The Power of Big Tech is Greater Than Ever

Earlier this month Twitter engaged in what has become all to common among the online communications giants, they banned conservative content from their platform. This time, their targets were conservative humorists.

Two of the banned accounts, Titania McGrath and the Babylon Bee, offer some of the most hilarious satire to be found anywhere. And as with any great satire, sometimes at first glance, the uninitiated will not even realize its a joke.

After a few days, Twitter reinstated both of these accounts, but another target of the ban, the satirist Jarvis DuPont, remains inaccessible. DuPont’s musings can still be found on Spectator USA, but because the focus of his ridicule was trans ideology – which constitutes the uttermost pinnacle of intersectional sanctity – he shall never be seen on Twitter again.

It is difficult to overstate the global power of these companies. Not quite two years ago, in an article entitled (all too accurately) “How Big Tech Will Swing the Midterms, Then Take Over the World,” a financial snapshot of the seven biggest high tech and social media companies was included. That graphic is reproduced below:These are companies of almost unimaginable financial power. Twitter, the smallest kid on the block, by far, in terms of their market value, back in late 2018 was nonetheless sitting on nearly six billion dollars in cash. That’s cold hard cash, sitting in their checking account.

Together, these seven companies, which collectively exercise almost absolute control over what information reaches the vast majority of Americans, had $386 billion in cash back in late 2018, and had a combined market value of 4.4 trillion. For those who haven’t thought this through, a trillion is equal to one thousand billion, or one million million. And that was then.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the shut down of small businesses across America, with many of them never to come back. It also empowered the further consolidation of the American economy in the hands of multi-national corporations. But among those behemoths, few have done as well as big tech. With outdoor activities sharply reduced and shops closed, screen shopping and screen entertainment fills the void. The total market value of these seven companies is at an all time high, all of them have nearly doubled since October 2018; combined they are now worth $7.6 trillion, up 71 percent from less than two years ago.

As for their cash position, these seven companies now have just shy of a half-trillion dollars to deploy, anywhere, anytime. Twitter, still the small fry among these titans, now has nearly $8 billion in cash.

Companies this big have the power of nation states. Of the five companies on earth that have market values of $1.0 trillion or more, four of them are among these big tech companies. The only other company worth over $1.0 trillion is Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia. In comparison to national GDP, the market value of these seven big tech companies, $7.6 trillion, puts them in third place, behind the United States and China. Even when making the more apt comparison of the combined sales of these seven companies, $1.0 trillion, to national GDP, they come in at #17 in the world, right behind Indonesia ($1.1 trillion) and ahead of the Netherlands ($0.9 trillion).

Financial Power is Only Part of Big Tech’s Power

It’s important to describe just how wealthy a handful of companies, controlled by a literally a few dozen people living on America’s West Coast, because it’s even greater than one might casually assume. These are companies that are financially powerful enough to buy small nations. They are powerful enough to invest in almost any market sector on earth and dominate it. They are powerful enough to absorb or crush any emerging competitor, any time, and they do. But that’s only half the story.

What Big Tech does with their money, and their technology, is far more significant than the mere fact of their insanely immense wealth. For all practical purposes, these companies exercise monopolistic control over how we access information and communicate. In the earlier article on Big Tech, how these companies accomplish this is covered in some detail. They are rewriting history, redefining language, arbitrating international borders and manipulating how we perceive physical geography. They are managing what information we are exposed to, or not, as well as controlling the underlying messages in news reports. And of course, they are using this power to influence elections.

To describe the grip Big Tech wields on how we communicate and access information, however, is still to only reveal a fraction of their power. A troubling video released on August 15 by online reporter and journalist Millie Weaver called “Shadowgate” alleges that government directed and funded private contractors are using radical new technologies to manipulate public opinion and retool law enforcement. Weaver’s video only lasted a few days on Facebook and YouTube, but can still be found on BitChute. As an aside, it is perhaps futile, yet pertinent, to ask exactly how YouTube justified the Shadowgate video being “removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech,” or, why Millie Weaver was arrested a few days before she released her video.

To discuss all of the allegations included in the Shadowgate video would go beyond the scope of this article. And the question of how interlinked the Big Tech giants are with these private contractors was not answered. Clearly the technologies being employed to microtarget individual American citizens with so-called “internet influence operations,” as well as the desire to see Donald Trump replaced by Joe Biden in January 2021, are shared by these contractors and Big Tech. But to what extent are they working together?

The whistleblowers interviewed in the Shadowgate video – who do not enjoy whistleblower protection because they worked for private contractors, not the government – explained how it is now possible, using existing online surveillance assets and AI programs, for private contractors to “get inside their minds, know what makes them angry, happy, get into their world, know everything about them, their fears, their friends, their secrets, their injuries, use their fears, their anxieties to control their behavior” – for every individual person in America.

Where mental manipulation fails, there is law enforcement. In this realm as well, Big Tech is ushering in a paradigm shifting revolution. In the Shadowgate video the people interviewed allege that the anti-racist “defund the police” movement, as well as the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the provisions of the “Green New Deal,” are all being used to facilitate this paradigm shift.

As they put it, “AI and robotics for law enforcement are already here. There is an international push for autonomous law enforcement to remove the human factor. The objective is full integration of all data including the internet of things, autonomous patrol robots, autonomous drones, computer vision software, tracking and tracking systems, nanotech vaccines, contact tracing apps, predictive modeling for social distancing, and forecasting tools such as systems and methods for electronically monitoring everyone to determine potential risk.”

An ominous corollary to this is the medicalization of all three of the facilitating initiatives being pushed by Big Tech and the state establishment. Along with COVID-19, “systemic racism” and “climate change” are now being increasingly touted as medical emergencies. Housing and homelessness are now “public health issues.” And as the COVID-19 pandemic has made all too clear, medical emergencies supersede the Bill of Rights as well as property rights. These emergency declarations could begin the day Joe Biden takes office, and it’s awful hard not to conclude that is the reason that Big Tech and the state establishment are doing everything they can to make certain Joe Biden becomes the next president of the United States.

Against this backdrop, it is almost a sideshow that Big Tech is cancelling anyone and anything online that contradicts their preferred narrative and political agenda. Online censorship violates everything Americans have traditionally believed in. It is a fundamental threat to freedom of speech, a right that Americans used to take for granted. But it is nonetheless only a part of something much bigger. Big Tech is using its considerable power to restructure American society in what may well be a fatal erosion of all the freedoms Americans have taken for granted.

In that context, the fact that Twitter banned three conservative satirists, and then allowed two of them back (gee, thanks), is relatively insignificant. But it does indicate something more about where we’re headed, thanks to Big Tech and the establishment state. The culture that we’re being steered into has no sense of humor. No ability to laugh at itself. There are few signs of tyranny more obvious than the failure to appreciate a clever joke, especially one that mocks the dominant culture.

So go tell a trans joke, if you dare. But watch out. It may be your last public utterance.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

Recall Newsom Campaign at a Crossroads

With three months left to collect signatures, one of the largest and most organized grassroots efforts in the history of California politics is at a crossroads.

The Recall Newsom campaign has mobilized a bipartisan coalition involving over 100,000 volunteers, with momentum that is still building despite being almost completely ignored by the media, major donors, politicians, and political organizations. Those political organizations would include the CAGOP despite the fact that CAGOP tailors a significant percentage, perhaps even a majority, of its mass email messages to disparaging California’s hapless sitting governor.

This dismissal of California’s disenfranchised grassroots by their supposed professional champions not only signifies excessive caution and unfortunate hypocrisy, it is a practical blunder. A concerted and unified recall effort, backed by establishment political forces, would yield tangible political benefits. It would finally offer conservatives a cause that makes a compelling case to independents and disaffected Democrats. It would lend momentum to the campaigns of CAGOP candidates who endorse the recall, harnessing for their benefit the power of the recall volunteers.

Most significantly, a recall effort that was backed by the conservative establishment would be a courageous shot heard around the world. It would serve notice to anyone, anywhere, who has written California off as an ungovernable cesspool of corruption and chaos. People are fighting back, and they mean business.

What the political experts that consider a gubernatorial recall effort futile must understand is that Gavin Newsom’s failures are bigger than Gavin Newsom. If you successfully destroy the credibility of Gavin Newsom, you destroy the credibility of California’s Democratic party.

Newsom is the figurehead that represents a ruling class that has destroyed the aspirations of ordinary Californians. This ruling class incorporates leftist billionaires who are indifferent to California’s high cost-of-living. It includes public sector unions who have “negotiated” outrageous pay and pension packages which serve to exempt their members from the worst effects of California’s unaffordability.

California’s ruling class also includes radical environmentalists who, more than any other special interest, have tied California’s economy up in knots, making it nearly impossible to build new and affordable suburbs on open land, making energy and water both scarce and prohibitively expensive, and crippling with excessive regulations California’s manufacturers, oil and gas producers, timber companies, and countless other concerns that do actual productive work.

It’s time for California’s conservative establishment to stop playing only defense, or when they do go onto offense, only wage incremental battles. “We can take back an assembly district!” “We have to put all our resources into stopping the ‘split roll’ initiative!” Well, yes. And no. Of course these battles have to be fought. Meanwhile, however, there is no overall strategy or message. No unifying theme. No simple but profound rallying cry. No ecumenical passion that reaches out to every voter in California, regardless of their ideology or background. In short, it’s all tactical, which in these times of epic transformations and tensions, nobody cares about.

Getting rid of Gavin Newsom offers that strategic battle. Not just because he’s Gavin Newsom, a pompadoured white scion of incredible wealth and privilege, who nonetheless mouths “anti-racist,” “anti-sexist,” “anti-transphobic,” etc., etc., etc., identity politics bullshit that has been a useful distraction for Democrats for decades. No. Getting rid of Gavin Newsom sends a message that conservatives are serious about political realignment. Not in twenty years. Not in twenty months.

Now.

If the Gavin Newsom recall effort were backed by serious money and if this grassroots volunteer army of unprecedented size were assisted by experienced professionals, well, to paraphrase J.R.R. Tolkien, “even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown.

Imagine the consternation that might spread among Democrats from Sacramento to Minneapolis if real money, serious professionals, mega donors and national conservative media were to recognize and support this Recall Gavin campaign. Imagine how the nation would react to a determined recall effort that takes to task the entire legacy of California’s democrats, holding their leader accountable. Let’s take a visual excursion into what this campaign might include:

Picture television commercials and internet videos, depicting California’s ruined cities, graphically examining these lawless cesspools of crime and drugs and feces, while blaming Gavin Newsom and his democratic party.

Imagine prime time spots, depicting California’s homeless, numbering 150,000 or more, occupying neighborhoods and city centers, the vast majority of them either substance abusers, criminals, or psychopaths, if not all three.

Imagine an aggressive media campaign to expose the corruption of the homeless advocates, who have become mere shills for subsidized developers that make their money by building “homeless housing” at a cost of between a half-million and a million dollars per unit on some of the most expensive real estate in the world, ruining these neighborhoods forever. Imagine exposing these corrupt boondoggles that cost billions, but only help a small fraction of the people in need.

Picture the videos of raging forest infernos, caused by environmentalist “experts” who conned the public and manipulated the politicians, using lobbyists and litigators to prevent forest managers from doing underbrush removal and controlled burns. Imagine getting out the truth, that these extremists and their opportunistic allies destroyed most of California’s timber industry, and tied up rational efforts to clear out the accumulating tinder in litigation and endless cycles of permit applications that wasted precious time and deterred countless efforts.

The list goes on. Low income Californians sweltering in brownouts, because safe nuclear and hydroelectric power is being decommissioned, and development of California’s abundant clean natural gas reserves is completely off the table. Failed public schools that are cramming transgender ideology down the throats of 3rd graders, instead of teaching them multiplication tables. Millions of Californians denied their livelihoods because of ill conceived, misanthropic laws that force businesses small and large to convert their independent contractors into employees, even in situations where that makes no practical or moral sense.

It doesn’t take a genius to think up all the ways California’s democrats have betrayed and oppressed ordinary Californians. It just takes the courage to say it. Spouting Black Lives Matter slogans or parroting the latest Sierra Club press releases on “climate change” may be the currency of today’s democrats, but it takes no courage and even less thought. For that matter, fighting only incremental battles for reform requires only incremental courage, and even less vision.

What California needs is for conservatives with resources and influence to seize this moment, during this critical election cycle, to capitalize on the opportunity that brave volunteers have given them. They need to hop onto this bandwagon, and make Gavin Newsom the face of everything wrong with the Democratic party. They need to take this chance to expose Newsom and his party for what they are: an elitist clique of rhetoric spewing incompetents, backed up by a coopted lying media, and funded by some of the most conniving oligarchs in the history of the world.

The Recall Gavin campaign is at a crossroads right now, but there is still time. All the pieces are in place. The hardest work has already been done.

Who will stand behind this recall? Who will give this army of volunteers the legitimacy it deserves in their battle against a failed governor and a failed party? Who will do this knowing that in return, this army shall remain intact for the next battle, and the one after that?

The Recall Gavin campaign offers millions of disenfranchised voters a voice at last. It offers conservative leaders a chance to decapitate the enemy leadership, instead of fighting a war of attrition that they’ll never win. It is a springboard from which, with stupefying rapidity, not only can the Democratic syndicate finally be rejected and broken, but policies of prosperity and freedom can be offered and accepted by voters across this great and trendsetting state.

This article originally appeared on the website California Globe.

 *   *   *

Let the Children Vote – Prop. 18 Lowers Voting Age

What else do we know about this population 18 to 24? They are stupid. That is why we put them in dormitories. And they have a resident assistant. They make really bad decisions.
– Kamala Harris, excerpt from speech to Ford Foundation, 2014

If only Kamala Harris, and like-minded proponents of California’s Prop. 18, had the courage of these convictions. Kamala Harris may have been sincere, but political objectives often override common sense. Prop. 18, which will permit anyone who turns 18 by the next general election to vote in special elections or primaries prior to that general election, is a nakedly partisan ballot proposition. It is based on the fact that California’s youth are even more likely to lean Democrat than California’s adult voters, and is therefore calculated to pad Democratic voter registration in order to swing what few battleground districts remain in deep blue California.

Statistics are readily available to prove this assertion. For starters, view the results so far of the “pre-registration” campaign targeting 16 and 17 year olds, initiated by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a Democrat. The program, initiated in 2016, started out slowly, with only 90,000 teens pre-registered as of March 2018. But by September 2018 that number was up to 200,000, and a year later, it passed 400,000. In time for the March 2020 primaries, as Padilla’s office triumphantly disclosed in a February 6, 2020 press release, it passed 500,000. The party preferences among these pre-registrants skew sharply Democrat, even for California.

Young Voters Vote for Democrats

As shown on the report issued by California’s Secretary of State “Total Pre-Registrations by Political Party as of 2/3/2020,” Democratic pre-registrants, at 39.1 percent, are nearly four times as numerous as Republican pre-registrants, at 11.7 percent. This compares to statewide registration of eligible voters in 2020 showing Democrats, at 44.6 percent of registrants, not even managing a two-to-one advantage over Republican registrants at 23.7 percent.

This strategy becomes more evident when overlaying the party preferences of pre-registrants by county with battleground congressional districts. The map shown below depicts California’s U.S. Congressional Districts, with eight battlegrounds identified. A few examples should suffice to illustrate the strategic value to Democrats of an expanded youth vote.

Consider the location of District 21, where Democrat TJ Cox upset Republican David Valadao by a mere 862 votes in 2018. This district encompasses portions of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. The pre-registered young Democrats in those four counties as of February 2020 (which means most of them will be eligible to vote this November) numbered 9,857, whereas the preregistered Republicans numbered barely more than half that many, at 5,349. Not all of these voters reside in the 21st Congressional District, of course, but similar patterns apply in all counties.

For example, Orange County, once considered California’s impregnable bastion of Republican power, is now up for grabs. Two U.S. Congressional Districts – District 45 and District 48 – were long considered safe Republican seats, but in 2018 were won by Democrats. In what promise to be two very close congressional races this November in Orange County, 15,448 young Democrats are pre-registered as of February 2020, compared to only 6,970 young Republicans.

There is abundant evidence that the youth vote disproportionately belongs to Democrats, even in a state where the general electorate is disproportionately registered as Democrats. The Public Policy Institute of California released a study last year summarizing the result of surveys they conducted between Sept. 2018 and July 2019 on California voter preferences. Their findings, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, found that among likely voters, 52 percent of Millennials are registered Democrat, compared to only 43 percent of Generation X and only 44 percent of Baby Boomers. Time, along with demographics, appears to favor Democrats.

Based on this evidence, the partisan political objective behind Prop. 18 is clear. But what about the hard truths? Are people aged 18 to 24 really “stupid,” as Kamala Harris has said?

Is Kamala Harris Right? And If So, Should Children Vote at Age 17?

There’s two aspects to this question. First, what characteristics differentiate the average brain of a 17 year-old from someone, say, 25, and do those differences matter when it comes to voting? Second, what are the primary influences on someone age 17 – for example, the teaching environment in their public school, and do those differences matter when it comes to voting?

To the first question, there is no longer any scientific uncertainty that the human brain continues to develop until age 25. Twenty five. A 2013 report in the journal Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment entitled “Maturation of the adolescent brain” includes the following assertions:

“It is well established that the brain undergoes a “rewiring” process that is not complete until approximately 25 years of age,” and “Neuroimaging studies have revealed that when interacting with others and making decisions, adolescents are more likely than adults to be swayed by their emotions.”

This study examines the biomarkers influencing brain function and ticks through an impressive array of neurobehavioral evidence. Its conclusions are unambiguous.

“The prefrontal cortex offers an individual the capacity to exercise good judgment when presented with difficult life situations. The prefrontal cortex, the part of the frontal lobes lying just behind the forehead, is responsible for cognitive analysis, abstract thought, and the moderation of correct behavior in social situations… The prefrontal cortex is one of the last regions of the brain to reach maturation. There are several executive functions of the human prefrontal cortex that remain under construction during adolescence. The fact that brain development is not complete until near the age of 25 years refers specifically to the development of the prefrontal cortex… The development of the prefrontal cortex is very important for complex behavioral performance, as this region of the brain helps accomplish executive brain functions.”

This 2013 study is not an outlier. As a matter of fact, the idea that members of the 18-24 age cohort are not full fledged adults is now the conventional wisdom. Referencing a Harvard study on this question, and referring to people in their late teens and early twenties, a New York Times article announced in 2016 “You’re an Adult. Your Brain, Not so Much.” You can go back to 2009 for a study summarized in the Journal of the American Psychological Association: “While Adolescents May Reason As Well As Adults, Their Emotional Maturity Lags, Says New Research.”

If you’re between the ages of 18 and 24, you’re stupid. Corroborating material is plentiful. The Wall Street Journal reports in a 2012 article; “Delayed Development: 20-Somethings Blame the Brain.” The BBC, just last year, citing Cambridge University researchers, reported “People don’t become ‘adults’ until their 30s, say scientists.” There’s literally nothing from the scientific community that contradicts Kamala Harris – here are more concurring reports from Scientific American and Psychology Today.

Who Forms the Political Sentiments of California’s Teenagers?

It doesn’t take a scientific study to know that the younger someone is, the less life experience they have. Without the base of knowledge and experiences and relationships built up over years and decades, teenagers are more likely to be heavily influenced by what they’re taught and by what their peers and role models believe. Our scientific knowledge of the adolescent brain merely adds a compounding factor – young people up to the age of 25 have not yet reached their innate potential to perform cognitive analysis and abstract thought, or resist being swayed by their emotions.

Which brings us to the question of California’s public schools, and how the partisan agenda of California’s teachers’ unions affects what students learn and how they form their political opinions.

The most powerful union in California is the California Teachers Association, with an estimated revenue in 2018 (local and state chapters combined) of over 350 million. The CTA, along with the smaller but also powerful California Federation of Teachers, is politically active and highly partisan. A quick scan through the CTA’s official website confirms this, revealing their positions on standardized testing, “alternative discipline,” charter schools (“Kids Not Profits”), immigration, and a host of “social justice” issues.

One powerful local teachers union in California that has been loosely affiliated with both the CTA and the CFT is the United Teachers of Los Angeles, representing teachers in the second largest school district in the United States. The agenda they have put forward to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic provides a representative example of the political mentality of California’s K-12 public school teachers’ unions.

Included in the UTLA’s demands in this time of economic and medical crisis are things that have little to do with those issues, which one would think are broad enough and challenging enough to be addressed without distractions. But UTLA’s laundry list, entitled “Safe and Equitable Conditions for Starting LAUSD in 2020-21,” constitutes a comprehensive political agenda.

At the federal level, the UTLA is calling for federal assistance including an emergency bailout, along with increased Title I funding, increased Individuals With Disabilities Education funding, and “Medicare for All.”

At the state level, UTLA is calling for passage of the proposed property tax increase that is already on the November ballot, along with a “Wealth Tax” of 1 percent a year, and a “Millionaire Tax” of up to 3 percent surtax on high-income Californians.

And at the local level, UTLA wants to “Defund Police,” provide free housing to anyone, ten additional sick days for all private employees, a moratorium on charter schools, and “financial support for undocumented students and families.”

The Teachers Union is Forming the Minds of Young Voters

The indoctrination of K-12 public school students in California and across much of the rest of the United States significantly pre-dates the COVID-19 crisis. An August 2020 Heritage Foundation commentary by Douglas Blair entitled “I’m a Former Teacher. Here’s How Your Children Are Getting Indoctrinated by Leftist Ideology,” offers further examples.

Blair describes how “the left uses a combination of propaganda and suppression to push kids into the ensnaring grip of socialism and anti-patriotism.” This propaganda includes “instilling the idea that the pillars of Western civilization were evil, and their memories deserve to be thrown in the trash.” In practical terms, for example, this means that on one hand Winston Churchill is a racist scumbag, and on the other, nothing relating to Black Lives Matter can be criticized.

Back here in California, a good example of leftist indoctrination promoted by the teachers unions is the proposed “ethnic studies” course that is closer than ever to being a mandatory requirement for high school graduation. This course might have already become part of California’s mandated curricula except for the fact that in its first version, it didn’t emphasize enough victimized groups. Jewish groups, joined by organizations representing Armenians, Greeks, Hindus and Koreans, were successful in sending the designers of California’s ethnic studies syllabus back to the drawing board, presumably to add them to the victims matrix.

California’s population demographics have reached the point where barely over 10 percent of its public high school students are “non-hispanic white cis-heteronormative males.” Notwithstanding the trauma learning about “The Four ‘I’s’ of Oppression” might cause these privileged scions of pariahs, imagine what instilling this mentality does to the other 90 percent, who are all taught that they are “victims of oppression.”

What California’s public educators are doing, to the extent they are exposing their impressionable students to concepts and narratives that stir envy, resentment, guilt, shame, anger, revenge, along with a whole lot of just plain weird, is akin to cult manipulation. Depersonalize someone. Make them only exist as a member of a group. Invent an entirely new system of language and concepts to guide their thinking. Destroy their faith in outside institutions. Then prescribe the solutions.

And then make sure they vote.

This article originally appeared on the website California Globe.

 *   *   *

Prop. 16 is Real Racism to Combat Perceived Racism

Lest anyone be tempted to suggest this analysis is written under a pretense of journalistic indifference, let’s make its ideological position clear: Affirmative action, preferential hiring or admissions, or legislatively enforced quotas of any kind – based on race, gender, religion, income, or anything else relating to an identifiable “group” – is counterproductive, if not immoral. Affirmative action may masquerade as something good, but it’s not.

If policies designed to destroy America’s meritocracy are not stopped, they will destroy everything that makes America great. They will breed cynicism, corruption, mediocrity; they will sow hatred and resentment; they will encourage indifference to results and discourage hard work; they will misdirect America’s institutional priorities from productivity and innovation to bureaucratic “process” and ideological indoctrination; they will consign America to 2nd class status and ultimately rob it of both prosperity and civil cohesion.

Got that?

With all that in mind, consider the latest assault on competence in America, courtesy of the California State Legislature. It should come as no surprise that California is the source of the attack, since California’s legislature is overwhelmingly dominated by politicians who rely on the narrative of systemic racism to attract voters. Moreover, most of the Democrats that control California’s state legislature are beholden to public sector unions, the teachers’ unions in particular. For decades, these unions have made racial quotas and equality of outcome – at any cost – a cornerstone of their political agenda.

Proposition 16, put onto California’s November 2020 ballot by the state legislature, will amend the California constitution to “repeal Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person’s or group’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Imagine that. California has a law that bans racism and sexism in public employment, education and contracting. We can’t have that now, can we. Better fix that right away.

In one of the most deceptive guest columns ever written, recently published by the San Diego Union Tribune, union marionette and member of the California State Assembly Shirley Weber argues that Prop. 209, which outlawed racism and sexism in California’s public sphere, actually created racist and sexist outcomes. Here is an example of Weber’s reasoning: ”

“This law [Prop. 209] has allowed discriminatory hiring and contracting processes to flourish in California. The result is that the number of women and Latinos employed by the state of California has decreased significantly relative to population growth. In 1994, Latinos were admitted to the UCs above the average rate, and African-Americans at 6 points below average; in 2019, they were admitted at 6 points and 16 points below average, respectively.”

What Weber is actually objecting to, however, is not racism caused by a law outlawing racism. Rather her objection is to allocating opportunities based on competence instead of race.

In this chart, the first column shows what percentage of students taking the SAT, by ethnicity, achieved a score at or above the minimum to be considered “college ready.” The second column shows the ethnic breakdown of college age students in California. Column three, “merit based admissions,” is the hypothetical kicker: It displays a result calculated from columns one and two. For each ethnicity, the percent of college ready students is multiplied by that ethnicity’s percent of the total pool of college age Californians in order to calculate a crude but significant indicator of what percentage of 2017 college admissions would be offered to students of each ethnicity, if admissions were offered to every applicant who scored “college ready” or better on their SAT. Column four shows the actual admissions to California’s UC System in 2017 by ethnicity.

There are a few obvious takeaways from the above chart. First of all, it becomes immediately clear that at 33 percent (col. 4) of all admissions, Latinos are admitted to the University of California in amounts almost perfectly proportional to their share, 35 percent (col. 3), of all college ready applicants. What proponents of Prop. 16 such as Shirley Weber advocate is to bring that share up to 50 percent (col. 2), which would mean Latinos would enter the UC System not based on their ability to do the work, but based on their raw percentage of the population.

Equally salient is the fact that white applicants, if SAT scores were the sole basis for admission, are clear victims of discrimination. After all, if based on their college readiness as assessed by their SAT performance combined with their percentage of the population, they should have earned 41 percent of the admissions to the UC System (col. 3), why were they only 23 percent of the incoming freshmen in 2017 (col. 4)? But there are other disparities that point to an even bigger problem.

Why, for example, do actual Asian admissions, 34 percent (col. 4), exceed the merit based admissions percentage, 21 percent (col. 3), as indicated based on their percentage of the college age population and the percentage of them achieving the SAT benchmark? Why, for that matter, are the actual Latino admissions, 33 percent (col. 4), slightly less than the amount they would theoretically earn, 35 percent (col. 3), based that same criteria?

The answer in both cases is the same, and can be best summarized in this quote taken from a report released in 2017 by the Brookings Institution:

“Race gaps on the SATs are especially pronounced at the tails of the distribution. In a perfectly equal distribution, the racial breakdown of scores at every point in the distribution would mirror the composition of test-takers as whole i.e. 51 percent white, 21 percent Latino, 14 percent black, and 14 percent Asian. But in fact, among top scorers—those scoring between a 750 and 800—60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino and 2 percent black. Meanwhile, among those scoring between 300 and 350, 37 percent are Latino, 35 percent are black, 21 percent are white, and 6 percent are Asian.”

What this means in plain English is that in the UC System, where supposedly only the most elite high school graduates are granted admission, you will find the distribution of the higher SAT scores by ethnicity skewed even more in favor of Asian and White students than you find when evaluating how many students merely achieve the “benchmark” SAT score. In particular, this is why Asian admissions, which are arguably the only UC admissions in 2017 that were based truly on merit, skew higher than you would otherwise expect. That is also the reason that Latino admissions skew somewhat lower. And it also indicates that White applicants are discriminated against even more than shown on the table.

The next chart shows just how significantly math SAT scores differ by ethnic group.

These are not subtle differences. Most striking is the disparity occurring at the extremes of the distribution. It is those whose abilities fall within these gifted extremes who, overwhelmingly, become the inventors and researchers whose breakthroughs ensure American technological preeminence and benefit the world. Note how nearly 15 percent of all Asians were able to score over 750 on their math SAT.

Using math SAT scores as criteria, Asians are underrepresented in the University of California, even though they are overrepresented in proportion to their percentage of the population.

SAT Scores ARE Predictive of Academic Success

Just to be thorough, lest anyone repeat yet another shibboleth turned fact merely by virtue of repetition, namely, that SAT scores are not predictive of academic success, here is data that proves the value of SAT scores.

In May 2016 the Public Policy Institute of California produced a study that includes data that tracks the correlation between math SAT scores (horizontal axis) and graduation rates (vertical axis). The upper chart depicts six year graduation rates, the lower chart depicts four year graduation rates. The orange dots represent results for Cal State campuses, which were the focus of the study. The more numerous grey dots represent similar universities nationwide.

As can be seen, the trend line is unambiguous. It is roughly accurate to state that for every 50 point improvement in a student’s Math SAT score, there is a 10% greater probability that they will graduate from college. And yet California’s UC System, in pursuit of social justice, equity, and inclusion, as of May 2020 has abandoned the SAT requirement altogether. This is an astonishing denial of reality. 

Despite compelling evidence that SAT scores matter, proponents of affirmative action continue their assault on these objective metrics. Proportional representation in all things, or “equity,” is their solution to group underachievement. But this approach harms the very people it is designed to help, and there are better solutions.

The Consequences of Affirmative Action, and the Tough But Much Better Alternatives

The direct correlation between SAT scores and graduation rates, along with the huge gaps in SAT scores between ethnic groups, yields an inescapable conclusion: Students are less likely to experience academic success when they are admitted to schools where the average SAT of the student body is significantly higher than their own score. This conclusion can be applied across the spectrum of higher education. Academically unqualified students admitted to elite universities are more likely to fail academically, whereas if they had attended a less selective college they might have excelled. Similarly, academically unqualified students admitted to reputable but not top-tier colleges with lower SAT scores are also more likely to fail, whereas if they had instead enrolled in a community college they might have excelled.

To cope with this, universities have invented entire new fields of study oriented to “social justice,” with watered down majors designed to accommodate students who lack the aptitude to keep up in more rigorous academic disciplines. At the same time, these universities have hired armies of bureaucrats whose mission is to enforce “diversity, equity and inclusion.” In practice the role of these administrators is to inculcate unqualified students with the notion that their academic struggles are the product of racism, rather than the plain fact that they should never have been enrolled to begin with.

Heather MacDonald, a researcher with the Manhattan Institute, has written extensively on this topic. Her recent book, The Diversity Delusion, provides overwhelming evidence of how harmful affirmative action is to minority students who could excel if they were simply treated the same as everybody else. She writes, “racial preferences paper over the vast academic skills gap by catapulting minority students into academic environments for which they are unprepared. By allowing the country to turn its attention away from that skills gap, colleges are retarding the cause of racial progress, not advancing it.”

Along with placing students in academic environments where they can compete and excel, the solution to disparities in academic group achievement needs to go to the source: reform of K-12 public schools. Taking this step, unfortunately, runs into resistance from the most powerful political special interest in California, the teachers’ unions. Even bipartisan attempts to incrementally reform California’s K-12 public school system have been stopped by these unions.

A good example of this is the Vergara case, dismissed by the California Supreme Court in 2016 on a technicality despite sailing through the appellate courts. Vergara was predicated on the assertion that quality public education is a civil right. It petitioned for three common sense reforms to union negotiated work rules: a streamlined process to fire incompetent teachers, the ability during layoffs to retain excellent teachers instead of teachers with seniority, and extension of the probationary period for new teachers beyond the mere 18 months of classroom observation currently in effect.

Along with opposing reforms as basic as those proposed in the Vergara case, California’s teachers’ unions have used their political clout to wage war on alternative educational venues. The most glaring example of this is the suppression of charter schools, which are a threat to the monopoly the teachers’ unions have on traditional public schools. Similar threats in the form of private schools, parochial schools, virtual schools, home schooling, and recent pandemic inspired innovations such as expanded home schooling coops, micro-schools and “learning pods,” are all under relentless attack from the teachers’ unions.

What ought to be on California’s ballot this November is not a restoration of affirmative action. California’s voters ought to instead have an opportunity to eliminate the work rules that are crippling traditional public schools. At the same time, California’s voters ought to have an opportunity to approve implementation of school vouchers, whereby parents would get payment vouchers each year that they could redeem at any accredited school they wish. Such a bold step would introduce competition to K-12 education, greatly improving the chances for students of all ethnic groups and income levels to get the quality education they deserve.

Will Californians Vote in November to Reinstate Racist Policies?

It is difficult to imagine how affirmative action based purely on proportional representation by race is going to benefit California’s Asian students. If affirmative action is reinstated by California’s voters, and UC admissions are granted in amounts perfectly proportional to the racial composition of California’s college age students, the following would happen:

Asian enrollment would drop from 34 percent to 13 percent.
Black enrollment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent.
Latino enrollment would increase from 33 percent to 50 percent.
White enrollment would increase from 23 percent to 31 percent.

Then again, it would be naive to think “affirmative action” in California would merely mean applying proportional quotas by race in public admissions, hiring and contracts. It is likely that a social justice hierarchy of disadvantage will become a more relevant criteria than pure ethnic proportionality. Affirmative action programs  And in this manner, the unwarranted and pervasive privilege enjoyed by virtue of whites being whites shall justify less than proportional representation.

This theory of how considerations of race can be selectively manipulated to exclude, just for example, whites and Asians from admission in favor of Latinos despite higher SAT scores is consistent with the US Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas. In that ruling, the court wrote “The record here reveals that the university articulated concrete and precise goals — e.g., ending stereotypes, promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,’ preparing students for ‘an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ and cultivating leaders with ‘legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry’ — that mirror the compelling interest this court has approved in prior cases.”

Put another way, absent further clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court, America’s university administrators can come up with a variety of factors, the more diverse the better, that will allow them to manipulate the ethnic composition of their student body in whatever proportions they choose. California’s UC Regents, and the legislature that controls them, will be able to do whatever they want. Admission guidelines will be derived based on explicitly political motivations, and less connected to competence than ever.

There is a good chance that Prop. 16’s flawed attempt at greater “social justice” will be approved by California’s voters. Latinos and Blacks may see no reason to oppose something that will increase the rates of enrollment of their children in the University of California. And white liberals, who dominate California’s diminishing population of white voters, will vote for anything called “affirmative action.”

The Asian vote will be the wild card, but at 15 percent of California’s population, their numbers are still too small to swing an election unless it is close, and their vote is monolithic. That is possible but unlikely, because Asians in California still typically vote with Democrats, and California’s Democratic party is solidly in favor of restoring racism in the name of fighting racism.

There is one great hope, however, and that is if a groundswell of opposition by members of California’s Asian community becomes sufficiently pervasive and persuasive, it will stimulate California’s other voting blocs to express solidarity with them and reject Prop. 16. Should that occur, it will open the door to a broader reevaluation of identity politics and social justice ideology.

By putting Prop. 16 onto the state ballot this November, California’s legislature may, just may, get more than they bargained for. Maybe the good guys will win.

This article originally appeared on the website of the California Policy Center.

 *   *   *

California’s Proposed Wealth Tax is a Model for America

If you’re rich, there aren’t too many places on earth better than California to live. Sure, there are the perennial earthquakes and wildfires, but those are more than made up for by the Mediterranean climate and the scenic splendor; the Pacific Shore, the High Sierra. And apart from these natural disasters, nothing is wrong with California that money can’t cure.

If you’re a billionaire, then California’s punitive cost-of-living and its failed public schools are of no concern. The moneyed liberal patricians of California, from Tom Steyer to Jack Dorsey, have options. Who cares if your mega-mansion costs $12 million instead of $1.2 million, if you’re a billionaire? Who cares if the local public school is a war zone, if you can easily afford to send your children to the finest private school money can buy?

This is why a recent column in the Los Angeles Times by Nicholas Goldberg, claiming that raising taxes on the wealthy will not drive the wealthy out of California, has some credibility. Goldberg writes:

“Sure, there are lower-tax states where Californians could go. Nevada, Texas, Florida, Alaska, South Dakota, for example. But do we really think many Silicon Valley billionaires — or millionaires — are going to pack up for South Dakota to avoid Miguel Santiago’s income tax surcharge? Do people in Bel-Air or Venice want to move to Dallas?”

Recent events shall put Goldberg’s theory to the test.

California’s overall tax burden is the highest in America, and there’s no end in sight. In the wake of the Great Recession, either California voters, or the state legislature, approved an assortment of new state taxes. In 2012 voters approved an increase to the state income tax rate on wealthy households, a measure that pours up to $9 billion per year into state coffers. In 2017 California’s legislature passed a 12 cent per gallon increase to the gas tax, which brings in $5 billion per year. Also in 2017, California’s state legislature imposed a sales tax on internet purchases, bringing in up to $2 billion per year. Starting in 2013, California’s “cap-and-trade” auctions began yielding significant returns to the state; over $13 billion through June 2020. And to ensure the potheads pay their fair share, the voter approved 2018 recreational marijuana initiative is already bringing in well over $1 billion per year.

That’s a lot of new taxes, but was then. What about now? What about the COVID Recession? How will California’s lawmakers cope with what is – despite all the new taxes – a projected $54 billion state deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year?

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and through a combination of cut-backs, borrowing, payment deferrals, and tweaks to the tax code (suspending net operating loss deductions, putting a ceiling on tax credits), California’s budget bureaucrats have cobbled together a precariously balanced plan. But more taxes are an essential part of their plan. Lots more taxes.

Backers of new taxes never have problems putting initiatives onto California’s state ballot. If the tax-hungry legislature doesn’t do it, the cash-rich public sector unions will pay for professional signature gathering, and in either case, they’ll fund the subsequent campaign. Teed up for November 2020 are two tax measures. Prop. 15 will eliminate the last advantage small businesses have in California, by forcing commercial properties to be reassessed at current market values to calculate their property taxes. Prop. 15 is projected to bring in over $12 billion per year for the state. Prop. 19 will trigger reassessments of inherited homes unless the heirs intend to live in them.

Will these initiatives pass? That’s anybody’s guess. Californians may expect proponents to spend tens of millions to saturate the airwaves and internet. Expect a yes vote to be “for the children,” or, for California’s burgeoning Spanish speaking populace, “para los ninos inocentes.”

But ballot initiatives are only necessary if they overturn restrictions on taxes that were enacted via ballot initiatives. The California state legislature isn’t just waiting for the voters to weigh in on new taxes, they’ve also got tax proposals that they can enact all by themselves.

Which brings us to two proposed tax increases that are working their way through the California state legislature. Assembly Bill 1253 would impose “three new surcharges on the state’s highest earners: 1% for taxable incomes over $1 million, 3% for incomes over $2 million and 3.5% for incomes over $5 million, meaning California’s wealthiest could pay 16.8% on their taxable income.” The tax is expected to generate over $7 billion per year.

Where Pocahontas Stumbled, California’s Legislature Dares to Tread

And since innovation in California isn’t limited to software and chips, leave it to the California state legislature to propose the nation’s first “wealth tax.” Assembly Bill 2088, if enacted, will impose, year after year, an annual tax at a rate of 0.4 percent of any California resident’s net worth in excess of $30 million. This bill has to be read to be believed.

First of all, the calculation of net worth, particularly for wealthy people, is not a simple matter, nor is it an exact science. Have a look at the categories of the “assets to be reported” that AB 2088 includes (but “is not limited to”):

(1) Stock in any publicly and privately traded C-corporation.
(2) Stock in any S-corporation.
(3) Interests in any partnership.
(4) Interests in any private equity or hedge fund.
(5) Interests in any other noncorporate businesses.
(6) Bonds and interest bearing savings accounts.
(7) Cash and deposits.
(8) Farm assets.
(9) Interest in mutual funds or index funds.
(10) Put and call options.
(11) Futures contracts.
(12) Art and collectibles.
(13) Financial assets held offshore.
(14) Pension funds.
(15) Other assets, excluding real property.
(16) Debts other than mortgages or other liabilities secured by real property.
(17) Real property.
(18) Mortgages and other liabilities secured by real property.

Go ahead. Explain how “privately traded C corporation” stock will be reliably valued, and not subject to audit, possibly a targeted audit by a hostile prosecutor? Ditto for S-Corps, private partnerships, private equity, hedge funds, and any “other noncorporate businesses.” What about “put and call options,” and “futures contracts,” the value of which fluctuates constantly? “Art and collectibles?” Are they kidding?

It gets worse. Unrealized income? Pay the tax, or, per holding, “elect for an unliquidated and deferred tax liability,” “backed by a contract with the state specifying the reference for the eventual valuation of the unliquidated and deferred tax liability.” Collateralized assets? Pay the tax but don’t deduct the amount borrowed against them. Because somehow that’s fair.

Then there’s the amazingly byzantine provisions for determining residency. For full time residents, it’s easy. But what if you live in the state part of the time? No problem. Whatever percentage of time you live in the state shall be applied to your tax rate. Half the time, pay half-the tax. But let’s not oversimplify this tangled mess. If you enter the state of California for only 60 days in any given year, then for that year, you shall pay 60/365 of your worldwide net worth to the State of California, and so on.

Perhaps all of this might induce someone to permanently leave California, despite the unforgettable alpine meadows and breathtaking ocean sunsets. No problem. The super rich may leave California, but California won’t leave them. In year one of their exile, they’ll still pay 90 percent of the 0.4 percent wealth tax. In year two: 80 percent. Year three: 70 percent. It will take a decade before the long arm of California’s Franchise Tax Board lets go. And then of course if in any one of those years a wealthy exile might venture back into the Golden State for more than 60 days, tack that onto whatever else is owed.

To do justice to the entirety of this law’s grasping, arrogant complexity would take thousands of words of analysis by tax experts, and it is a certainty that expert interpretations will vary. But nobody ought to be surprised if AB 2088 is passed into law. And if the Democrats end up controlling the executive and legislative branches of the federal government with the same death grip with which they control California politics, don’t be surprise to see a federal wealth tax, along with copycat laws in every Democrat controlled state.

This insatiable desire for more taxes is caused by an insatiable desire on the part of government bureaucrats to not just bail out a bloated and nearly bankrupt government, but to expand government even further. But most of California’s wealthiest citizens are supporters if not actual beneficiaries of expanding government. Will the sheer arbitrary nature of a wealth tax, the time and perpetual risk that will come with it, matter more than the actual expense? Will they leave?

Maybe not. Maybe Nicholas Goldberg is right, and California is simply too beautiful to drive away super-rich people who can easily handle the additional financial burden. But in general, high taxes and over-regulation have a way of trickling down to those who can least afford to pay them, in the form of a higher cost-of-living. It is no coincidence that California not only has the highest taxes in America, but also the highest cost-of-living. Along with the direct and obvious burden to low and middle income Californians of sales tax and other regressive taxes, California’s businesses pay punitive taxes and fees and regulatory costs which are necessarily passed on to the consumer, whether it’s in the price of a home, or utilities, or products and services.

California’s legislature may justify a wealth tax as only affecting people who are so wealthy they don’t deserve sympathy. But in a state as big and broke as California, $7 billion per year is not enough. The wealth tax for the super rich is the foot in the door. The next target will be the “privileged” middle class.

AB 2088, the wealth tax, is a blueprint for oppressive, mind numbing tyranny, obfuscated within an impenetrable slop of bureaucratese, written by barely numerate, financially and economically indifferent ideologues. The only thing more shocking than their unquenched lust for money and power is the fact that they’ve already gorged on both for so long one would think that by now they would have been overcome by their own obesity. No such luck. Not a chance. Sacramento’s capitol creatures are hearty trencherman indeed. For all practical purposes, their stomach capacity is infinite.

Watch out, America. Where Pocahontas stumbled, and Crazy Bernie faltered, California’s woke state legislature is stepping up. And if these Californian politicians have proven anything, it’s that their appetite for more, more, more, shall not abate. Once they’ve eaten the rich, they’re going to eat you.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

Will California Voters Reinstate Affirmative Action?

Lest anyone be tempted to suggest this essay is written under a pretense of journalistic indifference, let’s make its ideological position clear: Affirmative action, preferential hiring or admissions, or legislatively enforced quotas of any kind – based on race, gender, religion, income, or anything else relating to an identifiable “group” – is pure evil. Affirmative action may masquerade as something good, but that’s an old game, and nobody plays it better than the wicked one.

If policies designed to destroy America’s meritocracy are not stopped, they will destroy everything that makes America great. They will breed cynicism, corruption, mediocrity; they will sow hatred and resentment; they will encourage indifference to results and discourage hard work; they will misdirect America’s institutional priorities from productivity and innovation to bureaucratic “process” and ideological indoctrination; they will consign America to 2nd class status and ultimately rob it of both prosperity and civil cohesion.

Got that?

With all that in mind, consider the latest assault on competence in America, courtesy of the California State Legislature. It should come as no surprise that California is the source of the attack, since California’s legislature is overwhelmingly dominated by “democratic socialists,” hard core Marxists, professional race baiting hustlers, Chicano nationalists, openly and virulently anti-white racists, gender obsessed crackpots, bought-and-paid-for climate catastrophists, and public sector union power-mongers. These individuals, most of which are an “intersectional” composite incorporating many if not all of the just mentioned descriptions, constitute a collective political swill so diabolical that calling them “politicians” is an insult to politicians.

Proposition 16, put onto California’s November 2020 ballot by the state legislature, will amend the California constitution to “repeal Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person’s or group’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Imagine that. California has a law that bans racism and sexism in public employment, education and contracting. We can’t have that now, can we. Better fix that right away.

In one of the most deceptive guest columns ever written, recently published by the San Diego Union Tribune, union marionette and member of the California State Assembly Shirley Weber argues that Prop. 209, which outlawed racism and sexism in California’s public sphere, actually created racist and sexist outcomes. Here is an example of Weber’s reasoning: ”

“This law [Prop. 209] has allowed discriminatory hiring and contracting processes to flourish in California. The result is that the number of women and Latinos employed by the state of California has decreased significantly relative to population growth. In 1994, Latinos were admitted to the UCs above the average rate, and African-Americans at 6 points below average; in 2019, they were admitted at 6 points and 16 points below average, respectively.”

What Weber is actually objecting to, however, is not racism caused by a law outlawing racism. Rather her objection is to allocating opportunities based on competence instead of race.

In this chart, the first column shows what percentage of students taking the SAT, by ethnicity, achieved a score at or above the minimum to be considered “college ready.” The second column shows the ethnic breakdown of college age students in California. Column three, “merit based admissions,” is the hypothetical kicker: It displays a result calculated from columns one and two. For each ethnicity, the percent of college ready students is multiplied by that ethnicity’s percent of the total pool of college age Californians in order to calculate a crude but significant indicator of what percentage of 2017 college admissions would be offered to students of each ethnicity, if admissions were offered to every applicant who scored “college ready” or better on their SAT. Column four shows the actual admissions to California’s UC System in 2017 by ethnicity.

There are a few obvious takeaways from the above chart. First of all, it becomes immediately clear that at 33 percent (col. 4) of all admissions, Latinos are admitted to the University of California in amounts almost perfectly proportional to their share, 35 percent (col. 3), of all college ready applicants. What proponents of Prop. 16 such as Shirley Weber advocate is to bring that share up to 50 percent (col. 2), which would mean Latinos would enter the UC System not based on their ability to do the work, but based on their raw percentage of the population.

Equally salient is the fact that white applicants, if SAT scores were the sole basis for admission, are clear victims of discrimination. After all, if based on their college readiness as assessed by their SAT performance combined with their percentage of the population, they should have earned 41 percent of the admissions to the UC System (col. 3), why were they only 23 percent of the incoming freshmen in 2017 (col. 4)? But there are other disparities that point to an even bigger problem.

Why, for example, do actual Asian admissions, 34 percent (col. 4), exceed the merit based admissions percentage, 21 percent (col. 3), as indicated based on their percentage of the college age population and the percentage of them achieving the SAT benchmark? Why, for that matter, are the actual Latino admissions, 33 percent (col. 4), slightly less than the amount they would theoretically earn, 35 percent (col. 3), based that same criteria?

The answer in both cases is the same, and can be best summarized in this quote taken from a report released in 2017 by the Brookings Institution:

“Race gaps on the SATs are especially pronounced at the tails of the distribution. In a perfectly equal distribution, the racial breakdown of scores at every point in the distribution would mirror the composition of test-takers as whole i.e. 51 percent white, 21 percent Latino, 14 percent black, and 14 percent Asian. But in fact, among top scorers—those scoring between a 750 and 800—60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino and 2 percent black. Meanwhile, among those scoring between 300 and 350, 37 percent are Latino, 35 percent are black, 21 percent are white, and 6 percent are Asian.”

What this means in plain English is that in the UC System, where supposedly only the most elite high school graduates are granted admission, you will find the distribution of the higher SAT scores by ethnicity skewed even more in favor of Asian and White students than you find when evaluating how many students merely achieve the “benchmark” SAT score. In particular, this is why Asian admissions, which are arguably the only UC admissions in 2017 that were based truly on merit, skew higher than you would otherwise expect. That is also the reason that Latino admissions skew somewhat lower. And it also indicates that White applicants are discriminated against even more than shown on the table.

The next chart shows just how significantly math SAT scores differ by ethnic group.

These are not subtle differences. Most striking is the disparity occurring at the extremes of the distribution. It is those whose abilities fall within these gifted extremes who, overwhelmingly, become the inventors and researchers whose breakthroughs ensure American technological preeminence and benefit the world. Note how nearly 15 percent of all Asians were able to score over 750 on their math SAT.

Using math SAT scores as criteria, Asians are underrepresented in the University of California, even though they are overrepresented in proportion to their percentage of the population.

SAT Scores ARE Predictive of Academic Success

Just to be thorough, lest anyone repeat yet another shibboleth turned fact merely by virtue of repetition, namely, that SAT scores are not predictive of academic success, here is data that proves the value of SAT scores.

In May 2016 the Public Policy Institute of California produced a study that includes data that tracks the correlation between math SAT scores (horizontal axis) and graduation rates (vertical axis). The upper chart depicts six year graduation rates, the lower chart depicts four year graduation rates. The orange dots represent results for Cal State campuses, which were the focus of the study. The more numerous grey dots represent similar universities nationwide.

As can be seen, the trend line is unambiguous. It is roughly accurate to state that for every 50 point improvement in a student’s Math SAT score, there is a 10% greater probability that they will graduate from college. And yet California’s UC System, in pursuit of social justice, equity, and inclusion, as of May 2020 has abandoned the SAT requirement altogether. This is an astonishing denial of reality. 

Will Californians Vote in November to Reinstate Racist Policies?

It is difficult to imagine how affirmative action based purely on proportional representation by race is going to benefit California’s Asian students. If affirmative action is reinstated by California’s voters, and UC admissions are granted in amounts perfectly proportional to the racial composition of California’s college age students, the following would happen:

Asian enrollment would drop from 34 percent to 13 percent.
Black enrollment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent.
Latino enrollment would increase from 33 percent to 50 percent.
White enrollment would increase from 23 percent to 31 percent.

Then again, it would be naive to think “affirmative action” in California would merely mean applying proportional quotas by race in public admissions, hiring and contracts. It is likely that a social justice hierarchy of disadvantage will become a more relevant criteria than pure ethnic proportionality. Affirmative action programs  And in this manner, the unwarranted and pervasive privilege enjoyed by virtue of whites being whites shall justify less than proportional representation.

This theory of how considerations of race can be selectively manipulated to exclude, just for example, whites and Asians from admission in favor of Latinos despite higher SAT scores is consistent with the US Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas. In that ruling, the court wrote “The record here reveals that the university articulated concrete and precise goals — e.g., ending stereotypes, promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,’ preparing students for ‘an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ and cultivating leaders with ‘legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry’ — that mirror the compelling interest this court has approved in prior cases.”

Put another way, absent further clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court, America’s university administrators can come up with a variety of factors, the more diverse the better, that will allow them to manipulate the ethnic composition of their students body in whatever proportions they choose. California’s UC Regents, and the legislature that controls them, will be able to do whatever they want. Admission guidelines will be derived based on explicitly political motivations, and less connected to competence than ever.

There is a good chance that Prop. 16’s flawed attempt at greater “social justice” will be approved by California’s voters. Latinos and Blacks may see no reason to oppose something that will increase the rates of enrollment of their children in the University of California. And white liberals, who dominate California’s diminishing population of white voters, will vote for anything called “affirmative action.”

The Asian vote will be the wild card, but at 15 percent of California’s population, their numbers are still too small to swing an election unless it is close, and their vote is monolithic. That is possible but unlikely, because Asians in California still typically vote with Democrats, and California’s Democratic party is solidly in favor of restoring racism in the name of fighting racism.

There is one great hope, however, and that is if a groundswell of opposition by members of California’s Asian community becomes sufficiently pervasive and persuasive, it will stimulate California’s other voting blocs to express solidarity with them and reject Prop. 16. Should that occur, it will open the door to a broader reevaluation of identity politics and social justice ideology.

By putting Prop. 16 onto the state ballot this November, California’s legislature may, just may, get more than they bargained for. Maybe the good guys will win.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

When Approving a $7 Billion Bond Proposal, Did the LAUSD Board Violate the Brown Act?

As reported in the Beverly Press and elsewhere, the “the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously to place a $7 billion school construction bond issue on the November ballot which would allow the LAUSD to continue its multi-year effort to upgrade school facilities.”

Writing for CityWatch on August 6, Jack Humphreville had this to say about this big new bond: “The Usual Something-for-Nothing: LAUSD Proposes $7 Billion Bond Measure, but No Reform.” But maybe this bond shouldn’t even be on the ballot.

That’s the take from Richard Michael, publisher of BigBadBonds.com and a tireless advocate for reform who focuses on California’s local governments and school districts and their countless output of public financing bonds. According to Michael, because there was no public notice given of the August 4th meeting, LAUSD has violated the Brown Act which sets the requirements for local governing body’s open meetings.

The Brown Act specifies that “Regular meetings must be noticed through the posting of an agenda at least 72 hours before the meeting.” Michael alleges that not only was public notice not provided, but that three days later the LAUSD clerk signed a certification of the resolution attesting that a notice was posted.

When reached for comment, Richard Michael explained that filing a false document is a felony (Penal Code 115). As he put it, “the resolution adopted at the meeting was filed with both the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar. The filing was intended to induce action that affects real estate (direct property taxes), as well. These are big deals, not technicalities. If a certification can’t be trusted by the recipient then the entirety of all paperwork, filed anywhere, is put in jeopardy for lack of credibility.”

In a criminal complaint emailed to Los Angeles County District Attorney Alan Yochelson and others on August 9, Michael challenged the county to reject LAUSD’s request to include their $7 billion bond proposal on the November 2020 ballot because the school district did not fulfill the requirements of California’s open meetings laws. Michael writes: “LAUSD held a meeting on August 4, 2020. Can you find the agenda at lausd.net? It isn’t there and never was. I preserved relevant pages surrounding the meeting date at The Wayback Machine (archive.org). Of course, you have the power to subpoena records as well.”

In a follow up email sent on August 13 to Los Angeles County executives including Yochelson, Michael alleges that the LAUSD fraudulently certified their board resolution to place the $7 billion bond on the November ballot. He wrote:

“Notice for the meetings was not posted as required by law and the actions of those districts are voidable. Because the districts waited until the last minute to sneak the measures past the public, there is no time to correct the lack of notice with a new meeting. The deadline for filing measures passed on August 7, 2020. The Board of Supervisors must reject the requests for consolidation
based on fraudulent certifications.”

In his August 13 email Michael then provided links to the LAUSD meeting announcements, using the internet archive “Wayback Machine,” to support his allegation.

These rules are more than mere technicalities. Why aren’t advocates of fiscal responsibility in public education – reducing administrative bloat, reforming pensions, ending grossly overpriced and grossly overbuilt construction projects, to name three big ones – also being more attentive to possible violations of the Brown Act?

If Michael is correct, local bond proposals frequently make it onto the ballot without the proponents following the required procedures. This constitutes a cause of action. It constitutes a powerful weapon against a borrowing binge that consumes our local and state policymakers, and powerful leverage to force reform as an alternative to more borrowing and spending.

Even when only taking into account local bond issues, the scale of borrowing in California is nonetheless staggering. In November 2018, voters approved 113 local bond measures totaling over $18 billion. In November 2016, voters approved 181 local bond measures totaling over $30 billion. Most of these bonds were for public schools. But what LAUSD is proposing is at a new scale entirely; at $7 billion, it is the biggest local bond proposal in California’s history.

If fiscal reformers want to join Richard Michael and oppose LAUSD’s latest proposed bond issue on procedural grounds, it may add to recent voter momentum that challenges historical precedents. Because historically, California’s voters have been overwhelmingly supportive of local school bonds, typically approving them at rates consistently over 80 percent. But in the most recent election this past March, voters only approved 46 percent of the proposed general obligation bonds for California’s schools and colleges.

One would think that in this fraught environment, LAUSD’s Board of Directors would be more careful to follow the required procedures governing new bond proposals. Even before the setbacks brought on by the COVID pandemic, which raised costs at the same time as it lowered revenue, LAUSD’s finances were skating on thin ice. Just over a year ago, Los Angeles voters rejected a parcel tax, Measure EE, that would have brought into the district’s coffers an additional $500 million per year of badly needed funds.

LAUSD’s Board of Directors, along with the Los Angeles County District Attorney, are invited to identify where public notice was in fact given in advance of the August 4 meeting where LAUSD approved a resolution to ask voters to approve a $7 billion bond. And if public notice was not given in compliance with the Brown Act, the same parties are invited to explain why this bond measure can legally be included on the November 2020 ballot in Los Angeles County.

Then again, LAUSD’s Board of Directors may also explain why they have failed to enact reforms that are generally supported by a bipartisan assortment of education reform organizations, and pretty much anyone that is not either part of the teachers union or somehow supported by the teachers union. That would include, as noted, fiscal reforms such as reducing administrative bloat, reforming pensions, and ending grossly overpriced and grossly overbuilt construction projects. It might also include more general reforms, equally bipartisan, such as making it easier to terminate incompetent teachers, preferring merit over seniority in layoffs, and extending the period necessary for new teachers to acquire tenure.

When reached for a follow up comment, Michael didn’t mince words. “This is not about whether people should vote one way or another on a particular tax measure,” he wrote. “This is about a secret meeting with a very significant agenda item. It’s about corruption – the school district violated the Brown Act, the district attorney is looking the other way, the registrar is pretending it’s none of their business, and supervisors just want mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.”

Voters may be more inclined to support more spending, if they see tangible evidence of progress – better managing costs, and better managing the process of educating the next generation of Californians. But voters, and reform activists, should be equally vigilant when it comes to making sure that whenever a bond or tax measure is put onto the ballot, due process is respected.

Providing public notice is not a mere technicality. It is a fundamental right. It’s the first step in the universal right to due process. Here is how the Brown Act opens: (Government Code 54950): “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

This article originally appeared in the California Globe.

 *   *   *

The Time Thieves of Sacramento

Can you imagine having to do an inventory and net worth calculation every year? Let alone potentially being audited and having to prove that values were not intentionally understated? It’s not only financial robbery, it’s time theft!
– Senator John Moorlach, Moorlach Update, August 14, 2020

What Senator Moorlach is referring to is Assembly Bill 2088, which will impose a wealth tax on Californians who have a net worth in excess of $30 million. Moorlach, who remains the only Certified Public Accountant in either house of the California State Legislature, knows what he’s talking about. There are many problems with a wealth tax. How to handle unrealized gains. How to value investments in fine art, or private equity.

Valuing privately held assets is a subjective exercise. That’s one of the reasons CalPERS and other pension funds are increasing their holdings of private equity. Hiding behind the opacity of assets whose true value is anybody’s guess, they can claim their investment portfolio is worth more. It’s also one of the reasons that imposing a wealth tax is a very bad idea.

There’s two issues here, both of which ought to concern all Californians. First, the necessarily byzantine mechanics of a wealth tax. As Moorlach states, implementing this tax would require every one of California’s roughly 30,000 wealthiest residents to continuously wonder if they’ll ever have to explain to an auditor how they arrived at the values they reported for everything they own.

The proposed wealth tax would be applied to everything a California resident owns, no matter where it is on earth. And this tax on worldwide wealth would be imposed on anyone who has ever lived in California for ten years or more, even if they don’t live in California any more. Moreover, if someone currently living in California moves elsewhere, they will still have to pay the tax.

The way this provision of the law would be applied are proposed as follows: Former residents of California will pay 100 percent of the wealth tax in the first year of assessment, then 90 percent of the tax in year two, 80 percent in year three, and so on. After paying 10 percent of the wealth tax in year ten, California’s former wealthy residents would finally be off the hook.

One might think that chasing California’s exiles down in other states to impose a wealth tax is unenforceable, but this underestimates the guile of these legislators. They’re almost certainly seeing the law as a precedent for other states to follow, with the goal of allocating a tax on wealth to all participating states proportionally to how long the targeted individuals have lived in each state.

To anyone who believes that such a law is not only unenforceable but infeasible, it may be suggested that they read the latest climate scoping plans issued by California’s Air Resources Board. Focus specifically on the “Cap-and-Trade Program” and imagine how this is being applied in practice. If California’s bureaucracy can embrace something as fraught with ambiguity and fertile for corruption as carbon emissions trading, they’ll try anything.

Which brings us to the second issue of concern. As Moorlach states, this is time theft. But when has any of the lawmakers controlling the California State Legislature cared about imposing time consuming mandates on their constituents? It is common for critics of California’s regulatory state to cite the hard costs associated with compliance, whether it’s to build a new housing development or hire and manage a workforce. But what about the time?

This is a problem that affects every business in California, and one which disproportionately impacts small business owners. They are forced to hire expensive professionals to navigate a virtual avalanche of applications and reports before they can build anything or manage anything. But large corporations in many respects benefit from an extreme regulatory environment because they know it wipes out their smaller competitors.

This is why the time thieves of Sacramento are allowed to exist. Whatever they come up with is going to reward those bureaucracies, public or private, that either have no competition or that know the presence of punitive levels of regulation will stifle competition. They can raise the prices for their products and services, taking advantage of captive markets, covering the costs and spending the time, knowing it is actually working to their advantage.

The lack of financial or economic literacy in California’s state legislature, much less experience in the private sector, is not news. But when the only CPA in their midst is outnumbered 119 to 1, and the dominant party holds a “mega-majority” (75 percent of all seats) in both the Assembly and the Senate, there is no way to enforce a reality check. But their insatiable desire for money from taxpayers too often overshadows the amount of time they demand from taxpayers.

Thanks to the time thieves of Sacramento, across the state, projects that would make life better for everyone are not attempted. Adding a room to a home, launching a small business, hiring employees, attempting a new trade or profession: why bother? By the time you’ve earned the certifications, endured multiple rounds of applications with multiple agencies, paid countless fees, most of them excessive – and knowing you could be stopped cold at any time – it’s not worth it.

The wealth tax has awakened opposition from unlikely sources; even the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has weighed in against it. Maybe, just this once, this bad idea will die in committee. But the underlying problem is a governing class more interested in imposing processes on the governed, to feed their bureaucracy, instead of nurturing productivity. If the legislature were to change its priorities, perhaps state revenues would rise without taxing more wealth and stealing more time.

This article originally appeared in the California Globe.

 *   *   *

The Case for a Muscular Civic Nationalism

America today faces challenges that cannot be overcome without national unity. Desperate economic hardship and existential international threats are beyond the living memory of most Americans, but they could be coming back. The Pax Americana, in effect since 1945, may be coming to an end. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 America has been a hyperpower, dominating the world economically and militarily. All of that is now in question.

Every aspect of American power is threatened. America has a new peer competitor, China, controlled by a regime determined to attain superiority over the United States in all aspects of national power: technological, economic, and military. As Chinese power grows, America’s response is increasingly inadequate. American corporations are more than just reluctant to abandon Chinese markets, some of them, such as Google, appear to be more responsive to China’s security concerns than they are to America’s.

America’s culture of tolerance of individual rights and free enterprise has morphed into a dysfunctional encouragement of anti-American dissent that reaches well beyond appropriate responses to grievances. In pursuit of worldwide profits and power, America’s corporate elites have abandoned the culture that nurtured them. In pursuit of utopian ideals, America’s colleges and universities have trained American students to despise America for its failure to be perfect. All the while, America’s politicians in both parties have pandered to America’s most vocal, embittered, and unrepresentative activist factions.

This is America as it enters the third decade of the 21st century. What ideology, what form of revitalized patriotism can heal America? What agenda will awaken a national spirit of unity sufficient to meet and navigate what may be a perilous future?

As it is, America’s corporate and political elites disparage nationalist sentiment, even conflating it as inherently racist. Is this motivated by a benign desire to hasten America’s evolution as a people? Is the genuine intention to make America a better, more open society? Is that what is behind the popular condemnation of nationalism and the endorsements of globalism, a peaceful world without borders? And if that is truly the benevolent core of this consensus, what parties to this consensus may have hidden agendas?

A discussion of this topic need not dwell on the threats confronting America today. They’re real enough. The military threat is expertly described in the 2020 book The Kill Chain, a visceral recitation of China’s rise and America’s negligence. The economic threats are equally obvious; for global economic analyses we’ll never see on ABC Nightly “News,” the forbidden fruit of Zero Hedge, or the suppressed musings of Felix Rex are as good as any.

Perhaps the most palatable reason America’s corporate and political elites have decided to cater to violent mobs, and America’s cultural elite have tried to transmute all of it into some new version of radical chic, is because there isn’t a more attractive alternative. What unyielding and persuasive ideological counterpoint exists in America that feels safe enough for the establishment to embrace? In the discussion to follow, the thesis to be explored is how civic nationalism can be defined in a manner that goes well beyond its current, barely intellectualized, tepid iteration, bereft of passion, uncertain of purpose, and devoid of popular support.

The case must be made that civic nationalism, colorblind but uncompromising in its adherence to traditional American values, is the only hope to unify Americans, which in turn is the only way a revitalized American civilization can hope to counter the rise of China.

To use an allegory from the 1930s, civic nationalism offers an American unity that could galvanize this nation with fireside chats instead of Nuremberg rallies. It is an inclusive version of American patriotism that rallies all Americans to meet the challenges of the future with pride and unity. It may very well be America’s only hope.

Absent civic nationalism, America’s ruling class is adrift. The wealthiest look east and see even more wealth to be had, rationalizing their anti-American greed with heaping helpings of outdated free-trade liberalism. American politicians look to the Left and see righteous passion, while on the Right there is only defensive mutters or divisive bellicosity. The smartest among America’s ruling class see racial tension and have no answer but to let it fester and grow. Perhaps their thinking goes something like this: We’ll sell America to China, and when the masses realize what’s happened, they’ll blame each other instead of us.

How else to explain what’s happening, as mass unrest continues across America? Paul Joseph Watson, one of those inconvenient YouTubers who is not quite impolitic enough to get banned, but provocative enough to deliver insights (along with insults) you may not find elsewhere, featured this quote from an unidentified guest in one of his recent videos:

People who support Black Lives Matter, people who support the Left; a lot of them think they are in possession of radical political opinions. But how radical is your opinion when the cops and the national guard are kneeling and doing the Macarena, dancing with protesters, and every major corporation has put out a message and donated money to this cause? To the people who are spray painting and burning cop cars and smashing windows, how radical are your opinions, really, when these actions are allowed to take place? Because this is a tactical decision. It’s not like the cops and the national guard couldn’t crack down on this if they wanted to. It’s that it’s being allowed to happen, and if you think otherwise you’re a fool.

This sums it up quite well. The mayhem erupting across the nation since George Floyd’s death on May 25 has been allowed to happen. It is orchestrated by well-funded organizations that are collecting millions from mega-donors and mega-corporations, and egged on by months if not years of propaganda. The unrelenting havoc in the wake of George Floyd’s death is not a precipitous spasm of unrest that will eventually pass. It is a deliberate escalation of an ongoing insurrection.

The primary goals of this insurrection supposedly are to protect black lives and to oppose fascism, with a strong LGBTQ contingent also represented. The ongoing rampage has impacted almost every large American city. Despite dozens of deaths, thousands of injuries, and probably billions in property damage, compounded by the COVID shutdown, this insurrection has plenty of support. Blithely ignoring the destruction, the “peaceful protesters” have received sympathetic treatment from Democrats, and their slogans have been turned into marketing campaigns by major corporations. The media’s coverage of the insurrection has been predictable.

“America is irredeemably racist” is the message spread, with rare exceptions, by every establishment media property, online and offline. So desperate is the media to stoke this message that when a young man who probably just had a few too many drinks uttered a few anti-Asian slurs at a family in a California restaurant—no context was ever provided, despite it being very unlikely that “people being Asian” was the only thing that made this man angry—it was a top story on every major television network in the country. Similarly, when a young woman and her dog felt threatened by a black birdwatcher in New York City’s Central Park, her alleged overreaction was national news.

These are unpleasant events. They are examples of bad judgment, a failure to communicate, a loss of civility. They are not national news. The very idea is ridiculous. But on and on and on this story goes, desperate for fodder. America is a horrible nation, filled with horrible white racists.

Why? Who benefits by making white people out to be so rotten? Who benefits by convincing nonwhites, especially blacks, that whatever challenges they face as individuals and as a community are solely the fault of white people?

The “racist” stigma has been deployed by politicians and activists to manipulate American public policy for decades, because regardless of justification, it worked. But the perception that America is rotten to the core, comprehensively and indelibly defined as racist, used to be a notion largely restricted to academia. No more. Now it’s everywhere. ABC’s David Muir, with his carefully fabricated gravitas, intones yet another variation on the theme literally every newscast, often several times per newscast. The rest of the gang follow suit, from CNN’s Don Lemon to NPR’s Judy Woodruff.

But America is not an irredeemably racist nation. America in the 21st century is the least racist nation on earth. And yet this destructive lie is the currency of Democrats, the obsession of the media, and the marketing message of global corporations. The duration and weight of this lie, its steady growth despite a steadily vanishing basis for it, go well beyond its obvious goal of convincing Americans to vote President Trump out of office. What else is going on?

Finding a Scapegoat for Present and Future Problems

Behind the mere momentum and opportunism propelling the false and divisive narrative of endemic white racism, there is a formidable alignment of special interests. Foreign adversaries, China and Russia in particular, want the United States weakened by violent internal conflict, and fomenting racial polarization furthers that objective. Multinational corporations benefit by convincing Americans that fighting racism is a national imperative, because it makes it easier for them to stigmatize and silence as a racist anyone who objects to them exporting jobs and importing cheap labor.

Also propelling and profiting from the “America is racist” narrative, of course, are socialists, who have realized that as long as any group disparity exists between whites and blacks, they can argue that racism is the cause, and redistribution of wealth is the cure. But there is an even more insidious motive perpetuating the lie of endemic white racism—the need for a scapegoat.

Anybody familiar with the momentum of history must wonder how long the United States Treasury can continue to electronically materialize trillions of dollars to finance federal spending deficits. They must wonder how long American society can continue to function with every small business in the nation destroyed by the shutdown. They look with fear upon the millions of American youth who are disenfranchised by globalization robbing them of the ability to make a decent living, and environmentalism run amok robbing them of the ability to afford a home.

If the last few months have demonstrated nothing else, it is that anything can happen. Who would have thought one year ago that a global pandemic would strip away our constitutional rights as if they never existed? Who would have thought six months ago that our nation would be convulsed with violent riots, and major cities would become virtually ungovernable? And the other shoe has yet to drop. America’s economy remains precariously intact. There are (at least) no new foreign wars. Statues have toppled, select urban streets are still on fire, but widespread, horrific chaos is not yet here. Will it come, and if so, when? It could happen fast.

This is the scenario that confronts America’s billionaires and the political and corporate strategists who serve them. What happens when Americans aren’t just upset and financially squeezed, but desperately hungry and financially broken? What happens when small business owners and their workers aren’t just on a pandemic hiatus, but permanently ruined with no hope? What happens when the only businesses left standing are multinational corporate franchises? What happens when the inner cities are unlivable, the suburbs are besieged, and supply chains for essential products are broken? What happens when the Chinese cold war goes ice cold, and Americans quit their addiction to China’s exports cold turkey?

When people’s lives and livelihoods are destroyed en masse, they look for someone or something to blame. That’s human nature. And perhaps unwittingly, perhaps as a precaution, but regardless of intention or conscious planning, America’s corporate and political elite are preparing the target and hedging their bets, with the full complicity of the establishment media. It goes like this, “when the shit hits the fan, and all hope is lost, don’t blame the people who got rich selling America to China, blame white people. It’s their fault.”

By doing this, not only will the fury of a disenfranchised citizenry be turned upon itself in a fratricide that will be horrific to its participants but relatively harmless to the elites, the ideology of the socialists will be co-opted and used by corporate and political elites to further centralize their power. This is already happening, in slow motion. And the more crises that hit America, the more the narrative will intensify. Whites are the problem. Whites are to blame.

Understanding the True Political Conflicts in America

Stoking racial hatred is a dangerous game. Encouraging identity politics is only a winning strategy if the identities being nurtured or disparaged continue to be the chosen targets. But it doesn’t take an expert in political jujitsu to redirect all this poisonous swill. Most Americans have already realized that both of the mainstream political establishments do not represent them. A majority of Americans already understand they cannot trust the establishment media. Only two more axioms have to be broken to change the game: First, that this is not a battle between capitalists and communists, it’s a battle between nationalists and globalists, and second, that in this battle, whites and blacks are not enemies, but allies.

The elites are making race and racial oppression the central topic in American politics, and for good reason. Because if you take race out of the equation, there is very little of substance separating the grassroots on the Left from the grassroots on the Right. Why? Because communists and corporations in 21st-century America are working together to advance big government globalism; they both support an authoritarian, collectivist, micromanaged society.

On most of the big issues of our time, including the rejection of traditional moral values, the centrality of “climate change” as a transformative economic and political agenda, and the need for affirmative action, racial redress, and open borders, they share a surprisingly congruent agenda. Only on the issue of private property do they diverge, and even that may be illusory when considering the realistic prospect of publicly held corporations with activist directorates owning virtually the entire economy.

So where are the actual divergences in American politics, if not the distinctions between Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal? The following chart attempts to depict the more relevant political dynamics in America today. The vertical axis represents the split between supporters of nationalism vs supporters of globalism, and the horizontal axis represents the split between supporters of ethnically homogeneous societies and supporters of multiethnic societies.

On the above chart, for ease of explanation, the quadrants are numbered. In quadrant No. 4, which represents the multiethnic globalists, you find everyone supposedly at odds with each other in conventional political paradigms. The establishment Democrats and establishment GOP (indistinguishable from “Conservatism, Inc.”) are joined by America’s Social Democrats, along with multinational corporations and corporate media, academia, and foundations and think tanks on the “Left” and the “Right.” All of them envision a multiethnic, globalist future.

Diagonally opposite and diametrically opposed to the multiethnic globalists are the ethnic nationalists (quadrant No. 1). As in any of these quadrants, there exists a continuum of passion, from the most hardcore extremists to merely insouciant rebels and provocateurs. But at whatever level of extremism, here is where you find white nationalists, black nationalists, Chicano nationalists, and various other smaller cadres of ethnic nationalists.

Why Civic Nationalism Offers a New American Consensus

Civic nationalists, occupying quadrant No. 2, are beleaguered, inadequately defended or explained, and under attack from all sides. The ethnic nationalists consider civic nationalists to be naïve, incapable of recognizing that cultures are inextricably connected to race, or that some cultures are incompatible. They believe that multi-ethnic national solidarity – as expressed in civic nationalism – is impossible. Virtually all ethnic nationalists consider themselves to be oppressed, which tinges their animosity towards their counterparts among the civic nationalists with the additional insult of betrayal.

Multiethnic globalists, for their part, also view civic nationalists as naïve, but for the opposite reason. They consider civic nationalists merely by virtue of their nationalism to be pairing up with “white nationalists,” possibly unaware of their complicity, or possibly even deliberately camouflaging their own racist tribalism. After all, how can it even be possible to be a nationalist if you aren’t a racist?

But the whole point of civic nationalism is to reject racism while embracing patriotism. It expresses the quintessentially American ideal of the melting pot. It expresses—not nearly forcefully enough—America’s history of assimilating immigrants into the mainstream culture. Our tradition of assimilation offends ethnic nationalists, who are skeptical that it can still work, but it has also become problematic for multiethnic globalists who typically must defer to identity politics.

The exploration of what it means to be multiethnic but monocultural is one of the prevailing challenges for civic nationalists, and to-date they are not up to the task. They are so busy defending charges of secretly harboring feelings of ethnic nationalism that they don’t have time to distinguish themselves from the multiethnic globalists. But these are fatal distractions to civic nationalists, if it means the bigger questions aren’t answered.

What is American culture? What defines the American civilization, and how can it be defended? What is America’s tradition of assimilation, if not the preservation of a unique core culture that nonetheless constantly evolves and incorporates dazzling new ideas from around the world, while retaining the foundational values of individual freedom, free enterprise, and European Christian heritage?

It is a tragedy that America’s civic nationalists are a barely recognized and often stigmatized movement. For one thing, once you escape the corridors of the chattering classes or the cadres of extremists, small in number but vocal and politically connected, you find that civic nationalists describe the majority of Americans. To the extent their exposure to unrelenting globalist, anti-nationalist, anti-American, anti-white bombast coming from academia, media, entertainment and politicians hasn’t corrupted their hearts, most Americans love America. They love it just the way it is, imperfect but always evolving and improving, offering opportunities to everyone willing to work hard, a big, sprawling nation with all kinds of different people who are united by the American dream.

That dream—individual freedom and economic prosperity—is threatened as never before, but instead of speaking up louder than ever, civic nationalists are hunkering down. Many of them are afraid to defend their biggest champion, President Trump, who epitomizes the American dream and would be far more popular if he weren’t demonized by the establishment at every turn. To be fair, Donald Trump is often his own worst enemy. But Donald Trump personifies the nightmare of the globalists—an American president who embraces civic nationalism.

Now more than ever, civic nationalism is a movement that must find new adherents and persuasive advocates across American society because, in troubled times, it is America’s only hope for unity.

The Toxic Realignment That Must Not Happen

Where will Americans turn, if the social contract is broken by economic devastation, or an even more serious pandemic, or any other sort of seismic hiccough that inaugurates not weeks or months, but years of turmoil and suffering? What happens if America descends into a new depression, requiring a decade or more of mass hardship that dwarfs anything in living memory?

Here is where the riots and the racism narrative become even more useful to globalists. Here is why the BLM and Antifa militants, with their passionate denunciations of racist America, are being allowed to carry on. Here is why a full-spectrum campaign is being waged to push whites into either paroxysms of self-hatred and guilt, or reactionary anger, and here is why, at the same time, nonwhites are being pushed into blaming whites for literally anything in their lives that isn’t right. Just before the deluge, get them busy fighting each other.

What better way to prevent a populist rebellion against globalism, or, in a related and even more sinister twist, a realignment that embraces conspiracy theories? Referring to the previously discussed chart of political alignments in America, what constitutes ethnic globalists (quadrant 3 on the chart)? Is there such a thing? Perhaps not yet, but If history is any guide, the phenomena of “one tribe takes over the world” is the rule, not the exception. Across the millennia of recorded history, the story of humanity is one of empires, almost invariably dominated by a single tribe, rising and falling in their attempts to dominate the world.

Civic nationalism recognizes the potential for today’s version of imperial competition, the so-called clash of civilizations, to unify people in America. No longer scapegoating each other for the challenges they face as individuals and groups, they are unified as Americans facing international challenges. And within a domestic culture of lowered tensions, Americans might respond more judiciously to foreign adversaries and reject jingoism. But there is another, darker outcome.

By continually stoking the fires of racial resentment, it is possible that in a severe economic downturn, America’s warring tribes might redirect their aggression away from each other and towards the globalists themselves. After all, if a people have been conditioned for a generation to find a scapegoat for whatever miseries they’ve faced, they will probably find the narrative of predatory globalist bankers at least as compelling as blaming straight white guys who live in the same modest apartments and condos as they do, and whose material comforts have been equally compromised by bad times.

History provides a hideous and fairly recent example of how a powerful nation with a sophisticated populace nonetheless were seduced by a demagogue into falsely attributing their failures to a small group of people. The evil perpetrated by the German Nazis against the Jews of Europe is a horrific example of a reactionary paroxysm that could not have occurred if it hadn’t been stoked by decades of preparatory hatred.

What if the ethnic nationalists of the United States, created as much by the incessant establishment drumbeat of victim and oppressor as by their own antagonistic pathologies, stop fighting each other, because they found a common foe?

The conventional establishment analysis of anti-Semitism in America focuses almost exclusively on its embrace by white nationalists, and the response has been to expose and deplatform any online content that includes criticism of the Israeli lobby in the United States, or assertions that Jewish individuals own a disproportionate share of America’s media, entertainment, and financial sectors.

The problem with this focus on possible anti-Semitism on the part of white nationalists is that it ignores  far more pervasive anti-Semitism coming from so-called social justice warriors and Democratic Socialists. And that omission, that selective focus, exposes a deeper problem: In the radicalizing environment of a social and economic collapse, the American corporate establishment may not effectively counter an anti-Semitic narrative from spreading, because in their attempt to co-opt America’s Left, they fed an anti-Semitic beast that got too big to control. They are funding Social Democrats who, in their obsessive hatred for “Zionism,” are a heartbeat away from publicly hating the disproportionate influence of Jews in American media, politics, and finance. Many of them already do.

Some of the Left’s highest-profile leaders, certainly including members of the “Squad” in the U.S. Congress, have openly spouted anti-Semitic rhetoric. Some members of the BLM movement and its sympathizers also have been openly anti-Semitic, and every time one of their voices is canceled, they become more susceptible to conspiracy theories. If America’s economic and political stability continues to deteriorate, the schizophrenic strategy of the corporate establishment—embracing anti-Semitic Leftist groups at the same time as they crush any expressions of anti-Semitism—will fall apart.

The nightmare scenario that the multi-ethnic globalists are flirting with is a toxic realignment in which American nationalism captures a majority no longer divided by race, because they are instead unified by hatred of global elites. In the worst case, the perception could spread that the crash was planned in advance, and that a specific tribe of individuals is to blame. If that happens, the populist momentum that will fuel it will come from Leftists. It will come from the same people who in the spring and summer of 2020 occupied a section of downtown Seattle, fought pitched battles with police for months on end in Portland, and spread violence and vandalism from coast to coast.

The conspiracy theories that give rise to toxic mobs don’t have to be anti-Semitic. That’s just one possibility that history has taught is impossible to ignore. But a populist rebellion against globalists can apocalyptically target any group perceived as exploiting the people or lying to them. Global elites. Bankers. Television news anchors. Tech Barons. Stock traders. Anyone living in a gated community. Race or creed may have nothing to do with it. It may simply be the upper class, the one percent. That’s still a tribe. It still becomes us vs them. Where were you, when the dam finally broke? If you were a propertied landowner, living on high ground, perhaps you were in on it. And if so, now you deserve to lose everything. Such is the reasoning of a disenfranchised mob.

Only Civic Nationalists Can Counter Conspiracy Theorists

To understand the potential of civic nationalism to peacefully unify Americans even in the face of great economic and geopolitical challenges, one must return to the shared agenda of Social Democrats and corporate globalists. The rejection of the traditional nuclear family, the climate change agenda, the rejection of a meritocracy in favor of race and gender quotas, enforced equality instead of equality of opportunity, and mass immigration.

The common thread in all of these policies is that they will harm middle- and low-income Americans, regardless of race. Children need a father and a mother. Climate change policies that enrich corporations and empower leftist bureaucrats will impoverish everyone not wealthy enough to be indifferent to the crushing cost. Abandoning meritocracy in favor of quotas will destroy America’s ability to compete and innovate at the same time as it will breed cynicism and alienation. Mass immigration drives down wages and bankrupts social services.

Civic nationalists are the only ones who can explain that of course Democrats, establishment Republicans, and corporate globalists want to distract us by turning us all into racists and anti-racists who consume one another in endless conflict. Without this massive distraction, how would globalists get away with destroying America’s standard of living while enriching themselves? While we are kneeling before BLM activists, the globalists are taking away our freedom. While pregnant women form a skirmish line to protect Antifa militants, the globalists are taking away our prosperity. It’s a good scam. Define everyone as either a victim or an oppressor. Get everybody fighting. This devious, epic, diabolical fraud and hidden agenda must be exposed at every opportunity. But there is also a positive message, promoting hopeful solutions, that is desperately necessary in order to avoid radicalization.

A muscular civic nationalism incorporates opposing alternatives to every one of these pillars of corporate globalism and promotes them without apology and without reservation. The traditional family is the backbone of society. Fossil fuel, hydroelectric power, and nuclear energy are absolutely necessary to grow a healthy and prosperous economy, not only in America but even more so in the aspiring nations of the developing world. Immutable colorblind standards are the only fair and legitimate way to allocate opportunities in all aspects of society. Immigration must be strictly regulated to protect the interests of American citizens, not global corporations.

With these principles forming an uncompromising foundation, civic nationalists have the credibility to reject racism and anti-Semitism. They have an appealing, prosperity-oriented narrative that will attract wavering adherents of ethnic nationalism as well as reluctant globalists. They offer common sense and hope. They offer calm unity. They can reject extremism of all types, whether it’s classic racism or teaching transgender ideology to prepubescent students in the public schools. And they love America.

Emphasizing these policies—pro-family, pro-conventional energy, and pro-meritocracy—have not been the common currency of civic nationalists. Instead, with good reason, they’ve been stereotyped as waffling on immigration, lukewarm on climate realism, AWOL on expressing the problems with race and gender quotas, and, if anything, antagonistic to pro-family sentiments. No wonder they are barely relevant. And no wonder Trump’s enemies get away with accusing him of catering to ethnic-nationalists and conspiracy theorists. They claim nobody else is out there, and in one important respect, they’re right. The civic nationalist movement, despite its potential to become the center of gravity in American politics, lacks a critical mass of leaders with the voice and visibility to give it an undeniable presence.

America’s Civic Nationalism and Foreign Affairs

An important criticism of nationalism of any kind in America is that it allegedly ignores the interconnected community of nations and steers America towards isolationism. A related criticism is that America cannot abandon the multilateral agreements and security guarantees that have guaranteed relative stability in the world for the last 70 years. Underlying these criticisms is an argument in favor of globalism, something with too much legitimacy to be merely dismissed. But a distinction must be made between globalization and globalism. Globalization is a phenomenon. Globalism is an ideology. Even more to the point, globalism can be understood in various ways, including ways that embrace nationalism.

The phenomenon of globalization is unrelenting, fueled by trade, migration, capital flows, technological innovations, revolutions in transportation and communications. It can’t be stopped, but it can be managed. American nationalists are correct to point out that for Americans, in recent decades, the benefits of globalization have been largely illusory if not negative. While free movement of capital and people has made multinational corporations more profitable, it has hollowed out American industry and depressed American wages.

At the same time, the American consumer has paid far more  than his foreign counterparts for drugs and medical treatments, effectively subsidizing the development of these cutting edge therapies in order for American manufacturers to sell them at competitive prices in the rest of the world. The American taxpayer has paid for a military establishment that guarantees open sea lanes and global security. The American worker has paid the price for job creation and economic growth overseas. The American household is overwhelmed with debt, borrowing against the bubble value of their home in order to pay for overpriced tuition and imports from foreign manufacturers. The American economy has been turned into a gigantic, overleveraged mass of collateral for foreign debt.

For the rest of the world, there’s been upside to all of this. And for dispassionate economists, if the overall economic growth of the world exceeds the negative impact all of this has on American economic growth and median household income, that’s a worthwhile exchange. But it’s also short-sighted. Liberal free trade policies work until they don’t. How does it benefit global stability when the economy of the United States implodes after decades of unsustainable, debt-fueled growth, leaving nothing but a hollowed out nation, riven by social conflict?

Navigating this rebalancing, where the United States continues to provide global leadership in a community of nations, but no longer sells its national assets to fuel half-trillion-dollar annual trade deficits, is something that globalists have to come to terms with because it is inevitable, and nationalists have to come to terms with because complete isolation is impossible.

A Civic Nationalist Approach to Globalism 

To manage globalization, what sort of globalist ideology to reject or embrace is a choice. The conventional globalist ideology is that borders should be erased, and that people and capital should move freely. In this manner, according to this version of globalist ideology, all people on earth, overall, will be better off. An alternative version of globalism is that a community of sovereign nations is the only fair and realistic way to manage globalization. It holds that unrestricted movement of people and capital destabilizes nations, punishing the cultures that historically have been successful.

A civic nationalist doesn’t have to be an isolationist. Civic nationalism can promote the vision of a community of nations, competing and cooperating, with each managing globalization on its own terms. For Americans, civic nationalism can recognize that American leadership in the world remains essential not only to promote Western ideas of individual freedom and free enterprise but also as a purely pragmatic matter. When America is socially unified and economically and militarily strong, it deters war, sets an example for emerging nations, and generates the wealth necessary to invest in the developing world.

Much of what passes for foreign aid in the developing world is wasted. Without wholesale changes in priorities, calls to end foreign aid and foreign investment are justified. But here is where the primary foundations of civic nationalism in America can also find expression in foreign aid and foreign investment. If America needs upgraded infrastructure and more cheap, reliable, conventional energy, imagine how much greater the need in African nations. And yet today the preponderance of foreign aid and foreign investment go to expensive and ineffective solar energy projects and other “sustainability” initiatives that arguably do more harm than good, while, in a gross and hypocritical inversion of logic, untapped hydropower and conventional power grids are not considered “sustainable” options.

Much of today’s globalist approach to foreign development has not only been fundamentally misanthropic, but misguided. Investment in developing nations that emphasize cost-effective conventional infrastructure and power generation will yield profitable returns, reducing if not eliminating the need for government involvement.

This, too, is an alternative view of globalism that America’s civic nationalists should embrace without reservation. It would pay financial dividends to American investors, manufacturers, and civil engineering firms, and it would offer developing nations a viable way out of poverty. It would even spare these nations further environmental degradation, as population growth eases through prosperity, and these economies move from burning wood, eating endangered game, and practicing inefficient subsistence agriculture to, for example, developing nuclear power and adopting modern agricultural techniques.

By exposing these misanthropic experiments in foreign aid and foreign investment and abandoning them in favor of initiatives that will deliver rapid and genuine prosperity, civic nationalists can present new ways to manage globalization that entice developing nations. As it is, the practical effects of globalist policies in the developing world are exploitative. Like their domestic equivalents, their only benefit is to subsidized investors, misguided (or wholly corrupt) nonprofits, and state bureaucrats. Civic nationalists can break this cycle, and offer a hopeful vision to aspiring communities at home and around the world.

The Constituency of Civic Nationalists

On the surface, the coalition that constitutes multiethnic globalists in America presents seemingly insurmountable power. After all, they have the corporations, the entire establishment uniparty, the colleges and universities, the public schools, the media and entertainment complex, and most of the billionaires. But this coalition is not invulnerable, for reasons that have already been explained in part. As noted, the blatant anti-Semitism of the American Left threatens to short-circuit their marriage of convenience with the corporations and billionaires that currently indulge them with money and supportive marketing campaigns.

There is another constituency that currently enjoys a marriage of convenience with America’s corporations and billionaires, and that is the labor movement. Despite their reliance on rhetoric that attacks corporations and billionaires, for the most part, America’s union leadership shares the same agenda as their supposed adversaries. Immigration is the prime example. To counter the systemic racism that defines white America, to partially redress the colonial theft of North America by whites, and to partially atone for supposedly causing catastrophic climate change which disproportionately harms people in the “global south,” America’s leftist dominated unions clamor for mass immigration. But how is this in the interest of the American worker?

There’s a reason President Trump has enjoyed support from millions of union workers across America. This is another example of support that invalidates conventional political antagonisms. Trump is supposedly “right-wing” and labor unions are supposedly organized to fight exploitation by right-wing interests. But none of that is applicable. Trump is American, and is promoting America First policies that benefit the American worker. Trump is a nationalist, and nationalist policies resonate with workers, and ought to resonate with any union that cares about Americans.

The labor movement in America is destined to split. Those unions that truly support the American worker will embrace the foundational economic premises of civic nationalism—specifically, development of conventional energy, expansion of practical infrastructure, strictly regulated immigration, and America First trade policies. Those unions that cling to the corporate globalist narrative will become nakedly internationalist and anti-American and anti-white, and they will continue to pretend that economically unsustainable “renewable” energy and open borders will further the interests of the planet and humanity. Labor unions, if they are true to the interests of the American worker, can play a critical role in the ascendance of civic nationalism.

Another constituency of the civic nationalists is every parent in America. It is hard to imagine any special interest more deserving of indictment than the teachers’ union. If you want to know what animates the thousands of rioters and their millions of sympathizers, look no further than the twelve years of anti-American, anti-white, anti-capitalist indoctrination they got in America’s public schools, thanks to the teachers’ unions. Along with what passes for a college education these days in America, the publicly funded, unionized education establishment from kindergarten through high school has brainwashed a generation.

Any parent or community leader who recognizes that children and young people need to acquire basic skills and a work ethic, and that those priorities have been abandoned thanks to the influence of teachers’ unions, is ready to embrace civic nationalism. Any parent who recognizes that race-baiting and identity politics are dead-end curricula, offering nothing but excuses for failure and rationalizations for government handouts, is ready to embrace civic nationalism. Breaking the ideological monopoly that America’s teachers’ unions have on its public schools is a goal that millions of Americans will share, and should be a top priority of civic nationalists.

Civic nationalism appeals to additional powerful constituencies. Corporations that still aspire to serve Americans first but have been marginalized by the Left are plentiful if you know where to look. The nuclear power industry is a prime example, ready to help expose the lies that have stopped its progress in America for decades. The American oil and gas industry is another one. It is one election away from being systematically shut down, with catastrophic consequences to the economy and national security. Civil engineering firms that want to rebuild America are ready to embrace civic nationalism.

The list of potential advocates of civic nationalism is bigger      than people imagine.  EcoModernists  who recognize the environmental benefits that will result from investment in conventional infrastructure in America as well as in developing nations. Members of law enforcement who have had it with, for example, “catch-and-release” laws in progressive, criminal-friendly cities. Members of the military who realize that if more naval officers had been assigned to fire safety, and fewer officers had been preparing PowerPoint presentations on transgender sensitivity training, the ”Bonhomme Richard” might be ready for redeployment instead of an incinerated hulk.

A Common Fate, a Common Vision

The appeal of nationalism ought to be obvious. It is natural to yearn to be part of something bigger than oneself. This is why racial division is the most potent weapon that globalists have to divide Americans. Why should a black American revere the history of America, if the emphasis that is continuously thrust at him is the legacy of slavery? Why should a Chicano accept the sovereignty of America over Aztlan, if all he’s taught is how the land was stolen from Mexico? Why should Native Americans accept the white majority, if the entire North American continent was stolen from them? Why, indeed, should Asians move to America and assimilate, if assimilation has become a dirty word, whereas their cultures of origin remain proud and confident?

This is where a muscular civic nationalism offers the only viable hope to unify America’s ethnicities into a coherent national culture. It’s a cliche, but nonetheless true that America’s white majority historically has been slow to accept immigrants who were different. But to America’s exceptional credit, assimilation eventually happened, every time. Today there are ethnic groups that at one time were not assimilated that now are considered to be part of America’s white ethnic group: Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Irish. Moreover, millions of Americans are considered “white Hispanics,” and additional millions of Asians have blended into the American mainstream. The secret you’ll never hear from race-baiting propagandists like ABC’s David Muir is the fact that 17 percent of American marriages are now between couples of “mixed race.” America’s ability to assimilate is ongoing, despite all attempts to divide us.

This all begs the question: What is “white?” Is it skin color, or cultural affinity? A civic nationalist has to confront this question squarely. Americans don’t have to be white. But they do have to be  American. This means adopting America’s values and traditions, and feeling part of an American culture that has its roots in white European civilization. That’s just historical fact. Racists, whether they are those white nationalists who fit the overhyped stereotype, or the suddenly fashionable black nationalists, or the racially obsessed mainstream American globalist establishment, care very much about skin color. Civic nationalists do  not  care about skin color. They care about preserving American culture, and welcome anyone who shares that goal.

So why shouldn’t black Americans embrace civic nationalism? Because it would mean they are selling out and becoming “white?” This is a stigma that school-aged studious blacks are apparently tagged with. This element of some inner-city cultures holds that to carry your books home to study after school is to become “white,” and is somehow a betrayal of black identity. This is an absurd and destructive notion that should be opposed by any black person serious about the success of their community.

Equally important, for a white person to kneel to BLM activists is not only an act of cowardice and ignorance, but it reinforces two lies. First, it is a lie that white people have no right to suggest anything to black people. This is a ridiculous lie, because blacks are the swing vote that will decide the fate and future of the nation. Second, the chief obstacle to black achievement is not racism. Rather, the primary barrier to black achievement in America is a thug culture that undermines if not terrorizes black communities, expressed in broken homes, substance abuse, gang violence, contempt for education, and rejection of law enforcement.

If white people truly care about black people, they will challenge these lies. And if they do, they will have plenty of help from black conservatives, who unfortunately are ignored by the establishment media, but whose messages are bubbling up through the internet and in churches and education reform organizations and elsewhere.

The notion of shared fate can be colorblind, and a civic nationalist has to emphasize this while at the same time not succumbing to the premises and the language of the Left. For example, “colorblind,” “assimilation,” and “meritocracy” are not code words for racism. They are noble concepts to live by, they are the inclusive premises of American civilization and America’s vitality, and they must be defended at all costs.

Americans can unify as a single, colorblind culture. There is no reason why any American citizen, of any color, cannot read the founding documents of America and be inspired by them. There is no reason why any American, regardless of his ethnic background, cannot appreciate America’s unique commitment to individual rights and free enterprise and private property, and understand its transcendental value. There is no reason why Americans of all races cannot view America’s history not as “deeply flawed,” but instead as an illustrious story of evolution from an inspiring beginning to what it is today, through perpetual refinement—a nation of unparalleled opportunities for everyone willing to work hard.

America’s destiny, according to civic nationalists, can be to remain a leader and an example to the world, while caring for its own citizens in a way that doesn’t alienate the world, but inspires other nations to do the same. America’s destiny can be to invest in practical, prosperity-oriented projects at home and abroad, to maintain technological and military preeminence, and to blaze a trail into the solar system. This is a vision that civic nationalists need to let every American know they can share.

What Does the Future Hold?

The multiethnic globalists are on a path that leads, ultimately, to the destruction of America as a sovereign nation.

There is no guarantee they will succeed, or if they do, that it will be a smooth transition. The conflagration they’re inviting by fomenting racial conflict, especially in the event of economic collapse, may not be kind to the corporations, the billionaires, the bankers, or anyone else perceived as party to the chaos, including Malthusian environmentalists who oppose everything that might create sustainable prosperity.

But then again, they might win.

Examples of nations where the elites successfully consolidated their power have taken many forms throughout history: Centuries ago, feudalism united the elites atop the peasantry. In the 20th century, with stupefying brutality, we saw Spanish and Italian Fascism, German Nazism, Soviet Communism, Japanese Militarism, Chinese Maoism. Today there are plentiful examples, including President Xi’s fascist, racist, expansionist Chinese empire, or Maduro’s pathetic, brutal regime in Venezuela.

Here in America, perhaps the best vision of where we’re ultimately headed if the globalists get their way is a society that lies somewhere on a spectrum between Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Whatever national identity Americans once knew will no longer exist. We will become undifferentiated human matter, as much a commodity as the products we consume, Pavlovian in our political rectitude, under a watchful corporate Panopticon.

Americans have been betrayed by their elites. The globalist agenda of open borders, unfettered movement of capital, the rejection of traditional values, the rejection of meritocracy, the deliberate overreaction to “climate change,” and the heedless accumulation of debt to fund the development of foreign economies—including the Chinese military—has been accepted and promoted by virtually every major institution in America: unions, corporations, academia, K-12 public education, the media and entertainment business, the Democrats, and most of the Republicans. They lied about all of this, and in so doing elevated the cost-of-living at the same time as they deprived Americans of good jobs.

There is an irony, here, because for multiethnic globalism to succeed in the long run, America’s elites needed to treat American citizens better in the short run. They have not. Now they are hiding behind racial tension, stoking it, funding it, allowing it to happen, evidently hoping to suppress the truth of their betrayal, hoping to deny us consciousness of our potential for colorblind national unity.

Absent the achievement of national unity through a civic nationalist political realignment, Americans face ongoing and worsening civil strife and economic decline. Civic nationalism is the only alternative to this bleak future for Americans. It can offer compassion, inclusion, optimism, an agenda of hope, and economic revival.

The choice is ours to make.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

A Recommendation for the California Teachers Association

This week a fascinating article on the website of the Education Intelligence Agency revealed that the California Teachers Association, one of the most powerful labor unions in the world, is itself having labor problems. Moreover, the labor problems they’re encountering are because they’re trying to be fiscally responsible.

Setting aside for a moment all the grievances that education reformers and concerned parents may have towards the CTA, what they are experiencing right now is an opportunity for a broader consensus to form on one specific and very big issue; pension reform.

It shouldn’t be necessary to explain that California’s public employee pension systems are in trouble. Back in 2019, despite still being in a bull market lasting over a decade, most of California’s public employee pensions systems were already challenged; CalPERS reported their system to be 71 percent funded as of 6/30/2019, and CalSTRS reported an even more dismal 66 percent funding.

And then came COVID. Despite the COVID shutdown affecting at most half their fiscal year, CalPERS reported earnings for the twelve months ended 6/30/2020 of only 4.7 percent, and for the same period CalSTRS reported earnings of only 3.9 percent. To say the bull market is over is inadequate. We are at the end of an era.

The CTA can lower their pension formulas to CalSTRS levels

Someone unfamiliar with the CTA’s employees might assume that these union professionals representing teachers receive the same pension benefits as the teachers they represent. Not so. The following chart shows the pension benefit plans for teachers who are part of the CalSTRS system.

The above chart, taken from the CalSTRS website, offers a fairly typical snapshot of how defined benefit pensions work. As noted in the overhead caption, “service credit” refers to the number of years an employee worked. The “age factor” or multiplier, is used to calculate the pension. The chart shows two cases, columns 1-2 for employees hired before 2013, columns 3-4 for employees hired during 2013 or afterwards.

As can be seen, the baseline retirement age for pre-2013 CalSTRS participants is 60, and for post-2013 participants it is 62. In both cases, if they retire in their baseline year, their pension is their final pension-eligible salary times the number of years they worked, times 2.0 percent. If they retire earlier, that 2.0 percent multiplier is lowered, and if they defer retirement, the multiplier is raised. This is done in an attempt to equalize the overall value of a retirement. If you retire early, you collect less money per month for a longer period of time. If you retire late, you collect more money for a shorter period of time.

The CTA’s Own Union Employees Have a Better Pension Formula than CalSTRS

The CTA may be a labor union, but the professionals who work for the CTA are themselves represented by a union, the “California Staff Organization” (CSO). As videos on their website attest, the members are upset at changes the CTA is proposing to its pension plan.

The pension system for CTA employees is the “California Teachers Association Employees’ Retirement Benefits Trust.” As disclosed to participants in 2019, this pension system is entering a “critical” status which under federal law means it will have to adopt a “rehabilitation plan” to restore the plan to good financial health.

As a digression, the CTA’s pension system, unlike CalSTRS and CalPERS, is subject to federal oversight under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Why public employee pension plans are exempt from ERISA is indefensible, but that is a discussion for another day. Under ERISA, the CTA’s plan is considered in critical condition even though it is 75 percent funded, better than CalPERS or CalSTRS. Let that sink in.

To financially rehabilitate their pension system, the CTA is proposing an assortment of revisions to the benefit formulas, presumably in search of a combination of changes that will be accepted by their employee union and also pass review by federal regulators. But what are the benefits today?

To answer this, a good source are the FAQs released by the CTA to describe the proposed changes to their members. According to this document, question 12 describes the current plan. It offers a 3.0 percent multiplier at age 65, which is better than what CalSTRS teachers get – referring to the above chart, the CalSTRS multiplier at age 65 in only 2.4 percent. But that’s not the whole story.

CTA employees also get what is called an “early retirement subsidy,” which in effect means the 3.0 percent multiplier is used at any point after age 50. This is an incredibly generous value. Eliminating it retroactively would indeed have a dramatic impact on the expectations of CTA employees nearing retirement. Eliminating the subsidy just for future work would still be a significant change, one that would certainly be easier to defend as equitable.

But why, thanks to the “early retirement subsidy,” are CTA employees getting a 3 percent at 50 retirement package, when the teachers they represent were getting a 2 percent at 60, and only 1.4 percent at 55? Why are CTA employees earning a pension benefit literally twice as valuable as the teachers they fight for?

There’s obviously a lot more to this story. Maybe taking into account other factors, such as the level of employee contributions to their pensions via payroll withholding, the CTA pension benefit isn’t twice as valuable as the CalSTRS benefit for teachers. That’s fine. Taking everything into account, it’s still a lot better.

Not all advocates for pension reform call for elimination of the defined benefit plan in favor of a defined contribution plan. A defined contribution plan offers no guarantees to retirees, because only the employer’s contribution is fixed and guaranteed. If a person happens to retire during an extended period of market losses, or happens to live a longer than average life, they’re screwed with a defined contribution plan. This is why a defined benefit retirement plan, properly managed, is worth fighting for.

ERISA is a valuable tool to ensure defined benefit pensions stay within reasonable financial bounds. When the CTA’s pension plan strayed into financially unsustainable waters, ERISA came calling. Now the CTA management and workforce can use this opportunity to ask themselves: why on earth did we think we were entitled to a defined benefit retirement plan so much better than the teachers we represent?

The good news for CTA: If they lower their retirement benefit formulas to conform exactly to what CalSTRS offers, their funded status will likely crawl out of critical condition. And if they had a financially healthy retirement plan that was identical in structure to the CalSTRS plan, they would acquire at least some moral credibility when advocating to preserve CalSTRS benefits.

This article originally appeared in the California Globe.

 *   *   *