Concerning Yesterday’s Tirade

     A great many well-meaning persons in the Right stoutly resist the suggestion that the only guaranteed way to end racial strife is to separate the races. I know a number of such persons. One for whom I have great respect commented here just yesterday evening. It’s the most commonly expressed sentiment among Americans of all political inclinations, and it speaks of the good will that animates them.

     But it reduces to this: “We can’t give up now! We haven’t tried everything yet! Something has to work!”

     No one wants to admit failure. Failure is humbling. It hurts us where we’re most vulnerable: in our self-regard. The wound is especially bloody when we’ve thrown so many resources at the problem. And of course, one can never be sure one has “tried everything,” which gives the plaint special poignancy.

     But I must reply with a certain weariness:

How many more lives lost,
How much more destruction and chaos,
And how many more trillions of dollars
Must we expend before you accept that you’ve failed,
And allow us to cut our losses?

     For we must accept that regardless of the problem, no one can ever try every possible solution. When the problem has been completely politicized, such that its solution has been relegated to government(s), the matter is extremely acute, for a reason the late Milton Friedman expressed better than anyone else:

The Benefit Will Accrue To Me The Benefit Will Accrue To Others
The Cost Will Be Borne By Me
The Cost Will Be Borne By Others

     This is the incentives matrix each of us faces any time he has to make a spending decision.

     In Type I and II situations, the spender is spending his own money, and so has strong incentives to control cost. In Type I situations, where the spender will be purchasing some benefit for himself, he will attempt to maximize the quality of the thing purchased. In Type II situations, where the benefit will go to someone else, the quality of the thing purchased declines in importance, and is sometimes sloughed entirely.

     In Type III and IV situations, which embrace all government spending, the spender is spending someone else’s money, and so has little or no incentive to control costs. In Type III situations, where the spender is buying something for himself, he’ll attempt to maximize the benefit. In Type IV situations, where the spender is buying something for someone else, there are no compelling reasons to control either cost or quality.

     When a government addresses a problem, it does so in the “Type IV context:” the costs and benefits will go to persons and institutions other than the government itself. Those within the protective envelope of the State are almost never touched by the problem or by the cost of the putative solutions to be applied. The problem of racial hatred and violence is no different from any other.

     There must be a limit. There must be a point at which We the Put-Upon say, “No more experimentation! You have squandered enough of our blood and treasure on your schemes. We’re taking the problem back into our hands.”

     Reasonable people will disagree about where that point should be. No matter where the emerging consensus puts it, admitting that we’ve failed to solve the problem will hurt. (That’s why the last word heard from a Cockpit Voice Recorder recovered after a crash is usually “Shit.”) The torrent of if-onlies and maybe-ifs doesn’t salve the wound. Nothing can.

     American society is in extremis. The machinations of recent Democrat administrations have brought it to the brink of total failure, and the racialists and their mascots are doing their damnedest to finish the job. Few neighborhoods are acceptably, reliably safe. Whole cities have been laid waste. The “public” schools are turning into mini-arenas for interracial violence. Retailers face increasing losses to pilferage. Government treasuries are exhausted and worse.

     If we were discussing death and destruction brought about by an identifiable individual, the solution would be to execute or incarcerate him. Is it not so? But we’re not. Instead, we have before us a tide of death and destruction being brought about by an identifiable race. Why, then, must we eschew the simple solution – separation of the races – simply because the perpetrators are many instead of just one? Haven’t we tried hard enough, with great enough patience, and at great enough cost to the innocent among us?

     I could be wrong…but even if I were certain of that, I would not want the odium for imposing yet another remedial scheme upon millions of others willy-nilly, knowing that they, not I, would bear the cost. The time has come for humility: a virtue those in the corridors of power notably lack.

     And so I prescribe:

  • Repeal the Civil Rights Acts of:
  • Repeal all other federal and state anti-discrimination statutes.
  • Terminate all agencies and commissions relevant to “equal opportunity.”
  • End all transfer programs that pay clients based upon “single mother” status.

     Once these things have been done, the races will separate — peacefully — to the degree required. It’s our last chance to do so. If we miss this one, this is the most pleasant of the outcomes remaining.


Skip to comment form

    • Carlos the Jackal on June 17, 2022 at 7:29 AM

    You can’t fix a problem until you honestly recognize the problem & take steps.
    We’re so afraid of being called racist that we can’t even get to step 1.
    Too many people, from the gutters to the capitol, make grift off the situation.

    • Steve Walton on June 17, 2022 at 8:05 AM

    While I agree with your list of prescriptions,  they have about as much chance of coming to be as I have of running a marathon on Titan without a space suit. And as an engineer, I believe not in the perfect solution, but in the achievable solution. Is there one in this case, for this problem?

    I think not. I think we are at the point that only a violent, bloody, decimating war can knock the variables into another solution space. Otherwise, we are simply going to go whimpering into that dark night, pushing our valuables ahead of us with crooked hands.

    1. My fear is that you’re correct, Steve, but in delineating what could be done that would avert that war, I’m doing the only thing I can at my age and from my vantage point in space, time, and circumstance. It might be politically impossible, or at least fiercely resisted, but if it were achieved, it would give us a chance to avoid all-out, flying-lead race war. Remember: I, too, am an engineer — and engineers must propose solutions as long as they remain untried, even when the Powers That Be would never accept them. It’s our hope of grace.

        • Steve Walton on June 17, 2022 at 1:13 PM

        I know precisely what you are saying. One of the positive things I take away from my career is that I was fortunate enough to have several of my outlandish ideas actually accepted. Of course, it helped to convince management of the viability after the patents were granted. Sometimes I think it was a case of “oh, shit, that was published…we’d better do it quick before our competitors do”.

        All we can do is propose solutions. We cannot force the planet to accept them (though in some cases we can go start our own company to prove them out, but for some reason I doubt that would work in this case).

        1. …for some reason I doubt that would work in this case.

          That got me laughing so hard I hurt myself!

      1. TPTB refused to accept the facts that Challenger’s seals were brittle when the temperature at launch was below freezing. No PTB paid for their exec decision. The engineer who fought them the hardest did. What natural law says it must always be that way?

    • Steve on June 17, 2022 at 9:20 AM

    While we’re at it, bring back Freedom of Association as well. An aside here, should this be done, the individuals who orchestrated this sh%t show in the first place will find a way to infiltrate and set up shop in our new neck of the woods as they NEVER live in the sty’s they create, nor tolerate the people who they champion.  Happy Father’s day to whoever this may apply to!

    1. Freedom of association is vital. That’s what we lost with the “anti-discrimination” nonsense.
      I think once a peaceful separation were achieved, the inherent dynamics of the races would tend to perpetuate it. I could be wrong, of course. But the reasons I think the races would self-segregate are the same things I believe would keep them separated. However, Steve Walton has a point in his comment: What I’ve proposed is politically as close to impossible as the rising of the Sun in the West. So in all probability, we won’t get that relatively gentle way out.

    • Atonal on June 17, 2022 at 11:58 AM

    There will be no relatively gentle way out because those in power want urban animals burning, raping and pillaging. It is not a bug but a feature in their Great Reset program. Soros had exactly this in mind when he set about to destroy the justice system and create urban chaos by getting repulsive toads like Gascon, Boudin, and dozens of others elected prosecutor. These people despise our country as founded. And they’re hard at work to finish destroying its foundations, whether it be the family, church, the academy, law and order, the military or any other possible source for conserving traditional values. Urban blacks are just one tool in the box whose violent proclivities and anti-social tendencies make them particularly useful to the Great Reset. So while I agree 100% with the steps outlined above and the likelihood of their occurrence, I suspect the odds of implementing them would increase markedly if all attendees at the past 5 World Economic Forum meetings, as well as George Soros, all candidates his organizations ever supported, and all the drones working at his organizations, (all of whom I suspect are overwhelmingly white) would be found hanging from lampposts around the world.

    • James Archer on June 17, 2022 at 12:37 PM

    You can see the results of legal racial unmixing by looking at the inner cities of the great metropolises of today.The “civilization” of such places tells you what the future would be.  The levels of crime inflicted on those of similar DNA by the inhabitants would only get worse.  If we went back to the original definition of the word ghetto, that is a walled off section of a city, it would soon be utterly depopulated.

    1. And this would trouble the genuinely civilized among us how…?

        • Steve Walton on June 17, 2022 at 1:14 PM


    • Tim Turner on June 17, 2022 at 1:10 PM

    I’m on book 9 of the series Fran recommended, “Fire From the Sky.” This series follows a small cohort of family and friends dealing with a post apocalyptic world that essentially has them living with circa 1850s technology. Because their enclave is so small, their resources so limited and the world around them so hostile as to be deadly (because of the huge number of starving survivors), they are forced to treat people who would irredeemably harm them in one of two ways: death or banishment (which is almost a death sentence.)


    It becomes simple in those circumstances to recognize when an individual is a threat. The solution is very difficult for the cohort to accept, but once they see the consequences of not adequately dealing with the problem, the grudgingly accept it.


    Reading this has naturally caused me to think of our current circumstances. And along come Fran’s essays of the past week or so. So, what do you do with a person or group that is recognizably putting your way of life (institutions, commonly held beliefs, social mores) – and thus, arguably – your life itself in danger? And to expand on Fran’s idea, what if we see not just blacks, but leftists/authoritarians/idiots or members of a jihadic religion (for example) as being sources of that danger?


    I thought the situation might be insoluble. But in a surprise twist (to me), Fran has pointed to a possible remedy besides outright banishment or death. Western civilization has laws to govern detrimental behavior. I believe part of the reason for our current woes is because of a breakdown in the application of those laws. It seems to me that in recommending the repeal of all the laws attempting to force equality, Fran has unveiled how to reaffirm what we set out to be: a nation of laws where we do use our God-given ability to discriminate between right and wrong, good behavior and bad. It’s not necessary to criminalize individuals or groups. It’s only necessary not to exuse bad behavior out of some misguided sense that justice can be achieved by essentially believing that two wrongs make a right.


    I agree with whover suggested that the Declaration of Independence needed three more words:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal before the law. . .

    • Butch DuCote on June 17, 2022 at 5:03 PM

    I have spent a little time in turd world countries fighting on two continents. I have seen tribal warfare. Gentlemen, I don’t think there is a solution to our current race problems that does not entail violence. This is very unfortunate. We must try everything besides surrender to avoid warfare. It is nothing like the uninitiated can ever imagine. It will leave all of us different people. People we no longer recognize.

    Separation I believe is the only answer. I was fortunate to move away from the population turmoil to an area of like minded family first individuals. I can say separation is working for me. I want no more violence in my life but am prepared to meet it if I cannot be left alone.

    • pc-not on June 18, 2022 at 8:21 AM

    I agree with your analysis, Fran.  One hundred years ago the separation solution would have worked.  The problem today is that so much interracial mating has occurred that the line cannot easily be drawn as to “what side do you belong to”.   The left has succeeded in brainwashing generations of Americans to their woke ideology. We will never convince people of your argument because they are incapable of  deductive reasoning.

Comments have been disabled.