I’ve been busy lately, unfortunately, with nary a moment to do anything but write my antiwar.com column, but not too busy to at least note what’s been going on here at my favorite web site. Great stuff, as usual, yet I couldn’t help noticing this comment from Senor Roach:

“Nuclear proliferation to the Third World in general is a problem because such countries are less likely to keep a tight hold on their nukes, rocked as they are by periodic coups, a culture of endemic bribery, and infighting among personnel more loyal to their religion or tribe than they are to their state.”

I leave out Roach’s links, and insert my own—which just goes to show that America is indeed becoming a Third World nation, albeit not in the way most paleos would have it.

Obama slips up, as the Guardian reports:

“When a US presidential candidate arrives in town, there is only one question on every Israeli’s mind: how good a friend to Israel will this man be? Eager to answer this question, Barack Obama said: ‘Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.’ That much is of course beyond dispute - his aides said he had intended to say the United States.”

I say he got it right the first time….

As Iran was testing long range missiles – which, as Matt Drudge underscored in his headline, ‘can reach Israel’—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “dismissed fears that Israel and the United States could be preparing to attack his country, calling the possibility a ‘funny joke.’”

Yeah, but is anyone laughing?  I doubt it, but the sheer craziness of this guy is scary – especially if you’re an Iranian. After all, the US is sending in terrorist operatives, and daily threatening war, while a resolution calling for a blockade of their country is likely to be approved by the US Congress. So what does their President have to say?: “’I assure you that there won’t be any war in the future,’ Ahmadinejad told a news conference Tuesday during a visit to Malaysia for a summit of developing Muslim nations.”

Whatever Senor Ahmadinejad is smoking, I want some. In any case, this does nothing for his reputation as a hard-liner.

Without reiterating the history of this controversy in its entierty, I responded to a post that chronicled the moral failings of poor urban blacks and attributed these to a genetic disability with an itemized list of the failings of poor rural whites, and wondered aloud if that amounted to a similar disability, or whether it’s environmental. Contrary to Christopher Roach’s latest complaint, I don’t think this is “personalizing” anything. I was merely pointing out that the moral failings he excoriates in blacks are pandemic in the “white community,” so to speak, particularly in the Appalachian region that was the subject under discussion. As for the usage of “racialist” as a descriptive term, which Roach also complains about, I don’t know how else to describe someone who associates black underschievement with a genetic disability—genetic determinist?

As for the rest of Roach’s rambling screed, I’m afraid I don’t quite get the point: he seems to be suggesting another word other than racialist to describe his views, and comes up with “particularism.” Okay, then, it’s official: I’ll refer to Roach and his co-thinkers as “particularists.” Now, is everybody happy?

One comment does stick out, however, and it is this:

“It is noteworthy that Raimondo and his clique have written off Democrats, Republicans, Objectivists, the New Left, Black Panthers, Pat Buchanan, and the folks at both Chronicles and Reason in their travels.  In a moment of clarity, perhaps Raimondo would consider that making ideological purity and universalism more important than any other factor leads to an unviable and ineffective political movement.  Movements ultimately need coalitions, and coalitions require some cobbling together of majorities based on perceptions of their actual and particular interests, as well as the perceived antagonistic interests of other groups.”

To begin with, I think Roach is utilizing, here, a unique understanding of “universalism.” The term is meant to indicate a principle that covers the entire universe—or, at least, the globe. And yet I don’t think it’s exactly “universalism” to say that there are certain concepts—beginning with the American self-concept—that unite us as a nation. That’s not universalism: that’s good old fashioned American nationalism.

Secondly, I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I most certainly have not “written off” Pat Buchanan (I am an associate editor of The American Conservative, of which he is editor emeritus, if I’m not mistaken). Nor have I “written off ” Chronicles magazine, which is a wonderful publication that I read cover to cover: I have been published in their pages and I am still a member of the John Randolph Club, which was established by Murray Rothbard and Chronicles editor Tom Fleming, who remains a friend. Roach says I have also written off the Democrats, but then why all this fuss about my rooting for Obama? I’m afraid I don’t get that. As for the few remaining Objectivists, they wrote themselves off a long time ago.

Thirdly, to criticize libertarians for a lack of success, when the Paul campaign made such a major impact, and is continuing to have an impact—much larger than that made by Tom Tancredo, the candidate I imagine would most appeal to the Particularists—seems just a little odd. Paul created a grand coaliton of antiwar activists, right-wing populists, and a growing number of ordinary Americans sick unto death of the GOP’s abandonment of the principles of limited government and a foreign policy that puts America first. The campaign of Bob Barr on the Libertarian Party ticket looks like it is going to build on that achievement—and perhaps make the difference in this election.

I have to wonder where the Particularists will go, faced with a choice between Obama and John McCain. Will they make their way back to the GOP, make their peace with the neocons, and together with Bill Kristol and the rest of the Fox News commissars endlessly wallow in the collected sayings of the Rev. Wright? Who wants to bet that they’ll unite behind the Great White Hope?

When I wrote that Barack Obama “refutes” the notion that blacks are less intelligent, I realized fully—of course—that there is a big difference between individual cases and averages. I meant “refute” in a different sense, entirely: what I should have said is that Obama’s candidacy is a real slap in the face to those who have invested an awful lot in the Bell Curve thesis of black genetic disability (when it comes to measuring intelligence). And, I might add, it is well-deserved.

Mascus Epstein thinks he’s a “scientist”—but I’m not impressed by his charts and graphs. They don’t measure the human spirit, and they sure don’t measure wisdom, as one of the commenters put it. And, no, I don’t think the science of genetics is just another paradigm that will pass: what I am saying, however, is that genetics is just one dimension of the mystery of human existence, and, I suspect, one not nearly as central to human behavior as the American Renaissance types would have us believe. We are not machines: that, I think, is a statement that all conservatives can rally ‘round. I distrust anyone who raises the banner of “science” when it comes to making public policy: I can’t help but think of “scientific” socialism and the “science” of Marxism-Leninism—and I want to reach for my revolver, to coin a phrase.

What it comes down to is this: we have a black guy who could avert an economic and geopoltiical catastrophe—a disaster created by our policy of imperialism—and a white guy who most certainly will accelerate it. A very simple choice.

And, by the way, I don’t think that an idea that could put one’s career at risk is necessarily the measure of its worth. I do think, however, that any movement that makes a big deal about race is going to pretty much confine itself to members of one race—and that’s not a good thing, as far as the freedom movement is concerned.

I have a special antipathy for the “white nationalists” because they deliberately made an awful lot of trouble for the Ron Paul campaign, loudly proclaiming their support for Ron and then going to The New Republic and giving the Bad Guys plenty of ammunition for their smear campaign. I can’t prove complicity, but where there’s that much smoke there has to be some fire.

Obama is taking on John McCain and the neocons, and that is good enough for me. I hope the GOP implodes and takes National Review, David Frum, and the whole rotten lot of them down with it. In that spirit, I say: Hail the Great Transcender!

It’s been a rather bleary morning: after last night—don’t ask—I stumbled out of bed, made myself some very strong coffee, and naturally turned to Taki’s Magazine for comfort, where I was delighted to find Bill Kauffman’s excellent piece on Ron Paul: Bill’s style is inherently sympathetic, elegant yet bereft of preciousness and down-home without being anything like Hillary mimicking the rubes. Just my cup of tea. Then, unfortunately, I turned to the “Sniper’s Nest,” and—gack!—came upon this:

“Jeremiah Wright’s loony speeches were not a ‘distraction’; in fact, looking at the numbers tells us that he is a typical representative of his people and their chosen leaders.  Numbers relating to voting, criminality, illegitimacy, IQ, and poverty also tell the story of our deep internal divide in an undeniable and often depressing way . . . if only we take the time to count.”

Really? Can this be true? Well then, let’s look at West Virginia, that bastion of Hillary’s Volk, whose crime rates have steadily risen even as the population declined—they’re big on rape in Hillary-land. Politically, the state is dominated by the Democrats on the local level, and it is one of the biggest recipients per capita of welfare in the nation. Indeed, the Appalachian area was the great experiment of the social engineering Democrats in the 1960s, with the “Great Society” and the “War on Poverty.” As Wikipedia reminds us, “Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville, West Virginia, were the first food stamp recipients on May 29, 1961. They purchased US$95 in food stamps for their 15-person household. In the first food stamp transaction, they bought a can of pork and beans at Henderson’s Supermarket.” Today, one in every six West Virginians is receiving food stamps.

What about those numbers, Senor Roach? Do they tell us anything about the “white working class”?

Here’s some more numbers that might prove illuminating:

Let’s talk about illegitimacy rates. As Steve Sailer points out, the black illegitimacy rate is declining, while on the “white” side of the spectrum, it is skyrocketing:

“The highest illegitimacy rates among whites are found in certain rural states such as Maine (33 percent), a state that has quietly developed a lot of social problems in recent years. Vermont, West Virginia, and Indiana follow Maine on the list.”

Those exemplars of Middle American white-ness, the rednecks of West Virginia, are producing children out of wedlock at an alarming rate.

On to IQ scores: West Virginia, with an average IQ score of a piddling 93 —a few grades above Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron—reflects the utter stupidity of its mostly white population. It is near the bottom both in IQ test scores and SAT test results. How does Senor Roach explain those numbers?

So what conclusions should we draw from these supposedly omniscient numbers, which Roach is so on about? Well, by my lights, none at all: people are individuals, not collective entities, and ought to be judged accordingly. Not so with the Roachian analysis, alas: according to him, these statistics “tell the story of our deep internal divide in an undeniable and often depressing way . . . if only we take the time to count.”

“Numbers representing facts are the starting point for realistic appraisals of everything from our enormous debt to the burden of mass immigration,” avers Roach.  “Numbers too demonstrate the deep alienation and tribalism of black Americans and other minorities.” Murray Rothbard rightly warned us to be wary of statistics, which are, of necessity, the instrument of government social engineers, and I would venture to say that Roach’s invocation of them in this instance reflects another sort of tribalism “in an undeniable and often depressing way.” 

UPDATE: In answer to Christopher Roach’s reply in the comments below: I deny the validity of the concept of “race.” We are nearly all of us racial mixtures, except for some isolated peoples who are the exceptions that prove the rule, and therefore when dealing with individuals—and we are all of us individuals—“racial” criteria are practically useless. Furthermore, this is the natural historical trend: in the end we’re all going to be somewhat coffee-colored, and so the racial theorists are headed for the dustbin of history.

It isn’t race, but culture that is the determining factor in human behavior: not genes, but environment that forms the human character and allows us to interact with each other in a way that makes sense. IQ tests don’t measure only inherent genetic limits, but the quality of the environmental factors that have shaped individual characteristics—and, in any case, since the concept of “race” is so imprecise, the idea of racial superiority or inferiority is a meaningless floating abstraction. That’s why there is no “white solidarity”—people generally termed “white” are Italian, Polish, Greek, Scots, Irish, and whatever. That is where their ethnic loyalties, if any, are located. The idea that “whites” should band together against the encroaching Third World masses is a literary-political construct that has no meaning, at least in America—and thank the gods for that.

I would argue that the problems experienced by the black community are the result of State intervention and social engineering programs, starting with slavery—surely the most damaging—and continuing on with the “Great Society” and all the other social experiments supposedly designed to lift blacks up, and which in reality have only kept them down. The social programs of the 1960s destroyed the black family, and led to the appalling statistics the commenters below have remarked on.

In anser to Paul Gottfried’s remarks, I would add that the degeneration of the “white” (i.e. racially mixed) population in the US shows that my thesis on the environmental factors as determinative is correct. The welfare state has eroded values that were once considered unquestionable: it isn’t our genetic stock that is the problem, but our political and economic structure, which encourages—indeed, subsidizes—destructive social trends.

Paul writes: “I do get tired of what seems to be the left libertarian tic of beating up on people of my skin color in order to show that one is not a racist.” I am not sure exactly who I’m supposed to be beating up on—the voters of West Virginia, Christopher Roach, or some other person or group yet to be identified. I was merely pointing out that “statistical analysis” can be deceptive, especially when one ventures into it carrying unexamined assumptions. And speaking of unexamined assumptions, I would question whether I am trying to prove to anything to anybody: I am merely stating my views. As for being a “left-libertarian,” I hardly think the description fits—although, again, we are dealing with an undefined term. My definition of the species is closer to, say, Matt Welch and the editors of Reason magazine, than it is to the author of Reclaiming the American Right and a defender of Ron Paul—but, then again, what do I know?

The Great Transcender—I like it! Richard has coined what I think is the definitive iconic signifier, in part because it makes the Reagan analogy. Obama is a comparable figure. And I would argue that his appeal doesn’t just transcend race—it also rearranges the left-right blue-red paradigm that libertarians and paleos have found so uncongenial. While his foreign policy views are what attract antiwar paleos and libertarians, Obama is good on the vital issue of education, as well: he’s open to vouchers, charter schools, and is openly bucking the public school monopolists of the NEA, a powerful Democratic party pressure group.

Richard correctly terms me an “Obamacon,” and there’s no doubt about it. I would note, however, that my support is highly critical, and has to be understood in context. Being a paleo, and of a libertarian sort, it’s not so much who I’m for as who I’m against. The slogan of “Paleos for Obama” is, or ought to be, “Obama!—Consider the Alternative.”

So, tell me again: why are you paleos so paranoid about unchecked immigration. Are you racist, or something ....?

Australia’s ABC News reports [via Free Republic]:

“A man begging at a mosque in Yemen was exposed as not being so destitute as he pretended when his mobile started ringing inopportunely. Yemeni news agency Saba said the embarrassed man beat a quick retreat after worshippers heard his phone ring inside his bag.

“There are only about five telephones, both land-lines and mobiles, for every 100 people in Yemen, one of the poorest Arab countries.”

Hey, I think I saw that guy in downtown San Francisco!

Tom reminds us of Haydyn’s birthday—which leaves me to remind us that tomorrow is the b-day of Sergei Rachmaninoff. And here he is: