In Response to Savrola: Why Challenging PC Orthodoxy is Essential

Our old critic Savrola is back. His reply, which I reproduce in part below, was directed at waltercht, but I’ll give my answer.

More whining from you, I see.

What is your program to deal with the blacks? Oh, no program you say? Just more whining? You’re going to whine about blacks until you’re laid to rest aren’t you?,,,

…What laws do you want to pass or remove based on that fact, you senile cretin?

The question “What is your program to deal with the blacks?” answers itself. There can never be and will never be a “program” specifically to “deal with blacks,” because such a thing would be politically untenable, and if it is anything other than neutral policies likely immoral. (Neutral not with regard to impact, but by design. That they will not be neutral in impact is presumed.)

But before you can have a race neutral plan to deal with problems disproportionately caused by blacks, you have to change the conversation. Changing the conversation is step one, because no political action will follow until it is no longer considered a thought crime to address the situation without conforming entirely to the current group think.

First, and this is the most non-race neutral part, we need to be honest about the National Question. We need to be honest that America is specifically a former British colonial country and not a universal proposition nation. Therefore, efforts to subvert our specific status through mass immigration should cease. Legal immigration should be halted except for very rare cases like spouses that Americans married abroad. Current visa should be allowed to expire and people expected to return to their country of origin when they do. Illegal immigration should be dealt with. We should get rid of birthright citizenship which was not the intent of the 14th Amendment anyway.

Regarding blacks specifically, this is where I think some White Nationalist go astray. The vast majority of blacks who are here in the US today are here because we brought their ancestors here against their will. There are some recent immigrant Africans and Haitians, for example, but they are the vast minority, and Nigerian immigrants, for example, tend to do pretty well for themselves. Haitians not as much. So if we have a black problem in this country it is because we created it. With that admission on our part, it would be nice to hear American blacks in return admit that they are glad they are here and would much rather be here than in Africa where they would be had their ancestors not been brought here.

So because of our history, blacks are a part of the citizenry and there can and will be no legal “program” to deal with “blacks.” What there should be is a program to make the government race neutral and allow complete freedom of association at the private level. We also need to get rid of the welfare state which incentivizes poor lifestyle choices and get rid of the excesses of democracy which authorizes the welfare state.

At the government level, there should be no raced based spoils system. No affirmative action. No racial set asides. No lower test scores allowed for minorities to get into public colleges or pass the Sgt’s exam for example. Etc. Everyone should be allowed to sink or swim on their own merit. High performing blacks have firmly ensconced themselves in the American middle class, but a lot of that is based on civil service employment and other governmental employment.

On the public side, laws against discrimination should be abolished. Discriminating in favor of someone or against someone is a common occurrence in everyday life, is a manifestation of human nature, and is often a very reasonable thing to do and not malicious. Is the fact that most of the workers at a Mexican restaurant are Mexican, even when they are not family of the owner, a coincidence? Laws against discrimination target not discrimination in general, which is ubiquitous and neither possible nor desirable to stamp out, but politically targeted discrimination. This leads to a presumption of guilt, so to speak, when someone from the majority group interacts with someone from a designated minority group. For example, the expectation that x % of your workforce should be black if blacks make up x% of the local population. Opponents of Civil Rights laws said this would happen when they were passes, and supporters of Civil Rights laws assured them it wouldn’t. They lied.

Welfare programs that make it possible for people to not work for long periods of time, such as food stamps and disability, should be phased out. Not working should not be an option. Until they are phased out, they should be work based. All but the most physically and mentally disabled should have to show up and do some sort of work to get a welfare benefit.

I don’t believe in public education, but if we have public schools kids should be tested at a certain age to determine their mental capabilities and placed in tracks accordingly, instead of all kids placed in a one-size-fits-all college prep track. This is done extensively in European and Asian countries already. Kids should be able to move up or own tracks depending on performance. There should be a college prep diploma and various tech diplomas that prepare grads for actual careers.

The fact is that blacks did much better on measures like out-of-wedlock births and employment, before civil rights laws. This is partially a reflection of the greater public morality at the time that stigmatized out of wedlock birth and emphasized a strong work ethic. We need to reinvigorate this public morality instead of tear it down. And it is partially a result of governmental policies that have diminished the consequences of poor lifestyle choices.

Apart from political action, whites need to build their own communities, hopefully church based, so they can better weather the storm assuming the above measures don’t happen and our society continues on its current course.

So, how is any of this going to happen if we don’t change the cultural atmosphere and make it OK to speak honestly about racial issues. Changing the conversation comes first, except for my last paragraph above which can proceed on its own. Even though I took a shot at White Nationalists and called for explicitly race neutral policies, my proposals would elicit howls of indignation from the keepers of PC Orthodoxy.

Personally, I think being forced to publicly discuss racial differences is rude. Talking about who is superior at this and who is inferior at that is unseemly, in the same way that the old rich used to be taught not to flaunt their wealth or point out someone else’s lack of it. Differences in ability or wealth just were. But the conversation is being forced because the PC side insists upon an ideologically based equality that is contrary to reality. The conversation will become more civil when the PC side stops insisting that what is not true is true.