A Race to the Bottom

As the Government shutdown continues to drag on one thing seems apparent: those opposing the wall are hoping their constituents aren’t paying attention or just don’t care.  Consider a few of the facts presented by President Trump in a letter President Trump sent to Congress earlier this month:

  • In fiscal year (FY) 2018, 17,000 adults at the border with existing criminal records were arrested by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border agents.
  • In FY2017 and FY2018, ICE officers arrested approximately 235,000 aliens on various criminal charges or convictions within the interior of the United States—including roughly 100,000 for assault, 30,000 for sex crimes, and 4,000 for homicides.
  • We are now averaging 60,000 illegal and inadmissible aliens a month on our Southern Border.
  • Last month alone, more than 20,000 minors were smuggled into the United States.
  • The immigration court backlog is nearly 800,000 cases.
  • There has been a 2,000 percent increase in asylum claims over the last five years, with the largest growth coming from Central America—while around 9 in 10 claims from Central American migrants are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts, the applicant has long since been released into the interior of the United States.
  • In FY2017, roughly 135,000 illegal and inadmissible family units arrived from Central America. Of those, less than 2 percent have been successfully removed from the country due to a shortage of resources and glaring loopholes in our federal laws.
  • So far in FY2019, we have seen a 280 percent increase in family units from FY2018.
  • 300 Americans are killed every week from heroin—90 percent of which floods across our Southern Border.
  • Illegal immigration is a humanitarian crisis: 1 in 3 migrant women is sexually assaulted on the journey northward to the U.S. border; 50 illegal migrants a day are referred for emergency medical care; and CBP rescues 4,300 people a year who are in danger and distress.

That is an airtight case that there is a problem at the border and that a wall is one of many things that needs to be done to help curb the problem.  Then consider that through restructuring NAFTA we are saving billions of dollars (Mexico indirectly paying), or consider the staggering amounts of wasteful government spending that occurs on a daily basis.  Or how about the amount of money we spend on foreign wars that we shouldn’t even be a part of?  Or this; Rand Paul recently tweeted that we give foreign aid to China and borrow money from them to pay them back…

screen shot 2019-01-12 at 8.54.58 am

The point being that we waste so much money on so much crap that even if the wall was a complete waste of money, $5.7 billion dollars is less than a drop in the bucket compared to the amount we spend each year and why not give it a shot to see if it does anything?

It gets even worse.  Chuck and Nancy, the two-headed monster that is the mouthpiece of the opposition party, voted for fencing several times, as did then Senators Obama and Clinton.  We even had the money earmarked for it and the fence was simply never built.  So we’re supposed to take Chuck and Nancy on their word that it’s immoral and just bad for *reasons* while they previously voted for it in the past?  And for the cherry on top, why is it okay that we fund a wall in Jordan but cannot do the same for ourselves?  Why is it okay for Israel to have a wall but not for ourselves?  Did you know Chuck Schumer, as well as many other members of Congress have dual citizenship and are Israeli citizens as well?  Why is it okay for them to defend their borders, Chuck, but we aren’t?

It is clear they do not care about Americans and in fact think so little of us that they think we’re stupid enough to listen to them deride the wall without noticing their past track record or their current stances in general.  It is downright insulting and shows the absolute disdain with which they view the American public.

Which leads to the thrust of the idea.  I really believe these people are hoping that they can dumb down the American public faster than they think we can catch onto their lies.  Watch a news broadcast from even 15 years ago compared to today.  You may once in a while actually find a spirited debate where opposing views are actually debated at the same time and both viewpoints being heard.  Take a look at this video of Jared Taylor talking with Donahue about race in America.  This conversation would NEVER occur today.  They would NEVER want you to hear the facts or hear the viewpoint that Jared brings to the table.  No.  Now segments are one-sided and they are so short nothing of substance is ever said before another commercial break or topic change takes place.  The “opponent” in today’s segments are usually controlled opposition (read: approved).  Sometimes someone like Tucker will get someone on where there is genuine pushback but the segments are so short that neither side can really have the time to get their point across and it often ends in a screaming match that Tucker needs to end because they aren’t getting anywhere.

This isn’t a coincidence.  The mainstream media is dumbing down the American public.  They are removing the critical thinking skills that we all once had in much greater abundance.  Couple that with distracting smart phones, shorter video clips, more commercials, and less people reading, and you get a genuinely dumbed down public.  IQ scores are falling worldwide.  Mainstream media will want you to believe that is due to climate change…but it is more likely due to the reasons stated in the Unz article.  Either way, the fact is they really are falling.  People really are getting dumber.  You are not just imagining it.  And Americans are reading less and less every year which cannot help critical thinking skills or holding attention spans.

All of this adds up to people like Chuck and Nancy thinking they can somehow justify their current position on the wall and not think anyone will notice how patently absurd it is.  Or worse, maybe they do know and just don’t think anyone will care.  Entertainment has been the opiate of the masses.  So long as people are comfortable and distracted many simply will not care about a wall or the hypocrisies of these people.  I fear a majority of the population will be in for a rude awakening when civilization as we know it begins to break down because we never addressed these problems and let them fester and metastasize to the point that they become uncontrollable.  Perhaps we have already passed the point of no return.  The trend certainly seems to be pointing that way.  But maybe it has not.  And I’m thankful we have a President who is standing his ground and genuinely fighting to reverse this trend.

California: A Peek into America’s Future

California is lost.  For all intents and purposes it will never be able to be the California of a generation or two ago that was a booming economic stalwart where one could raise a family and live a successful middle class life.  This is the sad reality we face today.  It may be able to recover some of its past glory if it splinters into two or three separate states, but that would still be entirely different than the past California experience.  While California is gone, it would behoove us to learn the lessons of its demise while there’s still time for the rest of the United States.

Some may argue that California today is great just the way that it is.  That it’s better today than ever.  So it may be useful to mention some facts to support the notion that California is in worse shape today than ever.  The reality is that California is no longer a state one can even afford to raise a family.  They have the highest poverty rate in the country.  The middle class has been completely hollowed out, and the divide between the ultra rich and the ultra poor is only widening.  CNBC called it the second least affordable state to live in 2018:

These days, making ends meet in California is harder than ever. Consider the housing shortage, which has reached the crisis stage. A 2016 report by the McKinsey Global Institute found 50 percent of California households cannot afford the cost of housing in their local market. It is basic supply and demand. The average home price in San Francisco is nearly $1.2 million. A two-bedroom apartment in or near the City by the Bay — if you can find one — will rent for more than $4,000 a month.

2018 Cost of Living score: 2 out of 50 points (Top States Grade: F)

Most expensive area: San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco

Average home price: $1,182,092

Half gallon of milk: $2.72

Ribeye steak: $12.94

Monthly energy bill: $235.44

Doctor visit: $142.61

California has also seen a decline in their educational system.  A few facts via USA Today:

35. California

  • High school graduation rate: 83.0% (21st lowest)
  • Public school spending: $9,417 per pupil (8th lowest)
  • 8th grade NAEP proficiency: 27.1% (math) 28.4% (reading)
  • Adults with at least a bachelor’s degree: 32.9% (14th highest)
  • Adults 25-64 with incomes at or above national median: 51.7% (21st highest)

California has the largest network of public schools in the country — and also one of the worst-performing. Only 29.2% of fourth graders in the state are proficient in math, and only 27.8% are proficient in reading — each the third lowest share of any state. While low, the fourth-grade reading proficiency rate is much improved from only a few years ago. Between 2003 and 2015, fourth-grade reading proficiency increased by 7.0 percentage points, far outpacing the 4.9 percentage point improvement across the U.S. as a whole.

Children who are raised speaking English as a second language often face additional academic challenges at American public schools. Only 64.1% of California students have parents who are fluent English speakers, the smallest share of any state in the country.

There is also serious decay in its infrastructure, and massive budget spending with ever increasing taxes.  Objectively speaking California is worse off today than it was a generation or two ago.  And it’s no surprise that people are fleeing California at an alarming rate.  Nearly 140,000 residents moved out of California alone in 2017.

Why?  What has changed?  While some of these facts may be hard to swallow for some people it is imperative we look at the data and try to learn from it.  The rest of the country is already on the same trend as California, but has a much better shot at rectifying the situation before it is past the point of no return.

As painful a pill as this may be to swallow for some, demographic changes are the key driver behind California’s downward trend.  California is a majority-minority state, meaning that no race or ethnicity is the majority of the population of California.  The Latino population is said to have become the majority ethnicity, having surpassed non-Hispanic whites sometime in 2014 or 2015.

California’s population as a whole has sky rocketed in the past few decades, with many of these newcomers coming predominantly from Mexico.

The problems arising from this demographic shift and overall added population growth have been devastating.  An additional element comes in the form of cheap overseas labor.  The added number of people, coupled with cheap labor from Mexico and overseas, has simultaneously wrecked wages for Californians which has contributed to the hollowing out of the middle class.  Additionally, the increase in people has not been supplemented with the much needed increase in new housing, which has resulted in sky-rocketing rents and an inability to afford purchasing a new home.

But these are only a few of the deleterious effects of this influx of people.  The type of people moving to California now are vastly different than a generation ago.  The reality is many of the immigrants now flocking to California come from Central and South America.  Like it or not, it is a fact that Hispanics of the Mexican and Central/South American variety have a lower average IQ than white people.  Again, this is not an attack on them for this, it is just a fact.  I highly recommend reading The Bell Curve for an exhaustive look into this.  There is a strong link between IQ and average income, and links closely to the use of government assistance.  In sum, on average those making less money also have on average lower IQs.  And we know that lower income people tend to rely on government assistance more.  This is reflected in the data.

This is a double whammy for California.  The Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study that shows that more than 7 in 10 households headed by an immigrant are on taxpayer-funded welfare.  There is a hollowing out of the middle class and an attack on wages, coupled with ever increasing number of welfare recipients.  This is not a recipe for success.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t help these people.  No, they must be shown compassion.  IQ is not something they can control.  But we must also be honest and recognize that they will not be able to be helped if the tax-paying middle class is run out of the state.  As with a humanitarian crisis, levels of help must be tempered to ensure the population doing the helping isn’t overwhelmed by those in need; a case of drowning while trying to rescue others.

But as this shift continues so too will the mentality of the populace within the state change as well.  It’s not hard to picture a scenario, and we’re already seeing this today, where the very policies that are killing the state are the ones now being pushed and voted for by the same populace that has overrun the “native” population there.  And this makes sense.  Politicians are often voted on based on in-group preferences of race and ethnicity.  It only makes sense that as the Latino population grows they will try and vote in more Latinos.  Whereas whites tend to vote more liberally not on the color of the politician’s skin (generally speaking, of course), when having the option minorities will often vote for their own minority.  This is not at all surprising and consistent with human nature on the whole.  This potentially will change for whites as more whites realize they are becoming a minority, but as of right now it is not the case.  The election of President Obama is a good example of this.  Of course politicians will continue to push these awful policies if it’s what will get them re-elected.  And it’s also a driving force behind why it’s so difficult to enact any sort of immigration laws in this state.  As it becomes more majority-minority this will only continue.

What can the rest of the country learn about the decline of California?  One, demographics matter.  A systematic replacement of a population with an average IQ hovering around 100 with those from countries with an average IQ of 80-90 will not bode well in the long run.  Further, an influx of cheap, unskilled, labor will hurt the wages of those already living in the state, and in particular hit the lower and middle classes the hardest as they are the ones who generally will lose out on the jobs that are being taken by the new arrivals.  Two, as these wages begin to decline, you’ll have more people relying on welfare to make ends meet, as well as having additional people on welfare that never contributed in the first place.  The burden on the remaining taxpayers will only be that much more.  Three, this increase in population will also raise housing costs if new housing cannot keep up with the influx.

These are just a few of the devastating effects of unchecked immigration into a state or country.  It doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface on things like added stress to infrastructure, a regression back to tribalism of sorts as more and more diverse populations are forced next to each other, or the breakdown of the community from this as well.  Most people want to help those in need.  But do not be sold or guilted by the lie that unchecked numbers of immigrants coming to a city or state near you is good for you or your family.  It’s too late for California to reverse this trend, but this is not the case in many places in America.  Demographics is destiny.

More SJW nonsense in the realm of science

A couple hundred academics are decrying the appointment of Dr Noah Carl at the University of Cambridge because he expresses views that hurt their feelings.

Full open letter: ‘No place for racist pseudoscience at Cambridge’

We write to express our dismay at the appointment of Noah Carl to the Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellowship at St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge. A careful consideration of Carl’s published work and public stance on various issues, particularly on the claimed relationship between ‘race’, ‘criminality’ and ‘genetic intelligence’, leads us to conclude that his work is ethically suspect and methodologically flawed.

These publications, drawing on the discredited ‘race sciences’, seem nothing more than an expression of opinion on various social matters. As members of the academic community committed to defending the highest standards of ethical and methodological integrity in research and teaching, we are shocked that a body of work that includes vital errors in data analysis and interpretation appears to have been taken seriously for appointment to such a competitive research fellowship.

We are deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge. This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented. Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. In a context where the far-right is on the rise across the world, this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.

We are also concerned that the appointment process for this fellowship was not carried out with the degree of academic rigour, diligence and respect for principles of equality and diversity that we would expect from a constituent college of the University of Cambridge.

We call on St Edmund’s College, the University of Cambridge, and the Newton Trust to issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other.

We also call on the University of Cambridge to immediately conduct an investigation into the appointment process that led to the award of this fellowship. Such an investigation, which should be independent of St Edmund’s college, must involve recognised experts across relevant disciplines, and include a thorough review of the appointee’s body of academic work.

The letter doesn’t make any mention of specific references to specifically discredit his work, just vague accusations of “racist pseudoscience”.  Ironic given that science is the exact place where ideas should be presented and rigorously attacked to see if they stand up to the scrutiny or not.  Instead, as always, they’d rather just mute people and speech they do not agree with.

Study into race and IQ is always going to be a touchy subject.  It also happens to be one of the most important areas of scientific research we could possibly be looking into right now.  Rather than vilify it, we should look honestly at the data, even if it’s not what we want to see.  It could dramatically improve everything from the way we approach the educational system to coming up with better ways to place those of lower cognitive ability into roles and jobs that maximize their potential and allow them to still have self-worth and feel they are contributing members to society.  It certainly bodes better than the current alternative we have of people on welfare spinning their wheels not getting anywhere.

This is the danger of SJWs infesting all institutions in our society.  Getting to some deeper truth is never at the forefront for them.  They’d rather can the whole topic altogether rather than potentially hurt someone’s feelings discussing uncomfortable topics.

Critics slam new test that can predict risk of low IQ in embryos

The mob has found a new issue to scream about, this time with embryo testing.  Via Daily Mail:

IVF clinics may soon use a controversial screening technique to get rid of embryos which are likely to grow up with low IQs.

A company in the US offering tests which can pick out ‘mental disabilities’ – and, in theory, predict intelligence – has confirmed it is in talks with fertility clinics.

The news has stoked fears about a rise in designer babies, which could be created by parents wanting to erase undesirable traits from their children.

Experts say it is ‘repugnant’ to think about terminating embryos because they are expected to have lower than average intelligence.

And further down:

Campaigners against screening for Down’s syndrome already argue an inclusive society should not be trying to erase people with disabilities.

Lynn Murray, spokesperson for Don’t Screen Us Out, told the New Scientist: ‘If we consider inclusion and diversity to be a measure of societal progress, then IQ screening proposals are unethical. There must be wide consultation.’

Sorry Ms. Murray, but I reject your underlying assumption that societal progress is measured by inclusion and diversity.

IQ-Bell-Curve

I guess this is supposed to be some kind of ethical dilemma but I’m really not seeing it.  What parent wouldn’t want their children to have every possible advantage in life to succeed?  Nobody is saying that we want to kill off mentally challenged people.  This isn’t even abortion.  It’s pre-selecting the best embryos that have the lowest risk for mental retardation.  Period.

People often times place some kind of ethical or moral superiority on something just because it is a tough situation.  Poverty, for example.  Being poor is not a virtue.  Being rich does not make you inherently evil.  The same goes with something like this.  I have all the admiration in the world for parents who have mentally challenged children.  It surely must be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.  But that doesn’t mean that you’re doing something inherently virtuous if you had the ability to greatly lower the risk of mental retardation and chose not to.  That is not virtuous in any way.

If anything, one could look at it as a selfish act.  Like it or not the reality is mentally challenged individuals are a huge financial burden not only to the family but also on society.  One that we wholeheartedly support for those now.  But couldn’t one make a moral argument to try and weed out mental retardation both for the family and also to society at large?  Going further, might it not be what’s best for the individual and the nation to have the best and brightest constituency possible?  Or at the very least one that tries to raise the lowest levels of IQ in the nation?  Read The Bell Curve, probably the best (and most easily readable) book on the topic of IQ in American society.  IQ is the best predictor we have for success.

It doesn’t seem that unrealistic to think it may be a necessary requirement just to keep up with other countries.  It’s not a stretch to think that China could one day require IVF for all births, with each embryo being selected for the highest intelligence, athleticism, or whatever trait they’re looking for possible.  Think Gattaca.  Over time that would make a mighty formidable Chinese population.  One that would have a distinct advantage over other nations that did not do this.  It’s an interesting thought experiment at least.

CRISPR could edit out autism trait

Researchers have successfully used CRISPR on mice to edit the gene that causes autism.  Via The Telegraph:

The technique, which was performed on mice, could also be developed to treat conditions ranging from opioid addiction and neuropathic pain to schizophrenia and epileptic seizures.

Scientists injected gold nanoparticles covered in a “forest” of DNA chains to alter the the genetic code of mouse models with a form of autism called fragile X syndrome (FXS).

The technique, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, resulted in in a 30 per cent drop in repetitive digging, and a 70 reduction in leaping, both indicative of autistic behaviour.

There are so many variables with this and who knows how many potential side effects.  But, it is inevitable that gene editing via approaches such as CRISPR are the future.  It is perhaps the only reasonable argument I’ve heard about the merits of universal healthcare given our current climate and makeup.  Picture the Chinese requiring CRISPR on all potential births to increase intelligence, for example.  It would be imperative for us to keep up, lest we get blown away by a generation of crazy high IQ Chinese.  Interesting thought anyway.  I highly recommend this talk from Stefan Molyneux and Dr Stephen Hsu.