A few people have written about how they think Rand Paul should’ve handled his appearance on Rachel Maddow and other similar interviews. Here’s Christopher Donovan’s way of defending freedom of association.

Robert, the Civil Rights Act wasn’t about expanding rights, it was about taking them away — from Whites. Everyone’s got a right to decide whom they’ll associate with, and whom they won’t. This is probably the most fundamental right. The government has no business dictating who our associates will be. This may be awkward and painful at times, but that’s life. How would you feel if the government forced you to host three Ku Klux Klansmen at your condo in D.C.?

When I was watching the Maddow video I thought of how cool it would be if Paul said “What if government decided that there wasn’t enough integration in our personal lives too? Of my three children, do you think one should be forced to take a black spouse?” though I certainly didn’t expect it. To a libertarian both a business and a home are private property that government must respect; unfortunately we must face the fact that there’s a sharp difference in most people’s minds. Even Americans who own their own businesses feel there’s a distinction between where they work and where they eat, sleep, socialize and raise their families. So comparing the Civil Rights Act to mandatory intermarriage or being forced to hang out with Klansmen isn’t going to work.

That being said, I do think that there are politically smart ways not to back down. How about this

It’s funny that the media has been going after me for defending freedom of association when they don’t question any politicians who advocate affirmative action about those beliefs. If you truly believe that all people should be treated equally, how does one advocate not the freedom to discriminate, but mandatory discrimination? If a major corporation or university came out and said “We want to hire the best person for each job or admit only the best students by some kind of race blind criteria,” that would for all practical purposes be illegal. Do you think that’s right? Why don’t you question Speaker Pelosi, President Obama or my opponent about their views on affirmative action? I have made ending affirmative action a central part of my platform. Anybody who defends the practice has no right lecturing me or any American on the evils of racial discrimination.

This is a political winner, allows one to still be a libertarian and even lets the politician take a "more anti-racist than thou" posture.  I don't see the downside.   Since no one ever does this, I must be missing something. But what?

Since taking your children away from you for seven hours a day to be brainwashed with multicultural propaganda hasn't yet gotten them to say the right things early enough, it's time to shame the parents. 



Anti-racists shouldn't worry too much though, for by the time they're as old as the kids in this video TV and public education have done their job.  

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
White in America - The Children
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

At the website of the National Association of Scholars, an anonymous victim of the educationist racket explains much of what you need to know about why Johnny can't read, write, or calculate (without a calculator). Briefly, it's because teacher's training today is totally controlled by mad folk.

His remarks are "based on a public lecture that the author presented to students interested in issues of campus free speech":

"First, you have to understand that educational policy is consumed by the achievement gap, which is the disparity between groups of students on most educational measures...I don't just mean that this is the number one priority. It's the only priority...Nothing else matters. No Child Left Behind was entirely about the achievement gap and measuring schools to see if they'd closed it. Obama's Race to the Top is just another take...again, focusing on testing and this time holding teachers responsible if they can't get low-performing students to improve."

And, second, you have to understand that, in ed-school, there's only one permissible take on "the achievement gap, its cause and solution" - i.e., "the progressive view...which holds that social injustice, institutionalized racism, white prejudice, and other societal ills cause the achievement gap." Express any doubt on that point - even to the rather timid extent of suggesting, along with those horrid right-wing extremists, the Thernstroms, that differing cultural values may play some role here - and the sociopaths who run the place will do everything in their power to destroy you. Fortunately, in the author's case, they didn't quite succeed (though they did frighten him into anonymity).

So what do our progressive educational overlords really want? They "want to fix the achievement gap by moving underachieving students closer to high-achieving students...who will model desirable behavior..." I.e., for these people, unless your child is an underperforming member of one of the officially approved minorities, they really couldn't care less about what's best for him. So far as they're concerned, his only use is to sit next to the previously mentioned under-achievers in class and to "model desirable behavior" for them. And if, instead, it's the bad habits of the underachievers that end up rubbing off on the better students? No problem. There's more than one way to reduce an achievement gap.

To me, it's seemed over the last half decade or so that the op-ed writers of the New York Times need to spend more time reading the science section of the same paper. In the last couple years, we've seen a piece that comes dangerously close to admitting that important genetic differences between the races exist, more than a few articles fairly summarizing the finding that IQ is highly hereditable, and even a report on evidence that non-Africans -- and non-Africans only -- have ancestors from a different species. 

Throughout this period, there's been no perceptible change in the Times's political writing. 

While it may be unfair to suggest that accepting the findings of the social sciences should make every liberal drop everything he believes in and join the Alternative Right, I think that the Left does have to rethink quite a few issues if it's not going to ignore behavioral genetics or psychometrics.  

The news of Rand Paul's big primary win (in a randslide) was certainly positive, tempered by his unclear foreign policy message. Now that he finds himself in the general election, the media is starting to ask questions about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Politico reports on his waffling on the CRA:

Moving from the Republican Primary to the general election means, for Rand Paul, addressing a broader set of issues than the anti-tax, anti-spending focus of his campaign.

And while he's answered this question before, I'm not sure he's going to be able to get away with an evasive response to a question today on whether he would have voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in public places and in the workplace.

Paul has suggested in the past -- and been attacked for suggesting -- that the federal government has no place regulating private business decisions, even on issues like race and accomodations for the disabled, and was pressed on the question -- three times -- on NPR just now:

"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have -- if I was alive at the time, I think -- had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, ad I see no place in our soc for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.

"You woul have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.

"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of I'm in favor of -- everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights -- and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

Paul explains his position further on the CRA at the one hour mark of this video interview with the editors of the Louisville Courier-Journal. He says he supports the parts of the bill that fought discrimination in the public arena and on public property, but disagrees with telling private business owners what to do. He then goes on a bit of a rant about his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and explains how he gets emotional when watching his speeches.

I have no doubt we will begin to see the media paint Paul as a racist, just as they attempted to do to his father. But the reality is that Rand , despite his positives as a candidate, is riven with many of the modern multi-culti pathologies that infect political discourse. Absent from his views on the CRA is any bit of understanding about the major cultural upheaval that resulted from the Act, and absent from his views on MLK is an understanding of the racial redistribution of wealth King advocated. Instead Paul tries to paint him as some anti-government crusader. In the end, I have no doubt that Rand is telling the truth about his views on the CRA; that it merely clashes with his ideological views on private ownership.

At any rate, Rand's clash with the media on the CRA is a healthy reminder of how hard it will be for a real alt-right candidate to infiltrate the PC state.

The title to this piece is a joke, of course, and I am glad that Rand Paul won the Kentucky Republican primary. I would have voted for him if I lived in the Blue Grass state. Paul's victory is also indicative of the power of the Tea Party movement, which originated with his father's 2008 presidential campaign but has taken on a life of its own. 

This said, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Rand secured victory, in part, by earning the endorsement of Sarah Palin, as well as that of RedState.com's terror warrior Eric Erickson. Maybe those two know something we don't? In his major TV spots, Rand promised not to close Gitmo, stated (albeit vaguely) that "fighting back" was the proper response to 9/11, and flashed a lot of images of Military-Industrial-Complex fighter planes soaring through the sky. Though I thought this kind of stuff was on the wane, the GWOT, "standing tall against Islam," and even Christian Zionism still remain integral parts of the identity politics of Red-State Christian white people. If he wins the general, Rand won't be riding into Washington on a wave of antiwar sentiment, and it's likely that many of his voters would feel surprised, if not betrayed, if there's a major Senate debate on attacking Iran, and Rand comes out staunchly against.    

There's something going on with these pageants. For two years in a row, beauty contents, which one would think would have gone the way of vaudeville in the feminized West, have become veritable Kulturkamps in which healthy, blonde representatives of the Great White, Christian American Middle stand up to the dungeon masters of the Dark, Gay, Secular-Lifestyle-Choice Post-America. Just last year, Carrie Prejean made her opinion of "gay marriage" amply known to perhaps the most vile exponent of celeb culture, Parez Hilton. Even Miss Teen South Carolina 2007 appeared to be making a populist argument, I think, about how we shouldn't waste resources on "the Iraq" and instead bring the money home to educate "U.S. Americans." And now we have Miss Oklahoma, Elizabeth Woolard, who, despite her PC reservations about racial profiling, still declared to a Latino Hollywood type named Oscar Nuñez her approval of "states' rights" ("that's what's so wonderful about America!") -- and to the roar of the crowd.



There's, of course, something completely useless about such a culture war, and I've always found it vulgar and ridiculous when Sean Hannity & Co. embrace such people as heroes. But the phenomenon does at least prove that in the starlet incubation center of the Mid West, young Nordic women are still instilled with decent values. And I could sense that Elizabeth really meant it. 

Miss Oklahoma was runner up to our first Arab Miss USA, Rima Fakih, who hails from her state's burgeoning Muslim center of Dearborn. I can't say that such a choice surprises me -- indeed, it's a fairly typical PC move in which a somewhat Western looking girl (Rima's from Lebanon) is given the prize, and white Americans are assured that these new foreigners are all cute and not too uppity or scary.

Neocon Daniel Pipes drew cackles from the liberal commentariat when he noted "this surprising frequency of Muslims winning beauty pageants makes me suspect an odd form of affirmative action." I wasn't aware of this trend, but affirmative action and social engineering in public entertainment is nothing new, and has been in effect at least since Vanessa Willaims became the first "black Miss America" in 1984. (Williams, by the way, was a mulatto with blue eyes and not exactly a representative of the African beauty ideal.)

And Pipes might be getting at something bigger as well: The American culture industry seems to be moving away from promoting multiculti beauty queens who essentially approximate the Occidental ideal to women who are manifestly unattractive (or at least, don't conform to any European standard of beauty.) In a world in which most every other traditional value has been inverted, it was only a matter of time before what is obviously ugly is declared beautiful.

Take for instance the hijab-wearing black Muslim Miss A&T at North Carolina, Anisah Rasheed: 

Excited and jittery, Anisah Rasheed of Roanoke pondered a fashion dilemma that few beauty queens have faced before: Matching her coronation gown with her hijab. ... Rasheed, 20, was crowned Miss A&T for 2005-06 on Thursday night in a sparkling fishtail gown-with a tiara glittering over her golden hijab-during homecoming ceremonies at North Carolina A&T State University.

Just as I was forgetting how much I loathe the GOP, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell brought me back to my senses. Although McDonnell had previously declared April to be "Confederate History Month," he apologized in a revised proclamation for having failed to mention the enormous evil of slavery. His mea culpa contains this characteristic PC statement:

Whereas it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhuman practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history.

McDonnell seems to have been driven to public contrition after the NAACP and former Democratic governor Tim Kaine complained that he had slighted Democratic voters -- also known as American blacks. Apparently Southern whites, whose ancestors fought and bled in the Civil War, should not be allowed to commemorate their ancestral event without having to apologize to black civil rights leaders, for not being obsessive enough about atoning for white racism. But aren't there already occasions for exhibition of white guilt? Doesn't black history month serve this purpose? Then whites are encouraged to abase themselves for their sins and for those of their ancestors against non-whites. This updated form of Lent comes in the wake of the celebration of the epiphany of MLK, which also encourages the outpouring of white guilt. Why then are McDonnell's voters not permitted a single month in which to celebrate their ancestral experiences?

Some readers might remember that in 2009 there was some coverage in the British media about a TV special on race and intelligence.  I just found the videos online.

The host is the Somali-British Rageh Omaar and the poor fellow seems genuinely hurt by the suggestion that blacks are less intelligent.  The most unintentionally funny part of the show is when he goes to take an IQ test and is stumped.  It doesn’t stop him from concluding at the end that scoring well on intelligence tests is all about having adopted middle class values.

He has a teacher tell him that there’s a one to one correspondence between parental involvement and academic success.  What that shows is intelligent and conscientious parents have intelligent and conscientious children, not that parental involvement makes people smart.  And the host actually mentions cross adoption studies in the first half of the show but then forgets them during the second half when he comes to the conclusion that it’s all about culture.

J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Richard Nisbett all make appearances.  While Omaar comes to the “right” conclusion in the end I don’t think the intelligent and open minded viewer will find his “discrediting” of the hereditarian hypothesis, which consists of him telling us that Asian parents encourage their kids to study, to be that convincing.  I’m sure LeBron James practices basketball a lot more than I do; it doesn’t mean that if I got equal training I’d be just as good.

Pat Buchanan expresses the hope that "in the womb of white America" a "new people is gestating and fighting to be born." He is convinced that Middle America is already "beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically" as an ethno-nation alongside African-Americans, American Indians, native Hawaiians, and Hispanics. 

In fact, what we are witnessing are the death throes of homo Americanus. Mr Buchanan recalls that another "new people ... the Americans" was born two hundred years ago in the colonial struggle to achieve independence from Great Britain. Then, the American Adam declared himself free of the excess historical baggage accumulated during the Dark Ages of Anglo-Saxon Christendom. Middle America is reaping the whirlwind sown in the revolutionary Enlightenment.

The Tea Parties are not symptoms of restored vigour in the body politic. Instead, middle-class white people, drawn mainly from the "founding race" of their senile, degenerate nation-state, are searching for a magic political elixir to bring the decrepit Constitutional Republic back to life.