February 13, 2011

"The Perils of Diversity" by Byron M. Roth

I review the massive book on immigration discussed from the perspective of the human sciences in VDARE.com.

106 comments:

Reg C├Žsar said...

“The argument between assimilationists and multiculturalists is whether it is the immigrant or the culture that should change”.

We don't want them to assimilate. We want them to go home.

Anonymous said...

Is there any mention in the book of the Jewish elite's role in this?

Anonymous said...

“The argument between assimilationists and multiculturalists is whether it is the immigrant or the culture that should change”.

"We don't want them to assimilate. We want them to go home."

Who do you mean by 'we' and who do you mean by 'they'? Be specific now.

Anonymous said...

Now that the economic case for immigration is obviously implausible, the immigrationist try to claim 'moral superiority' by making appeals to the 'universal brotherhood of mankind'.
I on't know how amny here are familar with the writings of Garret Harding, but any of his forceful and erudite writings are powerful enough to blow all this guff about 'universal moral duty to mankind as a whole' right out of water - he can make the case a 1000x better than I can.
I believe Harding was a biologist by training.

Anonymous said...

Another point.
Those immigrationists who love to pose as 'morally superior' by their strong attachment to the 'universality of mankind' already have one very simple way of proving their credentials.They can simply choose to live at the average per capita 'world income' and donate the rest of their fat American salaries to a third world charity of their choice.
Don't hold your breath.

Average Joe said...

Does Roth talk about the role that Jews play in the immigration debate?

Laban said...

"by establishing a new right wing in the immigration debate, Sarrazin moved assimilationism into the new centrism"

You can see the same phemonenon in UK immigration politics. The BNP is the anti-immigration party hated by all right-thinking people - Conservative prime minster David Cameron is signed up to one of the far-left anti-BNP pressure groups, Unite Against Fascism. But there's another party which wants a complete halt to immigration and a British exit from the European Union - the UK Independence Party, or UKIP, which gets more votes than the BNP and whose core activists are mainly middle-class disillusioned Conservatives.

They don't get the kind of pressure the BNP get (the entire BNP membership had their names and addresses put online by Wikileaks a year or two back, for example - leading to attacks and vandalism against members) - but were the BNP to disappear tomorrow, all the pressure presently applied to the BNP would be turned onto them. They need the BNP as flak deflectors.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a translation could be brought out by a major publisher in Germany. The author's surname should help.

Conatus said...

Regarding our great granddaughters:

The pro-immigration left seem to base their appeal on emotional grounds: the Ellis Island past and the global love fest the elites tacitly celebrate. But the anti-immigration right seems to base their arguments on facts: higher crime rates of immigrants, pressure on wages for the American middle class, higher use of government services of immigrants.
This factual appeal has not persuaded the emotional left.
What you need to say is "Continuing immigration coupled with existing affirmative action policies will condemn your great granddaughters to pulling tricks downtown because they can't get jobs doing anything else."

Shawn said...

"Some have made brave contributions by opposing bilingual education etc., but they are often blindly insouciant about the quantity and quality of immigrants."

I am in agreement with you, as you have written and/or implied before, that ideally we should have a total indefinite pause in immigration. I do submit however, that if given the choice between high-IQ immigration and low-IQ immigration the latter would be far more preferable. When the high-IQ antagonistic group immigrates, they have the capability to achieve a good measure of power. They too have their own ethnic interests, which contrasts that of ours, and they will use their power to to meet their interests (e.g. more immigration & other liberal policies). It is their intelligence therefore that makes them a danger. And nobody wants to be ruled over by another group of people. Compare this to low-IQ groups, who can be figuratively swatted away -- a nuance, no more.

Formerly.JP98 said...

Nice article, as usual.

However, you left out an important point: Is the book any good?

Anonymous said...

"We don't want them to assimilate. We want them to go home."

Guess you're not an assimilationist then. Thanks for the heads-up.

jz said...

The understanding that biology dictates behavior is gaining traction in pop culture. Social construct is out; genetics is in.

Here, a prostitute argues her genetic destiny, and tries to square it with evolution:http://www.texasgoldengirl.com/afterhours/genetic-prostitute/

Kylie said...

From Roth's book as quoted in Steve Sailer''s review:

"If the West’s liberal elites reject the totalitarian impulses of many among them and come to acknowledge their responsibilities to their own countrymen."

That makes no sense. The liberalism of Western elites is based on totalitarian impulses. If they rejected those impulses, they'd have no liberalism at all of the kind they find acceptable.


Of course, if the West's liberal elites were removed, their particular set of totalitarian impulses would go with them.

A girl can dream, can't she?

Laban said...

Steve, totally o/t but I can't find anything about this on the Web. When IQ is inherited,say from a couple of IQs 120 and 140

a) does it make any difference which partner has which IQ ?
b)does it make any difference if they have boys or girls ?

In other words, is there a sex effect in IQ heritability, either at the giving (parents) or receiving (children) end ?

Severn said...

"If the West’s liberal elites reject the totalitarian impulses of many among them and come to acknowledge their responsibilities to their own countrymen”."


The trouble is, the West's liberal elites don't recognize their own countrymen as their own countrymen. They are a self-consciously internationalist class.

The Pleasant House Guest said...

I hope he likes eating alone.

Something tells me Prof. Roth will fall off the guest list of most all the best parties in his academic circle.

Anonymous said...

You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy. You're only for the rights that you agree with and only think free speech applies to your ignorant mouthbreathing. As far as I'm concerned you can suck a scabby demoncock in Hell. Immigrants (brown people) use more tax/government services? A large portion of you live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes. Should I be galled that my filthy metropolitan liberal tax dollars supply you ignorant pigfuckers with clean water to raise yourchildren into similar parasitic hypocritical ignorance? Fuck you and your legislated morality.

Anonymous said...

Rorh says,

"Those who proclaim their cosmopolitan benevolence loudest tend to be those who figure they are most likely to benefit from cheap labor or cheap votes."

He might be right when he narrows this statement to those who are the "loudest," which are those who have the means to be heard (MSM and those who rule the politicians), but if one looks at polls of Democratic party voters on this issue, one sees the effects the "immigration is good because we are such a welcoming, fair people" meme has had on the masses. (True, the way the poll question is phrased is all-important, I realize.)

A significant % of middle class voters don't employ illegals. They still do their own lawns, they still wash their own cars, they still do their own housework. Maybe once in 30 years, when a new roof needs to be put on their house, they hire a local guy who, they suspect, is using illegals to do the grunt work.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Steve, thanks for all your posts on this issue. That a serious book like this has been published is, I believe, in large measure the result of a person like you writing seriously on the subject.

Anonymous said...

"You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy. You're only for the rights that you agree with and only think free speech applies to your ignorant mouthbreathing. As far as I'm concerned you can suck a scabby demoncock in Hell. Immigrants (brown people) use more tax/government services? A large portion of you live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes. Should I be galled that my filthy metropolitan liberal tax dollars supply you ignorant pigfuckers with clean water to raise yourchildren into similar parasitic hypocritical ignorance? Fuck you and your legislated morality."

Oh, you want to bring this up? Let's check which populations in those states use up welfare. Oh, it's blacks?

Well, you want to have this conversation? Why are blacks mooching off the state? Why can't they get jobs? Why are their IQs so low?

You wanna have that conversation? Then have it. See how your liberal friends treat you afterward.

Science is not Stuff White People Like.

jz said...

A significant % of middle class voters don't employ illegals. They still do their own lawns, they still wash their own cars, they still do their own housework.

Yes, but they do eat at restaurants and stay at hotels. The costs of these are discounted by cheap labor, without with, we'd all be effected.

Kylie said...

"This factual appeal has not persuaded the emotional left.
What you need to say is 'Continuing immigration coupled with existing affirmative action policies will condemn your great granddaughters to pulling tricks downtown because they can't get jobs doing anything else.'"


You could persuade well-meaning but clueless centrists with that argument but those on the hard left would never fall for it.

They'd simply say, "In the progressive, inclusive society we envision, those working in sexual professions will be given the same rights, benefits and legal protection other professions currently enjoy. Remove the social stigma and physical dangers and there's no reason why anyone would object to his or her great granddaughter becoming a sex worker."

No offense but I suspect you aren't aware of how those on the left think. They will not--repeat, not--abandon their leftist ideology. Arguments based on facts, reason, logic, etc. hold no sway with them whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

If present demographic trends continue you can predict a decline in American power and influence in the world, the rise of China, and the end of Israel. At which point residual Ashkenazi population of Israel will have no choice to emigrate to the U.S.. No wonder the American Jewish community wants to keep the doors open.

Anonymous said...

"You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy. You're only for the rights that you agree with and only think free speech applies to your ignorant mouthbreathing."

u mad

But more to the point, it's pretty obtuse to accuse immigration-restrictionists of chilling or restraining pro-immigrationists' free speech. Both major parties, all the universities, and most of the national media are pro-immigration, so any chilling effect must be undetectably small.

Please talk nicely like a big boy from now on.

-bb

Fjordman said...

To anonymous: I'm sick and tired of hearing everybody on the entire planet treating the white man's countries like some big smorgasbord. They can fix their own problems and have no business being here in the first place, especially in Europe where we are the natives. Read Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye. As Faye says:

Europe First!

I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don’t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven’t time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid — for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).

If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won’t find us sniveling (like a priest)or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the ‘other’s’ cause. ‘Ourselves alone’ will suffice.

Anonymous said...

"A significant % of middle class voters don't employ illegals. They still do their own lawns, they still wash their own cars, they still do their own housework. Maybe once in 30 years, when a new roof needs to be put on their house, they hire a local guy who, they suspect, is using illegals to do the grunt work."


I inadvertently left off my concluding sentence to this: "Yet, these Deomocrat voters, still parrot the party line on immigration."

Maybe it's not because they actually believe the Party Line as much as it's about their not being able to distance themselves from their party affiliation in the way that fans of a team can't bring themselves to not root for the team they were raised on, even when the owners or the team members exhibit dastardly behavior or insult the fans. It's really about rooting for a black and gold jersey or a silver and black one or a green and gold one.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Should I be galled that my filthy metropolitan liberal tax dollars supply you ignorant pigfuckers with clean water to raise yourchildren into similar parasitic hypocritical ignorance? Fuck you and your legislated morality.

This is the sort of content and tone I see from homosexual posters ("pigfuckers" "children/parasites" "legislated morality").

I bring this up because, of all the people on libertarian/anarchist websites, gays seem the most obsessed with population density as the be-all and end-all of immigration. I've seen it enough that wonder if there's some biological basis for it.

Gay libertarians/anarchists act astounded that anybody would object to a billion people living in the US. Often, they don't even bother with any ethical or economic justifications; it's just clear to them that we need more people to inhabit all the mixed use developments that need to be built between San Francisco and Portland.

The rather suspect Richard Florida grinds this axe a lot, which seems to underscore the point given his simultaneous obsessions over gays, ethnics and young people. He's apparently married to Rana Florida, but I'm just sayin'....

Do gays advocate for increased population density because of some basal desire to increase their sexual contacts? Granted, straight young people like to see lots of the opposite sex around, but after a point they start guarding the nest.

Are gays' non-reproductive sex drives missing this aversion to high population density? How about heterosexual populations which exhibit r over K reproductive strategies?

Just a hypothesis.

Anonymous said...

"You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy."

Democracy depends on rule of law respected by the people of the nation. Too many Mexicans have no idea of or respect for rule of law in Mexico, and when they come here, their mentality/attitude remain much the same, especially with leftists like you teaching them to hate evil whites and just say 'gimme gimme'.

And if you like non-white people so much, why wait for them to come here? Why don't you white liberals just go live in Africa or Mexico.
Yeah, that would be win-win for everyone. White liberals say they want more diversity, so they should go live in the Third World. They'll instantly be ruled by non-white majorities(something Clinton and his fans are so excited about). You can have that reality right away, tomorrow in fact, rather than having to wait for decades for it to be realized in the West. Why wait when you can enjoy majority-non-white diversity right away all over the world: Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, etc?
Meanwhile, white conservatives in the West will live in white nations and will be rid of pesky stupid white liberals. That way, both sides win. White conservatives live in white societies, and white liberals live in majority non-white societies: wonderful places such as Iran, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Indonesia, and Bolivia.

Anonymous said...

"The trouble is, the West's liberal elites don't recognize their own countrymen as their own countrymen. They are a self-consciously internationalist class."

They are just like the old European aristocracy. Frederick the Great, great as he was, almost never spoke German. He found it barbaric. He loved French language and French culture. Even though he did much for Prussia, he had little regard for 'Germany' as a people or culture. And Russian aristocrats also spoke French among themselves and spoke Russian only when they had too. They found Russian barbaric. To them, the vast majority of Russians were dirty boors who should remain close to the soil and toil while they themselves traveled back and forth from Moscow/Petersburg to Paris. While Russian masses were living in decrepit conditions, the Russian elites spent vast sums on costume balls and expensive fancy dresses made in France.
And Russian military and economy were pretty much run by Germans because Russians sucked at it. Reading the book MCMAFIA, I came away with the impression that Russia has come full cirle. It is again rule by a form of aristocracy which has no connection to the people. Putin tried to forge a connection, but all that power, money, and vanity got to him. He could have been Mussolini of Russia(at least before Musso got stupid) but he became just a Berlusconi.

The moment when the European elites became ONE with the people was the French Revolution, one of the epochal events that should be embraced by all nationalist-rightists. I mean what do we care about the damn aristocracy who sneered at the people like today's global elites do? The revolutionary bourgeois intellectuals overthrew the French king and aristocrats and created a new order where the people mattered and were citizens of the state. And Napoleon, crazy as he was, was a man of the people. He was able to win wars cuz his army was made up of citizen soldiers--vast numbers of them. Pound for pound, the Prussian soldier was better, but French army had many more men.
We need that kind of revolution all over Europe and in America.

Anonymous said...

Does Roth talk about the role that Jews play in the immigration debate?
Hell, 90% of people opposed to the iraq war still think (perhaps because it's more convenient to think so) that 'big oil' was behind it.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Can people please label their links as NSFW if they are?

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

Anonymous said: "You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy."

If by that you mean I am against mob rule, then you're absolutely right. Import a bunch of poor, semi-literate peasants, give them right to vote, and it's pretty much a forgone conclusion what's going to become of silly, antiquated notions like private property rights.

Anonymous said...

"Immigrants (brown people) use more tax/government services?"

Yes they do. But don't let facts get in the way of your foaming at the mouth insults.

Anonymous said...

all the leaders in Europe are making Multi-culti has failed statements, next, I predict ,sobering editorials.. and paleos ect are saying Finally!... not so.. this is just prelude to more draconian gov't centralization , more cultural sterlization (if hajibs have to go, then so do crosses) our elite got in power via creating this chaos, they are not going to give up the power, or start exporting their steady supply of cheap labor and block votes.

Whiskey said...

The issue has come to a head right now.

White voters don't believe they will get Social Security. Black and Hispanic voters will certainly not fund it for older Whites, the money will be all spent on their races not Whites. Thus why tax themselves for other races children, who are hostile and intent on dominating in oppression the former White majority.

It has already begun, the NYT reports in celebration that non-Whites form the majority of three year olds in this country.

A few highly intelligent Asians and Whites (who likely will NOT intermarry but loathe each other) will form market dominant minorities, ala Chua's book. Aided no doubt by mass immigration from Europe by those able to flee the coming Muslim mass invasions. Europe has neither the will nor ability to stop hundreds of millions of Muslim Arabs from North Africa nor Sub-saharan Africans from migrating there en-masse and taking over. The power of the elites neutralizes that of the masses, and the elites hate and loathe their own people, and idealize non-Whites as morally and all other ways, superior.

[This is a noxious blend of Quaker idealism, and utopianism, pan-racial / ethnic post-Christian globalism, and post Calvinist elect and damned, mixed with Cavalier / Gentry aristocracy.]

But for those not on the elite side of things, the great mass of middle and working class Whites, the future is that of the border clans/families of England and Scotland, ala Albion's Seed. A violent, chaotic, man-power based society that seeks to fight against constant enemies and has no sense of permanence, Whites acting like ME tribes/clans.

As for "who is responsible" for mass immigration, it's a Universal Western phenomena. Not many Jews (i.e. none at all) in post-War Germany, which enthusiastically imported third world folks. Same for France, Italy, Greece, Switzerland (not known for being friendly to Jews) and other places.

It is pathetic and stupid to blame Jews for what is at heart a mutated, post-Christian attitude.

Whiskey said...

Not only is blaming Jews factually wrong, but being wrong prevents a careful diagnosis of the problem and effective counter-action.

Great wealth and power, and collapse of Christianity (caused mainly by urbanization and mass media) gave rise to noxious post-Christian "heresies" that fed off the Universalist idealism already inherent in Christianity. Recall Jews have a covenant with God, they don't care about the Gentiles much one way or another. And rationally would prefer respectable, guilt-ridden English gentiles to that of say, Pakistani Muslim ones.

From the Quakers (and also Catholics) we get utopian, one-worldism theology trumping identity, either racial, family/clan/tribe, linguistic, and so on. Mormons are not immune to this either. The idea of a community united under God is as old as the New Testament and continues even after belief in God has been eroded in urbanism and mass media pseudo Christianity (vampires, Glee, etc.) that has direct appeal mostly to women who love appeals to hypergamy mixed with utopianism (and disdain of beta White males leveled down by the demands of the modern workplace). You can't have macho posturing that appeals to women at say, Wal-Mart. So a good deal of this one-world utopianism plays on White female attitudes of disgust of non-Macho White guys who lack dominance over them and idealization of non-Whites who adopt dominant displays (Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian).

The other strain of course is the idea of the elect, the pre-destined saved (a few) and damned (every other White person). That's post-Calvinist, and plays right into the female fantasy of being a special, unique, and "hidden princess" who by unique moral (and physical beauty) hidden until now inherits the moral kingdom of non-racism with the hot Prince.

White female support for multiculturalism, mass immigration, diversity, etc. is fueled by their disdain for Beta White guys who are workplace rivals and not suitable hot guy material, and an innate female desire to be part of an aristocracy. Disney Princess style and all. The aristocracy can be of predestined "saved" (non-racism) absent God as well as birth (Gossip Girl).

Thus the solution is to pry White women away from the multicultural group support by raising dramatically and immediately the cost (they get supplanted by non-White women in all areas) and increasing the carrots (spoils to them by joining tribe/extended family groups). But you cannot underestimate the role female desire for sexy, dominant men who are hyper macho plays in support for mass immigration of non-Whites into Western society.

Geoff Matthews said...

That's some good writing.
Noticed that the talk on changing the center mirror's Beck's talk on the Overton Window.

Descartes said...

High-IQ assimilation ism seems to be the best model for a nation that desires both significant economic prosperity, increasing its overall human capital and keeping the lower-IQ sector at a minimum.

The degree of assimilation among Jewish Americans, the perceived outsiders among this blog, is quite significant. About half of Jews intermarry, defeating any sentiments of ethnocentrism that is directed at them as a group.

Likewise, a high degree of assimilation between Asian and other Asians and Asians and Whites are also giving rise as indicated by the levels of intermarriage among American-born(overall percentage trends of the racial groups don't signify increase due to the very high level of immigration). A good assessment of Asian-assimilation are Japanese Americans who do not flee from horrible social and economic conditions. Around 60-70% of Japanese Americans are now multiracial.

Commonly, most people believe immigration will leave to ethnic balkanization, when in reality social cohesion(formerly directed at White Ethnics) have been increasing since the Civil Rights movement(showcase is the fact that Jewish intermarriage rates shot up to nearly 50% from 6% or so during that period, and likewise the same trends although much earlier among Irish and Italian immigrations).

Of course, there will be a class stratification, as lower-IQ blacks are not nearly as assimilated as Jewish or Japanese Americans.

Concluding this, I primarily base my overall views on Canadian trends as well.

Jamaican and Caribbean Canadians more often than not become antisocial and criminal(and a large percentage father illegitimate children), whereas Western, Southern and Eastern Asian populations have a tendency to become educated and assimilate into Canadian culture.

Anonymous said...

Shawn, Interesting argument, but I think you are wrong. The idea that low IQ prole-immigrants are easier to control does not scale well. Minorities become majorities.
Gilbert Pinfold.

Descartes said...

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/CJS/article/view/1651/5153

To add to Canadian educational assimilation, this study shows the high levels of educational attainment among various immigrants. Compare charts on page 10 and 13.

Likewise, it also compares the educational attainment of their father's generations. Almost all groups from Asia except Filipinos have a significant segment of children being the first university-educated in their families.

Black educational level were on parity with parental education, as they were likely fleeing elites of Haiti and Africa arriving in Canada.

Portugese, Italian and South Europeans report lower primarily due to the fact that they are almost always the bottom-rung of their wealthy but less opportunistic societies. The ones who are intelligent are already educated and remain. Not likely the case for West, South and East Asians.

Perhaps a Canadian model is better to understand immigration and educational attainment.

Their is a widespread promotion of multiculturalism and cultural mosaics(primarily due to Quebecois pressure), but it seems that is being rejected as everyone merely becomes Canadian.

Anonymous said...

What an unbelievably out of touch and petty readership on this blog. The 19th century wants to live in the 21st century. Sorry. People don't walk backwards and Time to the past is still not possible.

Anonymous said...

you seem to get to the "heart" of the matter: the veiled self-interest of these elite do-gooders who favor immigration.

But, what about you?

essentially, you're against immigration because fundamentally you don't like brown people. That's the REAL reason. That's what it comes down to.

All these neutral-seeming stats you come up with is just a proxy for that sentiment.

That's fine.

That's my reason too.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know how many here are familar with the writings of Garret Harding...

It's Garrett Hardin and he is worth reading. I'd recommend "The Tragedy of the Commons."

Anonymous said...

I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America.

Anonymous said...

"I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America."

Immigrant whites? To deport is to send someone back to his home country, so, where are these few million low IQ immigrants you're sending back to Russia and Germany and wherever?

Descartes said...

Why was my comment about Jewish and Japanese assimilation via intermarriage statistics killed?

JSM said...

"A large portion of you live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes"

AWESOME! You support our secession!

(BTW, those "federal funds" my state takes in? Yeah, those are mineral severance taxes you all pay in payment for the oil and gas we supply. We'll be taking leaving and taking our oil with us. Enjoy walking and freezing. And you can have the browns in my state. You're welcome.)

HL said...

I know fisking a drive-by troll is a complete waste of time, but this is so easy that it's impossible to resist.

"You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy."

The public overwhelming opposes mass immigration. This is true of pretty much every public everywhere in all times and in all places. Though I should note, I, for one, am not much of a fan of democracy. What of it?

"You're only for the rights that you agree with and only think free speech applies to your ignorant mouthbreathing."

We only support the rights we support? That's something of a tautology, I'd dare suggest, and inevitably true of everyone. I note that liberals oppose my proposed right to disembowel liberals. Hypocrites! Also, "mouthbreathing" is not a form of speech, nor am I aware of how one could mouthbreath ignorantly.

"As far as I'm concerned you can suck a scabby demoncock in Hell."

Oh dear. This is actually a bit generous of you, as NAMerica is gonna be such a dump that we'd probably be better off doing that.

"Immigrants (brown people) use more tax/government services? A large portion of you live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes."

This is hilariously irrelevant as most states split pretty close to 50-50. If states were 100% red or 100% blue you might have a point. Further, you will find little love for the Republican party here, and we do indeed agree that they're spend thrifts who waste tons of money. We would like to change this. A more relevant issue than state by state comparisons is who pays more in taxes and consumes more in government services per capita, middle class whites or NAMs? I wonder . . .

"Should I be galled that my filthy metropolitan liberal tax dollars supply you ignorant pigfuckers with clean water to raise yourchildren into similar parasitic hypocritical ignorance?"

Left to our own devices we'd have little trouble cleaning our water, I assure you. If only we were allowed to, but liberals demand liberalism spread everywhere. Finally, money isn't the central issue. Fill a country with NAMs and it becomes a shithole. This is true regardless of what government you have and how much it spends, though the government can sometimes make the hole either more or less shitty.

"Fuck you and your legislated morality."

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing of the sort came up here, nor is this exactly a Christian right enclave. Though it's nice to hear this, as it shows just what a retard you are, even beyond everything else you've said. Smart leftists know that the legislating morality line is just a smokescreen used to fool the very ignorant middle who are incapable of wondering "Well, what qualifies as morality and what doesn't." Only a very stupid leftist would lob this line at those on the right or those who have an IQ of, say, 90 or higher.

"What an unbelievably out of touch and petty readership on this blog. The 19th century wants to live in the 21st century. Sorry. People don't walk backwards and Time to the past is still not possible."

We're not trying to go to the past, we just want to avoid the godawful future that the left is preparing for us. America's future is not inherently "multicultural"--you assholes are causing this to come about. Also, if you're only going to write a few sentences, can't you at least be semi-coherent? "The 19th century wants to live in the 21st century"? What the hell?

Anonymous said...

"I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America."

I say why can't these high IQ east Asians create a country and a culture that attracts immigrants.

I've begun to suspect that such immigrants have lazily used test scores alone as evidence of superior ability in all areas of endeavor. Sad, really. How many didn't take a test prep? so those scores are kinda inflated anyway. Although I guess we could have the most up to the minute advances in asphalt & impeccable timing on our red lights, what about all those other aspects of culture that make life worth living, Gookspeare in the park on a lovely summer evening?

Get yourself in check, please. You can't make paradise abroad, nor can you make it here. Stop discrediting whites & all that we are & have been. I know it doesn't matter to you but realize you can't replace us. You silly, ridiculous thing.

dearieme said...

"And Napoleon, crazy as he was, was a man of the people." You what? He gave not a fig for the people whom he led to slaughter by the hundreds of thousands.

Starker said...

"[E]ssentially, you're against immigration because fundamentally you don't like brown people. That's the REAL reason. That's what it comes down to.

"All these neutral-seeming stats you come up with is [sic} just a proxy for that sentiment."


You talking to Steve, pinhead? You need to be careful. He's a nice guy, but I'm not. Try to get this into your head: There are several thousand arguments for immigration restriction. I can make them from the left: forcing the wages of our most vulnerable workers down, the impact on the environment, ad infinitum. And from the right: the destructive effects on national unity, the massive costs entailed in managing a "nation" intoxicated on the wonders of diversity.

People like Steve could rattle off a few thousand more while in a coma. Have some respect, fool. For jerks like you everything boils down to race. Steve is in the middle of L.A. County, I'm in the Bronx. We know what we're talking about. Respeck!!!

Another thing, for you anonymous keyboard warriors who like to spew insults: Next time imagine we're standing right next to you. I don't think you'd be implying Steve or the rest of us are "racists," nor cut loose like the asshole upthread whose screed began "You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy" and went downhill from there. Think about it.

M Schwartz said...

***I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America.***

*waves at Yan Shen*

Anonymous said...

A libtard speaks: You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy.

A simple test for that my fine friend.

You demonstrate which/when cadidates/ parties promised to increase/maintain mass immigration and gave the electorate the chance to vote on that policy and you've won that argument. Simple. I really wont be holding my breath though.

Immigrants (brown people) use more tax/government services?

You're saying they dont? You can prove that of course. You do understand that this meant in a per capita sense not absolute?

A large portion of you live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes.

Comedy gold! You can prove that too?

Should I be galled that my filthy metropolitan liberal tax dollars supply you ignorant pigfuckers with clean water to raise yourchildren into similar parasitic hypocritical ignorance? Fuck you and your legislated morality.

Oh dear, you can prove this liberal metropolitan tax goldmine thing too I suppose?

I wonder how you categorize the members of such worthy multicultural entities as MS-13 and the Crips. Are they parasitic, I guess not. And of course none of them unhabit liberal metropolitan areas.

And as for legislated morality...lets not even get started on that. Can you hear me laughing at you from way over here?

Anonymous said...

I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America.

Huh, typical moderate. I say let's deport all whites with IQs under 100and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America. 'We' will all be better off.

David said...

>All these neutral-seeming stats you come up with is just a proxy for that sentiment.<

It would be more accurate to say that, for some, the stats codify personal observations over much of a lifetime and illuminate much folk wisdom; it's these sources that create the sentiment.

Not all emotions are baseless.

M Schwartz said...

***I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America.***

And while we're at it, let's see China deport a few million low iq Chinese and replace them with high IQ Pakistanis & Indians.

Anonymous said...

more cultural sterlization (if hajibs have to go, then so do crosses)

In my cynical moments I assume thats one of the reasons the hajib wearers were imported in the first place.

David said...

Whiskey said

>[European genocide is on account of] a noxious blend of Quaker idealism, and utopianism, pan-racial / ethnic post-Christian globalism, and post Calvinist elect and damned, mixed with Cavalier / Gentry aristocracy.<

YEAH, MAN! That's telling 'em!

But, don't forget this additional influence (pdf download):
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf

M Schwartz said...

Steve,

I see that Mr Roth has another book, 'Presciption for Failure: Race Relations in the Age of Social Science'. He writes:

"Perhaps the most important contribution of this book will be the demonstration that there never was any sound basis in social science research for many of the policies on race that have been followed during the past three decades."

Prescription for failure: race relations in the age of social science By Byron Mitchell Roth

Anonymous said...

Has anyone bothered with the census figures? It is over; the rise of Latinos is inexorable. Whites will become bimodal, divided between a disgruntled working class and increasingly disenfranchised super minority and an ultra elite, heavily Jewish micro minority that controls the lion's share of the country's resources, with a few Indian Americans and Chinese Americans allowed into the club for "diversity".

Descartes said...

"And while we're at it, let's see China deport a few million low iq Chinese and replace them with high IQ Pakistanis & Indians."

Disagreed. Have every high-IQ person come to America. The rest of the world can do whatever. It will be like Bioshock, where the setting was a Randian undersea city of high-IQ people.

If we are true believers of HBD and sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, it should be class and IQ based, not race-based.

Big Bill said...

Anon: "You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy."

What? A majority of black folks want to stop immigration because it is taking their jobs. A majority of white folks do to.

Of course they aren't rich, privileged, spoiled, college educated white folks like you, Anonymous.

But they are clearly the majority of Americans. Tell me why you and you rich Washington friends don't want to be democratic and do what the majority of Americans obviously wants?

You apparently don't believe in Democracy.

Big Bill said...

"All these neutral-seeming stats you come up with is just a proxy for that sentiment."

What stats do you mean?

That Mexicans commit 3 times as much violent crime per capita than white folks, for example?

That blacks commit 7 times as much?

Or that men commit over 10 times as much as women?

[Whoops! Forget that last one. I read that at a Feminist convention. That "hatefact" is just fine. Men ARE evil. ....... Its just that black men aren't. ... no ... no,wait ... what I'm trying to say ... .

Thripshaw said...

@Schwartz
I read some of the link to 'Presciption for Failure: Race Relations in the Age of Social Science' on google books. Pages 5 and 6 are a concise and devastatingly accurate annihilation of the sham belief that any disparity in outcomes between blacks and whites in America is the result of white racism.
Who is this Byron M. Roth? Does he still have a job?

Anonymous said...

"[E]ssentially, you're against immigration because fundamentally you don't like brown people. That's the REAL reason. That's what it comes down to."

We don't like TOO MANY brown people because the racial majority of a nation determines its historical, cultural, and political character. The problem is not brown people per se but brown people threatening to become the majority. Mexicans have every right to insist that Mexico remain majority brown, Japanese have right to insist that Japan remain majority yellow, and Nigeria has every right to insist that it remain majority black. They may or may not welcome diversity, but the majorities in those nations want to remain in the clear majority. So do we. Since US and especially Europe were historically/culturally established, defined, and developed as essentially white western nations, we want to keep it that way.

And if you love brown people so much and want to be outnumbered them, don't stick around in the US. Go to Mexico or India. If your idea of paradise or utopia is for whites to be outnumbered by non-whites, you can have that and much more simply by emigrating to non-white nations. I'm sure they'll love you.

Btw, if you are so crazy about brown people, who are the product of Hispanic conquest/rape of the natives in Latin America, you must be all for white imperialism, since your beloved mestizos would never have existed without the extensive race-mixing forced on natives by whites. Due to Nazism in the 20th century, many people associate RACIAL PURISM with white nationalism/imperialism/evil, but in fact, race-mixing throughout history was often the result of conquest, rape, enforcement, enslavement, etc. It's probably true that RACIAL BLENDISM was the much greater element in the violence committed by mankind through history. So, people who point to Brazil and Mexico as wonderful examples of race-mixing and diveristy are really fooling themselves. The racial mixing in those nations was the product of conquest, slavery, rape, and imperialism. Native Americans lost their core/original identity as a result of having been forced to mix with whites by whites. And today, multicultural race-mixing is also a policy of enslavement and conquest--this time of whites--by leftist radicals(many of them vengeeful or demented Jews) and third world aggressors.

One question for you. Suppose the natives of the Americas had foreseen a dire future for themselves as a result of the arrival of vast numbers of whites. Suppose those natives in the 15th century had the internet and started a website called WeDare whose purpose was to spread awareness of the danger posed by masssive arrival of white Europeans. Would it have been 'evil' and 'xenophobic' for the natives to want to be majority peoples in their own nation. In the 19th century, when the Chinese were alarmed by the prospect of their nation being divided up and colonized by whites, was it 'racist' of the Chinese to want to end white encroachment on their land. Were they being anti-white? Or were they being anti-too-many-whites-with-guns? And how did things work out for the Palestinians as the result of massive arrival of Jews? They are outcasts in their own ancestral lands. What happened to non-whites is now happening to whites, and there is a leftist/globalist agenda behind it.

You see, our real problem is not with browns. It's with TOO MANY browns entering illegally with too few skills and having too many children among whom too many end up on welfare or worse.

M Schwartz said...

***If we are true believers of HBD and sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, it should be class and IQ based, not race-based.***

Yan Shen,

Have you actually read much evolutionary psychology? I'm not sure you can discard peoples natural ethnocentrism that easily.

Descartes said...

It seems like there are layers of commentators. One group provides thoughtful commentary, another seizes on ideology, idiocy and constant replying to the most lowbrow of comments.

Whiskey said...

Any number of possible futures await America now that Whites are no longer the majority of three year olds living in the US.

Market Dominant minority is probably the least likely. There are millions of Whites, lower on the IQ and socio-economic scale that are likely to revert to "border" or "Scots-Irish" (neither Scots nor Irish, really) as detailed by Albion's Seed. The Armstrong tribe could muster 3,000 armed men in Cumbria, other family names were proscribed by the Crown they were so violent and brutal.

Whites were NEVER dominant in Brazil, make Whites sudden minorities, in places where they had previously been majorities, and you are looking IMHO at somewhere between Yugoslavia post-Tito to the Thirty Years War.

In fact, I think you can already see various things indicating this. Rise of martial arts systems, designed not for "sport" but combat fighting, rise in popularity of MMA, interest in things martial and violent, and so on.

Rather than Harold Myerson's celebrated "end of Whiteness" the result is likely to be IMHO a street fight that never ends. One thing the Scots-Irish border people have been good at is fighting. And that fighting is a poverty generator. No attachment to property (lean-tos, log cabins, mobile homes), high physical mobility, and so on. High emphasis on "warrior culture" and big strong sons, extended family tribes/clans, and family "honor" hyper-charged with naked spoils fights based on race.

Violent societies don't innovate. They spend all their time fighting.

Wandrin said...

"If we are true believers of HBD and sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, it should be class and IQ based, not race-based"

Divide and rule.

Non-stop.

Till everything is destroyed.

Move on somewhere where sane, normal people have created a decent place to live.

Divide and rule.

Non-stop.

Till everything is destroyed.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Century after century.

Anonymous said...

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
- Albert Einstein

Ray Sawhill said...

A radio interview with Byron M. Roth.

Anonymous said...

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

- Albert Einstein

Yet he supported the creation of Israel and the national liberation of India.
And without Russians courageously fighting the Nazis to defend their sacred motherland--and without US entering the war against Japan and Germany to defend its national honor--, where would Jews be today?

On matters outside of science, Einstein was a real dumbass. Most writers cannot make good music, and musicians cannot write good novels. So, anyone who thinks Einstein was right on everything because he happened to be right about some aspects of physics is a big dummy himself/herself.

Silver said...

Has anyone bothered with the census figures? It is over; the rise of Latinos is inexorable.

What is "over" is America as anyone knew it. What it is a question of is what will replace it. How will Americans opt to reorganize their lives in light of transformed demographics?

My solution is to recognize the importance of race in our lives and rearrange society to reflect that importance. It's the middle way between total self-abnegation and other-centeredness (today mandatory for only whites, but in future perhaps for all -- if they're dumb enough to fall for it), and total self-centeredness and other-hatred, ie the farthest right forms of WN and other nationalisms. I don't think it's particularly difficult, or requiring much in the way of education, to say hey, I value my own kind more than other kinds; I prefer to center my life around interactions with my own kind; but I certainly don't mean other kinds any harm or ill will; if other kinds abide by the same rules we'll have less conflict and more cooperation and all live better lives.

That'll require a bit of discussion and people moving around (over time), but these are things people already do, and for reasons far less magnitudinous.

Descartes,

How can any serious HBD worth its name elect to ignore the importance of distance and closeness of human relations? Come off it. You're talking your own book and nothing more. You're smart, you figure, so a culture that celebrates smarts would be just the thing for you. Nothing more than self-interest masquerading as principle; fortunately, your self-interest is as transparent as it is slimy.

On matters outside of science, Einstein was a real dumbass. Most writers cannot make good music, and musicians cannot write good novels. So, anyone who thinks Einstein was right on everything because he happened to be right about some aspects of physics is a big dummy himself/herself.

True. But he wasn't necessarily wrong about nationalism. Remember, the nationalism of his day was extremely narrow and spiteful. More than a few people besides him thought it would be a good thing if Europeans overcame that sort of nationalism.

Also, he might have supported Israel, but he himself didn't marry a Jew.

Silver said...


Who do you mean by 'we' and who do you mean by 'they'? Be specific now.


Let's he is specific. Let's say he names names.

Let's say it's not to your liking.

What then? Do we just press on with the way things are -- in spite of knowing what we know?

You know, the truth is we could just keep going the way we are. It won't do much to improve anyone's happiness, but neither would it be so horrible that life ceases to be worth living. That wouldn't require doing anything. You just sit back and let things play themselves out, and in due time we'll all arrive where we're headed.

Alternatively, we could change course. We could affirm that we don't like where things are headed and demand to change course. And we could proceed to recruit as many people as possible to our cause.

If you agree with me that this world's easily big enough to hold us all, then it should be straightforward to see that no one need really "lose out," not in any life-essential sort of way. So knowing all that, why wouldn't you want to change course? Is it solely because "Reg Caesar's" "we" might not include you. I'm quite sure it wouldn't include me, but so what? Particularism still beats universalism regardless of whose "we" any of us form a part of -- just as the world's big enough to hold us all, so are there groups enough in it for us all.

Anonymous said...

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
- Albert Einstein


Of course that was meant to read White/European Nationalism is an infantile disease. Fixed that for you Albert. Though it may have laid bare a certain ethnic animus. Ooops!

Anonymous said...

If we are true believers of HBD and sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, it should be class and IQ based, not race-based.

If you've got two setups, one of which you can defect from and keep cryptic and really split as much as you want, arbitrarily, (class and IQ) and one of which you can't (ethnic group) one of these is going to be more stable when it comes to group action. Which are people going to have more trust in and work cohesively as a group in?

And in any case, individual IQ does not track the whole of that which makes people work well together, which is ultimately the crux of optimising human capital. "Class" does better but ultimately, acting according to class creates monocultures of labour which does not suit any group (which is why ethnicity is a more efficient and better communal bond than class and why nationalist and racist societies beat classist and casteist societies).

Pat Shuff said...

Thripshaw said...
@Schwartz
I read some of the link to 'Presciption for Failure: Race Relations in the Age of Social Science' on google books. Pages 5 and 6 are a concise

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So true.

torpor said...

"A large portion of you live in states that take in more federal funds than they pay out in taxes."

How does this person where most people who communicate on thie blog live? Commenters here have proven they have facts and figures at their fingertips, so this person should beware.

We have no reason to want to overwhelmed by browns. Why? Because browns care first about browns. Who are we supposed to care first about? I suggest this person go to a "brown" country if they are so taken with them. Or go global and agitate for Japan and India to let in more white "immigrants." Of course to have the same demographic and genetic impact it would have to be millions and millions of whites.
I live in Maryland. I live in an area (Takoma Park/ Silver Spring, that has been overrun with "immigrants" and it ain't pretty. And it eats the tax base (subsidized housing, breaks for browns; for some insane reason there is discrimination against whites no matter what the income or how much military service is in evidence.)
We know what we're talking about, only too well.

ben tillman said...

Great wealth and power, and collapse of Christianity (caused mainly by urbanization and mass media) gave rise to noxious post-Christian "heresies" that fed off the Universalist idealism already inherent in Christianity.

Maggots do not come from flies' eggs -- they come from dead meat!

All hail Whiskey's theory of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation!

ben tillman said...

About half of Jews intermarry....

As always, this is mere assertion. The last time anyone checked (1989), the figure was 14%.

ben tillman said...

It's Garrett Hardin and he is worth reading. I'd recommend "The Tragedy of the Commons."

Yes, mass immigration turns a country into a "commons", with precisely the consequences that Hardin describes -- i.e., the country changes from a going concern to a liquidation.

Descartes said...

Einstein opposed the creation of Israel on violent grounds. He was part of the wave of zionists that wanted peaceful cooperation, starting from the works of Theodore Herzl. He had written to American Jews on the terror brought about by Irgun and Menachem Begin.

Einstein justified the Israeli and Indian state as existing because they did not exist before. They were not nationalistic in that sense because they weren't nations yet.

But its quite obvious that he opposes imperialism that derives from nationalism, such as that of the Second and Third Reich of his homeland.

Descartes said...

"If you've got two setups, one of which you can defect from and keep cryptic and really split as much as you want, arbitrarily, (class and IQ) and one of which you can't (ethnic group) one of these is going to be more stable when it comes to group action. Which are people going to have more trust in and work cohesively as a group in?"

Depends on what group action is. If its national socialism, its obvious. If its modern capitalism where racial allegiances are gone in favor of actual merit, class is.

Look at the relative diversity of Silicon Valley. A mish mash of different ethnic groups working for a common goal.


"And in any case, individual IQ does not track the whole of that which makes people work well together, which is ultimately the crux of optimising human capital."

Individual IQ is necessary for people to work well in IQ-demanding industries. That's were I'm pointing at. Neither does ethnicity show a market cooperation either. That's the whole reason for the rise of globalization.

"Class" does better but ultimately, acting according to class creates monocultures of labour which does not suit any group (which is why ethnicity is a more efficient and better communal bond than class and why nationalist and racist societies beat classist and casteist societies).

There is almost always an existing divide between classes within any ethnic group. It wouldn't change much except expand and marginalize the smaller groups.

Where do you derive these statements of nationalism always trumping societies with strong cognitive elites classes?

Rohan Swee said...

And if you like non-white people so much, why wait for them to come here? Why don't you white liberals just go live in Africa or Mexico.
Yeah, that would be win-win for everyone.


It's a mystery, it is. Most places on this earth are non-white or white-minority, which must make them, according to pee-cee theology, superior for human flourishing by just about every criteria. There is no rationale they could give for staying in whitey-land that would not either contradict another deeply held point of their dogma, or make them complicit in the alleged Western imperialism that they deplore.

That is, if they say "but I don't want to move because this is my home and I'm comfortable in my own culture", they wreck their theology at its core. If they admit that the West is a better place to live, they'll contend that's only because whitey stole all the cargo - but then that makes them receivers of stolen goods.

(Heh, who am I kidding. Kylie is right - we're not talking about people who care about integrity or logical consistency.)

That way, both sides win. White conservatives live in white societies, and white liberals live in majority non-white societies[...]

Then again, maybe they won't leave because making life hell for white conservatives is the only thing left in this world to give meaning and structure to their empty, pointless lives.

Rohan Swee said...

Fill in the blank with the correct answer: If we are true believers of ----------, [immigration selection] should be class and IQ based, not race-based.

Considering the large number of correct answers to this test question, I'd say there was about zero probability that even the dimmest or most unprepared student could manage to get to the far side of wrong with wild random guesses like "HBD", or "sociobiology", or "evolutionary psychology" on this one. It's inconceivable.

JSM said...

"if other kinds abide by the same rules we'll have less conflict and more cooperation and all live better lives"

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA

JSM said...

"Also, he [Einstein] might have supported Israel, but he himself didn't marry a Jew."

Silver, you're an idiot. Einstein's second wife, Elsa Einstein Lowenthal Einstein, was his first cousin maternally and his second cousin paternally.

Anonymous said...

You anti-immigrationists are anti-democracy.
So, please show me where the American, British, French.. well all, western people mandated mass immigration? I don't recall campaign promises to increase diversity and demographically marginalize native born peoples.

Anonymous said...

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
- Albert Einstein


I am against nationalism but in favor of Zionism [Blumenfeld quotes Einstein as having told him]. The reason has become clear to me today. When a man has both arms and he is always saying I have a right arm, then he is a chauvinist. However, when the right arm is missing, then he must do something to make up for the missing limb. Therefore, I am, as a human being, an opponent of nationalism. But as a Jew I am from today a supporter of the Jewish Zionist efforts. Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, World Publishing (1971) p. 378.
funny how that works.

Anonymous said...

Imagine that we deported everyone with an IQ lower than 130 from the US to wherever. Then we took in everyone else in the world who had an IQ above 130.

I can only imagine the high IQ Utopian paradise that America would become. To me, that's the ultimate immigration policy for this country.

Anonymous said...

"But its quite obvious that he opposes imperialism that derives from nationalism"

So long as its non-Jewish nationalism.

But Jewish imperialism derived from zionism as expressed through developing means of nuking the Germans? Oh, yeah, baby.

Mel Torme said...

"Imagine that we deported everyone with an IQ lower than 130 from the US to wherever."

If that came to pass, where are you thinking of headin' to? "Wherever" is pretty vague.

Me, I'm not going anywhere. I'll be staying right here to welcome the newcomers with their > 130 IQs. Someone of us high-IQ holdovers need to show these intelligent people how to start their cars, operate a crescent wrench, mow their own yards, etc.

ben tillman said...

Imagine that we deported everyone with an IQ lower than 130 from the US to wherever. Then we took in everyone else in the world who had an IQ above 130.

I can only imagine the high IQ Utopian paradise that America would become. To me, that's the ultimate immigration policy for this country.


What's it to you? You'd be living elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"Imagine that we deported everyone with an IQ lower than 130 from the US to wherever."

haha, I can certainly imagine it: The vast majority of those allowed to stay in the country would starve...

Descartes said...

"But Jewish imperialism derived from zionism as expressed through developing means of nuking the Germans? Oh, yeah, baby."

Have you even seen his views on nuclear weapons? All he had done was written about his concern of German nuclear programs, which had prompted the creation of the Manhattan project.

After it was actually used and he had witnessed its impact on the world, he had campaigned widely and strongly against nuclear weapons. Most significantly the Einstein-Russell manifesto of leading intellectuals was signed.

But why should I bother telling you that. Its just better to classify everyone according to one archetypal dimension.

Descartes said...

"haha, I can certainly imagine it: The vast majority of those allowed to stay in the country would starve..."

Importing food for medicine and technology.

It can work.

I just don't know how many IQ 130 people would enjoy taking out the trash or being a technician or anything.

JSM said...

"Importing food for medicine and technology.

It can work."

Not quite.
Who's going to drive the trucks to bring the french fries to your local McDonalds?

Alfred said...

Perhaps gays want to increase population density because population density is something that correlates with homosexuality. Maybe its a percentage thing, and if you have more people, and 1% (or 5 or whatever the actual number is) of them are gay, then you have enough to form a critical mass of an entire gay neighborhood/region of a city as opposed to a thinly populated area. Maybe its because in densely populated areas, people lose their identity, don't personally know all their neighbors and don't care much what the other people do- trying dressing like a drag queen in a small rural midwest town vs. L.A.

Population density itself has been correlated with homosexuality to the point where some think it may be a cause of it- it has been found that high densities of mice in mouse colonies will lead to higher levels of homosexuality. Maybe it's something ancient in the genes to apply the brakes on population growth when population density gets too high, to help prevent a Malthusian collapse. How this would work to be selected for in the first place would be something that could be intensely debated, as losing the ability to reproduce for the sake of others doesn't get passed on very well, unless you benefit alot of relatives in doing so.

Wandrin said...

"I say let's deport a few million low IQ whites and replace them with high IQ East Asians. All for the betterment of America."

I say deport everyone who thinks like you. America would heal up within 20 years.

The Future is Now said...

Imagine that we deported everyone with an IQ lower than 130 from the US to wherever. Then we took in everyone else in the world who had an IQ above 130.

That is already happening on a via ethnic/economic cleansing on a smaller scale in communities like Lincoln Park, Evanston, Palo Alto, the Berkeley Hills, Palos Verdes, Beverly Hills, Manhattan, NW Wash DC, Chevy Chase, etc (or within Neighborhoods within these communities).

As technology advances, more low-IQ service jobs will be increasingly automated like driving a truck or making a fast food.

High-IQ enclaves already exists and are not dystopian like some here imagine. The most vocal leftist critics of HBD probably live in such nice neighborhoods.

Anonymous said...

Look at the relative diversity of Silicon Valley. A mish mash of different ethnic groups working for a common goal.

Silicon Valley exists within a wider society.

Neither does ethnicity show a market cooperation either. That's the whole reason for the rise of globalization.

Not perfectly. But it's not clear to me that globalization isn't a "parasitic liberalism" phenomenon (look it up if you're interested).

Where do you derive these statements of nationalism always trumping societies with strong cognitive elites classes?

Nations which attempt to build a state around a small elite core haven't existed (maybe they can now, they certainly haven't historically). States built around an ideal of a mono-class, the working class, have been attempted, which is what I am referring to. They lose out to nationalist nations without this ideal and with some concept of division of labor (it is because they have another communal and group basis that they are able to maintain this division of labor).

Anonymous said...

To Alfred, who said,

"Perhaps gays want to increase population density because population density is something that correlates with homosexuality...

"Population density itself has been correlated with homosexuality to the point where some think it may be a cause of it- it has been found that high densities of mice in mouse colonies will lead to higher levels of homosexuality. Maybe it's something ancient in the genes to apply the brakes on population growth when population density gets too high, to help prevent a Malthusian collapse. How this would work to be selected for in the first place would be something that could be intensely debated..."


Alfred, check out Ewald and Cochran's hypothesis--that male homosexuality likely is the result of a pathogen (probably a virus). Cochran has pointed out that, yes, there is evidence that a higher % of males who are gay were born in urban rather than rural or suburban areas.

This would be be unrelated to selection, of course. Rather, pathogens spread more easily in the city.

Gene Berman said...

Anonymous (above) who wants his "scabby demoncock" sucked:

You're all wet on the difference in "tax-eating" between the relatively conservative (red) and relatively liberal (blue) states.

It is quite true that among those states that pay in more then they receive (less than 20), blue states predominate (maybe 13 or 14;
just don't remember clearly). First place, NJ, then CT and NY.
That's simply because those states (and the other net payers) simply happen to be where the biggest incomes are located (and taxed)--nothing whatever to do with what the average wage or salary (or small business operators) have to pay with relation to similar folks in conservative areas.

Likewise, the fact that quite a few conservative states receive significantly higher amounts than they pay in (up to about 38% more) has to do with something entirely different than dependency: the fact these are sparsely-settled (in comparison) than more urbanized states and, so, have vast areas for which roads and bridges and other "infrastructure" must be built and maintained, not for the specific advantage of the inhabitants as for the "general welfare." Not everyone flies over "flyover country"--plenty of the city-folk want to traverse first-class hiways both for work and on vacation. Further, it's a fact that most of the national parks, etc., are in such areas and, whether expenditures on such account may not figure in the disbursements we discuss, they are yet likely to cause increases in the otherwise-normal population (and these might have increased need of federal contribution). These "underpopulated" states, moreover, are, by and large, the locales of many of the ag and tech schools in line for moolah. And, though subsidized crops take a hefty bite, I'd guess (though I don't know for sure), these were historically supported by the most populous of cities, who, long ago, log-rolled with the farmers of the midwest (who supported the institution of low-cost school lunches in return). Further, I'd guess that those places home to military bases have surrounding lower-income areas chronically
costing amounts higher than would be characteristic of the remainder of their territory.

none of the above said...

The Future Is Now:

The high-IQ enclaves I've ever seen have been either college towns, or places where the support people (nurses and policemen, receptionists and school teachers, daycare workers and janitors) had to live somewhere else, because they simply couldn't afford to live in those communities.

This raises questions about what a high-IQ society would look like.

Anonymous said...

You guys are seriously outdated when it comes to IQ differences between groups. Now I'm not denying that IQ has any genetic basis or that some groups may be genetically predisposed to higher or lower IQ. However, IQ level is also influenced by environment and culture. The IQ of Europeans in the 17th century was lower than the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans today. Look into the Flynn effect.

Culture and tradition take on a life of their own in human societies and are more powerful than genes.

People need to stop pretending as if they don't have any biases before they delve into scientific study. Such a pretense is dishonest, self-righteous and cowardly.