Recently, the liberal blogosphere has resolved to psychoanalyze "white bitterness", putatively regarded as the irrational anger motivating Tea Partiers. Mangan posted this article last weekend offering more shortsighted drivel concerning the impact of America's coming immigrant class.
For Mr. Kotkin, population growth translates into economic vitality—the capacity to create wealth, raise the standard of living and meet the burdens of future commitments.These open borders advocates suffer from the same delusion that underpins neoconservative hawkishness: the notion that Western Civilization exists independent of its primary constituency. Of course, such an assertion depends on racial HBD, a concept that the cited author clearly ignores as he giddily surmises that "population growth translates into economic vitality—the capacity to create wealth, raise the standard of living and meet the burdens of future commitments." Really?
Most of America's population growth between 2000 and 2050, he notes, "will be in its racial minorities, particularly Asians and Hispanics, as well as in a growing mixed-race population." No other developed country, he says, "will enjoy such ethnic diversity."
In this article (H/T: Mangan), Kai Wright, yet another example of OneSTDV's Law of Black Intellectualism, believes whites fear losing demographic hegemony.
America is undergoing one of the most deep, significant changes in its history...White people will shortly lose their status as normative Americans. Whatever else does or doesn't change, by the time Millennials are adults, no one will equate white skin with the phrase "all-American" – assuming the phrase carries meaning at all.He frames this opposition as collective bitterness towards being displaced as the main cogs in American life.
All of this will eventually shape every aspect of American life. Young, colored folks will drive the economy, the culture, the politics – and the country's rapidly shrinking, white-dominated enclaves will grow increasingly defensive about that fact.But the leftists incorrectly diagnosis the source of this discontent. It's far deeper than merely becoming a minority racial group. While the Tea Partiers have trouble articulating a lucid exegesis beyond "Take our country back", their basic fears concerning gross demographic shifts are reasonable. First, diversity simply doesn't work; it only increases the schisms that separate racial groups. This anecdotal observation noted by any public school middle schooler has been supported by ample research. This has grave effects on communal and social happiness as well as reinforcing the continually burgeoning identity politics racket. Liberals want to engage in a national social experiment that has failed miserably on the microscale and which no other civilization has ever undertaken successfully.
Second, as alluded to above, 'America' no longer exists if dramatic population shifts occur. America isn't merely a collection of diverse racial groups; instead, it's an entity with a specific history inexorably connected to European ethnics. But leftists denounce such a definition of American.
And Millennials are redefining the very idea of an American.GuyWhite often alludes to the axiom of which I provide a specific example next: If one imports 30 million Brits and Nordics to Italy, is it still Italy? Is America only a nebulous collection of ideals easily dispensed to a new immigrant class? Perhaps when those immigrants were genetically similar to the current denizens. But exporting these ideals doesn't seem to work well.
Further, nationhood requires a central American narrative defined by the prescience of our Founding Fathers, luminaries like Emerson and Fitzgerald, and the Enlightenment freedoms that support innovation. But a multicultural society, one dominated by the PC multicult, will demand equal time and value given to all backgrounds. Thus, America will merge into the cultural Marxist rhetoric of tomorrow, relinquishing its luster as a paragon of Western progress.
And of course, this doesn't even broach the practical consequences of a larger NAM class. What becomes of Medicare when the productive ratio shrinks? How will we thrive on a global level when our smart fraction dwindles? What becomes of social tension and white scapegoating when the recalcitrant achievement gaps of today persist interminably? And many more problems present in second and third-world countries. But such concerns are reduced to nonsensical rage:
The Glenn Becks of the world peddle the notion that sheer anger can reverse these trends. Either we seize the moment by addressing the "bitterness" Obama so infamously identified on the campaign trail, or we watch the public square devolve into a mob of spit and bricks.Seeing one's civilization crumble under the auspices of "progress" tends to get people a tad heated. But I guess we can look forward to "enjoying" that ostensibly beneficial diversity.
133 comments:
These arguments don't preclude LIMITED immigration, just the type of demographic shifts discussed in these articles.
@Onestdv
On my experiences with liberal explaining way bitter whites, it is because their whole world view is being threaten. The world's richest man is now a Lebanese guy from Mexico. China is becoming the world's largest economy. African churches are allying with conservative white churches against homosexuality. Most conservatives now worship a Jewish female writer from Russia. A non-white U.S. president has prolonged a bitter imperialist war in Afghanstan, and has given billions dollars to banks run by rich white men. It is like the whole liberal concept of reality does not exist anymore. There is simply no group of all powerful rich white male Christians to blame anymore. Modern liberalism is based on the idea that all problems in the world are due to rich white male Christians. But now we live in a world where rich white male Christians are not all powerful, but still not close to a liberal utopia. So liberals have to come up with a new way to attack rich white male Christians, or face a long period of intellectual confusion. The old liberal argument use to be that progress was impossible, because rich white male Christians controlled everything. Now the narrative changes to that progress is winning but is being obstructed by those evil Koch brothers and their army of dumb rednecks. That all evil in the world is still caused by rich white male Christians, who now work as a secret cabal, like the Jews in National Socialist thought. Liberals simply can not accept that a world not going to be western centric is not going to be liberal. Liberalism largely went after the very thing that gave it power which is Western hegemony. Now liberalism is headed for a period of decline as Western hegemony disappears.
PS: Here is an article about the Koch brothers. They are the Rothschilds of Liberalism.
If the hyperlink does not work, I also have it as my URL Address.
***How will we thrive on a global level when our smart fraction dwindles?***
This point was made by Seymour Itzkoff in his book 'The Decline of Intelligence in America'. I recently borrowed this from the library, and checking Amazon was surprised to see this summary from The New York Times Book Review:
“...Mr. Itzkoff places most of the blame for America's alleged intellectual decline on what he sees as an economically and intellectually elite cast of misguided liberals. They have isolated themselves from American society, he says, by their paternalistic treatment of the underclass, by discounting the importance of traditional family values, and by failing to raise enough bright, educated children to sustain national competence.”
Itzkoff also has a chapter on low iq immigration titled 'hot war'.
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Intelligence-America-Strategy-National/dp/0275952290
"What becomes of Medicare when the productive ratio shrinks?"
It's interesting getting into discussions with immigration enthusiasts. They have an ironclad belief that subsequent mestizo generations will perform about the same as everyone else.
The evidence to date suggests this is overly optimistic. But it is a crucial assumption made by many immigration boosters.
"This would be the preferred outcome for the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans, who are significantly poorer and less educated on average than native whites. When immigration skeptics question the wisdom of importing so many unskilled people into our nation at one time, the most common response cites the remarkable progress of Europeans a century ago. “People used to say the Irish or the Poles would always be poor, but look at them today!” For Hispanics, we are led to believe, the same thing will happen.
But that claim isn’t true. Though about three-quarters of Hispanics living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, a significant number have roots here going back many generations. We have several ways to measure their intergenerational progress, and the results leave little room for optimism about their prospects for assimilation."
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=
Notice how the anti-White left is overreacting to the first time they've seen Whites gettin a little uppity. They want to keep mentally beating down and abusing Whites to make sure they never develop a racial identity. Makes 'em nervous. Racial and ethnic identity is only reserved for Blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs, and Martians.
White people need to develop racial solidarity and form organizations to protect themselves and their interests. The anti-White left is going to get bolder as time goes on and Whites become a minority.
The attacks on the Tea Party is an attack on White people. It's been nasty and relentless. Who defending them? A few stragglers here and there, maybe on FOX, maybe Sarah Palin, but it's not enough. As the old cliche goes, wake up White people. Form groups.
I don't think immigration, even significant amounts of it, is so bad as long as certain cultural and IQ standards are met. I like the idea of the US being the brain-drainer that sucks up other countries' smart fractions so we can continue our global economic and technological dominance. And you don't hear about (non-muslim) Indian and Chinese immigrants going around bashing whitey or clinging to welfare benefits, for example. They produce more than they consume. In fact, I think Asian immigrants assimilate a lot better and contribute more than white immigrants from certain European countries. Diversity can be fun and interesting if it is a high-functioning sort of diversity operating under a dominant culture. At least to me.
It the non-discriminating sort of diversity that accepts masses of dumb and violent people groups that causes long term problems.
These open borders advocates suffer from the same delusion that underpins neoconservative hawkishness: the notion that Western Civilization exists independent of its primary constituency. Of course, such an assertion depends on racial HBD
I don't think it does. It depends on the denial of HBD. To people on the left, to neocons, and to libertarians (the last two are really leftist splinter groups) it is an article of faith that people are all the same.
I like the idea of the US being the brain-drainer that sucks up other countries' smart fractions so we can continue our global economic and technological dominance.
That's the problem, right there, in a nutshell.
America is not seen as any sort of normal countty - the home of a particular people. America is seen as existing in order to exert "economic and technological dominance".
That's a good mission statement for IBM or Microsoft. It's a shitty mission statement for a country. Once you start thinkng that America exists in order to be some sort of super-corporation, all sorts of others ideas come along for the ride. For instance, the idea that America does not have "citizens" (such an old-fashioned concept), it instead has "productive team members", and ideally it has productive team members drawn from a world-wide mixture of different demographics.
A good first step to salvaging something from this wreck of a country will be learning to love it regardless of how technologically or economically dominant it is.
Paradoxically, at least to libertarians, this is also the best path to wealth.
Somewhat off-topic, but I just saw American History X, a film about how a couple kids become neo-nazis, starring Edward Norton.
The film brazenly treats conservative talking points and actions as precursors to nazism, the most banefully liberal movie I can recall. Ironically, the renditions of conservative arguments is intelligent and well done, but at some point they shade into hatred and Nazism, just so you know that This Is Wrong.
Objecting to illegal immigration and affirmative action, and shooting an armed intruder are the province of Nazis, the film tells us, absolutely disgusting.
you don't hear about (non-muslim) Indian and Chinese immigrants going around bashing whitey or clinging to welfare benefits, for example
Indian immigrants lobbied the Reagan administration (successfully) for "minority" status, giving them access to all sorts of government goodies, as well as hiring preferences.
Libertarians have this misty-eyed romantic view of Chinese and Indian immigrants.
@ PG:
Yes I don't mind some limited immigration. Just not large scale demographic shifts.
@ Anonymous:
That's what I meant.
If Indians were considered white, I wouldnt be surprised to see urban technology-oriented corporations hiring enormous numbers of them, denying jobs to true whites, and saying that they cant sue for discrimination because the company is indeed hiring a large number of "whites". If Indians are classified as a minority, it's probably at worst a mixed blessing.
Cool, I get to play a little bit of the Devil's advocate.
America is not seen as any sort of normal countty - the home of a particular people.
What people is that? Anglos? Germans? Irish? Polish? Scandinavian? All have very different cultures and even different IQs and personality traits. I find more cultural overlap with middle class Asians than I do with Italians, who are white. As long as people contribute more than they take, I have a hard time seeing exactly how they could actually harm a white American like myself. The American ideal is one of ambition and hard work, something most civilized ethnic groups can buy into. The only harm that can be quanitfied seems to come from laggards, not people who are selected to be above-average. I've yet to see any actual damage from the addition of high-quality immigrants, just sentiments that people don't prefer it, for subjective or aesthetic reasons. Which is fine, since we have free speech and all.
America is seen as existing in order to exert "economic and technological dominance"...That's a good mission statement for IBM or Microsoft. It's a shitty mission statement for a country. Once you start thinkng that America exists in order to be some sort of super-corporation, all sorts of others ideas come along for the ride. For instance, the idea that America does not have "citizens" (such an old-fashioned concept), it instead has "productive team members", and ideally it has productive team members drawn from a world-wide mixture of different demographics.
Ok. I understand that you personally don't care for the corporate meme. But could you please elaborate on how having more productive team members actually harms me, a white American? I want productive team members as countrymen. Screw anyone who is not productive. I don't think there should be some kind of contrived diversity "ideal" from the top-down, however, so please don't include that as part of my position. I was just stating my personal preference, because I like learning about different people groups and their cultures (one would think more HBD enthusiasts would?). I also think that dominance does not have to mean interferance - just the capability to protect by interfering if we actually need to.
A good first step to salvaging something from this wreck of a country will be learning to love it regardless of how technologically or economically dominant it is.
Maybe that's at the crux of our difference in opinion, rather than anything more tangible. If our country lost its first world status but returned to the demographics of 1940, I'd probably try to move to a first world country, instead of loving this country and remaining in sub-par conditions. I am simply more self-interested than you and will not love anything (much less any idea) "for better or worse". I only love "better", and I happen to want to make this country better, because I live here. Too much "worse" and I'm outta here.
Indian immigrants lobbied the Reagan administration (successfully) for "minority" status, giving them access to all sorts of government goodies, as well as hiring preferences.
Yes that sucks. Roll that back. But if it weren't for the precedent set by underperforming minorities, they wouldn't have been able to.
I like the idea of the US being the brain-drainer that sucks up other countries' smart fractions so we can continue our global economic and technological dominance.
I don't want to hurt other peoples countries by draining off their best people. I want everyone to stay in their own country and be happy. That's the way the world used to be, before this sick era we currently live in.
I think those that long for an America where the Anglo centric culture dominates are living in a dream world. That time is long gone. The time where immigrants came over and adopted Anglo names and melded into the predominate Anglo culture has long since passed even for European immigrants. Many things today that were once considered foreign are wholly part of the American way of life and psyche.
The best that any American can hope for is to turn off the spigot so that no more immigrants come at all or at the very least, turn it into a trickle. And that way, America can develop into the amalgamation of cultures that it has long been moving towards.
Even without large scale immigration, White Americans will become the minority. As it stands now, half of all children are non-White. America will shift.
Planet Grok,
I agree with you. I lived in various Asian countries for 10 years and have traveled extensively in Asia and less extensively in Europe. So, I feel that I am qualified to say what I am going to say here.
Everywhere I have lived or visited outside the U.S. has a set culture, a set life pattern that people are expected to live by. One is expected to accept their "station in life" and not to rock the boat. However, what about the dreamers and the non-conformists? What about the people who seek to innovate, create, and seek to become more than what they are now, both in material wealth as well as physiological capability? Should there not be one place (on Earth) where these people can go to chase their dreams?
During my time in Asia (and Europe), I came to view America as that place. The place for the dreamers and achievers. Those who are not willing to accept their station in life, but want something more out of life and future.
This is the purpose of America and the only concept of America that I believe in. It is this extraordinary nature of our country that makes it worth believing in and defending. I have no desire to be a part of an "ordinary" society. I certainly do not believe in defending any such thing.
America was created on the values of freedom, achievement, pioneering, and the pursuit of "limitlessness". Many people told the Wright Brothers that heavier than air flight was impossible. They did not listen. They refused to conform and invented airplanes. Today, we are told that aging and death are inevitable and that it is impossible to cure aging and live forever young. Like the Wright brothers of 100 years ago, we refuse to listen to these nay-saying assholes and seek to cure aging. Likewise, we will get into space as well.
I agree there are problems with current immigration policy. We need to be more discriminating as to who we let in. However, the idea of America being a "normal" country is an idea that stinks to high heaven. The day America becomes ordinary is the day I get interested in seasteading or space colonization.
I really hate how liberals like to claim that the Tea Party is made up of "bitter whites."
Liberals treat legitimate concerns about the future of America as some kind of mental disease.
Liberalism is a death cult.
How exactly is America going to be a better place when the NAM population explodes?
I do, however, agree with libs on one thing: America will change.
Too many HBDers think that there is still time to turn America around.
There is not.
We already passed the point of no return.
The best we can do now is try and stop legal/illegal immigration, affirmative action, and PC indoctrination.
But make no mistake, America will be different.
Welcome to multi-cultural America.
>During my time in Asia (and Europe), I came to view America as that place. The place for the dreamers and achievers. Those who are not willing to accept their station in life, but want something more out of life and future.<
Wrong. America should not be run for the benefit of hypothetical future visionaries who might some day want to move here for reasons of their own that we can only guess at, but rather on behalf of the interests of our fellow countrymen who actually live here right now.
Science might one day free break the ties of gravity and old age, but it will never free us from the bonds of kinship and culture.
***What becomes of Medicare when the productive ratio shrinks? ***
What happens to funding for Israel? The Tea Partiers should adopt "Stop Illegals, Save Israel" as their motto.
the notion that Western Civilization exists independent of its primary constituency. Of course, such an assertion depends on racial HBD,
You are only half right.
Western Civilization is dependent on both the HBD(AKA the inbuilt genetic abilities of a Western nation), and the culture of a Western country.
HBD only tells you what a population group and individual person is capable of accomplishing, not what the population will accomplish.
In order to get the optimal performance out a Western population you need to organize the society in an intelligent way first.
Genetics is prerequisite, but organization/culture is also an essential factor.
For example, the Northern Europeans did not live up to their full, inbuilt, potential until after Christianity brought to pagan Northern Europeans the political philosophies of Ancient Greece and Rome after the 10th century.
Prior to the 10th century, the world was dominated by the Mediterranean civilizations of not only Rome and Greece, but Phoenicia, Egypt, Persia, Carthage, etc. For example, the Romans were far more impressed with Persia as a civilization than they were with the Germanic tribes (though the Romans did respect the Germans for their fighting ability).
It was only until after Christianity passed on the political philosophy of the Greeks and Romans that Northern Europe achieved its full civilizational potential.
Another example, When Anatolia (modern Turkey) was Eastern Orthodox,the Anatolians enjoyed living in a much more advanced culture than they did after the victory of Islam in the Arab-Byzantine wars.
Despite the fact that Anatolians today are genetically identical to Anatolians prior to the conquest of Islam, modern Turkey is largely mediocre because Islam is an ineffective way bring out the best in a reasonably talented population group.
@ PG:
Ignoring the philosophical implications of actively pursuing a diverse population (IMO: that's the weaker argument), do you honestly think a population of different racial cohorts can work? What evidence do you have that this is viable? I linked to a huge study showing it doesn't work on the microscale. Why would it work on the macroscale, where other factors like blaming whitey for being racist, are in play?
And back to philosophy: if the population changes dramatically, is it still America? If all of a sudden Italy has 50 million non-Italians, is it still Italy?
I'd consider American whites an actual ethnic group, so asking if Americans are Anglo, Germanic, etc... is irrelevant.
As for loving America no matter what: I wholeheartedly agree with you. I love America for what it stands for and how great it is. If it no longer harbors those ideals and that success, then it's no longer worthy of my veneration.
"Wrong. America should not be run for the benefit of hypothetical future visionaries who might some day want to move here for reasons of their own that we can only guess at, but rather on behalf of the interests of our fellow countrymen who actually live here right now."
I believe this is the main premise of Sailer's citizenism.
after Christianity passed on the political philosophy of the Greeks and Romans that Northern Europe achieved its full civilizational potential.
Exactly. The decline of teaching Latin and the history of Greece and Rome, commonplace only 60 years ago, and the decline of the West is not a coincidence.
Europeans united in mind created everything we today value and use without second thought. That's what White Americans are: Europeans united as one.
>I believe this is the main premise of Sailer's citizenism.<
You're very observant. In my earlier post I had wanted to bring up Sailer's example of how a corporation's management ought to be concerned with current stockholders, rather than hypothetical future stockholders, but I lacked the time.
Even without large scale immigration, White Americans will become the minority.
Only if they wish to. Nothing prevents them from expelling the invaders.
If Indians were considered white, I wouldnt be surprised to see urban technology-oriented corporations hiring enormous numbers of them
What planet do you live on? That's exactly what "urban technology-oriented corporations" are doing right now.
denying jobs to true whites, and saying that they cant sue for discrimination because the company is indeed hiring a large number of "whites".
You seem to be completely clueless as to the state of the law. A white person cannot sue a company for discriminating against him for being white.
Any time white Americans want to exert their demographic power they can choose to have a bunch of kids and crowd out the others.
Export birth control as humanitarian aid not food.
No food stamps just birth control vouchers.
"Any time white Americans want to exert their demographic power they can choose to have a bunch of kids and crowd out the others. "
Wouldn't limiting (highly fecund) immigration be a much easier plan?
I understand that you personally don't care for the corporate meme. But could you please elaborate on how having more productive team members actually harms me, a white American?
Let me count the ways ..
Well, for one thing, all those "productive" Asians and Jewish imigrants who come here are reliable votes for socialism. And not only reliable votes - precisely because they are productive and wealthy, their destructive influence is magnified. So unless you think that the Democrats agenda does not harm you financally, you are wrong straight off the bat.
Another problem is that, in spite of your refusal to care about race, the people you are eager to bring here (because they are so productve) DO care very much about race. Jews we all know about. But Hindus and East Asians are unabashedly anti-white racist as well. This goes back to point one: a big part of why all your precious productive minority groups vote for socialism is .. because they are very antagonistic to the white majority.
Moving from the macro to the micro level, you are of course harmed if your job is taken by an Asian here on a green card. You are harmed if an influx of these people in your own field drives down your wages.
Note that everything I've said has been purely economic in scope, that being, by your own admission, the only thing you care about. But I'm not sure that you are being truthful in saying that.
I like learning about different people groups and their cultures
Then I suggest you do what people like you used to do ... hop a plane and go vist a foreign country. Because your xenophilia should not have to be my problem.
Your economic arguments are a smokescreen, and a poor one at that. You desire to live in a multi-racial, multi-cultural country because you find it emotionally satisfying, not because you really think it can ever be a success even in the economic sense.
Let me clarify my comments even though no one asked:
As for economic reasons, I think America can do just fine draining a limited amount of high IQ, already educated immigrants from Asian and European countries. STEM fields are growing and we do have a small deficit in filling these job markets. Low IQ immigration should be essentially zero.
As for philosophical/social reasons: I don't need to learn about other cultures. As Anon said above, go to another country if you want to learn about other cultures. I find Japan to be a quite interesting society, but if I wanted to live in that culture, I'd move there. I wouldn't try to impose my way of life on the majority.
Second, and most importantly, I don't want to live in a country where America and whites are denigrated, stigmatized, and belittled. I want to live in a country that celebrates the West and the unique American history. I don't want to live in a country where the Raina Kelley's of the world get full rein. I want to live in a country where men like Newton and Gauss and Fitzgerald aren't glossed over in favor of George Washington Carver and other leftist demigods.
As I said in the post:
But a multicultural society, one dominated by the PC multicult, will demand equal time and value given to all backgrounds. Thus, America will merge into the cultural Marxist rhetoric of tomorrow, relinquishing its luster as a paragon of Western progress.
Honestly, as I've stated before on this blog, I'm not at all into this white pride/white solidarity stuff. I barely even know my second cousins (they're prole alcoholics).
But I have a strong connection to Western civilization and its something I cherish and I'm lucky to be a part of. It's something that's valuable in its own right and its something that a multicult society will inevitably forget.
the idea of America being a "normal" country is an idea that stinks to high heaven.
I guess it's not exactly news that libertarians are basically on the left.
what about the dreamers and the non-conformists? What about the people who seek to innovate, create, and seek to become more than what they are now, both in material wealth as well as physiological capability? Should there not be one place (on Earth) where these people can go to chase their dreams?
I find your sentimental claptrap strangely unmoving. Innovators managed to innovate quite well before the USA ever existed, and they'll continue to do so long after it has vanished.
In any case our immigration policy is not based on innovation. Even the cheap Indian engineers we import are not being brought here because they are so innovative.
Ideas and knowledge are fungible. I'd expect the faux-libertarians to be at least slightly area of this fact. If somebody somewere in the world invents a "cure" for aging, we all get the benefit. Even if the person is not resident in America.
Indians are NOT white. Duh.
But certain ones, like my beta (beta means "son" in Hindi), wish they were and that is why when he donates his precious golden South Asian sperm at the sperm banks, he checks off "caucasian" instead of "asian" and the unsuspecting parent(s) are given a might surprise when junior pops her/his head out.
And to think he's doing this to "get revenge" against all the White American women who ignored him and laughed at him when he tried to ask him out.
Really, it's not an insult to Feminists or Womanhood, TFH, is an insult to all your WHITE brothers in the MRA manosphere whome you try so hard to fit in with.
This is why my message to the WHITE MAN is: leave this pseudo brotherhood you are trying to form with global men who have been similarly scorned by women.
Instead, humble yourselves and unite with your White Sisters in solidarity against the world.
Sure, they may have scorned you, rejected you, divorced you, and taken you to the cleaners in court HOWEVER, they would NEVER give you the finger in the disguised form that Desi men like TFH have done, and that all in the name of "fighting feminism".
AN INDIAN MOTHER'S MESSAGE TO TFH: Beta, come home to momma now and eat my dahl and massage my feet like a good, loyal Indian son.
Posted this on the CAN COLLEGE EVER BE RELEVANT piece and am reposting here since it's, well, RELEVANT:
Diversity and Multi-Culti studies might seem irrelevant to some people now, but I think Unis are pushing these because the way of the future is MORE globalization, not less of it.
So in order to be able to not just survive but THRIVE in a globalized world (read: globalized economy), "diversity" and "multi-culti" must be learned.
It may not be relevant to you and your job right now, but believe me, it WILL be a neccessity for your grandkids' jobs.
...............................
Now goodnight all.
I'm off to a Desi Hindu/Israeli Jew wedding reception.
The commonality that brought the couple together were their overbearing mothers.
"Now the Frankfurt School's concept of Critical Social Theory is important. The theory behind CST is that you must entirely reject and criticize the dominant culture, both social and political. Theodore Adorno combined Marx with Freud and determined that all conservatives are mentally ill in his seminal work "The Authoritarian Personality."
http://nycofcc.blogspot.com/
Sarah, I'm an internationalist and have observed in ALL the countries I've travelled to or lived in, that there is ALWAYS a strong current of repulsion aimed at the dominant culture.
Even when the minorities openly admit that if THEY were the majority, the same liberals who are always sticking up for them WOULD NOT be granted full rights!
Check out this video of Dr. Zakir Naik, an Indian Muslim Television Evangelist who openly admits that non-Muslims would be treated as 2nd class citizens in a truly authentic Islamic state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt6niIvYiH0
Please note that the predominantly Hindu country of India freely allows Dr. Naik to have his own television show. Heck! I think he owns an entire channel: Peace TV.
And liberal Hindu media and demogouges will support him a sacred 108% simply because he is a "minority" and Muslims and Christians are the pets of liberals in India.
A similar phenomena is seen around the world and I feel it stems from our innate instinct to "protect the weak".
That of course is a good thing, but it can and is being taken too far!
@ OM/Bag Lady:
We get the point. Stop spamming!
Of note
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE opposes asylum for the German homeschooling family. The rational for their opposition is disturbing. Basically ICE seems to think that the American courts should abide by the European court's decision. Also, they seem to think that the US gov't has the authority to prohibit homeschooling. This is the official position of the ICE under the administration.
Story at freerepublic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2478201/posts
comments are pretty interesting.
My favorite:
"Didn’t they get the memo that white Europeans are not welcome—we only want poor, illiterate third worlders here! It enriches America so much!"
"Wouldn't limiting (highly fecund) immigration be a much easier plan?"
Yes, of course. It would be smarter, too, but liberals are like Daffy Duck, too smart for the obvious smart solution. They love birth control almost as much as they love how NAM's make life suck for those white folks who aren't as privileged as they are to live away from NAM's.
Let's not forget to call privileged SWPL liberals what they are, privileged.
Where have you guys been. There has already been a birth control conspiracy going on in third world countries from it's very inception.
I guess you guys don't get around (the world) much.
Research the history of Planned Parenthood.
The thing is for many Christians, birth control is taboo. Didn't the Pope say that AIDS was evil but birth control was worse???
LOL at the whiners who don't want Asians and Jews (Jews?? Jews have been in Britain for like 1000 years).
Maybe I'd feel for you if you were talking about the land of your evolution and genetic history. But any idiot knows that whites didn't evolve in north america. whites demolished the people who did evolve here and those people include the mexicans, who are mostly of native decent.
The Anglo-Saxons came here and they read up on ideas first put forth by the greeks (democracy) and the romans (republic). They then created a new society based on those principles and their own enlightenment.
And we all know that when the Romans first tried to introduce the britons to those ideas, the britons were hardly better than illiterate spear throwing africans. On the other hand, my people, the tamils, actually had some shit going on at the same time. They had a written language, architechtural feats which required a knowledge of geometry etc.
I'm quite proud of the anglo-saxons for getting it together, but don't kid me with this crap about how they have the right to exist on this land which they invaded only a few centuries ago while I don't.
"I'd consider American whites an actual ethnic group, so asking if Americans are Anglo, Germanic, etc... is irrelevant"
This was a basically consolidated country in 1970. There were very few immigrants from the 20's to 1970. I knew almost nobody who spoke English as a 2nd language. Now there are a ton.My grandfather came over about 100 years ago, but my father never wanted to learn Italian. He considered himself American. Now we have all these immigrants,even from Europe, who are talking to their kids in Polish ,Russian etc. I grew up in an all white area and nobody cared that we didn't have any foreigners or minorities. Nobody woke up one day in my neighborhood and said, we need black people to make this town better. Or we need Indians.
Just think what this country would be if we kept the '24 Immigration Act and didn't let all the illegals in.
You are right about the 50 mil Italians. The country is not just a border, but a people. If 50 mil Swedes moved to Italy it wouldn't be Italy any more. It may not be a bad place, but it wouldn't be the same.
"I find Japan to be a quite interesting society, but if I wanted to live in that culture, I'd move there. I wouldn't try to impose my way of life on the majority.
The thing I like about Japan is that it would be very difficult to move there and it should be. They don't want to give their country away. As far as I am concerned I don't care about this country. They ship jobs out, let anyone come in who wants to take our jobs. I would be against most immigration just on the cultural grounds.I am resentful of the Eastern European immigration currently occuring in this country also. You lost the Cold War , now fix your country.
All the minorities hate whites, but they want to work for white companies, live in white neighborhoods, join white clubs. I think the liberterians are against antidiscrimination laws, but they are for open border too.
The minorities don't "hate" whites. It's just the liberal white demogouges who hate whites. The minorites are happy just to get a decent job and take care of their families.
@FemX
I really do not know if you are referring to me. The whole point of my comment is that liberals are obsessed with rich white male Christians, even though they are not all powerful anymore. My comment was not directed toward being against Jews or Asians living in a America. The examples of non-white power in the beginning of my comment were to demonstrate the declining influence of rich white male Christians, and how other groups, who are not white, aspirations do not conform to the liberal dream. My bitch is against liberals who want to believe that other people who are not western are going to conform to their standards. That the decline of Western culture is some how good for liberalism, even though liberalism is a Western idea.
Also I am not really opposed to liberalism either, I just think it has become an unreasonable ideology. I believe that state power can and should promote stability, but can not create equality. Ideas like advocating for better wage laws for underclass workers, providing family planning to inner city teenagers, and even having socialized medicine are not bad ideas, since even conservative societies like Japan do it. I just really do not like the fact there is this obsession with rich white male Christians, and complete equality. I think a lot of people at this blog are really not against the state, but against the state advocating unreasonable equality and anti-white male ideas.
One,
Intra-European immigration works as long as the European migrants assimilate into the native culture (e.g. avoid Canada's intra-European cultural split between Francophone Quebec and the rest of Canada.)
France, for example, took in a large wave of Southern European immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Today, at least 20% of all white Frenchmen are of Southern European heritage, and the French had no problem assimilating other white ethnic groups because the French immerse immigrants in French civilization (even French Muslims are very secular because atheistic French culture is so ubiquitous).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Fertility
An estimated thirteen million French citizens, or about one-fifth of the population, are of ethnic or national non-French origins. Of European ethnic groups, the most numerous are people of Italian family origin and it is estimated that about 5 million French Nationals (8% of the population in France) are of Italian origine if their parentage is retraced over three generations. [7] This is due to waves of Italian immigration, notably during the late 19th and early 20th century. Other large European groups of non-native origin are Spaniards, Portuguese, Polish, and Greeks.
The Anglo-Saxons came here and they read up on ideas first put forth by the greeks (democracy) and the romans (republic).
Actually, they believed that they were recreating a lost Anglo-Saxon Germanic culture, one which existed in England prior to the Norman invasion, one which had the respect of the Romans.
In the very unlikely event that you care about this stuff, I can provide copious details.
If our country lost its first world status but returned to the demographics of 1940, I'd probably try to move to a first world country, instead of loving this country and remaining in sub-par conditions.
Or instead of getting off your ass and working to improve the country you are in. Thanks for admitting that you're basically a free loader who wants to sponge off some, any, "first world country", indentity unimportant.
FemX, Tamil people didn't built the US. I guess if white people destroyed every single thing they created in the US, you'd still want to stay there, right? Because if not, you're being hypocritical, not the white people living in the US. ;) But again, you're a feminist, so honesty must be in short supply. Oh, and the question is rhetoric, you don't have to bother to reply.
If our country lost its first world status but returned to the demographics of 1940, I'd probably try to move to a first world country, instead of loving this country and remaining in sub-par conditions.
Loss of first world status is related to the influx of NAMs. In other words, if we returned to the demographics of 1940 (and BTW we were about 90% white even in 1970) we would quickly return to first world status.
OneSTDV:
Honestly, as I've stated before on this blog, I'm not at all into this white pride/white solidarity stuff. I barely even know my second cousins (they're prole alcoholics).
Maybe this attitude is precisely the reason America and the West are in this position in the first place.
But I have a strong connection to Western civilization and its something I cherish and I'm lucky to be a part of.
You have a strong connection to "Western civilization" but not the very people who created it. This isn't gonna work.
I love your blog but pushing the HBD principle is never going to change anything for White people. Leftists don't care about logic and reason. To get rid of Affirmative Action for example, White people are going to have to yell, stomp, bitch, moan, protest in D.C., fight, and claw. We're going to have to pry it from their cold dead fingers.
The only way to do that is to develop a White racial identity and form strong, fearless groups to organize and plan the attack.
The Tea Parties should be holding "End Affirmative Racism" signs in place of vague smaller government signs.
Good discussion. My replies, part I:
Ignoring the philosophical implications of actively pursuing a diverse population (IMO: that's the weaker argument)
I don't think "diversity" should be ACTIVELY pursued -let me be clear, it should not be in the equation at all. I think we should import intelligence, expertise, and above-average genetics, and not let the romanticization of race prevent us from continuing our American superiority. All my position is, is that if a bunch of these really smart immigrants happen to be non-white, I do not see the harm in that.
do you honestly think a population of different racial cohorts can work?
I think it probably can, provided the ethnic groups involved are from civilized cultures. There might be tension at first but eventually they will intermarry and be stronger than before (if the average IQ is selected to be at least a standard dev above average, as I propose). If my meritocratic stance means that future generations of Americans will have a little bit of an epicanthic fold and a stronger tan, I don't really have a problem with that. Guilty as charged.
I'd consider American whites an actual ethnic group, so asking if Americans are Anglo, Germanic, etc... is irrelevant.
Well, the distinctions between Anglos and continental Germanic people are pretty slim. But I don't consider myself a co-ethnic of Italians, Greeks, Jews, etc. The cultural and probably genetic differences are just too great. That doesn't mean I don't welcome them to this country, because they can carry their own weight and then some in our American civilization.
Moving from the macro to the micro level, you are of course harmed if your job is taken by an Asian here on a green card. You are harmed if an influx of these people in your own field drives down your wages.
I suppose that's true. But more often, new immigrants lack the communication skills necessary to really compete with competent native born experts, and just do menial rote work. For example, metallurgists who can speak English and write readable lab reports these days are in very high demand and can command top dollar. What's left unsaid is that white americans these days don't aspire to reach the same levels they used to, especially in the hard sciences, and that gap is being filled by immigrants.
Part II:
Well, for one thing, all those "productive" Asians and Jewish imigrants who come here are reliable votes for socialism.
There are plenty of Jews on the right, and East Asians are more naturally right-wing than most whites. HBD is also widely accepted by Asians.
You desire to live in a multi-racial, multi-cultural country because you find it emotionally satisfying, not because you really think it can ever be a success even in the economic sense.
Nice try, but you get a Fail on that attempt at psychoanalysis.
I want to live in a country where men like Newton and Gauss and Fitzgerald aren't glossed over in favor of George Washington Carver and other leftist demigods.
You and me both!
Isn't it only the NAM cartel that does this however?
But I have a strong connection to Western civilization and its something I cherish and I'm lucky to be a part of. It's something that's valuable in its own right and its something that a multicult society will inevitably forget.
I'm honestly skeptical of this whole notion of "Western Civilization" that extends through time and space from the Ancient Greeks through the US. I often suspect that it is the traditionalist version of liberal New Age claptrap. American society is distinctly American. The British Empire was distinctly British. The Greek and Roman Civilizations deserve their own category. I frankly care a lot more about America than this nebulous, romantic notion of "the West". If you have a consise, rational, consistent definition for "the West", and how all the disparate European countries form this overarching structure, then I'm all ears, of course.
"In other words, if we returned to the demographics of 1940 (and BTW we were about 90% white even in 1970) we would quickly return to first world status."
Probably. I was just making a point with that hypothetical. But there are more than a few white countries out there that I don't consider first-world, so it's not out of the question.
Thanks for admitting that you're basically a free loader who wants to sponge off some, any, "first world country", indentity unimportant.
Yes, as I said, I'm probably just more self-interested than those who want to commit their lives to country-building missions that they won't be alive to benefit from. "Free-loader" isn't a fair term, however, I'm actually very stung by your scorn.
Some other commenters seem to suggest that I'm a "libertarian". While I used to have libertarian sympathies, I do not consider myself a libertarian anymore in the least. I DO believe in objective merit, and am strongly suspicious of anything that smacks of the feminine trait of emotional Romanticism.
Planet Grok said:
There are plenty of Jews on the right, and East Asians are more naturally right-wing than most whites. HBD is also widely accepted by Asians
Do you have any evidence for any of this, because most of it sounds pretty delusional. Jews vote 3-1 or more for Democrats over Republicans, and the Republican Jews are not exactly right-wing, for the most part. Japanese vote overwhelmingly Dem. Chinese vote majority Dem. Asian Indians are lefty.
In my experience, second generation east asians adopt anti-HBD with about the same fervor (or even more) than do whites. I'd quickly change my mind if you produced data.
Because it's easy, I went to the GSS website and calculated party identification by ethnicity from 1990-2008 (recoding independent leaners to the party they lean to and ignoring third parties). Here are some representative results, listing party identification Dem-Indep-Rep (%) by country of origin:
Overall: 46-16-38
China: 46-34-20
Japan: 57-17-26
Mexico: 49-34-21
India: 48-33-19
Two largest euro groups:
England/Wales: 37-12-52
Germany: 35-15-51
Using the variable relig now to identify Jews:
Jewish: 68-11-22
Even more fun is the variable racdif2 which asks whether blacks do worse because they have less inborn ability to learn (yes-no percentage):
overall: 12-88
china: 11-89
india: 12-88
mexico: 11-89
Probably, there is a lot of lying going on here, but it sure isn't evidence for your claims. Chinese look like everyone else.
Link: http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss08
"Well, the distinctions between Anglos and continental Germanic people are pretty slim. But I don't consider myself a co-ethnic of Italians, Greeks, Jews, etc. The cultural and probably genetic differences are just too great."
What do you see as the major differences between say, A German-American family and a Greek-American family.
Most conservatives now worship a Jewish female writer from Russia.
Uh huh.
Has anyone ever suggested to you, NutuporShutup, that you are not playing with a full deck?
There are plenty of Jews on the right
If by plenty you mean "a number greater than two", sure. Out here in the real world, only blacks are more loyal members of the left than are Jews. And the blacks are just the foot soldiers. The Jews provide the money and brains.
and East Asians are more naturally right-wing than most whites.
What the hell is that even supposed to mean? It sounds like that old "Hispanics are natural Republicans" claptrap I keep hearing.
HBD is also widely accepted by Asians.
Whoop-de-doo. Assuming for the sake of argument this is true, I'm supposed to care - why?
Nice try, but you get a Fail on that attempt at psychoanalysis.
Pehaps you should try to read your own words sometme. No deep psychoanalysis is required, just basic reading ability.
"Free-loader" isn't a fair term, however
Try "parasite" on for size then.
What's left unsaid is that white americans these days don't aspire to reach the same levels they used to
Perhaps it is left unsaid because anyone saying it would be expected to back it up with something.
I notice it also contradicts your claim two sentences earlier about how immigrant tech workers are merely doing low level grunt work.
I think we should import intelligence, expertise, and above-average genetics, and not let the romanticization of race prevent us from continuing our American superiority.
"Our" American superiority? In what sense do you think any "our" exists? There is no "our" for people who think as you do.
I frankly care a lot more about America than this nebulous, romantic notion of "the West".
No, your understanding of America is far more nebulous and romantic than our view of the West. The West at least has some tangible existence. Your America is merely an abstraction. It can never exist, and the attempts to make it exist only serve to destroy the actual America.
You seem to be completely clueless as to the state of the law. A white person cannot sue a company for discriminating against him for being white.
Of course we can. It happens all the time. Surely you heard about the New Haven firefighters? And that wasnt even a private company, that was the gov ernment, which is allowed to discriminate to some extent. In fact, the IT industry is one of the few places left where what is effectively discrimination in favor of native-born whites is still legal ... a worker can be denied a job or promotion solely on the basis that they are an H1-B Visa holder, which is a category that includes very few whites. It wouldnt surprise me if this were changed during the Obama administration, however. Asians are definitely one of the core constituencies of leftism, and the more of them there are, the more influence they will come to have. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to believe in race/IQ differences and be a leftist ... so long as they are one of the groups that will benefit from it. Though I dont think that is the main reason why Asians tend to favor the Democrats.
Stopped Clock -- you are in denial. It took a heroic effort, largely opposed by the Union, for the White firefighters to get heard. They basically had to fund this out of their own pockets and through donations by friends and family.
The Media, most of the courts, and established Supreme Court precedent allow and indeed mandate discrimination against Whites in favor of non-Whites. The New Haven firefighters only won on process grounds not racial discrimination. The University of Michigan cases held explicitly that states and the feds can discriminate against Whites to favor non-Whites, as this is a positive social goal for the government and nation.
That's the way it is.
I agree with Apple. Whites need to stop being ashamed of being White, pursuing their own group interest, or accepting the label that acting like Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and everyone else in racial spoils is joining the Klan or Neo Nazis.
Because it is not.
Economic forecasts are predicting twenty years of minimal growth at best. Sky-high taxation. And continuing efforts to make Whites discriminated, second class citizens in their own country. What is needed is a counter-reaction, a takeover of the government, media, academia, and judiciary to push group rights for Whites.
Since the Constitution is a "living document" and the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant, so liberals tell us, so too the 14th, meaning we can simply deny citizenship and kick out children, and grandchildren, and so on of illegal aliens. Thereby voting ourselves more goodies.
Free, and actually GOOD health care because we are not picking up the tab for illiterate peasants from Mexico, and their descendants. Who can be profitably repatriated to Mexico. Kicking these people out means free six month breast cancer screening with the best, newest, most expensive technology, or prostate cancer, and so on. Since cancer risks increase as age does, this is an easy sell.
Even SWPL don't want to die of cancer.
Put it to even the SWPL: every dollar spent on a Mexican (or Welfare recipient, i.e. Black ghetto folk) is one dollar we cannot spend on preventing YOU dying and ugly death from cancer.
SOMEONE is going to get shafted. Don't let it be you.
For about 60 years or so we have had near constant high growth rates (for a developed economy) papering over huge differences in racial spoils. That's come to an end -- the pie is SHRINKING and slices are cut more ways.
The solution -- make the cuts go further by kicking people out of the pie slicing! Everyone understands that. Its not the Klan, it's just business.
"There are plenty of Jews on the right, and East Asians are more naturally right-wing than most whites. HBD is also widely accepted by Asians."
No. I agree with the posters above that second-generation East Asians trend democrat, even if their beliefs do not align with liberalism, they still overwhelmingly voted for Obama. They accept HBD, but also want to be accepted, so they vote democrat. They are conformist, and will vote for whoever they think is more popular. I remember some HBD blogger or writer writing about this.
What's left unsaid is that white americans these days don't aspire to reach the same levels they used to
Perhaps it is left unsaid because anyone saying it would be expected to back it up with something.
I notice it also contradicts your claim two sentences earlier about how immigrant tech workers are merely doing low level grunt work.
As far as IT goes, the sad fact is that Americans are NOT choosing to major in Computer Science in large enough numbers to keep our economy humming along well without importing a lot of H-1B visa holders.
... and I don't need any links or fancy studies to know this , because I've done heavy recruiting on college campuses for young CS grads.
First of all, you don't see very many who are white americans. Secondly, the American CS majors all think they're going to be the next "ideas guy" like Steve Jobs or only want to do the "sexy" work like video gaming or high-level application design and architecture even though they don't have the experience to make that a reality. Thirdly, every American CS major seems to want top-notch money coming right out of school, along with a whole host of perks like working from home, or flex time to come and go when they please. There's nothing like trying to convince some kid that just graduated from podunk state technical that he shouldn't get 85K salary right off the bat when he has no real work or internship experience.
So, it's no surprise that South Asian H-1B holders are taking over the lower-level tech positions. They show enormous flexibility and don't thumb their noses at having to do grunt work like Software QA or application debugging.
@Anonymous
Have you ever heard of someone called Ayn Rand. I live in a very redneck area, and these days she is more popular than Jesus. I mean they pretend to love Jesus, but in truth they can not stop talking about Ayn Rand. But dude, on the question of my mental sanity, I am the craziest commentator in the Human Biodiversity blogsphere. I take your insult as a source pride. Sometimes being rational is really just being conformist, and not actually being rational at all. Do you believe certain things because it is the correct idea, or the right idea?
^
Somehow I have the feeling the Rednecks haven't actually read Rand, they're probably just parroting what they hear from conservative intellectuals. If they lived in Randworld, most of them would be screwed. Just a thought.
"Wrong. America should not be run for the benefit of hypothetical future visionaries who might some day want to move here for reasons of their own that we can only guess at, but rather on behalf of the interests of our fellow countrymen who actually live here right now.
Science might one day free break the ties of gravity and old age, but it will never free us from the bonds of kinship and culture."
In other words, economic parasitism in this country is OK as long as it is done by whites.
Even if I accepted this, it still does not provide argument how I as a white person can be worse off if there are lots and lots of high IQ Chinese and Indians starting all kinds of new businesses and technologies in the U.S. I would think any increase in the size of the economic pie (and increased dynamism) would be beneficial to all.
@Asian of Reason
You are right. I find it personally weird seeing all these rednecks talk about Ayn Rand now. Actually many of them likely did not read the bible either, but merely learned to spout a few lines from it in bible study. Many rednecks really do see themselves as individualists who do not use the state for basic survival, in spite of the fact that many rednecks are on government programs. So even if they have not read any books written by Ayn Rand, they still understand the basic concept of Objectivism beyond the anti-religious parts.
The funny thing about rednecks is just how oblivious they are to their circumstances. I have gotten into stupid intellectual debates with Rednecks who believe that community colleges, food stamps, and social security are not government assistance. This is one reason why white liberals hate rednecks for being stupid while tolerating blacks for their stupidity, is that blacks understand the fact that they survive off the government. Most rednecks live in a fantasy world. They really think they would not be screwed in an Ayn Rand utopia, for they believe they are John Galt.
PS: I also hate seeing these same Rednecks date and marry Asian women. I think you should know that you have an ally in your fight against white men dating Asian girls who is a tall blond white male. Love your blog, and glad that you replied to my comment. Long live the Chinese people, may they conquer the world.
But dude, on the question of my mental sanity, I am the craziest commentator in the Human Biodiversity blogsphere.
Eh. You're just another troll.
As far as IT goes, the sad fact is that Americans are NOT choosing to major in Computer Science in large enough numbers to keep our economy humming along well without importing a lot of H-1B visa holders.
Hmm. I'm a white American with a CS degree. I'm unemployed and basically unemployable, in the IT field. There might as well be a sign out, "No Whites Need Apply". I'd tell any white person thinking of trying to get into the IT field to get their head examined.
As for your notions of economics, they are pure statist. The market by definition allocates resources where they need to go, using price as a guide. If "Americans are NOT choosing to major in Computer Science in large enough numbers to keep our economy humming", then the approprriate thing in the free market is for for the price of IT workers to rise until Americans move into the IT field.
the IT industry is one of the few places left where what is effectively discrimination in favor of native-born whites is still legal ...
You either do not work in the IT industry, or you do work in it and you're a non-white here on a visa.
A third possibility might be that you're just another lefty loon. There seems to be several of them following this thread.
"Somehow I have the feeling the Rednecks haven't actually read Rand, they're probably just parroting what they hear from conservative intellectuals. If they lived in Randworld, most of them would be screwed. Just a thought."
I sort of see your point, if you are assuming that Rednecks are the bottom 25% of whites. While some might fit that, many are really part of the bottom 50% of whites. I am not sure how many Rednecks you actually know. Redneck comes from the fact that these are men who work with their hands outdoors and get sunburned on the back of their necks. They are not as bright or well behaved as the top 50% of whites let alone the top 10% however they are generally pretty hardworking and productive. You have to get down to the bottom 5%-10% of whites to get levels of dysfunction that you see among NAM's. Those people aren't Rednecks because they aren't working at all. In Rand's world a worker, even of modest intellect, would do okay as long as he worked. It is the incompetent, violent, non-worker who would be screwed; the person who provided nothing of value would receive nothing of value. Even hay bailing and ditch digging have some value.
Do you have any evidence for any of this, because most of it sounds pretty delusional. Jews vote 3-1 or more for Democrats over Republicans, and the Republican Jews are not exactly right-wing, for the most part.
Jews are prominent in all areas of intellectual discourse. Every political corner has a disproportionate number of Jews at the top, for HBD reasons of course. In this corner of the blogosphere, Auster is a Jew, Sigma is a Jew, and Sailer is part Jewish. I'm sure there's probably a couple more. By himself, TUJ probably has more intellectual heft in every one of his comments here than other any randomly selected five comments here put together.
The three to one ratio mentioned is probably close to other upper class whites in the Northeast, where Jews cluster.
And is your position that the US would have been better off without Jews? Do you not take pride as an Ameican in the many Jewish-American accomplishments, despite the fact that they trend to the left, on average? I ask this just so I know where you stand.
What do you see as the major differences between say, A German-American family and a Greek-American family
Greeks and Italians and other Meds are emotional, loud and boisterous, and love their families way too much. Italians also have a propensity to criminal behavior. As a man of northwest European descent, I relate much better to the East Asians who have a quiet stoicism, a sense of civility, and a stiff upper lip.
Perhaps it is left unsaid because anyone saying it would be expected to back it up with something.
I notice it also contradicts your claim two sentences earlier about how immigrant tech workers are merely doing low level grunt work.
Ok, well then allow me to clear up any ambiguity.
The grunt work is done by the fresh immigrants.
The high-level hard science gaps are filled by the second generation children of these high-IQ immigrants.
There are exceptions to this, such as in the field of metallurgy, where there is such a dearth of US talent that we have to grab them off the boat. See also Camlost's comment.
Even if I accepted this, it still does not provide argument how I as a white person can be worse off if there are lots and lots of high IQ Chinese and Indians starting all kinds of new businesses and technologies in the U.S. I would think any increase in the size of the economic pie (and increased dynamism) would be beneficial to all.
I basically agree with this - for now.
But engaging the friendly and charming commenters here has made me think of an HBD reason -one not mentioned by the commenters here- why high IQ immigration could still have a negative affect on white people (whether or not it outweighs the economic benefit of a higher-IQ populace, I do not know). I'll actually probably put a post up on my site within the next couple days detailing it.
Surely you heard about the New Haven firefighters? And that wasnt even a private company, that was the gov ernment, which is allowed to discriminate to some extent.
You may have heard of it, but you don't know anything about it. It did not say that you may not discriminate against whites. In that instance the SCOTUS merely said whites could not be disciminated against in that particular case.
According to Findlaw:
"The majority held that an employer can invoke fear of "disparate impact" litigation by minority applicants as a defense to a charge that discarding the results was itself an act of unlawful discrimination. However, the lead opinion written by Justice Kennedy announced that the defense is only available where the employer has a "strong basis in evidence" for fearing disparate impact liability. The majority further found that the record in Ricci did not meet this standard."
In non-legalese, employers need to make at least some token effort to pretend that there is a reason for discriminating against whites. Ricci v. DeStefano did not prohbit anti-white discrimination. It did offer some hints that the justices might so rule in the future though.
TUJ probably has more intellectual heft in every one of his comments here than other any randomly selected five comments here put together.
Your suck-up-ivness is quite impressive. But no, he's not notably intellectual.
Your other comments are red herrings, again. The point was made that Jews are overwhelmingly left-wing. You're spreading a smoke-screen rather than admitting that is true.
Do you not take pride as an Ameican in the many Jewish-American accomplishments, despite the fact that they trend to the left, on average? I ask this just so I know where you stand.
You did not ask me, but I'll tell you anyway. I don't feel any pride in the accomplishments of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, David Axelrod, George Soros, or the myriad other enemies of me and my country. Jews do not "trend to the left, on average". If you need to spin like that then your cause is already lost.
You'll be telling me next that "blacks trend to the Democratic party, on average".
@Anonymous, you said "Eh. You're just another troll."
No, I am serious reader of this blog with a sense of humor and humility. If you are same anonymous who I replied to before, I find your comments funny. You need to make a profile name for yourself, I like you.
Let's be civil here.
I don't think anyone is denying that Jews trend heavily to the left. That's simply undeniable.
"HBD" in the true sense of what the data implies has got not a damn thing to do with conservative politics. I know some of the evolutionary psychologists and population geneticists that produce some of the best work in the field and all are staunch democrats.
Fiscal liberalism existed long before post moderninst blank slatism. Secular liberalism did so as well. You sit here and bitch and moan as if HBD is some secret silver bullet which justifies right wing anything, but it's just not the case. If you want to be right wing, data on genetics will do little to advance your cause.
You complain about "Jews and Asians" but your complaint really seems to be about the left. Notice Germany has no Jews and Asians and it is plenty more left wing than this place.
Spouting about how you want to believe some conservative tripe that was never built on knowledge involving genetics anyways while you have only the vaguest sense of what the research does say will not help your cause.
@FemX
I find it ironic that few people complain about the fact that a pure blood German was responsible for the invention of the modern welfare state. The first social security program, universal healthcare program, and employee wage compensation for sickness in the world were all created by Otto Von Bismarck. A deeply religious German aristocrat who hated Jews created the modern welfare state. He even had a name for it, he called it state socialism. It was an invention of political pragmatism and religious conviction. He was afraid of socialism so he decided to make some concessions toward mitigating its spread. Also he was deeply Lutheran, and felt that society should take care of the least fortunate. I wonder why nobody hates Otto Von Bismarck, the founder of the modern welfare state.
If a company policy prohibiting hiring H-1B visa holders who are in the country legally isnt discrimination, what is it? And no, I'm not employed in the IT industry.
"he first social security program, universal healthcare program, and employee wage compensation for sickness in the world were all created by Otto Von Bismarck. A deeply religious German aristocrat who hated Jews created the modern welfare state. He even had a name for it, he called it state socialism."
I did not know that, and I appreciate you telling me.
WTF - "Rednecks" are not discussing Ayn Rand. That is absurd.
I grew up in the rural Deep South amongst the poorest of uneducated white southerners. I've personally known people active in the KKK.
The only folks in the US discussing Ayn Rand have Bachelor's Degrees, and this rules out Southern proles.
@Camlost
I live in Texas, and many god fearing white people who have no bachelor degrees at all are talking about Ayn Rand. Seriously, this phenomenon has blown my mind away by it's sheer absurdity. I am not joking, who have to come to Texas, and see it for yourself. In Texas, I have met people who look like Cletus from The Simpsons talking about Ayn Rand. My guess is that I maybe live in some parallel universe different from one you are from, or that I am really prejudice against Conservative white people, and assume they are all rednecks. But seriously, I have met people who could have been doubles for the Beverly Hillbillies talking about Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is either popular among rednecks, or people who look like rednecks. I am amazed by the weirdness of it all.
"HBD" in the true sense of what the data implies has got not a damn thing to do with conservative politics. I know some of the evolutionary psychologists and population geneticists that produce some of the best work in the field and all are staunch democrats.
Pretty much. But it does show to be faulty many arguments to the contrary of conservative politics. That is why Gould et al disliked it. HBD does not justify right wing politics, but the absence of HBD does justify left wing politics, as it is an axiom for the existing left wing consensus (though you can imagine left wing consensuses that reconcile themselves to HBD).
HBD would help to destroy (at least presently existing) wasteful left wing politics and programs, functionally improving the state towards a more right wing optimum, but does not speak specifically to right wing ideology because right wing ideology makes no statements dependant on HBD or its absence.
The reasons to be into conservative politics are functional (how likely a polity that follows them is to survive in the long term, rather than die out or change into something else) and aesthetic (how much you like how a world with conservative politics looks) and aren't really informed by HBD directly.
I know some of the evolutionary psychologists and population geneticists that produce some of the best work in the field and all are staunch democrats.
Yes, but through relative disinterest/dispassion, cultural signaling and support of "Big Science" more likely than through ideological conviction.
If a company policy prohibiting hiring H-1B visa holders who are in the country legally isnt discrimination, what is it?
Sanity? Good morals? Common sense? Compliance with government policy? (In general positions which need a security clearance also need US citizenship. Crazy, huh?)
The biggest HBD denialists are the classical liberals in the Republicans Party. Their philopsophy requires them to believe that "all men are created equal", and believe it literally.
The left, the Democrats, have no problem with HBD. They're all racist to the core already. Being the left, they tend to lie about what they believe. I've noticed that people on the left lie reflexively, sometimes when they don't even need to. What, you think the Jews and Asians honestly believe they're just the same as the blacks?
Planet Grok said . . .
The three to one ratio mentioned is probably close to other upper class whites in the Northeast, where Jews cluster.
And is your position that the US would have been better off without Jews? Do you not take pride as an Ameican in the many Jewish-American accomplishments, despite the fact that they trend to the left, on average? I ask this just so I know where you stand.
You took issue with the claim that even high-IQ, high education immigrants are lefty, as are Jews. Why you took issue with this commonplace is somewhat mysterious, but I thought it might be that you didn't know, so I helped you out.
In the event that ignorance is behind your current reformulation that Jews are no more lefty than other rich northeasterners, I offer the following from the GSS. I do the same analysis as before but limit attention to households with income over $80K living in new england and the middle atlantic (party id in %D-%I-%R):
Overall: 47-11-42
Jews: 65-07-28
Looking bad for your theory.
Immigration apparently moves US politics left, and there is no special exception for high-IQ, high-education, or Jewish immigration. Perhaps there is an exception for European Christian immigration, at least after a generation or three, but I'm not sure even about that.
Of course I take pride as an American in the accomplishments of American Jews. Why wouldn't I?
The question of whether the US would have been better off without Jews is obviously impossible to answer even approximately, partly because it is ill-posed and partly because it is just hard. The majority of American Jews are descendants of East European Jews who came during the large wave of immigration from 1880-1920 ish. What counterfactual do you want to evaluate? America today vs America without the great wave? America today vs America with the great wave but also with discrimination against Jews in immigration? Expulsion of all Jews at some point? Discrimination against Jews from the very beginning? And how would we evaluate this counterfactual? I'm not sure how I would begin.
It's an interesting question, though, so if you have thoughts, please share.
Bill,
I appreciate your data-based arguments in contrast to the ad-homs upstream.
You took issue with the claim that even high-IQ, high education immigrants are lefty, as are Jews.
I did not take issue with that claim that Jews are mostly on the left. I said there are plenty of Jewish people prominent on the right, and I named a few within this very blogosphere. I also think the contributions of American Jews such as Einstein, Oppenheimer, von Neumann and a host of others outweigh the fact that this groups is mostly liberal. Likewise, I do not care who Chien-Shiung Wu, Tsung-Dao Lee or other Chinese-American Nobel Prize winners voted for, I want them here in the US working for our country and teaching our boys and yes, spreading their wild oats. Other whites who expect me to feel some sort of camaraderie with these people over high quality immigrants like these people are really living in another universe.
I did question whether or not Jews were any more liberal than other northeastern whites, which you seemed to address. Although I wonder if the pattern would change if you narrow the sample down to urban whites with incomes over 80k, because most in that set that I know are quite liberal.
Then there's also the fact that "Republican" is a very poor proxy for true conservatism, since the two parties are in agreement on the most salient issues facing our country. Whether one is an R or D almost doesn't even matter, since both parties stand for bankrupting the country and dysgenic illegal immigration tolerance.
My personal opinon is that people who are net contributors are not doomed to forever voting for the left, even if they are immigrants, for they do not need handouts from the government, nor are they content over the long term with supporting a parasitic underclass. The only people who will forever support policies of wealth redistribution are those who are unable to produce it on their own.
But even if descendants of high-IQ immigrants are somehow genetically doomed to forever be on the left, a position I find implausible by the very nature of a high-IQ, it does not mean that our quality of life could not improve. HalfSigma had a post up recently illustrating how HBD is more important than politics: Scandinavian countries are nice places to live, despite rampant liberalism. No country in Sub-Saharan Africa is a very good place to live, no matter what its politics are.
My position could be described as bit of IQ fundamentalism, if there is such a thing. IQ is what matters, for that is where most of one's potential is. The less you have of it, the less hope there is for you. The emergency facing this country is that of a huge influx of low-IQ immigrants. If this single problem did not exist, then I would not worry much about the US at all, even with the shift toward liberalism. People would find out that things dont work eventually, and return to time-tested truths. Any such return will be impossible when 50% of our population forms a genetically fixed parasitic underclass.
"Other whites who expect me to feel some sort of camaraderie with these people over high quality immigrants like these people are really living in another universe."
Fully agree. I don't understand the whole white solidarity thing. I'm supposed to feel some intimate connection with people who simply share my genetic background? I don't even like members of my own family.
But my conclusion is probably the same: I just think that homogeneous racial groups tend to get along better, i.e. whites get along with whites better than Asians who get along with Asians, etc. It just makes sense. In interracial relationships (platonic included), there always seems to be an unspoken barrier. And research shows, racially heterogeneous groups don't work AT ALL.
But as I've said before, I welcome a limited number of highly educated, high intelligence, STEM Asians.
"Yes I don't mind some limited immigration."
One StDV, why have any? Good immigration, the kind that brings people who want to assimilate and become like traditional Americans, and who bring needed skills, requires gov't spending to check 'em out first.
We're broke. And we've got 30 million unassimilable mestizoes to deal with at the moment. Nope. Time to close the borders and have a complete moratorium on immigration.
Planet Grok, I think calculating the contribution of Jews is much more difficult than you are giving credit for, and your mention of Einstein illustrates this. The point that Jews contributed heavily in physics in the 20th C is surely right. On the other hand, they contributed negatively in anthropology and sociology and probably psychology. How does one balance?
Also, liberal really does not do justice to how far to the left of the mainstream and how activist Jews have been, on average.
If you had asked me an easier question like: "Would the world/America have been better off without Einstein?" I would have answered "yes." The benefits of Einstein appear to be Relativity faster than it otherwise would have been discovered. Since Relativity has not been all that useful, practically, no big deal. Of course, it has been useful in astonomy, cosmology and the like, but these are not practical. This is totally unlike quantum mechanics which revolutionized chemistry and is the basis for much practical knowledge today.
On the other hand, Einstein was a Chomsky-like bad guy, using his fame to peddle apologetics for the Soviet Union and for any evil, socialist idea which came down the pike.
"Since Relativity has not been all that useful, practically, no big deal. "
Not true. Satellites don't work at all unless one takes into account relativistic effects (gravity curves space time such as around the Earth). And satellites are kind of important.
Further, Einstein's Nobel Prize (for the photoelectric effect) was an incredibly important result in the burgeoning field of QM. Additionally, he was instrumental in vetting this new field, even though he was skeptical of it (i.e. EPR paradox).
@ Curvaceuous:
Why have any immigration right now? RIGHT NOW, it might be a good idea to hold off on all immigration until the economy comes back. But why we need any:
Basically, the STEM industry needs 150,000 new workers every year and there doesn't seem to be enough high-intelligence Americans willing to work in these fields. We need a limited amount of Asians (Europeans aren't that willing to come here) to add to American STEM workers in order to keep the field growing.
"Basically, the STEM industry needs 150,000 new workers every year and there doesn't seem to be enough high-intelligence Americans willing to work in these fields."
Last year about 148,000 high school seniors got 650 or higher on the math section of the SAT. It seems that we should be able to get enough STEM folks assuming some equally able students took ACT only and are not included in that number. Do you think STEM jobs are that unattractive to those students?
"And research shows, racially heterogeneous groups don't work AT ALL."
It seems the dumber the members are the worse it is. If everyone were smart with low levels of criminality, it wouldn't be as bad. Compare racially diverse prison to racially diverse corporations, universities and think tanks.
"Last year about 148,000 high school seniors got 650 or higher on the math section of the SAT. It seems that we should be able to get enough STEM folks assuming some equally able students took ACT only and are not included in that number."
You have to take into account dropout rates and fields chosen.
How many of them will actually want to go into STEM fields? Probably not more than 50%. Then, many will dropout of their STEM major as engineering nationwide has a 50% attrition rate.
So we have enough smart people, but not enough are getting the requisite training or simply don't want to go into STEM fields.
Fully agree. I don't understand the whole white solidarity thing. I'm supposed to feel some intimate connection with people who simply share my genetic background? I don't even like members of my own family.
One, this is the first thing you've ever said that causes me to disagree.
A sense of self-love and nostalgia about White America (or white-led civilization) will both be necessary for whites to hold it together here in the US (or anywhere else that we exist). If you want to see a political swing back to the right (and against Mestizo immigration) it will be because of whites getting together and hearkening back to safer times when we could leave our doors unlocked, trust our neighbors or let our children outside to play without fear.
White Americans are NOT going to band together and start to resist mass immigration based on average IQ statistics...
"How many of them will actually want to go into STEM fields? Probably not more than 50%. Then, many will dropout of their STEM major as engineering nationwide has a 50% attrition rate.
So we have enough smart people, but not enough are getting the requisite training or simply don't want to go into STEM fields."
Does this really just underscore the problem we have in providing student aid based on need instead of incentive? I mean if we have money to give far weaker students so they can study worthless humanities, wouldn't we all be better off spending that money to incentivize those with demonstrated ability to stay within the STEM fields? It seems much of education funding is aimed at the worthless pursuit of just producing generic "graduates" rather than producing the specific graduates we need. This really makes me feel like the gov't doesn't give a damned about its citizens when qualified citizens aren't helped to reach their potential but less qualified citizens and non-citizens are provided help.
"Why have any immigration right now? RIGHT NOW, it might be a good idea to hold off on all immigration until the economy comes back. But why we need any:
Basically, the STEM industry needs 150,000 new workers every year and there doesn't seem to be enough high-intelligence Americans willing to work in these fields. We need a limited amount of Asians (Europeans aren't that willing to come here) to add to American STEM workers in order to keep the field growing."
LOL!
It is thinking like this that is the biggest barrier to having real immigration reform come about.
This same argument can be used to justify low-skilled immigration as well.
I can hear the arguments now:
"But, native-born Americans don't want to work in the fields picking fruits and veggies."
"But, native-born Americans don't want to work for low wages in factories."
Etc, etc, etc...
You need to realize that HBD is not accepted in polite society. I wish is was, but it is not.
Just because it is widely accepted in the nerd-o-sphere (aka HBD-o-sphere), does not mean it can be used to justify only high-IQ immigration.
In the real world, the argument you use for high-skilled immigration will the same argument used for low-skilled immigration.
All the "but low-skilled immigrants don't pay much in taxes & use up a lot of govt services" type arguments will fall on deaf ears. In fact, such arguments will probably get you branded a "racist."
Realistically, only an immigration moratorium is politically feasible since is applied across the board (and thus is not "racist").
A moratorium could even be sold as a way to help alleviate the unemployment situation.
The slogan could be:
During these hard economic times, we should not make the plight of our fellow unemployed Americans worse by allowing unfettered immigration, both legal and illegal.
Therefore, we will be imposing a moratorium on legal immigration and cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.
"One, this is the first thing you've ever said that causes me to disagree.
A sense of self-love and nostalgia about White America (or white-led civilization) will both be necessary for whites to hold it together here in the US (or anywhere else that we exist). If you want to see a political swing back to the right (and against Mestizo immigration) it will be because of whites getting together and hearkening back to safer times when we could leave our doors unlocked, trust our neighbors or let our children outside to play without fear. "
Well I had a good run.
What you're saying doesn't actually contradict what I'm saying.
White solidarity is completely irrational from my perspective, but that doesn't preclude it from being practically beneficial. Same with religion. Same with believing one is more attractive than one actually is (increases confidence). A bunch of other examples.
I also think that nostalgia for a White civilization is different than believing two random white people share a common bond just based on racial commonality.
@ Capt Obvious:
Yes nerds. Good ad hominem.
As for your argument, the fact is the "Americans don't want to do it" claim is simply wrong for low wage jobs. Teenagers and blacks used to do these jobs until they were pushed out by NAM immigrants.
As for your other points, they're good. I can't really argue with them.
OK, white people, I have a question for you.
If an Asian person and a white person were hanging over a cliff, and you could only save one of them, which one would you save?
Basically, the STEM industry needs 150,000 new workers every year and there doesn't seem to be enough high-intelligence Americans willing to work in these fields. We need a limited amount of Asians (Europeans aren't that willing to come here) to add to American STEM workers in order to keep the field growing.
The assumption there would seem to be that the STEM industry needs to take place in America. It does not. And it's not the place of government to try to make it do so.
My personal opinon is that people who are net contributors are not doomed to forever voting for the left, even if they are immigrants, for they do not need handouts from the government, nor are they content over the long term with supporting a parasitic underclass.
You display a very poor knowledge of politics, not to mention history. Historically speaking, Jews have been on the poltical left forever for all practical purposes. I saw a post by Sailer (I think) contrasting the Jewish vote for FDR and for Obama. The perentages were identical.
It's not surprisng that this should be so to people with a genuine understanding of human nature. (I notice a lack of such understanding on the part of "HBDers") If there's one thing that people care much more about than mere money, it's power. Indeed, money follows power. So there is nothing remotely surprising about the fact that wealthy minority groups are on the left, and are there to stay. They are prefectly content to support a parasitic underclass, as long as they get to run the show in exchange.
You're also assuming that the members of the minority groups will think as you do - as a deracinated self-absorbed individual and not as members of a group. But they have no good reason to do that and every reason not to, even from the standpoint of economics. Minority group success is tied to group cohesion.
Likewise, I do not care who Chien-Shiung Wu, Tsung-Dao Lee or other Chinese-American Nobel Prize winners voted for, I want them here in the US working for our country and teaching our boys and yes, spreading their wild oats. Other whites who expect me to feel some sort of camaraderie with these people over high quality immigrants like these people are really living in another universe.
There you go with the "our country" stuff again. There's a severe inconsistency between your "our"s and your scoffing at the notion of "camaraderie". If we take your ideas seriously then there is no "our" country, and logically there should be no countries, period. There will simply be temporary associations of people who come together on the basis of IQ to work on technical problems.
As I said at the start, your notion of "our country" is a more accurate description of a corporation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of "country" as understood by Western classical liberalism from the 17th century onwards.
"Einstein was a Chomsky-like bad guy"
On an "empty organism" hypothesis, human beings are assuredly equal in intellectual endowments. More accurately, they are equal in their incapacity to develop complex cognitive structures of the characteristically human sort. If we assume, however, that this biologically given organism has its special capacities like any other, and that among them are the capacities to develop human cognitive structures with their specific properties, then the possibility arises that there are differences among individuals in their higher mental functions. Indeed, it would be surprising if there were not, if cognitive faculties such as the language faculty are really "mental organs." People obviously differ in their physical characteristics and capacities; why should there not be genetically determined differences in the character of their mental organs and the physical structures on which they are based?
That's your bad guy, Mr. Chomsky, who happens to have written paper after paper in denunciation of blank slatists.
"Good immigration, the kind that brings people who want to assimilate and become like traditional Americans"
What do you mean by "traditional Americans"?
Can you list, say, at least 10 characteristics that make an American "traditionally American"?
(a serious inquiry, despite my stupid and frivolous moniker!)
Yes, as I said, I'm probably just more self-interested than those who want to commit their lives to country-building missions that they won't be alive to benefit from.
Actually, you're less self-interested, as you are making choices that will tend to eliminate your genetic structures from this planet. Instead, you're other-interested -- you're the extended phenotype of those others whose well-being you promote.
As far as IT goes, the sad fact is that Americans are NOT choosing to major in Computer Science in large enough numbers to keep our economy humming along well without importing a lot of H-1B visa holders.
And obviously they are not majoring in CS because the national government's immigration policy has depressed wages and otherwise foreclosed opportunities in the filed. As always, the government creates a problem, and then uses the poroblem as grounds for exacerbating the problem to the government's benefit.
You complain about "Jews and Asians" but your complaint really seems to be about the left. Notice Germany has no Jews and Asians and it is plenty more left wing than this place.
Stupidest argument ever. Germany is still occupied territory, and like the rest of the West it bows to the might of the U.S. and follows the fashions set by American Jewry.
If a company policy prohibiting hiring H-1B visa holders who are in the country legally isnt discrimination, what is it?
Actually, it's the hiring of H-1b visa holders that constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin. It's discrimination against Americans.
I did question whether or not Jews were any more liberal than other northeastern whites....
And how is that relevant? Isn't it fairly obvious that the liberalism of northeastern Whites is caused by their interaction with Jews?
The only people who will forever support policies of wealth redistribution are those who are unable to produce it on their own.
But productive non-Whites are still better off if they both produce things for themselves and get the government to give them part of what Whites produce.
Likewise, I do not care who Chien-Shiung Wu, Tsung-Dao Lee or other Chinese-American Nobel Prize winners voted for, I want them here in the US working for our country and teaching our boys and yes, spreading their wild oats. Other whites who expect me to feel some sort of camaraderie with these people over high quality immigrants like these people are really living in another universe.
I'm not an American, but what is the point of having them "here teaching our boys" if you are just going to import talent anyway? Why not just leave them where they are and work with them through telecomms and trade?
That way, they stay where they are, but you don't get any icky, ugly, awkward Asianness in your genepool and it's easier to cut off communications with them if they become troublesome, whereas if they're citizens then you can't easily excommunicate them when they become irksome and gauche.
Also, do you want to be at the forefront of tech and science for reasons of material gain or just some wanky pride thing? If it's some wanky pride thing, then why should anyone respect it any more than they respect the White Pride cru?
I agree that smart Asian people are okay, but they're deeply undesirable compared with equally smart, attractive and talented Whites, no matter how smart they are. The best policy IMO eugenics for Whites (and yes, even Jews rather than Asians), not some Asian importation.
I mean, if you want to have nice Chinese food, then open a book. You don't actually need any Chinese any more than Japanese will ever need Americans living with them to eat a Freshness Burger. Yes, there will be a slight degree of "lowering" in some ways of quality of life, but we're not living at the Malthusian edge (and if we are, whether we/you have Asians or not will frankly have nothing to do with it, as clearly indicated by the fact that they never broke out the Malthusian Trap on their own) and the wealth gap between Asian and European countries is not so significant, so I think it's fine to be a "little" poorer for the satisfaction of being ourselves.
What is this mysterious power that Jews seem to have over white Christians?
Too bad it doesn't work similarly for Hernstein (Bell Curve), Michael Levin ("Why Race Matters"), and Larry Auster.
What are the 10 things that make an American "traditional"?
"The assumption there would seem to be that the STEM industry needs to take place in America. It does not. And it's not the place of government to try to make it do so."
The purpose of the government is to facilitate the will of the people. If the people generally wish to allow foreigners to enter the country because they have something to contribute as in this case in STEM fields, then the gov't should facilitate it. Right now we don't want low IQ laborers immigrating but the oligarchs want them because they are easier to manipulate than the willful people now here.
If following the will of the people doesn't gibe with your perception of the place of the government, does thwarting the will of the people seem like the place of government?
You can click on any of these articles to understand why Big Farma (which supplies Big Fast Food Drive-thrus) prefers foreigners;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS362&q=immokalee+slavery&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
@ Bag Lady/DADT/Big Farma/Desi/HB10/Whatever else:
Do you just spend all your time commenting on HBD/Manosphere sites?
Your incessant commenting is starting to become a little annoying.
The assumption there would seem to be that the STEM industry needs to take place in America. It does not.
I strongly disagree.
I'm not an American, but what is the point of having them "here teaching our boys" if you are just going to import talent anyway?
Importing talent does not mean there is no homegrown talent. I'd rather have my boys learning from Terrence Tao than some mildly above-average professor who happens to be white.
So there is nothing remotely surprising about the fact that wealthy minority groups are on the left, and are there to stay. They are prefectly content to support a parasitic underclass, as long as they get to run the show in exchange.
I think that is true of the old money, hereditary wealth class across ethnic boundaries.
Do you really think the Rockefellers care any more about white midwestern proles than the Goldensteinenbergs because they are also Gentiles?
but you don't get any icky, ugly, awkward Asianness in your genepool
I think I am seeing more and more of where you are coming from.
If it's some wanky pride thing, then why should anyone respect it any more than they respect the White Pride cru?
The difference is clear, it is between pride in accomplishments with actual tangible benefits and pride in fantasies.
I think it's fine to be a "little" poorer for the satisfaction of being ourselves.
That's a subjective value judgement that we'll just have to agree to disagree on.
What is this mysterious power that Jews seem to have over white Christians?
Too bad it doesn't work similarly for Hernstein (Bell Curve), Michael Levin ("Why Race Matters"), and Larry Auster.
Right. I wonder how they overcame the law of nature that says Jewish people are predisposed toward leftism? Maybe we can bottle whatever it is they have, and slip it into a kosher food-processing plant during the Sabbath! Until we develop this Jew-noculation, we should continue keeping all of them out of this country.
--------------------------
Anyway this was an interesting thought experiment. I do not think I'd ever actually stump for "huge" demographic changes, it does seem more prudent to have only limited amounts of high-IQ ethnic immigration simply because you don't want to mess with a good thing too much, esp all at once.
But the more I thought about it, the fewer actual-factual downsides I saw to this hypothetical scenario. The phrase "diversity can be fun and exciting" was worded to be comment-bait, and I chuckled when I wrote it - although it is true I do enjoy encountering people from other cultures. There was little in the way of objective facts against high-IQ immigration, mostly the same kind of emotional sentiments rooted in Romantic ideal that were expressed in the 1920's toward Meds and Alpines and 'Hebrews'. Which is fine, but I was hoping for more meat.
Ultimately I think the core truth HBD has to offer is that IQ is real, it has a biological basis, and is hereditary. The further you get from that, the more doubtful and subjective the assertions become.
FemX said . . .
That's your bad guy, Mr. Chomsky, who happens to have written paper after paper in denunciation of blank slatists.
Do you have a point? Chomsky was and is monstrously wicked. He was an enthusiastic apologist for Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese, and his views were influential.
"Immigrants started one-quarter of all venture-backed public companies between 1990 and 2005."
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001478-immigrants-key-economys-revival
Very limited immigration, not demographic changes (that could impact political voting or social bonds) will be a net benefit and won't detract socially or culturally from the US.
There was little in the way of objective facts against high-IQ immigration, mostly the same kind of emotional sentiments rooted in Romantic ideal that were expressed in the 1920's toward Meds and Alpines and 'Hebrews'.
Your own arguments in favor of high-IQ immigration boil down to "I like meeting people from different cutures", so a perhaps a little less sneering condescension towards other peoples "emotional sentiments" would be in order.
Your own arguments in favor of high-IQ immigration boil down to "I like meeting people from different cutures",
Wrong. Rewind and reread.
The arguments are that:
1. High IQ immigrants contribute economically, as evidenced by their earning power and stats like that OneSTDV points to.
2. High IQ immigrants contribute to the long term genetic stock.
The arguments against high-IQ immigration thusfar have been:
1. I prefer to see white people when I look out the window.
2. "The West" -thusfar an undefined, nebulous term- will vanish.
3. Various straw man or ad-hom assaults.
4. High IQ immigrants trend to the left (a legit concern, despite the fact that even totally socialist high-IQ countries are nice places to live, I thus discount this objection. esp since with all the low IQ immigration, we are going socialist eventually anyway)
so a perhaps a little less sneering condescension towards other peoples "emotional sentiments" would be in order.
Projection, from Mr. "icky, ugly, awkward Asianness ". Now THAT is sneering condescension, my friend.
I do not invest such emotion into blog comments, especially anonymous blog comments by people I do not know personally.
High IQ immigrants contribute economically, as evidenced by their earning power and stats like that OneSTDV points to.
His stats are misleading nonsense from the open borders lobby. Natives start their own business at a slightly higher rate than do immigrants. And natives who grow wealthy are less likely to use their wealth to foster communism, socialism, and fascism in this country.
High IQ immigrants contribute to the long term genetic stock.
The genetic stock of what? You continue this habit of alternating between denying any bonds of commonality between Americans, and making arguments based on what you claim are "our" best interests. And no matter how often this is pointed out to you, you keep doing it. You appear to one of those people, all too common in America today, whose opinion of their own intelligence greatly exceeds the reality.
I do not invest such emotion into blog comments, especially anonymous blog comments by people I do not know personally.
1) You are an anonymous blog commenter. At least I don't see your real name posted anywhere.
2) Your arguments reek of emotionalism. This appears to be on purpose - you stated above that you make certain comments just to get a rise out of people.
By your own admission you'd have left the backwards United States in 1938 to live in a more technologically advanced country. Nazi Germany, for instance. By your own admission you are a sworn enemy of the America people, and probably of ALL peoples, with the possible exception of whichever your own ethnic group is. Given all this the remarkable thing is how polite people have been to your purile arguments.
Very limited immigration, not demographic changes (that could impact political voting or social bonds) will be a net benefit and won't detract socially or culturally from the US.
That's a conclusion in search of a supporting argument. The people you want to bring here are by definition powerful and influential. How do you propose to prevent them from wielding that power and impacting our politics and social nature? It cannot be done.
The supposed "benefits" are also nebulous.
Maybe I'd feel for you if you were talking about the land of your evolution and genetic history. But any idiot knows that whites didn't evolve in north america. whites demolished the people who did evolve here and those people include the mexicans, who are mostly of native decent.
And your point is? Lands really belong only to people who evolved there? Since people are always evolving, what part of their evolving did they have to do there? Or is there a set period of time, say, 10,000 years ago, that determines what land "really belongs" to whom? Or is there some required period of time, some statute of limitations, under which conquerers can be said to possess their conquests? Sez who?
Myself, I tend find abstract arguments about "rights" to land pretty silly, because all said and done, human history is the history of conquest, and a land belongs to the people who have the will and the means to take it and keep it - or at least a strong enough ally or interested party willing to enforce their claims if they are too weak to do it themselves. But I am interested in the (often terribly inconsistent) ideas people have about nations, possession, and self-determination.
...but don't kid me with this crap about how they have the right to exist on this land which they invaded only a few centuries ago while I don't.
Uh, why would it be "crap"? Not, FemX, that I have any desire to see you off or dispute your presence. I'm just curious by what authority or logic you insist that the passage of "a few centuries" was not enough to give the people who conquered the continent and built the nation the "right" to keep you (or your parents, or grandparents - or mine, for that matter) out? (Whether they had the means or will to do so at the time being another matter entirely.) Sez who? The UN, lol?
I just get a chuckle out of latter-day immigrants who swan over here after all the heavy lifting has been done and start claiming "rights" to this country for them and their kind, bizarrely invoking dead natives (or sillier yet, implying some sort of connection or "solidarity" with them, and therefore a pseudo-hereditary claim.)
I find it beyond ridiculous to imagine my later-arriving ancestors standing at customs and demanding the right of entry and settlement from the inhabitants "because you fought and killed the natives!" Because, you know, it just makes no sense at all.
Planet Grok: Yes that [high-IQ group leeching AA swag] sucks. Roll that back. But if it weren't for the precedent set by underperforming minorities, they wouldn't have been able to.
I started a response to PG's comments but laughed so hard when I came to this bit that I realized I was taking him way too seriously. I guess that's just going to be the tragedy of our nation, eh, fine noble naïve high-IQ groups being led astray by underperforming minorities. Brings a tear to my eye, it does.
The question of whether the US would have been better off without Jews is obviously impossible to answer even approximately, partly because it is ill-posed and partly because it is just hard.
Hey, if he's going to pitch floaters right down the middle, I'll swing.
I unequivocally, proudly state that America would be immeasurably better off without Jews. No 1965 immigration act (The RECENT balance of Congress would be shifted in favor of immigration restriction sans Jews). No harmful Jewish movements (per MacDonald: Critical theory, Frankfurt School, ad infinitum), at least not infesting our universities. No radical '60s. No Freedom Riders. No mass media as anti-Euro sewer. No Israel attachment, thus no 9/11, War on Terra, or concomitant loss of freedom. No war on Christmas.
I could go on like that all day. Don't even get me started on the banksters.
And we'd lose nothing aside from a few doctors (I'd lose the lot if it meant losing Jewish "social scientists" too). Every innovation created by Jews could've been created elsewhere and we could've picked the ones we wanted. The only exception would be nukes, though a) I bet we could've done it on our own, and b) they couldn't have stolen it and given it to the Soviets, either.
Without Jews, practically everything HBD-ers, race-realists, and ethnopatriots bitch about would not exist. That many of these people can't admit that is a testament to Jewish power.
Re Svigor:
first off, I could list tons of gentile whites who were part of bringing about these ideas as well.
but even then, the WASPs had to actually adopt these insane, anti-white, anti-reality ideas. do Jews have some magical power over WASPs where WASPs are enchanted/hypnotized by the Marxist (I mean Engelist) anti-race-realist bullshit they put out?
Planet Grok said . . .
High IQ immigrants trend to the left (a legit concern, despite the fact that even totally socialist high-IQ countries are nice places to live, I thus discount this objection. esp since with all the low IQ immigration, we are going socialist eventually anyway)
Dude, there are no totally socialist high-IQ countries which are nice places to live, and there have never been any such places.
Totally socialist countries included the Soviet Union, Red China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Vietnam, E Europe before 1989, etc. Several of these are high-IQ, and they were all dystopian hells on earth.
Sweden is not socialist, no matter how many times Charles Krauthammer says it is. It is a social democracy, just like the US, except its government eats 55% of GDP instead of our 40%.
Re Svigor:
first off, I could list tons of gentile whites who were part of bringing about these ideas as well.
Hi Anon. Maybe you could. Could you make a case that America would have been better off without whites*?
*(I don't like the term, "gentile" in reference to humanity minus Jews. Its nasty etymology aside ("heathen"), it's a Jewish term for humanity; why should it escape the ghetto of Jewish communications? On the other hand, the word isn't entirely useless to humanity, since I've recently decided to start referring to Jews as "non-gentiles" and everyone else as "non-Jews." We'll see how that goes, it's still a work in progress :) )
but even then, the WASPs had to actually adopt these insane, anti-white, anti-reality ideas. do Jews have some magical power over WASPs where WASPs are enchanted/hypnotized by the Marxist (I mean Engelist) anti-race-realist bullshit they put out?
I don't know. Do con men have some magical power to befuddle the minds of little old ladies? More to the point, do we punish little old ladies for being taken in by them, or let con men off the hook for fraud?
I don't make the case that Jews were a sufficient cause in any of these areas, but that they were a necessary one.
Immigration is a good example. See:
Jewish vs. Euro-American Voting Patterns
By Their Deeds Ye Shall Know Them!
for examples. If you're winning 55 to 45 and along come group X with their 15 votes siding with the bad guys, those 15 votes were a necessary condition and you'd have been better off without group X.
Jews tipped the balance from our favor, to the bad guys.
Jews are prominent in all areas of intellectual discourse.
Jews are only prominent vis-a-vis European ethnic interests insofar as they oppose them.
Jews are prominent NOWHERE in allowing, much less advocating, European ethnic interests.
So your statement is deceptive at best, or outright false at worst, depending on how it's interpreted.
---Nutup said: "Modern liberalism is based on the idea that all problems in the world are due to rich white male Christians."
Modern liberalism is primarily based on a belief in the changeability of human nature and a view of government as a beneficent force in that change. In fact liberals have had plenty to say about how the world can be made better by the rule of white male Christians. Read about the era of the Progressive Reformers or the architects of the War on Poverty.
---Liberalism largely went after the very thing that gave it power which is Western hegemony. Now liberalism is headed for a period of decline as Western hegemony disappears.
Western hegemony is disappearing? Liberalism too? This would be news to the rising power of the European Union, a powerhouse that is the largest economy in the world by nominal GDP and the second largest trade bloc economy in the world by PPP valuation of GDP. Some "disappearance"! And that's just the EU. Throw in the USA on top of that..
----Racial and ethnic identity is only reserved for Blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Arabs, and Martians.
Sheer fantasy and naivete. Racial and ethnic identity is pretty strong among whites. As the dominant however they need not declare it every two minutes. It's pretty much taken for granted. Historically, of course, there has been plenty of white "identity". A scant 40 years ago it was killing or jailing people for such "crimes" as eating in certain restaurants, or trying to attend nearby neighborhood schools.
----Planet Grok said... And you don't hear about (non-muslim) Indian and Chinese immigrants going around bashing whitey or clinging to welfare benefits, for example. They produce more than they consume. In fact, I think Asian immigrants assimilate a lot better and contribute more than white immigrants from certain European countries.
According to some reviewers of Seymour Itzkoff, his arguments hold that certain people should be discouraged from reproducing or immigrating. The removal or gradual extinction of several million unproductive white people from our country, and their replacement by more disciplined, industrious Asians would seem from this perspective, to have strong potential to boost America's intellectual and economic standing.
---- Stopped Clock said...
If Indians were considered white, I wouldnt be surprised to see urban technology-oriented corporations hiring enormous numbers of them, denying jobs to true whites, and saying that they cant sue for discrimination because the company is indeed hiring a large number of "whites". If Indians are classified as a minority, it's probably at worst a mixed blessing.
Perhaps your hypothetical corporations would be hiring enormous numbers of Indians not because they would be classified as white but because on the average, they possess higher level technological education and skills than your true white applicants. No?
---- Sagat said...
Even without large scale immigration, White Americans will become the minority. As it stands now, half of all children are non-White. America will shift.
But will not white dominance remain in place regardless? In ultra-mixed Brazil the top of the hierarchy is still white. Liberals already know this.
---- Greater Europe said:
Europeans united in mind created everything we today value and use without second thought. That's what White Americans are: Europeans united as one.
Dubious. Actually Europeans are heirs to a long line of technological and cultural development pioneered by other Non European peoples. Christianity for one thing is not a European creation. Things like the the revolutionary domesticates that got transmitted to Europe - wheat, cattle, sheep, goats etc, along with things like the compass, gunpowder, printing, algebra etc etc are not European in origin. As UdisJew correctly notes the full potential of Northern Europe (indeed all Europe) would be nothing without the innovations of others.
By your own admission you are a sworn enemy of the America people, and probably of ALL peoples
LOL. Damn. You got me. I can't keep up the facade any longer. Time to come out with it.
What has long been rumored is indeed true:
I am the Anti-Christ.
Behold the power wielded by my army of communist Jewish/Asian minions and weep, knaves!
I shall return in another thread. Prepare The West brave soldier, because the day of my recrudescence will come as a thief in the night.
I am the Anti-Christ.
You are an irrational twit with the mentality of a sixteen-year-old who thinks he is the smartest person in the world. Your evil, I'm afraid, is merely banal.
Post a Comment