The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My New Taki's Column on Rep. Steve King: "Frantic Yelling Ensued"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

“Frantic Yelling Ensued”
by Steve Sailer
March 15, 2017

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) has noticed just how extremist today’s respectable conventional wisdom has become. So King has been exercising a Trump-like knack for trolling the Establishment with blunt truths that enrage goodthinkers into revealing just how much their worldview is founded upon hatred of average Americans. …

Especially incensed were ethnically privileged Conquistador-Americans, such as Miami’s blonde Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who tweeted:

Diversity is our strength.

Blair Nathan observed of King’s remarkably effective remark:

The fact that it is so clearly, axiomatically true is why it’s controversial!… They’ve never had to express their first principles on the national question, which most Americans reject out of hand. Now people like Trump and King are forcing them to articulate what, in principle, they actually believe. So they have to say “America doesn’t belong to American citizens,” and they’re upset because they know American citizens disagree.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 98 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. “Diversity is our strength.”
    By “our” Ros-Lehtinen means “jewish”. See Kmac’s Culture Of Critique.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/my-new-takis-column-on-rep-steve-king-frantic-yelling-ensued/#comment-1800699
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. No matter how truthful it is, it’s extremely tactless and buffoonish. We seriously need more articulate voices and not people who just confirm stereotypes of our enemies. The only thing that redeemed it somewhat was the Game Grumps youtuber coming out in support of the statement.

    Read More
    • LOL: The Z Blog
    • Troll: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Tactless? But this is not a cocktail party.

    This a very serious and real fight to reverse the trend towards population replacement.

    By making the statement, others who were merely thinking it are encouraged.

    I don't care how tactless it is, it's true.
    , @vinteuil
    "No matter how truthful it is, it’s extremely tactless and buffoonish."

    Tact & sophistication, à la, say, William F. Buckley, or Victor Davis Hanson, has, after all, been so politically effective...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. eah says:

    OT

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Please summarize its importance.
    , @Lot
    I had a nice exchange with Professor Woodley of Menie elsewhere on Unz.com where I expressed my skepticism that genotype IQ is declining as fast as he suggests. I even spotted an error in an older paper which he had already corrected in another!

    Unfortunately only about half of his work on this important topic is freely available online. He thinks that genotype IQ (of Western white people) is falling by as much as a point per decade due to dysgenic breeding and the trend to have children at later ages, which increases mutational load over time. I think the evidence points more toward .3 points per decade.

    Either way, current immigration policies are a worse insult to national IQ than the long term genetic decline of whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Good article Steve. You’ve been on fire lately. Reading the article I thought to myself “Why didn’t anyone try to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 in the 70′s or 80′s?”

    OT: I know it’s not your forte, but any insight into the current Obamacare mess would be appreciated. The media seems determined to muddle the issue in order to smear anything the GOP does, so it’s hard to know if Ryan’s plan is any good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    “Why didn’t anyone try to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 in the 70′s or 80′s?”
     
    Because at the time Republicans were quite happy with cheap Mexican labor, which they saw as preferable to black labor. I don't think you can separate the 1965 Immigration Act from the Civil Rights Movement. In 1965 blacks were demanding more political power and a greater slice of the economic pie and expanding demographically relative to whites. Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics. And if you live in NYC or LA and remember the late 1960s/early 1970s you might well think that immigration had its benefits.
    , @27 year old
    >it’s hard to know if Ryan’s plan is any good


    If Paul Ryan is proposing it, you know it's a pile of shit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Thank you for quoting T.S. Eliot. Reading that poem and trying to understand it made me quite forget the media hubbub for a bit.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/47254

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontion

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    I have to admit, I didn't understand very much of it. Didn't bother to go looking for explanations either. Most poetry just doesn't penetrate my "get to the point!" approach to life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Stepford Masses

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    The younger hookup no-strings-attached generation has been turned into the Shtupford Masses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/False_Nobody/status/841726734777143297

    Please summarize its importance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    It suggests/furthers the idea that civilization -- in its present form -- is dysgenic -- and that's not good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Lot says:
    @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/False_Nobody/status/841726734777143297

    I had a nice exchange with Professor Woodley of Menie elsewhere on Unz.com where I expressed my skepticism that genotype IQ is declining as fast as he suggests. I even spotted an error in an older paper which he had already corrected in another!

    Unfortunately only about half of his work on this important topic is freely available online. He thinks that genotype IQ (of Western white people) is falling by as much as a point per decade due to dysgenic breeding and the trend to have children at later ages, which increases mutational load over time. I think the evidence points more toward .3 points per decade.

    Either way, current immigration policies are a worse insult to national IQ than the long term genetic decline of whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @blahbahblah
    No matter how truthful it is, it's extremely tactless and buffoonish. We seriously need more articulate voices and not people who just confirm stereotypes of our enemies. The only thing that redeemed it somewhat was the Game Grumps youtuber coming out in support of the statement.

    Tactless? But this is not a cocktail party.

    This a very serious and real fight to reverse the trend towards population replacement.

    By making the statement, others who were merely thinking it are encouraged.

    I don’t care how tactless it is, it’s true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    I note that "our side" (for lack of a better term) has to be careful about every damned word and live in fear that something might be 'tactless' or 'tasteless'. One wrong word: POOF, career over. One wrong sentence, one wrong statement. At the same time, the unhinged left open borders one worlders can act like savages, shut down free speech, throw rocks, and physically assault people, and that's all in a day's work. Loretta Lynch can call for more fighting, blood in the streets, dead bodies, la dee dah, no big deal. I like Steve King and I love it how he really gets under the skin of the constantly-aggrieved lefty school girls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Lot says:

    I had no idea Hamilton had partial Jewish ancestry and went to a Jewish school. Interesting link! I also see that in letters Hamilton even referred to his half brother’s surname as Levine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Don't know how this comment got here,but Hamilton was about as Jewish as me,which is to say not at all.
    , @Millennial
    Hamilton did not have Jewish ancestry, nor was he Jewish in any appreciable sense.

    Reading that article is like listening to Adam Sandler's Hanukkah song.

    A few years ago, there were murmurs about Thomas Jefferson being anointed as the Jewish Founding Father (based on some nebulous DNA results) but then the whole Jefferson raped Sally Hemings business came up again, so that idea fell through.
    , @Autochthon
    As Steve explains, Hamilton was a Scot. We get conflated with Jews because we are also smart, ornery, cheap, and perenially oppressed.

    You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous (but therefore pugilistic) instead of skulking, and we are honest instead of mendacious. Therefore, we have less money and influence (and worse public relations). We are better looking, though.

    What you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Seriously, Steve why have you begun to occasionally (though consistently) pepper your prose with “seriously”?

    I thought that was like, totes a Millenial thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

    Indeed, we don’t want somebody else’s babies crowding our country, but what is meant by “restore” in that statement?

    It is a mistake to assume that declining birthrates are a bad thing; they are not the problem. The problem is not the number of our babies, but the number of other’s. We don’t need to increase the population of our country. Neither do the Japanese now famously experiencing this same below-replacemant-level rate.

    What is the ideal number of inhabitants here or anywhere else? Fifty years ago Americans, mostly white gentiles then, did extremely well with under two-hundred million of themselves working this wonderful, continental spread.

    I’ve alway felt that the compulsive need for growth preached by economists and business forecasters was crazy. It is he same logic, essentially that you must always get bigger because your competition will overrun you if you don’t. There is no end to it.

    It will be a very, very, very long time before humans are able to migrate off this planet. Until then, the finite numbers that existed at Civilization’s apex a few decades ago would seem sufficient.

    Don’t conflate the topic of our birthrate with the problem of badly-managed immigration. Franklin was right: cheap land and expensive labor is the way to go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    I think Steve has referred to it as a demographic Ponzi scheme. If people want to be retired for 25-30 years before they die, there has to be more workers paying into that retirement plan in order to cover the costs. If you don't have that, you need a national savings rate of something like 25%. The population can't grow forever either though, which is something the people pushing the demographic Ponzi scheme now are determined to ignore.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I remember the USA with less than 200 million people. It didn't seem empty.
    , @MW
    Declining birthrates may not be a problem if, as you suggest, they are protected by borders which we bother to defend. Even below-replacement birthrates might not be inherently problematic. But the fact that whites have below-replacement birthrates in a low-density country with no obvious environmental constraints does seem to suggest that something is fundamentally broken.
    , @NOTA
    A society with a lot more old people than young people is a more static society, with less innovation and adventurousness.

    I have occasion to spend time in Utah from time to time. The whole society is younger and more dynamic and more active and more child-centric. It feels healthier to me, though maybe that's my own biases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Can Sioux-Americans be replaced with non-Sioux’s?

    While any bunch of people can be ‘American’ in the most generic sense, Americans have always come in certain cultural groups: Anglos, Irish, Germans, blacks, Mexicans, Jewish, etc.
    While they can all be considered ‘American’ in the generic sense, an American group cannot be replaced by others. If a Jewish community is taken over by Arabs or Hindus, Jews cannot expect the newcomers to preserve Jewish-America in that community. Non-Jews will represent a different-America.

    From the most generic sense, we can argue King is wrong(though I wouldn’t because even in the generic sense, America makes most sense in relation to Europe, of which America is an extension and outgrowth; No European input, No America; if US never had a single non-European immigrant, it would still essentially be America, though one could make an exception for black contribution to music; but without European arrival and input, there is no America; America is essentially the story of Anglo settlement and other Europeans becoming Anglo-ized and Anglo-Americans adopting certain things from non-Anglos, like pizza).

    But from the cultural-ethnic sense, King is dead right. He seems to represent European-America, and THAT America CANNOT be replaced or preserved by others. Just like Jewish-America can only be preserved by Jews and black-America can only be preserved by blacks, European-America can only be preserved by whites. Because King is consciously European-American, he is right that European-America’s survival is the responsibility of European-Americans.
    Indeed, the anti-white vitriol we hear from Diversity is proof of this.

    In the generic sense, anyone can become American and contribute to America economically. So, if 10 million Hindus come to America, they can work and pay taxes and be ‘good Americans’.
    But they cannot preserve European-America. Theirs will be Hindu-America. European-America must be preserved by whites, esp since non-whites have recently been instilled with so much hatred toward whites.

    In the generic sense, an American need not be Anglo. Anyone can become American.
    But surely, even this has limits. For one thing, the generic concept of America was possible ONLY BECAUSE the US was overwhelmingly white for much of its history. Because of racial homogeneity and unity, Americans could focus more on ideas than on identity.
    If each of the 13 colonies had been settled by very different cultures, there never would have developed a generic idea of American. Closeness in genetics made possible the generic.

    Also, even this generic concept resulted from European legal tradition. Not all generics are the same even if they are agreed on the same concept.
    Surely, 100 million generic white Americans and 100 million generic Hindu Americans will do things differently and have different perspectives and aims EVEN IF both groups were sincerely committed to genericism. 10 million Jews committed to genericism will still think and act differently from 10 million Mexicans committed to genericism.

    That said, one doesn’t live on bread alone. People need history, culture, narrative, myth.
    And white Americans have their own history and narrative. And ONLY white Americans can preserve and defend these. If white Americans should forgo their own white American identity and history, why don’t Jews do the same? Yet, Jews are very particular and insistent on tracing and tracking their history back from where and how their ancestors came to America. If Jews just want to be generic Americans, they could have dropped the Ellis Island narrative and adopted the generic ‘white bread’ history of Pilgrims and turkey. If Jews are insistent that Jews must remember the particular Jewish history in America, then the same goes for European-Americans.

    So, while other people’s babies can economically contribute to America and be good people, only white people’s babies can be expected to grow up to preserve and defend white history, identity, and culture that lend life real meaning far deeper & richer than economics and materialism.

    Besides, it would be rude and wrong for whites to insist upon non-whites to preserve and defend white heritage and culture. After all, non-whites have their own cultures to preserve and, besides, the cult of Diversity says that non-whites must purge whiteness from Ameeica.
    Didn’t Newsweek run the Obama conqueror cover with the explicit message that non-whites will spit on the graves of whites?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Lots of Jews (Italians, Swedes, Germans, Poles, Mexicans, American Indians, Chinese, etc.) have assimilated into generic American white culture, and don't think of themselves as anything but American. Moishe married a nice Catholic girl he met during medical school, his son David married a nice Lutheran girl he met at the law firm, and the grandkids are vaguely aware that they have a little Jewish blood, but otherwise don't spend any attention on the matter.

    The subset of people who are self-consciously Jewish (Italian, Swedish, etc.) now are the ones who have resisted assimilation. They probably are inclined by personality or beliefs to care deeply about that identity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Diversity is our stretch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders’ writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y’all, I am a white male, but I haven’t invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I’m no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn’t belong to foreigners because they didn’t, he’s biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because… it’s a self evident truth that doesn’t require a because. Citizens at large don’t relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Similarly, see this excellent comment from last year on unz.com:

    This is because for every perceived “privilege,” an historic fee has been often been paid, sometimes in gold, other times in sweat, and even more expensively, in blood. It’s those who have put the most into shaping the present who should enjoy the benefits. “For us an for our posterity” isn’t an empty turn of phrase...How much historic cultural capital did the ancestors of Syrian refugees produce by battling frostbite at Valley Forge? Where were the Somalis in 1812, when the capital was ravaged and scattered patriots struggled to link up and muster some kind of defense? Where were the ancestors of the Guatemalan illegals at Omaha Beach?...

    Etc etc -- 'read the whole thing there'.

    , @Randal
    Saw that comment, but I think it's wrong-headed. The appeal to glorious ancestors is a quintessentially human way of boosting a people's identity and self-respect, which is what is needed above all at the moment. And doing so in no way detracts from simultaneously using other approaches to the problem.
    , @GW
    Did he not read the article? Sailer spent the first half using the Founding Fathers to defend national sovereignty and ancestry as the basis of national identity. Discussing the innovations of whites was clearly used as a way to introduce cognitive dissonance in the minds of liberals. Liberals think whites should forego any racial or restrictive cultural identity and subject themselves to the collective mob referred to as "the diverse." They justify this by retconning history--whites are racist, whites aren't dynamic, "you didn't build that," etc. By pointing out that, yeah, we did build about everything in modernity, you begin to reclaim the narrative, and with it, your country.
    , @Desiderius

    Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff
     
    That's not his argument.

    His argument is that America belongs to Americans (ourselves and our posterity).

    Attempts to replace Americans with non-Americans because Americans are too white are ill-advised for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that whites are handy to have around because they have a good record of inventing stuff (anti-anti-white).
    , @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    GK Chesterton gave a critique of Rudyard Kipling's patriotism, "He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English."

    Great essay Steve!

    , @Diversity Heretic
    There's that line from the 1984 version of Red Dawn: "Because we live here!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Homo Bawer not happy with Muslims in Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. eah says:
    @Opinionator
    Please summarize its importance.

    It suggests/furthers the idea that civilization — in its present form — is dysgenic — and that’s not good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. eah says:
    @Opinionator
    Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders' writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y'all, I am a white male, but I haven't invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I'm no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn't belong to foreigners because they didn't, he's biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because... it's a self evident truth that doesn't require a because. Citizens at large don't relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.
     

    Similarly, see this excellent comment from last year on unz.com:

    This is because for every perceived “privilege,” an historic fee has been often been paid, sometimes in gold, other times in sweat, and even more expensively, in blood. It’s those who have put the most into shaping the present who should enjoy the benefits. “For us an for our posterity” isn’t an empty turn of phrase…How much historic cultural capital did the ancestors of Syrian refugees produce by battling frostbite at Valley Forge? Where were the Somalis in 1812, when the capital was ravaged and scattered patriots struggled to link up and muster some kind of defense? Where were the ancestors of the Guatemalan illegals at Omaha Beach?…

    Etc etc — ‘read the whole thing there’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Twinkie will be along to tell you how wrong all this logic is shortly....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Pericles says:

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, blonde. Yup, that’s clearly a hispanic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Anon
    Good article Steve. You've been on fire lately. Reading the article I thought to myself "Why didn't anyone try to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 in the 70's or 80's?"

    OT: I know it's not your forte, but any insight into the current Obamacare mess would be appreciated. The media seems determined to muddle the issue in order to smear anything the GOP does, so it's hard to know if Ryan's plan is any good.

    “Why didn’t anyone try to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 in the 70′s or 80′s?”

    Because at the time Republicans were quite happy with cheap Mexican labor, which they saw as preferable to black labor. I don’t think you can separate the 1965 Immigration Act from the Civil Rights Movement. In 1965 blacks were demanding more political power and a greater slice of the economic pie and expanding demographically relative to whites. Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics. And if you live in NYC or LA and remember the late 1960s/early 1970s you might well think that immigration had its benefits.

    Read More
    • Agree: CK
    • Replies: @peterike

    Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics.

     

    Well yes and no. Blacks haven't stopped breeding. In fact, there are far more of them then in the 1970s. In fact, about 16 million more as of 2010. It's just that there are even more Hispanics.

    So we've got the "best" of both worlds. Blacks seem to be almost everywhere now, and its because there are a lot more of them. But Hispanics are also everywhere, in even greater numbers.

    There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn't grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot. It's just everyone else has too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Randal says:

    Great stuff! And, as I noted in the Disqus comments below the article at Taki’s;

    Countless pundits sputtered in response to King that America has always been “a nation of immigrants,” without realizing that this phrase barely existed in American discourse until it was promoted by the Anti-Defamation League’s propaganda arm in the 1960s.

    I’m glad you wrote that, Mr Sailer. If I’d done so it would surely have been reported to the police and added to the charge list against me.

    Still, I’ll see if I can add to my “most wanted” status by repeating it, at least.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Randal says:
    @Opinionator
    Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders' writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y'all, I am a white male, but I haven't invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I'm no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn't belong to foreigners because they didn't, he's biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because... it's a self evident truth that doesn't require a because. Citizens at large don't relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.
     

    Saw that comment, but I think it’s wrong-headed. The appeal to glorious ancestors is a quintessentially human way of boosting a people’s identity and self-respect, which is what is needed above all at the moment. And doing so in no way detracts from simultaneously using other approaches to the problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. jlee says:

    “Especially incensed were ethnically privileged Conquistador-Americans, such as Miami’s blonde Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen”

    I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. This immigrant Yiddish-Troll has never supported America nor has American interests at heart from Day 1.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. berserker says:

    Shouldn’t these people have grown out of their Lennon-hippie phase by now? Enough damage has been done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Frau Katze
    Tactless? But this is not a cocktail party.

    This a very serious and real fight to reverse the trend towards population replacement.

    By making the statement, others who were merely thinking it are encouraged.

    I don't care how tactless it is, it's true.

    I note that “our side” (for lack of a better term) has to be careful about every damned word and live in fear that something might be ‘tactless’ or ‘tasteless’. One wrong word: POOF, career over. One wrong sentence, one wrong statement. At the same time, the unhinged left open borders one worlders can act like savages, shut down free speech, throw rocks, and physically assault people, and that’s all in a day’s work. Loretta Lynch can call for more fighting, blood in the streets, dead bodies, la dee dah, no big deal. I like Steve King and I love it how he really gets under the skin of the constantly-aggrieved lefty school girls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    That's very true. I've become more relaxed since I retired.

    Even so, I have to be diplomatic around close relatives (my son and my sister are OK, but my daughter would think I was losing my mind).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Steve has mastered the art of snappy and punchy prose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    Steve has mastered the art of snappy and punchy prose.
     
    But still working on compelling prose? If you seriously want to compliment a writer, tell him his prose is "compelling". No higher accolade for prose-skills.

    Snappy/punchy sounds like a one trick pony, a regionally popular homeboy columnist destined to go no further, for example. Steve's better than that, apart from the golf stuff which even he hasn't been able to make interesting to me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. In the 1970s & 1980s, Manhattan Lefties openly referred to the newly arrived Third-Worlders as “the good browns” (Escape from New York, anybody?).

    In 1989, they voted for absolute dunce David Dinkins in the vain hope that voting in a Black guy for Mayor “would make the Blacks calm down a little.” However, the Blacks did not calm down, not even a little, but instead they still burned things down and went on selling drugs on street corners and staged riots in Brooklyn and in Washington Heights and in South Jamaica on a consistently regular basis, having already rendered the Bronx into a steaming pile of rubble.

    The Manhattan Lefties still think that all Third-Worlders are “the good browns.” What’s changed in 30 years is that they don’t have the balls to say it out loud nowadays!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    How did Riverdale in the Bronx survive not being burnt down? What about the Bronx's largely intact little Italy? Or the Botanical Gardens?
    , @Almost Missouri
    That's a good point, which makes me wonder: why does no one say Obama was the national version of David Dinkins?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Anon
    Good article Steve. You've been on fire lately. Reading the article I thought to myself "Why didn't anyone try to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 in the 70's or 80's?"

    OT: I know it's not your forte, but any insight into the current Obamacare mess would be appreciated. The media seems determined to muddle the issue in order to smear anything the GOP does, so it's hard to know if Ryan's plan is any good.

    >it’s hard to know if Ryan’s plan is any good

    If Paul Ryan is proposing it, you know it’s a pile of shit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Tiny Duck says:

    Its going to be funny when this turd gets crushed in the election.

    You guys REALLY need to get outside of your bubble. Don’t you realize that pretty much everyone disagrees with you?

    I recommend reading Leonard Pitts

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish
    Wow.....you've gone full chat-bot.....


    You never go full chat-bot!
    , @Buck Turgidson
    Steve King get crushed in a congressional election?


    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah

    That is hilarious.

    Maybe the dnc communists can run Chelsea (sad trombone....) against Steve? I would love to watch.

    Steve owns that district in NW and cleans up every time.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    TD, You shilled for Leonard Pitts last week, doesn't anyone else need you to prop them up?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Barnard says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    "We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies."

    Indeed, we don't want somebody else's babies crowding our country, but what is meant by "restore" in that statement?

    It is a mistake to assume that declining birthrates are a bad thing; they are not the problem. The problem is not the number of our babies, but the number of other's. We don't need to increase the population of our country. Neither do the Japanese now famously experiencing this same below-replacemant-level rate.

    What is the ideal number of inhabitants here or anywhere else? Fifty years ago Americans, mostly white gentiles then, did extremely well with under two-hundred million of themselves working this wonderful, continental spread.

    I've alway felt that the compulsive need for growth preached by economists and business forecasters was crazy. It is he same logic, essentially that you must always get bigger because your competition will overrun you if you don't. There is no end to it.

    It will be a very, very, very long time before humans are able to migrate off this planet. Until then, the finite numbers that existed at Civilization's apex a few decades ago would seem sufficient.

    Don't conflate the topic of our birthrate with the problem of badly-managed immigration. Franklin was right: cheap land and expensive labor is the way to go.

    I think Steve has referred to it as a demographic Ponzi scheme. If people want to be retired for 25-30 years before they die, there has to be more workers paying into that retirement plan in order to cover the costs. If you don’t have that, you need a national savings rate of something like 25%. The population can’t grow forever either though, which is something the people pushing the demographic Ponzi scheme now are determined to ignore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. GW says:
    @Opinionator
    Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders' writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y'all, I am a white male, but I haven't invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I'm no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn't belong to foreigners because they didn't, he's biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because... it's a self evident truth that doesn't require a because. Citizens at large don't relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.
     

    Did he not read the article? Sailer spent the first half using the Founding Fathers to defend national sovereignty and ancestry as the basis of national identity. Discussing the innovations of whites was clearly used as a way to introduce cognitive dissonance in the minds of liberals. Liberals think whites should forego any racial or restrictive cultural identity and subject themselves to the collective mob referred to as “the diverse.” They justify this by retconning history–whites are racist, whites aren’t dynamic, “you didn’t build that,” etc. By pointing out that, yeah, we did build about everything in modernity, you begin to reclaim the narrative, and with it, your country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Opinionator
    Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders' writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y'all, I am a white male, but I haven't invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I'm no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn't belong to foreigners because they didn't, he's biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because... it's a self evident truth that doesn't require a because. Citizens at large don't relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.
     

    Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff

    That’s not his argument.

    His argument is that America belongs to Americans (ourselves and our posterity).

    Attempts to replace Americans with non-Americans because Americans are too white are ill-advised for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that whites are handy to have around because they have a good record of inventing stuff (anti-anti-white).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    And if Whites weren't or ceased to be handy, then what should the immigration policy be?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. iffen says:

    “Frantic Yelling Ensued”

    I see a motto, a meme.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    "Still, he persisted."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Opinionator
    Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders' writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y'all, I am a white male, but I haven't invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I'm no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn't belong to foreigners because they didn't, he's biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because... it's a self evident truth that doesn't require a because. Citizens at large don't relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.
     

    GK Chesterton gave a critique of Rudyard Kipling’s patriotism, “He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.”

    Great essay Steve!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Lot
    I had no idea Hamilton had partial Jewish ancestry and went to a Jewish school. Interesting link! I also see that in letters Hamilton even referred to his half brother's surname as Levine.

    Don’t know how this comment got here,but Hamilton was about as Jewish as me,which is to say not at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. peterike says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “Why didn’t anyone try to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 in the 70′s or 80′s?”
     
    Because at the time Republicans were quite happy with cheap Mexican labor, which they saw as preferable to black labor. I don't think you can separate the 1965 Immigration Act from the Civil Rights Movement. In 1965 blacks were demanding more political power and a greater slice of the economic pie and expanding demographically relative to whites. Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics. And if you live in NYC or LA and remember the late 1960s/early 1970s you might well think that immigration had its benefits.

    Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics.

    Well yes and no. Blacks haven’t stopped breeding. In fact, there are far more of them then in the 1970s. In fact, about 16 million more as of 2010. It’s just that there are even more Hispanics.

    So we’ve got the “best” of both worlds. Blacks seem to be almost everywhere now, and its because there are a lot more of them. But Hispanics are also everywhere, in even greater numbers.

    There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn’t grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot. It’s just everyone else has too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn’t grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot."
     
    Agree. For some reason I keep having to point out here that the growth rate of the black population has been double or more of the white rate since the "civil rights" era. Prior to the welfare state, the white rate was generally higher, often by a lot.

    Granted, Black growth may have been muted in the media centers of NY and LA (and therefore muted in the national consciousness), perhaps by the reconquista or perhaps by Setion 8 exportation or perhaps both.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    You're right. "Diluted" would have been better than "drowned."

    It also varies by city. On the East Coast, NYC and especially DC feel less black to me than they did in the 1970, and are far more pleasant places to visit. Philadelphia and Baltimore probably feel more black. The real degradation has been in smaller cities - places like Lancaster, PA, the Poconos, Springfield, MA or Portland, ME have large, often violent, dysfunctional minority populations today, and that was not the case in the 1970s. Hartford CT has gone from 64% white in 1970 to 15% "non-latino white" in 2010. But it is still only 39% black, and probably would look more like Detroit today if it hadn't been for the Mexican and Puerto Rican influx.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Buzz Mohawk
    "We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies."

    Indeed, we don't want somebody else's babies crowding our country, but what is meant by "restore" in that statement?

    It is a mistake to assume that declining birthrates are a bad thing; they are not the problem. The problem is not the number of our babies, but the number of other's. We don't need to increase the population of our country. Neither do the Japanese now famously experiencing this same below-replacemant-level rate.

    What is the ideal number of inhabitants here or anywhere else? Fifty years ago Americans, mostly white gentiles then, did extremely well with under two-hundred million of themselves working this wonderful, continental spread.

    I've alway felt that the compulsive need for growth preached by economists and business forecasters was crazy. It is he same logic, essentially that you must always get bigger because your competition will overrun you if you don't. There is no end to it.

    It will be a very, very, very long time before humans are able to migrate off this planet. Until then, the finite numbers that existed at Civilization's apex a few decades ago would seem sufficient.

    Don't conflate the topic of our birthrate with the problem of badly-managed immigration. Franklin was right: cheap land and expensive labor is the way to go.

    I remember the USA with less than 200 million people. It didn’t seem empty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. MW says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    "We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies."

    Indeed, we don't want somebody else's babies crowding our country, but what is meant by "restore" in that statement?

    It is a mistake to assume that declining birthrates are a bad thing; they are not the problem. The problem is not the number of our babies, but the number of other's. We don't need to increase the population of our country. Neither do the Japanese now famously experiencing this same below-replacemant-level rate.

    What is the ideal number of inhabitants here or anywhere else? Fifty years ago Americans, mostly white gentiles then, did extremely well with under two-hundred million of themselves working this wonderful, continental spread.

    I've alway felt that the compulsive need for growth preached by economists and business forecasters was crazy. It is he same logic, essentially that you must always get bigger because your competition will overrun you if you don't. There is no end to it.

    It will be a very, very, very long time before humans are able to migrate off this planet. Until then, the finite numbers that existed at Civilization's apex a few decades ago would seem sufficient.

    Don't conflate the topic of our birthrate with the problem of badly-managed immigration. Franklin was right: cheap land and expensive labor is the way to go.

    Declining birthrates may not be a problem if, as you suggest, they are protected by borders which we bother to defend. Even below-replacement birthrates might not be inherently problematic. But the fact that whites have below-replacement birthrates in a low-density country with no obvious environmental constraints does seem to suggest that something is fundamentally broken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    I believe feminism has greatly contributed to the birthdate decline.
    , @Buck Turgidson
    But birth rates are not fixed and can increase, and decrease.

    We won WWII with < .5 of our population today.
    We put a man on the moon w 100 million fewer people than we have today.

    Although the media never would understand, a country's prosperity, well-being, happiness, and world standing is not directly correlated, 1.0, to total population size.

    Fewer people would mean less traffic, more open space, more farmland, more forests, less wear and tear on infrastructure, reduced water demands, reduced need for wastewater treatment.

    But -- and this is huge:

    declining population would mean decreases in toilet paper and diaper sales -- and what is really important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Opinionator
    Excellent article and one that, in pulling together some of the founders' writings, is a valuable resource to us.

    But see here from a commenter at Takis:

    Hi y'all, I am a white male, but I haven't invented 97% of everything. I could claim credit by genetic association but then I'm no commie and strongly prefer being measured, if at all, then by my own personal merit. And yet, I humbly believe in and support my own nation.

    You see, when Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff, and doesn't belong to foreigners because they didn't, he's biting the enemy bait. Countries belong to their citizens just because... it's a self evident truth that doesn't require a because. Citizens at large don't relate to Isaac Newton, Einstein, Edison and other geniuses. So these types of arguments will never be appealing.
     

    There’s that line from the 1984 version of Red Dawn: “Because we live here!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Sean says:

    King talks about unassimilated immigrants in concentration being bad. Lots of people say that. Ron Unz has argued it better than most and in California he got teaching in English officially promoted Hence what are called anti-immigrant measures such as English language in education (and banning headscarves) can be seen as a way of making immigration less disruptive and immigrants more individually successful.

    King seems to understand better than most that the above received wisdom of American culture being better for everyone in wrong. But I wonder if he, and not just he understands why.

    I think there little doubt that the issue is haunted by an implicit biological theory predating the founding fathers of the US and thoughly, if implicitly, Lamarckian. According to this view living in and assimilating to US society would give immigrants more probity and brains (or make them stupider and more feckless*) as their American mode of existence caused biological convergence with long established American population norms .

    (*The other side of the coin — Jews would get less intellectually formidable if they culturally assimilated (See the leading race and eugenics expert of his time Prof Hooton’s 1939 article Why the Jew Grows Stronger)

    The Modern synthesis view would be that immigrants will have the same DNA whatever their culture and so not fail to perform to American levels to the the extent their culture is different, if they perform well back home or the first generation. But certain facts are against it:-

    PREVIOUS immigrant groups typically saw progress with each passing generation, but Hispanic numbers have a habit of stalling or even heading backwards. American-born children of Hispanic immigrants tend to be less healthy than their parents*, have higher divorce rates and go to jail more often. Jump from migrants’ children to their grandchildren, and studies have shown academic results slipping in the third generation.

    Because in Mexico (or Afghanistan) the culture does the work of genetic adaptations for self control. So as the children of immigrants assimilate the culture of the US or Sweden, in which kids are left to it, they have less cultural resources to support them in making prudent choices, because permissive US culture is not what produces American society: it’s the US population’s genetic adaptations for self-control that produce American society. But in many of the countries where immigrants come from, the genetic adaptations to orderly behaviour are not there, so the culture has to be far more punitive.

    There is a way to make the successive generations of immigrants flourish in the US. Let us use Mexicans as an example, while remembering it is applicable to non European in general. By ensuring that their children are brought up in their parent’s homeland’s strict traditional culture (whether the kids want it or not) the immigrant- descended parts of the population can be supported in amounting to commendable Americans . But the solution would entail little Mexicos in the US, and Mexicans being sent to special Mexican schools of course.

    King is against that above all. He is certainly correct that letting the immigrants in, stay while not having them live in their own ancestral homeland’s culture would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Read More
    • Agree: Negrolphin Pool
    • Replies: @Sean
    Sorry, the last para of my original comment was incoherent. Can I have another go please?

    I would say King, who seems to speak mainly against an unassimilable inflow of immigrants, is correct to oppose it . But it is always open to others to argue that with enough resources given to assimilation, such as education in English being heavily promoted and funded by the state, assimilation of huge numbers of immigrants could be quickly achieved. I don't think anyone in public life really understands that assimilation to US culture will disadvantage the immigrant community of the US, especially the non European one. To flourish these people are going to have to change America with a politically destabilizing plethora of Bantustans, because immigrants such as the one coming over the Southern border cannot succeed in a monocultural inclusive US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Chebyshev says:

    Excellent article. I really, really liked this one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @Lot
    I had no idea Hamilton had partial Jewish ancestry and went to a Jewish school. Interesting link! I also see that in letters Hamilton even referred to his half brother's surname as Levine.

    Hamilton did not have Jewish ancestry, nor was he Jewish in any appreciable sense.

    Reading that article is like listening to Adam Sandler’s Hanukkah song.

    A few years ago, there were murmurs about Thomas Jefferson being anointed as the Jewish Founding Father (based on some nebulous DNA results) but then the whole Jefferson raped Sally Hemings business came up again, so that idea fell through.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Ivy says:
    @Anon
    Stepford Masses

    The younger hookup no-strings-attached generation has been turned into the Shtupford Masses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Yak-15 says:
    @Detective Club
    In the 1970s & 1980s, Manhattan Lefties openly referred to the newly arrived Third-Worlders as "the good browns" (Escape from New York, anybody?).

    In 1989, they voted for absolute dunce David Dinkins in the vain hope that voting in a Black guy for Mayor "would make the Blacks calm down a little." However, the Blacks did not calm down, not even a little, but instead they still burned things down and went on selling drugs on street corners and staged riots in Brooklyn and in Washington Heights and in South Jamaica on a consistently regular basis, having already rendered the Bronx into a steaming pile of rubble.

    The Manhattan Lefties still think that all Third-Worlders are "the good browns." What's changed in 30 years is that they don't have the balls to say it out loud nowadays!

    How did Riverdale in the Bronx survive not being burnt down? What about the Bronx’s largely intact little Italy? Or the Botanical Gardens?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Detective Club
    Korean shop owners and florists with shotguns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Yak-15 says:
    @MW
    Declining birthrates may not be a problem if, as you suggest, they are protected by borders which we bother to defend. Even below-replacement birthrates might not be inherently problematic. But the fact that whites have below-replacement birthrates in a low-density country with no obvious environmental constraints does seem to suggest that something is fundamentally broken.

    I believe feminism has greatly contributed to the birthdate decline.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Sean says:
    @Sean
    King talks about unassimilated immigrants in concentration being bad. Lots of people say that. Ron Unz has argued it better than most and in California he got teaching in English officially promoted Hence what are called anti-immigrant measures such as English language in education (and banning headscarves) can be seen as a way of making immigration less disruptive and immigrants more individually successful.

    King seems to understand better than most that the above received wisdom of American culture being better for everyone in wrong. But I wonder if he, and not just he understands why.

    I think there little doubt that the issue is haunted by an implicit biological theory predating the founding fathers of the US and thoughly, if implicitly, Lamarckian. According to this view living in and assimilating to US society would give immigrants more probity and brains (or make them stupider and more feckless*) as their American mode of existence caused biological convergence with long established American population norms .

    (*The other side of the coin -- Jews would get less intellectually formidable if they culturally assimilated (See the leading race and eugenics expert of his time Prof Hooton's 1939 article Why the Jew Grows Stronger)

    The Modern synthesis view would be that immigrants will have the same DNA whatever their culture and so not fail to perform to American levels to the the extent their culture is different, if they perform well back home or the first generation. But certain facts are against it:-


    PREVIOUS immigrant groups typically saw progress with each passing generation, but Hispanic numbers have a habit of stalling or even heading backwards. American-born children of Hispanic immigrants tend to be less healthy than their parents*, have higher divorce rates and go to jail more often. Jump from migrants’ children to their grandchildren, and studies have shown academic results slipping in the third generation.
     
    Because in Mexico (or Afghanistan) the culture does the work of genetic adaptations for self control. So as the children of immigrants assimilate the culture of the US or Sweden, in which kids are left to it, they have less cultural resources to support them in making prudent choices, because permissive US culture is not what produces American society: it’s the US population’s genetic adaptations for self-control that produce American society. But in many of the countries where immigrants come from, the genetic adaptations to orderly behaviour are not there, so the culture has to be far more punitive.

    There is a way to make the successive generations of immigrants flourish in the US. Let us use Mexicans as an example, while remembering it is applicable to non European in general. By ensuring that their children are brought up in their parent's homeland's strict traditional culture (whether the kids want it or not) the immigrant- descended parts of the population can be supported in amounting to commendable Americans . But the solution would entail little Mexicos in the US, and Mexicans being sent to special Mexican schools of course.

    King is against that above all. He is certainly correct that letting the immigrants in, stay while not having them live in their own ancestral homeland's culture would be the worst of all possible worlds.

    Sorry, the last para of my original comment was incoherent. Can I have another go please?

    I would say King, who seems to speak mainly against an unassimilable inflow of immigrants, is correct to oppose it . But it is always open to others to argue that with enough resources given to assimilation, such as education in English being heavily promoted and funded by the state, assimilation of huge numbers of immigrants could be quickly achieved. I don’t think anyone in public life really understands that assimilation to US culture will disadvantage the immigrant community of the US, especially the non European one. To flourish these people are going to have to change America with a politically destabilizing plethora of Bantustans, because immigrants such as the one coming over the Southern border cannot succeed in a monocultural inclusive US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. The people who own most of this country need constant population growth. If our local home grown population will not produce at least three children per couple then they will import others who will produce at least three babies per female. The problem is that those populations ( except from some parts of Asia) are generally of a lower mental ability but very sexually aggressive.
    I think that the USA is already densely populated. Large tracts of the USA are arid and water issues are abundant. Why they continue importing more people is the question that must be answered. Why would someone want to maximize the population is beyond me. Some time in the future the population will be maximized. In a biological world, stagnation signals oncoming death and maybe at some level this is what people are most worried about.
    We do live in interesting times, abundant food and many channels to occupy the population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. NOTA says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    "We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies."

    Indeed, we don't want somebody else's babies crowding our country, but what is meant by "restore" in that statement?

    It is a mistake to assume that declining birthrates are a bad thing; they are not the problem. The problem is not the number of our babies, but the number of other's. We don't need to increase the population of our country. Neither do the Japanese now famously experiencing this same below-replacemant-level rate.

    What is the ideal number of inhabitants here or anywhere else? Fifty years ago Americans, mostly white gentiles then, did extremely well with under two-hundred million of themselves working this wonderful, continental spread.

    I've alway felt that the compulsive need for growth preached by economists and business forecasters was crazy. It is he same logic, essentially that you must always get bigger because your competition will overrun you if you don't. There is no end to it.

    It will be a very, very, very long time before humans are able to migrate off this planet. Until then, the finite numbers that existed at Civilization's apex a few decades ago would seem sufficient.

    Don't conflate the topic of our birthrate with the problem of badly-managed immigration. Franklin was right: cheap land and expensive labor is the way to go.

    A society with a lot more old people than young people is a more static society, with less innovation and adventurousness.

    I have occasion to spend time in Utah from time to time. The whole society is younger and more dynamic and more active and more child-centric. It feels healthier to me, though maybe that’s my own biases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    But common sense says the population can't grow forever.

    So many ignore this: not just the left but also the right because more people tends to mean more (short term) profits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. NOTA says:
    @Anon
    Can Sioux-Americans be replaced with non-Sioux's?

    While any bunch of people can be 'American' in the most generic sense, Americans have always come in certain cultural groups: Anglos, Irish, Germans, blacks, Mexicans, Jewish, etc.
    While they can all be considered 'American' in the generic sense, an American group cannot be replaced by others. If a Jewish community is taken over by Arabs or Hindus, Jews cannot expect the newcomers to preserve Jewish-America in that community. Non-Jews will represent a different-America.

    From the most generic sense, we can argue King is wrong(though I wouldn't because even in the generic sense, America makes most sense in relation to Europe, of which America is an extension and outgrowth; No European input, No America; if US never had a single non-European immigrant, it would still essentially be America, though one could make an exception for black contribution to music; but without European arrival and input, there is no America; America is essentially the story of Anglo settlement and other Europeans becoming Anglo-ized and Anglo-Americans adopting certain things from non-Anglos, like pizza).

    But from the cultural-ethnic sense, King is dead right. He seems to represent European-America, and THAT America CANNOT be replaced or preserved by others. Just like Jewish-America can only be preserved by Jews and black-America can only be preserved by blacks, European-America can only be preserved by whites. Because King is consciously European-American, he is right that European-America's survival is the responsibility of European-Americans.
    Indeed, the anti-white vitriol we hear from Diversity is proof of this.

    In the generic sense, anyone can become American and contribute to America economically. So, if 10 million Hindus come to America, they can work and pay taxes and be 'good Americans'.
    But they cannot preserve European-America. Theirs will be Hindu-America. European-America must be preserved by whites, esp since non-whites have recently been instilled with so much hatred toward whites.

    In the generic sense, an American need not be Anglo. Anyone can become American.
    But surely, even this has limits. For one thing, the generic concept of America was possible ONLY BECAUSE the US was overwhelmingly white for much of its history. Because of racial homogeneity and unity, Americans could focus more on ideas than on identity.
    If each of the 13 colonies had been settled by very different cultures, there never would have developed a generic idea of American. Closeness in genetics made possible the generic.

    Also, even this generic concept resulted from European legal tradition. Not all generics are the same even if they are agreed on the same concept.
    Surely, 100 million generic white Americans and 100 million generic Hindu Americans will do things differently and have different perspectives and aims EVEN IF both groups were sincerely committed to genericism. 10 million Jews committed to genericism will still think and act differently from 10 million Mexicans committed to genericism.

    That said, one doesn't live on bread alone. People need history, culture, narrative, myth.
    And white Americans have their own history and narrative. And ONLY white Americans can preserve and defend these. If white Americans should forgo their own white American identity and history, why don't Jews do the same? Yet, Jews are very particular and insistent on tracing and tracking their history back from where and how their ancestors came to America. If Jews just want to be generic Americans, they could have dropped the Ellis Island narrative and adopted the generic 'white bread' history of Pilgrims and turkey. If Jews are insistent that Jews must remember the particular Jewish history in America, then the same goes for European-Americans.

    So, while other people's babies can economically contribute to America and be good people, only white people's babies can be expected to grow up to preserve and defend white history, identity, and culture that lend life real meaning far deeper & richer than economics and materialism.

    Besides, it would be rude and wrong for whites to insist upon non-whites to preserve and defend white heritage and culture. After all, non-whites have their own cultures to preserve and, besides, the cult of Diversity says that non-whites must purge whiteness from Ameeica.
    Didn't Newsweek run the Obama conqueror cover with the explicit message that non-whites will spit on the graves of whites?

    Lots of Jews (Italians, Swedes, Germans, Poles, Mexicans, American Indians, Chinese, etc.) have assimilated into generic American white culture, and don’t think of themselves as anything but American. Moishe married a nice Catholic girl he met during medical school, his son David married a nice Lutheran girl he met at the law firm, and the grandkids are vaguely aware that they have a little Jewish blood, but otherwise don’t spend any attention on the matter.

    The subset of people who are self-consciously Jewish (Italian, Swedish, etc.) now are the ones who have resisted assimilation. They probably are inclined by personality or beliefs to care deeply about that identity.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. NOTA says:
    @iffen
    "Frantic Yelling Ensued"

    I see a motto, a meme.

    “Still, he persisted.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    “Frantic yelling ensued, still, he persisted.”

    Excellent!

    FYESHP

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Which American State is ideally Most American?

    People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?

    Today, globalists say All nations are ‘nations of immigrants’ since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.
    But even if we agree that all nations are ‘nations of immigrants’, why are they different? Because different peoples ‘immigrated’ there. So, white Europeans ‘immigrated’ to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people ‘immigrated’ to Japan and made it East Asian.

    So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are ‘nations of immigrants’, they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people ‘immigrated’ there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.

    And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let’s use the broad term of ‘immigration’ to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.
    So, one can say US has been a ‘nation of immigrants’ from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were ‘immigrants’ going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives ‘immigrated’ from North America.

    Still, a ‘nation of immigrants’ means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.

    Consider an alternative American history. Let’s say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug — don’t ask me how — and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.
    Now, this US would have been a ‘nation of immigrants’ too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as ‘white trash’. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?

    Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is ‘American’. So, every American state is equally ‘American’. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?

    A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.

    Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a ‘nation of immigrants’ since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.
    But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.
    And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.

    The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.

    WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a ‘nation of immigrants’. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. fnn says:

    Report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on the strategic consequences of Chinese racism:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2017/03/the-nine-strategic-consequences-of-chinese-racism/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Many non-whites and white Progs take umbrage at the notion that US has essentially been a white nation founded by Anglos and their systems and culture.

    They say NO PEOPLE are more quintessential to America(or Canada, Australia, or New Zealand) than any other.

    Okay, but how come most immigration-preferences are so Anglo-White-supremacist?
    If indeed all peoples are equally capable with the availability of ideas and means, the whole world should be as successful as the US. After all, esp with the internet, the whole world has access to all the ideas, values, and sciences that make up the US and other such nations.

    Why didn’t Jews push for an Ellis Island mythology in Latin American nations?
    Why do Asians prefer Anglo-founded nations over Latin-founded ones or non-white ones?
    Indeed, they prefer Anglo-founded white nations to fellow Asian ones.
    Why do Africans prefer to move to Anglo-founded white nations than to fellow African nations or Arab nations? Even when Africans reach Europe, they move to northern areas despite cold climate because they find Northern Europeans to run things better.

    All these peoples want to feed on Anglo-white-ness and want to live under Anglo-white-rule, but they bitch about how they are just as good and it’d be no loss if US became minority-white and become flooded with peoples like themselves. (If so, why flee from people like themselves in their own nations?)
    If they’re just as good, why can’t they turn their nations into Anglo-white-like nations? Why do they dream of going to Anglo-white nations? Why can’t they realize any dream in their own nations?

    And the Jews. Jews bitch on and on about how the US must be diverse and give up its whiteness. But the main reason why Jews were so eager to move to the US was because of its Anglo-white foundings and systems that they found superior to any other in the world. Would such system have come into being without Anglo-whites? Jews call for the demise of the very people who did most to build a nation that appealed so much to Jews. Would Jews have wanted to come to US if it was founded by Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, or Portuguese?

    Now, some will say the Anglo-White system is an idea or proposition that can be adopted by any people. But how come the world sucks at doing this? Even in Asia that saw lots of growth and expansion, the majority of people say they wanna move to Anglo-white nations if given a chance.

    So, it seems only white folks, esp Anglo-whites and Northern Europeans, can run really good societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @Desiderius

    Sailer argues that America belongs to white people because they invented stuff
     
    That's not his argument.

    His argument is that America belongs to Americans (ourselves and our posterity).

    Attempts to replace Americans with non-Americans because Americans are too white are ill-advised for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that whites are handy to have around because they have a good record of inventing stuff (anti-anti-white).

    And if Whites weren’t or ceased to be handy, then what should the immigration policy be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    If cats begin to be born with six legs rather than four, how should veterinary medicine be changed?

    If iron ceases to oxidise, or platinum no longer conducts electricity, how should metallurgy be approached?

    If magical energy can tomorrow be summoned by wizards and sorcerers, should we continue harvesting fossil fuels?

    This question serves no purpose because it simply invites one to ponder a fantastic world divorced from reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Its going to be funny when this turd gets crushed in the election.

    You guys REALLY need to get outside of your bubble. Don't you realize that pretty much everyone disagrees with you?

    I recommend reading Leonard Pitts

    Wow…..you’ve gone full chat-bot…..

    You never go full chat-bot!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. iffen says:
    @NOTA
    "Still, he persisted."

    “Frantic yelling ensued, still, he persisted.”

    Excellent!

    FYESHP

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Tiny Duck
    Its going to be funny when this turd gets crushed in the election.

    You guys REALLY need to get outside of your bubble. Don't you realize that pretty much everyone disagrees with you?

    I recommend reading Leonard Pitts

    Steve King get crushed in a congressional election?

    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah
    hah

    That is hilarious.

    Maybe the dnc communists can run Chelsea (sad trombone….) against Steve? I would love to watch.

    Steve owns that district in NW and cleans up every time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @MW
    Declining birthrates may not be a problem if, as you suggest, they are protected by borders which we bother to defend. Even below-replacement birthrates might not be inherently problematic. But the fact that whites have below-replacement birthrates in a low-density country with no obvious environmental constraints does seem to suggest that something is fundamentally broken.

    But birth rates are not fixed and can increase, and decrease.

    We won WWII with < .5 of our population today.
    We put a man on the moon w 100 million fewer people than we have today.

    Although the media never would understand, a country's prosperity, well-being, happiness, and world standing is not directly correlated, 1.0, to total population size.

    Fewer people would mean less traffic, more open space, more farmland, more forests, less wear and tear on infrastructure, reduced water demands, reduced need for wastewater treatment.

    But — and this is huge:

    declining population would mean decreases in toilet paper and diaper sales — and what is really important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MW
    In America, we get the best of both worlds. We have overly-crowded regions where people commute 3 hours a day to make a living and where maintaining the infrastructure is a logistical nightmare. AND we have vast empty spaces, or worse, emptying spaces where it is no longer feasible to make a living.

    It would be nice to have birthrates respond in some way to a sense of what is the optimal population of America. But under current circumstances, the question has no coherent answer. We simultaneously have places desperate for population growth, and other places desperate to keep people out. We let our regional hubs decline because they are inefficient, and besides, states' rights are racist. And come on, you can't expect resource extraction out in the boonies to pay as well as being an insurance agent in DC, for crying out loud. Move where the opportunities are and do something useful with your life!

    If we had the will, it wouldn't even be that hard to rework our retirement and financial systems so that a steady population wouldn't be a calamity. But clearly we are not willing to make those sacrifices - we will continue our lifestyles of unsustainable consumption up until the last possible second.

    And really, don't I deserve higher dividends every single year from my Procter & Gamble stock?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Buck Turgidson
    I note that "our side" (for lack of a better term) has to be careful about every damned word and live in fear that something might be 'tactless' or 'tasteless'. One wrong word: POOF, career over. One wrong sentence, one wrong statement. At the same time, the unhinged left open borders one worlders can act like savages, shut down free speech, throw rocks, and physically assault people, and that's all in a day's work. Loretta Lynch can call for more fighting, blood in the streets, dead bodies, la dee dah, no big deal. I like Steve King and I love it how he really gets under the skin of the constantly-aggrieved lefty school girls.

    That’s very true. I’ve become more relaxed since I retired.

    Even so, I have to be diplomatic around close relatives (my son and my sister are OK, but my daughter would think I was losing my mind).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @NOTA
    A society with a lot more old people than young people is a more static society, with less innovation and adventurousness.

    I have occasion to spend time in Utah from time to time. The whole society is younger and more dynamic and more active and more child-centric. It feels healthier to me, though maybe that's my own biases.

    But common sense says the population can’t grow forever.

    So many ignore this: not just the left but also the right because more people tends to mean more (short term) profits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    Since when do the media or most members of Congress care about common sense?!?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Detective Club
    In the 1970s & 1980s, Manhattan Lefties openly referred to the newly arrived Third-Worlders as "the good browns" (Escape from New York, anybody?).

    In 1989, they voted for absolute dunce David Dinkins in the vain hope that voting in a Black guy for Mayor "would make the Blacks calm down a little." However, the Blacks did not calm down, not even a little, but instead they still burned things down and went on selling drugs on street corners and staged riots in Brooklyn and in Washington Heights and in South Jamaica on a consistently regular basis, having already rendered the Bronx into a steaming pile of rubble.

    The Manhattan Lefties still think that all Third-Worlders are "the good browns." What's changed in 30 years is that they don't have the balls to say it out loud nowadays!

    That’s a good point, which makes me wonder: why does no one say Obama was the national version of David Dinkins?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Detective Club
    Fool me once, shame on you. (Dinkins)

    Fool me twice, shame on me. (Obama)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Svigor says:

    I had no idea Hamilton had partial Jewish ancestry and went to a Jewish school. Interesting link! I also see that in letters Hamilton even referred to his half brother’s surname as Levine.

    Is this like the time you suggested that Episcopalians have such a high mean IQ because “they’re the most Jewish denomination,” or some such?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I said Unitarians and Episcopalians have the most Jewish admixture of US Christian groups. Is that something you dispute?

    That probably gives a small boost to their IQs, well under 0.5 points. Any gap those groups have above the white mean is mostly from selection effects, not admixture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @peterike

    Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics.

     

    Well yes and no. Blacks haven't stopped breeding. In fact, there are far more of them then in the 1970s. In fact, about 16 million more as of 2010. It's just that there are even more Hispanics.

    So we've got the "best" of both worlds. Blacks seem to be almost everywhere now, and its because there are a lot more of them. But Hispanics are also everywhere, in even greater numbers.

    There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn't grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot. It's just everyone else has too.

    “There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn’t grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot.”

    Agree. For some reason I keep having to point out here that the growth rate of the black population has been double or more of the white rate since the “civil rights” era. Prior to the welfare state, the white rate was generally higher, often by a lot.

    Granted, Black growth may have been muted in the media centers of NY and LA (and therefore muted in the national consciousness), perhaps by the reconquista or perhaps by Setion 8 exportation or perhaps both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerryC
    Surely this is mostly a function of half-black/half-white kids identifying as black, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @peterike

    Over the next 30 years immigration basically drowned American blacks, especially in Southern California and NYC, in a sea of hispanics.

     

    Well yes and no. Blacks haven't stopped breeding. In fact, there are far more of them then in the 1970s. In fact, about 16 million more as of 2010. It's just that there are even more Hispanics.

    So we've got the "best" of both worlds. Blacks seem to be almost everywhere now, and its because there are a lot more of them. But Hispanics are also everywhere, in even greater numbers.

    There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn't grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot. It's just everyone else has too.

    You’re right. “Diluted” would have been better than “drowned.”

    It also varies by city. On the East Coast, NYC and especially DC feel less black to me than they did in the 1970, and are far more pleasant places to visit. Philadelphia and Baltimore probably feel more black. The real degradation has been in smaller cities – places like Lancaster, PA, the Poconos, Springfield, MA or Portland, ME have large, often violent, dysfunctional minority populations today, and that was not the case in the 1970s. Hartford CT has gone from 64% white in 1970 to 15% “non-latino white” in 2010. But it is still only 39% black, and probably would look more like Detroit today if it hadn’t been for the Mexican and Puerto Rican influx.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I have finally concluded that the election of Trump is our own version of the Dreyfus affair, and it’s one of those defining moments that will split society right down the middle for years and years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @Almost Missouri
    That's a good point, which makes me wonder: why does no one say Obama was the national version of David Dinkins?

    Fool me once, shame on you. (Dinkins)

    Fool me twice, shame on me. (Obama)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Lot
    I had no idea Hamilton had partial Jewish ancestry and went to a Jewish school. Interesting link! I also see that in letters Hamilton even referred to his half brother's surname as Levine.

    As Steve explains, Hamilton was a Scot. We get conflated with Jews because we are also smart, ornery, cheap, and perenially oppressed.

    You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous (but therefore pugilistic) instead of skulking, and we are honest instead of mendacious. Therefore, we have less money and influence (and worse public relations). We are better looking, though.

    What you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts….

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Karl
    66 Autochthon > You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous


    ...and here I was, thinking that the difference is that WE killed enough British soldiers to get London to decide that, no, they didn't want to Occupy our homeland.
    , @Lot
    Hamilton was both Scottish and Jewish. A good choice for Treasury Secretary.

    Anyway I agree it isn't certain, and will reserve judgment until the forthcoming book on the subject is released later this year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. You are right that stability is soundest, and it would be but for the refusal to guard the borders. Like a welfare state, one can have replacement-level fertility or immigration, but not both: otherwise the invaders will outbreed us until they replace us and vote themselves into power – as in fact, they have (I wish to God I were writing about a possibility rather than a fiat accompli.)

    Reproduction suffers from the prisoner’s dilemma, as it were: if you don’t increase yourself, the other fellow will, and then he will drink your milkshake. It’s a nuclear arms race, but with children as the weapons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @eah
    Similarly, see this excellent comment from last year on unz.com:

    This is because for every perceived “privilege,” an historic fee has been often been paid, sometimes in gold, other times in sweat, and even more expensively, in blood. It’s those who have put the most into shaping the present who should enjoy the benefits. “For us an for our posterity” isn’t an empty turn of phrase...How much historic cultural capital did the ancestors of Syrian refugees produce by battling frostbite at Valley Forge? Where were the Somalis in 1812, when the capital was ravaged and scattered patriots struggled to link up and muster some kind of defense? Where were the ancestors of the Guatemalan illegals at Omaha Beach?...

    Etc etc -- 'read the whole thing there'.

    Twinkie will be along to tell you how wrong all this logic is shortly….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Opinionator
    And if Whites weren't or ceased to be handy, then what should the immigration policy be?

    If cats begin to be born with six legs rather than four, how should veterinary medicine be changed?

    If iron ceases to oxidise, or platinum no longer conducts electricity, how should metallurgy be approached?

    If magical energy can tomorrow be summoned by wizards and sorcerers, should we continue harvesting fossil fuels?

    This question serves no purpose because it simply invites one to ponder a fantastic world divorced from reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Tiny Duck
    Its going to be funny when this turd gets crushed in the election.

    You guys REALLY need to get outside of your bubble. Don't you realize that pretty much everyone disagrees with you?

    I recommend reading Leonard Pitts

    TD, You shilled for Leonard Pitts last week, doesn’t anyone else need you to prop them up?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Given that this idiot mentions Pitts in about every third screed, I've decided that TD is either Pitts or Pitts' husband.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. vinteuil says:
    @blahbahblah
    No matter how truthful it is, it's extremely tactless and buffoonish. We seriously need more articulate voices and not people who just confirm stereotypes of our enemies. The only thing that redeemed it somewhat was the Game Grumps youtuber coming out in support of the statement.

    “No matter how truthful it is, it’s extremely tactless and buffoonish.”

    Tact & sophistication, à la, say, William F. Buckley, or Victor Davis Hanson, has, after all, been so politically effective…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Svigor says:

    “Somebody else’s babies” is such a vile phrase, I can’t get it out of head.

    ? So, “it would be great for Israeli Jews to all raise somebody else’s babies, i.e., stop having babies and start adopting Arab babies instead” is a “vile phrase”?

    Fascist genetics now have a place on Capitol Hill…. Wilders-loving King might also go to Ellis Island for a refresher on the American idea.

    This is news? Congress gave Mr. Fascist Genetics, Benjamin Netanyahu, like a thousand standing ovations not too long ago.

    Fascist genetics have a place on the Hill reserved for every Zionist Congressman, every pro-Zionist Congressman, etc. The place is thick with them; they’re the majority.

    OHHH, maybe he meant “fascist genetics for someone other than Jews.” That would explain things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    72 Svigor > ? So, “it would be great for Israeli Jews to all raise somebody else’s babies, i.e., stop having babies and start adopting Arab babies instead” is a “vile phrase”?


    the stupidest of the goyim continue to imagine that they can change the mind of the (essentially) anti-Zionist American Jews, by throwing zionist logic in their face.

    Wilders is drowning, yet the American goyim continue to fixate on arguing with American Jews
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    go to Ellis Island for a refresher on the American idea.

    That’s in Jew York City, Jewnited States, center of the Jewniverse.

    Ellis Island, where the American Revolution was fought, where the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were ratified, etc., etc., etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. JerryC says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "There is this idea floating around that the black population hasn’t grown because their percentage has remained pretty stable. But they have grown a lot."
     
    Agree. For some reason I keep having to point out here that the growth rate of the black population has been double or more of the white rate since the "civil rights" era. Prior to the welfare state, the white rate was generally higher, often by a lot.

    Granted, Black growth may have been muted in the media centers of NY and LA (and therefore muted in the national consciousness), perhaps by the reconquista or perhaps by Setion 8 exportation or perhaps both.

    Surely this is mostly a function of half-black/half-white kids identifying as black, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    There's probably a numerical way to answer this but I can't find it, compounded by the fact that modern miscegenation figures are hard to come by. So instead, I'll offer the following observations:

    • The black intermarriage rate is about 19%, so using that as proxy for the black miscegenation rate would knock about four percentage points out the white births assuming 1) all black miscegenation is with whites (it isn't) and that all mixed children identify as black (they don't). A ~4% reduction in "white" births combined with a 19% increase in "black" births, still doesn't get anywhere close to making the formerly lower black rate now double the formerly higher white rate.

    • If you've seen ghetto breeding up close (mid-teen mothers, more kids than car seats, thirty-something grandmothers) it'll be obvious that K-selected, Affordably Family Formed breeding just can't compete.

    • The fact that the black rate jumped ahead pretty much in proportion to the Feds mucking around in social policy, i.e., back when "passing for white" was still desirable, indicates that the new desirability of "identifying as black" is a result, not a cause.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Frau Katze
    But common sense says the population can't grow forever.

    So many ignore this: not just the left but also the right because more people tends to mean more (short term) profits.

    Since when do the media or most members of Congress care about common sense?!?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Yak-15
    How did Riverdale in the Bronx survive not being burnt down? What about the Bronx's largely intact little Italy? Or the Botanical Gardens?

    Korean shop owners and florists with shotguns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Steve,
    OT, but it looks like Nassim Taleb is turning his gaze on IQ and populations d/t Charles Murray. Maybe the good people at iSteve would like a chance to comment on his conclusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Polynikes
    He makes a lot of unfounded assumptions and provides no counter correlating evidence to refute Murry's. Sounds like a nyt "economist"
    , @res
    1. FUD
    2. Trying awfully hard to be PC.
    3. We need more epicycles!
    4. So empirical IQs have variances that vary that much between populations?!
    5. I'm curious if he believes his arguments actually support what he is arguing for.
    6. I thought Taleb was better than Gladwell. Is that no longer true?
    , @Yak-15
    He is making the claim that variance, kurtosis (peakiness of curve) and skew matter. This is similar to his theories on financial markets in that fat tails are imperative. They are important and would matter if these tails applied to IQ data. But I believe most of the data series on IQ speculate the population distributions are very close to being normal distributions with decreasing levels of variance for lower IQ populations: blacks, mestizos, etc.

    This would add more credence to Murray's argument. As La Grife notes, whites/Asians not only have a higher mean IQ, they have greater variance (more fat tails) than other populations. This increases both the distance of outliers and likelihood of many of them.

    Taleb is making a weak stab that will fool most people because they do not understand statistics or the specific parameters of IQ distribution. Perhaps he is simply unaware of what the data shows. Taleb, annoying boob that he is, is more concerned about being correct than being PC. If he saw the true extent of the data I do no think he would make such a spurious claim.

    , @Stebbing Heuer
    O dear.

    If your average straddles, or exceeds, the threshold, and the other guy's isn't even close, then average becomes more important than variance.

    NNT = IYI.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @European-American
    Thank you for quoting T.S. Eliot. Reading that poem and trying to understand it made me quite forget the media hubbub for a bit.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/47254
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontion

    I have to admit, I didn’t understand very much of it. Didn’t bother to go looking for explanations either. Most poetry just doesn’t penetrate my “get to the point!” approach to life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    I sympathize. But isn't it also true that a good verse can represent a whole world? A bit like a song, or a painting, it can abbreviate something that would take forever to explain. And so sometimes it's the fastest and most powerful way to "get to the point".

    But it often does require the reader to get at least some of the references. And so it can be annoying, like an inside joke. Which, in this case, I also admit I don't quite get. There may be some reference to Alfred Kazin's reading of Eliot, and a thought for Henry Adams, that wistful descendant of the founders... A useful reminder, at the least, of the vanities of history (which we naively can't help thinking is established and set in stone).

    Anyway


    After such knowledge, what forgiveness?
     
    can stand alone as a beautiful and evocative (and melancholy) phrase.

    And maybe it's just Steve being obscurely sarcastic, who knows!


    I an old man,
    A dull head among windy spaces.
     
    PS: good academic discussion of the poem by Denis Donoghue here: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=Cd3NwieVAY0C&pg=PA144
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    why, it’s almost as if the corporate media wants americans to be fearful of speaking out against other races….it’s almost as if the media wants cheap foreign labor and more consumer demand from immigration so that the corporations that buy ads in the media will have higher profits…but that is absurd–to believe that money actually plays a role in the ideology supported by corporations…unthinkable!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @JerryC
    Surely this is mostly a function of half-black/half-white kids identifying as black, no?

    There’s probably a numerical way to answer this but I can’t find it, compounded by the fact that modern miscegenation figures are hard to come by. So instead, I’ll offer the following observations:

    • The black intermarriage rate is about 19%, so using that as proxy for the black miscegenation rate would knock about four percentage points out the white births assuming 1) all black miscegenation is with whites (it isn’t) and that all mixed children identify as black (they don’t). A ~4% reduction in “white” births combined with a 19% increase in “black” births, still doesn’t get anywhere close to making the formerly lower black rate now double the formerly higher white rate.

    • If you’ve seen ghetto breeding up close (mid-teen mothers, more kids than car seats, thirty-something grandmothers) it’ll be obvious that K-selected, Affordably Family Formed breeding just can’t compete.

    • The fact that the black rate jumped ahead pretty much in proportion to the Feds mucking around in social policy, i.e., back when “passing for white” was still desirable, indicates that the new desirability of “identifying as black” is a result, not a cause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Polynikes says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Steve,
    OT, but it looks like Nassim Taleb is turning his gaze on IQ and populations d/t Charles Murray. Maybe the good people at iSteve would like a chance to comment on his conclusions.

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567097499500544

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567576644222976

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840570146527838208

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840579307324002304

    He makes a lot of unfounded assumptions and provides no counter correlating evidence to refute Murry’s. Sounds like a nyt “economist”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. anonguy says:
    @anon
    Steve has mastered the art of snappy and punchy prose.

    Steve has mastered the art of snappy and punchy prose.

    But still working on compelling prose? If you seriously want to compliment a writer, tell him his prose is “compelling”. No higher accolade for prose-skills.

    Snappy/punchy sounds like a one trick pony, a regionally popular homeboy columnist destined to go no further, for example. Steve’s better than that, apart from the golf stuff which even he hasn’t been able to make interesting to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Formerly CARealist
    I have to admit, I didn't understand very much of it. Didn't bother to go looking for explanations either. Most poetry just doesn't penetrate my "get to the point!" approach to life.

    I sympathize. But isn’t it also true that a good verse can represent a whole world? A bit like a song, or a painting, it can abbreviate something that would take forever to explain. And so sometimes it’s the fastest and most powerful way to “get to the point”.

    But it often does require the reader to get at least some of the references. And so it can be annoying, like an inside joke. Which, in this case, I also admit I don’t quite get. There may be some reference to Alfred Kazin’s reading of Eliot, and a thought for Henry Adams, that wistful descendant of the founders… A useful reminder, at the least, of the vanities of history (which we naively can’t help thinking is established and set in stone).

    Anyway

    After such knowledge, what forgiveness?

    can stand alone as a beautiful and evocative (and melancholy) phrase.

    And maybe it’s just Steve being obscurely sarcastic, who knows!

    I an old man,
    A dull head among windy spaces.

    PS: good academic discussion of the poem by Denis Donoghue here: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=Cd3NwieVAY0C&pg=PA144

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. res says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Steve,
    OT, but it looks like Nassim Taleb is turning his gaze on IQ and populations d/t Charles Murray. Maybe the good people at iSteve would like a chance to comment on his conclusions.

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567097499500544

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567576644222976

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840570146527838208

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840579307324002304

    1. FUD
    2. Trying awfully hard to be PC.
    3. We need more epicycles!
    4. So empirical IQs have variances that vary that much between populations?!
    5. I’m curious if he believes his arguments actually support what he is arguing for.
    6. I thought Taleb was better than Gladwell. Is that no longer true?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool

    5. I’m curious if he believes his arguments actually support what he is arguing for.
     
    He can't, unless he believes, after posting all that, that the area under the curve right of a threshold is, all else held constant, not affected by changing the mean. He can't believe that, given what he just wrote, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @res
    1. FUD
    2. Trying awfully hard to be PC.
    3. We need more epicycles!
    4. So empirical IQs have variances that vary that much between populations?!
    5. I'm curious if he believes his arguments actually support what he is arguing for.
    6. I thought Taleb was better than Gladwell. Is that no longer true?

    5. I’m curious if he believes his arguments actually support what he is arguing for.

    He can’t, unless he believes, after posting all that, that the area under the curve right of a threshold is, all else held constant, not affected by changing the mean. He can’t believe that, given what he just wrote, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    He's just saying that change in variance has a greater impact than change in mean at the threshold.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Karl says:
    @Autochthon
    As Steve explains, Hamilton was a Scot. We get conflated with Jews because we are also smart, ornery, cheap, and perenially oppressed.

    You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous (but therefore pugilistic) instead of skulking, and we are honest instead of mendacious. Therefore, we have less money and influence (and worse public relations). We are better looking, though.

    What you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts....

    66 Autochthon > You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous

    …and here I was, thinking that the difference is that WE killed enough British soldiers to get London to decide that, no, they didn’t want to Occupy our homeland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    It's a Hell of a lot easier to repel invaders oceans away then those with contiguous borders. (The U.S.A.'s most powerful armies have always been the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.)

    In any event, the (collaborating) Scottish gave control of their nation to the English as much as the English took it; similiarly, the British (with no small pressure from the U.S.A.) ceded Mandatory Palestine more than the Jews took it. The British quite simply had no use for the place – it's very little to recommend itself to anyone besides the murderous religious zealots who've delighted in warring over it since time immemorial. It's hardly the strategic import of the Hellespont or Gibraltar, nor the resources of the North Sea or Kuwait.

    It's also worth mentioning that if it weren't for the work of the British & Americans (with disproportionate numbers of ethnic Scots from both nations), General Rommel's administration would hardly have been as accommodating as Britain's. Nevermind that even since 1948, Israel's continued existence is owed entirely to the aegis of the U.S.A.

    Did I mention Scots are also a more grateful people than Jews? (You're welcome.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Karl says:
    @Svigor

    “Somebody else’s babies” is such a vile phrase, I can’t get it out of head.
     
    ? So, "it would be great for Israeli Jews to all raise somebody else's babies, i.e., stop having babies and start adopting Arab babies instead" is a "vile phrase"?

    Fascist genetics now have a place on Capitol Hill…. Wilders-loving King might also go to Ellis Island for a refresher on the American idea.
     
    This is news? Congress gave Mr. Fascist Genetics, Benjamin Netanyahu, like a thousand standing ovations not too long ago.

    Fascist genetics have a place on the Hill reserved for every Zionist Congressman, every pro-Zionist Congressman, etc. The place is thick with them; they're the majority.

    OHHH, maybe he meant "fascist genetics for someone other than Jews." That would explain things.

    72 Svigor > ? So, “it would be great for Israeli Jews to all raise somebody else’s babies, i.e., stop having babies and start adopting Arab babies instead” is a “vile phrase”?

    the stupidest of the goyim continue to imagine that they can change the mind of the (essentially) anti-Zionist American Jews, by throwing zionist logic in their face.

    Wilders is drowning, yet the American goyim continue to fixate on arguing with American Jews

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator

    the stupidest of the goyim continue to imagine that they can change the mind of the (essentially) anti-Zionist American Jews, by throwing zionist logic in their face.
     
    The number of anti-Zionist Jews in America is insignificant. That American Jews do not respond to consistency arguments with respect to their policy preferences on Israel is not because they are anti-Zionist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Karl
    66 Autochthon > You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous


    ...and here I was, thinking that the difference is that WE killed enough British soldiers to get London to decide that, no, they didn't want to Occupy our homeland.

    It’s a Hell of a lot easier to repel invaders oceans away then those with contiguous borders. (The U.S.A.’s most powerful armies have always been the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.)

    In any event, the (collaborating) Scottish gave control of their nation to the English as much as the English took it; similiarly, the British (with no small pressure from the U.S.A.) ceded Mandatory Palestine more than the Jews took it. The British quite simply had no use for the place – it’s very little to recommend itself to anyone besides the murderous religious zealots who’ve delighted in warring over it since time immemorial. It’s hardly the strategic import of the Hellespont or Gibraltar, nor the resources of the North Sea or Kuwait.

    It’s also worth mentioning that if it weren’t for the work of the British & Americans (with disproportionate numbers of ethnic Scots from both nations), General Rommel’s administration would hardly have been as accommodating as Britain’s. Nevermind that even since 1948, Israel’s continued existence is owed entirely to the aegis of the U.S.A.

    Did I mention Scots are also a more grateful people than Jews? (You’re welcome.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Karl
    72 Svigor > ? So, “it would be great for Israeli Jews to all raise somebody else’s babies, i.e., stop having babies and start adopting Arab babies instead” is a “vile phrase”?


    the stupidest of the goyim continue to imagine that they can change the mind of the (essentially) anti-Zionist American Jews, by throwing zionist logic in their face.

    Wilders is drowning, yet the American goyim continue to fixate on arguing with American Jews

    the stupidest of the goyim continue to imagine that they can change the mind of the (essentially) anti-Zionist American Jews, by throwing zionist logic in their face.

    The number of anti-Zionist Jews in America is insignificant. That American Jews do not respond to consistency arguments with respect to their policy preferences on Israel is not because they are anti-Zionist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. MW says:
    @Buck Turgidson
    But birth rates are not fixed and can increase, and decrease.

    We won WWII with < .5 of our population today.
    We put a man on the moon w 100 million fewer people than we have today.

    Although the media never would understand, a country's prosperity, well-being, happiness, and world standing is not directly correlated, 1.0, to total population size.

    Fewer people would mean less traffic, more open space, more farmland, more forests, less wear and tear on infrastructure, reduced water demands, reduced need for wastewater treatment.

    But -- and this is huge:

    declining population would mean decreases in toilet paper and diaper sales -- and what is really important.

    In America, we get the best of both worlds. We have overly-crowded regions where people commute 3 hours a day to make a living and where maintaining the infrastructure is a logistical nightmare. AND we have vast empty spaces, or worse, emptying spaces where it is no longer feasible to make a living.

    It would be nice to have birthrates respond in some way to a sense of what is the optimal population of America. But under current circumstances, the question has no coherent answer. We simultaneously have places desperate for population growth, and other places desperate to keep people out. We let our regional hubs decline because they are inefficient, and besides, states’ rights are racist. And come on, you can’t expect resource extraction out in the boonies to pay as well as being an insurance agent in DC, for crying out loud. Move where the opportunities are and do something useful with your life!

    If we had the will, it wouldn’t even be that hard to rework our retirement and financial systems so that a steady population wouldn’t be a calamity. But clearly we are not willing to make those sacrifices – we will continue our lifestyles of unsustainable consumption up until the last possible second.

    And really, don’t I deserve higher dividends every single year from my Procter & Gamble stock?

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Yak-15 says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Steve,
    OT, but it looks like Nassim Taleb is turning his gaze on IQ and populations d/t Charles Murray. Maybe the good people at iSteve would like a chance to comment on his conclusions.

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567097499500544

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567576644222976

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840570146527838208

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840579307324002304

    He is making the claim that variance, kurtosis (peakiness of curve) and skew matter. This is similar to his theories on financial markets in that fat tails are imperative. They are important and would matter if these tails applied to IQ data. But I believe most of the data series on IQ speculate the population distributions are very close to being normal distributions with decreasing levels of variance for lower IQ populations: blacks, mestizos, etc.

    This would add more credence to Murray’s argument. As La Grife notes, whites/Asians not only have a higher mean IQ, they have greater variance (more fat tails) than other populations. This increases both the distance of outliers and likelihood of many of them.

    Taleb is making a weak stab that will fool most people because they do not understand statistics or the specific parameters of IQ distribution. Perhaps he is simply unaware of what the data shows. Taleb, annoying boob that he is, is more concerned about being correct than being PC. If he saw the true extent of the data I do no think he would make such a spurious claim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Lot says:
    @Autochthon
    As Steve explains, Hamilton was a Scot. We get conflated with Jews because we are also smart, ornery, cheap, and perenially oppressed.

    You can tell us apart, though, because we are physically courageous (but therefore pugilistic) instead of skulking, and we are honest instead of mendacious. Therefore, we have less money and influence (and worse public relations). We are better looking, though.

    What you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabouts....

    Hamilton was both Scottish and Jewish. A good choice for Treasury Secretary.

    Anyway I agree it isn’t certain, and will reserve judgment until the forthcoming book on the subject is released later this year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Lot says:
    @Svigor

    I had no idea Hamilton had partial Jewish ancestry and went to a Jewish school. Interesting link! I also see that in letters Hamilton even referred to his half brother’s surname as Levine.
     
    Is this like the time you suggested that Episcopalians have such a high mean IQ because "they're the most Jewish denomination," or some such?

    I said Unitarians and Episcopalians have the most Jewish admixture of US Christian groups. Is that something you dispute?

    That probably gives a small boost to their IQs, well under 0.5 points. Any gap those groups have above the white mean is mostly from selection effects, not admixture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Negrolphin Pool

    5. I’m curious if he believes his arguments actually support what he is arguing for.
     
    He can't, unless he believes, after posting all that, that the area under the curve right of a threshold is, all else held constant, not affected by changing the mean. He can't believe that, given what he just wrote, right?

    He’s just saying that change in variance has a greater impact than change in mean at the threshold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Chrisnonymous
    Steve,
    OT, but it looks like Nassim Taleb is turning his gaze on IQ and populations d/t Charles Murray. Maybe the good people at iSteve would like a chance to comment on his conclusions.

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567097499500544

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840567576644222976

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840570146527838208

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/840579307324002304

    O dear.

    If your average straddles, or exceeds, the threshold, and the other guy’s isn’t even close, then average becomes more important than variance.

    NNT = IYI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Svigor says:

    the stupidest of the goyim continue to imagine that they can change the mind of the (essentially) anti-Zionist American Jews, by throwing zionist logic in their face.

    Wilders is drowning, yet the American goyim continue to fixate on arguing with American Jews

    Perhaps, I wouldn’t know. What with being a lot smarter than the average Jew, and all. For my part, I don’t care about persuading the tiny number of anti-Zionist Jews of anything; I presume their behavior consistent. I’m not even particularly interested in persuading the huge number of Zionist Jews. I’m mostly interested in persuading the vast number of Zionist-friendly White dupes that the Zionists depend upon, and who tend not to connect the dots for themselves.

    I said Unitarians and Episcopalians have the most Jewish admixture of US Christian groups. Is that something you dispute?

    I dispute that it moves the Episcopalian mean IQ needle in a significant way, yeah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Brutusale says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    TD, You shilled for Leonard Pitts last week, doesn't anyone else need you to prop them up?

    Given that this idiot mentions Pitts in about every third screed, I’ve decided that TD is either Pitts or Pitts’ husband.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation