tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post2456703602029536415..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: GOP Foot-ShootingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12722763310938803692010-01-19T09:47:06.040-08:002010-01-19T09:47:06.040-08:00Maybe GOP should be for bigger government and bure...Maybe GOP should be for bigger government and bureaucracy--for white workers--but instead of playing the role of giving free stuff to the poor, the programs pushed by GOP should be for closer regulation/inspection of Wall Street banksters and more extensive check-up on fraud by welfare cheats. <br /><br />Let Democratic Big Government be about giving free stuff for the lazy and corrupt. <br /><br />Let Republican Big Government be about going after the corrupt and venal from rich guys to poor folks. And illegal aliens. <br /><br />That way, many white people can have jobs in government AND their main purpose will be to curtail corruption among the populace who leech off welfare, corruption among rich guys who get corporate welfare, and corruption within the fattened government itself. <br /><br />We need good big government to go after the abuses of bad big government. Just like the Land of Oz had the good witch to balance out the bad witch. <br /><br />This way, GOP can win with big government that provides jobs to whites AND use that big government to go after enemies of conservatism. The Founding Fathers called for limited government in the idea that most people would take care of themselves. We now hae a case where billionaire bankers, auto industry, and the underclass all manipulate government for their benefit. We need good governance to go after these abuses from top to bottom. <br />We need the kind of state power during the time of Frederick II of Prussia. A government to make society harder and leaner, not to make society fatter and lazier.fredalinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39776891563263208452010-01-18T11:33:31.298-08:002010-01-18T11:33:31.298-08:00Some excerpts of comments from above:
Anonymous...Some excerpts of comments from above:<br /><br /><i><br /> Anonymous said...<br /><br />Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.<br /><br />Wow, Truth - for once you say somehting I can agree with - a racially homogeneous America would have more welfare, not less.<br /> Europe used to be racially more homogeneous. Thus, European masses see welfare as coming mostly to themselves. Also, there is a sense of national-racial family: a people united by culture, race, and history taking care of one another. Socialism in this sense can be moralizing than demoralizing. <br /><br />In the US, which has a huge non-white underclass, many white people see welfare as going to the non-white underclass who just keep breeding and breeding. White people in the 1930s to the 1950s supported New Deal socialism where most of the benefits came to themselves, but they opposed welfare programs since the 1960s which transferred white wealth to black welfare mothers. Things will change in Europe too, as Muslims and African immigrants start gobblign more and more of the national wealth through welfare.<br /><br /></i><br /><br /><br />I have been saying these things for about 5 years now, a lone voice on the internet, and a lone voice in america, as far as I can tell. Is it that my internet rants are spreading or is it that others are starting to see the truth as well?<br /><br />Anyway, the way to save america and give it a real left like western europe has (and is quickly vanishing due to immigration) is to take power from the federal govt and give it to the states. Rob the fed govt of all funding and it will have no power. The states can then racially segregate and effectively break up the union, and then in those states, or subsections thereof, we can have real communities, real nations.<br /><br />-cryofanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34620001344645569332010-01-17T23:51:29.828-08:002010-01-17T23:51:29.828-08:00The arguments against unions are at least 50 years...The arguments against unions are at least 50 years old. I doubt old economists like Friedrich Hayek anticipated that corporations would outsource or import immigrants as ways of getting around the problem. I think they genuinely believed getting rid of unions would be a net benefit.<br /><br />Also, keep in mind unions face an agency problem similar to corporations. Union management may have interests opposed to those they represent.Truth(er)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3162703461678543082010-01-17T16:36:16.236-08:002010-01-17T16:36:16.236-08:00This is how unions obtain above-market real wages ...<b>This is how unions obtain above-market real wages (as opposed to nominal wages) for their employees. This is what is called a closed shop.</b><br /><br />And how do corporations gain access to below-market wages?<br /><br />By spending billions to bribe congress and the president to do their bidding like, say, not enforcing immigration laws and constantly increasing the numbers of legal immigrants.<br /><br />The problem with unions today is that they tend to focus on raising wages for their employees through bargaining when they should really be focussed on lobbying against immigration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12229973417556769022010-01-17T16:05:55.102-08:002010-01-17T16:05:55.102-08:00> let us apply some sort of grace period for Ha...> let us apply some sort of grace period for Haiti.<<br /><br />Why? The left hasn't. They're currently hustling to bring 'em in by the boatload.<br /><br />Why must the people who are correct be silent and permit the insane people to bray without challenge? Because Jesus said to turn the other cheek, I guess.<br /><br />This is how our side loses. We dress up in pink blazers and talk about 17th Century philosophers and the Church, and are terribly careful to watch our "language" lest we "offend" each other - while the brutes bash down the gates and tear civilization to pieces.<br /><br />If you think it "beyond the pale," "inhumane," and "offensive" to observe the fact that an influx of Haitians would be bad for your neighborhood, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Just look in the mirror.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80264998814607934052010-01-17T16:03:35.190-08:002010-01-17T16:03:35.190-08:00Svigor said...
So convince me. What's inherent...Svigor said...<br /><i>So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?</i><br /><br />Truth(er) gives a good summary of the conventional economics reasoning about unions. Here's my more political economy take.<br /><br />Private sector unions basically own any company in which they gain a foothold. The company can't legally fire those workers and have to deal with them. When you are negotiation with a side that knows you have to agree, you've got no bargaining power. These businesses are then run with one goal: maximize the amount paid in wages and benefits.<br /><br />What's wrong with that? Well, the owners of capital then start to do things like moving all the jobs they can overseas and importing people who can't unionize.<br /><br />Conventional economics states that wages will end up at the marginal productivity of labor (i.e., every worker is the same to a business; some are more productive but cost more others are less but cheaper). There should be no reason to pick any pool of labor over another. In reality, every business that is fixed in place (because it has to build factories or buy expensive non-mobile equipment) will avoid locating in a country with rules that give unions that kind of power.<br /><br />Businesses then use their own political power not to oppose unions, which is futile because of numbers and the fact that they have to pay for both sides, but to open borders to cheap labor. Alternatively, they get government to exclude competition. Ultimately, unions force labor costs to exceed labor value and that can't go on forever in a competitive industry. <br /><br />Public sector unions end up negotiating with the politicians that they elect. They then vote themselves do nothing jobs with huge pay. They do this until the state or city runs out of productive people to tax.Steve Johnsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87064554975853376692010-01-17T07:09:48.467-08:002010-01-17T07:09:48.467-08:00Svigor wrote:
So convince me. What's inherent...Svigor wrote:<br /><br />So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?<br /><br />I’ll take a stab at explaining why unions, in plain English, are bad. <br /><br />Basically, unions are monopolies on labor. A union drives, directly, a wedge between a business and an industry’s access to the labor market by preventing any worker from working at a lower wage. This is how unions obtain above-market real wages (as opposed to nominal wages) for their employees. This is what is called a closed shop. <br /><br />The problem with the closed shop concept is three-fold. First, it reduces the number of people employed that would otherwise be employed if the business or industry was non-union. The reason why this is the case is that a company still retains its control over hiring. The artificially high wage reduces the demand for labor the company would otherwise have. Second, the workers who are not lucky enough to get the union job are forced to enter the balance of the non-unionized work force. This surplus of workers is now competing for a smaller pool of jobs and depressing wages in non-union industries.<br />Third, because the union is a closed shop, with massive barriers to entry, the union wage paid in the industry has no effect on the wages paid in non-union industries. Union wages can only be a credible threat to the cost structure of other companies if it was actually easy to get union jobs. This lays to rest the idea that unions are somehow looking out for the best interests of all workers.<br /><br />Basically, unions are anti-social institutions that raise consumer costs and reduce the wages and employment opportunities for the vast majority of the public.Truth(er)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-634874685211622352010-01-16T23:14:00.045-08:002010-01-16T23:14:00.045-08:00What always amazes me is how most (all?) European ...<b>What always amazes me is how most (all?) European countries are socialist and heavily unionized.</b><br /><br />Never underestimate the effect of population density on public attitudes. More densely populated jurisdictions tend to favor more government welfare and regulation. People want more control over their too numerous neighbors, and they also doubt (perhaps legtitimately) their ability to make ends meet.<br /><br />In a wide open country, however, one can always move over or move on. The ability to engage in "white flight," for example, is why whites have yet to riot over integration.<br /><br /><b>To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations.</b><br /><br />You're right - once America steps in to run a country it's permanently ruined. My goodness, look at how much chaos there is in Germany and Japan. Those countries will never recover.<br /><br /><b>Evidence against this: there were quite a lot of white American intellectuals in the midcentury who began as progressivists/ socialists...</b><br /><br />Well I wasn't arguing that there weren't other reasons for opposing socialism. I don't think most Americans who are opposed to welfare are opposed because of Heinlein, however. The sterotype of lazy, promiscuous black welfare parasites has had a much larger effect on attitudes towards welfare than has any intellectual opposition.Captain Jack Aubreynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78908923978570589662010-01-16T16:59:14.891-08:002010-01-16T16:59:14.891-08:00What always amazes me is how most (all?) European ...<i>What always amazes me is how most (all?) European countries are socialist and heavily unionized.<br /><br />Why is this?</i><br /><br />1. Europe is older while America is younger. America was settled and created by people seeking freedom as INDIVIDUALS. Thus, there is a greater American sense of succeeding on one's own. Also, US didn't have a privileged aristocratic overclass to rule over the masses. Since Europe tended to be more oppressive and hiearchical, people traditionally had to band together to make demands on the elite. In the US, you could break out on your own, get a piece of land, and farm your own land--at least in the old days--, and that pioneer spirit is still with us. <br />In Europe(where land was precious and traditions were restrictive of individual liberty), you sought concessions from the powerful. In the US, you wanted to be left alone by the government. Since most Americans are no longer farmers and have been living in cities for a long time, the spirit of individuality and independence have been slipping(though Americans still have more of it than Europeans do). <br /><br />2. Europe used to be racially more homogeneous. Thus, European masses see welfare as coming mostly to themselves. Also, there is a sense of national-racial family: a people united by culture, race, and history taking care of one another. Socialism in this sense can be moralizing than demoralizing. Economically, National Socialism and Swedish Social Democracy had much in common in this sense. <br /><br />In the US, which has a huge non-white underclass, many white people see welfare as going to the non-white underclass who just keep breeding and breeding. White people in the 1930s to the 1950s supported New Deal socialism where most of the benefits came to themselves, but they opposed welfare programs since the 1960s which transferred white wealth to black welfare mothers. Things will change in Europe too, as Muslims and African immigrants start gobblign more and more of the national wealth through welfare.<br /><br />3. Aristocratic Noblesse Oblige morphed into Euro-socialism. After all, the government elites in countries like France, UK, and Germany mostly went to top schools and even have distinguished backgrounds. To the traditional fading elites who could not economically compete with New Entrepreneurs, government was the natural sanctuary for power. Though officially managing the socialist apparatus in the name of the people, they held elite powers like their ancestors had for centuries.tailornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77879279076673569912010-01-16T10:12:25.520-08:002010-01-16T10:12:25.520-08:00Every public policy and media unwritten rule has t...<i>Every public policy and media unwritten rule has to do with MONEY. M-O-N-E-Y.</i><br /><br />That's a bit strong. The media's refusal to make Christian movies doesn't seem to be about M-O-N-E-Y, at least not in any straightforward, non-whacko sense.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69211366638100347082010-01-16T08:03:40.222-08:002010-01-16T08:03:40.222-08:00To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Hait...<i>To be fair, though, America has been wrecking Haitian governments for many generations. Our most recent coup d'etat (2004) immediately made the country noticeably worse.Haiti will never be achieve anything remotely resembling Chinese success, but we have made Haiti a worse place than it would naturally be.</i><br /><br />No, "we" haven't. "We" are not the government.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62914219661155894102010-01-16T08:03:14.386-08:002010-01-16T08:03:14.386-08:00Svigor wrote:
So convince me. What's inherent...Svigor wrote:<br /><br />So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?<br /><br />I can explain it in English pretty well for you. Unions are bad because they are monopolies on labor. A union's ability to produce a real (inflation-adjusted) wage above prevailing market rates is due to its ability to prevent other workers from working at a lower wage in the industry that is unionized. The result is that the union industry employs a pool of workers smaller than it otherwise would given the wage. This surplus pool of workers is then thrown into the labor market to compete for a smaller percentage of jobs, reducing wages in other fields.<br /><br />There really is no power given to the little guy. Union and corporate management simply split the proceeds of a monopolized market.<br /><br />I hope this helps.Truth(er)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17003221647030611322010-01-15T23:26:16.188-08:002010-01-15T23:26:16.188-08:00Ironically, I think that the USA's economy wou...<i>Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.<br /><br />Wow, Truth - for once you say somehting I can agree with - a racially homogeneous America would have more welfare, not less.</i><br /><br />Evidence against this: there were quite a lot of white American intellectuals in the midcentury who began as progressivists/ socialists, thought out the consequences of socialism and/or looked at what was happening in Europe and became passionate opponents. Rose Wilder Lane and Robert Heinlein are two, there are more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90169103818440371862010-01-15T22:05:42.142-08:002010-01-15T22:05:42.142-08:00Ironically, I think that the USA's economy wou...<b>Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.</b><br /><br />Wow, Truth - for once you say somehting I can agree with - a racially homogeneous America would have more welfare, not less. <br /><br />For what it's worth, however, it's not that whites don't want to help blacks. It's the blacks help to identify the reasons many people need welfare. It's not that they've just fallen on hard times - it's also about the way they behave; the way they live their lives.<br /><br />Blacks help whites to see that most poor people are poor because of bad choices, not bad luck.Captain Jack Aubreynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20511580792406924872010-01-15T20:15:37.229-08:002010-01-15T20:15:37.229-08:00Can we please wait a few more days or maybe even a...Can we please wait a few more days or maybe even a couple of weeks before excoriating Haiti and the Haitian people? We all know the ramifications of HBD with regards to Haitian failure. <br /><br />Low mean IQ, low-trust culture, and low human capital notwithstanding, in light of the recent disastrous events, unthinkable suffering, and abject misery, let us apply some sort of grace period for Haiti. Remember that the "H" in HBD stands for "human." <br /><br />Why do you suppose Steve and Half Sigma have thus far avoided discussing the Haitian situation?DAJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17128093908258948722010-01-15T18:26:11.883-08:002010-01-15T18:26:11.883-08:00I suspect Sailer is following a certain unwritten ...I suspect Sailer is following a certain unwritten set of rules that would theoretically allow him entrance someday into the Club of Income-Earning Conservative Writers. Just like the Club of Income-Earning Liberal Writers, there are certain unwritten rules. There are certain elephants standing in the corner that must be ignored if one hopes to someday gain entrance to either club. For wannabe liberal writers, race differences are ignored etc. The sorts of things that sailer points out in his column. But then there are certain things the Club of Income-Earning Conservative Writers must ignore. One must ignore Class. <br /><br />If you take things a step too far,you come to the conclusion that both parties has a political platforms that are calculated to enrich the rich and keep the rest of us working as hard as possible for as little money as possible.<br /><br />Steve seems to have his beady eyes set on getting in that Club. So he follows the rules, points out what Limbaugh points out. Ignores the same things the others in the Club of Income-Earning Conservative Writers ignore. <br />Ignore that the media is supported by ad revenue paid by businesses that increase profits by lowering wages and fragmenting the populace, and that both of these goals are furthered by affirmative action and multiculti. <br /><br />Ignore that there is a unwritten set of mores that are mandatory for those at the top of any institution because if they do not exhibit those mores, the media will demonize them. Why does the media demonize these people? Couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with money? Could it? NO! Of course not. America is not about money. That would be silly to think that.<br />Well, yes, it has to do with $$. Every public policy and media unwritten rule has to do with MONEY. M-O-N-E-Y. <br /><br />Follow the money. <br /><br />Capital. Labor. Wages. Unions. Unity. Labor organization. Supply. Demand. <br /><br />All these ideas are central to Democrat and GOP rules and mores. Same for the media. MONEY.<br /><br />Affirmative action is there because of MONEY. Rich people make MORE money because of affirmative action. It reduces wages and reduce worker unity, thus giving Capital more power over Labor. <br /><br />Democrats ignore certain racial truths because of money.<br /><br />GOPers ignore class and only give lip service fight against Affirmative action because of MONEY.<br /><br />Now, you may argue that many Democrats and GOPers and journalists may favor affirmative action etc not because of money but because of a sense of what is right and wrong. And you would be perfectly correct. But our sense of justice, fair play, and decency is only constructed via SOCIAL interaction and CULTURAL pressure.<br /><br />People have genuine emotions about affirmative action and civil rights. And those emotions cause them to behave in certain ways. <br /><br />But peel the onion another layer, and you will realize that those cultural and social forces that cause those behaviors are there because of the forces exerted on american institutions by ...wait for it.... Capital, i.e., Big Money. <br /><br />yes, Capital, big money has over the years molded our social institutions so that the culture itself causes people to find aff action just and right.<br /><br /><br />-cryofanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9844592868641471212010-01-15T17:02:47.939-08:002010-01-15T17:02:47.939-08:00What always amazes me is how most (all?) European ...What always amazes me is how most (all?) European countries are socialist and heavily unionized.<br /><br />Why is this?<br /><br />I think white people (along with most other races) inherently dislike the uncertainty/cruelty of capitalism. <br /><br />Sure, they don't mind the upside to capitalism (profits), but they sure hate the downside (losses, layoffs, etc). <br /><br />Ironically, I think that the USA's economy would be much more like Europe's if it wasn't for blacks and other non-white minorities who immigrated here.<br /><br />Socialism is much more appealing in a racially homogeneous country since there is no free-rider problem. For instance, whites dislike paying for a "welfare queen" (black woman) to pop out kids and live on the government dole. <br /><br />Unionization is also much more effective in a country will little or no immigration since the capitalists can't just replace their union workers with non-union immigrants. <br /><br />So, in a strange twist of fate, you Republicans have minorities to thank for the strong fiscal conservatism in the USA.Truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33819276939858331392010-01-15T16:26:36.131-08:002010-01-15T16:26:36.131-08:00I know plenty of civil servants and they used to v...I know plenty of civil servants and they used to vote Republican and now vote Democrat for exactly the reasons Steve stated. <br /><br />The Republicans always want to support Big Business and screw over the little guy - somehow they NEVER, EVER, EVER get around to overturning Roe v. Wade, stopping illegal immigration, or doing anything truly conservative on social issues or even balance the budget.<br /><br />Look at the SCOTUS, in 2008 in you had 7 out of 9 SCOTUS judges nominated by Republicans. Between 1969-2008 - forty fuckin' years - the Democrats only nominated 2 judges. Nixon/Ford had 5, Reagan 3, Bush 2, and Bush Jr. 2. Yet the SCOTUS has ratified every Warren Court decision, approved AA, refused to overturn Roe V. wade etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20525564625812014902010-01-15T15:56:56.293-08:002010-01-15T15:56:56.293-08:00Some of you may have noticed that good-paying work...Some of you may have noticed that good-paying working-class jobs have been drying up for, say 40 years or so. It may even have something to do with free trade/globalization? The policies that caused this have been advanced by both parties. So working people are faced with this choice: the Democrats will send your job to China but offer you government services and jobs in return -the Republicans will just send your job to China. The Republicans have been able to get away with this to a certain extent by an adroit manipulation of wedge issues. The collapsing economy will make this progressively more difficult. Maybe they should actually reverse the policies that have slammed the working class? Don't hold your breath!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18187045948816973172010-01-15T15:49:18.614-08:002010-01-15T15:49:18.614-08:00>This slide show makes me wonder why immigratio...>This slide show makes me wonder why immigration restrictionists don't do stuff like this, instead showing suburban neighborhoods before and after immigrants take them over.<<br /><br />That is simply brilliant. I very much hope that anti-immigration activists use your idea. Seeing is believing. And actions follow beliefs.kudzu bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00865247508134005274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60854199628605572172010-01-15T14:33:38.598-08:002010-01-15T14:33:38.598-08:00The egregious John Podhoretz then waddled into the...<i>The egregious John Podhoretz then waddled into the fray at NRO online, announcing that he found Steve's remarks "shockingly racist," enabling the lefties to point to JPod and say "even conservatives are disgusted by..." You get the picture.</i><br /><br />This kinda seems like the point of neoconservatism, after you remove the Israel-first part I mean.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41985959808947302032010-01-15T14:30:17.402-08:002010-01-15T14:30:17.402-08:00Union workers in general don't deserve a lot o...<i>Union workers in general don't deserve a lot of sympathy.</i><br /><br />I'm kind of agnostic on unions, in theory. I mean, I like the concept; the little guy collectivizes to bring his bargaining power up closer to that of the big guy. It's nice to at least fantasize about power going from the bottom up for once.<br /><br />So convince me. What's inherently or inevitably bad about unions? Got a link that can explain it in plain English for an economic dunce like me?Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66613547222334205352010-01-15T14:23:12.041-08:002010-01-15T14:23:12.041-08:00I like how Sailer always writes like there is, in ...<i>I like how Sailer always writes like there is, in truth, a two-party system in plutocratic America. He's been doing it for years, and I'll just assume he'll continue doing so for the rest of his life, scratching his head, angrily typing.</i><br /><br />Yeah, count me in on the idea that there's The Party, and it has two wings. I was thinking about this the other day, that I should stop referring to them as separate parties and start calling the lot of them (and plenty more in other "parties," who agree on The Agenda, the crap that needs to go) "The Party." Not a new idea, but maybe it's finally sinking in all the way.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77184727395157540202010-01-15T14:19:33.123-08:002010-01-15T14:19:33.123-08:00"How does one wreck Haiti?"
One can onl..."How does one wreck Haiti?"<br /><br />One can only stir the mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2610703397621106742010-01-15T14:19:09.934-08:002010-01-15T14:19:09.934-08:00Not at all like the aftermath of last May's 7....<i>Not at all like the aftermath of last May's 7.9 mag quake in Chengdu, China, where residents immediately got organized to rescue victims and build makeshift shelters for the destitute. In fact, in the huge tent city that sprang up, people set up little markets and businesses and civilization pretty much carried on, even before government aid arrived.</i><br /><br />And still you have huge numbers on the "right" (from conservatives to Amrenners to ethnopatriots) whose refrain is that blacks are more collectivist than whites, and to hell with Rushton. I just don't get this illusion, there's no there there.<br /><br />Blacks are not more collectivist than whites, not even close. Carrots, sticks. Environment does matter.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.com