June 15, 2013

To GOP Brain Trust, demography is density

From the Daily Mail:
Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour backed up [Jeb] Bush's argument at a separate meeting at the Bipartisan Policy Center alongside the former Florida governor.  
'GDP growth is simply productivity multiplied by the number of workers,' Barbour said. 'Now I wasn’t a math major, but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up.'

To plagiarize from yet another Commenter:
"Immigration: It's not a Ponzi scheme if it never ends."

From The Blaze:
In the interview at TheBlaze newsroom in New York, Barbour also discussed his work on immigration reform with the Bipartisan Policy Center. 
“I think immigration reform is really important if we’re going to have economic growth,” Barbour said. “We’re in a global battle for capitol of labor, we need to win that battle, but our immigration reform is making it harder.” 
Major keys for immigration policy for Barbour include bringing more workers into the country from both ends of the skill spectrum to improve the economy, in addition to giving the American people total confidence that the border will be secured. ... 
Looking at the shockingly high number of Hispanics, but also Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans who supported Obama, Barbour says there can only be one explanation. 
“They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’ Well, we do want those people here, they contribute to our economy,  they contribute to our schools, they contribute to our communities.”

155 comments:

Rubber Mallet said...

It's difficult to believe that flooding the economy with more workers will improve it, considering that real unemployment is at 23 percent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't granting amnesty simply make it illegal for big business (especially big agriculture) to pay below minimum wage? If so why aren't they fighting this tooth and nail so they aren't screwing their net profit?

Anonymous said...

Labour participation has been collapsing in the US for more than ten years. Rather than bringing in more immigrants, they need to change the incentives around work and stop able bodied people from staying off work and claiming unemployment benefits from the government.

Anonymous said...

'Now I wasn’t a math major, but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up.'

I'm at least an engineering major, and I know that if you import enough negative tax contributors and either your country will be bankrupt or you will have to cut welfare benefits.

Anonymous said...

The logical endpoint to cramming in every warm body from everywhere on the globe just to get some marginal extra GDP is a country like India. India - that fabulous high GDP utopia. Sure, the GDP/capita may be not that high, and the country might smell like raw sewage, but think of the GDP!

Anonymous said...

As a Republican, I am pained to see that so many of the "big" names in the GOP (like Jeb Bush and Haley Barbour) are such complete idiots.

Moreover, I am getting tired of being spoken to by these people as if I were a complete idiot.

guest007 said...

Not a day goes by that some Republican politician tells the most loyal Republican voters to go away and never come back.

What is amazing is how naive those Republicans sound when they talk about their future plans to appeal to Hispanic voters.

DJF said...

More stupidity by people who think that GDP is a measurement of wealth. GDP is more a measurement of economic activity, however just because there is more economic activity does not mean that there is more wealth. You can buy up old cars and destroy them, that is more economic activity and more GDP, it is not more wealth since you have destroyed valuable cars with nothing in return.

And this is compounded by the fact that GDP is even less connected to per person wealth. Add more people, add more GDP and you can still have less per person wealth, though the ones at the top will probably manage increase their wealth.

DJF said...

And the second problem is productivity, sure wealth can go up if you increase per worker productivity, but how is bringing in people to hand pick tomatoes going to increase per worker productivity? How about instead of spending billions on military robot drones they spent some money on developing improved tomato picking machines, that would increase per worker productivity.

Good thing that Barbour was not in charge 50 years ago, we would have never developed the cotton picking machines, we would still be hand picking cotton with cheap to some, expensive for everyone else labor

Anonymous said...

There are two things to acknowledge here.

1. If you believe that a nation is nothing more than an airport, an amalgation of people who just happen to be in one place doing their business but not really having much in common, then his argument has some* merits.

(*I say that because the hispanic dropout rate from high school has halved over the last decade. It used to be 29%, now it is 14%, and still declining. Similarly, more hispanics than whites now enroll, but not yet finish, college. Also a huge increase by 50% over the last decade).

2. If your concept of a state is that it should be more about culture, nationhood and so on, then this is troubling, of course. Because as long as the times are good, the inherent strains of a multi-fractured nation with many cultures and ethnicities do not get exposed.

Think of the Austro-Hungarian empire right up to WWI. Then, all of a sudden, a major crisis/war breaks up and the entire nation breaks into smaller pieces.

Of course, you could bank on that such a crisis will never happen but that isn't very prude riskmanegement.

And even if you were to take position #2, things now are more or less too late for white America. The average age of the woman is 43, more deaths than births. European demographics are very similar. All you got left is cloning really, and that's really science fiction right now(but even if that were to change, technology today spreads so fast, it's not like in the 18th century where you could hold on to your tech for decades).
And the sheer fact that cloning can be a future option really says it all of what lengths to absurdity you have to go to construct a reasonable argument.

Conclusion: We've should have thought of this decades ago and implemented an aggressive birth-booster program, designed to keep the birthrate at 2.5 or higher.

The Masters of the Universe said...

So growth is good because, well, we just don't know what would happen if we didn't have growth because, you know, we have always had growth and that's always been good. So if you white chicks won't have enough kids we will bring in strangers who are more up to the job for the good of all of us, you know.

Also, we need higher productivity so that we can make more stuff for less so let's replace all the bank tellers with ATM machines, telephone operators with answering machines and replace secretaries and stenographers with Microsoft Word so everyone can take their own meeting minutes and type up their own reports and fill out all their own paperwork so that we are more productive having engineers and project managers fill up their work day with stenography and paperwork and get rid of all that dead wood in the office.

That's how we'll keep America on top! You're lucky you have smart guys like us running the show or you would be in deep doo-doo right about now.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Barbour cannot understand the difference in output per worker and aggregate output of total workers.
Basically this litte factoid explains why Luxembourg is a more desirable place than Bangladesh.A minor point one would have thought but a significant one.

DCThrowback said...

"Now I wasn’t a math major"

Stop right there, here comes something stupid

"but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up"

I agree with the host of other great commenters here. This is so idiotic that its hard to fathom. Truly, we are all Keynesians now.

Anonymous said...

This is the kind of BS you get when you assume that theory is reality rather than reality being reality. Economic models and econ theory don't trump reality.

Growth in GDP is not the holy grail of real life economics. And, if it were, then these immigrants are improving per capita GDP anyway.

On average their productivity - their consumption of public goods = a large loss.

NLA said...

Is there any crueler joke than referring to the Republican party as the party of white men? They won't defend white men from systematic, state-enforced racial discrimination. They wont defend white men from the kind of racialized demonization and scapegoating that would end careers if it targeted any other group. The party of white men won't even defend the white man's civilization from third world invasion.

Is there anything like this in human history? Nations have been overrun before, but has there ever been a nation whose elite hated their own people so much that they deliberately turned them into a minority just to humiliate them? It's almost beyond belief.

Matthew said...

“They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’"

Ya know, it might be easier to win these peoples' votes if OUR OWN PARTY MEMBERS stopped claiming that wanting immigration enforcement and reasonable levels of immigration makes us racist!

Jill said...

The bill is 1000 pages long. Few have even read the bill.
Some thoughts on the bill:

http://tinyurl.com/mlvyqha

Legal immigration has been averaging approximately one million per year.

http://www.trivisonno.com/1031631-legal-immigrants

Source data:
http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2012-legal-permanent-residents

Evil Sandmich said...

To echo other comments and thoughts: thus why India so vastly outperforms Japan.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats sure are lucky to have the Republican Party "led" by people like this.

Barbour is a business lobbyist, and thinks the GOP should be nothing but a business lobby.

silicon valley guy said...

"We're in a global battle for capital of labor..."

Looks like he wasn't an economics major either.

Anonymous said...

He cannot be this stupid; he must be bought.

"It's amazing how difficult it is for a man to understand something if he's paid a small fortune not to understand it.” Upton Sinclair

Anonymous said...

Will the Republicans lose the House in 2014 if Boehner lets amnesty through?

He can stop it. No Bill. Pelosi wouldn't let a bill the Senate passed to, say, end Pell Grants or some kind of minority preferences be voted on in the House in any way shape or form and then go to conference.

Why vote for the Republicans if they let this through? There would be no reason left to vote for them.

agnostic said...

" 'Now I wasn’t a math major, but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up.' "

You weren't a math major, but you're still a fat loathsome nerd who worships some abstract concept called GDP instead of what's tangible and meaningful to people in real life.

Anonymous said...

http://anthonyokeeffe.com/2013/06/french-television-comes-of-age-with-beguiling-the-returned/

Jokah Macpherson said...

Barbour (not a math major): z is the product of x and y. Therefore, the only way to increase z is to increase x.

I feel like he's missing something here...

Chicago said...

They always talk as if we're in a race of some kind, a global battle of all against all. A race towards what, exactly? Are there any values on this planet besides money to these people?

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't granting amnesty simply make it illegal for big business (especially big agriculture) to pay below minimum wage? If so why aren't they fighting this tooth and nail so they aren't screwing their net profit?
Perhaps big business has reason to believe that the workplace enforcement aspect of "comprehensive immigration reform" will be ignored and/or gutted by the courts, and that the border security language is no more than cover for "conservatives" to support the legislation and still pretend to their constituents that they are "doing something" about illegal immigration - meanwhile undocumented workers will continue to stream over the border for $5 an hour manual labor jobs, only this time their employers will be secure in the knowledge that nothing will be done to stop it.

Of course they coukd be mistaken in this assumption - but they have decades of historical precedent on their side, so it seems like a pretty safe wager. In any case, I doubt they would support it at all if they were concerned that it would cost them money.

Anonymous said...

This man is breathtakingly stupid. This man was a governor and head of the national GOP. This man wants to destroy America... and his thinking is in line with the leadership of the Republican Party.

It's time to bury this freaking party. At least form a third one to hold its feet to the fire.

Horace Staccato said...

These imbeciles are believing a lie and a fantasy because they are afraid not to. They are cowards.

Hunsdon said...

Haley said: "We're in a global battle for capitol of labor."

Now even allowing for transcription errors (capitol/capital), that's a head scratcher.

Thorfinnsson said...

Haley Barbour's comment about GDP size is correct.

However, three critical problems prevent his simple view of economic growth from coming to fruition:

1) A combination of weak industrial competitiveness and suicidal trade policies mean that most new American demand is satisfied by foreign industries. To the extent more workers stimulate GDP growth at all, it is only by relying on vendor financing from foreign producers to purchase their industrial output. This is not real growth and makes us poorer. Since 2007 this has become obvious as credit has tightened.

2) The quality of most post-1965 immigrants has been lower than that of native born Americans, so their productivity potential is limited.

3) In industrial economies the kilowatt hour performs far more work than the man-hour. Ever since the Iraq war, the cost of the kilowatt hour has soared globally. This increases the cost of all industrial production and limits productivity growth. The cost of electricity in the United States remains low by global standards, but sinister monopolists and crooked politicians intend to change that.

The United States has actually missed a unique window of opportunity to increase the quantity and quality of our white population. The collapse of world socialism led to there being hundreds of millions of impoverished yet highly-educated whites looking for opportunity. Had we adopted sound economic policies and strategically targeted this population, we could today have a population of the same or larger size but significantly greater quality as well as a much larger real economy.

Steve Sailer's extensive posts about the inability of most people to think quantitatively or about taboo subjects likely explains why.

bjdubbs said...

We are in a global battle for capital and labor? Really? When is Barber going to issue his 5-year plan for maximizing GDP in the name of mother America? The irony of the end of the cold war is that in the absence of an ideological opponent, the US has adopted Soviet materialism and expansionism as the guiding ideology. But that gives them too much credit. "More" is the guiding ideology.

Anonymous said...

"sure wealth can go up if you increase per worker productivity, but how is bringing in people to hand pick tomatoes going to increase per worker productivity?"

Needless to say, it would be extremely racist to suggest that immigrants will differ from natives in terms of productivity.

Porter said...

If we dispensed with pretense and declared the entire world to be “America,” then the national GDP would balloon to some $66+ trillion: a 340% increase. My God would we be rich! I’ll succumb to melancholia and barbiturates contemplating how much prosperity we eschew with that danged fence.

I only hope Switzerland doesn’t strike preemptively and incorporate Nigeria before we can act. That’s $250 billion of succulent GDP just sitting there.

Anonymous said...

Just increase the workweek from 40 to 44 hours and the GDP will Soar!!!

Or conversely we could employ the millions of American out of work.

But the preferred solution is to import even more millions, while millions of Americans lay about collecting benefits and watching TV.

Anonymous said...

"GDP growth is simply productivity multiplied by the number of workers"


Behold the deep, deep thoughts of the Republican brain trust.

What this illustrates is that they see themselves as our rulers and not out representatives. If you're a ruler then the size of the US GDP is very important to you - it's how much money you have to play with. If you're a representative then you worry about the GDP per capita, which is the economic well-being of the people you represent.

Porter said...

Furthermore, GDP has approximately doubled in the last 20 years. This means that life in America is twice as good as it was in the early 90s.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the shockingly high number of Hispanics, but also Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans who supported Obama, Barbour says there can only be one explanation. “They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’



The Left is stupid about a whole lot of things, but they do understand human nature. Watching the Republican brain trust try to understand human nature is like watching a computer try to understand laughter.

DPG said...

What's amazing is the number of liberals who are getting offended at Jeb Bush's "more fertile" comment.

His point, not really that complicated, has gone over their heads: Mexican immigrants have more babies (a fact), and we need more young people in order to fund Social Security and Medicare.

Liberals seem to think this is some sort of bigotry; in their rush to paint Jeb as dumb/evil, they don't even understand that he was paying immigrants a compliment of sorts. He was saying that they're important to the future of our economy.

Now, the retort to Jeb is that a lot of these "fertile" immigrants are like the single mom with 7 kids that Steve highlighted a few weeks ago.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/06/gang-of-eight-to-import-more-stoop.html

They probably won't be able to help fund Social Security and Medicare when they're net tax consumers themselves.

But how are we ever supposed to get that far in the debate? The other side can't even get past point-n-sputter-racist. How will they ever be exposed to the REAL reasons that Jeb is dumb?

Cail Corishev said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't granting amnesty simply make it illegal for big business (especially big agriculture) to pay below minimum wage? If so why aren't they fighting this tooth and nail so they aren't screwing their net profit?

Most illegals aren't particularly interested in citizenship, so some will continue working at lower wages anyway. Also, amnesty will encourage another surge of illegals to come across to work cheap until the next amnesty, so the guy who's here working for below minimum wage now will have to choose between coming "out of the shadows" and qualifying for minimum wage -- and losing his job to an illegal -- or staying with what he has now.

From the corporate perspective, it's simple supply and demand: increase the supply of workers and wages will go down. They may go up for some jobs and down for others, but the general effect will be to lower them. They're not stupid; if it weren't good for their bottom line, they wouldn't be pushing it.

Anonymous said...

Capitalism will be the death of the West.

let it burn said...

we're all fungible cogs in the machine. bill gates economic output is equal to his mexican gardener. an american engineer with $100k in debt is equal to a debt free one from bangalore. debt = money so the american is really better. work hard for that degree and we'll hire the guy with the dot on his head and save you from paying back your loan.
do you want frys with that?

thanks haley for your genius.

top men have it under control. top. men.

Luke Lea said...

Disgusting. As if GDP per capita and the distribution of income weren't even issues.

Anonymous said...

"We’re in a global battle for capitol of labor..."

Would be interesting to know more about this. And who is "we"?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Barbour:

Stop easy welfare of ALL kinds, stop fraudulent/easy disability, take 18-22 year old adults off their parents' health plans(yes, even if the kids are in college)unless the kid has accumulated so many quarters of work in a year, take all adult "kids" off parents' health care after the age of 22 ....and you'll have workers.

Anonymous said...

"So if you white chicks won't have enough kids we will bring in strangers who are more up to the job for the good of all of us, you know."

But, but you've been telling generations of women since the Sixties that their worth is proportional to their education and their career choices, and you've never bothered to point out that being a mother is a good thing.

Seriously, only so-called Christian fundamentalists have tried to stem that tide in standing up for the worth of being a mother, a good mother who makes a home for her kids and husband.

Every other facet of America has sent the opposing message, including the most powerful--Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Anonymous said...

"...it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up."


Is it possible that a significant pro-immigration force are entities that are not in search of cheap labour, but just desire more guaranteed consumers? It doesn't matter if these new consumers contribute to the economy overall, if the taxpayer ultimately pays.

Say (just as a completely random example) you are a regional grocery chain in a competitive market that only makes a few percent profit margin. You're a manager responsible for increasing profit. There's only so much you can do to directly increase your efficiency, profit, and "GDP contribution" that hasn't already been done or won't rapidly be copied.

Simply increasing your total number of customers might be just about the only way left to keep up with the rates of return demanded by your investors, bankers, and other lenders. It doesn't matter how much the immigrant consumers earn if they qualify for food stamps. So there's a winning strategy. Import customers at a faster rate than your loan interest rate!

So immigration is another way for entities to indirectly extract rent off the back of the taxpayer. There are the same number of customers paying their way, but you're getting a bigger cut from all of them.

Devil take the hindmost.

Jack Hanson said...

I have to wonder at the complicity of some of these so called 'conservative' media mouthpieces when they don't refute all that fucking babble about 'growing the economy' when every single fucking study shows that mass immigration is a net loss to the country and we're at 20% unemployment. This isn't fucking brain science or rocket surgery, which leads me to believe its just a collusion of whores.

Jim Bowery said...

Its hard to get this across to even non-zombies (where, of course, the Republican leadership are pure voodoo spawn):

As long as you don't tax the liquidation value of net assets at the long-term GDP growth rate, you will be evolving a parasitic elite that think solely in terms of increasing GDP.

PLEASE think about this.

Mr. Anon said...

"“They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’ Well, we do want those people here, they contribute to our economy, they contribute to our schools, they contribute to our communities.”"

This much at least is certain: Haley Barbour doesn't contribute a damned thing to this country. He is a net loss.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I imagine you've heard the rumors --that Rep. Mike Lee and Glen Beck have emails that "show" that Chief Justice Roberts was blackmailed.
'
Now, this is Beck, afterall. He had promised to release his big info/proof 24 hours after he announced what he had said would bring down the whole power structure of the country, and Beck is sometimes right but more often hyperbolic at best, wrong at worse, and when he didn't release anything in that 24 hour period, even his supporters backed off.

Now, he says he'll release the info (whatever it is--Rep. Lee is scheduled to be on his Monday show)on Monday.

Rumors suggest it's that Chief Roberts was blackmailed into upholding the Affordable Care Act, something, quite frankly, that I don't have trouble believing, considering we saw & heard his minions and Barack Obama himself in essence, essentiallypublically warn him NOT to block it on Constitutional grounds.

The gay lobby is a bully and Obama has used them very well these several years and they, him. The gay community has tried to say that Roberts has some gay experience in his past and with the demonstrated ability and willingness of the O. admin to go to any and all lengths to strong arm anyone (the Chicago way, after all), I am not dismissing the possibility of this having happened.

What I don't think likely is that a congressman would, if he had evidence of blackmail, go public with it by allowing a Beck to publicize stuff a head of time. Swimmin' with the fishes is not out of the question.

Heard anything about the Chief Justice along these lines, Steve, anything that you think had some credence?

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the power structure came down what with the way our reps seem to tell us we have no right to say "no" to people who aren't US citizens. That we have allowed them to EVER have said that AT ALL is our fault, from the very beginning.

However, now that we have no power to fight it, the only thing we can hope for is a veil to be pulled back from the corruption at the highest levels. That doesn't mean I believe the Roberts' stuff, just that in some way or form, he was indeed made to feel the pressure of his decision, so much so that he searched high and wide for an argument to keep Obamacare, and Scalia's response suggest something is very, very wrong.

David said...

Barbour wants to Mississippize the US.

May the GOP burn in hell.

Mr. Anon said...

"“We’re in a global battle for capitol of labor,..."

The Republican party is a story of capitol of labor.



"“They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’"

Yeah, I know that feeling. It's the feeling that white, conservative Republican voters get everytime Haley Barbour, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush open their mouths.

Elli said...

The more brown chicks come in and have brown babies, the fewer white chicks will have white babies, because who can afford to have a lot of babies when you have to pay so much to insulate, insulate from those brown babies after they're not babies any more? And pay so much to support the little brown babies?

When white people accept that relative poverty is not a bar to fertility and accept that their children might have to grown up to be little toughs and defend their territory, a la Boston Irish and Italian the way they used to be...maybe white people will stay put and have babies again. You can't run forever.

Anonymous said...

Haley Barbour is one of those chamber of commerce car dealer types that run so much of local Republican Party politics. These guys move up the state and federal party ladders into key party positions so that, even if Republicans could field a good candidate he would have to deal with these clowns in intra-party squabbles. Who in their right mind wants to spend a lot of time doing that?

Anonymous said...

"He cannot be this stupid; he must be bought."

I don't think so. Would you pay good money for this guy?

Anonymous said...

“They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’" - Sheer projection.

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]Disgusting. As if GDP per capita and the distribution of income weren't even issues.[/QUOTE]

Haley Barbour does not give a damn about GDP per capita.

After all he was governor of the state with one of the lowest GDP per capita in the nation.

Anonymous said...

There is no eonomic case for reducing the White Majority to a persecuted racial minority via importing high fertility nonwhites. What exactly would be the great benefit for White Americans?

To debate the terms of the debate laid out by the vile Bush Famliy and the utterly sociopathic Haley Barber is a tantamount to defeat.

Go to hell Bush family..go to hell Haley Barber.

Why are any of you even arguing the economic case?

Think about what these sociopaths are saying:the economic health of the nations requires racial minority status for White Americans? Why give this debating framework any credibility at all?

Labor scarcities..no matter how severe...should used as an excuse to race-replace the White Majority. Labor scarcities are wonderfull things...and labor scarcities should never be used to repeal a permanent immigration moratorium on nonwhite legal immigration.

This is nothing less than advocacy for extreme wage slavery..and what comes next after White Americans are a powerless racial minority? Chattel Slavery?

Bill Blizzard

Anonymous said...

"Why vote for the Republicans if they let this through? There would be no reason left to vote for them."

I agree. But who else can we vote for? Maybe instead we should start busting up the furniture?

Prof. Woland said...

The left and right have formed a symbiotic relationship regarding immigration to exploit the fact that each side cannot directly advocate for their own naked interest without appearing to be seen for what they really are, racists and traitors. This is why Barbour and Jeb Bush are flopping around like a two fat fish out of water. It is far easier for Republicans and the Business Lobby to talk about 'diversity', Ellis Island, or some other lame diversion rather than just simply saying they want cheap labor. Conversely, Democrats, Latinos and other various leftish cohorts need to couch their argument as some economic benefit to the nation so they can avoid saying they really want, which is more brown people.

Anonymous said...

Why are all elites like this all over the Western world?

It's like they've all had some chip implanted and are under the control of an evil mastermind.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

after the turkish lasses, somebody notices sumthin' about jamaicans

OLYMPIC sprint star Veronica Campbell-Brown has plunged Jamaican athletics into crisis after testing positive for a banned substance.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/4970241/Veronica-Campbell-Brown-plunges-Jamaican-athletics-into-crisis-as-she-tests-positive.html

Anonymous said...

The US is desperately in need of Indian sanitation engineers and Chinese occupational health and safety advisors.

Aren't most immigrants traitors seeking physical comfort and entertainment?

Anonymous said...

More is not necessarily better as evidenced by Haley Barbour's rapidly growing waistline.

Anonymous said...

Three points:

1- Haley is a paid lobbyist for open borders.

2-minorities aren't stupid. Why vote for 'me-too' Republicans when you can vote for the real thing.

3- Pass Amnesty and Republicans will lose the House of Representatives in 2014. No Joke.

Anonymous said...

"s there anything like this in human history? Nations have been overrun before, but has there ever been a nation whose elite hated their own people so much that they deliberately turned them into a minority just to humiliate them? It's almost beyond belief."

Good post. It's unbelievable and these Republicans are supposed to be the crazy reactionaries.

The Republicans are the ones who brag about how they got the Civil Rights Act passed.



Anonymous said...

"They always talk as if we're in a race of some kind, a global battle of all against all. A race towards what, exactly? Are there any values on this planet besides money to these people"

The funny thing is all these economists say it't not a zero some game and that just because one country gets rich it won't hurt other countries.

Did Europe rebuilding after WWII hurt us?

The rich countries for the most part rejected free trade and subsidized their industries.

We shouldn't have allowed our industry to go to China and should have had them build their own manufacturing base to make products for themselves.

Whiskey said...

I just don't think Steve's Affordable Family Formation formula has predictive power: Japan has had lower housing prices and general deflation for twenty years, and ever-plunging birth rates. Without I might add cultural enrichment or diversity. Same is true for South Korea, and Iran, Algeria, and Tunisia -- all well below replacement at TFR 1.7 or so, roughly the same as White women in the US.

While Affordable Family Formation is useful on the margins, why Texas and Utah would have higher White fertility on the margins than California or New York, much of the massive decline in fertility is better understood as a baby strike.

Iran, Algeria, and Tunisia certainly don't tell women their place is not having babies but in the workforce. Neither does Japan. Yet all those places have in effect a baby strike.

I would say rather, female literacy, workforce participation, the pill and condom, all tend to make women more equal to men and thus, their men repellent and not worth babies.

Meanwhile, Black and Hispanic men dominate the way they always have. This does not produce wealth and safety but does produce sexy men worth having kids by.

You can see this in extraordinary popularity of the Kardashians, who have their own clothing line at Sears. The Kardashians are the idols of most working/middle class White women (the upper class women despise them of course). Famous, noted for dating/sex tapes with Black rappers and athletes. Having kids by same -- they sell cover after cover of the grocery store checkout line gossip mags.

Women did not stop wanting babies. Just babies with beta male White guys. The tragedy of modern life is that sexy men produce poverty and violence, though they keep their women happy. Unsexy men (and Asian men are the least sexy according to Kanazawa's study, followed by White guys) produce wealth and power but can't get their women to reproduce. Things like good treatment of women, equality, kindness, egalitarianism are repellent to women when it comes to selecting men for reproduction. Dominance, social power, cruelty (an expression of power) and aggression are turn-ons. But produce poverty and violence.

Its made worse by the relative advantages Black and even Hispanic men have with their women, and across racial boundaries. The Kardashians are the idols of millions of White women for that reason -- they landed the Alpha males. Steve pointed out the relative advantages Black men have over White (not to mention Asian) men: darker skin, more aggression, lower average IQ (intelligence in men is as repulsive to the opposite sex because of its correlation with lower testosterone as high IQ in women is attractive to men).

But the main issue is that White and NE Asian women suddenly became more equal, even some Muslim women did, and went on a baby strike because in the main, women do not want kids with equals, only superiors.

The only solution is Game or "Game in a bottle" -- i.e. widespread testosterone use, dominance-DNA therapy, and the like. You certainly won't get women to give up sexual freedom short of absolute physical collapse and barbarian invaders all over the place and likely not even then.

L said...

I simply can't decide if guys like Barbour are genuinely stupid, or if they will personally profit from screwing the rest of us. Look at his statement:

GDP = productivity x # workers

Gee, so simple. Well, Mr. Good-old-boy-with-lots-of-humility-and-common-sense-and-a-hick-accent, what happens to your productivity when you bring in millions of ignorant peasants whose culture values living for today and avoiding thoughts of tomorrow? Hmm?

Anonymous said...

"Late Night Host Trashes ‘Racist, Child-Killing Coward’ Zimmerman, With Help From Chris Rock"

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/late-night-host-trashes-racist-child-killing-coward-zimmerman-with-help-from-chris-rock/

"W. Kamau Bell, who hosts the weekly late night show show Totally Biased on FX, shared his thoughts on the first few days of the George Zimmerman murder trial last night and refused with withhold judgement. While potential jurors in the case will need to hear arguments from both sides, Bell took the facts as he sees them and denounced the defendant as a “racist, child-killing coward.”

“Jury selection began this week in the trial of alleged murderer and definite racist George Zimmerman,” Bell began, before showing who he would put on the jury if it were up to him. “Of course I’m a supporter of fair trials,” he said, “but if there’s any god in heaven–and I’m pretty sure there isn’t, here’s who would be deciding Zimmerman’s fate.” The list included everyone from Chuck D. to “Fat Al Sharpton” to four different versions of Samuel L. Jackson.

Noting that Zimmerman’s defense team have requested that certain “inflammatory” phrases like “vigilante” and “profiling” be left out of opening statements in the case, Bell went on to deliver his own assessment of the defendant using as many inflammatory words as possible.

“George Zimmerman, you are a profiling, vigilante, racist, right-wing, trigger-happy, child-killing coward. I want to rip off your nuts, shove them down your throat, pull them back out your ass, toss them like dice, roll a hard six, pick them back up, put them in a blender, make a nut smoothie, drink it all down, feel refreshed, piss it back out, take off your shirt, wipe it up, wash your shirt on high–oh, it’s gonna shrink–put the shirt on a dog, call that dog a cat, laugh at your cat-dog, drop you both off at a Crip cook-out in Compton!”

At that point, the camera cut to Bell’s executive producer, Chris Rock, who laughed, saying, “This guy’s good, we should give him a nightly show this fall. Oh yeah, George Zimmerman can eat a dick.”

Bell’s show has aired weekly since its launch last summer, but starting this fall, it will be on every night at 11pm, in direct competition with The Daily Show."

Anonymous said...

Personally, I know lots of white women who don't find their jobs that intriguing and would like to be stay at home moms, but cost of living in the DC metro (primarily housing) is too expensive to make it on one income for all but the most affluent.

Gloria

DYork said...

Haley Barbour and Marco Rubio just look stupid. I know that's a lookist prejudice but they both look dumb and in their cases it isn't just their looks.

I saw Karl Rove on C-Span maybe 8? years ago and he was confronted by an audience member about immigration and you could see Rove's eyes glaze over with a smug look on his face like -

---"yeah whatever. We've got you guys in the bag you aren't gonna vote Democrat and I have a plan to make the Hispanics the blacks of the Republican party. They like families and church, we just need to give them easy mortgages and it will be perfect. They will be Republican, we'll get cheap labor, tons of new domestic consumers, stimulate the housing market and win all future elections. Yipeeee!!!!!".

Dave Pinsen said...

"I'm at least an engineering major, and I know that if you import enough negative tax contributors and either your country will be bankrupt or you will have to cut welfare benefits."

Maybe mass immigration is the new incarnation of "starve the beast"? A twist on Cloward-Piven, now that the GOP no longer has the votes for regressive tax cuts?

Dave Pinsen said...

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't granting amnesty simply make it illegal for big business (especially big agriculture) to pay below minimum wage? If so why aren't they fighting this tooth and nail so they aren't screwing their net profit?"

They're not paying below minimum wage now. It's a myth that illegals get paid below minimum wage.

Anonymous said...

What a moron.

" I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up.'"

The point is for GDP *per capita* to go up. That's the American way (as opposed to the Bangladeshi way). Adding more growth by adding more people only works for the rich people in a position to skim off them.

Maguro said...

Looking at the shockingly high number of Hispanics, but also Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans who supported Obama, Barbour says there can only be one explanation.  “They had the feeling ‘they don’t want me here.’ Well, we do want those people here, they contribute to our economy,  they contribute to our schools, they contribute to our communities.”

Not sure if he's being disingenuous here or just stupid, but there's a huge volume of polling data that disproves this sentimental nonsense. These people are voting D because they like Democratic policies - big government, high taxes, gun control, abortion on demand. How could he possibly not know this?

Charlesz Martel said...

The philosophy of exalting non-stop growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell. That ends well for everybody!

Anonymous said...

And even if you were to take position #2, things now are more or less too late for white America. The average age of the woman is 43, more deaths than births. European demographics are very similar. All you got left is cloning really, and that's really science fiction right now(but even if that were to change, technology today spreads so fast, it's not like in the 18th century where you could hold on to your tech for decades).

I strongly disagree. Birthrates vary significantly within the white demographic. All it takes is a minority within that demographic breeding at a high rate to regain any temporary loss. This is the same mechanism by which pest species eventually overcome pesticides. Even though the average birthrate might be below replacement, the resistant pests will have exponential growth.

In general there are several brakes that are applied to our birthrate.

1) Taxes/geld taken from us to fund irresponsible non-white births via AA and welfare. Solvable by a representative white political party, by various kinds of revolt, tax or otherwise.

2) Contraceptive pill preventing people with no innate desire for kids to have them. (Before the contraceptive pill, only a desire for sex was really necessary to create children.) The white people breeding these days are primarily those who want children.

3) Proliferation of addictive money and time sapping activities and products that have come about because of a confluence of capitalism, modern technology and spergy businesses who have no self-restraint in what they well. I don't know what the solution is here. But not everyone is affected to the same extent, so again those who are most susceptible to this sort of thing are being bred out of the population.

As Svigor has recently mentioned, you've got another effect at work, and that is that the ethnocentric white genes are now being concentrated in the remaining white demographic. We are shedding our race-blindness into the non-white demographic.

Perhaps the so-called "racism" (really, presence of ethnocentrism within the white demographic that is notable elsewhere by its absence) in South America e.g. Brazil is really just the endpoint of the same phenomenon. But really, we must realize that our natural levels of ethnocentrism are shifted way to the left by a constant bombardment of propaganda, from cradle to grave. Once we start to rebel against this (e.g. by seizing control of our children's own entertainment diet, homeschooling, etc.), attitudes will swing back with a vengeance.

Anonymous said...

Pass Amnesty and Republicans will lose the House of Representatives in 2014. No Joke.

Certainly will be the last drop for me. No more voting for any GOP candidate. Not even for president and not even at the risk of giving the presidency to Obama v.2. If this amnesty passes, the GOP loses one white vote forever.

Anonymous said...

But the main issue is that White and NE Asian women suddenly became more equal, even some Muslim women did, and went on a baby strike because in the main, women do not want kids with equals, only superiors.

Again, you need to understand that the country is not the average. There are "betas" who are breeding. There are alphas who settle down and don't play the field. There are women who settle down in their twenties. These are the people who will reproduce and make up the next generation.

Kim K is not representative of upper class young women. Go visit a trailer park some time and see which part of the white demographic like breeding with blacks and Mexicans. In general, the low IQ white whale demographic.

Also, in Japan there isn't a lot of immigration. It seems that it is not your alpha/beta hypothesis that really has much predictive power, it's just that in the modern society men and women don't need to risk procreation to have a good orgasm. With modern porn even a partner is no longer required.

In this situation, which people are going to continue to breed? Both irresponsible people for whom porn is not satisfying, and responsible people who actively desire children. These exist. There is a lot of variability within the white gene pool, we are not the average.

Anonymous said...

Correction: "no self-restraint in what they well" should be "no self-restraint in what they sell".

Anonymous said...

I try to get people to come to this site and read the posts and comments, but the comments from Whiskey freak them out.

OK, we all know your views. You have some cuckhold fantasy about NAMs. Please move on to something else.

Anonymous said...

Today at a local farmer's produce market, I saw the following "GDP producers":

Large surburban. Short beer belly laborer father 10 years older than the short obese mother, young teen son with glasses and five more sons aged around 3 to 9. Mexicans speaking spanish in flyover country amongst themselves while the father picked out a watermelon before driving off in the surburban.

That is Jeb Bush's "America".

MDR

Anonymous said...

barbourshop theorizing

Anonymous said...

I woke up this morning with the senate amnesty bill 744 on my mind and all it once I had a sudden realization what this bill is all about. I felt like I had just been punched in the gut. This bill is not just about legalizing 11 million illegal aliens and allowing them to bring in their relatives through chain migration. It's also about settling the anchor baby question once and for all and in effect locking in the citizenship claims of 50 million foreigners who are anchor babies or descended from them. This legislation will foreclose on the possibility of a court challenge which could end birthright citizenship and abrogate the voting rights and welfare eligibility of most Mexicans currently living in the US.

Corn said...

"If this amnesty passes, the GOP loses one white vote forever. "

Make that two brother.

Pudd the Man said...

"Now I wasn’t a math major, but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up"

Evidently, not too strong on econ or finance, either- how does it increase the country's economic production if the people you bring in are net tax eaters instead of contributors?

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_barbour#Lobbying_career

"Barbour has been described as "one of Washington's all-time mega-lobbyists."[11] He "was a wealthy K Street lobbyist for giant corporations such as RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris, Amgen, Microsoft, United Health, Southern Company, and many others."[12] In 1991, Barbour helped found the lobbying group now known as BGR Group,[13] a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm, with Ed Rogers, a lawyer who formerly worked in the George H. W. Bush administration. In 1994, Lanny Griffith (also a former Bush administration appointee) joined the firm.

In 1998, Fortune magazine named Barbour Griffith & Rogers as the second-most-powerful lobbying firm in America.[14] In 2001, after the inauguration of George W. Bush, Fortune named it the most powerful.[15] The firm "is employed by several foreign countries, as well as oil and cigarette companies."[11] Its role in advocating on behalf of the tobacco industry has been particularly prominent.[16] BGR also "lobbied on behalf of the Embassy of Mexico in 2001 to promote a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States, through family connections or job skills, without a requirement that they return to their home country for the requisite 3-10 years. This is what's often referred to as 'amnesty.'"[17] "As part of that work, Barbour's firm arranged meetings and briefings with 'Senators, members of Congress and their staffs, as well as Executive Branch Officials in the White House, National Security Council, State Department, and Immigration & Naturalization Service'. Barbour's firm charged Mexico $35,000 a month, plus expenses."[18]

As of 2010, the firm remains one of DC's top 25, but has seen revenues drop both in 2009 and in 2010.[19] Barbour continues to "collect payments from BGR through a blind trust, which was recently valued at $3.3 million."[11]"

Quartermain said...

"'Now I wasn’t a math major, but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up.'"

Barbour's definitely got a math problem. Even my niece in fourth grade understands fractions. GDP by itself is not the issue, its GDP per capita. India has a GDP much higher than Luxembourg, but factoring in the population size difference, the average Punjabi can't afford to eat once a month at McDonald's while the average Luxembourger can afford to drive around in a BMW.

So I'll take 'smaller, more productive population' for 500, Haley

Ron Joe said...

All this time, I thought Haley Barbour was that Indian chick?

Mark Plus said...

@Whiskey:

"lower average IQ (intelligence in men is as repulsive to the opposite sex because of its correlation with lower testosterone as high IQ in women is attractive to men)."

Why, then, does IQ correlate positively with semen quality?

Intelligence and semen quality are positively correlated (PDF)

This finding supports the thesis that an underlying level of "system integrity" accounts for higher IQ. The men, at least, who function better than average biologically seem to get more intelligence than average as part of the deal.

Anonymous said...

White men don't particularly want anything to do with white women, either. If all non-Hispanic white women disappeared from America, American white men wouldn't really miss them. Latin Americans are far more desirable than white American women. Remember when Mickey Rourke said that American women were too neurotic and feminist to be sexy? He was right

Eric said...

Now I wasn’t a math major, but I can figure out that if the number of workers stays the same as it has under this administration… it’s very hard to get the GDP to go up.

Well, okay. But why do I care? What really matters to me as an individual is GDP/captita, because all other things being equal as GDP/captita goes up my value in the job market goes up.

If GDP goes up but GDP/capita goes down that's bad for everyone who already lives here.

Anonymous said...

"White men don't particularly want anything to do with white women."

I think you are conflating white men with white nerds. Micky Rourke is an idiot who wants to date Filipino teen hookers. White males initially go in search of white females but settle for Asian or Hispanic when they find they have low value in the dating market.

Anonymous said...

Now, i wasn't a biology major, but every nation has a carrying capacity and many of the immigrants we are bringing in come from countries that have pushed theirs to the limit and I don't think they're going to change their evolutionary model when they come here.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 7:50 PM said: White men don't particularly want anything to do with white women, either.

Hunsdon said: Whiskey, use your name. If you're not Whiskey, just go away. White women, absent the nonsense of political correctness and feminism (but I repeat myself) are the apex of womanhood.

Everyone wants white women.

Obama wanted white women, until he put politics over pulchritude.

What you say, sense it no make.

Anonymous said...

@ Mark Plus:

If you're going to waste your time on Whiskey's autistic, HBD nerd analysis of physical attraction, you can go with something more concrete- it's been well established that most couples seldom differ much in IQ- in fact, they differ less in IQ than in personality. I'd imagine men in most couples are slightly higher in IQ, but not by much.

Anonymous said...

"(intelligence in men is as repulsive to the opposite sex because of its correlation with lower testosterone"

Whiskey is a liar with an agenda. He repeats the above because it fits his propaganda purposes. He would not care one bit whether or not there was any evidence for it.

But is there actually any such evidence? Is there a correlation between IQ and machismo?

Some smart guys are dweeby and some are aggressive. The higher reaches of the business world are full of smart, aggressive men. The world of aviation could not exist without them. Pilots, not just the ones in the military, have to be smart and brave. This must have also been true of sea captains in the past, and is true of submarine officers today. We can think of quarterbacks, explorer types, adventurers of all sorts. There are lots of smart macho guys out there. We've all seen them. There've even been smart macho writers, for God's sake - think of Hemingway.

If there is a correlation, I don't know which way it would go.

Eric said...

White males initially go in search of white females but settle for Asian or Hispanic when they find they have low value in the dating market.

Not true, at least not for a lot of guys. I find East Asian girls more attractive than white women. As a bonus, their beauty tends to last longer, too.

Anonymous said...

The leadership of the present day Republican Party are like the post Bonaparte House of Bourbon as described by Talleyrand--"they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

Anonymous said...

"I don't know what the solution is here." - Like every other example, we will develop resistance to these super-normal stimuli.

"Barbour wants to Mississippize the US.

May the GOP burn in hell." - If only that were true. Mississippi is firmly in the 'able to solve its own problems' column, and amnesty would be a non-issue if whites in the rest of the country voted the same way that they do.

Anonymous said...

"Not true, at least not for a lot of guys. I find East Asian girls more attractive than white women. As a bonus, their beauty tends to last longer, too"

You have a better chance of plucking an exotic beauty from her impoverished homeland.. Don't expect the hyphenated-American ghetto here to let some white guy steal their women. If you do land the gal of your dreams, try to have girls, they seem to profit from exotic beauty, interracial boys strike me as freakish and uncanny.

Anonymous said...

I think you are conflating white men with white nerds. Micky Rourke is an idiot who wants to date Filipino teen hookers. White males initially go in search of white females but settle for Asian or Hispanic when they find they have low value in the dating market.

It's probably a matter of personal taste. McConnell, Zuckerberg, Rourke and Murdoch are hardly basement-dwelling misfits. You might think that Asian and Hispanic women are only fit to be cheap hookers. But not everyone does.

Anonymous said...

Not true, at least not for a lot of guys. I find East Asian girls more attractive than white women. As a bonus, their beauty tends to last longer, too.

I think it's partly hard-wired. I had a buddy who'd point to the most ordinary-looking Oriental chick (and there are obviously as many or even more attractive Oriental women as there are in any other ethnic or racial group) and remark upon how pretty she was. When it came to Oriental women, the guy had beer goggles even when stone sober. Maybe it's the doe-eyed look.

Anonymous said...

Obama wanted white women, until he put politics over pulchritude.

It was a combination of several things. One. One, Obama mainly hung out with whites. Two, Obama couldn't find too many black women of roughly the same IQ. In the end, he settled for Michelle, who's a dunce, because of the political connections she brought with her.

Anonymous said...

"White males initially go in search of white females but settle for Asian or Hispanic when they find they have low value in the dating market."

I did not realize that people thought this way until I (a white male) was in a relationship with a beautiful Japanese woman about ten years ago. When the (white) wife of a friend mentioned with mirthful condescension that I seemed like the kind of guy who would end up with an Asian woman, that was when it hit me.

Anonymous said...

It's probably a matter of personal taste. McConnell, Zuckerberg, Rourke and Murdoch are hardly basement-dwelling misfits. You might think that Asian and Hispanic women are only fit to be cheap hookers. But not everyone does.


Zuckerberg:- definition of a nerd

McConnell:- was 51 when he married younger Asian second wife

Rourke:- Rourke has dated several celebrities, including Terry Farrell and Sasha Volkova. He has been married twice. In 1981, he married Debra Feuer, Since 2009, Rourke has been dating the Russian model Anastassija Makarenko. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Rourke#Personal_life

Rupert Murdoch:- was like 68 when he married 31yearsold Asian third wife

Anonymous said...

I take issue with the notion that women are attracted to lower IQ men, and I also take issue with criticizing white men for being beta males. How would you suggest that white men behave, given that, over the past 30 years or more, they have been silenced and forced to conform to a feminized society for fear of losing their jobs, their livelihoods, or even their freedom if they dare to say anything proscribed by our would-be elites? I don't think it's fair to criticize white men for their silence or passivity, and I believe more than a few are slowly reaching a boiling point with having their masculine natures suppressed for decades and / or made out to be some sort of dysfunctionality requiring drugs or the equivalent of re-education camps. Yes, most women are attracted to masculine men, and more than a few equate bad behavior with strength and virility. But that's only because they don't have access to highly masculine men who are also smart, witty, and handsome. Why else would 99.999% of all women asked (and men, too) say, without hesitation, that Sean Connery was the best James Bond ever? Do you think that, given the option, they'd actually choose a well-built, aggressive gangbanger James Bond? Tim Tebow is a good-looking, masculine man and likely has no shortage of women chasing after him (no small part of it his money and the thrill of seduction of one who publically proclaims his purity), but let's face it. He's not exactly sexy when he kneels and prays on the sidelines during a big game.

The average woman wants a man, and wants him to act like a man. The tragedy is that, in my opinion, more than a few white men would like to act more like men but have effectively been neutered by modern socity for the past several decades. Don't blame them for being wimps when merely complimenting a woman on a nice blouse at the office -- i.e., being men, or even just human -- can get them written up for harrassment. Underneath that silence, they are still men, and it will likely surface in a big way in our society down the road.

Justthisguy said...

Damn, that's annoying. He certainly fooled me with that beautiful Mississippi accent, just like that of my Mom and her family. I reckon I should know better by now. I mean, if somebody tells me "I hate your guts and I'm going to kill you right now!" in a beautiful Mississippi accent, my first impulse would be to say, "OK." I mean, until I had thought about it a bit

.I never had this problem with my Dad and his family, who spoke in a Georgia-Piedmont manner like that Jimmy Carter a-hole.

sunbeam said...

Mark Prius wrote:

"@Whiskey:

"lower average IQ (intelligence in men is as repulsive to the opposite sex because of its correlation with lower testosterone as high IQ in women is attractive to men)."

Why, then, does IQ correlate positively with semen quality?

Intelligence and semen quality are positively correlated (PDF)

This finding supports the thesis that an underlying level of "system integrity" accounts for higher IQ. The men, at least, who function better than average biologically seem to get more intelligence than average as part of the deal. "

I'll take a stab at this. My guess is that the more intelligent you are, the better care you take of yourself.

The diet that poorer Americans eat (and my guess is you can correlate that condition with intelligence) is ridiculous. You've all seen it, seen the advertising, etc.

When it come to exercise, when they are young and energetic, they play ball. When they get a little older and don't feel so energetic they don't. At that point, they don't do much of anything. Even at a young age some didn't have a lot of energy, so they start being sedentary early. And no one does cardio just to do cardio. Someone running three or four miles a day just for health is almost totally unknown.

Now not being a biologist or physiologist, I'm just going to guess that sperm quality is not just associated with age, but also with the food you eat and your general physical condition.

And make no mistake, the general physical condition in flyover country and the black community is almost universally bad.

Once again I'm struck by the fact that anything anyone would, or has ever called, "good" seems to be correlated with higher intelligence. Maybe not being religious, but that is all I can think of.

It would be comforting to me in a way if all this HBD stuff is totally fubar in this regard. But so far the correlation seems pretty strong.

Anonymous said...

"...but cost of living in the DC metro (primarily housing) is too expensive to make it on one income for all but the most affluent."

By the "most affluent" I assume you mean guys like Haley Barbour. He's nothing but a shill for our corporate masters.

Maybe we should start "busting up the furniture."

Mithrandir's Beard said...

People who cheer for the collapse of the US seem to be as blind as the college student and lower class pawns helping to create it.

Do you honestly think that the people pulling the strings of Obama and Congress are so stupid as to not realize that it tears down the country? They not only profit in the current state of things, they are putting all the necessary chips in place- trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, getting rid of gun rights, instituting gov't run healthcare, increased welfare statism, creating division among the populace who could rise against them and reliance among the govt, increasing surveilance of the every move of the populace (while letting the occasional Tsarnaev do their business to scare the population into accepting), etc. prior to the fall, so that when it comes about, they can readily institute their totalitarian state with themselves at the helm. Once collapse does occur, their plans will be coming to fruition, as dependency on the govt will be absolute.

Most leftists go along with it happy to accept their 30 pieces of silver in exchange for singing along, too short-minded to see what will come down the road. Everyone else is like the frog under slow boil- by the time he feels it, its too late to act.

Corn said...

"When the (white) wife of a friend mentioned with mirthful condescension that I seemed like the kind of guy who would end up with an Asian woman, that was when it hit me."

Maybe you had low market value. Or maybe shewas just jealous.

Anonymous said...

"Labour participation has been collapsing in the US for more than ten years. Rather than bringing in more immigrants, they need to change the incentives around work and stop able bodied people from staying off work and claiming unemployment benefits from the government."

I've always thought GDP numbers have been juiced by sending women to work outside the home and everyone working longer hours. Work that was done by mom and dad like cooking, cleaning, cutting grass, taking care of kids, etc. is now on the books as restaurant meals, house cleaners, nannies, day care, lawn service, etc. These clowns like Haley Barbour believe we are better off with Julio Chetocipatl cutting our grass than doing it ourselves, we are richer as a result!

Anonymous said...

"Looking at the shockingly high number of Hispanics, but also Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans who supported Obama, Barbour says there can only be one explanation."

So, instead of there being a wide variety of reasons why people as different as Hispanics, Asians and Indians voted for Obama, Haley Barbour has some unified field theory of voting to explain it all! There can only be one explanation!

Anonymous said...

"But the preferred solution is to import even more millions, while millions of Americans lay about collecting benefits and watching TV."

The preferred US Chamber of Commerce storyline is that there are plenty of "jobs Americans won't do" that need to be filled by illegal aliens. Many of these jobs used to be done by Americans at real wages twice the level that are being offered today...that's the problem.

Anonymous said...

Acrimonious divorce, common in the modern West, is probably a considerable factor when it comes to things like overall fertility, white guys with Asian women, white women with anybody else, and all the sort of stuff Whiskey talks about.

Children who are old enough to go through puberty in the midst of an ugly divorce often just aren't that interested as adults in family formation. If they are they often search for mates as far removed from their family of origin as possible. Look for it.

Anonymous said...

"Mississippi is firmly in the 'able to solve its own problems' column, and amnesty would be a non-issue if whites in the rest of the country voted the same way that they do."

Not exactly. Both Mississippi Republican senators voted for further debate on the amnesty bill, as did many other deep red state senators. There's a systemic problem.

Cail Corishev said...

"If this amnesty passes, the GOP loses one white vote forever. "

Me three. In the past, it's been possible to justify their timidity on various issues. On abortion, for instance, there's not majority support for banning it, though there was for banning partial-birth abortion, and they did that. Likewise on smaller government -- everyone claims to want it, but the only thing more than 20% of Americans want to cut is foreign aid, which wouldn't even cover the interest on the debt. So they could argue that they did what they had the support to do.

But on illegal immigration (leaving aside the problem with legal for the moment), there's no such excuse. There's strong grass-roots support for sensible immigration control, especially among their base. No Republican is going to lose his seat because he votes in favor of building a strong fence, enforcing serious penalties on employers who hire illegals over Americans, and reuniting illegals with their families in their home countries. That would be a winning issue for any politician, and the polls make that clear.

Yes, the media would try to spin it differently, but if you can't get your position across to the voters on an issue as critical and clear-cut as this one, you should be in another line of work. If a Republican can't speak out that way on immigration, there are two possible reasons:

1) He actually supports mass immigration for lowering wages and/or race replacement.

2) He's scared to death of being called racist and shut out of the beltway social scene; in which case, what good is he?

Of course, there's another reason I won't be voting GOP next time if they pass this: there won't be a GOP next time if they pass this.

Anonymous said...

I simply can't decide if guys like Barbour are genuinely stupid, or if they will personally profit from screwing the rest of us.


The two things are not mutually exclusive. I suspect that GOP brain trust is genuinely stupid and also that they expect to profit from screwing the rest of us.

Eric said...

Yeah, that Zuckerberg. Hardly any value in the dating market at all. Hell, he's lucky even ugly Asians and Hispanics give him the time of day.

Anonymous said...

"LINDSEY GRAHAM: Republicans Are In A 'Demographic Death Spiral,' And We Need To Pass Immigration Reform"

http://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-immigration-reform-70-votes-republicans-2013-6

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is bullish about the chances of an immigration reform bill passing the Senate — and he says Republicans need to pass it to avoid falling further into a "demographic death spiral" that could hurt their chances in the next two big election cycles.

"If we don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn't matter who you run in 2016," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

"We're in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don't do that, it really doesn't matter who we run, in my view."

Graham made his comments as the Senate is in the midst of debate over the bill co-sponsored by him and seven other bipartisan senators. The Senate voted to open debate on the bill by an overwhelming 82-15 margin last week.

Graham said he's "never been more optimistic" about the bill's chances in the chamber. In fact, he thinks it will pass with flying colors.

"I think we're going to have a political breakthrough, that Congress is going to pass immigration reform," Graham said. "I think we're going to get plus 70 votes. I've never been more optimistic about it.""

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't granting amnesty simply make it illegal for big business (especially big agriculture) to pay below minimum wage? If so why aren't they fighting this tooth and nail so they aren't screwing their net profit?

They already either pay their illegals minimum wage or have them under the table.

You don't see the point, do you?

It's to erode your wages. Minimum wage is pretty low. But the median wage in the US is $50k. That's a significant chunk of change. What happens when the former illegals start competing for low-end jobs that pay more than minimum wage?

Big business will get what they want out of it.

The line that big business opposes immigration because they want to abuse José the lettuce picker is just another example of why conservatism retarded and worse than useless.

We should care about John, who wishes he could afford to have more than two kids on his $40k job, but is paying out the nose in taxes to support José's wife and kids on welfare.

Anonymous said...


It's like they've all had some chip implanted and are under the control of an evil mastermind.


Hmmn, could it be...SATAN !

Anonymous said...


The philosophy of exalting non-stop growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell. That ends well for everybody!

worth repeating

The Mexican Tar Truck Driver said...

The voters of South Carolina need to get rid of Lindsey Graham next year or perhaps we will get lucky and he will get run over by a tar truck.

The Math Dude said...

What this illustrates is that they see themselves as our rulers and not out representatives. If you're a ruler then the size of the US GDP is very important to you - it's how much money you have to play with. If you're a representative then you worry about the GDP per capita, which is the economic well-being of the people you represent.

Thread winner.

Next thread, please.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, that Zuckerberg. Hardly any value in the dating market at all. Hell, he's lucky even ugly Asians and Hispanics give him the time of day."

If you go to a frat party with lots of drunk, beautiful, and willing bimbos and all you can pick up is a nerd Asian chick (The Mark and Priscilla story) it's a fair bet you have low market value.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that Zuckerberg. Hardly any value in the dating market at all. Hell, he's lucky even ugly Asians and Hispanics give him the time of day.

He married the one girl who'd been willing to give him the time of day before he was a billionaire. And even post-billions she had a long list of stipulations before she accepted. Zuckerberg's a nerd. Deal with it.

Cail Corishev said...

"We're in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community"

Someone should ask him when the GOP was last in the good graces of the Hispanic community that he wants to get "back" into. And how did the GOP get out of those good graces, when the last Republican president was a big fan of amnesty, and another Republican president signed the last one?

Lying or stupid? Or both?

Anonymous said...

A nifty insight. A real keeper for my next cocktail party conversation.

Anonymous said...

"We're in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don't do that, it really doesn't matter who we run, in my view."

What would be more doable for the GOP, attracting Hispanics or attracting more whites? Given that Hispanics and other minorities don't respond well to the message of the GOP, i.e. limited government, it would make more sense to try to increase their share of the white vote. Given that the democrats are now openly anti-white, it would seem to be an easier task for the GOP to poach white democrats and try to get whites who don't vote to vote.

Of course the GOP would have to dial down its support for tax cuts for the rich, free trade over all and it's aggressive foreign policy. In other words the GOP should move away from the Neo-cons and Wall Streeters and move closer to an economic populism that would benefit the great majority of whites.

ben tillman said...

And even if you were to take position #2, things now are more or less too late for white America. The average age of the woman is 43, more deaths than births. European demographics are very similar. All you got left is cloning really, and that's really science fiction right now(but even if that were to change, technology today spreads so fast, it's not like in the 18th century where you could hold on to your tech for decades).

And the sheer fact that cloning can be a future option really says it all of what lengths to absurdity you have to go to construct a reasonable argument.


That's a nutty analysis.

Conclusion: We've should have thought of this decades ago and implemented an aggressive birth-booster program, designed to keep the birthrate at 2.5 or higher.


Um, "they" thought of this decades ago, and implemented an aggressive plan to prevent White women from having babies. It was called ZPG: zero population growth.

What "we" think has been of minimal importance since the advent of TV.

Anonymous said...

"... it really doesn't matter who we run, in my view."

I agree with Sen. Graham, it doesn't matter who the GOP runs for office, they apparently are all fools, bumblers and idiots. If they don't fight this immigration bill they all deserve to be run from office in their primaries.

ben tillman said...

Growth in GDP is not the holy grail of real life economics.

Growth in GDP in absolute terms is not even good. It's irrelevant. A large absolute GNP can be important, since GNP includes defense spending, and if you can't muster enough resources to protect your turf, you're in big trouble. But GDP? Meaningless, unless you're talking about per capita GDP.

ben tillman said...

2) The quality of most post-1965 immigrants has been lower than that of native born Americans, so their productivity potential is limited.

This is one of the most consistently infuriatingly stupid things about economic immigration proponents: they never recognize opportunity costs.

ben tillman said...

3) In industrial economies the kilowatt hour performs far more work than the man-hour.

Good point.

Petroleum (plus coal) does 90% of the work in this country, and the plutocrats seek to monopolize the value of that work, which (obviously) they did not do.

ben tillman said...

Its hard to get this across to even non-zombies (where, of course, the Republican leadership are pure voodoo spawn):

As long as you don't tax the liquidation value of net assets at the long-term GDP growth rate, you will be evolving a parasitic elite that think solely in terms of increasing GDP.

PLEASE think about this.


You are right, James. I can endorse your idea of property tax (on property beyond basic homestead)/land trust/citizens' dividend.

ben tillman said...

Perhaps the so-called "racism" (really, presence of ethnocentrism within the white demographic that is notable elsewhere by its absence) in South America e.g. Brazil is really just the endpoint of the same phenomenon.

The "Whites" in Brasil (and Mexico) are much more heavily Jewish than the "Whites" in the US. It shouldn't be surprising that they express greater ethnocentrism.

NOTA said...

Pudd:

"We lose money on each sale, but we make it up in volume!"

Nota said...

Anon 9:48:

The intelligence distribution is a little more spread out for men than women, but centered on more or less the same mean. That means that among smarter than average people, men tend to be a little smarter than women, and among dumb people, women tend to be a little smarter than men. If you paired male/female couples off by IQ, high to low, you would wind up with all the above average couples having a slightly smarter man (the difference gets bigger as you get smarter), and all the below average couples with a slightly smarter woman (again, as the couple gets dumber, the difference gets bigger).

My impression is that this pattern occurs in real life, but I don't know that for sure. Anyone know of some data?

Rohan Swee said...

Don't know if this has already made the rounds, but apropos:

Rubio sided with the Chamber against the construction workers. ‘There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it,’ a Rubio aide told me. ‘There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.’...etc.

Eric said...

He married the one girl who'd been willing to give him the time of day before he was a billionaire. And even post-billions she had a long list of stipulations before she accepted. Zuckerberg's a nerd. Deal with it.

The idea he has "low market value" is laughable. If he was dating her because nobody else would give him the time of day he would have traded her in for a Swedish model once he made it big.

Harry Baldwin said...

Interesting--on his show today (6.17.13), in the middle of the second hour, Limbaugh mentioned the facts that the Hispanic vote represented only 8 percent in the last election and that if Romney had gotten 70 percent of the Hispanic vote he still wouldn't have won. Either Rush is reading iSteve, or one of his researchers is, or he's getting this from Ann Coulter who attributes these facts to Steve.

Anonymous said...

"The idea he has "low market value" is laughable. If he was dating her because nobody else would give him the time of day he would have traded her in for a Swedish model once he made it big."

Zuckerberg is a weasel and a dweeb. A psychologically healthy and attractive white female would be highly conflicted in a relationship with him even if it meant a nice payday after a four year gig. A sociopath or female geek might willingly date him, though.

Eric said...

Zuckerberg is a weasel and a dweeb. A psychologically healthy and attractive white female would be highly conflicted in a relationship with him even if it meant a nice payday after a four year gig. A sociopath or female geek might willingly date him, though.

Come on, this is idiotic. He's young and super wealthy. He has his pick of women.

Cail Corishev said...

Regarding the numbers Rush is reporting, I posted this soon after the election (emphasis added):

Ok, let's do the math. According to the numbers I'm seeing this morning, Romney got 58% of white voters, who were 72% of the electorate, for a total of 48.66M votes. He lost by 2.6M votes. So if he could have raised his percentage of the white vote to 61%, he would have won -- and that's assuming he's picking up third party voters and non-voters, not taking away votes from Obama. Just 3% more white voters for Romney would have turned the election.

Hispanics were 10% of the electorate, for a total of 11.65M votes. To get the same 2.6M extra votes from them, Romney would have to raise his share of the Hispanic vote from 29% to 51%.

Does anyone anywhere think that's possible? And without losing another percentage point or two of white voters? Just for the sake of argument, imagine that attempting Jeb Bush levels of Hispandering drops the GOP's share of the white vote to 56%. Now they need something like 70% of the Hispanic vote to make up the loss! Where does the stupidity end?


Now that we know the Hispanic vote was quite a bit lower than initially thought, Rush is reporting even worse numbers. Yeah, I think someone's reading here.

jody said...

romney lost by about 5 million votes.

Cail Corishev said...

Jody,

Right. I was working from the early reports. Since the gap was larger than that, and the Hispanic vote was smaller, that explains why Romney would have needed a much larger of the Hispanic vote (while losing none of the white vote) than of the 51% I calculated.

51% is impossible, but 70% is laughable. Any Republican who claims the party should chase 70% of a minority group is simply declaring his willingness to lose the presidency again.

NOTA said...

Anon 11:53:

How do you know what Zuckerburg is like in person? Do you know him and his wife socially, spend a lot of time around them noticing how their marriage seems to work, etc?

My first instinct is to think pretty well of a guy who became a billionaire, and stuck with his long-time girlfriend and married her instead of dating the Swedish Bikini team, which he could presumably manage with a billion dollars in the bank. (He could even spend some of that billion on some sharklike lawyers to write him a prenup to limit the amount of gold to be dug by marrying and divorcing him.) But for all I know, you're right and his personal qualities are so awful that even being young, healthy, smart, famous, and a billionaire isn't enough to get him a date. I'll admit I'm a bit skeptical, though.

Steve Sailer said...

I think most people would consider Zuckerberg a little better looking than the movie star who played him in The Social Network -- how often does that happen?

All the evidence other than Aaron Sorkin's imaginings suggest that Zuck is formidable, which, by the way, is why I pick on him a lot. After all he started the Cheap Labor lobby that Bill Gates joined, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

"My first instinct is to think pretty well of a guy who became a billionaire, and stuck with his long-time girlfriend and married her instead of dating the Swedish Bikini team, which he could presumably manage with a billion dollars in the bank. (He could even spend some of that billion on some sharklike lawyers to write him a prenup to limit the amount of gold to be dug by marrying and divorcing him.) But for all I know, you're right and his personal qualities are so awful that even being young, healthy, smart, famous, and a billionaire isn't enough to get him a date. I'll admit I'm a bit skeptical, though."

Sounds to me like Facebook is keeping your secrets. Fortunately, I saw Facebook for the dumb fad and threat to privacy that it was. I am proud to say that I do not have nor have I ever had a Facebook account.

Anonymous said...

"How do you know what Zuckerburg is like in person? Do you know him and his wife socially, spend a lot of time around them noticing how their marriage seems to work, etc? "

You'd be surprised who reads and comments on this blog.

Eric said...

Sounds to me like Facebook is keeping your secrets. Fortunately, I saw Facebook for the dumb fad and threat to privacy that it was. I am proud to say that I do not have nor have I ever had a Facebook account.

Maybe so, but you may be the only one left.

Erdogan said...

beautiful story on hispanic integration:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578495393859698964.html?mod=e2tw