totalitarian state organized as a kind of caste system whereby individual rights are assigned on the basis of group identity and group rights are assigned on the basis of the position of the group in the pantheon of the oppressed or on the victimological family tree.

Given these considerations, it might be apt to compare our present day lefto-fascist, stormtroopers-on-granola with the Red Guards of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards were, of course, bands of youthful vigilantes who scurried about China during the 1960s smashing up cultural artifacts deemed “old” (e.g. conservative, traditional) and engaging in vigilante violence against persons deemed “reactionary” (mostly dissident intellectuals and those labeled “bourgeois” or originating from politically incorrect cultural or class backgrounds.) We see a similar though milder version of this today in the West today with attacks on expressions of traditional culture (like Christmas celebrations), historical artifacts considered to be reactionary (like Confederate Civil War monuments or streets named after Confederate generals), and vigilante actions against people given labels like “racist,” “fascist,” “sexist,” or “classist.”

I suspect that these “antifa” types, these Red Guards-on-tofu, would be every bit as murderous and destructive if the authorities would sanction it, as Chairman Mao did during the Cultural Revolution. We’ve seen hints at this already with the nonchalant attitude of the authorities towards threats of murder and arson against innocent people made by the Antifa in response to American Renaissance’s planned gathering in 2010. Plenty of other incidents have occurred where destructive or violent behavior by those claiming to act in the name of noble causes like “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” have been overlooked or dealt with leniently by authorities convinced of the purity of their motives or restrained by political pressure.

The great irony presented by the Antifa is that despite all of their posturing as radicals and revolutionaries, they’re essentially doing the establishment’s bidding. The attitudes they subscribe to are not fundamentally different from those of the liberal elite overlords of the wider society. The Red Guards-on-tofu are simply a smellier, more ill-mannered, undisciplined, more in-a-hurry version of the liberal establishment itself. Wouldn’t it be an even greater irony if indeed the growing counterculture of the alternative right were to grow into a large influential movement as the leftist counterculture and antiwar movements did in the 1960s, with the Antifa and their ilk assuming the role of the “hardhats”?

Professor Roderick Long is a Harvard grad who currently teaches philosophy at Auburn University. He is also a devout “Austro-libertarian,” an ideology that synthesizes Austrian economics with individualist anarchism in the manner championed by Murray Rothbard. He is associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and the left-libertarian Molinari Society. Professor Long is someone whose work I generally respect and which contains some interesting and valuable insights into matters involving political theory, class theory, political economy, legal theory, and a number of other matters. Unfortunately, Long is also a PC lunatic on social questions who once compared pro-lifers to Guantanamo torturers during an online discussion he and I were both party to. His argument? Childbirth is physically painful, therefore denying a woman an abortion at any time she wants for any reason she wants amounts to the imposition of physical torture. Pretty thin, huh? Apparently, women who undergo abortion procedures never experience any kind of discomfort, physical or otherwise. (By the way, I generally favor legal abortion, in case anyone is wondering.)

I was therefore surprised to see Professor Long offer the following insight during a discussion of how “Austro-libertarians” might engage in outreach to the Left:

There are some left-wingers whom I call the “aristocratic left,” and whom I despair of reaching. These are left-wingers who have a particular vision of an idyllic society and are prepared to hammer into place anyone whose preferences or behavior don’t align with the vision; in effect they see other people as their property. Back when I lived in North Carolina, on the city line between Chapel Hill and Carrboro, I used to watch with mixed amusement and horror as the affluent white “liberals” who ran the city councils of those two communities competed to see which city could impose the most callous and intrusively micromanaging legislation. In Carrboro, which incredibly billed itself as the “Paris of the Piedmont,” the council thought that old cars looked unsightly, and so declared that residents would be forbidden to park in their driveways any car older than a certain number of years (I forget how many). Unsurprisingly, this law had a more burdensome impact on lower-income households than on higher; so much for the idea that liberals are supposed to care about the poor. The Chapel Hill council, with similar solicitude, forbade a local copy shop to post its (low) prices or to use words such as “discount” in its advertising, because the emphasis on low cost seemed tawdry, and clashed with their vision of an upscale community. (I am not making this up.) I have to laugh when conservatives accuse liberals of practicing class warfare, because these regulations were certainly class warfare-but from the opposite direction from the one suggested by the accusation. The Carrboro council also thought that cul-de-sacs looked unfriendly and standoffish, too much like private communities, and so proposed not only to ban new ones but to ram streets through existing ones; apparently the beloved mantra of children’s safety only applies sometimes. Mercifully, I don’t think that one finally passed. The same council also wanted to require drive-in banks and restaurants to install downward-sloping exits, thus allowing cars to turn their engines off and glide soundlessly and emissionlessly back down the street. (I am still not making this up.) What gun laws were favoured by these two hyperactive city councils I leave to your imagination. I have no suggestions on how to sell Austro-libertarianism to left-wingers of this variety; they seem like enemies of the human race.

Of course, Professor Long goes on to contrast this evil “aristocratic Left” with the good Left:

There are many, many left-wingers whose primary motivation for their left-wing political stance is the very libertarian impulse to protect people who are being pushed around. These left-wingers look at contemporary society and see an economy dominated by massive, impersonal corporations with enormous and seemingly unaccountable power; they see lower- and middle-income people disempowered in the workplace and struggling to make ends meat; they see institutions and social practices rigged against blacks, women, gays, immigrants, and other oppressed groups-and they turn to government to address these inequities, viewing the democratic state as an institution in principle accountable to the public, and thus able to serve as a bulwark against private power and privilege. Call this variety of left-wingers the anti-privilege Left. And this is the Left we can reach.

Not so fast. Taken together, the two statements quoted above represent a dizzying combination of genuine perspicacity and utter obliviousness. On one hand, Professor Long is one of the very few from what might be called the “cultural hard left” to recognize that there is, indeed, such a thing as an “aristocratic Left.” (Obviously, “aristocratic” is being used here as an adjective or metaphor for the more general category of educated, affluent or wealthy elites.)

One of the more important insights advanced by the “radical right” is the recognition that liberalism is in fact an ideology of the elite. Most hard leftists regard nearly everyone to the right of Leon Trotsky to be an “extreme right-winger” and it is not uncommon to see such people denounce moderate conservatives as “fascists” or “crypto-Nazis.” The publications of the hard left persistently lament the supposed ongoing drift of domestic American politics to the “far right” even though American society continues to become ever more liberal, and the ideas of yesterday’s loony leftists become ever more mainstream and respectable. For example, expressing support for gay marriage, which would have been regarded as insanity during the supposed Golden Age of Decadence of the 1960s and 1970s, is now just another somewhat controversial but still respectable middle-of-the-road, perhaps slightly left-of-center opinion.

Likewise, the election of the first Black president is somehow dismissed by the Left as just a cosmetic feature that hides what a horrid, racist, White supremacist society America really is, even though nothing destroys the reputation and career of a public figure any quicker than accusations racism, no matter how mild or dubious.

Further, Professor Long recognizes that the upper classes and affluent upper-middle classes are hardly consistent or even frequent proponents of ostensibly conservative economic values such as “free markets” or “limited government.” Rather the wealthy and affluent are like every other socioeconomic interest group in that they want state intervention into the economy on their own behalf, not “free enterprise” or “market discipline.” This is a sharp departure from the usual leftist habit of dismissing conservative and libertarian critics of state-managed economies as mere apologists for the plutocratic status quo. But what Professor Long is missing is the insight that perhaps many of those who present themselves as champions of the workers, the poor, minorities, women, gays, immigrants, and on down the list of the officially oppressed might also have less than honest or honorable motivations, and might in fact frequently be charlatans, crooks, scam artists, or aspiring tyrants. Nor does it occur to him that perhaps those “aristocratic leftists” whom he labels as “enemies of the human race,” and who are persistently agitating for repressive gun laws and intrusive economic regulations, might in fact be the same class of folks who are similarly pushing the vast array of attitudes, institutional policies, and bits of legislation that have collectively been given the popular label of “political correctness.”

For it is among this class of upper-middle income and wealthy liberals that Long describes that we typically find the most zealous proponents of affirmative action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, legislated “rights” for the organized gay lobby that in fact abridge the associational, religious, and economic liberties of others, radical feminists who are not downtrodden seamstresses in garment factories but tenured academics or activist attorneys or other professionals, university professors and administrators, public sector bureaucrats who oversee the managerial state, corporate executives who pride themselves on their extensive commitment to “diversity” and “sensitivity,” and so on. Might it not just be that this socioeconomic demographic, those “aristocratic leftists” who are “enemies of the human race,” are in fact the exact same people who are the most zealous proponents of PC fundamentalism? And might they indeed have sinister ulterior motives for assuming such a stance?

This is not to say that many liberals and leftists do not hold the political beliefs that they do out of sincere regard for those whom they consider to be oppressed or downtrodden. But when we see the affluent and influential classes championing things like mass immigration or the suppression of public debate concerning taboo subjects along with all sorts of other pernicious legislation, economic policies, or social practices, perhaps we should ask ourselves why this is the case?

Whenever I have presented my “totalitarian humanism” theory to seemingly sincere liberals, the main difficulty they seem to encounter in comprehending my analysis is their inability to absorb the idea that those who claim to be waging a righteous crusade against racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, et. al. ad nauseam could possibly be motivated by anything any other than a desire to do good and make the world a better place. At worst, I am often told in response, the PC zealots are guilty of mere overreaction to past injustices or excessive exuberance in pursuit of a noble ideal. Indeed, I believe that it is this same mindset that accounts for the otherwise inexplicable phenomena of why Nazism has come to symbolize the ultimate in evil, while Communism has rarely received such a treatment in the history books, and is certainly not regarded in the same manner by intellectual and cultural elites, even though its murderous and genocidal propensities certainly rival that of any of its ideological competitors. Therefore, exposing the destructive proclivities of PC for the tyrannical anti-human ideology that it is becomes one of our most important tasks.

Affirmative action is the Orwellian name given to efforts to hire, admit, or otherwise promote people of certain racial or ethnic groups, merely because they belong to those groups. The name of this game derives from the notion that it actively helps people, i.e. it is “affirmative”, rather than harming people who belong to excluded groups. In the second edition of The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, Character, and Other Lies (2010), Steven Farron traces the history, the excuses, the lies, and the deceit behind this form of racial discrimination.

The origins of the policy known as affirmative action (hereafter “AA”) lie in the Kennedy Administration, when incipient concern for the civil rights of Black Americans caused many in power to notice that Blacks were underrepresented in the universities, the professions, and in government. To most of them, inequality of outcome was de facto evidence of "discrimination"; there could be no inequality of ability or intelligence between races. In Daniel Moynihan's famous report, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action (1965), he wrote, “There is absolutely no question of any genetic differential: Intelligence potential is distributed among Negro infants in the same proportion and pattern as among Icelanders or Chinese or any other group.”

Yet affirmative action, as a policy if not a name, goes back further, and most definitely was motivated by the recognition that at least one group in particular possessed greater intelligence and ability to succeed in academia and in life. That group was the Jews. In the early years of the 20th century, Jewish admissions to elite universities rose greatly. By 1919, 40 percent of Columbia's students were Jewish, and for university administrators who wanted their institutions to retain their character, “radical steps had to be taken." And here lies the origin of non-academic criteria for admission to a university, in other words the doctrine of “diversity.” At this point, university admissions bureaucracies began their cancerous growth, since while it was a simple matter to screen students based on academic merit, it was not so simple to admit students seemingly on qualities like “leadership” or “character,” when in reality one wanted only to keep out a disfavored group.

Current AA policy relies on defining favored groups, and Farron ably dissects the absurdities of this practice. For instance, “Black” denotes anyone with at least one Black ancestor, and furthermore, bureaucrats are not allowed to override the self-description of any candidate for hiring, promotion, or admission. In other words, someone who says that he's Black (or Hispanic, etc.) must be taken at face value, no matter how absurd it seems. “Hispanic” was so defined as to exclude anyone with origins in Brazil, yet fully White Argentinians and Uruguyans fall into this category. Financial success is no impediment to becoming a recipient of AA either; a Black millionaire is eligible for preference over a poor White, and in fact most AA benefits go to the middle and upper middle class. It will not have escaped notice that while AA was meant to benefit victims of historical discrimination, not only have most Blacks alive today not experienced it--especially so when they come from the middle class-- but Hispanics have never been subject to slavery or Jim Crow, and have not even been a major presence in the U.S. until recently.

The BBC reports today that the producer of the United Kingdom’s TV drama, Midsomer Murders

has been suspended after saying the drama “wouldn’t work” if there was racial diversity in the show.

Brian True-May, who co-created the series, told the Radio Times the long-running drama was a “last bastion of Englishness” and should stay that way.

Production company All3Media told the BBC Mr True-May had been suspended pending an internal investigation.

ITV said it was “shocked and appalled” by the producer’s comments.

“We are in urgent discussions with All3Media...who have informed us that they have launched an immediate investigation into the matter,” a spokesman added.

I cannot help but feel amusement at the thought that Englishness—imagine that!—is shocking and appalling to one of the country’s main television networks—something meriting “urgent [top-level] discussions”. Urgent discussions!

Quick! Englishness has been identified! Undiluted in a television drama! We must eradicate it! Fire everyone involved! Apologise, on our knees! Investigate, thoroughly! Get right down to the molecular level. And either cancel the show or re-cast it in its entirety. Never mind the show’s setting. Never mind demography in rural England (that will have to change anyway). Never mind the audience—7 million English folk. They do not count; their money is no good. They are, after all… English… Racist, bigoted, backward, tea-swilling, scone-munching, English-speaking, English scum.

The BBC report continues,

Mr True-May told the magazine: "We are a cosmopolitan society in this country, but if you watch Midsomer you wouldn't think so.

"I've never been picked up on that, but quite honestly I wouldn't want to change it," he said.

Of his all-white portrayal of rural life in Britain's murder capital he said: "Maybe I'm not politically correct."

The programme—which has run for 14 series—appealed to a "certain audience", he said.

Mr True-May added: "We just don't have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn't be the English village with them. It just wouldn't work."

Asked why "Englishness" could not include other races who are well represented in modern society, he said: "Well, it should do, and maybe I'm not politically correct.

"I'm trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don't want to change it."

Well, evidently, Mr. True-May failed to realise who it is that puts food on his plate. Reality is irrelevant; he is a producer, and it is therefore his job to produce an acceptable version of reality, not to depict it. Even a five-year-old knows that.

The BBC’s report offers the all-important piece of data that ought to have been addressed years ago:

A study in 2006 found the programme to be “strikingly unpopular” with viewers from ethnic minorities.

Of course, while this may appear to argue against the viability of strategies for racial integration, since it appears to betray some difficulty among ethnic minorities identifying with Englishness, the problem is easy to solve: just eliminate the English. Mr. True-May ought to have thought of it. But he refused. How did a man like this last so long undetected in the industry?

Some good points are made:

However Ash Atalla, producer of sitcoms The Office and the IT crowd, said it was a “generational thing”, where people of a certain age liked to believe that "Englishness" was all-white.

“Midsomer Murders is not for someone like me. I'm too young and I find the show rather dull,” he said.

Exactly. White is old and boring; dark is young and exciting. Midsomer Murders may have 7 million viewers, but they are unimportant. Who listens to a bunch of old coots? Old coots like the ones that live in those awful English villages, without a single Black face in sight? In time, thankfully, they will die out, as Tim Wise aptly pointed out in America, so the show may as well embrace the rainbow utopia of human brotherhood now, and start the bulldozer on that last bastion of Englishness. Flatten it now, concrete it over, so that the progressive tower of tomorrow may rise.

Judiciously, Atalla points out

“We have to be careful about seeking out something that offends us and then complaining. I would not want the viewers of Midsomer Murders complaining about something I liked.”

Yes. No need to overplay one’s hand. We would not want these pale-faced English villagers to start noticing things about the diverse metropolitan class.

At least there are some right-thinking citizens involved in the show:

Actor Jason Hughes, who has played the programme’s DS Jones, said he had pondered why Midsomer continued to have no ethnic minorities.

“I've wondered that myself and I don’t know,” he said.

“This isn’t an urban drama and it isn’t about multiculturalism. That’s not to say that there isn’t a place for multiculturalism in the show. But that’s really not up to me to decide.

“I don’t think that we would all suddenly go, ‘a black gardener in Midsomer? You can't have that’. I think we'd all go, ‘great, fantastic’.”

Now there is someone who gets it (or who at least wants to keep his job). It is about race, not about reality or acting ability. We will no doubt see the problem corrected in the next seasons of the show, and everyone will finally be able to relax and celebrate.

First of all, the dreaded R-word, “racism”! I am not going to spend this entire article shying away from it or going round it. Nor am I going to accept Leftist interpretations of it; nor, for that matter, overly defensive Rightist interpretations. Stripped of its connotations and associations, I want it, for the purposes of this article, to simply mean the phenomenon of people consciously valuing and preferring their own race, rather than unconsciously. For this second possibility I have another word, “sub-racism”—the theme of this article.

Whether racial consciousness produces Auschwitzes or polite, well-managed immigration restrictions is entirely another matter. My own belief is that openly discussing race and our natural race-based feelings is the best way to avoid serious unpleasantness; while not to do so is more likely to cause such unpleasantness. Assuming that the Holocaust did in fact happen—I automatically refuse to accept any view of history that needs to be enforced by law—it seems possible that part of the savagery was driven by racial ambiguity, caused by the degree to which Jews in Germany had interwoven themselves in German society, while at the same time remaining a distinct group.

In the excesses of the Nazis is it not possible to detect the mania of self-purification so characteristic of witch hunts, political purges, inquisitions, and hygiene campaigns, rather than an attack on some alien “Other”? Perhaps a clearer understanding of who was a Jew and who was a German, and who controlled this and who controlled that, would have mitigated the brutality of the Holocaust when Germany was put through the grinder.