tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post8632109351777059620..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Why does Britain have so many yobs these days?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-388106448257346462012-02-13T14:07:16.703-08:002012-02-13T14:07:16.703-08:00"What is it about over-achievers that makes t..."What is it about over-achievers that makes them reproduce so little and what is it about the less intelligent that makes them so fecund?"<br /><br />It's the Jesus/Buddha Syndrome. Intelligent people are more self-aware and more thought-oriented. Since they love ideas, they don't like the fact that they are rooted in biology and made from biology. They wanna believe that they were made of/from ideas, should live with ideas/ideals, and can change the world through ideas/theories. <br />Sex and birth are of the flesh, animal, primitive, and etc. <br /><br />Jesus, always thinking about spirit, didn't wanna be a slave of flesh, so He never had sex. Buddha also forsook the flesh and went for pure spirit. <br />Modern educated people tend to be less spiritual, but their idea-centric intellectualism is another version of trying to go beyond the flesh and animal desires/instincts. <br /><br />Since such people have few kids, those kids grow up without 'family culture' and never develop a taste for it. Also, intellectual people tend to be less emotional parents, and so their kids bond with them less. The family may be nice and stable, but there is no powerful strong bond. <br />When an Italian mother dies, the poor Italian boy cries and goes mamamia. But when an affluent Swedish parent dies, there is less emotion. Look at the son in WILD STRAWBERRIES. <br /><br />Too much thinking isn't good for family creation. Think less, feel more. (But feel more like a human and less like an animal. Our culture tells kids to feel like beasts.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35614066549283487802012-02-13T13:54:22.306-08:002012-02-13T13:54:22.306-08:00Re the last paragraph - leftists are such regular ...Re the last paragraph - leftists are such regular liars and obfuscators.Doug1https://www.blogger.com/profile/13948793969077395057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66225142588737173162012-02-12T08:44:39.520-08:002012-02-12T08:44:39.520-08:00What is it about over-achievers that makes them re...What is it about over-achievers that makes them reproduce so little and what is it about the less intelligent that makes them so fecund?<br /><br />One fascinating example of extraordinary over-achievement and very low fertility is the Parsi community of India. The more I have read about them, the more amazed I am at what they have accomplished for a people so few in number. In fact, man for man they may be the richest ethnic group in the world (if the wealth of all Parsis was simply divided by their population to get a per capita average). It would be no exaggeration to say that modern industry would not exist in India without them. To have accomplished what they have in a chaotic country which is riddled with corruption (and had nearly five decades of Soviet-style disastrous economic planning) is quite amazing. Yet their families tend to be very small and their birth rate very low. <br /><br />We see the same phenomenon in the West with small communities that have historically been very productive. The British upper classes were, until the horrors of Nazism and WWII, keenly aware of the dangers of the fecund lower classes multiplying out of their proportion in the population. In fact, eugenics was not really a matter of controversy. The great and the good, whether from left, right or centre were in favour of it. Churchill was only one of many famous proponents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91178111930733270842012-02-12T08:33:46.209-08:002012-02-12T08:33:46.209-08:00"...there can't be much pride in living o...<i>"...there can't be much pride in living off the government dole."</i><br /><br />No, but there is security and the knowledge that the consequences of one's actions are divorced from receiving one's government-provided entitlements. <br /><br />And for many nowadays, there is pride in getting something for nothing if you consider that as proof of your cleverness in maneuving your provider into giving you what you need without real work on your part. You don't have to do, you simply have to be. <br /><br />Of course, there is shame in the same process if you consider you should give value for money and material wealth received but I suspect few if any chavs and yobs see it that way.<br /><br /><i>"Though outwardly shameless, many yobs may actually feel a repressed shame. So, maybe chavs or yobs feel a need to assert themselves by exaggerated violence."</i><br /><br />Maybe. Or maybe they don't have a lot of impulse control anyway. And since the consequences to them of their thuggish behavior are mild to non-existent, they see little reason not to act out on their anti-social impulses. <br /><br /><i>"Since they are economically wards of the state, they can only feel free and independent through thuggery."</i><br /><br />Since they are economically wards of the state, they know they are free to commit any thuggery they choose and they will still have all the necessities of life provided to them by the government.<br /><br />Your notion of chavs and yobs as engaged in some existential meditation on the need and value of acting thuggish is piquant and even charming but also very outdated. Liberalism has long since severed the connection between responsibility and authority in the underclass. Thus, they have the "right" to demand housing, food, medical care, etc. without having to do anything to merit these things (and far more) being provided to them other than needing them.<br /><br />Try reading Theodore Dalrymple's accounts of treating the poor in England. They know exactly what is "owed" them and no shame at all is attached to their knowledge.Kylienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27033293654307941992012-02-12T00:57:42.958-08:002012-02-12T00:57:42.958-08:00gcochran
"Genetic change cannot be significan...gcochran<br />"Genetic change cannot be significantly responsible for whatever has happened to the British working class. There simply has not been enough time."<br /><br />I agree generally of course however i wonder about something very specific.<br /><br />(If you spend a lot of time focused on the extreme end of a spectrum your view may become distorted so maybe add a pinch or two of salt to my theory.)<br /><br />Some premises<br />- two identical housing projects / estates with n people living on each<br />- one is full of ethnic group A the other ethnic group B<br />- there's a genetic killer trait (or something that acts as a rough proxy for it)<br />- 6% of group A have this trait<br />- group B have only a 1% residual level of this trait<br />- for n people there is one particularly nasty incident (PNI) per 1% frequency of this trait per year so the group A project has six PNIs a year and the group B estate has one PNI a year<br />- group A are welfare underclass. group B recently switched from working class to underclass when their factory was offshored<br /><br />The welfare underclass is an environment. How do the males compete for females in that environment?<br /><br />(Here you have to add in the context that there is no rule of law in underclass environments. Most of the victims of underclass crime are also underclass so the political consensus, thanks to media silence over the true state of reality, is that it's not cost-effective to put as many in prison as is neccessary to maintain the peace in those areas and instead the police should simply cordon off those areas and try and keep it contained within the cordon.)<br /><br />With no rule of law, males with the killer trait can freely use violence to compete for females and it's very successful because a) normal people are instinctively scared of men like that and b) killer-types are much better at violence because they have no empathic or moral constraints. The only violence restraint they have is cost-benefit. In that kind of environment the most successful of those men can easily have three times as many children as the average male. This is especially so in group B where originally there is only the residual 1% of killer types so they have very little competition.<br /><br />So assuming,<br />- 50% heritability<br />- females mostly don't express the trait but do pass it on to sons<br />- on average killer-types have two to three times as many kids depending on the level of competition from other killer-types within the same population<br /><br />I can see the frequency of the killer trait going from 1% to 2% in one or two underclass generations (which are shorter than everyone else's imo).<br /><br />The reason that this one trait is potentially so significant is that is only takes a small minority of killer males to completely dominate an area and turn it into what is effectively stateless tribal terriotory. To illustrate imagine a street of a hundred houses with six copies of Bill Sykes from Oliver Twist formed into a gang - or even only two or three - and you get the idea.<br /><br />(It only takes 2-3 PNIs per year to terrify normal people and 6-8 to turn the local environment into a jungle.)<br /><br />If 1-2 underclass generations is 25-30 years and the UK experiment in reverse evolution of the white working class started in the mid 80s and is starting to bear strange fruit now then i'd imagine rust belt areas in the states that were offshored in the mid-90s will follow a similar pattern in the next ten years or so.<br /><br />Abandoning the rule of law in underclass areas has created an environment that very rapidly selects for the killer trait.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72819570687379692322012-02-11T23:27:56.791-08:002012-02-11T23:27:56.791-08:00"...want nothing more than to serve the growi..."...want nothing more than to serve the growing Alpha, bad boy Muslim overlords of Europe..."<br /><br />A fifty-strong Pakistani paedophile ring is currently on trial in Liverpool with a full media blackout.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45806557762612507462012-02-11T23:26:19.541-08:002012-02-11T23:26:19.541-08:00"One reason for the rot is maybe Anglo cultur..."One reason for the rot is maybe Anglo culture of individualism. Continental Europeans are more communal-minded whereas Anglos, especially with infusion of American pop culture, are more individualistic. <b>In the past, Anglo individualism was balanced by hierarchy, class, and values, but all those things are gone</b>."<br /><br />I think this is the key point, regardless of whether it was the more traditional conservative culture or the more union-based but still socially conservative culture there were two solid bulwarks against both welfare dependency and the corrupting influences of the media and academia.<br /><br />The union culture was broken in the 80s and the collapse since then has been very rapid because in an individualist culture the extended family doesn't provide as much of a shield against external influences as it does in more communal cultures.<br /><br />///<br /><br />"Britain has had an underclass problem for centuries."<br /><br />Had an underclass problem, solved it for 100 years and now have it back again.<br /><br />///<br /><br />"When there was no more shame attached with welfare, it became a lifestyle choice for many lower class people."<br /><br />This. The shame only went away with mass unemployment in the 1980s. Before that peer pressure from the rest of the street going out to work prevented the drift towards welfare dependency.<br /><br />///<br /><br />"To summarize this comments section and the later half of the 20th century: Angry white males complaining about the loss of power and privilege they assume they all richly deserve(d)."<br /><br />To summarize the entirety of Jewish history: angry Jews complaining about the loss of power and privilige they assume they all richly deserve(d).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42310477115745136552012-02-11T22:54:34.327-08:002012-02-11T22:54:34.327-08:00"Poor" is a relative term in the US and ..."Poor" is a relative term in the US and England. Nobody misses a meal. Everybody has a bathroom and shoes. Bad behavior is a moral issue.<br /><br />The lower classes are envious.<br /><br />The upper classes are loyal to their shareholders. They have little concern whether the job titles that used to give the lowers an identity are off-shored or given to immigrants.<br /><br />The classes are divorced and the uppers are paying alimony, and the lowers are sticking it to the ex.Defeatednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2741952834262978842012-02-11T19:55:21.156-08:002012-02-11T19:55:21.156-08:00"Anonymous 2/10/12 9:06's link to Old Bri..."Anonymous 2/10/12 9:06's link to Old Britain is a movie, The Browning Version...<br />I'm not sure it paints a picture of a great age, but I'm glad I linked to it (the whole movie is on YouTube) because the dialogue and acting are amazing."<br /><br />I didn't say it did. It is a really depressing film and socially very critical. But there was hierarchy and order, however grim and dreary it may have been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58115671720562738432012-02-11T19:46:35.704-08:002012-02-11T19:46:35.704-08:00Violence resulting from permissiveness may not be ...Violence resulting from permissiveness may not be as potent as repressed violence. Since a permissive society allows freer expression, one isn't suppressed/abused by authority figures, nor does one have to repress one's inner anger. One can be angry any time and say nasty things and be a lout. So, it's a freer and more natural kind of violence and aggression. <br />But in a permissive society, there is an excess of it. Paradoxically, an overly permissive order can produce excessive violence that leads to repressed violence. While kids who commit permissive violence may not be under the thumb of repressive authorities, they bully others and create a climate of fear and terror. So, defacto authoritarian figures arise in the form of thugs in the permissive order. Thus, permissive order turns tyrannical. People become afraid of bullies, thugs, thieves, burglars, robbers, rapists, etc.<br />Not all permissive violence is the same. Stronger/tougher guys have greater opportunity to release their violence. In the permissive violence of the London Riots, some chavs had to bow down to tougher kids. This sort of thing, in time, creates explosive repressed violence. It's like animals run free but live in a climate of constant fear. Given the nature of animals/man, freedom leads to feardom, which leads to repression, and then repressed violence. <br /><br />Given the social system of old Britain where parents, teachers, and other authority figures often physically and emotionally abused children and lower orders, it could be that the origins of modern British social violence was the rebellion/release of repressed anger. So, there was the Angry Young Man movies of the late 50s and 60s. But once UK became more socially liberal and tolerant, the violence became more permissive. It was less a case of rebellion and more like what one sees in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Violence for fun-sake. Not violence as angry statement but violence as play and celebration. <br /><br />But as violence took over society, a thugocracy arose, and now many British kids came to be abused by thugs, louts, gangsters, blacks, etc. Since so many kids have been bruised by 'permissive violence', they built up a lot of anger inside, which turned into repressed violence--not much different than repressed violence under the old order. <br />From permissive violence, it's led back to repressed violence; and repressed violence has a way of exploding. Political Correctness also plays a role in repressing violence. But in repressing justifiable anger of white Britons who are being dispossessed, it may also lead to explosive violence of those who feel abused and beaten by the system.united gumdomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51764987407641414932012-02-11T19:46:11.610-08:002012-02-11T19:46:11.610-08:00There is violence arising from authortarianism, an...There is violence arising from authortarianism, and there is violence arising from permissiveness. <br /><br />Children of mean abusive parents may behave well in the presence of authority, but they could be bruised up inside emotionally. And so when they have the chance to push people around, they can be nasty buggers. In the Soviet Union, soldiers were obedient to superiors--out of fear/awe/terror--but they often abused others below them. Irish were like this too. Drunken Irish father would beat up kids, and kids would be well-behaved in front of authority figures. But on their own, the kids could be really nasty to one another and weaker kids. <br /> <br />Same with Japanese bullying. Japanese behave at home and before teachers, but they beat up weaker kids at school. <br />People who grow up under authoritarian violence--familial, social, or political--can be well-behaved but there needs to be a repressive social order(with muscle behind it)to ensure that their repressed anger/violence remains mostly checked. If it must be released, it is allowed to be let loose on social inferiors; thus, social order is maintained. After all, if students are abused/beaten by teachers, and if emotionally bruised students bully other students, social order is still gonna be maintained. But if students attack the teachers, the source of social authority, then social order itself will fall. Similarly, if a soldier abused by officers goes home and beats up his wife/children, it's awful but social order is still maintained since there is still system of hierarchy; social order will fail if the soldier strikes the superior officer since that is an attack on the structure of social order itself. (Thus, traditionally, mankind felt it only had two options: abusive repression that maintained order AND freedom that led to social chaos. Tyranny was bad but kept order. Freedom was good but it led to chaos. Since order is better than chaos, tyranny generally prevailed over freedom. The greatest political invention of man was authoritativeness as opposed to authoritarianness. In Psychology 101, we are told authoritarian parenting is where parents rule with raw power and permissive parenting is where parents just let kids run loose. Both are problematic. In contrast, authoritative parenting means parents have the power but set down clear rules for the kids and also live up to the rules themselves. This way, a family/people can have both order and freedom. But this balance isn't easy to formulate, and the West seems to be failing today with too much permissiveness socially and culturally.) <br /><br />Repressed anger under authoritarian order/system can really explode. Internally terrorized kids/people need some kind of outlet. This may explain Chinese cruelty to animals. Chinese, battered by the system they must submit to, must take out their inner anger on something, and there are dogs and cats. And in Nanking, repressed Japanese violence exploded on Chinese civilians.united gumdomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91128915513071167952012-02-11T18:52:17.115-08:002012-02-11T18:52:17.115-08:00Do we keep sterilizing the bottom IQs of successiv...Do we keep sterilizing the bottom IQs of successive generations? First they came for the 80s, but I wasn't an 80...<br /><br />It just seems that the goal is Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average.<br /><br />And the Eugenicists think us Catholics are kooky. I will die alone and I will be judged and I will have no attorney. Makes me consider my behavior. <br /><br />Forgive me my superstitions, but what the hell, they don't affect you.<br /><br />IQ is a great tool for guiding people in careers, education, etc. but its applications are not unlimited.Defeatednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37137401643427971962012-02-11T18:49:43.219-08:002012-02-11T18:49:43.219-08:00To summarize this comments section and the later h...To summarize this comments section and the later half of the 20th century: Angry white males complaining about the loss of power and privilege they assume they all richly deserve(d).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57289536921483142842012-02-11T16:45:04.093-08:002012-02-11T16:45:04.093-08:00"After reading through many comments, isn'..."After reading through many comments, isn't the removal of the welfare state the obvious answer?<br />No need to impose eugenics and all its creepiness, just quit subsidising bad behavior."<br /><br />Welfare went from helping those really IN NEED to being a way of life based on RIGHTS. <br />Also, what had prevented people from going on welfare was shame and stigma attached to it. Some Chinese guy who owns a carryout joint told me there's welfare system in HK but many don't use it cuz it's associated with social shame. <br />It's like going bankrupt was once shameful but now there's no shame involved. If anything, bankrupt people are treated as victims in need of help. <br /><br />When there was no more shame attached with welfare, it became a lifestyle choice for many lower class people. (And degenerate pop culture for dummies made things even worse, with young people imitating punk and rap styles.) Even so, there can't be much pride in living off the government dole. Though outwardly shameless, many yobs may actually feel a repressed shame. So, maybe chavs or yobs feel a need to assert themselves by exaggerated violence. Since they are economically wards of the state, they can only feel free and independent through thuggery. It's like a whole bunch of 60s kids really depended on allowances of parents, and so they sought to demonstrate their freedom through stupid druggy hippie behavior. <br /><br />Also, it seems nations offered welfare in the past out of decency and compassion. But once it created a dependent underclass and a massive bureaucracy around it, politicians supported it out of fear. It began as a way to feed a tiger/bear cub, but then the tiger/bear grew big and there was no choice but to keep feeding it(cuz it might act wild and violent). <br /><br />Another thing... <br />It's like drug use. <br />If someone uses drugs and becomes an addict, the solution is stop giving him drugs. But taking away the drugs makes him go crazy(at least for awhile). <br />The logical thing is to say, 'drug abuse made him like this', but liberals will say, 'taking away the drug makes him crazy'. Of course, the liberals are right in the sense that the immediate cause of cold turkey madness was removal of the drugs. But liberals seem to ignore the larger problem that the person got addicted to drugs in the first place. <br /><br />Welfare was corrupted by being made into a right than a need. It went from helping the unfortunate innocents to providing free stuff for people truly guilty of laziness, criminality, moronic-ness. <br />But British unions are also to blame. They made it difficult for companies to hire/fire people, to invest in innovation and new equipment since most of the money was eaten up by workers' benefits. Once UK manufacturing become noncompetitive as a result, it was only a matter of time before many British industries would go under and many jobs would be lost.gobsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15818042025092558832012-02-11T16:40:42.456-08:002012-02-11T16:40:42.456-08:00I'm sympathetic to the idea allowing the least...I'm sympathetic to the idea allowing the least productive to reproduce without check is probably a bad idea, but I can't imagine just two or three generations would do this kind of damage.<br /><br />A more likely explanation is a whole lot of people will follow the path of least resistance, and the British welfare state provides the lazy a path of indolence that wasn't available to their ancestors.<br /><br />It's not so hard to imagine the same guy who's demanding to know what you're looking at during the early afternoon in a dive bar could have been a productive member of society if he'd been forced to. The irony being, of course, that if he <i>had</i> been he'd be grumbling about just the sort of person he is.Bob Loblawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081916786770290968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42413152681050038262012-02-11T15:09:23.883-08:002012-02-11T15:09:23.883-08:00Haha hilarious.
Yet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Ger...Haha hilarious.<br /><br />Yet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Finland, and Japan all have generous, far more extensive Welfare states, and are not over-run with Chavs or Yobs. If it was the welfare state plus the failure of Eugenics, why then weren't those places over-run with the sort of Chav that infests Britain?<br /><br />The answer is indeed White female preference for men, absent former controlling factors such as shame/social pressure (much larger in the former countries thus the differential), aided by the pill and the condom, anonymous urban living, and rising income. Women don't have to moderate desire, and can choose for sexiness.<br /><br />Something Sailer here has noted extensively among the West African matriarchy. Men are the best singers, dancers, fighters, compete on that basis, women have several fathers for their several children, and do all the work. Roissy, Devlin, and even Larry Auster have come to similar conclusions here.<br /><br />[Yes White women on the whole prefer Tall Dark and Handsome as Sailer noted extensively, while men of all races prefer fair maidens. Gee globalization penalizes some in the sex/mate market: Asian men, Black women, to some extent White guys; and rewards others: Asian women, Black men, to some extent White women. What part of comparative advantage is hard to understand? Or do you hold that all races have equal attractiveness across both men and women? As for Israel and the ME, women are biased against war/violence, in which they lose and gain little. That comes out pretty much a wash save for the bias for PC/Multiculturalism amongst women.]<br /><br />My main criticism here is that Steve ignores the role technology plays in women's selection of men, and the reward system. Scandi nations suffer the same inputs, have radically different outputs, mostly because shame/social pressure puts a lid on bad-boy/yob/chav chasing. That's the upside of the famous Nordic social unity that is as powerful as Japan's or Korea's.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23297584834380900772012-02-11T13:55:41.302-08:002012-02-11T13:55:41.302-08:00I am a Norwegian, and have noticed that the only B...I am a Norwegian, and have noticed that the only British class that exclude us, is the underclass.<br /><br />The middle and upper classes on the other hand, tend to treat us better than they would one of their own.<br /><br />There are probably many explanations that can be given for this phenomena, but one few is willing to talk about, even the British themselves, is the race issue. <br /><br />To simplify it, the upper classes are Scandinavian i origin, while the underclass is the indigenous one, whereas the middle class is mixed. <br /><br />That the British class system in many ways reflect racial divides, explains both the fervent acceptance of denial of race, and the hatred you find between the classes.<br /><br />To start with the denial of race, the British (Russian, German, French, USA?) state needed it first to win WW1, then to win WW2, and finally to win the cold war. <br /><br />If you want people to die for your cause, you don't try to sell them the truth about you dying for some foreign upper class, that in the best case think of you as no better than animals on a farm, and in the worst as genetic competitors, destined for extermination. <br /><br />What you try to sell, is that we are all one people... <br /><br />On a side note, you find the same pattern of reverse racism in France, Germany, Russia, Switzerland, Spain, Italy etc, where most people don't even know that there are a racial hierarchy within their of class structure. <br /><br />For instance, when I used to live in Germany as an exchange student, it was always the Scandinavian who was sent or brought along to talk with some German official or landlord.<br /><br />I did not understand it at the time, but they were of course projecting their prejudices about Scandinavians onto the German official, and thought that she/he would would rather believe me than them. <br /><br />One a personal note, the friendships I made with southern Europeans in Germany, made me understand that they are in many ways correct about their prejudices. If you want something done without considerations, hire a Scandinavian. <br /><br />To continue, I really admired how my Spanish friends prioritized friendship before business, but I also saw it's drawbacks, with having to wait an hour at a subway station, because the Spanish could not leave without their late friends, so they all needed to wait for the next train. That there was somebody waiting for them, never seemed to strife their minds. <br /><br />In many ways, for us Scandinavians, non-Scandinavians are like children, and not the other way around, as they never think about how the societal consequences would be of their actions, if everybody behaved like them.Volksverhetzernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60281321827914657252012-02-11T13:13:19.123-08:002012-02-11T13:13:19.123-08:00Same anonymous as above, who wrote about the decli...Same anonymous as above, who wrote about the decline of formerly elite families into hip-hoppy, rural excellence.<br /><br />I should add the counter-example. Currently, some of the wealthiest men in the county are men whose grandfathers were day laborers and tenant farmers. These men didn't just rise by dint of their own labors, many benefited from post-WW2 economic fields opened up by Federal spending- particularly construction. <br /><br />Without these external stimuli, many of these guys would have been frustrated. And that wouldn't have been a bad thing, necessarily; a lot of these fellows were aggressive, sharp dealers, whose actions bordered on the illegal, if rumors are true. If one had to transact with folks, better to deal with an honest, but lazy grandson of a wealthy farmer. <br /><br />There may be something here akin to what Paul Gottfried has written about WASP and their loss of self-confidence and subsequent decline in the face of aggressive upstarts. Kind of sounds Ibn Khaldun or Robert E. Howard-esque as well. Thomas Hardy also wrote about rich families fallen into decadence and ignorance of their former status. As a paleocon, I can tell you I find it all very distasteful.<br /><br />My point is, be careful before you ascribe too much genetic difference to a chav or lower-class continuity amongst his ancestors. Check his surname or his family tree. You might be surprised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58589396932312019182012-02-11T12:57:24.269-08:002012-02-11T12:57:24.269-08:00Perhaps what we are seeing is a return to Gin Lane...Perhaps what we are seeing is a return to Gin Lane?<br /><br />Another anonymous writer alluded to Anglo-Saxon Individualism. I think that is key, for centuries the lower-classes in the British isles have been subjected to a system of atomization, with absolutely nothing standing between them and the State and extreme capitalism for centuries. The old communal bonds of village and clan were attacked, either by fiat- only the king gets the right of blood vengeance, or by economics: Enclosure Movement, Highland Clearances, Irish famines.<br /><br />The same forces that created individualism and the old-fashioned Anglo-American bourgeois society many commentators pine for also created the chavs of ages past.<br /><br /> They aren't a strange breed of alien that appeared from nowhere, and if we consider that in ages past slaves and serfs had poor fertility, we must assume that amongst the ancestors of chavs, past and present, were more than a few "sturdy peasants", or the industrial version thereof, or even gentry. <br /><br />I'll allow that perhaps prol babies stand a better chance of surviving, but even there, the most prolific welfare queen is not breeding like a Russian or French Canadian peasant, or colonial New Englander. Demographic expansion is not driving the increase of chavs. Some of the hand-wringing about prol's expanding resembles Tudor era confusion about where all those vagabonds were coming from. Hint: it had more to do with sheep than s&x. The US and the UK are de-industrialized countries, that is crucial to understanding the rise of the chav.<br /> <br />Referring to the US, in my own area, I've seen families, whose ancestors were wealthy, degenerate into white trash. And I don't mean working class trying to keep it together, I mean illegitimacy, casual work, ebonics and people whose appellation is something on the order of RayRay. The decline is almost Lovecraftian in its scope. I'm still not sure what the explanation is. Perhaps the absorption of bad genes as a family declines, poor choices, and external economic patterns. Of course, none of these factors can be taken in isolation. A loss in wealth caused by external factors can lead to poor choices, leading to reduced circumstances for the next generation and poor marriage choices. In any event, watch out who your kids socialize with. Snobbery in their interests is perfectly ok.<br /><br />Emile Zola, more so than any other novelist, who understood the causes of degeneracy in the working class. He remains so timely to our current problems, I'm rereading Fortune des Rougon, L'Assommoir and Ventre de Paris.<br /><br />Zola's characters were affected by the interplay of heredity, external political events, economic and cultural factors and poor choices. As someone from an impoverished area, where things are getting worse on a cultural and economic front, Zola resonates with me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57412728869321855062012-02-11T12:24:00.580-08:002012-02-11T12:24:00.580-08:00After reading through many comments, isn't the...After reading through many comments, isn't the removal of the welfare state the obvious answer?<br /><br />No need to impose eugenics and all its creepiness, just quit subsidising bad behavior.<br /><br />FrankCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70509520244435979942012-02-11T12:23:27.997-08:002012-02-11T12:23:27.997-08:00"Anonymous said...
Poofters are also not pop..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />Poofters are also not popular among Australian professors of philosophy."<br /><br />No Poofters!Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68950314955595294362012-02-11T12:22:56.599-08:002012-02-11T12:22:56.599-08:00"A century ago many leading leftists subscrib..."A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today..."<br /><br />I wonder how many of the great and good who denounce the "vile pseudo-science of eugenics" realize that everything they eat is the result of a kind of eugenics.<br /><br />This article is another in a long line of neo-con white-washes which attempts to label everything that is bad as leftist (Eugenics? Naziism? All the work of bolsheviks! ) Without noticing that eugenics had many adherants on the right, and that naziism was substantially more right-wing than left-wing.<br /><br />"The most likely reason Keynes stopped giving pro-eugenics speeches after 1946 was because he was dead."<br /><br />In the long run ............ John Maynard Keynes is dead.<br /><br />It is interesting to learn that Keynes, Beveridge, and many other architects of the british welfare state were believers in eugenics and thought that eugenics was absoutely necessary to insure its success. As a reactionary, while I would agree that eugenics is necessary for the continued maintenance of a welfare-state, my distaste for eugenics leads me to the conclusion that it is better to just abandon the welfare-state, and let the genes fall where they may. Such a regime - the norm throughout most of human history - is at least not too dysgenic.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37008947135251267632012-02-11T12:21:20.548-08:002012-02-11T12:21:20.548-08:00the best part is how when the guy with the chainsa...the best part is how when the guy with the chainsaw rolls in, there's already a completely unrelated fist fight going down in the pub at about 0:24 in the video.<br /><br />england is doomed.jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82085462634065794362012-02-11T12:19:26.831-08:002012-02-11T12:19:26.831-08:00haha oh my GOODNESS. as if by magic. doubt there c...haha oh my GOODNESS. as if by magic. doubt there could possibly be a more germane occurence to the topic! british guy gets kicked out of pub for smoking, returns with chainsaw.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anQ0GYoykqgjodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76025511480688964462012-02-11T12:12:23.837-08:002012-02-11T12:12:23.837-08:00Britain used to export people, sometimes coercivel...Britain used to export people, sometimes coercively, to other parts of the world. Maybe that acted as a relief valve of sorts. Perhaps the chav types feel they have no foreseeable future, no connection to the past, only a present that they slog through daily by getting high and amusing themselves with whatever low-grade drama they can create.Chicagonoreply@blogger.com