May 30, 2011

Why do Republicans hate thinking about race and IQ, too?

Here's my new VDARE essay

It's no surprise why Democrats tend to be so angry at anybody who mentions the race-IQ link, but why do so many Republicans now feel the same way? There are a number of reasons, but one is often overlooked. I explore an aspect of the sociology and psychology of Republican voters.

Read it there.

162 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, like Democrats, most Republicans don't believe in evolution.

Strom Thurmond's Lovechild said...

Libertarians too.

The idea that all human aren't equal in ability blows a hole right through their treasured philosophy.

It also puts a dampener on that whole Open Borders utopian future they dream about.

Wes said...

I'm afraid Political Correctness has infected everyone. As Steve noted recently, even in anonymous forums, people go ballistic if you mention group differences in IQ or temperament. They get vicious fast. Most of it seems to come from Leftwing types, but some of it seems to come from Republican as well, not quite as vicious or as heartfelt, but the the same basic arguments.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. And all for a football game. When the history of this time is written, our descendents will not be kind.

Anonymous said...

A lot of interesting links in your essay but your final conclusion isn't linked to it.

"Red State Republicans don’t want to know about the choices that their favorite colleges have to make to win at football. They don’t want to be reminded of the race-IQ link.

Sports fandom, academic elitism, and Political Correctness are three of the three strongest urges in 21st Century American life.

Because the first two are contradictions, the third has won even—maybe especially—among Republican college football fans."

RandyB said...

The VDare article turned out to be more about college sports than the header here had led me to expect. Neither the political right or left in this country wants IQ to be hereditary and correlated with ethnicity, because it violated the premise on which our country was founded -- that there are no hereditary privileged classes and anyone can make it with work.

The Democrats of course, don't want IQ to be hereditary because the premise of their worldview is that socio-economic disparities represent prima facie evidence that oppression caused them and hence represent a debt by the successful groups to the unsuccessful one. The Republicans don't really like it either, because it violates their premise that everyone can succeed and that the poor are the victims of their own decision-making.

Average Joe said...

I think you are way off base on this one. The real reason why Republicans hate talking about things such as race and IQ is because they are trying to win Jewish donors away from the Democratic Party. The Democrats are heavily dependent on their Jewish donors therefore every one lost to the Republicans is a financial wound that they find difficult to recover from. Since Jews hate talking about things such as race and IQ, the Republicans will try to avoid this issue rather than risk alienating potential Jewish supporters. This also helps to explain why the Republicans are so pro-Israel.

Harry Baldwin said...

I have no interest in sports so I petered out on this column before I got halfway through. The correlation seems really strained.

I think Republicans don't like thinking about race and IQ for a number of reasons. One is that it's impolite, uncool, and causes you to lose your job and be treated as a pariah. Another is that Republicans are committed to the idea that America is an opportunity society where anyone can make it if they really try, and they don't like to think that that's less so for blacks, mestizos, and American Indians. Still another is that many Republicans are religious, and the idea that certain races suffer an inherent IQ disadvantage does not seem consistent with divine creation. (As Steve has pointed out, the inconsistency of dogmatic beliefs in racial IQ parity and evolution does not seem to bother Democrats.)

Anonymous said...

Conservatives tend to be loyalists. They want their old alma mater to thrive in the USN&WR rankings, which mostly require higher average SAT scores.

And, as loyalists, they also want their old school to win on the football field. And winning in college football and basketball is in large part about lowering entrance requirements.


I think you have the priorities reversed there.

Most people from non-Ivy colleges are far more concerned with their school's athletic performance than they are with academic results.

This doubly true in the South.

Anonymous said...

This just a manifestation of American culture. Athleticism is glorified and intellectualism is either mocked or, very reluctantly, accepted when it yields undeniable results.

On college campuses across America, lunkhead sportsmen run virtual harems of babes while science and engineering students end up in a state of involuntary celibacy.

The most these guys can hope for is to work diligiantly and build up wealth all through their twenties. Then, once in their thirties, they can have the opportunity to be the beta provider of a used up former party girl. Probably with a kid.

Such is life in 21st Century America.

Anonymous said...

From your title here I was picturing something about a Horatio Alger, hard-work-is-all-you-need myth. You're title here wasn't the best fit with what you wrote on VDare.

It was a good article, but I doubt that conservatives avoid thinking in general about HBD because of its implications for their beloved football factories. Its more of blind spot, just like the glaring evidence of it that black dominance in the major sports provides.

SEC fans that I've known rarely discuss their players' lack of scholarly bent. Although it's not as though many of them cared all that much for their classes while at Ole Miss. Even if their higher IQs make it possible for them slide by with a gentleman's C, instead of failing out.

However, one thing that will make them turn on their players is when they get caught engaging in thuggish behavior. They'll complain about their coach not recruiting players of good character. And are willing to acknowledge that bad character often seems to go with black skin. Especially if it means that their team has a bad year because some key players were suspended or jailed.

Anonymous said...

Interesting conjecture, but I don't think your article really explains anything or provides any insight into the problem.

Maybe being more explicit about the fact that status is involved might have helped it, but whether status explains why the IQ issue is not treated honestly is not clear either.

Anonymous said...

Well maybe you have a point. Here in Whiteopia, the state U regularly recruits JC blacks from other states to fill out the team with hoods so we can be a contender. A couple notoriously got involved in crimes including murder and a home invasion over drugs. Academic standards are a joke for most the students anyway.

Meanwhile the local GOP fans turn a blind eye, because we all know how they are.

Anonymous said...

To a European or Asian, football and basketball games in America are a very strange sight. Thousands of middle-class whites cheering on teams that look like the Crips. Why these fans thing the teams represent them is anyone's guess.

What this does is put a whole load of undeserved social, financial and sexual capital into the hands of street thugs.

And of course, when the teen daughters of those deluded white fans end up at the ol' alma mater, they'll be prime game for those illiterate black college football stars.

But I suppose to the average football/basketball fan and ESPN viewer, there's no greater honor than a gang of NFL draft picks plowing his teenage daughter.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, many top NBA players also seem to be at least on the right side the black IQ curve, which I cannot say about elite blacks in other sports. Bilingual and very well spoken Kobe Bryant being one example. Chris Bosh has had trouble "fitting-in" in Miami because he reportedly likes reading books after games rather than clubbing with Wade & James (both of whom, incidentally, strike me as smarter than average).

Anonymous said...

The John Steigerwald quoted in the essay, from the Valley News Dispatch, is one of the few prominent journalists who is on our side publically. John is actually one of the biggest name sports media personalities in Pittsburgh in the last 30 years on tv, radio and in print. He "gets it" and is as blunt and firm about it as one can be in MSM world. Steve and Steve fans, give his blog a look www.justwatchthegame.com I have referred his readers to iSteve as well.

Chicago said...

It's not so much the thinking as it is where it all might lead to. It could take a person out of their comfort zone and lead to disquieting thoughts. Thinking too much could be an impediment to the attainment of happiness.

John said...

Interesting essay... but you shouldn't have started out by invoking the 1965 immigration reform, as you then proceed to talk about the athletic skill of African-Americans, whose presence in the US predates the immigration reform by some length of time.

jb or mz's black hoodie said...

"There are a number of reasons, but one if often overlooked. I explore an aspect of the sociology and psychology of Republican voters."

I dunno, doesn't read much like Sailer, does it? Not to mention there's a run on or some such while the last line doesn't have the usual umph.

Lucy said...

Thoughts upon the demise of iSteve Blog:


Alas, Sailer, we hardly knew ye.

Anonymous said...

This reminded me of something I read a while back diversity efforts within NASCAR. Apparently Colin Powell and Condi Rice held a speech at a NASCAR event. I believe it was one of the authors of "Racing While Black: How an African-American Stock Car Team Made Its Mark on NASCAR" that was complaining that because Powell and Rice were both Republicans, they weren't representative of most blacks. Why on earth would you have a lefty, white hating black address a bunch of conservative whites? There really is no pleasing these people.

Anonymous said...

"Then, once in their thirties, they can have the opportunity to be the beta provider of a used up former party girl. Probably with a kid."

Actually, probably NOT with a kid. The party girls don't have kids. It's the sweet girl next door who married her "beta" sweetheart in high school who has all the kids.

Oh no, did I just prove this alpha/beta stuff to be nonsense? My bad.

Mercer said...

"winning in college football and basketball is in large part about lowering entrance requirements."

I don't think this is a racial issue. People know that great athletes are usually not great scholars whatever their race. Why do colleges have to pretend otherwise? Would most fans care if colleges stop the pretense and paid athletes and not require them to take any classes?

This is part of why college costs keep rising. Colleges have added entertainment to their mission. People think college sports make money. They don't factor in the cost of all the other teams the NCAA requires and the cost of the stadiums. I don't think taxpayers should pay for all this.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives tend to be loyalists. They want their old alma mater to thrive in the USN&WR rankings, which mostly require higher average SAT scores.

And, as loyalists, they also want their old school to win on the football field. And winning in college football and basketball is in large part about lowering entrance requirements.

The essential question is: How much affirmative action should your favorite college offer to football players—in terms of test scores, grades, recruiting ethics violations, and overlooked felonies?


SInce there aren't enough athletes to bring down a college's mean or median SAT scores, why can't you have both US News Rankings and a good sports program?

Anonymous said...

Why?

Libs own the media.

It's 'racist'.

And 'blacks on our side' is the new 'god on our side'.

Anonymous said...

"On college campuses across America, lunkhead sportsmen run virtual harems of babes while science and engineering students end up in a state of involuntary celibacy."

Most of human history was like this. Warriors over geeks.
But when geeks got the power as in the early yrs of the USSR, boy they could be vicious and murderous.

Anonymous said...

@Harry Baldwin

I have no interest in sports

Please be advised that in almost all societies masculinity is expressed through physical exertion. In the modern world, this is represented by sports, especially team sports that mimic the old warrior ethic.

The more you withdraw from sports, the less respect you earn from your community, especially females. This can be seen at any high school and college campus where the males most involved with sports hold greatest sway over females.

If a culture withdraws from what you would probably class as 'crude sports,' the more beta that culture will appear to its own females and females of other cultures. This will lead to not only rejection by females of other cultures, but the poaching of your culture's women.

This can be seen with the Asian community.

Anonymous said...

"Interesting conjecture, but I don't think your article really explains anything or provides any insight into the problem."

I kinda agree. A very interesting article with lots of details, but I'm not sure what the overall point was.

Was it that conservatives, obsessed with 'success' as the measure of all things, will bend rules to get whatever they want? Since college football fans tend to be conservative, and they wanna see their college teams to win, they want the best players. But ideally, colleges are supposed to recruit student-athletes, not dumb thug athletes. But, what if college need dumb thug athletes in order to win? Speaking honestly about intelligence would undermine the conservative interest to get more fast blacks on their team.

Similarly, there is the issue of Mexican immigration. We know that large numbers of lower-IQ Mexicans are not good for this nation IN THE LONG RUN. But many conservative businessmen--small and big--wanna SUCCEED in the short-term. And hiring cheap Mexican labor on farms, factories, etc works nicely for them.

In both cases, conservatives prefer short term success over long term consequences. They are so eager to have their teams win that they're willing to overlook low IQ among blacks to have them on their college teams.
And conservative businessmen are so eager to hire cheap Mexican laborers that they overlook the fact that huge numbers of Mexicans in this country is bad in the long run.

This is the problem of market forces. Demand and supply mechanism is wonderful but it often prefers short-term gain and ignores long-term consequences.

Anonymous said...

White America is pathetic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTksBxPjIDM

Conservatives prefer a rapist footballer over a rape victim. ANYTHING TO WIN.

Mitch said...

I completely disagree--and in fact, your own article disagrees with you. It's clear that sports fans know that there's an IQ differential and don't care about it.

Republicans are averse to the discussion for the reasons the commenters have given. First, it messes with their "hard work brings its own rewards" paradigm. Second, it's dangerous to talk about--particularly for Republicans, who feel their "states' rights" history breathing down their neck.

TGGP said...

I don't find your theory plausible as an explanation of conservative reluctance to speak on the issue.

Exican said...

I think GOP anti-racism is more a descendant of 1. Yankee anti-Southern sentiment / new Southerners trying too hard to abase themselves.

2. GOP "WASP" use of affirmative action to break the back of white ethnic dominance of city politics / govt contractors in Northeast cities.

Both sources had to assume strict racial equality to justify their actions.

The sports angle is an interesting pop approach, but it seems secondary to the other forces.

Dutch Boy said...

It's the "bastardized libertarianism" (Sam Francis' term) of mainstream Republicanism that is the culprit. Thinking about race and IQ might interfere with the importation of all those cheap laborers so beloved of Big Business.

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Are you kidding me Steve? Really? Judging by this blog (which is populated overwhelmingly by Republican voters) ya'll love to talk about nothing OTHER THAN Race and IQ.

Anonymous said...

bad Sailer essay is bad.

Anonymous said...

People refuse to accept that humans don't have equal ability because that means that we (IQ>90's) are stuck with a parasite that can't be "fixed". The vast majority of people on this planet have IQ's of 80 or lower. They are never going to be doctors, engineers, hell, they're never going to be anybody you would want as a neighbor. And low IQ can't be fixed: sending them to college won't work. Low IQ people are effectively children, nothing is ever their fault. If you have more than they do, well obviously you stole it from them - aren't we all equal - you had to have stolen it. If you want to see 80 point IQ's look at the arab ME, look at Pak/Afghan, look at the wards in american cities. To accept that there are differences in IQ is to realize that mankind will never arrive at a paradise on earth, Gated Communitiesism will be our lot. It takes IQ to be a Doctor but more importantly it takes IQ to be moral, to be democratic. You can't put yourself in another person's shoes if your IQ isn't high enough. The really bad thing about low IQ is you aren't smart enough to realize that you are dumb.

DAJ said...

I graduated from Clemson University, a school located in the Deep, Red South with an avid football fan base and one of the largest athletic clubs in the country (IPTAY). As a student, I marveled at the egregious contrast between the 80,000 whites in the stands and the twenty-two black players on the football field. As white Southerners, the fans were most likely middle-class, culturally and economically conservative Republicans who revered all things Reagan.

Quite oppositely, the black players tended to embody a culture that glorified brash hip hop, street braggadocio, and straight-ticket Democratic voting, all of which were abhorred by the fans. Nevertheless, these white spectators utterly adored the players, showering them with accolades, praises, and calls for autographs. I once observed an old white man eagerly hand over his infant granddaughter into the unsolicited arms of a black freshman star for a picture. Clearly, the Clemson uniform supplanted race, class, age, culture, and politics in Death Valley Stadium.

However, Steve’s article, at best, explains only a tertiary reason behind the Republican Party’s reluctance and refusal to support HBD notions. The subject of HBD simply violates the general philosophies of both major American political parties. For instance, Democrats maintain that social inequality stems from determinant, structural deficiencies such as historical inter-group oppression, disparity in educational opportunities, and institutionalized discrimination that can only be overcome by collective action of government. Attributing such inequality to differences in genes, biochemistry, and evolution will topple the Party’s core call to arms.

Likewise, HBD negates the Republican proposition that social inequality arises from differential work ethic, morality, ambition, and responsibility that can be resolved only through individual effort without the involvement of government. Stating that disparities exist chiefly from biological and evolutionary provenance, especially across racial lines, completely stultifies the GOP premise.

In addition, evangelical Christians form a large voting base for Republicans, especially in the South. Evangelicals tend to doubt or reject the veracity of macro-evolution while believing that humankind is the handiwork of a benevolent Creator who equally loves all. Belief in HBD necessitates belief in the cold happenstance of Darwinian evolution, an idea offensive to the evangelical viewpoint.

Football fandom has little to do with it.

Thalassio said...

Anonymous Drama Queen:
The most these [STEM nerds] can hope for is to work diligiantly and build up wealth all through their twenties. Then, once in their thirties, they can have the opportunity to be the beta provider of a used up former party girl. Probably with a kid.

Such is life in 21st Century America.


Steve, although this comment, and my reply below, are off-topic, I'll hope you'll let my retort stand, for the sole reason that this defeatism cannot be allowed to go unanswered, lest your younger or seriously depressed male readers take it seriously.

Anonymous,

In the real world -- that realm that exists outside your absurdly melancholic fantasies -- there are plenty of options for the STEM-oriented guy who has testosterone receptors that are no more sensitive than average.

These include: Girls who score below 8, nerdy introvertettes, the combination of the two, and the learning of Game, or, at the very least, a modicum of social skills.

Take it from a (nerdy, skinny, navel-gazing) guy who knows, and don't let Anonymous' unrealistic, caricatured moping drag you down. There are enough -- if, admittedly, not an abundance -- of non-hideous women out there, even for guys who don't exude alpha.

To find and acquire them: 1) open your eyes 2) get off the internet for at least a while
3) study your Roissy and grow the cojones to apply the lessons.

Anonymous said...

"Europeans have a lot of experience with soccer stars, and while many futbolers are excellent disco dancers, and some are snazzy dressers, nobody has ever noticed that soccer players are, on average, particularly scholarly."

On average they're not scholarly at all. But Frank Lampard, a huge star in England, who plays for the English national team, has an IQ of 150.

Dutch Boy said...

End the ridiculous athletic scholarship system. Admit students by merit and reward them for academic achievement. Any student who wants to play a sport for good old alma mater should be welcome to try out.

Get Off My Lawn! said...

Interesting thoughts, Steve, but you're talking about an effect rather than a cause. As others have said, there are at least two much bigger reasons for GOP reluctance to acknowledge anything related to HBD:

1. The idea that race and intelligence might be related has been deemed racist by modern Western society. It doesn't matter whether the idea really is racist; it only matters that society as whole believes that it is. Racism is the worst sin - except maybe pedophilia, and I'm not even sure about that - that anyone can commit. It is not only completely unacceptable to be a racist, it is completely unacceptable to tolerate racism in others. This is a core belief of modern culture. Republicans, at least those under 70, accept it just as much as Democrats. Furthermore, because Republicans are often accused of racism by Democrats, they are especially sensitive on this point. Even if a random thought about race and intelligence crosses their minds, it must be quickly suppressed because it causes cognitive dissonance and, if spoken aloud, leads to ostracism.

2. Modern conservatism, especially the more libertarian variety favored by mainstream Republican media and pundits, depends on the idea that everyone is born with roughly equal abilities and can succeed with hard work. If that's not true, then the so-called meritocracy is just another form of aristocracy.

Lucy said...

Speaking of Intelligence

OK, Asian IQ is mostly going to fall between 80 and 130, not many exceptions. What whites are overly impressed with is a better ability to do math that is most always paired with less linguistic ability.

What do you think is going to happen when higher IQ whites prefer attending schools that aren't dominated by Asians, hence, completely abandon the Ivy League?

Are the Asians going to show up with their degrees from Harvard and Yale yet obvious verbal deficits and be allowed to rule us b/c of the brand name universities they attend? Or, are we going to continue demanding leaders who are articulate and insightful in the American tradition, thereby reducing the value of an expensive degree from an elite institution?

What if we whites compensated further still by demanding the verbal fluency our ancestors exhibited in the 19th century? I have yet to encounter an Asian who can even compete at our current lower level of performance in expressive language.

Will we allow people who don't seem to have the genetic capacity for our once excellent oratory skills to dull down the language further so they can rule us?

Anthony said...

Fans of college football *know* that academic standards have to be lowered to have a winning football team, and that that would be true even if a coach was trying to put together an all-white team. But since they know that, they don't need to talk about it, except when some idealist says that they shouldn't lower their standards.

On the other hand, I wonder how much of the populist Republican animus towards higher education stems from racial quotas for non-athletes? Challenging "Affirmative Action" gets you labeled as a racist, and Republican politicians haven't bothered to do anything real about it, so instead of trying to fight the system, working-class conservatives just abandon it. Thus the anti-intellectualism, the overblown complaints about left-wing dogmatism in the academy (yes, it does happen, but the extent is exaggerated), the worries about crime on campus (is college really less safe than the typical environments a 20-year-old working and living on her own will end up in?), etc.

Anonymous said...

It is not an argument we can win, which will lead to the whitehouse or political power. The issue can only be attacked via proxy, and there usually are proxies available given how unworkable the current orthodoxy is fortunately.

hbd chick said...

@Anonymous - "Well, like Democrats, most Republicans don't believe in evolution."

WHO LIKES EVOLUTION? DISSOCIATION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION VERSUS EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY

"Our results revealed a double dissociation, whereby endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively weak support for claims derived from evolutionary psychology, whereas non-endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively strong support for such claims.... The results suggest that strong support or opposition regarding human evolution does not carry over into corresponding attitudes toward evolutionary psychology."

evolution for thee, but not for me!

S. Anonyia said...

Well, about half of Republicans probably don't believe in evolution. They don't think that genetic family matters, they believe more in some "family of Christ" abstract idea. For example: they honestly don't care about the societal effects of teenage motherhood all that much, what is more important to them is that nobody got an abortion. I'm probably simplifying this attitude a good bit, but I've encountered it fairly often...

As for the other (typically wealthier) half of Republicans, I'd assume it's probably because being PC is so mainstream these days. Nobody wants to be ostracized. And there is the lesser point that their whole philosophy of "government spending = always bad" gets blown out of the water when you take into consideration homogeneous high IQ nations like Switzerland or South Korea. The sports thing is the least important factor involved. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are fanatical about sports, but I think some of you are exaggerating the role it plays in ideology formation.

AllanF said...

At the risk of piling on with the many (or is it just one) Anonymous, I'll say middle-of-the-road Republicans absolutely believe in hard-work and lift yourself up by your own bootstraps.

I've had many conversations with these types at work and church. One of whom honestly and completely believes the college education given to start athletes is entirely fair compensation for what a star, but stupid, athlete brings to a Div I sports program. He cannot grok these kids are entirely in over their head, have absolutely no interest in a college degree, and receive no benefit from it even if they do in fact earn one in 4 or 5 years. It is impossible to have an argument with someone so removed that even the "givens" of debate cannot be agreed to.

headache said...

Strom Thurmond's Lovechild said...

Libertarians too.

The idea that all human aren't equal in ability blows a hole right through their treasured philosophy.


Mmm..., not so sure about that. I never got the impression that Ron Paul considers all equal in ability. He's just saying that all should get equal access to opportunities, but not that outcomes should be leveled. If Ron Paul got his way that would be a revolutionary development from the current Dem/Rep Krampf of trying to fudge the same outcomes.

On the Open Borders issue I tend to agree with you; that and drugs is where is still don't get Paul's platform.

Nanonymous said...

It's a huge, huge stretch to say that Republicans don't like to talk abotu race and IQ because they care for the success of their college sports teams.

The truth is much more blunt: Liberals won the propaganda war. They did. Republicans (majority of them anyway) know all the basics of the race/IQ thing just fine. The just can't ever say it aloud. Because saying it aloud amounts to a political suicide.

The problem is that once the taboo is established, the formation of critical mass required to mount serious resistance to it is extremely rare event. So perpetuation of the status quo is strongly favored.

Mr. Anon said...

"Strom Thurmond's Lovechild said...

Libertarians too.

The idea that all human aren't equal in ability blows a hole right through their treasured philosophy."

Quite true. Conservatism can survive recognition of HBD - it would just go back to being what it used to be, namely, patriarchalism. Even liberalism (as currently understood in the U.S.) could accomodate itself to HBD - it would simply use it to justify the ever expanding caretaker state. But with the recognition that talent is non-uniformly distributed, libertarianism becomes nothing more than the naked will-to-power of it's proponents.

John D said...

Neither the political right or left in this country wants IQ to be hereditary and correlated with ethnicity, because it violated the premise on which our country was founded -- that there are no hereditary privileged classes and anyone can make it with work.

I think the "All men were created equal" line is really misused. I highly doubt that the Founders believed that Africans were in fact, equal to Whites. If they had, they'd have been given the franchise from the get go. Even Lincoln didn't believe that to be true. In fact, up to and including the 50s, I doubt that many pols, or indeed Americans believed it to be true. I doubt that most believe it today, in their heart of hearts. Cowed by PC, they wouldn't admit it, but they evidence it by where they choose to live and send their kids to school.

We need to challenge "White Privilege" and "White Racism" as causal for group disparities whenever somebody tries to explain NAM failure using those canards, and do so especially on boards that have nothing to do with HBD. It's the only way we'll ever break the PC stranglehold on "the Narrative".

Whiskey said...

No Steve, its not College Football. If anything, College Football is a binding institution that helps cement regionalism and trust-bonds across the mostly White fanbase.

Rather, it is the media/elite-aristocracy environment that immediately punishes ANY discussion of race, IQ, and demography. Sports fans did not care about Hornung or DeBerry saying what everyone knows. It was the media/elite that got their way.

People are afraid of going against the Elite religion. They spout off accusations of racism that can sink careers. It is not sports fans, who know completely that Black guys are just superior athletes in pretty much every way. Its the elite.

Whiskey said...

Steve I know you think College sports are the bane of conservative action, but what OTHER institution will serve to bind mostly Conservative, White middle class people together?

Dancing with the Stars? Oprah? Rick Warren's squishy soft Megachurches?

The Puritan fathers knew that sports, in a team aspect, serves to bind communities together, enabling larger trust networks. Getting people to cooperate REQUIRES some sort of team-building institution. It does not just happen out on the internet, or outside it. Cultural/social cohesiveness requires civil society, and all we have LEFT is College sports.

Kiwanis/Rotary is the domain of elderly people. It is dying off. Same with American Legion, Boy Scouts, all the rest. There is nothing else.

Anonymous said...

"but you shouldn't have started out by invoking the 1965 immigration reform, as you then proceed to talk about the athletic skill of African-Americans, whose presence in the US predates the immigration reform by some length of time."

VDARE.com is an immigration Web site, so for a discussion about the quality of our immigrants and Republicans' blindness to IQ as exemplified through college sports makes perfect sense. It's not the only explantation, as Sailer says, but it is an interesting component. There is also small business owners reliance on cheap labor to reduce labor costs; evangelicals who believe that success in life is a result of their surrender to Jesus Christ (like George Bush), and who believe that democracy is God-given, democracy leads to prosperity, and anyone who embraces it will become free, prosperous, and saved -- as opposed to replicating their Third World basket case country here.

Which reminds me that last night, my neighbors blasted tejano music at an ear-splitting volume from 6pm to 1 am, despite the fact that both my wife and I called the police. Their little children ran around while the adults screamed their "iiiyiii ii" at each song, got drunk, and urinated on the side of my house in the alley. Not exactly the protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (my kids were in bed after 3 books, bath, vitamins, and 15 minutes of Beethoven and Mozart -- like a good tight-ass WASP dad that I am. But, as I told my wife, their children will be working for ours, hence another reason the Republicans here in Texans are not too threatened my the invasion from the south.)

Wandrin said...

"but why do so many Republicans now feel the same way?"

They didn't in the past so something must have happened to change them. I don't think it was sports. I think it was relentless anti-white brain-washing from kindergarten onwards.

Sports provide a way of proving you conform to the multicult conditioning. It's like Oprah for men. A stadium is a mega church for diversity worship.

Anonymous said...

Anyone read this children's book A SUPER FULLBACK FOR THE SUPERBOWL?

http://www.amazon.com/super-fullback-Superbowl-Clare-Gault/dp/B0006XCS9W/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306790477&sr=1-8

Would it pass PC censors today?
I remember getting a copy from Scholastic Book Club in the 1970s in a school that must have been at least 1/3 black. No issues or problems in those days, but then Tom & Jerry cartoons were still shown uncensored on tv.
But even as a child, I had funny feelings about the book.

Anonymous said...

Steve's article also explains why so many repubs have a negro fetish (see whiskey as an example).

Seeing black athletes dominate the field must do this to them.

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting essay but not easy to grasp because the analysis is psycho-social, i.e. more about tangential matters than one-on-one relations.

It's not so much about what we think or choose not to think but about something we have yet to create a paradigm for thinking about. It's more speculation than conclusion. Less satisfying but more intriguing.

Crawfurdmuir said...

I suspect that spectator sports have little to do with it. What has more to do with it is that, today, being identified as "racist" is the political kiss of death that exposure in some sort of financial or sexual irregularity used to be. What Republicans want above all is to be elected. Just as Paris was "worth a mass" for the formerly Protestant Henri IV, so being electable is worth genuflecting at the altar of Martin Luther King's secular sainthood and racial equality is for "movement conservatives."

Republicans' willful blindness to race vis-à-vis IQ, crime, and related phenomena did not start at the grass roots. It began with the leadership of the conservative movement. I can recall when, for example, "National Review" published articles by Southern conservatives. It was possible to find sympathetic discussion on the right of such historic figures as Randolph and Calhoun. William F. Buckley even defended segregation and the poll tax.

But, just as Buckley did with Revilo P. Oliver, the John Birch Society, and the followers of Ayn Rand, he later "excommunicated" those who spoke realistically about race from the ranks of respectable conservatism. Why? I suppose because a man of Buckley's social standing came to regard all these people in the same light as he would an embarrassing relation. One doesn't talk about one's dotty aunt or dipsomaniac uncle, much less invite them amongst polite company.

There is even a "conservative" ideological position, West Coast Straussianism, that is made to order for the modish Republican blindness to race. It idolizes Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, stresses egalitarianism, and has as its central tenet the notion of the United States as a "propositional" nation. How sincerely movement conservatives and Republicans believe this, I don't know. Strauss was noted for his concept of the "noble lie," and perhaps dissimulation about race and IQ is viewed as such by these people.

I'm not much of a football fan, but in my experience, rather few of them harbor any illusions about the intellectual acumen of the players. I recall being invited a few years ago to a friend's Superbowl party. While it was mainly an excuse for eating, drinking, and conversation, we did actually watch the game. At some point during the pre-game programming there was an interview with a black player. He was a hulking, tongue-tied brute whose every sentence was broken by the interjection "you know?" several times. It was almost painful to watch. At the end, my friend turned to me and said, "They [i.e., blacks] are just dumb as a post, aren't they?"

Anonymous said...

The old Bait and Switch! You got me Steve!

Anonymous said...

Lessee... lots of white conservatives love college football. They naturally want to win, win, win. To win, they need black players, who are then lionized as heroes!
To maintain the myth of the black athlete as hero, it won't do to point out that 'he doesn't really belong in this school'.
Also, the fact that a bunch of white guys are cheering for a black guy must mean they are not 'racist'.
And maybe there's the hope that by placing a black guy on a pedestal as the hero of white conservatives, he will reciprocate and act noble and nice.

Though conservatives attack Dems/liberals of having elevated Obama the unqualified, didn't conservatives do the same with Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell? And Condi Rice? And how did Col. West rise so fast?
And given 'women in politics' is also a hot item, didn't GOP recruit and elevate Sarah Palin way above her credentials?

I guess when it comes to winning, every side will bend rules any which way. (This goes for dumb gentiles too, like when William Kristol said with a straight face, Dan Quayle is the most intellectually daunting candidate in American politics.) If recruiting dumb whites, blacks, and Hispanics(like Sotomayor)is what it takes to win for Jewish Democrats, I suppose Republicans will bend rules too.

But this is a really twisted subject because, in some ways, the black student-athlete is both the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action and the most shining example of meritocracy. Academically, he doesn't belong there. Athletically, he more than belongs there(and indeed may belong more in pro sports). The confusion is schizo-headache inducing.
Even the concept of 'college sports' is oxymoronic. What does sports have to do with intellectualism anyway?
But then, I suppose people associate college experience with fun, partying, sports, sex, and etc as well as with academics, at least in non-elite schools.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Actually, probably NOT with a kid. The party girls don't have kids. It's the sweet girl next door who married her "beta" sweetheart in high school who has all the kids.

Oh no, did I just prove this alpha/beta stuff to be nonsense? My bad.


Must be great to still be living in the 50s. Anyone in their twenties knows how it really is.

Thalassio said...

These include: Girls who score below 8, nerdy introvertettes, the combination of the two, and the learning of Game, or, at the very least, a modicum of social skills.

Have you actually been on a campus in the past ten years? Most of these are in competition for alpha males. They don't get to keep them, but these girls prefer to have one night stands with alphas than relationships with betas.

study your Roissy and grow the cojones to apply the lessons.

Lol. That stuff only works for a very small percentage of men who have the natural confidence to pull it off.

If you don't believe, try it. I dare any guy reading this to try and run that Game crap on a girl. They'll laugh in your face.

Game is for lower alphas to compete with higher alphas. Betas would spare themselves a lot of pain and public humiliation by steering clear of it.

Anonymous said...

Actually, probably NOT with a kid. The party girls don't have kids. It's the sweet girl next door who married her "beta" sweetheart in high school who has all the kids.

Lol, no.

Has anyone here been to one of those church single groups where they try to pair off bitter, divorced, single mothers with never married single men?

In the comments section of this Half Sigma post, the phenomenon is discussed at length:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/the-single-wome.html

This is a pretty common pattern in a lot of evangelical and fundamentalist churches. The "singles" adult group is made up of three classes:

1. Bitter divorced women with children, who either married or had a long relationship with a cad.
2. Bitter but financially and emotionally stable beta males who were ignored until their 30s.
3. Genuinely grossly unattractive people.

#3 is pretty uncommon these days.

The problem is that the church group wants to marry off the singles, but the #2 doesn't want to pay for the kids of (and absorb the bitterness of) the #1. Religious he may be, but he sees no good reason to pay for someone else's kids, doubly so when they're likely to be the kind of people he hated when he was younger.

Crawfurdmuir said...

@ hbd chick - the objection that thoughtful religious people have to the theory of evolution as popularly presented is not its claim that living creatures developed over millions of years rather than in six days - it is rather its claim that their existence is a random phenomenon without purpose or meaning. There is no more scientific evidence to support this than there is to support its converse, and anyone who says so (e.g., Dawkins) has trespassed outside the bounds of science.

American Protestantism is, like the muddy Mississippi, broad but shallow. Most of it descends from what was, four hundred years ago, the 'far left' of Christianity, viz., the 'independent' faction of Calvinism. Egalitarianism was a part of this in the seventeenth century, as was biblical literalism. It rejected the sensible approach of St. Augustine, who held that those parts of the Old Testament that were incompatible with the evidence of our senses should be interpreted metaphorically. This is what religious non-endorsers of human evolution are doing, instinctually, when they support claims derived from evolutionary psychology.

We need to encourage their instinctive Augustinianism in such matters, perhaps by reviving the censored stanza of Cecil Alexander's hymn:

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Hierarchy is inherent in nature, as our experience makes amply evident, whether this be attributed to a Creator or not. But for those who have faith in Him, they should be reassured that

"He gave us eyes to see it,
And lips that we might tell
How great is God Almighty,
Who has made all things well."

Anonymous said...

The SBPDL blog is based entirely on this premise.

If someone said that already I missed it.

Difference Maker said...

It is not sports fans, who know completely that Black guys are just superior athletes in pretty much every way.

Come now, Whiskey, don't exaggerate, we all know whites carry a high load of soft intellectuals developed under civilization. Otherwise there would be no white athletes.

Steve I know you think College sports are the bane of conservative action, but what OTHER institution will serve to bind mostly Conservative, White middle class people together?

Mankind is not equal, and cannot be uplifted from the darkness.

Laban said...

From your piece about deBerry :


"I have made a mistake and I ask for everyone's forgiveness. I regret these statements and I sincerely hope they will not reflect negatively towards the Academy or our coaches and players. I thank the administration for the opportunity to make this apology."

Theodore Dalrymple :

"In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

Increase Mather said...

Whiskey: "The Puritan fathers knew that sports, in a team aspect, serves to bind communities together, enabling larger trust networks."

Some fun Puritan sports "facts":

- The original motto of Harvard was "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae", which means, "Truth is Football and Basketball."

- John Winthrop was the first man to score 6 touchdowns in a single game and he originally intended the Massachusetts Bay Colony to be a football league (but it got out of hand).

- Jonathan Edwards's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was originally titled "Dunking the Fuck Out of a Basketball."

Anonymous said...

"If a culture withdraws from what you would probably class as 'crude sports,' the more beta that culture will appear to its own females and females of other cultures. This will lead to not only rejection by females of other cultures, but the poaching of your culture's women.

This can be seen with the Asian community.“

I wouldn't say this is true so much in the Asian community anymore, except with women at the bottom of the pile.

Zippy said...

Steve is always interesting and nearly always right, but with respect, on this one he's stretching. Why do Conservatives not want to talk (or think) about race and IQ? I think it's three things, and sports ain't one of them.

First, as others have noted, there's the religion thing. More conservatives than liberals actually believe in all this God stuff. Suppose you actually think God created man, either from nothing or through some process of guided evolution. Unless you resort to some sort of "curse of Ham" stuff, it's hard to reconcile HBD with divine creation. If God made blacks dumber than whites, he's kind of a jerk, and 21st Century Americans don't like to envision God as a jerk.

Second, most Americans like to think of themselves as Nice People. HBD isn't nice. Most people who believe in HBD or race realism or whatever you want to call it don't seem to like blacks very much -- Steve is a real exceptional case, being an HBDer who seems actually to like blacks.

Third, there is an apparent contradiction between conservative ideology and HBD. In fact, you can make a perfectly good intellectual argument in favor of equal legal rights even if some groups average smarter than others -- after all, a guy with an IQ of 86 has the same legal rights as a guy with an IQ of 186. But be that as it may, HBD appears to contradict certain widely-accepted principles, such as equal treatment under law.

I think that's it, not Steve's intricate theory about sports.

David said...

>[Lack of interest in sports] will lead to not only rejection by females of other cultures, but the poaching of your culture's women. This can be seen with the Asian community.<

White guys who have Asian girlfriends are usually not football-star types.

Get Off My Lawn! nailed it, btw. We should print out his comment and nail it to our walls.

Uncle Peregrine said...

This is a fascinating essay, but is there anything in here that would make your idea of the neocon moneymen rooting for NYU rather than the IDF more attractive?

Dutch Boy said...

The differences in human beings are not produced by evolution. Human beings are all one species. Physical differences arise from physical isolation and the resulting genetic and epigenetic adaptation to different environments. Physical differences are enhanced by differences in culture, the two combining to make up the various racial and ethnic groups. Humans are not unlike dogs - all one species but quite various in appearance and habits (the latter by human design, the former by environmental adaptation and cultural diversity).

Anonymous said...

I suspect it's because Post WWII, it's obvious that holocaust or much more strictly enforced ghettos are the obvious solution to genetic IQ differences, and few people are willing to suggest anything like that after an example of a society embracing such an action.

Nanonymous said...

@Laban:

Excellent quote from Dalrymple. Even more briefly, the idea is submission. If you don't submit, you get destroyed, and if you submit, you must submit absolutely. Meaning there is no lie you cannot pretend to accept.

Watson said...

Steve’s thesis is clearly correct, as demonstrated in part by the overly picky and defensive comments here. You all are just reluctant to condemn big-time sports because the majority of you like watching them.

In the context of modern America, big-time sports are absolutely terrible: they serve not only as the proverbial circus to distract us from matters of societal life-and-death, but they also brainwash the young and impressionable while co-opting their elders, who should clearly know better.

The vast majority of blacks recruited to play college sports have no business at any multi-year institution (other than jail, perhaps – as shown by the constant stream of rapes and other crimes that they commit against students). Yet these thugs and criminals (and their counterparts in the major leagues) are held out as heroes to young children who have no way of judging the validity of those accolades. Accordingly, the stupid, self-defeating, counter-factual, despicable attitudes of their parents and elders are firmly inculcated in their innocent brains.

It may do little good, but we should all boycott big-time sports. And refrain from making any contributions to our alma maters until they do away with affirmative action and sports scholarships for unqualified “students.”

David said...

>[Some religious people object to evolution's] claim that their existence is a random phenomenon without purpose or meaning.<

Where has evolution ever "claimed" this?

It sounds like some priest's slanted interpretation of evolution. Please identify which part actual evolutionary theory posits such a thing.

Anonymous said...

"@ hbd chick - the objection that thoughtful religious people have to the theory of evolution as popularly presented is not its claim that living creatures developed over millions of years rather than in six days - it is rather its claim that their existence is a random phenomenon without purpose or meaning. There is no more scientific evidence to support this than there is to support its converse, and anyone who says so (e.g., Dawkins) has trespassed outside the bounds of science."

Which simply demonstrates that most religious objections to evolution stem form scientific illiteracy. Evolution via natural selection is not "random"; quite the opposite. And, it is completely beyond the realm of science to discuss such things as "purpose" or "meaning". We can talk about "purpose" or "meaning" all we want, but that isn't science: it is philosophy, or theology, or something similar. Why people can't grasp this concept, I do not know; they don't seem to ask for "purpose and meaning" when scientists investigate other topics, but when it comes to evolution suddenly they demand "purpose and meaning". Saying that evolution is without purpose or meaning is simply to acknowledge that the scientific method (methodological naturalism) cannot address such issues, and anyone who tries to do so doesn't understand the scientific method. Is there "purpose and meaning" in continental drift? In the Big Bang and cosmic expansion? In atomic decay? Why should evolution be any different?

Anonymous said...

No. Republicans don't like thinking about IQ because, as various comments have already said, they're invested in the idea that they got where they did via hard work and that everyone has that same opportunity at success. Talking about IQ undermines that. It says that your intelligence and success are not purely under your own control, and many of the worst-off in society could have, had they been born with the intellectual capacity you were born with, done just as well. That's an attack on many conservatives' narratives about their lives, as well as their politics. It makes them deeply uncomfortable, and it should make them deeply uncomfortable.

Anonymous said...

"because it violated the premise on which our country was founded -- that there are no hereditary privileged classes and anyone can make it with work."

What a straw man. No one ever said that work (as in dragging around a load of heavy bricks) would result in wealth. The lack of "hereditary provivileged class" means privelege in the sense of Europe, some people had the right to bear arms (nobility) and others were prohibited from bearing arms. If you ever got into an argument in the street over who was right and the other person was armed and you were prohibited from being armed by law by virtue of your status you would understand. No one ever said everyone can make it. They said you should not be handicapped by politics. Fail on your own.

"On college campuses across America, lunkhead sportsmen run virtual harems of babes while science and engineering students end up in a state of involuntary celibacy."

Women have preferences, In this example I don't think America is different from any other society. Women like powerful forward men. The timid will have a harder time.

Mens preferences have been unchanged for about a million years. A young, hot slim woman with some bust, narrow waist, hips, shapely legs, blond hair pleasing face, can wrap 99% of men around her finger. Maybe 100% if the guy has no reason to believe she is part of a scam or trick and is genuinely interested in his sad sack self.

corvinus said...

The one poster who referenced American Protestantism's Calvinist roots has hit on something... that and Europeans' innate tendency for self-denigration and compassion for outsiders. Protestantism by its very nature is liberal; do away with the priesthood, since all men are equal before God. Suggesting that blacks are inferior would suggest that there is a natural hierarchy to mankind, which Calvinism would reject. Traditional Catholics, on the other hand, do not have this aversion to hierarchy. Some Catholic thinkers have said that even the angels have different races ("choirs") with differing aptitudes and abilities. The Seraphim are the highest choir, and one might make the case that Europeans are the Seraphim of the human race.

Just compare it to Catholic Latin American society, which seems to be far more amenable to a hierarchical racial caste system in a way that Protestant societies are not. When electing leaders, or for that matter, beauty pageant winners, they naturally gravitate toward their European minorities, and show no guilt about it. Compare this to Protestant countries, where they will ridiculously promote a black just to show they aren't racist!

Anonymous said...

Straight out of Orwell's 1984. That's where we're living today. Would that his like were with us today.

""In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

As a statistician, you should realize that the important number for the point you're making is not the percentage of college football fans who are Republicans, but the percentage of Republicans who are college football fans. Sorry, Steve, but I think this is another post where your own football fandom is turning you into a Pauline Kael.

I will propose a more simplistic explanation. Republicans have become captive to PC because PC controls educational institutions and the media and indoctrinates Republicans just as effectively as anyone else.

Svigor said...

It's not so much the thinking as it is where it all might lead to. It could take a person out of their comfort zone and lead to disquieting thoughts. Thinking too much could be an impediment to the attainment of happiness.

Bingo. The lies battered wives tell themselves aren't particularly interesting, either.

DYork said...

Why do Republicans hate thinking....

There, fixed it for you Steve.

Jack said...

I don't think college football has much to do with it. Southerners know that white players and especially black players average lower IQ's than other students. They are ok with letting them in to win, except "maybe" if they commit crimes. Plus, if we are dealing with immigration there are not many Mexican Division 1 stars.

instead, it's the natural conformity of our culture and shaming of different thought.

Anonymous said...

"The Puritan fathers knew that sports, in a team aspect, serves to bind communities together, enabling larger trust networks."

Whiskey, you dope, the Puritan Fathers went out of their way to ban sports, games, plays, and other diversions because they were sinful. Anything fun was sinful. They wanted Church to bind communities together, not sports.

slumber_j said...

@Whiskey

I don't think the Puritan Fathers cared much for sports: what little evidence we have points in the opposite direction. In the first year or two of the Plymouth Colony, William Bradford berated a bunch of the early colonists for playing stool-ball on Christmas Day. Which the Puritans didn't even consider much of a holiday at all, by the way.

They were by all accounts much more interested in hard work, prayer, and not starving or freezing to death.

Antioco Dascalon said...

I think it is simpler. In the media, Republicans are always racist and never get a break. Say "macaca" or that Strom Thurman had a great career and you are politically ruined. Republicans have to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of racism, even if they are more aware that it is bogus.
Another interesting phenomenon, that I think you may have mentioned before, is that the majority of Republicans don't interact with minorities much and certainly not in large groups, unlike Democrats. In DC, where I live you have super-educated, driven whites living side-by-side with under-educated blacks, one must be fully-immersed in the PC cool-aid to ignore reality.
But in, say, Wichita or Peoria, much of one's impression of NAMs comes from TV, which, to say the least, is very positive in portrayal. And it seems to me that in communities where NAMS are less than 5% of the population, there is not much friction or political strife.

rockin' robin said...

This article reeks of racism rather than honesty. Athleticism is a valid ability that should be a special talent that makes you eligible for certain degree programs even if you don't have much aptitude for anything else. Many universities have sports and recreation type degrees. And, offhand, I can think of whites who were admitted to a competitive college with relatively lower SAT scores because one was a star athlete and the other a talented musician. I'm sure some of their required lower coursework was a nightmare driving them onward to the more specialized course in their respective majors.

These two students were wonderful people who no doubt were a credit to the university they attended and loyal beyond some of the academic superstars who only studied there because they could do so for free.

Whomever actually wrote the article should take care. It's one thing to deal with an honest evaluation, it's another to decide that some people shouldn't be allowed into an institution of higher learning. It's up to the institution what they value in the student population. If they want to emphasize intellect completely, then so be it. But there is plenty of use for higher education in fields of athleticism, dance and music performance in which the gifted person might not cope as well as the typical academic major with all academic material. Corollary to this is the fact that the typical academic student probably wouldn't be competent to pass a dance or piano class or play on one of the sport teams. Are you saying that a highly gifted basketball player, dancer or musician should be relegated to community college?

You are insulting and short-sighted beyond belief and obviously not Sailer who greatly values athletic ability.

Anonymous said...

"Lol, no.

Has anyone here been to one of those church single groups where they try to pair off bitter, divorced, single mothers with never married single men?"

Never married single men? Hm, what have they to do with men who married their girlfriends from high school?

Do you know what words mean? Married does not equal not-married. HTH@

glib, facile n snarky said...

"The vast majority of people on this planet have IQ's of 80 or lower."

Below 70 with low functioning gets you into the developmentally delayed range. I haven't noticed these people to be particularly wayward or immoral though upbringing might be more important in this population. In my experience, they tend to know they have knowledge deficits at least if they have had formal schooling.

On the Alpha Zeta of mating:

"These include: Girls who score below 8, nerdy introvertettes, the combination of the two, and the learning of Game, or, at the very least, a modicum of social skills."

Finally some sanity. I'd ignore the Roissy, take a good long look in the mirror and head to the bookstore if I were a guy. You will find tons of single, usually a little overweight women (like you aren't suffering atonal muscles if not a little extra belly fat yourself), who are drowning themselves in books. Good sign: a huge bag that contains at least a few romances though will probably mostly be sci-fi/fantasy.

Do your research. These chicks will tend to haunt the same bookstore nightly or weekly at roughly the same time. Stalk by keeping track of one or two of them. Glide near to where they are reading and stealthily photograph their pile of books with your iPhone. Read some of them during the week. Return prepared to initiate a "spontaneous" conversation.

Later, post on iSteve the results of your encounters and if the books your targets read were good indicators of personality. Many readers, male and female, are sick and tired of weaselly guys who pine for women who are too hot for them complaining that ALL women are rejecting them for mesomorphs or some such rot. You can be the one who gets out there and shows these losers how it's done!

@Mitch

I'm thinking of enslaving you in a Red state.

Anonymous said...

Best Steve article in a while. I was aware of some studies showing how NCAA football never pays for itself, but did not even consider the admissions jujitsu whereby the presence of a winning team perversely props up the flagship campus's average SAT. And I'd totally forgotten who "Selena Roberts" was (I thought maybe she was the first woman graduate of VMI or something like that; turns out she was actually just the first or second female sports editor of the Auburn Plainsman)

tweetleleetle said...

Cryptic vs incommunicado

"Do you know what words mean? Married does not equal not-married. HTH@"

Better check with DSK on that one.

BTW, isn't never married a kind of a problematic category after a certain age. An older person is generally settled into a comfortable routine and has long ago selected a side of the bed. Marrying someone, especially someone who has children, doesn't seem like such a good idea. I mean you're older and past your prime. The other person is in the same condition or else too young and noisy for you. You weren't compelled to settle into a relationship when you were younger and hotter with a person similarly young and hot so, why get all excited and tie the knot now, past a certain age? Sex? Probably not, you can go without much of the time. Love? (echoes of hysterical laughter)

Sword said...

In allmost all of Europe, sports and academics go together like army bases and knitting do in the USA. That is, not at all. We have intramural teams in the universities/colleges in my country, but sports ability counts for exactly nada when it comes to admittance. Over here, (with very few exceptions) grade averages is the only thing that counts for admission. The few exceptions are stuff like opera school/police academy, to which there are aptitude tests. Also, minorities get no leg up, admittance-wise.

Also, minorities have much less special laws/rules going for them, most rules are completely colorblind. The little that exists is in the form of local/national programs, which can be dumped in the parliament budget process.

Except the immigrants from countries which are close both ethnically, culturally, and geographically, the largest immigrant group is a motely crew of people from muslim countries. The media make supportive sounds about them, but the local population is more open to voicing displeasure than the white americans are to their minorities.

Another thing: over here, about 1 in 600 inhabitants is a jew.

none of the above said...

rockin robin:

There are many fine human beings who aren't especially smart, or whose interests don't much run to academic subjects. Some have wonderful talents in other, non-academic areas. But these folks mostly don't belong at a university, for much the reason that guys who, though perfectly nice people, cant hit a fastball or can't field a fly ball, don't belong on a minor league baseball team.

none of the above said...

Sword:

I suspect one reason for the difference is that the history of blacks and whites in the US is so ugly. Slavery and then laws designed to keep blacks at the bottom are an unambiguous part of our history. Underlying a lot of "white guilt" about unconscious discrimination or structural racism is an awareness of just how godawful that history is. Underlying a lot of the policies we see to fight discrimination, including many that don't really make a lot of sense, is several decades of power struggle between different national and regional powers, trying to dismantle/preserve Jim Crow and related stuff.

All the mechanisms built up by that history now get invoked for other minority groups, and fir very different situations.

Anonymous said...

"The differences in human beings are not produced by evolution. Human beings are all one species. Physical differences arise from physical isolation and the resulting genetic and epigenetic adaptation to different environments. Physical differences are enhanced by differences in culture, the two combining to make up the various racial and ethnic groups. Humans are not unlike dogs - all one species but quite various in appearance and habits (the latter by human design, the former by environmental adaptation and cultural diversity)."

Wow, what a pile of self-contradictory crap. You don't know what evolution is; your very description of how human races form is evolutionary yet you deny evolution. Try proof-reading next time, you might notice your own incoherence and save us the trouble by not bothering to post your bilge without a major re-think of what it is you are attempting to say.

Anonymous said...

Your premise is laughable. After reading your essay and giving this some thought, it seems to me that college sports has nothing to do with why Republicans hate thinking about race and IQ.

The REAL reason Republicans hate discussing IQ and race is because a large percentage of Republican voters do not believe in evolution. This has already been pointed out, but it deserves to be repeated.

It goes even deeper than this. Another reason why Republicans hate acknowledging IQ differences and racial realities is their belief that anyone who works hard enough can become successful.

To say that some people are less successful than others because of innate differences in intelligence is anathema to conservative ideology, especially to the religious right. Republicans are far more comfortable with claiming these poor low IQ folks simply aren't working hard enough, even though plenty of low IQ people work very long hours. Or it is due to differences in morality; they work hard but they don't go to church enough or lead a "sinful" lifestyle. If they gave their heart to Jesus they would be living the American Dream!

For liberals, lack of success is always about oppression and discrimination while for conservatives it is always about work ethic and morality. Bringing IQ into the discussion "does not compute" for either of them.

Howard Hughes said...

"Game is for lower alphas to compete with higher alphas. Betas would spare themselves a lot of pain and public humiliation by steering clear of it."
Nah. Better Game will increase the quality and quantity of girls you can date even if you're beta. Of course, a guy with a great starting package - tall, funny, social, risk-taking, etc. - will get hotter chicks than a short, boring, shy and cautious guy. But, guy B can really improve his success if he learns game.

I have been born with a lot of alpha qualities and do have extreme levels of confidence, but I got some beta traits too, and game has still helped me alot. Just try.


Steve,
Like everybody else, I'm a huge fan of your work. But this post wasn't that great. Interesting to read; not very plausible thesis. Most people, Republican and Democrats alike, stay away from HBD-thinking because media has brainwashed them into doing so. That's it really. You don't even have to study it in an organized way - I'm guessing it would help, though - just say to yourself "time to act more dominant".

I also agree with what other guys have been saying: religious beliefs and stuff plays a role, too.

corvinus said...

Mens preferences have been unchanged for about a million years. A young, hot slim woman with some bust, narrow waist, hips, shapely legs, blond hair pleasing face, can wrap 99% of men around her finger. Maybe 100% if the guy has no reason to believe she is part of a scam or trick and is genuinely interested in his sad sack self.

You forgot one little thing: the competition. What if the guy that the hot woman is interested in, is interested in a different hot woman, or at least is NOT interested in her, or seems to be?

charlotte said...

"Mens preferences have been unchanged for about a million years. A young, hot slim woman with some bust, narrow waist, hips, shapely legs, blond hair pleasing face, can wrap 99% of men around her finger. Maybe 100% if the guy has no reason to believe she is part of a scam or trick and is genuinely interested in his sad sack self."
"
A million years! WOW! Just the statistic that would bounce out of the head of a 14 yr old esconced in soft-porn. If he's esconced in hard porn, he has no stats in his head at all.

A few observations.
I never really know if this sort of thing is supposed to be taken completely seriously, but "slim" and even "blond" has not been universally preferred. Indeed, "slim" has far, far more often been less preferred. Plump to fat was the usual preference, and among un-westernized people in many cultures, still is. As for blond, that's relative. Black haired races unexposed to blondism definitely did not prefer it, though they have always preferred skin relatively pale for women.
They also used to call desirable females "cool" and that was much less than a million years ago, no matter what anybody thinks.

dcite said...

"Second, most Americans like to think of themselves as Nice People. HBD isn't nice. Most people who believe in HBD or race realism or whatever you want to call it don't seem to like blacks very much -- Steve is a real exceptional case, being an HBDer who seems actually to like blacks."

That's a little harsh. Most of us have encountered many black individuals whom we like and/or admire. They're just not statistically able to change the facts of life in the modern metropolis (or anywhere else where they become a significant percentage.) Even for us it's hard to square the polite, rational, clean-cut black intern with the blacks who congregate in Myrtle Beach and make businesses close down, risking law suites from the NAACP. And that's just one example of thousands. Look at all our major cities except for those with small percentages of blacks.

Harry Baldwin said...

Anonymous said... Please be advised that in almost all societies masculinity is expressed through physical exertion. In the modern world, this is represented by sports, especially team sports that mimic the old warrior ethic.

The more you withdraw from sports, the less respect you earn from your community, especially females.


Okay, I'm advised. However, I'm married, produced three kids, and no one that I socialize with is obsessed with spectator sports so I don't see the problem. I'm all for exercising, keeping fit, and taking regular firearms training to keep up my warrior skills, but I have no interest with watching football on TV.

Anonymous said...

Hitler

Anonymous said...

Many of them don't, in fact. They read covertly and whisper about the facts of life. They speak openly and overtly acknowledge quite something else. It is a posture most parents of young children have to adopt vis a vis the existence of Santa Claus.

Anonymous said...

I always found it funny that the two major US sports treating the colleges like a minor league feeder system were the ones most populated by blacks, football and basketball. I guess they decided to let the colleges civilize them!

Baseball, where the lead minority players, Dominicans, are drafted as 16-year olds, also drafts a significant number of (mostly white) kids as 18-year old high school grads. Hockey, 99% white with a large number of northern Euros, is about 50-50 college and junior hockey players.

About 20 years ago some friends and I visited the alma mater for a football game (the football program at this Division 1AA school has since been scrapped) against a team from the mid-South. During halftime, we were using the facilities in the fieldhouse, which was being prepared for the perennial NCAA powerhouse hockey team's first preseason game. Three fans of the southern school's football team stood looking at the rink and the trappings of success (NCAA National Champions banners, All-Americas, etc.); one commented, "Boy, these yankees like their ice hockey!" and they laughed at the silliness of it all.

Since the football program was discontinued, various southern alums have sent out plaintive missives through the alumni association seeking alumni support for reinstituting football. It's like someone took away their manhood; to them, it isn't a real school without a football program!

Anonymous said...

"Your premise is laughable... The REAL reason Republicans hate discussing IQ and race is because a large percentage of Republican voters do not believe in evolution. This has already been pointed out, but it deserves to be repeated."

Some of you guys are really laughable! Sailer knows the OTHER reasons why GOP won't touch the race/IQ issue. In this essay, he's not trying to state THE reason but A reason, one generally overlooked, among many that may account for Republican psychology.
It's like there is no THE reason for anything in politics. Instead, there's a convergence of many reasons.
Also, he clearly wrote this essay as a work-or-thought-in-process(something for further consideration) than discovery of a FACT with all the proof.

Also, I doubt if non-belief in evolution necessarily leads to rejection of racial differences in IQ. After all, lots of libs don't believe in God and believe in evolution but say stuff like 'race doesn't exist', when in fact, evolution isn't even possible without creation of races(which eventually leads to creation of new species).
Also, many Bible-thumpers who denied evolution long believed that God created the differences DIFFERENTLY.
The recent Evangelical insistence of racial equality owes more to following the correctness of modern times and also to atone for its 'racist' past.

Anonymous said...

@Charlotte

Most girls in pornography are slim. There are just a few niche bbw sites.

Truth said...

"I think the "All men were created equal" line is really misused. I highly doubt that the Founders believed that Africans were in fact, equal to Whites."

A contract's a contract, Sport.

"Kiwanis/Rotary is the domain of elderly people. It is dying off. Same with American Legion, Boy Scouts, all the rest. There is nothing else."

And exactly how many of those things are YOU involved in, oh wise one?

"and 15 minutes of Beethoven and Mozart"

15 whole minutes, hey? That'll change the neuron structure for sure.

" He was a hulking, tongue-tied brute whose every sentence was broken by the interjection "you know?" several times. It was almost painful to watch. At the end, my friend turned to me and said, "They [i.e., blacks] are just dumb as a post, aren't they?"


He's smart enough to market his strongest asset for millions of dollars; what about you and Buddy Boy?

Anonymous said...

"I suspect that spectator sports have little to do with it. What has more to do with it is that, today, being identified as 'racist' is the political kiss of death that exposure in some sort of financial or sexual irregularity used to be."

I don't think Sailer was saying college football per se is the reason. Rather, he's using the conservative mentality wrapped around college football as a metaphor/allegory of a larger phenomenon.
What is the mindset within the world of college football that leads white conservatives to overlook the fact that blacks don't academically belong there? To win in sports, you need blacks.

If we were to expand this onto the larger world and to politics, what does it take to win socially, culturally, and politically? You gotta recruit black nobility, spirituality, charisma, sexuality, badassness, etc on your side.
White conservatives would prefer an all- or mostly-white team to win the games, but they know that's nearly impossibile. A team needs fast powerful blacks to win. So, white conservative swallow their pride and recruit black athletes who are academically deficient but athletically superb.
Similarly in politics, it's COOL and HIP and MORAL to have blacks on your side. It's difficult to win in politics without having at least some blacks on your team, so white conservatives don't want to offend blacks in any way(especially since the media puts conservatives constantly on the moral defensive as 'racist').
In both sports and politics, it's rigged/designed so that your team needs (some) blacks.

But in politics, this may apply even more to Jews. (And maybe the poster who said 'old bait and switch' was referring to this. I don't know). Jews are the super-media/money/intellectual/organizational masters in politics. They also hold the Holocaust Nobility card. Jews are brain-wise what blacks are muscle-wise. GOP desperately want Jews as super-stars, but most Jews are Dems. In order to recruit Jews, GOP mustn't discuss race. If blacks don't wanna hear that they're less intelligent than whites, Jews don't want to hear that they're more intelligent than whites. Race/IQ is a big taboo in the Jewish community, at least publicly. To attract more Jews, GOP has to go shhhhhh on race/IQ.

So, in an allegorical way, the college football mentality serves as a kind of useful metaphor. And in a way, Sailer is actually agreeing with lots of you but in a loopy sort of way.

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you why the Duke/Stanford way will not work for most teams. If one college draws and concentrates the BEST white talent for its team, there won't be enough left for other teams.
In the 80s, the majority white Boston Celtics was dominant because it brought togther the best of the whites. But Boston having taken the best, there weren't enough great white players left to create another such team.

Truth said...

"Game is for lower alphas to compete with higher alphas. Betas would spare themselves a lot of pain and public humiliation by steering clear of it."

Now there's the spirit!

"In allmost all of Europe, sports and academics go together like army bases and knitting do in the USA. That is, not at all."

My first reaction was to be snarky here, but the truth is, on this board everything must be made totally explicit. Kudos.

The 'Game' thing is kinda cool though, you get a stupid nickname, wear loud obnoxious clothes, act totally arrogant, pretend you are as stupid as possible, and hang around in a group with 15 other similar douches. They ought to call it what it is...black pimp school!

And you pay $5,000 for this? Sweet Daddy around the way would let you ride shotgun in his Pink Eldorado for $50 a day, and you'd learn faster.

travis said...

Mencken defined puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." So despite what Whiskey wrote, the "Puritan Fathers" did not look fondly upon games, especially blood sports (in contrast to the cavaliers, who enjoyed play most of all). Thomas Macaulay observed that the puritan "hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators." That's the issue here. No iSteve commentator criticising college football cares about the welfare of black athletes. Their concern is that all White People should be ascetic, studious, rigid, joyless, anxious drones, and all unversities should be as lifeless as UC Irvine. No thanks.

Anyway, good article. It's often forgetten that the whole point of encouraging biodiversity is the desire not to lose the athleticism, spontaneity and improvisation Newton demonstrated in that magnificent run against LSU.

Crawfurdmuir said...

@David - certainly Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, Sagan, and other modern evolutionists DO claim that the theory of evolution implies the random and purposeless development of life-forms. To suppose otherwise gives an opening to the "argument by design," anciently proposed by Plato in the Timaeus, and concisely expressed in the fifth tract of the Corpus Hermeticum:

"No one claims that a statue or a picture has been produced unless there is a sculptor or a painter. Has this craftwork [i.e., the universe] been produced without a craftsman, then?"

My point was that the theory of evolution is NOT incompatible with the argument for intelligent design, despite what Dawkins et al. may say. In denying the possibility they abandon science and enter the realm of philosophy. They are just asserting the arguments of Epicureanism as expounded by Lucretius.

Anonymous said...

It should also be pointed out that abortion is good for whites and middle class since higher rates of abortion exist among minorities and underclass(welfare leechers).
But the GOP is so eager to score MORAL POINTS on the issue that they overlook the reality of abortion and its advantages.

Margaret Sanger was a great woman. Planned Parenthood forever.

Anonymous said...

I love college football. I think you're on to something. I want to believe that my alma mater's athletes are "one of us" and not just paid gladiators.

-osvaldo M.

Get Off My Lawn! said...

why get all excited and tie the knot now, past a certain age?

I agree with your reasoning, but you left out the biggest reason: To have somebody to take care of you when you get sick or to generally be around to help out as everyday things get harder to do.

Paying for the services is an inadequate solution unless you're very rich. It's hard to hire people to do some things, like be a general handyman/helper; and home health aides, however competent, will never give you the care that a spouse or child would do.

Unless you had the foresight to have several kids, at least one of whom lives nearby and loves you enough to give up big blocks of time for you, then being married is really helpful as you get old.

Anonymous said...

Must be great to still be living in the 50s. Anyone in their twenties knows how it really is.


Yeah, I loath Game and am not the cock of the walk. Just a couple of years out of my twenties, a handful of kids, a sweet and pretty girl next door wife.

Over the last couple of years, my sisters--who are all in their twenties--just got married to nice, unassuming, quiet guys who are good providers and easygoing. "Betas," in other words. These guys were also in their 20s, you know? And my sisters don't have kids or much of a prior history.

If you are wanting to bang sluts, that's your problem. If you don't have a purpose in life, that's on you.

I'm not arguing that our culture of dating and marriage isn't deeply broken. I'm just saying that bitterness doesn't help much, and its still possible to make a separate peace.

-Osvaldo M.

Dutch Boy said...

Evolutionists are always drawing religious conclusions from their "scientific" premises, e.g.:

Thus [Steven Jay]Gould himself, in the concluding sentence of Wonderful Life, proceeds directly from a Darwinist starting point to the religious conclusion that we are morally autonomous beings who create our own values:

"We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes-one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."

Anonymous said...

"My point was that the theory of evolution is NOT incompatible with the argument for intelligent design, despite what Dawkins et al. may say. In denying the possibility they abandon science and enter the realm of philosophy. They are just asserting the arguments of Epicureanism as expounded by Lucretius."

Once again demonstrating that you and the religionists/Intelligent Desigin/Creationist types don't have a clue about the scientific method, ie, methodological naturalism. There can be no possibility of "meaning and purpose" in the methods of science - NONE. That is where the moderns broke decisively with the extremely limited science of the ancients, who were always putting their cart before their horse, by ASSUMING "meaning and purpose" and then forcing their science to fit that alleged "meaning and purpose" - attempting to bang square pegs into round holes or vice versa. That's all that Dawkins and his type are trying to get you guys to realize. His rhetoric may go a bit too far, but on the fundamentals of what modern science actually is, he is not in disagreement with modern scientists who are religious but who keep their work as professional scientists and their religious beliefs in separate "realms". Intelligent Design is not scientific because it makes no claims that can be tested, makes no predictions that can be falsied, and assumes in advance all of its conclusions based on a priori reasoning rather than coming up with a testable hypothesis based on the available evidence. Intelligent Design breaks every rule of the scientific method. It is not science.

Anonymous said...

I always thought it was because if Republicans acknowledged that Blacks are genetically less intelligent that would provide the best possible argument for AA.

JSM said...

"Margaret Sanger was a great woman. Planned Parenthood forever."

Did you ever read Sailer's abortion analysis?

It likely *increases* the NAM birthrate over what it would be if abortion were illegal.

HUH??

It's like this: The underclass has difficulty planning ahead.
With abortion available, they go ahead and have unprotected sex instead of just saying "NO!" -- figuring if they get preggers, they'll just have an abortion.

Only, being the disorganized sort, they are less likely to actually get around to making the appt. with the abortionist during the first trimester when abortions are easy. And since late-term abortions are so hard on you, well, just go ahead and have the baby.


http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33726/

Steve says:
"Second, what if besides a contraceptive-using bourgeoisie and an abortion-using working class, there also exists an underclass to whom, in the words of Homer Simpson, "Life is just a bunch of things that happen"? What if in the '70s members of the underclass didn't effectively use either contraception or abortion, but, being too destitute or distracted or drunk or drugged, they just tended to let shit happen all the way to the maternity ward? And what if the legalization of abortion gave them an excuse to be even less careful about avoiding pregnancy? In fact, in your paper you cite evidence that 60 percent to 75 percent of all fetuses aborted in the '70s would never have been conceived without legal abortion."

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

I was on vacation and didn't see this excellent article, but this is basically what my entire site has evolved into discussing.

White alumni of the SEC schools move their families from failing Black cities so they can send their kids to all-white suburban schools (some of the best in the country), and yet they spend vast sums to go watch the sons of the same people they moved away from represent their alma mater on the football field.

Good article Steve.

Crawfurdmuir said...

Re: "team sports... mimic the old warrior ethic" - the fashion for team sports such as baseball and football in the United States dates only to the late nineteenth century, by which time "the old warrior ethic" was pretty well forgotten. It is much more a phenomenon of urbanization and industrialization.

The traditional American national sport was shooting, just as it still is in Switzerland. Long-range rifle matches at Creedmoor once received as much or more press coverage as baseball or football do today. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Surely, shooting has much more to do with "the old warrior ethic" than do "games played with the ball." And if playing such games "stamp no character on the mind," how much less valuable to the character must it be just to suck down beer after beer as you watch others play them on television?

The modern confusion of games with sports is something that has happened in my lifetime. When I was a youngster, "sporting goods stores" were places that carried guns and ammunition, dog training gear, fishing tackle, camping and boating gear, traps and trapline supplies, outdoor clothes and boots. Hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, and camping were the "sports" in which local people participated, and were distinguished from "games" that were largely played by schoolboys. Schoolboys' games, played by adult men, for the entertainment of spectators, are "sports" only by courtesy.

@Truth - "He's smart enough to market his strongest asset for millions of dollars; what about you and Buddy Boy?" - The question is, how capable will such a person be of managing the money he makes during his fleeting career? Accounts of such people crashing and burning, their fortunes squandered on riotous living and a parasitic entourage, are commonplace. It may take only the right physical talents to make a fortune in professional football, but it takes brains to hold onto the money after the few years of lucrative earnings are past.

As for myself, at the age of 57 years, I have a very comfortable net worth, am CEO of my family business, and hold outside directorships in three other companies. In addition, I am probably a better shot today than I was forty years ago; frequent exercise of the mind and body according to Jefferson's suggestion is a pleasure, especially when I can choose between my pair of guns by Woodward and my pair by Holland & Holland.

Where will the hulking inarticulate brute be, and what will he be doing, when he is 57?

Anonymous said...

"Another interesting phenomenon, that I think you may have mentioned before, is that the majority of Republicans don't interact with minorities much and certainly not in large groups, unlike Democrats. "

I think you are overlooking the fact that the percentage of minorities in the deep south is 20-40 percent, depending on the state. Other than perhaps the more remote areas of the Appalachians, republican southerners do interact with large groups of minorities.

David said...

>Whomever actually wrote the article should take care. It's one thing to deal with an honest evaluation, it's another to decide that some people shouldn't be allowed into an institution of higher learning. It's up to the institution what they value in the student population.<

It's "whoever," dumbass.

"Deciding that some people shouldn't be allowed into an institution of higher learning" is precisely what an institution is doing when it determines "what they [IT, dumbass] value[s] in the student population."

So institutions may legitimately keep you out, but neither Sailer nor anyone else may recommend that an institution revisit its admissions criteria.

>"should take care"<

Is that a threat, dumbass?

helene edwards said...

A contract's a contract, Sport.

Imagine Truth stumping for the sanctity of a deal. Let's see, we unhip white folks will start a civil war to force an end to slavery, then we'll shred our constitution to end segregated facilities and erect a massive system of public subsidies, and all we ask in return is for blacks to keep their hands to themselves, but .... "naw, I ain't no Neeeegroww."

Anonymous said...

I am a Christian Republican who has no problem seeing that HBD exists. I have no problem w/ the idea that God made different races to be different in other ways besides their skin color. Why is that bad? If the average black is more atheletic and the average white is more verbal and the average Asian is better at math -- why wouldn't that be part of God's plan?

I hate lying. Jesus actually said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." A lot of people think that's a hippy statement, but it's right from Jesus, in the Bible.

Races are different. Every individual should find their place in the universe. And if that means that most blacks have lower status jobs than whites, and most whites don't get to play pro football -- so what?

Affirmative action and racism really are the same thing. And I hate them both.

Anonymous said...

This article doesn't add up. I think it's because Mr. Sailer doesn't know many white conservative southerners. If he did, he would know right off the bat where we were coming from. In fact, it would be so obvious, although crude, he wouldn't even find it worthy of a discussion. More on that later.

As a white southerner from Univ of Fla, let me say:

We talk about this all the time: intelligence/ recruits, etc. On message boards. At dinner. Do you really think a school like UF, which has strong engineering programs, for example, that students and alumni don't snicker when we see a football player who can barely speak english? We realize it is a joke, that these players are recruited only for their sports ability. At the same time, we also realize that our football team is not representative of the student body at large.

Which brings me to this critical point. And no one likes to say it, but it guides the souther mindset whether we like it or not: The plantation mentality. Many southern whites still have that mindset, and our black players, dumb as some may be, are OUR "ni--ers," and our "ni--ers" are better than yours! Once you recognize this "unspoken" truth, it will all make a lot more sense and you will see how Southern schools can on one hand strive for academic excellence and on the other tolerate illeterates on the field. White men don't want their daughters being "plowed" by black illiterates, as someone said below. We look at football players like people look at horses: as studs. When they get hurt, we hopefully have another in the stable to come in and take his place. And we like to think our training methods, our traditions, our facilities, our atmosphere, our stadium, our songs and chants are able to produce a better stable of studs than the rival's. It really gets no deeper or more complex than that.

Maybe the younger generation is different from mine. I can only speak for me and mine.

Again, it is not an aversion to talking about IQ. Southern men have been talking about this for ages. We know the score. We just know that when among "outsiders" to keep it quiet b/c it simply is not worth the headache.

As for Jews. A few have mentioned them in the comments. Now that I live among a lot of Jews, they are, in my estimation, far worse than white southern men when it comes to the unblinking critical assessments of black athletes and their "intelligence." Where the southerner has some affection for his "players," the Jew shows no such affection -- but rather real disdain for the negro.

The topic I would like to see discussed is why/how youngish Jewish men can hold blacks in such contempt or at least in such low regard while their dads and granddads when to such great lengths to suck up to them in the civil rights era.

rockin' robin said...

">"should take care"<

Is that a threat, dumbass?"


Are you Beavis or Butthead?

Did you write the article?

As for football players, this is the original form of AA. I don't know why you're complaining about voluntary compliance with AA. You are also implying that universities with less challenging academic programs overall should be denied football and basketball teams. Yet, in your perfect world, these are the people who'd actually have enough black athletes qualified to attend.

And, yes, I'd beat you up in a heartbeat, Nerd! Better bring your Asian girlfriend so it takes me longer than 5 minutes.

Anonymous said...

"The modern confusion of games with sports is something that has happened in my lifetime. When I was a youngster, "sporting goods stores" were places that carried guns and ammunition, dog training gear, fishing tackle, camping and boating gear, traps and trapline supplies, outdoor clothes and boots. Hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, and camping were the "sports" in which local people participated'


Even Sports Illustrated started out covering things like the above before they went to team sports.


People are introduced to team sports at a young age and continue to follow the teams without even thinking about who is playing. Look at all the foreigners playing in Europe now, but people still root for their local team even though it is made up of many Africans and South Americans.

Anonymous said...

Why?

Libs own the media.

It's 'racist'.

And 'blacks on our side' is the new 'god on our side'.


Exactly!

Anonymous said...

The really bad thing about low IQ is you aren't smart enough to realize that you are dumb.

So true, so true.

Compounded with the problem of high IQ types who spend most of their time mixing with their own kind that the simply dont realise the numbers of low IQ types around.

Anonymous said...

Re Intelligent Design, Creationism etc.

Its been said before on iSteve I'm sure.

For most of science, to all intents and purposes it doesnt matter whether a scientist believes though things or not unless it directly affects their work. Will is stop them developing fusion power or quantum computing or whatever?

Whereas a wrong headed belief in racial egalitarianism has done its best to destroy a civilastion in a few decades. Not least by undermining all sorts of scientific activities.

Truth said...

"The question is, how capable will such a person be of managing the money he makes during his fleeting career?...

Well as a great poet once said; "Tis better to have loved and lost..."

I think this applies to money too. I have neither had large fortunes or declared bankruptcy, I feel that going BK on 10 million beats the hell out of doing it on $57,000.

"As for myself, at the age of 57 years, I have a very comfortable net worth, am CEO of my family business,"

So your grand-daddy was an innovator and you are a custodian. Great, nice work if you can get it, but why is that so much different than a football player marketing his god-given gift?

And as far as the shooting thing goes, great. I feel that shooting is an excellent skill (not sport). But there are, and always have been men who prefer a man-to-man competition which involves physicality and establishes pecking order of the tribe worthy. I do. Additionally, we no longer live in a society in which one's nearest neighbor is 2 miles away, most of us live in a co-operative extroverted domicile, space is a resource, and resources must be utilized. This is better accomplished with a basketball court than a game preserve.

Truth said...

"Where will the hulking inarticulate brute be, and what will he be doing, when he is 57"

Fifty-Seven? Maybe a lot more than you!

http://www.franchisetimes.com/content/story.php?article=01939

Truth said...

"Imagine Truth stumping for the sanctity of a deal. Let's see, we unhip white folks will start a civil war to force an end to slavery,"

The civil war was started because half of the nation decided to break the law and leave. The president himself said that he would save the union without freeing a single slave if he could.

"... then we'll shred our constitution to end segregated facilities"

Where in the constitution is this?

"... and erect a massive system of public subsidies,"

No, it was a massive system of "make-ups" for past wrongdoings. Helene, take a little advice; starting in the fall trek down to your local community college, and enroll in a basic civics class. It will do you some good.

Truth said...

"And, yes, I'd beat you up in a heartbeat, Nerd! Better bring your Asian girlfriend so it takes me longer than 5 minutes."

Case in point, Mr. 57-year-old-CEO, two white men interested in engaging in some good old, hardy athletics in order to establish dominance order; at least in front of their monitors.

Chuck said...

""Why do Republicans hate thinking about race and IQ, too?"

Steve,

You're not the first to ask this.

"To expose liberal dishonesty as regards the Negro was both a graphic and expedient way to explode all the fallacies based on the equalitarian ideology, yet conservatives concentrated instead on economic and constitutional questions which, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, had comparatively little appeal to the man in the street.

In fact, few of the arguments of the conservatives had much validity except in terms of the correct answer to the innate-equality dogma. If all races were innately equal, then of course our social organization, both nationally and on the world scene, was full of flaws. If they were not, then the whole problem changed and conservative policies took on new meaning. Thus in refusing to challenge the dogma, conservatives were fencing on a scaffold while liberals laughed as they watched the trap door open. It became quite appropriate to refer to the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the liberals' kept opposition. Their members were condemned in advance, set up to be ridiculed and extinguished, amid the scorn and self-satisfaction of the left" Putnam, 1969. The reality of Race.

I don't think sports explains it.

Crawfurdmuir said...

Anon. of 5/31/ at 10:07 - did I write that science implied anything about the presence or absence of purpose or meaning? Science is about how events take place - theology about why. It is you who misunderstand. What I wrote was that any so-called scientist such as Dawkins who uses evolutionary theory as a justification for his proselytizing atheism is claiming more than the scientific method can show.

Science necessarily expresses no opinion about either the existence or non-existence of an architect of the universe. Atheism is as much a faith-based position as is intelligent design. Dawkins, Lewontin, et al., are Epicureans masquerading as scientists. Their reasons for so doing lie outside the bounds of science.

ben tillman said...

Your argument didn't work. Back before integration, Alabama and Georgia recruited dumbass white boys while Duke and the rest of the ACC required an 800 on the SAT. And those SEC schools' alumni didn't care.

You made no effort to show that alumni now care about the lack of academic qualifications of black players at their school. Ceteris paribus, of course, everyone would prefer to have real scholar-athletes to brag about, but the notion of alumni or fans promoting the illusion of intelligence is
simply not supported by empirical evidence. It's just a half-baked hypothesis.

Crawfurdmuir said...

@Truth - holding onto a fortune and augmenting it is as great or greater a skill than making one. Look at the statistics to see how many privately held businesses make it to the third generation. The numbers are very small. It takes much more than just being a "custodian" to keep and grow a business. How many professional athletes even manage to leave an estate to their children?

As for shooting not being a "sport," all I can say is that many, many people would disagree with you, including the IOC, which includes several shooting disciplines in the Olympics. And that's just shooting at inert targets, not at game. Try a few days of walked-up pheasant or grouse shooting over dogs, or stalking big game, before making any judgments about the physical strength or stamina involved.

Shooting (including archery), hunting (i.e., riding to hounds), and fencing are much more ancient sports than any game played with a ball. All were recognized as such in classical antiquity - see Xenophon and Arrian - and admired as preparation for military service. They much more embody "the old warrior ethic" than does sitting on the couch watching grown men play a schoolboy game.

Anonymous said...

"And, yes, I'd beat you up in a heartbeat, Nerd! Better bring your Asian girlfriend so it takes me longer than 5 minutes."

Trash-talking on isteve blog!! Rotfl. How nerdier can you get.

Anonymous said...

"We talk about this all the time: intelligence/ recruits, etc. On message boards. At dinner."

Sailer meant it's not talked about PUBLICLY. What we say privately doesn't count. Even liberal Jews say things in private they would never say in public.

Anonymous said...

"Many southern whites still have that mindset, and our black players, dumb as some may be, are OUR "ni--ers," and our "ni--ers" are better than yours!"

Gives whole new meaning to 'field african-americans'.

"White men don't want their daughters being "plowed" by black illiterates, as someone said below."

Well, good luck with that.

John said...

"I think the "All men were created equal" line is really misused. I highly doubt that the Founders believed that Africans were in fact, equal to Whites."

Truth said:

A contract's a contract, Sport.

Well, Sport, the Founders allowed slavery (some contract, eh?), though some regarded it as evil (a far cry from them thinking that blacks were equals). As far as contracts are concerned, blacks didn't have equal protection, much less the franchise (15th Amendment) until long after the founders were already gone.

Truth said...

"@Truth - holding onto a fortune and augmenting it is as great or greater a skill than making one."

With all possible respect, my friend, everyman who inherited his position says exactly that...followed by "but you know, I COULD have made millions if I started from nothing..."

"As for shooting not being a "sport," all I can say is that many, many people would disagree with you, including the IOC,"

Curling is also in the Olympics. I am a contractor for the US Fish and Wildlife Service by trade. I work with hunters every day, and they all tell me what an incredible discipline it is. I plan to go hunting someday, and I'm sure it is quite difficult and demanding, but so is auto racing, and that doesn't make it a sport.

In a "sport" the athlete has more to do with success than the equipment; for instance, Derrick Jeter is a better shortstop with a milk carton, than I am with a $300 Rawlings.

Now how long would it take for me, a complete novice, to surpass you, an expert if I have a brand new laser-sighted rifle, and you have a revolutionary war era flintlock"

If I have a carbon fiber compound bow, and you have a Arthurian longbow?

Truth said...

"Well, Sport, the Founders allowed slavery"

Uh, they also paid money for decapitated Indian heads.

John D said...


"Well, Sport, the Founders allowed slavery"


Truth said: Uh, they also paid money for decapitated Indian heads.

Utter non sequitur. The point, that you've done nothing to refute, is that the founders didn't regard blacks as equals.

Anonymous said...

you will see how Southern schools can on one hand strive for academic excellence and on the other tolerate illeterates on the field

Did you mean illiterate? :-)

White men don't want their daughters being "plowed" by black illiterates, as someone said below

But that's what happens when you give thugs popularity on campus.

Svigor said...

Er, the DoI is not a "contract." Further, the guy who wrote it owned slaves, before and after.

And the part of the Constitution you're looking for is the bit about all powers not enumerated are held by the states.

Svigor said...

If football's more about the man than the equipment, then we can take away all the black players' pads and helmets and expect them to do okay, right?

Truth said...

Not truly a non-sequitor. There was no right given to voluntary homicide in the constitution, yet the writers of the document encouraged it.

One thing you must understand it that the founding fathers of this county were not pipefitters - they were lawyers, and lawyers go to painstaking lengths to write things EXACTLY as the mean them. That is, in effect, a microcosm of the profession. It is not by accident that they left out "white" in having written "all men are created equal." There was a deep moral consumption amongst the educated class that slavery was wrong; excerpts:



John Jay, great supporter of the Constitution after its creation and an author of The Federalist wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in."

Crawfurdmuir said...

@Truth - Don't you think equipment has something to do with success in all kinds of sports? Why, for example, won't major league baseball allow the use of aluminum bats, which are widely used by high school and college players? How do you suppose modern college and professional football might be affected if the leather helmets and minimal body padding of the 1890s were still in use? An old friend of mine from South Africa, now dead, played rugby in his youth and coached it until fairly late in life. He used to scoff at the voluminous padding worn by American football players.

What about going back to Grandpa's wooden-shafted golf clubs, or the heavy old gut-strung wooden tennis racquets that my mother used when she was a girl? How would today's boxers stand up if required to fight with bare knuckles and without mouth or head guards according to the rules of John L. Sullivan's day?

The advantage given to the participant by the use of equipment in any competitive sport is equalized by requiring it to be uniform. This is as true in any of the competitive shooting disciplines as in other sports requiring the use of equipment - something you would know if you had any familiarity with them.

Whatever advantage can be gained by equipment in the shotgun sports is not, in any event, seen in game shooting, where the pinnacle of development - the hammerless sidelock ejector gun - was reached by the London makers in the 1880s and has not been surpassed. Can you name an organized team sport that has not seen significant changes in the equipment used or the rules of play between 1880 and the present?

Crawfurdmuir said...

further @Truth - Derrick Jeter may be a better shortstop with a milk carton than you are with a $300 Converse. But I'll bet you don't use steroids. Does he, or doesn't he? Try Googling "Jeter steroids" and you'll get a very mixed bag of claims and opinions.

To claim that "the athlete has more to do with success than the equipment" doesn't hold true if you include the hypodermic syringe under the heading of equipment.

Truth said...

"@Truth - Don't you think equipment has something to do with success in all kinds of sports? Why, for example, won't major league baseball allow the use of aluminum bats, which are widely used by high school and college players?"

That's not really the point now, is it?

The point is that Barry Bonds (devoted hunter by the way) can hit a 95 mph fastball with a table leg better than you can with an aluminum bat. A sportswriter a few years ago wrote a book on levels of abillity in sport, entitled, "Andy Roddick beat me with a frying pan"...because he challenged him to said match and lost.

Now I don't know about you, but If I have a Porsche 911 and Jeff Gordon has a 1957 VW Bug, I smoke him at Indy.


"If football's more about the man than the equipment, then we can take away all the black players' pads and helmets and expect them to do okay, right?"

I'll tell you what, I will give you all of the modern equipment, and a football in your arm, and tell Ray Lewis to wear a business suit with loafers and we'll see if he can put your on your back on the gridiron in under two seconds.

"Whatever advantage can be gained by equipment in the shotgun sports is not, in any event, seen in game shooting, where the pinnacle of development - the hammerless sidelock ejector gun - was reached by the London makers in the 1880s and has not been surpassed."


So I guess what you are tellig me is that the world champion trap shooter could win his event with a 130 year old peice of equipment? I'll defer to your expertiese here, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

And by the way, a modern-day heavyweight in the ring with John L. Sullivan under 1880's rules would not beat him, he'd MURDER HIM.

Crawfurdmuir said...

Trap is a very specialised game. While I'm primarily an upland game shot, and shoot clays informally just to keep in practice, I do know that old guns made for trap by high-grade makers like Parker or Ithaca as long ago as the 'teens and 'twenties are in demand by high-level competitors and bring very high prices.

Live-pigeon shooting is a more demanding discipline than trap. The late Russell B. Aitken (1910-2002) was many times a champion live-pigeon shot. He won the 1956 Pan-American championship in Havana and the 1958 Grand Prix de Vichy, among others, with a Purdey sidelock ejector gun. You may see a picture of it, with his medals inlet into the stock, in the catalogue of the sale of his gun collection (lot 7, Christie's New York sale of 4 April 2003). It was built on Frederick Beesley's British patent no. 31 of 1880 (as Purdey guns still are today). Aitken also shot Holland and Woodward guns. Both the Holland and Woodward hammerless s.l.e. designs are of similar vintage.

A good friend of mine, who has won many sporting clays competitions in his state, habitually shoots with a Lang hammer gun made in the late 19th century. There is no advantage to a repeating action in any of these competitions. I have always found repeating shotguns cumbersome and ill- balanced, and Europeans regard them as unsporting for game shooting in any event. There are many new good makers of sporting guns in Italy, and what are they making? Copies of nineteenth-century British designs, for the most part. Indeed, Abbiatico & Salvinelli have revived the hammer gun.

Gunmakers have not improved much on the design or workmanship of a century or more ago. The standard bolt-action sporting rifle used for domestic big game hunting is pre-WWI technology, largely derivative of the Mauser 1898 action. Perhaps the most popular calibre in the U.S. is the .30-'06, so called because it was introduced in 1906. Close to it is the .30-30, which was introduced to fit the Winchester Model 1894 lever-action rifle. The Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol is a century old this year and still in active military use. Many combat soldiers prefer it for its superior stopping power to the newer Beretta M9, which is current issue, but is chambered for the 9x19mm Parabellum, first adopted by the Imperial German navy in 1904. Still older shotgun designs, as noted, are still in production. It is true that such innovations as plastic stocks and investment-cast parts have been introduced, but their purpose has not been to improve the quality of firearms - it has been to cheapen their production.

I don't know how you could possibly demonstrate one way or another what the outcome of a boxing match between John L. Sullivan and a boxer of the present day would be under 1880s rules. My point was not to suggest anything of the sort, it was simply to observe that equipment has changed in boxing as well as many other sports, and that while we have a good basis of comparison between current contestants (because they use uniform equipment), we can't compare their statistics meaningfully with those of the past, because they were achieved under different conditions (equipment included).

You claimed that shooting is not a sport because of the advantages of modern equipment. I believe I've shown that the equipment used in the 'blood sports' has undergone notably less change over more than a century than has that used in many popular games played with a ball. And you have advanced no persuasive argument to the contrary.

Truth said...

"You claimed that shooting is not a sport because of the advantages of modern equipment. I believe I've shown that the equipment used in the 'blood sports' has undergone notably less change over more than a century than has that used in many popular games played with a ball. And you have advanced no persuasive argument to the contrary."

I made no claim of the sort. I claimed that shooting is not a sport because the equipment has more to do with the result than the "athlete." Darts features many of the same capabilities as shooting; patience, hand-eye co-ordination, etc. Does this make the men throwing darts in your local tavern "athletes"?

Additionally, you have remarked that ancient type sports, shooting, archery, riding, etc. are better at preparing one for the modern world than are basketball, football, etc. I'm not sure about this. How does trap shooting teach one teamwork, leadership, physical resiliency?

What you have done is what most people do vis-a-vis their own lives/hobbies: You achieved the intellectual version of "mine is bigger."

There is a place in our society for outdoor, introverted activities. There is also a place for team games requiring teamwork strategy and physical toughness and endurance. These events teach young men to inspire others, to work together, and to share blame upon losing, even when it is the fault of a team mate.

The results of a boxing match between a 1880's boxer and one from today are certain enough to be considered certain. There's a reason athletes record better times/ numbers today; they are bigger, stronger, faster, better trained with better coaching, nutrition, psychiatric evaluation and mentorship. They spend more time at their professions and do not hold regular jobs, they lift weights and have their form scrutinized at every term. It's the same reason that you do not use an IBM Selectric and a Carbon Copier at work.

Nor did I intend to insult what you do for a living, you have your strength, your father / grandfather or whoever started your company had his and they are different strengths. There's a great book called "Please Understand Me II" that explains this at length.

Crawfurdmuir said...

I never wrote that country sports were better preparations for "modern life." Like the protagonist in Evelyn Waugh's "Scott-King's Modern Europe," I believe that preparing a boy for life in the modern world is a very cruel thing. What I wrote was that shooting, hunting to hounds, and fencing more embody the old warrior ethic than do modern games played with a ball by a handful of grown men for the entertainment of a passive audience of grown men.

How, exactly, is a person prepared for war, or anything else but a good night's sleep, by sitting on a couch, watching television and swilling beer? How many people are "football fans" as opposed to players? Wouldn't some of those fans be better citizens if they got off their fat duffs and went hunting, fishing, riding, camping, boating, or did something else outdoors that exercised their own minds and bodies? This is the pernicious aspect of "spectator sports" - they substitute vicarious participation for genuine activity.

As noted before, I am not so much interested in the comparison of previous athletes with those of the present. Any comparison of the two is bound to reflect a disparity between the pre- and post-steroidal periods. This, more than all the training you speak about, has skewed results to the point that comparisons are no longer reasonable. Your remarks about the effects of improved equipment need to encompass as a part of that "improvement" these pharmaceutical "enhancements."

The emphasis on "teamwork" is a product of the factory age and the development of an industrial proletariat. Soccer, especially, exemplifies this. It's why that game is popular in socialist Europe and not so much here.

What we need in this country is more, not less, independence of mind and individual achievement. "To ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth/That was the ancient law of youth." And still should be - at least for those being prepared for leadership, rather than being part of the common herd.

Anonymous said...

"I claimed that shooting is not a sport because the equipment has more to do with the result than the 'athlete.'"

I would argue it's not a sport cuz there isn't running and jumping or swimming. But does the equipment more important? I dunno. An ace shooter with a mediocre rifle might shoot better than an amateur with the best rifle in the world.

Truth said...

"How, exactly, is a person prepared for war, or anything else but a good night's sleep, by sitting on a couch, watching television and swilling beer? How many people are "football fans" as opposed to players? Wouldn't some of those fans be better citizens if they got off their fat duffs and went hunting, fishing, riding, camping, boating, or did something else outdoors that exercised their own minds and bodies? This is the pernicious aspect of "spectator sports" - they substitute vicarious participation for genuine activity."

I'm no advocate of a spectator lifestyle, I agree totally. You know, your writing style favors Henry David Thoreau a bit...or at least Baest from The X-Men.

Images gratuites said...

A notion like creationism, maybe ?