A continuing iSteve theme is that the modern world runs to a large extent on "selectionism" (e.g., college admissions or Goldman Sachs hiring or military recruiting or the NFL draft), and that everybody knows that in their own lives, but we're not supposed to analogize from how the world works in our daily lives to public policy. And people turn out to be really, really bad at doing rationally what they are warned not to do.
For example, here's a professional journalist trying to think about the Richwine Affair in The Atlantic:
Forget the dubious constructs of race and IQ for a moment.
Suppose there really was a genetically distinct race of white-skinned people inhabiting a large, hypothetical island in the Pacific Ocean; that IQ really could be reliably measured; and that we knew, for a fact, that while the measured IQs of Caucasians, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans, and all other identity groups in the United States had converged to an identical average, members of this one hypothetical race had IQ scores that measured 5 points lower on average. Additionally, suppose that the average IQ of nations as a whole had been indisputably linked to educational attainment and GDP. Would it be legitimate to bar that lower IQ group from immigrating?
To me, doing so would be wrongheaded.
Even setting aside my strong preference for policies rooted in individualism and the dangerous, inherently problematic nature of singling out a specific racial group for disparate treatment, barring the hypothetical low IQ people would imply that intelligence determines worth, and that our project as a nation is intimately tied to constantly maximizing material wealth.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that recruiting human beings with impressive skills is illegitimate. In fact, I think it is prudent, and I'm glad that lots of talented scientists, athletes, artists, and programmers want to come here. More, please. I'm glad that lots of farm workers and janitors want to immigrate too. I recognize that the economic contributions of the two groups are different, but I don't conclude that the low skill immigrants are less worthy of citizenship or less valuable citizens. Are they kind? Honest? Wise? Fun?
In contrast, here is obscure blogger Jason Collins (I recommend going to Evolving Economics so you can follow his links to documenting evidence) on the same topic:
The debate (or to be more accurate, the lack thereof) triggered a couple of tangential thoughts. The first is that existing immigration policy in many developed countries already has an IQ filter. Australia and Canada’s skilled immigration systems are often pointed to as being among the most successful; so successful in fact that they are the two OECD countries where second generation immigrants outperform students with native parents in the PISA tests - see here, here and here. A large part of improvements in Swiss PISA test scores was attributed to immigration changes in the 1990s.
The immigration reforms that triggered the Heritage Foundation’s report also contain a skills-based component, including a points systems like that used in Australia and Canada. The United States is effectively implementing some of Richwine’s recommendations. (Since I first drafted this post, I see that Ed Realist has pointed out how some of Richwine’s ideas were doing just fine until the storm around the Heritage report.)
Another thought is that IQ-barriers are pervasive within countries. Tests for entry into college or university (such as the SAT) are highly correlated with IQ scores. IQ test results predict success in universities and awarding of scholarships. Many jobs have IQ-testing as part of the application process, particularly in police and fire departments (which often makes them the subject of litigation about exclusion of minorities). Intelligence is also a filter for who we are friends with and who we marry. Being of low intelligence has significant costs.
We can have a high level of confidence that the difference in IQ scores within developed countries has a genetic component. Estimates of the heritability of IQ from twin and adoption studies are robust. This means that within many countries we already actively exercise discrimination based on genetic factors, on both an institutional and personal level.
Posts
51 comments:
That's funny.
EVERY justification that the economics profession uses to foist their agenda is always but always based on the maxim 'it increases wealth'.
Never mind the off-shoring. Never mind 'open borders'. The justification is always the same 'it increases wealth' - no matter if some poor bastard in Youngstown loses his job or Jersey City is turned into Bombay.
Now, just now, their is a hint that there is factual proof that the argument goes the other way.
All of a sudden, it's not about 'increasing wealth'.
Give Friedersdorf this: by setting up the hypothetical, he lets a real discussion emergy through the back door. Not that that is his intent, but by creating the hypothetical he can now deliver his statement of values. For him, if the hypothetical existed, he would still hold to some sort of immigration neutrality (however defined) out of some sense of fairness. It is a modest step forward to force the value discussion into that hypothetical framework since, in dialectical fashion, it forces your counterargument, which is likely to be persuasive to a lot of people if they just thought it through.
OK, OK - you're firing on all 15 cylinders!!!
I relent, better send you that AU$100 before the bloody thing falls any further.
youngalexander
"Suppose there really was a genetically distinct race of white-skinned people inhabiting a large, hypothetical island ... had IQ scores that measured 5 points lower on average."
Ireland?
Can you guess who just joined the "pass immigration reform now, losers!" bandwagon?
Steve Jobs' widow:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_23092597/laurene-powell-jobs-makes-rare-appearance-support-immigration
If IQ is so irrelevent, then the people who like open borders should be stuck paying the bill. They pay for the welfare, subsidised housing, etc., and these people live in their neighbourhoods. Their children will go to the same schools as the Treason Lobby's children attend - at their expense. Their own children will step aside to allow for Affirmative Action for immigrants.
Of course, snowballs will dance in hell before this happens, but if there's anything I've learned from the Treason Lobby, it's that Dreaming trumps everything, including reality.
Gotta love the feel good liberish in the Atlantic article.
This is the only Google hit for "selectionism" on iSteve. Please write more about this.
A few interesting articles - maps of diversity and maps of racial tolerance. Not a lot of surprises, but interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
Are they kind? Honest? Wise? Fun?
No, they are not, because these are all IQ linked traits, and Mr. Collins of the Atlantic has just invited in every low IQ person of world explicitly to vote out his political opponents.
The next step would be to suppose that Putnam's analysis of the ill effects of diversity on social unity and cooperativeness are valid. What then would be the implications for immigration? Probably a moratorium followed by something like the 1924 law.
To my mind application of this academically valid social science is even more important than responding to the effects of low IQ on the economy. These might be ameliorated by neuroscience. I doubt that the ill effects of diversity can be fixed by science.
Robert Hume
Why doesn't someone write an article titled: Case Study in Diversity:Connor Friedersdorf? (He wrote that article in the Atlantic)
It shouldn't be too hard to determine what neighborhood he lives in, where he went to school, where he lived as a child. Where his children, if any go to school, the ethnic composition of said school. Who he married in fact, and where he met his spouse (if married).
It's pretty obvious what my angle is on this. I'd just like to see what implementation of diversity he has in his own life.
Does the HBD right really support selectionism? If it did, we would have a big wide open door for China and Israel. Second, I don't see what all these geniuses do for me - nothing, pretty much, except hog all the best spots at the nicest universities. Third, conservatives should support a status quo immigration, ie an immigration policy that doesn't radically change the society. A new class of overlords and a new class of untermenschen sound equally bad.
The next step would be to suppose that Putnam's analysis of the ill effects of diversity on social unity and cooperativeness are valid. What then would be the implications for immigration?
Here's the next phase of the discussion: a lot of people don't want "social unity and cooperativeness". Let's start asking diversity people what they really mean by diversity, and ask them to unpack that box. Hint: they may deny HBD, but their denial/ignorance of history is even stronger.
I'm glad that lots of farm workers and janitors want to immigrate too. I recognize that the economic contributions of the two groups are different, but I don't conclude that the low skill immigrants are less worthy of citizenship or less valuable citizens. Are they kind? Honest? Wise? Fun? [emph. added]
Fascinating moral calculus, Mr.Collins. You apparently do think they are "less valuable citizens", once they move from "potential" to "actual" citizen, since any consideration of their interests is at that point entirely scrubbed from the immigration debate.
I don't know anyone who thinks that intelligence determines worth, but I *thought* I remembered that "The Bell Curve" (I could be wrong) also demonstrated that lots of other social pathologies attend low IQ, e.g., poor self-control, inability to think through potential consequences of one's actions, etc.
The thing about being a nation is that, while we may have to figure out a way to deal with our own "issues", we certainly don't have to import new ones.
> Even setting aside my strong preference for policies rooted in individualism and the dangerous, inherently problematic nature of singling out a specific racial group for disparate treatment...
Collins and his legion of fellow anti-Dreyfusards are so right! In fact, they should strive to ferret out the witches who have schemed to single out specific racial groups for disparate treatment.
Or, they could cry "Burn Richwine!" even louder.
Yeah, Plan B is obviously more fun. Hidalgo-Americans, Libertarian-Americans, plutocrats, Left Coast Liberals, agribusiness owners, union leadership elites -- all of the Great and the Good can play!
"Would it be legitimate to bar that lower IQ group from immigrating? " - Are we allowed to have sovereignty over our own borders in this hypothetical world?
"To me, doing so would be wrongheaded." - Well you might want to look at the refugee system we have, they have no problems telling whites no.
Right after writing that article, it's possible Conor interviewed an applicant for a staff position (or gave input on same). In such an interview, you can bet Conor was judgmental, specifically about the smarts of the applicant.
"Conor Friedersdorf [...] lives in Venice, California"
From Wikipedia: "The median household income is $67,057, making it one the wealthiest neighborhoods in [Los Angeles]. The racial and ethnic composition in Venice is White (63.9%)"
IQ had nothing to do with the life Conor enjoys, nothing at all.
From the "Why is this guy in our country" files:
http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2013/05/16/federal-terrorism-charges-filed-in-idaho-utah-against-boise-man
Race prude.
I don't think our Founders had in mind for their posterity an Asian and Brahmin overlordship shepherding the great flock of dispirited white Euro untermencshen to catatonia-inducing ipads and porn.
So, IQ isn't everything.
slacking off
* * *
the new pygmies
just like the craven politics of british fame,
our bipartisans escape being damned and hanged;
here at our sun-bleached, open gate shall stand
a meagre pygmy with a hunch, whose aim
is the stiffened heightening of her name:
ceaseless immigration. beyond the rio grande
flows unencumbered invitation; all sense now banned
from the republic of past constitutions fame.
invade foreign lands for stories trump'd! they plea
with compliant lips. give us your vote, our war,
for smuggled mestizos begging to work near free,
these shadowed voters we need to soar.
invade these, invite these, we all must agree,
to keep the gate open forever more!
Would it be legitimate to bar that lower IQ group from immigrating?
Jesus Christ, I read an entire paragraph of hypotheticals for that? He could've just asked "are there any circumstances whatsoever under which it would be illegitimate to bar any group whatsoever from immigrating?" And I would've said "no," and we could've moved on.
If IQ is so irrelevent, then the people who like open borders should be stuck paying the bill. They pay for the welfare, subsidised housing, etc., and these people live in their neighbourhoods. Their children will go to the same schools as the Treason Lobby's children attend - at their expense. Their own children will step aside to allow for Affirmative Action for immigrants.
If they are going to force this down our throats, then at least demand no affirmative action for the newcomers. I just want to see the debate on TV. This would not play well to the average American.
On one hand they are told these immigrants are coming here to do the work you will not do. They are hard working and just want an opportunity for a better life.
On the other hand they must have affirmative action. They must be placed ahead of you for education and jobs.
I would love to see democrats have to publicly support affirmative action for the newcomers.
Why are so many smart people such cowards?
While some smart people push the current agenda cuz it serves their interests(especially among Jews) and some smart people are naive cuz their only experience of life comes from books and privileged circles, there are many smart people who know the truth, don't like what's happening, but keep their mouths shut. Why?
The most obvious answer is fear of social exclusion and ostracism, especially since smart folks have more to lose. If you're a dumbass, you aint gonna make it nowhere no how, so what have you got to lose by shooting off your mouth? But suppose your IQ were 160 and you could make millions or even billions or gain some high position. Why would you risk all that by speaking the truth?
On a related note, maybe cowardice had a direct connection with intelligence since cowardice was generally the smart default position. It's so in the natural world. If a big lion leaps out of the bush, the smart thing for a hyena would be to run like a mothafuc*a. But suppose a courageous hyena yaps, "fuc* you, a**hole lion, let's see what you're made of." It aint gonna live long.
Flight is as, if not more important, as fight in nature. The smart thing in most cases is to run like a mothafuc*a. Any principled animal that stands up to danger in the name of 'courage' is likely a goner.
And this was true of most of human history/societies. Smart people figured Power was something to fear. You didn't mess around guys with swords and clubs(or other means to destroy you). So, you schmoozed the powerful to gain an advantage. Thus, scribes served kings and noblemen with big clubs and axes. Merchants made sure to pay their taxes to emperors and chieftains. Cuz if you acted courageously like an Ayn Rand hero, you'd be dead pretty soon, at best end up in chains.
So, the smart thing to do was play along and act cowardly.
It's like Zhou En-lai and Albert Speer. Zhou was one of the most intelligent Chinese communists and Speer was one of the smartest Nazis. Both were cowards at heart, but that's why they survived so long. Zhou survived all of Mao's purges. Zhou always read the signals and bent with the prevailing wind. Speer was Hitler's loyal 'friend' and servant. When Nazis lost, he was ever so 'remorseful' and welcomed rehabilitation. He died a wealthy and even honored man. Cowardice pays. It's the smart thing to do.
So, naturally, most smart people instinctively feel the usefulness of cowardice. From early age, they picked up on the social truth that it's better to go along--or at least seem to go along--than go against the power. And even if you go against the power, make it seem as though you're really serving the power. (Like how Jewish leftists in the 1950s made the case that they were the true PATRIOTS WHO CARED ABOUT LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION. Saul Alinsky before Saul Alinsky.)
People like Galileo were rare, but even he relented before authorities cuz he wanted to save his hide. It may have been cowardly but as an act of self-preservation and self-promotion, it was the smart thing to do at the time.
Today, if you're accused of 'racism', it's, in some ways, worse than heresy in the past. Heresy meant you were a disgrace before the greatest power of all, God. Since elites claimed to represent God's authority, you were being crushed by the powers-that-be.
But if you're accused of 'racism', you are seen as the enemy of those both above you and below you. The elites denounce you as a moron and degenerate. But the charge also accuses you of 'supremacism' over the people. So, you've sinned against your social superiors and social inferiors.
Of course, not all cowardice are alike. While many cowards learn love their cowardice(and believe in it as a virtue, a kind of stockholm syndrome), others use cowardice to take revenge or to effect long term change. This was clearly the case with Zhou. Though he officially gave blessing to all of Mao's mad policies, his survival meant that he could protect some key people who would eventually overturn the Maoist order. In that sense, Zhou-ism won over Maoism in the end cuz people like Deng were closer to Zhou in thought and policy. Zhou's cowardice was really quite cunning.
Same goes for the Corleones. When Vito makes the peace and agrees to Barzini's idea about allowing the drug trade, it seems like the Corleone family is accommodating the enemy, especially after Sonny was brutally murdered. But Vito was only buying time to put all the dominoes in the right position before knocking them down. He used cowardice as a tactic to put others at ease, and when they least expected it, his son wiped out the enemy real good.
In a way, Jews did the same to white America. Patiently and diligently, Jews took over key institutions like media, academia, law, finance, etc. And then, when all the pieces were in place, Jews made the move and, almost overnight, destroyed white power. Jews took care of the 'five white families'. Today, white liberals and conservatives all suck up to Jews. Gingrich and Romney go to Jews and beg, "please hire me to serve as your buffer, oh please." It's a sorryass sight.
Jews use white politicians like Michael Corleone used Senator Geary. Having grown up under his father, it's something Michael understood from the beginning. He lay low and acted gentle before killing the Turk and the police captain. He pretended to be cutting a deal, but when least suspected it, Michael pulled out the gun and blasted his intended victims real good.
So, if most intelligent people choose cowardice as a career advantage, the truly intelligent and ambitious use cowardice as a strategy. They pretend to be loyal and faithful to the powers-that-be in order to gain entry into the castle and then plant bombs inside that will kill the original owners. And the Jews planted the bombs inside the Wasp edifice real good.
is Jason Collins that gay NBA player?
Which of these two guys would you rather fix a car with? The first would get lost in circumambulations and stray eddy currents. Nothing would ever work right in his life. The second would go straight at the problem and you'd both be washing your hands by sundown and going off to get a pint or two in the evening.
Read the whole post, people.
The first excerpt (from the Atlantic) is Conor Friedersdork.
It's the second excerpt that's from Jason Collins.
I'd also like to point out to the parents of Conor Friedersdorf, Reid Epstein, Spencer Ackerman, etc.: no matter what you name your kids, you're never going to make them cool. At best the association will operate in the reverse direction and you'll do for a new round of British surnames what previous generations of Jewish parents did for Murray and Sheldon.
The Atlantic discriminates against writers with lower IQs.
Whoops, cancel that. They employ Nacho Satieties a.k.a Ta-Nehisi Coates.
So no hypocrisy here.
"I'm glad that lots of farm workers and janitors want to immigrate too. I recognize that the economic contributions of the two groups are different, but I don't conclude that the low skill immigrants are less worthy of citizenship or less valuable citizens."
If the influx of immigrants were small enough, it wouldn't matter how many were doctors and how many were destined to be janitors; we could absorb them either way. If we actually have to worry about whether they're taking over an industry or won't be able to find jobs that'll let them contribute to the tax base, the total is way too high.
In fact, I'd be fine with an immigration lottery, if the totals were low enough. If it were really about letting a few foreigners in to add "vibrancy," while not being enough to have a noticeable political or economic effect, then by all means let some be janitors. Rule out anyone with a felony record, detectable terrorist sympathies, or a communicable disease, and put the rest of the names in a hat. That would be fine if the number were in the thousands per year instead of the millions (after a moratorium to let us recover to, say, <3% unemployment first, of course).
RE: Friedersdorf
I'm sick of the idea that there is a distinction between correct and incorrect criteria for the evaluation of potential new citizens. We can keep people out because we don't want them, or let them because we do, for whatever rationale. No further justification is necessary.
While IQ based arguments are tactically necessary to counter dishonest economic rationales for mass immigration, this debate over admission criteria is totally wrong headed. Such a debate assumes that admission is the default and that we must find a valid reason to deny entry to potential immigrants. IMO the default should be a moratorium, while the burdon of proof falls on immigration proponents.
-The Judean People's Front
There's a philosophical point that's lurking in Connor's article, and I think it's one reason why there was so much anger and backlash about the Heritage study on long-term costs of immigrants, and Richwine's older work on IQ of immigrant groups: What should the goal of US immigration policy be?
Now, the answer I think is most defensible is that, just like most other policies, the right goal for them to pursue is the long-term well-being of the country, consistent with basic morality and international law. Just like defense policy or international relations or tax policy or whatever else. The government is our agent, theoretically acting on our behalf and with our consent and guidance, and its job is to seek our benefit.
If you come to that answer, then something like the concerns described in the Heritage study and Richwine's work are important. The specific details of both may be all wrong, but they're at least trying to answer the right question--what impact will a given immigration policy have on the long-term well-being of the country?
Otherwise, Connor's work is usually pretty good, but I've seldom seen him reflect any deep analysis or reporting. And the linked article follows that trend. I would very much like to see him think about this question in more depth. Is there some other goal that should trump long-term well-being of the country in driving our immigration policy?
Awesome find:
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
• Diversity correlates with latitude and low GDP per capita. The report notes, “our measures of linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are highly correlated with latitude and GDP per capita. Therefore it is quite difficult to disentangle the effect of these three variables on the quality of government.” As above, keep in mind that correlation and causation aren’t the same thing.
• Strong democracy correlates with ethnic homogeneity. This does not mean that one necessarily causes the other; the correlation might be caused by some other factor or factors. But here’s the paper’s suggestion for why diversity might make democracy tougher in some cases:"
diversity, its a strength.
One bit of mental confusion in Connor's article looked to me like it fell into the "reasoning into a headwind" category. It's absolutely true that intelligence (or IQ, which is an imperfect stand-in for it) isn't everything. There are plenty of wonderful people who aren't very smart, and plenty of rotten or lazy or unproductive people who are quite bright. But as far as I've ever seen, there's not some kind of correlation between being smart and being cruel or lazy or evil. Dumb people can be rotten or lazy or unproductive at least as easily as smart people. And indeed, this is why in most contexts, it makes sense to prefer smarter students and employees and neighbors to dumber ones. It's the magic of "all else being equal."
Put the question into another context, where Connor wasn't reasoning toward an unwanted, and he'd easily see this. In this context, though, *not* seeing that made it easier for him to reason to a place he was comfortable with. And that's interesting, not because it matters if one Atlantic writer is messing up, but because it shows a mental malfunction that you and I ought to do our best to avoid in other places.
"Even setting aside my strong preference for policies rooted in individualism and the dangerous, inherently problematic nature of singling out a specific racial group for disparate treatment, barring the hypothetical low IQ people would imply that intelligence determines worth, and that our project as a nation is intimately tied to constantly maximizing material wealth."
How noble of Mr. Friedersdorf to sacrifice his material wealth for the sake of inclusion!...Except that these low-IQ folks wouldn't be competing for *his* job.
Seriously, if Mr. Friedersdorf *did* think that intelligence determined worth, wouldn't he advocate precisely the same policy?--Make life less remunerative and more crowded for the poor dumb proles regardless of whether or not they are one's fellow citizens.
I will give one cheer for the guy, though. He's admirably forthcoming about his indifference to national interest and sovereignty.
Hmm, wondering why Mr. Truth hasn't weighed in with the argument that "reform" is merely a way for whitey to push blacks even further to the back of the bus? Probably furiously scribbling on the back of paper bags that his Thunderbird came in, as to the nefarious honkey machinations that will have found Señor Zimmerman "not guilty". Won't be long now...
There's a much shorter form of this:
Question #1: What kind of future do you think the next 50 years have for people who drop out of high school through either inability or unwillingness to do the work?
Question #2: If you could find some education or health-care policy that would decrease the fraction of Americans who would drop out of high school by, say, 10%, would you think it was a good policy to pursue?
Question #3: What about if it was an immigration policy instead of an educational policy?
Have you ever thought that the Richwine affair was bullshit?
Maybe the Heritage Foundation needed money...so set up Richwine to write his thingie then fire him then complain that all the 'racist' donors don't want to give them money.
Then get Jewish money! :) :) which is much more substantial :)
what if we gave iq test to possible immigrants and let in only above average which seems canada does we have massive immigration though and soon all these high iq immigrants outnumber us- not liking that maybe lets just find a way to do without immigration
NOTA: "What should the goal of US immigration policy be?"
The goal <a href="http://glpiggy.net/2013/05/08/bearing-immigration/#comment-62427>should be this</a>.
An immigration moratorium, say forty years, followed by a gradual reopening that favors NW European immigrants. Green card lottery should be scrapped.
Good article & thank you for the link to Jason Collins's blog - it's very impressive (!) now i'm sorry for my earlier comment confusing Jason Collins with the gay NBA dude. They're probably not even related.
heartiste: The pompous Hunsdon gives thumbs up.
There's a much shorter form of this:
Question #1: What kind of future do you think the next 50 years have for people who drop out of high school through either inability or unwillingness to do the work?
Question #2: If you could find some education or health-care policy that would decrease the fraction of Americans who would drop out of high school by, say, 10%, would you think it was a good policy to pursue?
Question #3: What about if it was an immigration policy instead of an educational policy?
Damn, that is kinda hard to argue with.
Personally, I don't much care for this IQ business. Suppose all Mexicans were whites with IQs of 90. Suppose Nigerians had IQs of 110. I'd still prefer Mexicans over Nigerians.
Why? Mexicans(whites with low IQ) would still have white looks, white personalities, and white characteristics. They may not contribute much but they would not alter the basic character of America. They would be part of and contribute to white power.
But Nigerians, even smart ones, will have nasty black personalities. They will be stronger and whup white ass. As Nigerian succeed in elite fields, they'll take over stuff and have more mixed-race babies, thus reducing the number of real whites.
To prove the point about IQ, notice that conquis with higher IQ are worse than mestizos with lower IQs. Conquis may be white but they don't consider themselves as white and work for multiculturalism. With their higher IQ, you'd think they'd be good for America, but most of them just ally with globalist Jews to undermine white power.
If IQ is so great, how come high IQ Jews have done the most damage to us?
Personally, I don't much care for this IQ business. Suppose all Mexicans were whites with IQs of 90. Suppose Nigerians had IQs of 110. I'd still prefer Mexicans over Nigerians.
Heck, I wouldn't want 3.3 million new immigrants per year if they all came from my ancestors' homelands of Germany and Ireland and all had PhDs. We don't need more people now. We don't have jobs going unfilled (only employers who don't want to keep up with wages). We don't have vast tracts of land needing to be settled. We've been letting in way too many people for the last 50 years, and we need a break.
"Why? Mexicans(whites with low IQ) would still have white looks, white personalities, and white characteristics. "
Ok, you clearly don't spend a lot of time around the ag areas of California, or else you're confused or a deliberate provocateur... Many look just like those old Maya carvings, in particular the women's faces seen from the side. The poor folks that work the fields are exactly those with the least (or no) white ancestry.
Steve is right. Too many in the US just don't know anything about this stuff, even though it's on the news all the time. Funny how that works.
An immigration moratorium, say forty years, followed by a gradual reopening that favors NW European immigrants. Green card lottery should be scrapped.
Fuck that. There aren't enough NW Europeans over here. Have your own damn white kids (oh, wait, that would get in the way of "Game").
If IQ is so great, how come high IQ Jews have done the most damage to us?
Remember those old Saturday Night Live Tonto, Tarzan, and Frankenstein? They'd discuss fire. fire Good or fire bad? Finally they'd decide fire good...but also bad. IQ is a bit like that. It's a more like a tool than and end to itself. IQ good if your lawyer is smarter than the other guy's lawyer. In a reductio ad Hitlerum, the Soviets would have been much happier if the Germans had a mean 70 IQ.
Anti-Semitism has been mild in the US because for long periods of time there were lots of smart Jews who used their brains to contribute. Slavs have been virulently anti-Semitic because Jews in Eastern Europe tended to exploitative and contributed very little.
The irony of the modern US is that American Jews are terrified of another Holocaust, so they're trying to drown America in flood of off-whites and non-whites. Odds are decent that they're genocide attempt will provoke a Holocaust.
"In fact, I'd be fine with an immigration lottery, if the totals were low enough. If it were really about letting a few foreigners in to add "vibrancy," while not being enough to have a noticeable political or economic effect, then by all means let some be janitors. Rule out anyone with a felony record, detectable terrorist sympathies, or a communicable disease, and put the rest of the names in a hat. That would be fine if the number were in the thousands per year instead of the millions (after a moratorium to let us recover to, say, <3% unemployment first, of course)."
You seem like an honest Joe.
Why reverse the moratorium, ever, even to letting in a few thousand?
Maybe I'm dumb, but having read, I dunno, 10,000 hours' worth of immigration debate (Steve's stuff vs. Wa-Po-type hooey) I cannot see even one single reason why letting in ANYONE is necessary -- or even beneficial -- to me and mine.
This is America, home of White Americans, and with 200K of us already (plus 100K of cranky "vibrant" non-Whites) we're all full up here, thanks.
Post a Comment