Thursday, October 24, 2013

Another Modest Proposal from Fred Reed

Fred Reed is always good, but sometimes he's very, very good, and this is one of those times. He's from my cohort (look it up), and as such, went through a lot of the same influences I did in the same time frame. As kids in the 50's, we had a pretty good idea what sensible thinking and behavior was like, and then we witnessed all that being turned on its head in the 60's, which were the opposite of sensible. When it comes to the race question, we grew up with the notion that Whites ought to be nice to Blacks (and everybody else, for that matter, but Blacks were right there, and obviously in need of some kind treatment) and give them a break and a hand up whenever we could. We felt good when they made progress, and we urged them to keep it up, while not expecting or requiring the impossible, and, as Tom Sowell will tell you, American Blacks were making steady progress on just about all fronts until the civil rights tragedy wrecked everything they'd accomplished. When civil rights kicked in, like the plague, suddenly kind and fair treatment wasn't nearly enough, and we entered the Doublethink years (we're still there), wherein we are to have deep respect for everything Blacks do or say, and at the same time constantly assist and subsidize them as though they're a race of dysfunctional, incapable idiots. We're to feel endless guilt about what some White people did to some Black people decades and centuries ago, and constantly grovel to contemporary Blacks as though it all had happened to them personally. All Black misbehavior is to be directly or indirectly attributed to flaws in White behavior or thinking. As in Karol Traven's quote, it's just the Stockholm syndrome institutionalized and mainstreamed.  Well, Fred has ideas on how to fix all this. If you like what Fred says, and who doesn't, go to Fred's page HERE and buy his books and/or send him some contributions.

Ideas Whose Time Has Come

Fred Awaits Acclamation from Grateful Nation

While grazing hither and yon around the glades of the internet, I stumbled on the Reverend Al Sharpton, who was demanding reparations for slavery. He was against slavery, I divined, and wanted money. I could hardly blame him, as I too want money.
In truth, I confess that in the past I have written harshly of the idea of reparations. I have said cruel things, such as that the entitlement programs are enough reparations for a dozen slaveries. This time, however, a blinding light fell over my consciousness, doubtless from On High, and I saw the error of my ways. I determined to repent and make amends for my sins.
I immediately asked Violeta to make an inventory of all our slaves—if not a precise count then at least in even dozens, and to inform them that we would issue checks for reparations the next day, and Greyhound tickets to Memphis.
She pointed out that we didn´t have any slaves. My God. I hadn´t thought of that, so eager was I to commit social justice. She, being Mexican, and probably a hard-hearted Republican by instinct, said her understanding was that slavery ended in 1865, so that our slaves would be at least 150 years old. How would they live when they got to Memphis?
I was kind to her, and patient. She is bright and rational, and so has no grasp of American politics. I explained that we European-Americans are so desirous of curing injustice that we invent it when there isn´t any, so that we can Fix It by giving all our money to those who either can´t or won´t make any for themselves. It´s like stocking a bass pond. We get to feel good about ourselves, almost our only entertainment in a boring age. We are happy.
Those who get the money always ask for more, so we can always confess yet more guilt. See? It´s a closed ecosystem.
And there is justice in it. In our hearts we whites  know it. Mr. Sharpton has said that bringing slaves in chains to America was a terrible thing. I would like him to know that a great many white people could not agree more. However, as long as we are balancing the financial books, there are other matters pecuniary that merit attention. I believe that we whites should pay such debts as we owe, with accrued interest, but I also believe that in honor others should do the same.
For example, as a white American, I think that African-Americans and Indians should pay us royalties for the use of our civilization. I do not propose a great exaction, but only a reasonable fee for enjoyment of contributions that whites have made and that others use. I mean things like telephones, air conditioning, flush toilets, democracy, civil rights, antibiotics, running shoes, and the machines that read EBT cards. Also paved roads. Cars. Computers. Electricity. Clean water. That sort of thing.
I have in mind something like a software license, with one price for the entire bundle. Surely there should be some reward for our 2500 years of onerous research in mathematics, physics, politics, engineering, from Fifth Century Athens through Rome, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and Silicon Valley, with countless brilliant men going where no one had gone before, even Captain Kirk.
Which brings to mind other rearrangements of the body politic, or corpse, that might be made with salutary results.
Before entering these deep waters, I should say that personally I think that things should be done according to individual merit. However, I recognize that the United States is collectivist in spirit, uncomfortable with individualism, and has chosen to order everything according to race, creed, color, sex, and national origin. I yield to the majority. Thus I suggest that voting rights should be determined according to the contributions to civilization made by the various tribes.
I propose the calculation of a Contribution Factor, or CF, for each race, creed, sex, etc. The CF would be a function of such things as number of patents taken out by the group, number of entries in the list of the world´s greatest mathematicians and chess grandmasters, number of winners of the Nobel Prize in real subjects (the sciences, but not Peace or Literature, which are political baubles), number of engineers graduated annually, of companies started, and mean IQ. This laudable measure would be scaled to lie between zero and ten. Thus if, say, Korean Americans scored eight, each would be allowed eight votes in elections. Groups that scored .5 would get half a vote each. They could vote in teams.
What could be more socially progressive? Policy would then be made by the brightest and most productive, by those with a proven track record of contributing to society instead of being breast-fed by it.
Continuing my salutary reflections along this fertile line, it seems to me that we should reform the voting laws further. For example, convicted felons should not be permitted to vote. True, this would disenfranchise the NFL, but I believe that the Republic could withstand this shock. (Those familiar with Washington will point out that laws invariably are made by felons, to which I respond that they have usually not been convicted. They are at least felons of the better sort, smart enough not to get caught. Call it felonious Darwinism.)
Further, illiterates should be denied the vote on the obvious grounds that people too stupid (not many) or too lazy (most of them) to learn to read should not be permitted within five hundred yards of a ballot box. Only a complete lunatic or a Democrat could believe otherwise.
Further, no one living on welfare should be allowed to vote. People who take much, give nothing, and demonstrably cannot function in a First World country are not desirable shapers of policy. Granted, this provision would give rise to questions of definition. Should federal bureaucrats be regarded as being on welfare, or just in day care? The legislation would have to be carefully drawn.
These are my thoughts. I hope that the Reverend Sharpton, a man of the cloth, will get in touch with me. I would like to get his scholarly insight regarding theological matters, such as the eschatological significance of the kerygma, and whether he knows what book of the Bible follows Judges. I am aware that the uncharitable regard him as a race hustler and extortion artist. I for one will have no part of such slander.
Late-breaking news.  Takimag has decided to reprint this, too. So you can also read it HERE.


  1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    I think this is quite possibly the most disturbing thing I have ever read on this blog and that is saying something.

    1. And your point is...

    2. Be specific. What is it that Fred says that has your liberal knickers in a knot?

      Could it be you secretly know what he says to be true? You certainly can't be defending that notorious black pimp, race hustlin', stooge Sharpton?

      I'll bet you admire the guy, huh?

    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 6:10 PM

      His idea of royalties is stupid for a number of reasons. There is no specific american culture, it is a combination of many different cultures and subcultures, including African and Native American. There is also no white culture, there is a German culture, English culture, French culture, and a bunch of regional subcultures. They would each hold themselves up as unique and their own contributions as different. You cannot simply combine them all and ignore the contributions of Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. They have made countless contributions that have shaped our modern world and to ignore them shows your ideas of white supremacy.

      Next your calculation is absolutely ludacris. If the time frame is from 1776 to the present, there is a clear white advantage, because Africans were enslaves, Asians were not here in significant numbers, and there is a white majority. With a majority, they are more likely to have more achievements, that says nothing about the race but is more properly described as the monkeys on typewriters. As for your most productive, it does not matter if there have been a million white geniuses, you can and I suspect are a moron. Those geniuses have no bearing on how I see you, or what your power should be. As for how you calculate, there are a lot of areas you purposefully skipped over to suit your needs. Also since opinions are based on more than races, your team vote can only be described as stupid.

      As for your welfare argument, that would put the elderly, the disabled, students with financial aid all out of your voting scheme. And that is ridiculous, not even you could possibly say they do not deserve a voice. And the same goes to those who need food stamps or other forms of welfare, they deserve a voice, their cries deserve to be heard.

      As for Sharpton, and all other ministers, myself included we have a place in society. We are meant to stand for those who suffer, as Christ did, those who do not are not true ministers of His word. Love is by nature uncontainable, so when we experience the love of God, we must take it into the world. It has no place being contained to sundays only in church, it transforms the world as it transforms us through grace.

    4. So many words and so little to say...

      So Pastor Chuck Baldwin is not qualified to speak on anything but Al Charlatan is a true man of God? What is Al's place in society besides being a pestilence? Al Charlatan is a true man of God? Man, I thought you were just naïve, it is clear that you took a left turn to Kooksville a long time ago. No wonder church attendance is down.

    5. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM

      I never said Sharpton was pefect, but I cannot fault him for trying to bring justice into the world. Chuck Baldwin is not a real pastor, and that is evidence in his theology, it has nothing to do with his political leanings.

      The churches are empty because there is no education or call to live the faith out beyond the church. People live down to standards, so when pastors expect nothing more than for them to show up a few sundays a month, they will do only that or less. This is the victory of cheap gace that Bonhoeffer talks about, but that is not true costly grace. As for education, people do not know Scripture. let alone the theology that surrounds them, most are content to let a few signs tell them what the Bible says. Without knowledge of the historical context, their compsition, the theology that surrounded their ceation, the theology of later readers, and how it applies to congregations today, you cannot adequately speak of Scripture that is why Baldwin is not a pastor, he has no training and it is evident in his words.

    6. How's Kooksville working for you?

    7. Saying that Al Sharpton isn't perfect sounds a little raciss to me, I'm jus' sayin'....

  2. Ex-Army, can you provide a source for that Karol Traven quote?

    1. Email me at and I'll explain the origin to you.

  3. I've tried twice. No response. Why not just explain here?

    1. Odd. Didn't find any emails from you. Can't find you in the spam folder under Tanstaafl, either. Was trying to remain mysterious. "Karol Traven" is a translation of the name "Rex May" (half of the Ex-Army team) into Byelorussian. So all the Traven quotes are created in-house, so to speak.

    2. I see, thanks. Do you know what triggered you/Rex to see White liberalism this way? Who do you see playing the captor role?

      It first came to me in trying to make sense of John Derbyshire's words and behavior, which I discuss in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3.