tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post973498796953658157..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Insider's explanation of racial quotas at Naval AcademyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69135389657822173182009-07-08T15:20:13.756-07:002009-07-08T15:20:13.756-07:00It's not just the Naval Academy.
At the CIA, ...It's not just the Naval Academy.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.cia.gov/careers/diversity/index.html" rel="nofollow">At the CIA, we are dedicated to promoting the critical diversity our mission demands. The Office of Diversity Plans and Programs (DPP) serves as the corporate advocate for creating an atmosphere where diversity hiring, development, and engagement are mission-critical.</a><br /><br />Mr. QuinnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87773228898867321512009-06-21T09:29:37.317-07:002009-06-21T09:29:37.317-07:00---Take heart. The countries you are likely to eve...---Take heart. The countries you are likely to ever fight against are all mired in corruption, and their armed forces are not meritocracies either. Most non-western universities are corrupted by cheating, nepotism and bribery. A bit of AA won't bring you down to that level of incompetence.---<br /><br />You read the article, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69353687927459819522009-06-21T08:39:40.808-07:002009-06-21T08:39:40.808-07:00I wonder if meritocracies are just inherently hard...I wonder if meritocracies are just inherently hard to sustain in our kind of government and society. In all kinds of different situations, you see the same pattern:<br /><br />a. The rich want to make sure their kids get bumped to the top of the list. <br /><br />b. Various ethnic interest groups demand "their" share of spots in the meritocracy.<br /><br />c. People who are members of the meritocracy want to preserve spots for their kids.<br /><br />d. Powerful people want some ability to provide spots in the meritocracy as a kind of patronage.<br /><br />e. The majority who are excluded are hostile to the meritocracy, which leads to their leaders being bought off by AA or similar stuff.<br /><br />Racial performance differences are one part of this, but only a part. Before anyone had ever imagined AA, we had the Jewish quota, and Ivies that weren't going to let in many poor white kids under any conditions, and those schools *still* have legacy admissions. Fred Reed talks a lot about the "you ain't no gooder'n me" attitude he grew up around in the South, and that wasn't about race, it was about social class. <br /><br />It would be astonishing if a genuine meritocracy just happened to form up in a way that was politically optimal. So I think there will always be political pressure on any meritocracy. And when the meritocracy in question is susceptible to political pressure, it will likely be broken as a result.none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80270780268533894192009-06-20T09:55:06.985-07:002009-06-20T09:55:06.985-07:00Take heart. The countries you are likely to ever ...Take heart. The countries you are likely to ever fight against are all mired in corruption, and their armed forces are not meritocracies either. Most non-western universities are corrupted by cheating, nepotism and bribery. A bit of AA won't bring you down to that level of incompetence.Melykinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34534961365208328132009-06-19T20:44:55.275-07:002009-06-19T20:44:55.275-07:00Hey, didn't Stalin, worrying about it's re...Hey, didn't Stalin, worrying about it's reliability, also purge the Red Army's Officer Corps? Something about fearing that it might be a a hotbed of 'counter-revolutionary' activity that could jeopardize the creation of a 'socialist utopia?'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32014078035155528322009-06-19T13:25:14.070-07:002009-06-19T13:25:14.070-07:00There is a word for determining percentage by popu...<i>There is a word for determining percentage by population size, what is it?....Oh yeah, quotas, and I think we all know that is Harvard was fair it would be mainly Brahmin, Jew and NE Asian, with a few whites thrown in.</i> <br /><br />You're innumerate. With admission based solely on academics and test scores, whites would form a 65-70% majority at all the Ivies, along with 20-25% Jews, 5-10% Asians, and a handful of others.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63119686224587777052009-06-19T08:22:23.074-07:002009-06-19T08:22:23.074-07:00sabril: Our arrogance as a nation is breathtaking....<b>sabril:</b> <i>Our arrogance as a nation is breathtaking. I wonder if it was like this in ancient Rome at the height of its power.</i> <br /><br />Recently, someone here at iSteve posted a link to the following old article from 1916 [back when people in the academy were still allowed to talk about these things]:<br /><br /><b>RACE MIXTURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE</b> <br />by Tenney Frank<br />American Historical Review<br />July 1916, vol. 21, no. 4: 689–708<br /><a href="http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol5no4/54-Frank.pdf" rel="nofollow">54-Frank.pdf</a> <br /><br />The first time I read it I had the sense that I was reading the most profound piece of sociology that I had ever encountered in my life, and my head was just swimming at the thought of what you could do with his data.<br /><br />I keep going back to it, re-reading it in pieces, to try to figure out what all the words mean.Lucius Vorenusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12724468517200915422009-06-19T06:57:10.054-07:002009-06-19T06:57:10.054-07:00"...if Harvard was fair it would be mainly Br..."...if Harvard was fair it would be mainly Brahmin, Jew and NE Asian, with a few whites thrown in."<br /><br />I'm with you on most things, Truth, but not here. You'd have to define "fair". It means all things to all people, but what it boils down to, in human society, is whatever those in power decide it is.<br /><br />I personally detest Harvard, but one can't deny that it was an institution that sprang from a body of a particular people, Northern Europeans, and that it, somewhat, educated a portion of the educable of those particular people. If they wanted to keep the institution theirs, and had the power to do so, that would be fair. If the others were so fantastic, they could have made equally impressive universities - not just systems of education, which all three had (and have) but the university as we know it. <br /><br />I've spent time among the undergrads of BHU, in Varanasi, and there's not a doubt in my mind that Germans, for instance, blow them away intellectually - and I'm talking about the debased, dumbed-down, one-world German of today, versus the superior one of yesteryear. I don't know that, by your implied definition, it'd be "fair" if tens of thousands of them kept applying and somehow gaining admission, to the detriment of natives. <br /><br />Judging from the way Israeli youth comport themselves nowadays, versus the Chinese youth, I imagine that, as far as applied will and intelligence go, the latter are superior, and would outperform the former at the Technion. That doesn't mean the Israelis would let them in. Each group in the world has its own particular means of development, and specific genius springs from this. <br /><br />These aren't perfect examples, of course. Many members/graduates of Harvard haven't really cared about the nation as a whole, and few of them in the modern era have any sense of fealty to a racial group like those three that you mentioned. Thus the current (and future) state of American/European universities is a natural outcome. Not to get all Heidegger, but I think we can say that what IS is fair and what's "fair" simply IS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22935110803766047172009-06-18T23:16:14.162-07:002009-06-18T23:16:14.162-07:00even if white players were not discriminated again...even if white players were not discriminated against in the NFL, which they are, the league would not be 80% white. there would be starting white cornerbacks and running backs though.<br /><br />ironmanning the game would take the huge, fat black slugs out of the league, but black players would still be overrepresented. with the exceptions of throwing and kicking, they're simply a lot better at football than all other groups, man for man.<br /><br />for me, the most infuriating thing about the NFL is that there is affirmative action even for black players. it's ridiculous. it's even worse than the rooney rule, which has now been extended to general manager.jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11461566774435149942009-06-18T20:30:59.665-07:002009-06-18T20:30:59.665-07:00Yeah, one would be affirmative action.
Iron Man ...<i>Yeah, one would be affirmative action.</i> <br /><br />Iron Man would be another.<br /><br />~ SvigorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29288615462024594962009-06-18T20:16:57.723-07:002009-06-18T20:16:57.723-07:00How much of this affirmative action BS comes from ...How much of this affirmative action BS comes from baby boomers who use it as an excuse to avoid any real competition lower in the ranks?Chief Seattlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58811812161650122322009-06-18T20:12:25.179-07:002009-06-18T20:12:25.179-07:00---Here's a counter question: Would you rather...---Here's a counter question: Would you rather have a bunch of pissed off average IQ whites, or a bunch of pissed off below average IQ blacks and hispanics?---<br /><br />If you're worried about riots and crime because NAMs might feel they aren't getting theirs due to AA being ended, you can stop. We already have that...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43971779054380099992009-06-18T19:58:56.532-07:002009-06-18T19:58:56.532-07:00"At my Ivy League alma mater, white gentiles ..."At my Ivy League alma mater, white gentiles were 35% of the student body. That was about a 50% to 55% underrepresentation, depending on whether you judged by academic credentials or population size."<br /><br />There is a word for determining percentage by population size, what is it?....Oh yeah, quotas, and I think we all know that is Harvard was fair it would be mainly Brahmin, Jew and NE Asian, with a few whites thrown in.<br /><br />"Look at rugby and soccer or swimming - 'high speed' blacks don't have endurance and don't do well in those sports."<br /><br />Well, if you outlawed huddles, it wouldn't truly be football now would it? And "our" lack of endurance sure does hurt on the basketball court.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79520114753919492622009-06-18T19:57:16.935-07:002009-06-18T19:57:16.935-07:00What a terrible burden diversity is. Jared Taylor ...What a terrible burden diversity is. Jared Taylor was so right about Japan and homogeneity being a good thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78610344543394294922009-06-18T19:19:41.448-07:002009-06-18T19:19:41.448-07:00actually, with a few simple rule changes the NFL w...<i>actually, with a few simple rule changes the NFL would easily become 80% white."<br /><br />Yeah, one would be affirmative action.</i><br />nope, continuous clock and no substitutions or platooning. Look at rugby and soccer or swimming - 'high speed' blacks don't have endurance and don't do well in those sportsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30608685422218669142009-06-18T19:02:19.402-07:002009-06-18T19:02:19.402-07:00AA sucks for the average Joe, but rarely does it t...<i>AA sucks for the average Joe, but rarely does it trickle up (we just tend to notice it when it does).</i> <br /><br />You've got it absolutely ass-backwards. Affirmative action has much more of an effect on elite whites than on lower-level whites; it's just that the elite will do well anyway, though less well, and can therefore tolerate it more easily.<br /><br />At my Ivy League alma mater, white gentiles were 35% of the student body. That was about a 50% to 55% underrepresentation, depending on whether you judged by academic credentials or population size. Where can you find a Ricci situation in which the white proportion of firefighters or public school teachers or whatever is cut in half because of AA?<br /><br />You can't.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13685646682435501522009-06-18T18:45:46.646-07:002009-06-18T18:45:46.646-07:00"actually, with a few simple rule changes the..."actually, with a few simple rule changes the NFL would easily become 80% white."<br /><br />Yeah, one would be affirmative action.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47715413352964477342009-06-18T18:34:32.545-07:002009-06-18T18:34:32.545-07:00I remember reading one time about Chesty Puller...I remember reading one time about Chesty Puller's praise for the nationalist Chinese (KMT) amphibious training methods. They got their troops all suited up in boots and utes, rifles, helmets and packs . . . and threw them in the water. The ones that made it out? Well, they passed swim training.<br /><br />Chesty also once said something along the lines of, "If the day comes when America is weak and soft, some better stronger people will come along and take us over."Hunsdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05188706369004532171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1021704360894394412009-06-18T17:45:28.601-07:002009-06-18T17:45:28.601-07:00OneSTDV: My friend attended West Point and was oft...<b>OneSTDV:</b> <i>My friend attended West Point and was often ostracized because he voted Democrat and wasn't a practicing Christian.</i> <br /><br />Anyone who attended West Point and who voted Democrat after about, say, 1920, would have to have been assumed to be a Communist spy.<br /><br />[And no, I'm not being facetious.]<br /><br />PS: Steve, when I first saw the "35% minority at Annapolis" story the other day, I thought about emailing it to you.<br /><br />At the time, I was thinking that I would say: In about 20 years, when this navy goes up against Mainland China, you can count on a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima" rel="nofollow">Tsushima Straits</a>-style disaster [and who knows? - it might even occur in the Tsushima Straits themselves].<br /><br />Mark it down.<br /><br />Take it to the bank.<br /><br />Fo' Sho'.<br /><br />Tru' Dat.Lucius Vorenusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16467804277777658532009-06-18T16:51:19.906-07:002009-06-18T16:51:19.906-07:00"Even accepting your assumption (which is cer...<i>"Even accepting your assumption (which is certainly false) that the 'browing'</i> [sic] <i>of institutions won't hurt their efficiency that much, why should we find it acceptable when non-elite whites get screwed out of positions that mean a lot to them and their well-being in life in favor of even (far) dumber NAMs?"</i><br /><br />We SHOULDN'T find it acceptable. That's not my argument. On Constitutional grounds, on a priori moral grounds even, we should rally against these kinds of policies. I AGREE. I am not a proponent of AA.<br /><br />What I don't agree with is the commentary earlier in this thread that makes the (in my view) reactionary and absurd claim that giving NAM's a few extra strokes on their handicap marks the "official" end of the United States. HAH! That is such an overblown and unsubstantiated point that it ceases to mean anything at all.<br /><br />I'll admit that I was a bit glib in dismissing the effects of this kind of AA on the personal lives of average whites, but I still doubt the argument that says our institutions cannot properly and efficiently function given a racially proportionate labor-base.<br /><br />I also don't buy the "wedge" argument. If AA isn't creating antagonism between high IQ and average whites, then the lack of certain kinds of AA will most certainly create antagonisms between average whites and NAM's. So long as there exists inherent inequalities among the races, such divisiveness is unavoidable. <br /><br />Here's a counter question: Would you rather have a bunch of pissed off average IQ whites, or a bunch of pissed off below average IQ blacks and hispanics?Mr Lomezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07043467547490085497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33483416309913958052009-06-18T16:51:06.580-07:002009-06-18T16:51:06.580-07:00It easy to imagine if he got in to that agency, wh...<i>It easy to imagine if he got in to that agency, which had a conservative culture (HAD) he would be married w/ children and pretty well off.</i><br /><br />This is a pretty weird story. So this man saw working at that agency as his only option in life? And who says he wanted to marry and have children in the first place? You mean these actions are contingent on getting just the "right" job. Somebody ought to inform all those babymakers out there who work at second and third rate jobs. Most of them haven't gotten the message.Victoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06823851448364528821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5884665140867203702009-06-18T16:43:32.786-07:002009-06-18T16:43:32.786-07:00The top 10% of white applicants will still get int...<i>The top 10% of white applicants will still get into the leadership and high-cognitive positions. The best and brightest will still be running the show.</i> <br /><br />Now that provokes some interesting questions. In such a situation, <i>do</i> the "best and brightest" continue running the show? (Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether our country's "best and brightest" haven't been skidding downhill since Madison left office). Or does this peculiar situation - elite whites working actively against the interests of their own genetic kin - introduce an enfeebling corruption into the whole works? Isn't the overwhelming impression of white "elites" on display in Washington one of infantilization, emasculation, and general all around worminess? And frankly, their competence (even in running their own self-serving scams) has become highly questionable. Can you really cut off the high green branches from the root and still thrive? I suspect in the end they'll just get plowed under by the "diversity" they're promoting.Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12502243370536353632009-06-18T15:11:32.453-07:002009-06-18T15:11:32.453-07:00"The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roug..."The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that "diversity is the number one priority" at the Naval Academy."<br /><br />I thought that their number one priority would be training the best officers they could. I guess I was wrong. What is their Chinese equivalent's number priority? Probably effectiveness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87808195290319275522009-06-18T15:04:07.793-07:002009-06-18T15:04:07.793-07:00The argument that AA shouldn't matter to you b...The argument that AA shouldn't matter to you because it only hits the marginal white is basically a wedge argument. <br /><br />It removes any sense of noblesse oblige on the part of high IQ whites. <br /><br />Moreover, because AA makes the marginal whites angrily express racist sentiments, it shows the high IQ whites that the middle class whites are beneath them both in intelligence and in manners -- basically a lower social class of losers. <br /><br />At the same time, high IQ WASPs are taught in college to display deference to Hispanics and blacks. They also become friends with (and marry) high IQ Asians and Jews. Many of those Asians and Jews are perfectly fine people. But the overall effect is to drive a wedge between the high IQ WASPs and the middle/lower class ones. <br /><br />Now the high IQ WASPs side with Asians and Jews (because they are their friends) and with underclass blacks/Hispanics (because they have been taught to).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45629234810766855452009-06-18T14:22:21.557-07:002009-06-18T14:22:21.557-07:00What is interesting is what drives this push for &...What is interesting is what drives this push for "diversity."<br /><br />Whites are still around 65% of the nation. Theoretically, such preferences against ordinary Whites to advantage less qualified Blacks/Hispanics would generate an outcry. Yet it does not.<br /><br />I give you ladies and gentlemen:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-clarkson/heres-to-the-violets-my-t_b_215383.html" rel="nofollow">Patricia Clarkson</a>. Who sums up her argument: Straight White Guys bad, Gays/Blacks/Hispanics good. Also, Straight White Guys ... over.<br /><br />You can't understand the preference for "diversity" unless you understand how most White Women support it. There is a strong, informal alliance among White Women, Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, etc. to push White Men out of opportunities and push themselves in. This is natural, and inevitable as marriage declines among White Women, and they look to pure spoils politics.<br /><br />Yeah Bush has clueless ideas about "diversity," but driving his electoral victory in the 2000 Primary was the votes of ... women. There were other, more conservative alternatives, who never got traction. Diversity has women's support, including the Academies, because they win by it, and pay little penalties (the women who are married are now treating it like a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce" rel="nofollow">Short term commitment.</a><br /><br />Shrug. No surprise. Politics follows demographics and changing family structure. It's a single mother world. Which explains WHY under a Republican President Diversity (in lending, in academies) INCREASED. Because White women are the dominant demographic slice of the diversity coalition.testing99noreply@blogger.com