January 28, 2014

Amy Chua and Mormons

From my new Taki's Magazine column:
Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld note that these three common traits of successful minority groups—which I would call ethnocentrism, paranoia, and self-repression—are not liberal virtues: 
"Paradoxically, in modern America, a group has an edge if it doesn’t buy into—or hasn’t yet bought into—mainstream, post-1960s, liberal American principles." 
And yet of the eight minorities, only Mormons are uncool enough to admit they reject liberalism. 
Mormons are interesting because they are the minority among minorities—an odd group out whose members publicly aspire to being ordinary Americans, as Americans used to define themselves before the 1960s. 
Being an insular sect that pretends to be regular Americans, the Mormons are the only minority that publicly dissents from the reigning worldview that minorities are inherently morally superior to the majority. 
But do Mormons actually benefit much financially from their strong moral culture? Or does their notorious niceness, their lack of a chip on the shoulder (which Chua and Rubenfeld cite as essential to minority success), their shortage of hostility toward the majority keep them from fully cashing in?

Read the whole thing there.
    

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Cubans and Iranians (like the Vietnamese whom Chua leaves out) are refugees from the rich ruling class of extinct pro-American regimes."

Not true.

Not sure about Iranians but the vast majority of Cuban and Vietnamese were small businessmen or middle class. They were not rich and had to start from scratch in America.

The image of rich Cuban refugees running off with their loot accounts for maybe 1% of all Cuban refugees.

Similarly, most Jewish refugees were middle class. They were not oligarchs.

Anonymous said...

But I’ve been noticing the initial signs of a Flight from White among West Asians who are recognizing that in 21st-century America, membership in the white category doesn’t come with the legendary Invisible Knapsack. Instead, “white” is what they call you when they’re going to try to frame you on second-degree murder charges.

The above hidden reference to Zimmerman, and your paragraph about Cubans were hilarious. This was a fun piece. Reading it was almost like listening to Dennis Miller doing a rant.

Anonymous said...

"But the trawling for oppressed minorities has reached the point of comedy with the recent outbreak of World War T, with the self-esteem of “transgendered” individuals becoming the new most important issue in world history."

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."

From mayday to gayday.

From Pasternak to Pussy Riot.

David said...

Refuse to be a Chua pet.

Anonymous said...

http://youtu.be/ZluMysK2B1E

Mencius Moldbug: How to Reboot the US Government

Anonymous said...

Sullivan and Son on TBS; someone owes you royalties. Although it's Korean mother....

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of Cuban and Vietnamese were small businessmen or middle class.

Similarly, most Jewish refugees were middle class. They were not oligarchs.


The "small businessman" and "middle class" is king in the land of peasants and slaves.

Gusanos.

Anonymous said...

Liberalism, like all ideologies, is for the masses, not those who rule.

Piper said...

I don't think there is a "triple package," just a single package containing only trait number three: impulse control. Also called conscientiousness, high future orientation, and some other things. Impulse control plus intelligence (which Chua is far too savvy or cowardly to mention) gives you success. The stuff about feeling superior and inferior at the same time is window dressing. She put those in there only so American Blacks would be seen to have two out of the three traits she says are vital, saving Chua from the charge of "racism."

(Anyone who doesn't think American Blacks have the group/individual sup-/in-feriority stuff down hasn't seen the vast literature on "self-esteem" and its supposed relationship to academic and other success.)

Mormons aren't billionaires because frankly, they aren't especially bright. They haven't had very long to breed for brains like the Jews, and the Mormons are big on recruiting. The converts they get tend to be slightly dim, or why else would they sign on to a goofy religion with a [now, not 150 years ago] obviously-silly historical myth? The white Mormon average IQ is probably 100 or so and the average IQ of converts in North and South America is probably in the mid-90's since the Mormons are taking in more browns than whites nowadays. I suspect Mormons have about their proportional share, as white miscellaneous folk, of the Forbes 400; diminished compared to US coastal whites simply by their geographic isolation from industry and political power.

so said...

I loved Amy as a Tiger Mom. She was stern and unapologetic. She demonstrated the strengths of being persistent and hard-working, even for those of us who didn't give a crap about her goals.

This latest contrived monstrosity is a hybrid commercial venture that does its best not to appear the parasitic throwback to a piercing legacy one of its authors had the balls to evoke, that it is.

Typical modern Asian/Jewish intellectual dissipation.

Anonymous said...

"A few years ago, I came up with the idea for a sitcom called Korean Mother-in-Law, about a nice Stuff White People Like white guy (picture Joaquin Phoenix in Her) who has to live with his (wait for it) Korean mother-in-law, who regularly punctures his liberal American delusions with her bleak, Malthusian cackling. "

a half white son returns home and takes over the bar owned by his irish dad and korean mom.

close enough? created by rob long of NRO and Ricochet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Son

Steve Sailer said...

I've met Rob. He's a great guy.

Anonymous said...

Many Indians (total population back home: 1.237 billion) and Nigerians (169 million) in the US are here because they are related to somebody rich enough and smart enough to pursue graduate study in the US.


The key is: how many is "Many"? I don't know about Nigerians, but this is unlikely to be true of most Indians, unless you know of some statistical study that I am unaware of. Most Indians, at least in the STEM subjects, get to grad school through as meritocratic (or Malthusian) a process as you could like, and do start from scratch financially.

Anonymous said...

It seems that fully successful groups - ones that succeed as upper managers and cultural arbitrators - have an additional package of traits that include irony, irreligion, hating their parents, punk-type youth subcultures, etc.

Wine-track whites exhibit these traits. So do Jews. So do 3rd+ generation Asians, like most Japanese-Americans. Blacks sure as hell exhibit none of them. Nor do Mormons or recent Asian immigrants.

You could say these are traits of degeneracy and liberalism. But I'd say they are side-effects of high general IQ and specifically of critical intelligence.

The one thing that gives me hope about race relations in America is that black teenagers have just now begun to skateboard. Maybe they are wising up a little, even genetically.

This tiger thing is a great way to succeed at STEM or shitty middleman type small businesses, but the royal road to being in charge of America runs through antagonizing old people and being deliberately awkward.

Anonymous said...

Most Indians, at least in the STEM subjects, get to grad school through as meritocratic (or Malthusian) a process as you could like, and do start from scratch financially.

Most Indians in my area come over to work in their cousin's Dunkin Donuts, save up enough capital to buy their own Dunkin Donuts franchise, and then bring over cousins of their own to work for them in turn.

The more successful ones bring some small capital with them to speed up the acquisition of their own franchise. I would assume these families already have a small mercantile character in the home country, although I could be wrong.

The Nepalese are doing about the same, except here it's gas stations for them.

Steve Sailer said...

Obama's resentment of his mother and grandmother is very, very white.

Dave Pinsen said...

Speaking of Mormons and their regular '50s American thing, here's a '50s drive-in themed music video by the Mormon band Neon Trees: Everybody Talks. Their lady drummer served on a church mission to Germany when she was younger. She's married and took a maternity leave from the band a year or two ago to have her first kid.

MC said...

The stereotypically "successful" Mormon isn't a billionaire but an upper-middle-class professional or businessman. BYU is a top 10 school for sending its undergrads on to med school, law school, and dental school. BYU also has a top-3 accounting program. Outside of NY/DC, it isn't the elite Mormons who give us the "successful" reputation, but rather the consistency with which highly active Mormons tend to reach the upper middle class and stay there.*

Some portion of that is almost certainly due to a sense of minority superiority/persecution, but a far greater factor is the need for Mormon men who want to support a large family on one income (the Mormon ideal) to become at least moderately economically successful. I'm a naturally lazy person, but needing to support a wife and kids at an early stage of one's career has a way of focusing the mind.

To the extent that there is an outsized perception of Mormons as titans of business, it's likely due to the fact that they are wildly overrepresented among the tiny subset of Wall Streeters, etc., who are highly religious. How many of Mitt Romney's colleagues in private equity devoted to their religion even one-tenth of the time and resources that Mitt did to the LDS Church? So they are conspicuous precisely because it's so rare to find an overtly religious person in that social class.

*Also, go to any high school that is 10-20% Mormon or greater, and a majority of the honors classes and student council will be LDS. There were only six Mormons in my graduating class of 500, but two of us were class president/VP.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen Chua provide any hard data on Mormons' supposedly impressive performance. I strongly doubt their share of Fortune 500 CEOs or Forbes 400 members dramatically outpaces their share of the general population. Utah has one Fortune 500 company and no one on the Forbes 400. The only Mormon Forbes 400 members I can think of are Richard Perry (California real estate) and his two brothers-in-law, the Marriott (hotels). Earl Holding, James Sorensen, Ray Noorda, Bruce Bastian, Alan Ashton, Jon Huntsman, Roger Sant, and perhaps 3-4 others have all made the list at various times, but they all either died or declined.

And per an above commenter, Mormons are heading down the wrong track if they want to become dynamos. Like US immigration policy, their recruitment focus is all quantity instead of quality. It's a focus that will drive out smarter Mormons - the kind that may not really believe, but hang around because it's family tradition and fills a social need. Mormonism has turned perpetually silly and middle-brow, at best.

DR said...

"The "small businessman" and "middle class" is king in the land of peasants and slaves.

Gusanos."

This Occupy Wall Street mentality is poisoning the alt right. Does anyone really think that the middle class Cubanos and Vietnamese who fled were "exploiters." Much like the Coptics in Egypt, they are certainly much wealthier than the peasants. But in turn these groups are pretty much responsible for running the country.

If you want to see what happens when you liberate the peasants from the "exploiters" just look at Rhodesia.

Hunsdon said...

DR said: This Occupy Wall Street mentality is poisoning the alt right.

Hunsdon said: Funny, Wall Street is poisoning America.

Diplosaurus said...

Would it be a conspiracy to say that Jews--because of their wealth, ethnocentrism, and high concentration in media and Wall Street--basically run things?

Anonymous said...

Steve, you might be interested to know that with their lack of alcohol/drug use, utility with a second language, and general upright living Mormons were the applicants of choice in the FBI and many other federal law enforcement agencies until the new diversity mandarins arrived. Even so, Mormons look out for each other and tend to get each other hired - Mormon Mafia is a very real thing around here.

I'd say about a quarter to a third of the FBI is Mormon, and any other major law enforcement agency is going to have a sizeable population of them.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone really think that the middle class Cubanos and Vietnamese who fled were "exploiters."

When Castro swept into Havana, many of the very rich connected to the Batista regime and/or with gangster ties fled, especially through connections with powerful people in the US.

But almost all middle class Cubans and small businessmen--and sizable number of rich people--stayed. They'd hated Batista and hoped Castro would make Cuba a more democratic and independent society. They were fellow patriots.

But then, Castro went full-communist and even small businessmen were vilified and squeezed out. The middle class began to leave in droves.
Castro would have done so much more for his country had he been fascist-nationalist than communist-internationalist.



Anonymous said...

"I haven't seen Chua provide any hard data on Mormons' supposedly impressive performance."

Her book works better if we define success in terms of making it to the upper middle class or becoming millionaires than billionaires.

So, if success means becoming part of the upper 5%, she makes good sense.

But if success means great power in the upper 0.01%, then her book is bogus.

Just as she made a distinction between a power and a superpower in a previous book, she ought to make a distinction between success and super-success.

Anonymous said...

In her Tiger Mom book and in her latest one (with her husband), just about everything Amy Chua writes about the Chinese is applicable to Asian-Americans in general. In talking about the success of the Chinese in America as if it were somehow unique among Asians, is she implicitly, but deliberately, dinging the Koreans and Japanese? i.e., is she re-fighting ancestral (and not-so-ancestral) quarrels?

Anonymous said...

"I don't think there is a 'triple package,' just a single package containing only trait number three: impulse control. Also called conscientiousness, high future orientation, and some other things. Impulse control plus intelligence (which Chua is far too savvy or cowardly to mention) gives you success."

Intelligence is an obvious given. You don't have to spell out that a person with an IQ of 130 has an advantage over someone with an IQ of 80.

But all things being equal--suppose there are 10 people with same IQ and same discipline--, the 1 and 2 of triple package do matter. While intelligence and discipline will lead to success, those who reach beyond conventional success have something to prove. It's what set Napoleon from other commanders who were just as intelligent and tough as he. That's why we speak of the Napoleon complex.

I would say there are some other paradoxes that lead to super-success:

1. Lawfulness(ethics) and deviousness.

2. Morality and amorality.

3. Realisticness and fantasyness.

4. Aggressiveness and passiveness.

5. Be whore and master.

Anonymous said...



1. Lawfulness(ethics) and deviousness.

You have to play by the rules or else you will be seen as cheater and no one will trust you. But if you stick to every rule, then you will be seen as limited and robotic. Sometimes you have to be clever and bend the rules a bit to gain an advantage. Principles need room for practicality.
On the other hand, if you're entirely devious, you will lose all your friends.

We like people we can trust but not someone who can be totally trusted. And we want to trust but not to trust totally as there's an element of childish naivete in trust.

Vito Corleone and Aro(of Twilight) insist on the rules and the code, but they are also devious players of the game. In any struggle for power, you try to fool and rout the other side. You may have to stick to the rules(or appear to) but you never give your game away. Rules are not for the sake of trust but for the purpose of regulating deception and sneakiness. In any sports game or chess, even if you obey the rules, your objective is to fool the other side, not to be trustworthy to the other side.
(Related law of power is 'know your friends and your enemies; also know that friends today can be enemies tomorrow and vice versa).

Related is the combination of firmness and flexibility, called in psychology as authoritative as opposed to authoritarian.

2. Related to above is 'morality and amorality' but morality is more about feeling than rules. You have to show people that you care, or as Clinton said, "I feel your pain." Even Hitler had very loyal people around him because he showed a sensitive side. Even Buchanan's enemies say he's fun to be around on a personal level.
Clinton made people that he cared but he was as amoral and Machiavellian a politician as there ever was.

3. Realisticness and fantasyness.

One has to be realistic, but if one is ONLY realistic/pragmatic, one will aim for something safe and reachable. To gain something extra, one has to imagine something beyond what is deemed 'possible'. Any kid who thinks he will be a billionaire or president is not being realistic, even if he's very smart. And yet, without that element of fantasy, he won't get there. On the other hand, fantasy totally un-moored from realistic assessment is just daydreaming.

4. Aggressive and passive.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Amass more power and wealth but don't act like a bullying jerk and alienate everyone.

Vito became powerful but made even poor Italian-Americans feel that he was in their debt.
If a poor paisano sent him a bottle of wine, he would thank them for their kindness. Make more friends that way. Oprah the godmammy.

5. If you want to be master, you have to swallow your pride and be whore.
If you want your ass kissed, you have to kiss a lot of asses to rise to the top.
This is why politics is a dirty business. Obama kissed a lot asses to get to where others kiss his ass.

Anonymous said...

Also, be sociable and asocial.

You need to be sociable to get to know people and work together.
But if you're excessively sociable, your entire being is defined by wanting to get along and be defined by others. You're just one of the team or herd.

To build and guard your sense of identity and destiny, you have to a keep a part of yourself apart from the crowd. Some things about you must be for yourself alone. It's like a music composer will do hack work to earn money in the industry but save his best stuff for the day when he can make a splash as a master/genius and not a mere professional hack.

Morricone composed a lot of junky music for over 100 films, but he saved the best stuff for what he cared for most; those are the ones that made his name.

Most great creativity has an asocial element. As Brian Wilson got more creative, he withdrew from other band-mates. As Lennon and McCartney got more ambitious, they began to work more alone.

Entertainment is generally social teamwork. Art is generally asocial dreamwork.

Anonymous said...

"Many Indians (total population back home: 1.237 billion) and Nigerians (169 million) in the US are here because they are related to somebody rich enough and smart enough to pursue graduate study in the US."

I've often wondered why it is that the very smartest Blacks seem to be African immigrants. Now obviously, there is the fact that the best ones are cherry-picked. But you would think that given the sheer size of the African-American population that they would be able to produce just as many if not more highly-intelligent people as the African immigrant community does. But that does not seem to be the case, which is especially striking given that AAs have a mean IQ at least 10 points higher than West Africans. One explanation is that a small elite of the African population has self-selected in favor of higher IQ, which to some degree combats the problem of regression towards the mean. Similarly, among Indian immigrants, they regress towards the mean of their caste (which is quite high), as opposed to the mean of the population of India (which is fairly low). African-Americans do not similarly self-select, meaning they are more bound by the rules of regression towards the mean, and as a result there are shockingly few very intelligent ones.

Anonymous said...

There was a piece in the Financial Times a few years back (which I don't have the inclination to track down for purposes of my comment) about Mormons, or at least students from Mormon universities like BYU, being recruited by the most prestigious investment banks, law firms and corporations at basically the same level as Ivy League schools. One hypothesis, which I think has some merit, is that the missions instill a level of maturity and discipline in young Mormons that your average ivy leaguer, that likely grew up in an affluent household, doesn't have by the time they're in their early 20s. In other words, while your typical Harvard student is partying and doing superficial activities to pad his resume, a Mormon is being dropped in an unfamiliar place, sometimes being unable to speak the language, gets relatively little in the way of support, and has to have the stomach to sell a - shall we say -- unconventional religion to strangers. Since virtually no one in the pool of Goldman Sachs recruits joins the military anymore -- which they say used to "make a man out of you" -- a Mormon mission might be the next best thing.

BurplesonAFB said...

There's no reason for recruitment of lots of latin, islander, black mormons to necessarily drive away high prole white mormons (to use LotB lingo). So long as they retain meritocratic/white leadership and don't descend to mob rule, they'll avoid the worst excesses of WWG WWT etc much better than other churches.

Anonymous said...

"The Nepalese are doing about the same, except here it's gas stations for them." - Minority small business loans.

"But in turn these groups are pretty much responsible for running the country." - nobody likes that group of wealthy assholes that run their country.

jody said...

i lived in las vegas for 4 years. mormons seemed to own a sizeable chunk of the town. they were good small businessmen, and the mormon temple on sunrise mountain was the largest, most impressive private structure around.

mormons aren't allowed most of the diversions which occupy the common man, so a lot of their time and energy goes into making more mormons, and running a business. they are synergistic: the better they do at their business, the more kids they can afford to make.

it's hard to explain how harry reid has become a tool for the cultural marxists though.

Anonymous said...

"ethnocentrism, paranoia, and self-repression"

exceptionalism is not ethnocetrism. Paranoia is not the same as insecurity. Self-repression is close enough for impule supression.

Have to disagree with you here.

agnostic said...

What about Christian fundamentalists? Evangelicals, charismatics, whatever you prefer to call them.

Superiority complex -- check. We're on the path toward Salvation, while y'all are gonna burn in Hell.

Persecution complex -- check. We're under constant siege from the eggheaded secularists and the wicked Satanists, who slander us as backward Bible-thumpers. Well, we'll show them who's righteous!

Impulse control -- check. Avoiding the wicked sensual temptations more than the secular majority, for sure, not that they are wholly free from sin.

Their only problem? They're not as intelligent on average as other groups like the atheistic Chinese or Jews, or Northwestern Euros who don't feel drawn to religion.

This is no small counter-example in America, btw, where fundamentalists are such a huge minority.

The more I think about it, the more lazy and baseless the book's claims are. Baseless because of whopper counter-examples like fundies, Amish, Parsis (who lack ethnocentric paranoia), etc. And lazy because they don't mention IQ.

It's clearly a ruse to defuse resentment based on IQ -- a toxic concept today. If the authors were truly brave and iconoclastic, they would've written an update and expansion on the racial chapter in The Bell Curve.

Instead, they have chosen to ignore fewer and simpler concepts that explain more of the empirical pattern, wielding Ockham's Butterknife. Is that OK just because they're sort-of sticking it to the PC crowd?

It's even more shameful because their motive is to rationalize the fleecing behavior of two of the most loathed groups on the face of the Earth.

Anonymous said...

"In her Tiger Mom book and in her latest one (with her husband), just about everything Amy Chua writes about the Chinese is applicable to Asian-Americans in general. In talking about the success of the Chinese in America as if it were somehow unique among Asians, is she implicitly, but deliberately, dinging the Koreans and Japanese?"

Japanese do well in America but their sense of superiority is insular and limited to Japan. It's not exportable. Outside Japan, Japanese merge into local culture.

I think same applies to Korea, a dinky nation. Koreans may work hard but lack a sense of greatness.

But China is a big country with deep culture, and Chinese all over never seem to lose that sense.

Anonymous said...

"What about Christian fundamentalists? Evangelicals, charismatics, whatever you prefer to call them.
Superiority complex -- check. We're on the path toward Salvation, while y'all are gonna burn in Hell.
Persecution complex -- check. We're under constant siege from the eggheaded secularists and the wicked Satanists, who slander us as backward Bible-thumpers. Well, we'll show them who's righteous!
Impulse control -- check. Avoiding the wicked sensual temptations more than the secular majority, for sure, not that they are wholly free from sin."

But their superiority complex is too inclusive as opposed to the more exclusive modes of Jews, Chinese, Mormons, etc.
Evangelicalism says anyone--even an ass-tattoed dufus--can be a fellow member. Look at all the fatass Evangelicals.

Their persecution complex is communal than individual. Also, it is neutralized by their worship of Jews, their main enemies.
When Jews felt mad, they attacked the wasps.
When Evangelicals get mad, they love Israel more and sing hosannas to Jews.
Also, Christianity made a fetish of persecution as something to embrace than resist.

Impulse control among Evangelicals? LOL. Come around Tennessee and Kentucky sometimes. ROTFL.






Anonymous said...

Two kinds of impulse control.

Denying oneself the pie now to eat a bigger pie later.

Denying oneself the pie just to deny oneself the pie.

The latter kind of impulse control doesn't lead to anything.



DR said...

"But then, Castro went full-communist and even small businessmen were vilified and squeezed out. The middle class began to leave in droves.
Castro would have done so much more for his country had he been fascist-nationalist than communist-internationalist. "

In other words: Batista himself. People forget that by 1960 under Batista, urban Cuban living standards exceeded Italy and were quickly catching up to Western Europe.

Batista was basically an early version of Pinochet. And for the time by far ran the most well-managed independent Caribbean state.

Anonymous said...

"In other words: Batista himself."

No, he had no vision. He was a whore and puppet, not a nationalist.

Anonymous said...

Mormons are major con artists. Utah, pre-Nigerian competition, was the epicenter in the USA for MLM/pyramid schemes.


That explains Harry Reid more than adequately.

Mormon culture is all about cultivating the right appearance, all the rest doesn't really matter.

agnostic said...

Also, is it impulse control -- or lower level of impulses to begin with?

Both routes lead to the same outcome of less time spent on sensation and more on abstraction. However, having weaker impulses to begin with is less costly than regularly exerting control of stronger impulses.

I don't get the impression that East Asians have better impulse control -- look at what happens when you introduce video games and the internet. But that, over all possible temptations, they don't resonate as much with them. Hence, fewer distractions toward moving up in life.

Harold said...

Did it ever occur to Chua that lots of people out there simply don't care that much about this kind of financial or professional success?

The idea behind this book seems to be that everyone wants the kind of professional and financial success described in it but just don't know how to get it, and she'll tell you how.

The truth is, people learn from an early age exactly what it takes to be very successful in a huckster capitalist society, and some go for it, and some could care less. The groups mentioned in the book - Mormons, Jews, Asians - and the lifestyles, values, and sacrifices of those groups, make it sufficiently clear why many have no interest in the kind of success discussed here. Would you live like a Mormon?

Chua, of course, can't see this. She is utterly bound up in the outlook of her own cultural group. Another trait of successful groups I would say is living within a pre-made value system that they never question - they don't philosophize about the ultimate ends of life and don't consider alternative ways of living. These questions are decided for them by their culture and they never question them. Thus unburdened they can direct all their energies towards material success. The point of life for them is clear. Communal success through sacrifice and material success. These groups question less and have less doubts.

Having a restless, critical intellect, being prone to philosophizing, questioning and evaluating different modes of life is fatal to the kind of concentrated hard work and sacrifice from an early age that Chua celebrates.

The cultural impoverishment of a society composed of the kinds of people Chua celebrates would be vast.

But hey, if you can make 90 k rather than 50 k and have 2 TV's and a slightly newer car, it's worth it, right?

jody said...

korean mother-in-law sounds horrible. as in, pretty funny. and according to what i've heard, pretty accurate.

Anonymous said...

"There's no reason for recruitment of lots of latin, islander, black mormons to necessarily drive away high prole white mormons (to use LotB lingo)."

The point is that they become (inside the US) part of their social cohort, with no religious reasons not to intermarry. There will be gene flow between the groups.

OTOH, some Mormons seem to place a high priority on eugenic breeding. One of the two Marriott brothers is married to a member of the Garff family, which ones a lot of real estate and several car dealerships in Utah. The other is married to the sister of real estate billionaire Richard Peery. In turn, one of their children (not sure whose), is married to Orrin Hatch's son. Some rich Mormon families are aggressively regressing to the mean (see Jon Huntsman, Jr. - himself not especially bright - who married the prettiest dim bulb in his high school class).

Anonymous said...

Did it ever occur to Chua that lots of people out there simply don't care that much about this kind of financial or professional success? The idea behind this book seems to be that everyone wants the kind of professional and financial success described in it but just don't know how to get it, and she'll tell you how.

Most people want money, power, and status rather than financial or professional success. These two food groups are not the same, and it is only with Jews, Asians, Mormons, and Armenians that they more or less overlap.

Gubbler of the Society of Reformed Chechenistics said...

"korean mother-in-law sounds horrible."

Just hide the family dog.

Anonymous said...

"Would you live like a Mormon?"

Alice Cullen is pretty cool.

Anonymous said...

What do you call black Mormons?

Hormons.

Anonymous said...

Actually, a tiger mom sitcom or momcom might be pretty funny.

How about a tiger mom married to some slacker hippie?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it’s time, for the good of your family, for you to study the secrets of successful minorities. Granted, they won’t make America a better country, but maybe it’s a little too late to worry about that anymore.

This is a very portentous sentence--is it me, or is Steve hedging on Citizenism here?

Anonymous said...

"This is a very portentous sentence--is it me, or is Steve hedging on Citizenism here?"

Obama won twice, even in states like Iowa.
Even cons are bending over to 'gay marriage'. GOP will push amnesty. It's only a matter of time. Politicians are whores who go with big money and big media.

It's time for us to go into guerrilla mode. No more rules of engagement.
Partisan warfare mode is the only one left.

Whiskey said...

Hunsdon, the middle class shop owner who works 80 hours a week for often, not much, is hardly the likes of Goldman Sachs. Something Occutards don't get.

In fact a healthy and dominant middle class by asserting its power and standards prevents the Goldman Sachs-ization of a society. Which is precisely why global elites wish to drown Western Nations in the Third World. To kill the Middle Class and Middle class values.

Anon -- The biggest enemies of Christians has historically been ... other Christians. Who ... HATE HATE HATE each other over very big issues of doctrine: is the physical world evil and should it be ignored or vilified along with its symbols like Popes and Kings (Albigensians) or is all God's authority in the Church or ordinary people reading the Bible (Luther) or are there pre-ordained "saved" (Calvin and Mormons) and the rest damned? These are pretty big issues so no wonder the minor amount of "hate" Jews have Christians and the myriad sects of Christianity is like a ripple in the Monster Wave of Cross Christian Hate and that of high IQ secularists everywhere who HATE HATE HATE Jesus's message in particular and anything smacking of tradition and history. Because being so smart they know better than their fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers.

Whiskey said...

Steve --

I am afraid I differ from both Chua and yourself regarding long term paths to power.

It is true deal-making "Market Dominant Minorities" can make hay while the sun shines. But the only reason the Indonesians did not completely massacre the Chinese diaspora was that CHINA IS BIG AND POWERFUL AND CLOSE BY.

It is one thing to massacre a bunch of Jews in the mid 40's who have no protector, another thing to piss off Asia's biggest and most powerful State with the most nukes and arms of any nation. Not even the Indonesians really want to give China a reason to invade.

And here's where the Chua model of market dominant minorities breaks down: when there is no deal to be made. Mao said because it is true, power flows from the barrel of a gun. Nothing else. Deals can be made, but also unmade. When men with guns are left out of the deal.

That's why the Soviet Union fell -- the soldiers had not been paid for years. It is why Staff Sgt. Samuel K. Doe and Flight Lt. Jerry Rawlings launched successful military coups at the enlisted man / junior officer level. Africa in particular is an example of ethnically cleansed "Market Dominant Minority" people who had deals break down. Too many to pay off, and always someone who will just kill and take. The Fall or Rome is another example.

In the US, only the military as an institution is respected. Only the military can respond nationally, in a crisis. True the top men are comprised of guys like Casey, who after the Fort Hood Massacre said the biggest tragedy would be a hit to diversity. But their authority rest only on willing obedience. Which lasts only as long as it lasts -- i.e. the authority is seen as rightful and proper and there is no alternative.

Overwhelmingly the most potentially (they have not tapped it yet) group are Evangelical/Christian White men in the US Military. Just as the most powerful Thais are the guys in the Army, not the Thaksin rural guys or the opposition Yellow Shirts.

Power rests with men under arms and nothing else.

Anonymous said...

I don't blame Steve for hedging on Citizenism. Its fast becoming apparent that something unpleasant is coming around the pike. You can't be all things to all people and promise gimmedats to eternity, especially not with a FIRE economy.

Even Mark Levin, raging against those "neoconfederates" and going his best to push the Article V conventions, is sounding pretty desperate these days.

The best thing you can do is prepare yourself for when it goes all pear shaped and brace for a Yugoslavia style fallout.

Dahinda said...

"Mormons are interesting because they are the minority among minorities—an odd group out whose members publicly aspire to being ordinary Americans, as Americans used to define themselves before the 1960s." The Mormons aspire to this along with most of the white population of Downstate Illinois! I am sure much of rural flyover country as well!

Ray Sawhill said...

Virtuoso piece, Steve.

Anonymous said...

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Anonymous said...

Problem with citizenism isn't its ideas. Though not perfect, it's better than most proposals.

The problem is that an idea, no matter how good, is useless in politics unless favored by power, money, wealth, influence, and etc.

And all the money, muscle, influence, and etc are with 'diversity' and 'amnesty'. It's like all the money and influence behind 'gay marriage' made it the law of the land. As an idea, it's nonsense.

I think most GOP politicians, deep in their heart, agree with Sailer's citizenism. And I think many the Democratic Congressmen who now support 'gay marriage' privately don't like it. But they gotta go where they money is.

If GOP politicians stand for citizenism, they will eventually be purged, vilified, and marginalized. They can take a heroic last stand but they will be outfunded and outgunned.

Now, if one might lose the office in the short term but still win the country in the long term, it might be worth it. Lose the battle but win the war.

But at this stage in the game, principles aint gonna do much. The momentum is so much on the side of 'diversity' that a principled politician will not only lose one's office but still ending up losing the country anyway.

So, GOP politicians figure the country is lost already, so why even bother? And GOP is lost as a national party. The most they can salvage now is their offices and privileges that come with it, and they can do this by whoring out to be big money, big media, big whatever.

It's like this. If you're gonna lose your fortune but still save your country by taking a courageous stance, you just might do it.

But if you're gonna lose your country even if you sacrifice your fortune by taking a courageous stance... well, maybe it's better to at least keep your fortune.

Tragic heroism is worth if if lauded and praised. When it's mocked as 'racist' and 'evil', well....

Anonymous said...

"It is one thing to massacre a bunch of Jews in the mid 40's who have no protector"

Jews were powerful in UK and US and even in USSR.

Anonymous said...

As a Mormon it is always fun and amusing to watch the reactions to us in the news. I think like any other group we swim in the sea of culture, genetics, and politics that everyone else does. I think a few above have identified features that help us - high rates of stable marriage, missions that help us mature and focus early and give many mastery in a second language, a strong emphasis on education.

I am sure our intelligence is pretty average. Our cultural push for education with disciplin is fairly strong and allows those who are capable to push forward in academic fields. I am a combine MD and PhD and lots of friends sought similar jobs.

As for some other comments - as a religios and not ethnic group our demographic make up is less likely to scare intelligent whites off than just the general agnostic trend among the highly educated westerner.

To whiskey above - Mormons are intellectually near the least to agree with Calvinists. We believe in the potential salvation of all mankind.

Anonymous said...

"But the only reason the Indonesians did not completely massacre the Chinese diaspora was that CHINA IS BIG AND POWERFUL AND CLOSE BY."

Not true. The really horrendous massacre of Chinese in Indonesia took place in the mid-60s, and back then, the Chinese were associated with communism than capitalism.

The communists first attempted a coup with arms shipped over from China, but the military generals fought back and a massive bloodshed took place. Though lots of Indonesian communists and others accused of communism were killed, Chinese communists were disproportionately targeted. Of course, some Indonesian thugs targeted Chinese businessmen as well since the hysteria conveniently associated all Chinese with communists during the crisis.

Because Indonesia had full backing of the US--which was nearby fighting communism in Vietnam and other SE Asian nations--and because the Indonesian generals hated Red China, they could have killed EVERY Chinese in Indonesia without China being able to do anything about it. (Incidentally, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, though allied with Red China, killed nearly all Chinese in Cambodia as foreign bourgeois elements. China didn't do anything about it.) Indonesia didn't kill every Chinese because there was no concerted effort to carry out a full genocide. And the Indonesian generals knew that Chinese had to be protected for the sake of the economy which couldn't be run by Indonesia idiots.

Incidentally, what is China gonna do about it if Indonesia were to kill every Chinese? Indonesia is not attached to China, and I highly doubt if other SE nations are going to support China in its punitive naval mission to punish Indonesia. And US, the main naval power in the region, isn't gonna allow China to wage war either.

China did punitively attack Vietnam for the Boat People crisis(where lots of Cochin-Chinese were forced out to sea) and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, but all it did was expose China's weakness than its strength.

Anonymous said...

Re: Mormons being humorless. There's a thriving self-referential comedy market in the church. Take a ride down the I-15 corridor from Ogden to Spanish Fork (carefully, though, Utah Mormons drive really fast) and read the billboards. They're the funniest ads I've read, and I drive in CA, OR, CO, WA and ID. Also check out Studio C on YouTube. When you can't fall back on easy profanity or sexual jokes, you get creative.

Also, unlike many other religious groups, church activity level is proportional to educational level. Mormons with PhD's are more, not less, likely to be the mot active church members. Check out Mormon Scholars Testify sometime.

David said...

Re: Mormons being humorless.

In the playbill of the current Broadway hit "The Book of Mormon," the Mormon Church reputedly placed an ad saying, "You've seen the show, now read the book." Pretty funny.

James W Freston said...

Do you care to name those two most loathed group?