May 3, 2010

"The Limits of Policy"

David Brooks's latest NYT column, "The Limits of Policy," continues his pattern of picking up on my ideas, but expressing them gingerly enough to keep his job. There is a lot of good stuff in here, but enough Crimestop, too, so he doesn't get Stephanie Graced.
Roughly a century ago, many Swedes immigrated to America. They’ve done very well here. Only about 6.7 percent of Swedish-Americans live in poverty. Also a century ago, many Swedes decided to remain in Sweden. They’ve done well there, too. When two economists calculated Swedish poverty rates according to the American standard, they found that 6.7 percent of the Swedes in Sweden were living in poverty.

In other words, you had two groups with similar historical backgrounds living in entirely different political systems, and the poverty outcomes were the same.

A similar pattern applies to health care. In 1950, Swedes lived an average of 2.6 years longer than Americans. Over the next half-century, Sweden and the U.S. diverged politically. Sweden built a large welfare state with a national health service, while the U.S. did not. The result? There was basically no change in the life expectancy gap. Swedes now live 2.7 years longer.

Again, huge policy differences. Not huge outcome differences.

This is not to say that policy choices are meaningless. But we should be realistic about them. The influence of politics and policy is usually swamped by the influence of culture, ethnicity, psychology and a dozen other factors.

Which is precisely why one kind of policy -- immigration policy -- is so important. Minnesota is rather like Sweden. In contrast, New Mexico (state motto: "Thank God for Mississippi!") is still somewhat like Old Mexico, even after generations within the U.S. with relatively little additional immigration since the 1600s.
You can observe the same phenomenon when looking within the U.S. Last week, the American Human Development Project came out with its “A Century Apart” survey of life in the United States. As you’d expect, ethnicity correlates to huge differences in how people live. Nationally, 50 percent of Asian-American adults have a college degree, compared with 31 percent of whites, 17 percent of African-Americans and 13 percent of Hispanics. Asian-Americans have a life expectancy of 87 years compared with 79 years for whites and 73 years for African-Americans.

Even in struggling parts of the country, Asian-Americans do well. In Michigan, for example, the Asian-American life expectancy is 90, while for the average white person it’s 79 and for the average African-American it’s 73. Income and education levels are also much higher.

The region you live in also makes a gigantic difference in how you will live. There are certain high-trust regions where highly educated people congregate, producing positive feedback loops of good culture and good human capital programs. This mostly happens in the northeastern states like New Jersey and Connecticut. There are other regions with low social trust, low education levels and negative feedback loops. This mostly happens in southern states like Arkansas and West Virginia.

I've written about trust a lot, and there's something quite peculiar about describing "New Jersey and Connecticut -- i.e., Greater New York City -- as a "high-trust region." I think New Yorkers would find that term insulting. Conversely, Arkansas and West Virginia are not precisely "low social trust." All else being equal, New Jerseyites tend to be lower in trust, in most senses of the word, than Arkansawyers. C'mon, New Jersey probably has more Sicilians than any other state. Sicilians were the classic representation in the social science literature (see Edward Banfield's study of Sicily, Moral Basis of a Backward Society) of "amoral familism."

But all else is not equal, especially the number of very bright, very motivated people who flock to the region to make and spend money.

Arkansas isn't Lake Wobegon or Provo when it comes to trust -- in 1991 I once accidentally wandered up a deadend Ozark hollow while trying to get from Walmart headquarters to the Fayetteville airport and the locals sitting on their front porches looked at me like I might be a revenooer. On the other hand, Sam Walton built one of the most successful corporations in the world in Arkansas.
If you combine the influence of ethnicity and region, you get astounding lifestyle gaps. The average Asian-American in New Jersey lives an amazing 26 years longer and is 11 times more likely to have a graduate degree than the average American Indian in South Dakota. When you try to account for life outcome differences this gigantic, you find yourself beyond narrow economic incentives and in the murky world of social capital. What matters are historical experiences, cultural attitudes, child-rearing practices, family formation patterns, expectations about the future, work ethics and the quality of social bonds.

Sure, but, clearly, genetics also play some role in why the poor Sioux in South Dakota tend to drop dead young from alcoholism and diabetes. They didn't evolve with much alcohol or sugar around, and, hence, they have a hard time dealing with alcohol and sugar today. We ought to be sympathetic toward their genetic problems and look for ways to ameliorate them, not treat them as shamefully unspeakable.
Researchers have tried to disaggregate the influence of these soft factors and have found it nearly impossible. All we can say for sure is that different psychological, cultural and social factors combine in myriad ways to produce different viewpoints. As a result of these different viewpoints, the average behavior is different between different ethnic and geographic groups, leading to different life outcomes.

Oh, so that explains why Usain Bolt and all those other men of West African descent on three different continents have broken 10 seconds in the 100 meter dash so much more than the rest of the world combined: viewpoints! It's all in Usain's viewpoint. A more accurate way to phrase it is that researchers have made progress in disaggregating these soft factors, but the findings aren't very popular.
It is very hard for policy makers to use money to directly alter these viewpoints. In her book, “What Money Can’t Buy,” Susan E. Mayer of the University of Chicago calculated what would happen if you could double the income of the poorest Americans. The results would be disappointingly small. Doubling parental income would barely reduce dropout rates of the children. It would have a small effect on reducing teen pregnancy. It would barely improve child outcomes overall.

So when we’re arguing about politics, we should be aware of how policy fits into the larger scheme of cultural and social influences. Bad policy can decimate the social fabric, but good policy can only modestly improve it. 
 
But, all of the above suggests that immigration policy is the single most powerful policy tool, for good or bad. But when will Brooks ever follow out his logic and mention that?
Therefore, the first rule of policy-making should be, don’t promulgate a policy that will destroy social bonds. If you take tribes of people, exile them from their homelands and ship them to strange, arid lands, you’re going to produce bad outcomes for generations. 

Is Brooks talking about the movie industry in arid Hollywood, CA? "Bad outcomes for generations" is an interesting way to characterize the totality of their output.

Oh, sorry, he seems to be talking about American Indians in South Dakota. My mistake.
Finally, we should all probably calm down about politics. Most of the proposals we argue about so ferociously will have only marginal effects on how we live, especially compared with the ethnic, regional and social differences that we so studiously ignore. 

Except for immigration policy, right? That, according to this column's evidence and logic, should be the Big One. But only Angry, Evil People know anything the effects of immigration policy, so it must never be spoken of again.


84 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on, brother! This post is a grand slam.

Brooks' essay should have been titled "Limits of the Imagination".

Anonymous said...

The horny and fertile mexican younsters in US can bring this mighty empire faster than competition from China.

Dave said...

"But, all of the above suggests that immigration policy is the single most powerful tool, for good or bad. But when will Brooks ever follow out his logic and mention that?"

Give some props to David Frum, because he just did -- on CNN's website:

Black Sea said...

I'm not as down on David Brooks as some readers are. As with Stephanie Grace's rapid-fire apology, you've got to consider the milieu in which he finds himself. By NY Times standards, this is practically Pat Buchananesque. At least he's inching in the right direction, though as you point out, he skirts the genetics minefield almost completely, which is why he'll still be writing for the Times six months from now.

The thing about "high-trust regions where highly educated people congregate, producing positive feedback loops of good culture and good human capital programs," was probably intended as a sop to the home team. Places like Silicon Valley and Seattle would have served better as examples.

Anonymous said...

I was very surprised ( well, not that surprised ) that this did not leak out during the Democratic primary. A black man with a life expectency about 15 years less than the white women he ran against, did not say boo about the disparity. Furthermore, the race was on health care. Obama could have played it from the black angle or the male angle claiming that the current health care system is unfair. Instead he chose to pander to the white woman vote. Anything, so long as a white man does not get it.

jody said...

that's just plain retarded, stating west virginia is a low "social trust" environment and new jersey as a high "social trust" environment. that's exactly backwards. everybody in west virginia is ethnically similar and share a common bond as mountaineers, the southerners who fought for the north. 2010 new jersey is a free for all, an immigrant state where every next person you encounter on the street could have been picked at random from a globe, and the state politicians are definitely out to screw you.

speaking of track & field. in april, tyson gay did something which no runner has ever done before. he ran the 400 meters in 44 seconds. this makes him the first sprinter ever to run under 10 seconds in the 100, under 20 seconds in the 200, and under 45 seconds in the 400. only two other sprinters have come close to these levels of performance. michael johnson and usain bolt. you would find yourself in a real argument if you asked some track & field fans about which guy is the best sprinter.

also, 19 year old french sprinter christophe lemaitre ran the 100 meters in 10.09 last week. that is a fast time for the start of the track season. last year he ran the 100 in 10.04. nothing is ever certain until it happens, but he is definitely on pace to be the first european to cover 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. he seems to be ahead of where matt shirvington was at the same age, and is reliably running fast times.

chris solinsky ran the 10000 meters in 26:59 last week, breaking the 9 year old american record of 27:13 set by meb keflezighi. they say solinsky is the first person who is not from east africa to run under 27 minutes in the 10000. american galen rupp also ran under the old record, going 27:10. strangely, it was the first time solinsky had ever raced the 10000, while rupp has been running it for years and was aiming for the record. he broke the record without getting the record, certainly not the result he anticipated.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/02/BAT01D7H71.DTL#ixzz0mp5SbXkN

Why isn't this national news? Big blacks beating up little Asians? Yep, race is a myth and doesn't matter.

dfafafafasdfasf said...

Therefore, the first rule of policy-making should be, don’t promulgate a policy that will destroy social bonds. If you take tribes of people, exile them from their homelands and ship them to strange, arid lands, you’re going to produce bad outcomes for generations.

Is Brooks talking about the movie industry in arid Hollywood, CA? "Bad outcomes for generations" is an interesting way to characterize the totality of their output.

Oh, sorry, he seems to be talking about American Indians in South Dakota. My mistake.


I thought he was talking about European Jews exiled to Israel. Yep, Ashkenazi Jews in Europe are doing terribly.

Gainsbourg said...

Well well... Stating that the Swedish/American ratios are the same today and a century ago implies that Swedes AND America didn't change.
Id est, waves of latin, african and asian immigration did not alter the characteristics of the American population.

That's how pro-immigrationnists could (successfully ?) counter the argument in your post.

Jawbone Prophet said...

You know what's really funny about Jews like Brooks, Bloomberg, and Hollywood? The way they use Asian-Americans as surrogates for Jews or as the new bogeyman, or both.

If Brooks compared black and American Indian life spans with Jewish life spans, people might get the impression that Jews are doing so much better than everyone else. That would lead to envy and resentment toward the Jews, so it's much better to use Asian-Americans--or Swedish Americans--as an example. Though Brooks ostensibly seems to be praising the Asian-American community, he's essentially making them into a target for widespread social envy and resentment. Lmao!!

When Bloomberg argues for more immigration, he talks about how we need more brilliant Chinese and Asian-Indians when he really means supersmart Jews. This way, he gets to push for more Jewish immigration under the cover of Hindu and Chinese immigration. If he said, 'I want more smart Jews from Russia and Israel in NY', he would give the game away and the anti-immigration ire would fall on Jews than on Asians.
So, both Brooks and Bloomberg are damning with praise.

Then there is Hollywood and much of the media with stories and films about the Rise of the Evil Dragon and the Rise of the Hindu Elephant about to trample the world economy. Even here, there is a Jewish angle and interest, for by overplaying the might of the Asians, Americans will be distracted from the REAL power that controls and governs their domestic and foreign policy, which is Jewish power. Jews kill me. They are brilliant at this game. Cracks me up.

jody said...

pakistani arrested for NYC car bomb attempt. islam is the religion of peace, though. ethnic profiling will NOT be tolerated!

what's next? they'll claim america cannot compete with china and japan unless it gets more muslims? so, toyota's recent problems are because japan lacks the mexicans, muslims, and africans critical to any huge scale manufacturing operation? there's a crippling lack of diversity on the engineering staff at toyota?

it's one thing to go 1984 style over black americans, who are not in the US by choice and who we can all only hope to get along with. they're here for good, so let's make the best out of it.

it's entirely another thing to try to defend the immigration of any muslims. they perform essentially zero important functions in the united states, contribute to america in no field or industry, and basically only do two things:

1) build mosques
2) make more muslims.

oh, and about 20% of them want to kill us.

sounds like an indispensable immigrant group to me.

adfafadfasdf said...

http://io9.com/5530205/a-drug-that-causes-one-animals-brain-to-transform-into-another

Maybe now there's a way to turn liberal minds into conservative minds... with a drug.

Whiskey said...

Most Americans would be foresquare FOR more Smart Jews From Russia.

1. There are not that many, about maybe half a million at most.

2. They are smart.

3. They are White.

4. Russian women generally look hot.

5. Most Protestant Americans LIKE JEWS. Because they see themselves explicitly in America as "New Israelites" in the "new Covenant" and admire Jews as the prototype for America. Itself the secular shining city on the Hill (to borrow Winthrop's phrase). Aristocratic Virginia Planters like Washington and Jefferson, sybaritic pseudo Quakers like Franklin, and thrifty New Englanders like Adams all liked and admired Jews, and use Old Testament language in describing America as a New Israel.

Not the least of which was the admiration of one under dog to another.

What (White) Americans don't want is even more rapid turning into a discriminated minority (which is already in the cards given differential birth rates and White women, basically not wanting more than 1 kid while Mexican women want and have 4 or so).

That's already baked in, we can't just magically duplicate ourselves younger. So America is already a non-White majority country, mostly Mexican, forty years out. Half a million smart Russian Jews look like demographic reinforcements, though too late.

l said...

I think when Brooks talks about the social trust environment in greater NYC yielding wonderful results, he's talking about how a particular ethno-religious group has come to dominate politics and media.

Anonymous said...

"When Bloomberg argues for more immigration, he talks about how we need more brilliant Chinese and Asian-Indians when he really means supersmart Jews."

Really? If all the Jews in the world immigrated to the U.S., they would still be a small minority.

Plus, I thought maintaining power bases all over the world was part of the devious internationalist plan of the Jews. Why would they want to shift their concentration like this?

Also, bringing Chinese and Asian-Indians to the U.S. is part of the Jewish plan to undermine white Christian America. So why can't Bloomberg mean this literally?

You're really brilliant at this game of de-coding Jewish utterances. Cracks me up.

Anonymous said...

Muslims - an indispensable immigrant group

Apart from the who, whom aspects, SWPL status seeking plays a part. Being pro-immigration means being anti-racist, which means I'm better than you.

If I can affect to be unconcerned about the negative traits of a particular immigrant group then I must be even more anti-racist that you, because I'm clearly being more altruistic, because obvioulsy theres nothing in it for me, certainly not you, which means I'm even better than you.

So its a race to the bottom, to promote the immigration of groups who patently have absolutely nothing to offer us and will negatively impact society in as wide a sphere of activity as possible. The worse and less desireable the group, the more altruistic an anti-racist can appear as their advocate. So much so that speaking up for more desireable groups is deemed to be racism.

In this arms race of holier than thou altruism its only a matter of time before someone decides that the entire existing population of Somalia be exported to North America and Europe. Im joking...I think.

Bibi Feynman said...

I went on over to that Frum piece you linked to in the comments. Personally I don't care to keep track of the media's take on the immigration issue because I take it as a given that they, as a class, are the enemy (see, unlike the former-"libertarians" here I never shied away from class warfare, it's going on whether anyone likes it or not so I choose to acknowledge it and try to win for my side) - so I hardly care to watch for the floodstream against us and the trickles in our favor.

Anyhow, I didn't bother to read the whole piece but it looks like it supports oyur team so I'm pleased about that. What made me laugh out loud though was how vocally uncomfortable CNN was about the piece. They basically anounced at the bigging middle and end, "this is by David Frum. Not by us. By David Frum. We're sorry he's hear but we're contractually bound to print it. Again, David Frum. Not CNN. Thank you."

Benn said...

You know what's really funny about Jews like Brooks, Bloomberg, and Hollywood? The way they use Asian-Americans as surrogates for Jews or as the new bogeyman, or both.

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. I started noticing it back in the 90s when China's rise started getting some media attention. I suppose there were some rudiments of this during the 80s as well with Japan, though I was too young to know at the time.

I think that with the end of boomer female fertility, the erocidal policies started to backfire, and that it basically became time to consolidate
genetic, economic and political gains made over the last several decades before other groups could encroach upon the "turf" in the West -- just as this turf of those with ancestry north and west of the Alps had been taken over.

China's culture and gene pool seem to have survived the relentless attacks over the last century, including Marxism, media and
academia "spin-doctoring," etc. China is the largest intact folk with the fastest growing economy in the world. The Chinese are often referred to as "the Jews of the Orient" in various parts of SE Asia where they have been successful economically as a minority.

The Chinese released genetic information on the 2 meter tall, red-haired, 4000 year old Tarim Basin Mummies indicating that the mummies shared ancestry with those indigenous to north and west Europe (and apparently were closely associated with the inventors of Bronze and the
wheel/chariot) at exactly the time in history when there was an attempt to establish an optional identity as the original Indo-Europeans via an
extension to the Khazar hypothesis.

And during the 90s tech boom, there were many Chinese and NW Europeans in positions of tech industry leadership and it wasn't overwhelmingly dominated, despite attempts to throw some of the heaviest hitters such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Steven Spielberg at Bill Gates via DreamWorks.

Also, as many NW European males (largely the more technically literate males of the West) have been reproductively displaced by the erocidal policies against that population, a non-trivial amount of them have been turning to Chinese (and other Asian) females, resulting in the possibility of an increasing connection to China by the technical elite of the West combined with the possibility of an ever increasing resentment of the West by Chinese males.

So the idea is that a "Greater Western Civilization" or a "Pan-Western Fascism," if you will, is to be constituted by unifing Judaism, Christianity and "Western" culture and identity via academic and theocratic sophistry and that it is to declare itself superior to all other cultures extant and that any opposition or competition to such sophistically
justified superiority will be grounds for any and all actions of fraud and/or violence because God Is On Our Side -- and those slanty eyed yellow bastards are a bunch of xenophobes who won't kowtow to us.

Obviously, this "Greater Western Civilization" was mobilized against Islam for the past 10 years. China though is likely to come to the forefront and play the main role of opposition over the coming few decades.

Kijkfaas McGee said...

Awfully ungenerous of you, SS. I'm glad that Brooks is getting a certain viewpoint across to NYT readers. It's quite clear what he's referring to, without having to ruffle too many feathers by being too aggressive in making his point. Subtlety does work sometimes.

As we all know, race/ethnicity/culture IS a sensitive issue, whether it should be or not. So congrats to Brooks for softly suggesting to the do-gooders that they are doing no good.

Big bill said...

Brooks nibbles around the edges of a rhetorical method I have been using for quite a while. Whenever someone goes off on a comparison of American school test scores and Mexican wetback test scores and use the discrepancy as an indicator of oppression I laugh and tell them the proper comparison is between Mexican quality of life in America and Mexican quality of life in Mexico, or school scores in Mexico, or matriculation rates in Mexico. The question is, "does America treat Mexicans better than they treat themselves?" and the answer is, "way better!"

The standard of reference has to be Mexico to America, and not American white to Mexican wetback.

And in that regard, that international education testing group (PISO? PISA?) says that over 50% of Mexican kids are functional illiterates. If we can match that figure, we have done enough.

Anyway, if they are coming here to do the jobs Americans won't do, why in God's name are we sending their kids to college? Americans are willing to go to college! And if we create some yearning in their hearts for jobs better than their parents, and they are just as dumb as their parents, we are just creating a sullen, nasty, criminal class of their children AND we will have to import a new batch of Mexicans to replace them!

Gene Berman said...

Anonymous III (commenting on life spans of Obama and Hillary):

You know nothing of the life spans of the two--a case of confusing "case" probability (what is involved with "O" and "H" with
"class" probability.

Data on large numbers from different groups enable the generation of class probabilities but are next to useless for making your type of statement.

In the case of the much lower black life expectancy, a large part of that differential is due to large B/W difference in infant mortality rates, murder among teen-aged and young adult black males and, further, deaths due to the drug/HIV nexus. Though insurance can be issued safely to the members of classes of whom one has insured large fractions, any type of statement involving Obama or Hillary is nothing but idle speculation.

coldequation said...

All the children in Lake Wobegon really ARE above average.

Anonymous said...

You've learned very well from the Right-Wing entertainers, ie, Rush Limbaugh, et. al.

Relentless, absurd, comical self-promotion.

not bad!

Baltic Sea said...

This was a thoughtful piece, but at one point you imply that Sioux Indians are immigrants, which isn't really the case.

Katharine said...

New Jersey cooperative high trust? W. Virginia not?

One of the limits of policy is the dishonest parochialism of elites like Brooks. Everything is viewed by them through the prism of IQ, wealth and status. The more absolutely supremist their belief, the more draconian they must enforce ass-backward PC values on others for personal figleaf deniability.

Has Brooks ever lived beyond a SWPL Western metro area or befriended anyone outside his sheltered social bubble?

Our oligarachy, country and world would be better served by an occassional opinion-maker and leader who actually knew a religious person, a military grunt, put themselves through school, lived in a everyday diverse neighborhood, attended public schools or otherwise has some connection with the reality and the masses (high IQ and first rate temperment required).

Duke said...

Therefore, the first rule of policy-making should be, don’t promulgate a policy that will destroy social bonds. If you take tribes of people, exile them from their homelands and ship them to strange, arid lands, you’re going to produce bad outcomes for generations.

Steve, love your observations about this quote. I thought he was talking about the Mormons though.

TH said...

Frum's piece is excellent (and very Sailerian). Too bad that during Bush years he was too busy invading the world to say anything against immigration.

Blackadder said...

Sailer keeps saying that Brooks' column implies immigration is really important, but I don't see how. Perhaps he thinks it so obvious as to not need explanation.

Btw, I've been to New Mexico and Mexico proper, and so say that the one is like the other is really absurd.

Anonymous said...

Jody's second post is a perfect example of neo-con coddling of Blacks. Neo-cons only seem interested in attacking anyone who is either capable (China), Caucasian (Arabs), or both (Russia)--anyone who threatens their gathering regime of humane imperialism (New World Order). But Blacks, being the most dependent on that regime, are tolerated despite their pronounced criminality and deficits. Neo-cons are downright allergic to saying anything negative about Blacks, and uphold any occasional Black support for their worldview as the ultimate proof of their righteousness.

OhioStater said...

Outstanding analysis Sailer. It's amazing Brooks admits policy can destroy social fabric, but cannot build it. That completely undermines the basis of the Democratic Party.

I think Swedes are WASPs since WASPS are Germanic and so are Scandinavians. Also, England's North Sea coast was repeatedly invaded by Viking invaders, hence the blondness of many Englishmen.

Anyhow, my experience with WASPs is they can save more since they don't feel the need to impress people. George Bush can live any where he wants, even in a small house, and his sense of self worth is not impacted by the lifestyle of athletes or Hollywood celebrities.

If you don't feel the need to spend, you don't feel the need to earn a lot, and you can take less risk, such as old fashioned WASP banks were more conservative than modern banks.

OhioStater said...

There is another limit to policy, that's implicit rather than explicit.

You can give policy, but you can never take it away.

Greek workers benefited from easy money, but their standard of living didn't rise since asset costs such as housing presumably rose during the good times.

However, Greece cannot comply with its austerity budgets since these workers won't give up their benefits.

During a tea party rally a protester held up a sign "Obama, get your hands off my Medicare" as if Medicare is a property right.

Christopher said...

Re trust: As a native NY'er --suburbs + city, a word. There might be a difference between regions vis a vis legal and extra legal sanctions and enforcement. Thus, homogeneous West Virginians might have very little trust for their legal institutions but great trust in their extra-legal enforcement (read, culture, social sanction, word of mouth); this might result in great trust towards their own and great distrust towards outsiders. On the other hand, NY'ers might have great trust in their collections attorneys, er, excuse me, their legal institutions, but have very little in their extralegal multi-cultural environment. Hence with just a few cues or clues, or excuse points really, such as plausible social security number, credit card number and address, NY'ers might seem way more willing to do business with anyone, even a martian, as compared to the West Virginian. Thus, strictly speaking, the NY's would be way less trusting but, since they have the opportunity to deal with _so many more people_ have established more sophisticated methods of artificially establishing enforceable trust. Not looking at the whole picture, and cherry picking statistics, this might make the NY's appear more trusting when in truth they are not.

Juan said...

"You know what's really funny about Jews like Brooks, Bloomberg, and Hollywood? The way they use Asian-Americans as surrogates for Jews or as the new bogeyman, or both."

What's really funny is that if Brooks had written about Jews instead of Swedes, you'd be criticizing him right now for his ethnocentrism in only writing about Jews.

Anonymous said...

Is "erocidal" supposed to describe the death of fertility via a cultural zeitgeist which promotes purposeless, fruitless fornication?

If not, then could you explain what the word is supposed to mean?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Another great article, Steve.

Anonymous said...

Most Americans would be foresquare FOR more Smart Jews From Russia.

1. There are not that many, about maybe half a million at most.

2. They are smart.

3. They are White.

4. They are hard-core lefties who believe deeply in Jewish ethnic loyalty to one another and who seek to undermine any non-Jewish society they find themselves in.

5. Who know that John Podhertz was Scots-Irish?

Anonymous said...

America is already a non-White majority country, mostly Mexican, forty years out. Half a million smart Russian Jews look like demographic reinforcements, though too late.



If "Russian Jews" thought of themselves as white rather than Jewish that might be true. But even you can't be deluded enough to believe that they think that way, can you? Jews basically hate whites and have a played a large role in transforming the US into a minority white country. If they are "reinforcements" then they are reinforcements for the anti-white faction in America.

asdfasfsfd said...

"Most Americans would be foresquare FOR more Smart Jews From Russia."

Jews are a mixed blessing. They are smart, productive, and innovative.
But they are also liberal or leftist, even those who escaped from communism. Thus, the mighty Jewish power in media, money, and other matters goes to serve liberal and anti-white causes.

Enoch Powell Was Right said...

NJ is a "high trust" area? Brooks is yanking our chain here. I just came back from the public library in Trenton where I had to show my photo ID to 3 different people (2 security guards and a state policeman stationed outside.) I recently went to the bookstore at a local community college and had to show ID and sign in/explain what the frick I was doing there at the security office just to get on campus. I've lived in NJ practically my entire life, and it has become a virtual police state. My elderly mother was pulled over and harassed because even though she was wearing her seatbelt, I was sitting in the passenger seat with no seatbelt on. The rudeness of the police officers to a woman in her 60's was appalling. NJ is a nightmare - gimme West Virginia any day!

asffdffafd said...

"I think when Brooks talks about the social trust environment in greater NYC yielding wonderful results, he's talking about how a particular ethno-religious group has come to dominate politics and media."

Maybe poor folks need more social trustice than social justice.

Dahlia said...

I agree with Black Sea, Steve, that Brooks is doing as good a job as can be done in the milieu he is in.

I think he deserves thanks and recognition for the good job that he is doing introducing these ideas. I will go so far as to say he is a national treasure.

BTW, my guess as to what Brooks was thinking in the low/high trust portion was that he was subtly putting the ideas out there of Robert Putnam. Those are the classic buzzwords for Putnamism the subversives in the MSM use. If so, his example wasn't the best because I.Q. is much more dominant in explaining the differences between those locales.

Dahlia said...

In my previous post, if I said Putnam's "ideas", I mean Putnam's "findings" as he was famously discomfited by what he found.

afasfdasdfad said...

Really? If all the Jews in the world immigrated to the U.S., they would still be a small minority.

Numerically yes, but Jews are POLITCALLY and CULTURALLY the majority of this country. We have 50 states but only NY and LA really dominate and define much of our collective culture. And in those cities, Jews dominate. Hollywood is not run by Mexicans or Asians. NY is not run by Pakistani cabbies.

Plus, I thought maintaining power bases all over the world was part of the devious internationalist plan of the Jews. Why would they want to shift their concentration like this?

That is indeed the plan of globalism--for Jews and non-Jews alike--but American Jews want many Jews around the world to gain dual citizenship or even threeal citizenship--American, Israeli, and another. This way, a Jew can play it more ways than one. He can work on Wall Street or Silicon Valley, serve in the Israeli military, and work in the finance sector in London or Paris. He can move back and forth from nation to nation. Jewish immigration is more like Jewish migration. Jews tend to be rootless or many-rooted. Take Soros. He's a globalist man-of-the-world. He may be an American citizen, but his main loyalty is not to white Americans or to red/white/blue but to his own greatness and the Jewish community.
Also, American Jews fear that Europe may be turning hostile to Jews with the rise of Muslim numbers and neo-nationalism in Russia and other places. So, American Jews want US to remain open in case Jews elsewhere have to run.

Also, bringing Chinese and Asian-Indians to the U.S. is part of the Jewish plan to undermine white Christian America. So why can't Bloomberg mean this literally?

I didn't say that. I said mentioning Chinese and Asian-Indians--generally successful minority groups--is a cover for pro-Jewish immigration argument. Chinese-Americans and Asian-Indian Americans generally wanna be remain lowkey, succeed, and assimilate, not challenge the majority order. Jews are different in not only wanting to assimilate but in wanting to dominate. (This is natural since white goyim must appear to Jews as black Africans appeared to British and Boer imperialists. Less intelligent and in need of control by the superior elite.) There are anti-white Chinese and Asian-Indian scholars and activists, but they've taken their cues from Jewish intellectuals and professors who taught them in college.

You're really brilliant at this game of de-coding Jewish utterances. Cracks me up.

I know. Cracks me up too, at least until the nation cracks up.

fafasdfadfasf said...

I've written about trust a lot, and there's something quite peculiar about describing "New Jersey and Connecticut -- i.e., Greater New York City -- as a "high-trust region." I think New Yorkers would find that term insulting. Conversely, Arkansas and West Virginia are not precisely "low social trust." All else being equal, New Jerseyites tend to be lower in trust, in most senses of the word, than Arkansawyers. C'mon, New Jersey probably has more Sicilians than any other state. Sicilians were the classic representation in the social science literature (see Edward Banfield's study of Sicily, Moral Basis of a Backward Society) of "amoral familism."

Sicilians cut both ways. In some ways, they are more trustful than others, in some ways, less.
Of course, many Italian-Americans have become fully or very much Anglo-Americanized, so it's not like they are still of the Gambino family mode.
But even with real Sicilians, their society runs on both too much trust and too little trust. Too much trust in the sense that clan, family, and locality means everything. If you make a pledge to your don, he takes care of you. It's like in the Godfather. If you remain loyal, you are part of the extended family. If not, you sleep with the fishes. Johnny Fontaine could trust the great don to do the right thing for his godson. The whole concept of omerta is based on trust. The reason why Italian-Americans have been able to maintain bigger organized crime networks than other groups was to due clan trust. Sure, there were inter-clan rivalries and murders, but not on the scale of low-trust black and Latino gangs. Black gangs fight block by block, street by street. Italian-Americans fought clan by clan, and some of those clans were huge and had international networks. Like the yakuza and triad, they operated on trust.
OTOH, Italian-Americans have have had little trust of non-Italians, and non-Italians couldn't much trust Italians. If you see Goodfellas, all them greaseballs are greasing eachother at the expense of non-Italians. Even Italian-American cops, lawyers, and politicians will side with other Italians than with non-Italians. Italians are bonded by a sense of emotional ties. In this sense, they are like the Japanese. Unlike both Japanese and Italians, Northern Eurpeans and Anglo-Americans have been bonded more by rule of law and commonly held social principles, which isn't quite the same as trust. Handshakes were never enough for the Anglo and Germans. Contracts rule!! Jews are like both Italians and Anglos. They have clannish trust amongst eachother and have mastery of the law and contracts. That may be why they are so formidable.

Emotional bonds of trust are like animals recognizing one another by scent. It can be powerful but also unstable. Nothing is set down on paper. The meaning can only be intuitively discerned by those who grow up within the culture and share a common body language.

Also, a people can have a culture of trust but still be untrustworthy. Japanese have a culture of trust and are trustworthy, as it's an extreme shame culture where someone who fails to live up to expectations is severely ostracized. It is also a work ethic society where hard work and dedication are prized.

Italians, OTOH, do have clan trust culture but Italian individuals are untrustworthy because of their mama-mia-linguini-fettuccini oiliness(the kind you see in Italian movies where they are always crying, moaning, whining, making excuses for themselves like uninhibited drama queens). Because of the self-centered mama's boy mentality of most Italians, they have a hard time thinking of the common good or caring about personal shame.

fafasfasfds said...

"New Jersey cooperative high trust? W. Virginia not?"

I suppose Brooks means trust-in-the-law vs trust-in-the-clan. For many people to work together across ethnic and clan boundaries, they need to have trust or faith in the common law. It requires reducing one's trust in the clan. If you work in a computer firm with people of many backgrounds, you have put your clan ties aside and work with others as fellow workers. Also, best people need to be hired on the basis of merit,and for this happen, everyone needs to have more trust in shared principles than in his own clan. If he only favors his own clan, he won't be able to work well with those outside it. If an Irish-American boss promotes a dumb and lazy Irish-American over a talented Jewish American, there's gonna be bad blood, less trust, and less cooperation. So, too much clan trust can lead to lower overall trust in a diverse racial and ethnic community like New Jersey.

W. Virginia may be big on clan trust, but there's little trust for those outside the community or in the letter of the law. Thus, it is less likely to attract talented people of various backgrounds. Silion Valley has attracted the best from the world because there is the shared belief that your success and rise will be based on your talent and ingenuity, not on WHAT you are.
W. Virginians, OTOH, trust one another more but trust everyone else less. Thus, non-W. Virginians trust W. Virginians less. At the extreme end, Nazis had extreme trust amongst themselves and zero trust of non-Nazi-Germans. Nation of Islam is like that too. So is the Taliban, I'm guessing.

Liberalism has traditionally stood for trust based on shared creed while conservatism stood for trust based on blood-and-soil. Ironically, with the rise of MC(multiculturalist)PC and with the demands of blacks and browns, white liberals have created a room for black clan-ism and brown clan-ism in politics at the expense of white working class and middle class. The white elites preach universal principles of individual meritocratism to the white masses but then undermine this principle by allowing black and brown clan-isms to get out of hand.
White masses are told to look beyond ethnicity and race but then are forced to deal with racial clanniss like Sotomayor, Guiterrez, Jesse Jackson, and yes, Obama too.

Jews are one people who can stick to individual meritocratism and have it serve their clan interests. Since they are the smartest, many Jews will reach the top, join one another's company, and dominate society. Jews are said to be clannish but they don't have to try too hard. Top echelons of power will go to the Jews based solely on meritocratism--just like most positions in the NBA will go to blacks on meritocratism alone. Call it merito-clannism.

Svigor said...

Neo-cons only seem interested in attacking anyone who is either capable (China), Caucasian (Arabs), or both (Russia)--anyone who threatens their gathering regime of humane imperialism (New World Order). But Blacks, being the most dependent on that regime, are tolerated despite their pronounced criminality and deficits. Neo-cons are downright allergic to saying anything negative about Blacks, and uphold any occasional Black support for their worldview as the ultimate proof of their righteousness.

Neo-Cons run Hollywood?

SFG said...

Cut Brooks some slack. He actually tried to mention you with the natalism article and then everyone jumped on him. You expect him to sacrifice his career for your sake?

As for this neocon business, I would find nothing surprising about fearing China as a rising superpower. Hell, they own a lot of our debt--that's not good.

And Jews hating the Chinese and Indians? They seem to be marrying them quite a bit up here in the Northeast. Similar cultures and all that. I'm told by a Chinese friend that if you can't get another Chinese person to marry, a Jew is supposed to be the next-best substitute. India and Israel have good diplomatic relations--enemy of my enemy and all that.

As for the Muslims, well, they did blow up the WTC. I'm still sorry we'll never get to see the movie of the fall of Constantinople--it'd make a great spectacle, but they'll never be able to film on location. :)

jody said...

this thread is about immigrants. black americans are not immigrants. they're in the US, they've been in the US for 400 years. they're not going away. they're as american as euro americans. they are an indivisible, fundamental part of the very fabric of the united states. they are the only group who warrant special laws and rules to help them. the 14th amendment and affirmative action, things put in place to protect black americans, have no business being extended to any immigrants.

anybody who lives in the united states does have to deal with the deleterious side effects of 40 million mostly west african peoples living here. there is no option or alternative to this. get used to it, because it is only going to get worse. when it comes to black americans, the only thing you can hope for is that the modern idea that "black skin is a suit of armor from criticism" slowly goes away as euro americans get sick of always having every legitimate criticism of a black american deflected instantly. this is 2010, not 1810 or 1910. black americans are not heroes of suffering anymore. their armor should be depleting faster than the USS enterprise's shields under heavy klingon attack.

we do not, however, have to accept the entire population of mexico, or the islamic world, and are well within our rights to resist our traitorous leader's desire to bring them all here.

Jerseyan said...

1) Any Jew in Russia who wanted to emigrate is already in the U.S. or Israel. Those still in Russia don't want to leave.

2) Jew or not, people who lived under communism tend to be righties, not lefties.

3) NJ isn't a high trust state. It has been plagued with corruption and cronyism. Electing Christie was an act of hygiene in this regard. NJ powers on only because it has a high percentage of smart and industrious people.

4) The experience of NJ could bias someone like Brooks into having positive views of immigration. Our Mexicans are generally well behaved and docile. Our more visible immigrants are high-IQ ones, from Poland, Korea, Japan, etc.

5) The Italians here don't need the mob anymore. Instead, they get themselves elected to public office and then give big construction contracts to the local Italian-owned construction/engineering monopoly. It's not like the Jews or Koreans can complain that they didn't get the business -- they're not even in the game. Since everyone else in politics comes from a white collar background, they have no idea how much it costs to pave a road. So the Italians build in $30 an hour jobs for their relatives.

6) NJ sucks but you're still here. So are 8 million other people. It sucks because it's crowded. But it wouldn't be crowded if it sucked, right?

adfasdfasfsdf said...

"And Jews hating the Chinese and Indians?"

As individuals, no. Jewish-Americans and Chinese-Americans get along just fine. But Jews do fear what CHINA stands for--mono-racial power to challenge Jewish dominated US where Jewish PC says 'diversity is strength'. If diversity is strength, why is China, a mono-racial nation on the rise?
Also, China has been chummy with nations hostile to Israel.

So macro-politically, Jews prefer Indians who are from a more diverse society, more Wesernized(at least intellectually), and have had serious problems with Muslims.

not a hacker said...

To extend on the comment immediately above, what surprises me is the absence of any significant organized black opposition to goodies for Mexicans. About a year ago, on a bus in San Rafael, CA, I did overhear a complaint by a 30-ish black man on cell call. He said that the housing subsidies were all going to latinos, and that he was thinking of going "back on the streets," which I took to mean a return to dealing.

Truth said...

"Jody's second post is a perfect example of neo-con coddling of Blacks."

Jody, I believe this Brash, and highly encouragable young man is politely calling you an "Enn-Lover"

Back in the ghettos of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, your only recourse would be a firm tap on the shoulder followed by an invitation to discuss it in the parking lot.

Benn said...

Is "erocidal" supposed to describe the death of fertility via a cultural zeitgeist which promotes purposeless, fruitless fornication?

Erocide: The displacement of a people or ethnic group via differential male fertility between groups. It is called "erocide" rather than "genocide," because it relies on the erotic, not violent, on the incidental, and on the systemic, not systematic. The result, which is the elimination of a genetic group, is the same for erocide and genocide.

Yes, the promotion of a particular "cultural zeitgeist" of "purposeless, fruitless fornication" could be described as "erocidal." Other obvious examples are feminism, the promotion of homosexuality, etc.

Anonymous said...

Small quibble, but there are over three times as many German-Americans in Minnesota as there are Swedes. Scandinavian Minnesota is a myth that has persisted. Minnesota, like its' fraternal twin Wisconsin, is dominated by the descendants of German immigrants.

Tony T. said...

America never learns. We started bringing in low iq people 400 years ago to do manual labor and we're still doing it today

Svigor said...

encouragable

That's "incorrigible" you nitwit.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I was frankly amazed at the way Brooks seemed to be channeling you. Even the fact that genetics -- the elephant in the room, the boogieman that had to be lurking at the back of every reader's mind -- was so brazenly ignored, instead of being explicitly dismissed as an explanation for anything, suggests to me that Brooks must be sympathetic to the idea that genetics is probably important.

After all, if you can't risk explicitly acknowledging the elephant in the room, what better way to draw attention to said elephant than by ignoring it so stupidly and totally that you bump into it repeatedly and risk being crushed beneath its feet? Who could look away?

I think Brooks has got to be one of us!

Svigor said...

AFAIK high- vs. low-trust societies in this context doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means, or what they're trying to twist it into.

Basically it refers to the ability of a people to trust strangers. It's analogous (in my mind, anyway) to the Openness to Experience trait in the Big Five Personality matrix. Or maybe Agreeableness, or a combo of the two?

In other words, extending what you feel toward family members to strangers.

And AFAICT the southeast is a lot more high-trust than the northeast.

Stir the Pot said...

Arkansans is the word for people from AR.

Arkansawyers? Nice try, but leave that stuff to Don King!

My favorite of his was 'jewishprudence' for the system of jurisprudence. ;-)

Enoch Powell Was Right said...

It seems pretty likely that Brooks and hopefully Ross Douthat read iSteve on a regular basis. The truth is that Sailer towers above every other opinion journalist in America today (with all due respect to Pat Buchanan, and Brimelow and the staff at Vdare.) Really, Steve - your writings are absolutely priceless. Please keep up the great work.

Truth said...

"That's "incorrigible" you nitwit."

It's meant to be satirethere 'enry 'iggins.

Fred said...

Look at this: rootless cosmopolitan gentile immigrant and NBA all star Steve Nash of 'Los Suns' opines against the Arizona immigration law. Meanwhile, 'non-gentile' fellow Canadian immigrant David Frum broadcasts the HBD explanation in the mainstream media.

ben tillman said...

To extend on the comment immediately above, what surprises me is the absence of any significant organized black opposition to goodies for Mexicans.

Blacks don't do "organized".

ben tillman said...

Arkansans is the word for people from AR.

Arkansawyers? Nice try, but leave that stuff to Don King!


Steve is right, and you are wrong. That is all.

Dahlia said...

I revisited David's article, but this time looked at the comments to gauge the reaction. This comment I'm reproducing had far more recommendations than any others that I saw and probably was the most popular. Also, any comment that exhalted nurture was guaranteed to be popular.

Here is the mindset Brooks has to put up with (emphasis added):

21.
phillygirl
philadelphia, PA
May 4th, 2010
12:51 am
As the great-granddaughter of Swedish immigrants, I find your unsourced premise rather strange, or at least a few generations out of date. There are very few "Swedish Americans" anymore; the immigrants' grandchildren and great-grandchildren have a mix of ancestry and culturally have much more in common with African-Americans or second-generation Chinese-Americans than they do with anyone living in Sweden. *****I suggest that you get off this creepy ethnic-racial track, because the determinants of health and longevity have nothing to do with genes.***** The factors correlating most highly with good health are education and income. Work from there, use your deductive powers, and it's kind of obvious that public policy matters.
Recommend Recommended by 498 Readers*****
________________

I guess I just imagined the "intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy", a Swedish genetic disorder, that gave one of my unborn daughters a 1 in 10 chance of death. According to this esteemed commenter, they now can rest easy that their chances of getting it are the same as everyone else's: 1 in 1000, at least here in America. I read it was 1 in 100 in Sweden when I researched it years ago. Why the difference? Universal health care?

adfadsfasdfsf said...

To extend on the comment immediately above, what surprises me is the absence of any significant organized black opposition to goodies for Mexicans.

Blacks don't do "organized".


I guess so. Even the Civil Rights Movement was largely organized by Jews. I guess Jews aint organizing blacks on the immigration issue.

Besides, blacks like to organize themselves to squeeze rich white folks. There aint much to squeeze from Mexicans.

Also, blacks care more for FREE handouts from whites than fret about competing for WORK with Mexicans. If more Mexicans in the US assures permanent victory for the Democratic Party, blacks--both elite and masses--figure more freebies coming their way through biggerass gubment.

TGGP said...

I was really dissapointed that your Banfield link didn't contain even a reference to his book. You can however download it along with other classics like "The Unheavenly City Revisited" from here.

Starker said...

Jody,
You're right. Blacks are ours, American Indians, too. The rest can try to ride through the doors opened for them, but we'd be fools to let them. For example, Aff Am and related privileges for Latinos and others are particularly egregious. Someone in Guatemala now, whom we haven't even had a chance to oppress yet, will, after his arrival and subsequent amnesty, wind up with essentially the same med coverage as some American geezer who has paid tens of thousands of dollars into the Medicare fund. Bullshit.

Thanks for the heads up on Lemaitre. I must have seen his 10.04 recorded from last year, but just assumed he was black as are most French sprinters. Shirvington, if memory serves, ran a 10.03 as a 19-year-old but never improved, despite a raft of Australian sponsors and an invitation to train at the John Smith dojo in Cal. All the best to Lemaitre, I'm all for stereotypes being broken.

Fred said...

"I suggest that you get off this creepy ethnic-racial track..."

Nothing to see here folks. Gentile Swedish-American denying the reality of race -- denying, in fact, that there is anything unique about her Swedish ancestry. Is this a form of um, what's that word, "crypsis"?

Svigor said...

It's meant to be satire there 'enry 'iggins.

Of course it was. So was my response. But you ruined the whole thing. Oh, wait, I'm quoting yet another "joke," right?

Anonymous said...

Asians in Asia have a shorter life expectancy and less income than Asian-Americans.

Anonymous said...

seen paul theroux's good column on arizona?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-04/show-your-papers-so-what/full/

Anonymous said...

phillygirl... off this creepy ethnic-racial track, because the determinants of health and longevity have nothing to do with genes.***** The factors correlating most highly with good health are education and income...

And it couldn't possibly be the case that that creepy ethnic-racial gene-stuff has anything whatsoever to do with education or income.

Likewise, Trig Palin's genes [-er-, sorry, his chromosomes] won't have anything whatsoever to do with his health [nor his education, nor his income]...

Anonymous said...

Gene Berman, I am responding to the comments you made regarding my post Anonymous III. Sorry it was not well written. I was in a hurry. I have been in the health insurance business for 25 years and have insured thousands of people. Let me clarify.
The average life expectancy of a white woman is 81 years
The average life expectancy of a white man is 76 years
The average life expectancy of a black man is 70 years
The average life expectancy of a 49 and a 63 year old is higher than a fetus. They have already made it this far.
You are right that we do not know Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama’s individual life expectancies until they die. We can guess their average life expectancy based on statistics. We can also make assumptions about their morbidity. The probably think they will never get sick and live forever. What class they are put in is another qualifier. Barry smokes. The best I can tell neither has AIDS.
My point was that a grievance monger like BO could have run politically with the above facts if he chose to. Women live much longer than men and use far more health care during their lifetimes than do men. This is especially true with blacks v. whites. Throw in the loss of social security revenues, and pension revenues from shorter life expectancies and you have a real issue. The fact that BO chumped out and said nothing is not surprising.
Lastly, why would you not look at infant mortality, HIV, and violence from an epidemiological standpoint? That is exactly how it should be looked at. The fact that whites do not engage is as much risky behavior and so need far more end of life type care is a simple reality.

Tino said...

Here is where Brooks got some of his figures.


http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia

He neglected one important point:

"Swedish GDP per capita is now $36,600, far below the $45,500 of the US, and even further behind the $56,900 of Swedes in America."

Tino said...

anon is right about the Germans in Minnesota, but exagerates the differences.

Whites in Minnesota are 43.6% German and 36.3% Scandinavian (of course many are both).

Minnesota and Wisconsin are thus culturally different from German Kansas.

Of course, Germans and Swedes/Norwegians are very very similar people. Scandinavians are just more extreme versions of north Germans.

Stir the Pot said...

Arkansan vs Arkansawyer...

Apparently both are good, with the former preferred by recent AR arrivals & the latter by most AR natives.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_people_from_Arkansas_called_Arkansans_or_Arkansawyers

Arkansawyers sounds awkward to my ears, like Diane Sawyer's Little Rock relatives. They might not be much for higher ed, but I'll bet the young ladies are hot. :-)

Mike said...

"There are anti-white Chinese and Asian-Indian scholars and activists, but they've taken their cues from Jewish intellectuals and professors who taught them in college. "

Jews use non-white leaders to do their dirty work. Rajan Zed, the Hindu leader is an example. Rajan Zed has been attacking the Pope for the strangest reasons, such as the plight of gypsies in Italy and official status given to Catholicism in Malta.

New Yorker Al Sharpton seems to have enough money to fly to Arizona to protest the new security law.

blogged out said...

"(This is natural since white goyim must appear to Jews as black Africans appeared to British and Boer imperialists. Less intelligent and in need of control by the superior elite.)"

Get out of your blog-bubble. Leads to some goofy analogies that make no sense when you break them down. "White goyim" invented the modern world. Jewish contributions, impressive as they are, mostly came later, after enfranchisement in the late 1800s.
White Europeans do not appear to Jews-- or to any one else -- as sub-Saharan Africans, unless sub-Saharan Africans have their Isaac Newtons, and Leonardo Davinci's, their Teslas--not to mention half a thousand more and that's just getting started.
No. I think a more complex analogy is needed. More like how, perhaps, the whites of 1850 viewed the Japanese.

B Lode said...

Yes, I recommend Paul Theroux's column as well.

He very obliquely implies that the hysteria over Arizona's law is just more of the "good liberals vs. Hollywood Nazis" syndrome - when people ask for papers in the movies they're never serve-and-protect lawmen working for a legit government, they're usually jackstepping gooseboots out to make the movie exciting before they self-destruct in the fourth act.

rec1man said...

Anti-white Hindu scholars are actually anti-Christian and anti-White is a by-product

This is due to the fact that the anti-Hindu Indian media is controlled by funding from White Christians and said funding is also financing conversions in India

There are a handful of White Hindus and these are treated with kid gloves by Hindu Activists

Rajan Zed, is salivating at the prospect of 10 million Gypsy hindu returnees in the west, these numbers added to the wealth of Hindu immigrants will provide a lot of political muscle for Hindus in the west

ben tillman said...

Arkansawyers sounds awkward to my ears, like Diane Sawyer's Little Rock relatives.

"New Yorkers" sounds awkward?

Reg Cæsar said...

anon is right about the Germans in Minnesota, but exagerates the differences.

Whites in Minnesota are 43.6% German and 36.3% Scandinavian (of course many are both).
--Tino

Norwegians, not Swedes, are the most numerous Scandinavian group in Minnesota-- and the most vocal, probably because they, like the Irish, left before their country was independent. (Yes, the Finns did as well, but nothing will make a Finn vocal.)

Added together, the Norwegians, Swedes, Finns* and Danes approach German numbers in Minnesota. But Catholic Germans concentrate in, and dominate, the center of the state. So, the farther you get from St Cloud, the lower the Kraut-to-Squarehead ratio, and Catholic-to-Protestant one.

Scandinavians call the shots as much as anyone in Minnesota. Though Slavs are strangely overrepresented in high-level politics-- Perpich, Ventura, Pawlenty, Klobuchar, Rukavina, Rybak...

There are very few "Swedish Americans" anymore; the immigrants' grandchildren and great-grandchildren have a mix of ancestry --phillygirl

A fellow I work with is a third-generation Swedish-American and not only is he purely Swedish, so are two of his grandsons! But they're Swedish Baptists, who marry within their sect.

*Someone is bound to counter that Finns aren't Scandinavian. Tiedän, tiedan minä. Mutta olevat, ja eivat ole...

ATBOTL said...

"Nothing to see here folks. Gentile Swedish-American denying the reality of race -- denying, in fact, that there is anything unique about her Swedish ancestry. Is this a form of um, what's that word, "crypsis"?"

No, because she really means. Crypsis is when your people insist in public that their ethnicity doesn't matter but then engage in things like ethnic-nepotism, activism for a foreign country that "just happens" to be populated by your co-ethnics and generally trash my people, all while privately talking to each other about who's a Jew, who's an enemy and enemy and "is it good for the Jews."