If you’ve ever taken a class in the social sciences that isn’t economics, you may have noticed that your teachers are so afraid of human biodiversity that they seek to discredit it from the start while patting themselves on the back over how far their field of studies has come.  Oh, around a century ago people explained things by inherent racial differences.  Today, of course, we all know better because you know, Martin Luther King. They rarely explain to you when or how the old theories were proven false and they don’t need to. They’ll sometimes pull out the old canard about human races being 99.9 percent similar if they really want to beat racial egalitarianism into your head or the professor is particularly ideological, though for kids raised on the public school system and television even that isn't necessary.

Due to this scholarly environment some of the most interesting and honest case studies about the Third World are those from a century ago or older.  Recently a YouTube user put together an impressive video based on an old broadcast of William L. Pierce called “The Lesson of Haiti.” It brought to my attention a volume from 1900 entitled Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti.  The author, Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard, was thought to be the first white man to cross the interior of the black republic since 1803, the year before Haitian independence was declared.  Where Black Rules White was republished earlier this year.

Prichard arrived first at Jacmel, the main Southern port.  The British Consular Agent gave him a place to stay for the night, which was a lucky thing considering the city had no restaurants or hotels (there were three of the latter in the entire country of 1.75 million).  A few white traders and government representatives inhabited the costal towns, but the population became exclusively dark as one traveled inward.  Haiti has very few mulattos and the ones that did exist were widely disliked at the time.

The New York Times Magazine writes on the battle in the Democratic party between Ivy League education reformers, who believe in charter schools and paying teachers for performance, and the teacher’s unions, who believe in seniority pay and making it impossible to fire incompetents.  Obama’s Department of Education is tilting towards the elites.  

I was wondering which group I disliked more-lazy union workers or pie in the sky education romantics-until I saw this passage.

If unions are the Democratic Party’s base, then teachers’ unions are the base of the base. The two national teachers’ unions — the American Federation of Teachers and the larger National Education Association — together have more than 4.6 million members. That is roughly a quarter of all the union members in the country. Teachers are the best field troops in local elections. Ten percent of the delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention were teachers’ union members. In the last 30 years, the teachers’ unions have contributed nearly $57.4 million to federal campaigns, an amount that is about 30 percent higher than any single corporation or other union. And they have typically contributed many times more to state and local candidates. About 95 percent of it has gone to Democrats.

So our government builds the schools, makes attendance mandatory, pays the salaries, and has the employees form unions which not only work to extort as much money from the state as possible but make up the base of the government party.  They steal from the taxpayer while making him pay the costs of organizing the robbery.

As a hereditarian, I don’t think that there’s much you can do to improve school performance, especially for the least able.  But there’s no qestion you could get the same results for a lot less money.

One of the most significant characteristics exhibited by those of us who are adherents or fellow travelers of the Alternative Right is our capability of thinking about or discussing matters of race and immigration in a rational and open-minded manner. This distinction, as much as any other, is what separates us from our rivals on the Left and among the ranks of the mainstream "Right." For instance, most of us would probably agree that the overwhelming majority of anti-discrimination legislation of the kind that has been enacted over the past fifty years should be repealed. This stance ensures a pariah status for our camp in polite society. Yet our general opposition to discrimination prohibition serves to establish us as the vanguard of those seeking to fully uphold the venerable principle of freedom of association, supposedly one of those cherished classically liberal liberties along with the freedoms of religion and speech, due process and trial by jury, and so forth.

Whenever I have defended "freedom to discriminate" to the usual suspects-liberals, necons, left-libertarians, supposed "conservatives"-the frequent reaction is not unlike what I might expect to receive if I were defending gang rape or pedophilia. But the taboo nature of this issue should not inhibit us from confronting it with neither fear nor favor. Liberal propaganda not withstanding, the actual historical record of multiracial societies is not a pleasant one. The near-universal norm in such societies is that the ruling classes maintain political control by playing off different ethnic populations against others. Consequently, some populations are relegated to the status of second class citizens (or worse), or civil peace becomes impossible to maintain and horror emerges (see India/Pakistan 1947, Rwanda 1994 or the former Yugoslavia 1992).