RSS
From Dennis Dale’s Untethered:
… It’s been about fifteen years now since I first discovered dissident literature about race online. It was exhilarating. The thrill of transgressing the sacrosanct and sense it was nonetheless right (if you feel seeking the truth is right) coexisted. Amazing! (It would make the wholesome yin to the shameful yang of discovering Internet porn, if I should ever discover Internet porn.)
Of course, the thrill is gone.
Farther back people were assuming it inevitable the Internet would soon render the Narrative an unsustainable laughingstock. How they flattered the nation! How I flattered myself. You can transgress all you want, if you’re nobody; “transgressing” by reading HBD sites, for instance, proves you’re nobody. Don’t do it if you want to be somebody. The cottage industry that is the outing of “racists” exists to broadcast this dictum. But it isn’t just about vetting celebrities and politicians. The message the average guy–white guy, needless to say–gets loud and clear is this is what losers do.
So far so good: the Narrative hasn’t even had to adapt to facts that have been more “settled” than global warming for a long time. In its aversion to logic and romanticizing of anger (it’s become routine: the media reports the anger of such as the Ferguson mob as if it proves the justice of their cause; one burned-down Quickie Mart a solid argument, two a slam dunk) the Narrative argues that feelings make facts, but its sharper proponents know the reality: feelings make power.
Yep, very sad.
Bell Curve was discussed and debated openly on campuses when it came out.
Now open talk of it’s finding could lead to expulsion.
Now open talk of it’s finding could lead to expulsion."
Shouldn't elite colleges be shut down for PRACTICING bell curve?
You can openly talk about HBD in public. Just don't mention racial differences in IQ.
For example, you can make the argument that test scores are predominately a function of IQ. Just don't mention the white-black gap is a function of IQ. You can argue that criminals tend to produce criminal children, but don't argue that black criminals produce criminal children.
I remember a 20/20 special in which parents selected donors from high-IQ people so they'd have IQ children. That was not controversial. I've seen plenty of shows and movies with HBD-related view points. As long as you avoid discussing race, HBD is mentionable in public.
The reason HBD is not discussed by political leaders and sociologists is because we live in a diverse country. So any open HBD discussion eventually will have to run into the issue of low black IQ. Therefore, leaders discuss HBD in private while publicly ignoring it.
Waiting for the day. Used to be private ‘mercantile clubs’ that existed only to exclude the victim class were outlawed as soon as they were brought into existence. Finally, microaggression has enabled whites to achieve the same purpose, to develop a network of businesses, universities, communities even, where The Bell Curve is openly acknowledged and microaggression runs rampant. Tie it into that new religon, Diversitology just to keep Brother Sam away.
BTW, this post is an example of microaggression.
If I was in a good grad school program and wrote on twitter or facebook that all thought the evidence showed that the avg black IQ was 85 — I wonder how many schools would kick me out?
If I was working in Corporate America, I wonder how many companies would fire me. Just for stating that fact. Nothing more.
I imagine a scenario where a left-winger at the school or job finds my tweet,email, or Facebook post with the Hate Fact and brings it to my boss/deans attention. Maybe sends it out to co-workers, especially any black people in the school or company, trying to stir up anger. Then I’m called in to explain whether I really wrote it or not. What do I have to say for myself, etc, etc.
I wonder. I do think that’s potentially a fireable offense in much of Corporate America and Academia. I think it would probably require an antagonist making a big deal out of it. Somebody trying to get me fired.
On the Left you can saw all sorts of batshit insane things and not be purged from society. You can be some Deep Ecology nutjob and talk abut how the human population needs to be reduced to under 500M (ie killing of 6+ billion ppl). You can be some queer activist feminist nutter and rage against all things male and hetero and say all men are rapists. You can be some black activist racist and screech about the need to destroy the concept of white people and breed them out of existence until the world is only Black and Brown.
You can be all those things and not get kicked out of Academia or fired from Corporate America.
But say that you think the evidence shows that avg black IQ is a standard deviation lower than white and asian IQ … not even suggesting any policies based off that, just saying that you think that’s a true fact about the world …
Asian Man here.
Defense of IQ is NE Asian man's burden, now. Get with the times.
NE Asian man don't want to giddeyup with that, though.
1. The IQ of white caucasian MENAs is 1.5 SD lower than that of Singapore, Shanghai, Seoul et al
2. The IQ of syrians who are among the whitest of MENAs is almost 2 SD lower than east asians.
3. The IQ of Irish, Greeks, Lithuanians, Serbs, Romanians is a full SD lower than that of multi-racial (non-white) Singapore.
4. The IQ OF black americans is higher than that of 2 billion MENAs + south asians.
“Dissident literature” is an excellent phrase. May we go forth and popularize it and put it to use wherever it can be fit in place of such terms as HBD, paleocon, alt-right, manosphere, NRx, Dark Enlightenment.
Are you a Republican/Democrat?
“I read dissident literature.”
What are your political viewpoints?
“Some of the dissident literature is interesting.”
Who is Steve Sailer (or Heartiste or Porter or certain others)?
“A dissident” or “a dissident writer” or “a dissident intellectual” (only if Steve or Heartiste or Porter or others of them don’t find that objectionable or don’t wish to suggest an alternative).
Who is Steve Sailer (or Heartiste)?
"An American dissident."
Are you a Republican/Democrat?
"I read dissident literature."
What are your political viewpoints?
"Some of the dissident literature is interesting."
Who is Steve Sailer (or Heartiste or Porter or certain others)?
"A dissident" or "a dissident writer" or "a dissident intellectual" (only if Steve or Heartiste or Porter or others of them don't find that objectionable or don't wish to suggest an alternative).
And place “American” in front of dissident where appropriate.
Who is Steve Sailer (or Heartiste)?
“An American dissident.”
What did Dennis hope would happen 15 years ago? What do the rest of you hope for now?
Steve seems rare in this corner of the Internet for offering a positive vision (citizenism), but there’s a lot of negativity and hostility associated with HBD. I wonder if, on the whole, HBD is a help or a hindrance in furthering that vision.
For example, you can easily make the case for restricting immigration without invoking HBD. Same with opposing affirmative action.
The toxic ideology of our age is equalism. And we live in an era of 'feels'.
As long as you don't challenge the fact that everybody is equal, then anything we argue against rationally gets lost in the rhetoric. Once people accept that other people are different, then they may be open to arguments about socialised costs etc. Without challenging equalism people cant' believe there are any socialised costs to speak of. And equalism by it's nature implies that others needs supplant our own - even trumping the needs of the poorest. Scratch the surface and devotees will admit that flyover whites don't really deserve the middle class boom that we experienced in the 40's 50's, especially if it comes at the cost of denying opportunity for a better life from people whose only reason for their lower standard of living can only be laid at the feet of imperialist whites. The rest of the world is poor because of us Dave. Because Equalism.
If you try to drive a car blindfold then sooner or later it’s going to crash.
The blank slate and PC is a blindfold.
I think the best strategy is spend half your time trying to stop it and half your time preparing for the worst.
Related, the NYT wants to know which science misconception it should cover: https://m.facebook.com/nytimesscience/photos/a.140918325988202.37854.105307012882667/839623496117678/
Steve seems rare in this corner of the Internet for offering a positive vision (citizenism), but there's a lot of negativity and hostility associated with HBD. I wonder if, on the whole, HBD is a help or a hindrance in furthering that vision.
For example, you can easily make the case for restricting immigration without invoking HBD. Same with opposing affirmative action.
Except you can’t really Dave. We all have rational arguments, well thought out, that fail again and again to move the overton window an inch.
The toxic ideology of our age is equalism. And we live in an era of ‘feels’.
As long as you don’t challenge the fact that everybody is equal, then anything we argue against rationally gets lost in the rhetoric. Once people accept that other people are different, then they may be open to arguments about socialised costs etc. Without challenging equalism people cant’ believe there are any socialised costs to speak of. And equalism by it’s nature implies that others needs supplant our own – even trumping the needs of the poorest. Scratch the surface and devotees will admit that flyover whites don’t really deserve the middle class boom that we experienced in the 40′s 50′s, especially if it comes at the cost of denying opportunity for a better life from people whose only reason for their lower standard of living can only be laid at the feet of imperialist whites. The rest of the world is poor because of us Dave. Because Equalism.
Steve seems rare in this corner of the Internet for offering a positive vision (citizenism), but there's a lot of negativity and hostility associated with HBD. I wonder if, on the whole, HBD is a help or a hindrance in furthering that vision.
For example, you can easily make the case for restricting immigration without invoking HBD. Same with opposing affirmative action.
HBD is science.
HBD is the truth, as best we can determine, whether or not we involve it in our policy debates. Agreed, good cases can be made for carefully managed immigration and against affirmative action without invoking HBD, but natural truths need to be understood at least on background if people are going to make intelligent decisions.
I can imagine, in a better universe, HBD being a topic like sex: something everyone acknowledges as part of life while politely exercising discretion with regard to it. Most of us have a sex life, but we live it privately and talk about it only when and where appropriate. In that same sense, human races are different, but we don’t need to go around embarrassing people about their differences when we don’t have to.
we need to eracism
The toxic ideology of our age is equalism. And we live in an era of 'feels'.
As long as you don't challenge the fact that everybody is equal, then anything we argue against rationally gets lost in the rhetoric. Once people accept that other people are different, then they may be open to arguments about socialised costs etc. Without challenging equalism people cant' believe there are any socialised costs to speak of. And equalism by it's nature implies that others needs supplant our own - even trumping the needs of the poorest. Scratch the surface and devotees will admit that flyover whites don't really deserve the middle class boom that we experienced in the 40's 50's, especially if it comes at the cost of denying opportunity for a better life from people whose only reason for their lower standard of living can only be laid at the feet of imperialist whites. The rest of the world is poor because of us Dave. Because Equalism.
Did Dave Brat invoke HBD? He successfully knocked off a sitting House Majority Leader.
Some examples:
Low skill, culture of dependency, lacking skills demanded by our modern high tech economy, gang culture,
That’s what euphemisms and dog whistles are for. I’m sure Brat deployed those. I think it would be helpful for eloquent restrictionists to sometimes practice and model euphemistic discourse that can be taken mainstream.
Some examples:
Low skill, culture of dependency, lacking skills demanded by our modern high tech economy, gang culture,
I'm fond of emphasizing the effect at the bottom of the income ladder to peel off non-elite liberal voters. I've actually converted a few people that way.
The question is can the message achieve scale and be tailored for districts not quite as...opportune.
I believe the answer is yes. First start - finding qualified candidates and a skilled campaign manager to run a legit "guerilla" style campaign against entrenched incumbents.
(Of course Brat replaced the young 23 year old libertarian he hired to beat Cantor by the general election, so he's available for any I-Stever looking to pull a the proverbial #16 seed upset over a #1 seed. (http://bit.ly/1zgiPhR)).
But that is not the kind of euphemizing and dog whistling that the GOP does. In fact, it does the opposite. It euphemizes and dog whistles in order to get the votes of people it has no intention of serving, of people it intends to betray, of people it has been systematically betraying now for 50 years. It's not enough to know that a con is going on. You also have to know that you are not the mark.
How do we get leaders who are both on "our" side and who euphemize and dog whistle? How does the left do it? Well, it takes former radicals and their close associates who have "moderated" and lets them euphemize and dog whistle. The equivalent, for the GOP, would be for it to support a euphemizing and dog whistling David Duke.
Gasp! That can't happen! That strategy is not open to the GOP or to our side. Exactly. That strategy is only open to the side with iron control of infotainment. Thus, we have to use a strategy which does not involve euphemisms and dog whistles. Because in the euphemism and dog whistle con, we are the marks. Always.
There is no clever trick. No short cut. There is only getting the US to the point where calling some white politician "racist" not only doesn't make him radioactive but causes whites generally to rally enthusiastically to his side. Where he does not even have to issue a denial. Licking Al Sharpton's shoes is not a step towards that goal.
“The message the average guy–white guy, needless to say–gets loud and clear is this is what losers do.”
Freedom’s just another word for nothin left to lose.
Awesome.
But there is a reason the left took a long march through the institutions, and it wasn’t because they liked long marches.
Some examples:
Low skill, culture of dependency, lacking skills demanded by our modern high tech economy, gang culture,
Yeah, I agree. There are plenty of good nonracial arguments for restricting immigration.
I’m fond of emphasizing the effect at the bottom of the income ladder to peel off non-elite liberal voters. I’ve actually converted a few people that way.
Oddly enough, before reading this post I awoke with a snippet from The Clash stuck in my head:
The fury of the hour,
Anger can be power:
D’you know that you can use it?
America may have all the guns, but she also has the biggest debts. To buy the guns, she has to borrow from the Asians and the Asians do not give a damn about black feelings, Jewish feelings or our feelings. They’ll do HBD even if we don’t. Also, the Fringe in Europe is largely Islamic and they really don’t like Jews and have no problems with saying it. Europe may be militarily week, but put together, the European states are still powerful economically and quite a few of them even run a trade surplus.
You've got it all backwards. America doesn't have foreign debts and doesn't borrow money from the Asians.
The Asians pay tribute to the US, and take in return for laboring away for us to produce the goods we want, and orienting their economies to be our workshops, little bits of paper with green ink that promise them 3% interest.
And any time we want, we could just print up other little bits of paper that don't pay interest and call in the first set of green printed paper. Or we can declare that we don't pay interest anymore because the interest rate is now 0%.
Think carefully about who is better off in this transaction, it doesn't seem clear to you. The foreign country and workers who slave away all year long to provide Americans with tangible goods, or the Americans who simply run a budget deficit by paying themselves more than the government taxes to create the necessary money out of nothing to purchase those foreign made goods. Its kind of like being able to go out in your back yard, pluck $20 bills off the trees, and buy whatever you need from people who actually need to work. The guy who can do that is much better off than the guy who must trade his labor to scrap together the resources to live out the year.
Some examples:
Low skill, culture of dependency, lacking skills demanded by our modern high tech economy, gang culture,
I agree in part w/ Dave Pinsen (Brat was an exceptional candidate; bright, articulate, great message developed by his team), but also agree in part w/ Lot, at least in the fact that the 7th District of VA is a perfect laboratory for such a message. It’s R+10, 75% white and is heavily rural/suburban, but not poor (avg median income $65k).
The question is can the message achieve scale and be tailored for districts not quite as…opportune.
I believe the answer is yes. First start – finding qualified candidates and a skilled campaign manager to run a legit “guerilla” style campaign against entrenched incumbents.
(Of course Brat replaced the young 23 year old libertarian he hired to beat Cantor by the general election, so he’s available for any I-Stever looking to pull a the proverbial #16 seed upset over a #1 seed. (http://bit.ly/1zgiPhR)).
Some examples:
Low skill, culture of dependency, lacking skills demanded by our modern high tech economy, gang culture,
Because they are deniable ex post, for euphemisms and dog whistles to “work,” in the sense of getting the side being whistled to what it wants, it is of utmost importance that the guy euphemizing and dog whistling actually be on that side, actually be motivated to serve the side being whistled to.
But that is not the kind of euphemizing and dog whistling that the GOP does. In fact, it does the opposite. It euphemizes and dog whistles in order to get the votes of people it has no intention of serving, of people it intends to betray, of people it has been systematically betraying now for 50 years. It’s not enough to know that a con is going on. You also have to know that you are not the mark.
How do we get leaders who are both on “our” side and who euphemize and dog whistle? How does the left do it? Well, it takes former radicals and their close associates who have “moderated” and lets them euphemize and dog whistle. The equivalent, for the GOP, would be for it to support a euphemizing and dog whistling David Duke.
Gasp! That can’t happen! That strategy is not open to the GOP or to our side. Exactly. That strategy is only open to the side with iron control of infotainment. Thus, we have to use a strategy which does not involve euphemisms and dog whistles. Because in the euphemism and dog whistle con, we are the marks. Always.
There is no clever trick. No short cut. There is only getting the US to the point where calling some white politician “racist” not only doesn’t make him radioactive but causes whites generally to rally enthusiastically to his side. Where he does not even have to issue a denial. Licking Al Sharpton’s shoes is not a step towards that goal.
"Grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated then ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."
Also as far as the racism accusation goes, no YT person can ever wriggle out of that, better to say you agree with Avenue Q, the musical and their song "Everyone's just a little bit racist."
And wonder why YT is the only one called on the carpet to not be?
The beggars’ democracy.
“My people and I have come to an agreement which satisfied us both. They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.”─Frederick the Great.
Remember the dot come bubble of 1997-9? Remember the arguments? Some day, most retail is going to be done online. Therefore, you should invest in online retail and in UPS. These seemed like good arguments at the time. They seem like good arguments today. They ARE good arguments.
So, was the dot com bubble not a bubble? Were those valuations right? Was pets.com really a good investment? No. It was a bubble all right.
What smart people persistently get wrong, what they persistently underestimate, is inertia. We do this because all of us model other people as “basically like me, with a few modifications” Usually that works well, but not always.
Every year, the percentage of retail sales conducted online in the US ticks up. In 1998 it was about 0.2%. In 2013, it was 5.8%. The percentage of my retail consumption which is conducted online is much higher and went up much faster. Same with 90% of the people reading these words, I’d wager. There is probably a very strong IQ gradient in this percentage and growth rate.
I suspect it’s the same for online information/news consumption. I can’t remember the last time I watched a network news broadcast, read a physical newspaper, or read a physical magazine. But lots of people still do these things. So, what Dale (and I, of course) were wrong about is the pace of change.
Eventually, there will be widespread understanding that HBD is right, that the science is beyond any serious doubt, and that the public utterances to the contrary by our institutions only serve to establish the corruption of our institutions. It won’t be tomorrow, though.
Furthermore, our evil elite can slow down the adoption of these ideas some more if they want to. If they really wanted to, they could put Steve in jail. Framing people is easy and is done all the time. For example, there was a big scandal a few years ago about the FBI lab systematically framing people. Once the government starts jailing people like Steve, things like iSteve will move to TOR or similar places. That will slow down adoption of doubleplusungoodthink some more. But it won’t stop it.
You can be all those things and not get kicked out of Academia or fired from Corporate America.
But say that you think the evidence shows that avg black IQ is a standard deviation lower than white and asian IQ ... not even suggesting any policies based off that, just saying that you think that's a true fact about the world ...
Chang Clang:
Asian Man here.
Defense of IQ is NE Asian man’s burden, now. Get with the times.
NE Asian man don’t want to giddeyup with that, though.
Every age has its taboos.
There is no sexual act (except with minors and non consenting animals) that isn’t part of the confessional autobiography. This was 3rd rail taboo. Or you could be a pinko or a fellow traveler, and that was close enough to a commie to do you in.
Race is the 3rd rail now. I don’t know how long this can last.
The reason is that they just don’t. Even Copernicus was finally recognized as being correct.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/
“About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.
Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country. Eventually, they thought, they’d find other researchers who connected the dots the way they had, and then maybe they could get city leaders, and even national leaders, to listen.”
This is the official rebuttal:
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/ellen_memphismurder_assistedhousingrcr07_v2.pdf
and here is their very hard to find map:
http://s11.photobucket.com/user/tricknologist/media/memphisjh7.jpg.html
There are 3-4 major issues that Americans should fight on.
1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.
2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.
3. “Deep State.” The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they’ve been too well entrenched. They’ve become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It’s also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.
4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country’s problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.
I don’t see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren’t especially favorable to us. For example, let’s say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What’s the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.
Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn’t it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn’t the masses trust their “cognitive elites”?
Most common sense policies don’t even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women (“1 and done” as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.
They are so easily bought. Just looking at the slimy whore makes me sick. http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/tomcotton.jpgHe is Shhhhhhh about 'gay marriage' and spends all his time fuming about Iran at the behest of his Zionist masters. Aipacked fool.
1. NAMs have higher IQ than Indians/south asians.
2. NAMs have higher IQ than MENAs, who are classified as white caucasians by the US Census Bureau.
So the presence of Chinese people in White 1st world countries are not in the best interest of Whites, but you have no problem with the presence of Blacks in White 1st world countries even though White women in the U.S and Europe are way more likely to be raped by Black men than they are by Chinese men. Black male on White female rape is by far the most common type of interracial rape in the world. No other forms of interracial rape come close.
I would support such a party.
But I wouldn't support the second plank. As you point out, the oligarchs already control the government. They won't permit it's machinery to be used against themselves. Indeed most current regulations end up favoring the rich. Who has the resources to hire lawyers to make sure their interests aren't hurt or to find the loopholes? Does regulation make it harder for a rich person or a poor person to start a business? Why do you think most of the mega-corporations supported Obamacare? The law makes it harder, much harder, for smaller businesses to compete with bigger ones. Which one can better afford a compliance officer?
I know. Showing them how to game the system is how I make my money. The first time I worked with an industrial association, I was astounded that they were asking the government to regulate them more. Why would they want laws passed against themselves. Then I realized that they were getting laws passed requiring their competitors to do things that increased the competitor's costs
Taxes and regulation have been increasing for years, but the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing. Working from the inside, it's obvious to me that government regulation causes the gap to grow. It's intended to.
It's not working, so let's try something else.
The first step, in my opinion is to repeal all these laws. Let the rich compete with the lower classes with fair rules.
Bell Curve was discussed and debated openly on campuses when it came out.
Now open talk of it's finding could lead to expulsion.
“Bell Curve was discussed and debated openly on campuses when it came out.
Now open talk of it’s finding could lead to expulsion.”
Shouldn’t elite colleges be shut down for PRACTICING bell curve?
If your goal is to make the cool kids like you, you are going to fail. Being obsessed with popularity and public opinion is a suckers game.
Actually, HBD discussions are okay as long as you don’t use the term ‘race’.
It is important to realize it wasn’t always this way. Prior to about 1960 to argue that blacks were not ‘different’ in a negative way would be the ‘apostasy’ even though the ‘scientific’ and empirical evidence was nowhere near as extensive as today. It was possible to reasonably argue that the observed racial differences were the legacy of oppression and discrimination not innate.
It is ironic indeed that the arguments made against those who were opposed to forced integration, that they were ignorant bigots, motivated by blind prejudice can now be turned and flung right back at the apostles of ‘human equality’. That the data does not support their wishful thinking and ignorant bigotry. That the facts and ‘science’ are not in their favor.
Overtime a false doctrine cannot prevail no matter how powerful its acolytes may currently be. Reality and time overwhelms the false ‘conventional wisdom’. Just as the tide turned in the 1960′s so it will turn again as the gatekeepers of racial equality die or lose their positions of influence. The problem is that those who believe in this false proposition are doing as much damage as they can to preserve their phony belief system.
1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.
2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.
3. "Deep State." The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they've been too well entrenched. They've become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It's also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.
4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country's problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.
I don't see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren't especially favorable to us. For example, let's say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What's the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.
Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn't it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn't the masses trust their "cognitive elites"?
Most common sense policies don't even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women ("1 and done" as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.
I agree with you and Dave Pinsen: HBD is a political dead end.
It's distasteful to openly discuss how one group may be borderline retarded on average. It smacks of gloating really and polite people just don't do that. Add in the fact that this group is a recognizable race and you compound the problem a hundredfold. And as distasteful as that is, it's insulting to have to admit that you or someone you love is as cognitively challenged as the average member of the dumbest group. Acknowledging IQ in the abstract is perhaps okay, but everyone thinks they live in Lake Wobegon and that they got "C" grades only because they didn't really apply themselves, certainly not because they were a bit slow-witted.
1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.
2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.
3. "Deep State." The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they've been too well entrenched. They've become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It's also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.
4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country's problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.
I don't see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren't especially favorable to us. For example, let's say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What's the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.
Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn't it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn't the masses trust their "cognitive elites"?
Most common sense policies don't even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women ("1 and done" as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.
“2. Oligarchization.”
This could be called ‘cheap state’ as all politicians and presstitutes have become pocket change for the super-rich.
They are so easily bought.
Just looking at the slimy whore makes me sick.
He is Shhhhhhh about ‘gay marriage’ and spends all his time fuming about Iran at the behest of his Zionist masters.
Aipacked fool.
To be honest, HBD-based policy is already being implemented on a wide scale in many areas of life.
1. NYPD and many large city police departments engage in racial profiling.
2. Immigration policies have been modified to bring in large numbers of high-IQ immigrants, primarily on H1B and student visas. Australia and Canada are even more aggressive on this.
3. Prestigious universities admit applicants primarily on the basis of GPA and test scores.
4. Prestigious employers higher on the basis of the applicant’s degree, GPA, and university attended.
5. Non-university educated individuals are pretty much barred from ascending the career ladder of any major organization these days. Those who ascend often hold degrees from prestigious schools. For example, Goldman Sachs usually only hires Ivy League graduates.
6. Most large schools have AP and honors classes for gifted kids. We also have very high quality university instruction for them too.
7. Welfare for single mothers has been clamped down on.
8. Policing and prison sentences tend to very harsh. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.
While HBD may not be acknowledged in public speeches, most of the experts understand HBD and use it to develop national policies. There’s widespread acceptance of HBD.
Now you might say, “If HBD is widely understood, why do elites promote low-IQ immigration?” The reason for that is while low-IQ immigration may be damaging to the country and to common Americans, it’s very beneficial to elites. Elites love having access to large amounts of cheap, docile blue collar. The benefits to them vastly exceed the costs. Sure low IQ immigration may not be good for the country, but it’s good for elites. That’s what matters to elites.
Also, immigrants tend to have low crime rates (see Ron Unz’s articles), so they’re not threatening to elites. Immigrants are particularly beneficial when they settle in large cities, which ethnically cleanses out crime-prone blacks. As Ron Unz has pointed out, Hispanic immigrants have made East Pala Alto and Los Angeles county much safer by driving out blacks.
There are negative affects to immigration, sure. Most of these negative effects of immigration (poorer schools, overcrowding, gangs) can be easily dealt with through insulation. Elites insulate themselves from the negative impact of immigration (mainly by living in rich areas and using private schools), while benefiting from cheap immigrant labor. They live in glitzy parts of Los Angeles county and Manhattan, while employing cheap Mexican nannies. Immigration is mostly upside for them, with little downside.
Elite institutions like the Ivy Leagues, Wall Street, Hollywood, private schools, and Silicon Valley are very restrictive about who they admit. For all their talk about “diversity”, they sure don’t have many low IQ NAMs from underprivileged backgrounds. This is because elites are HBD-aware and don’t want to ruin their institutions by bringing in low-IQ NAM masses.
The issue of Ferguson was brought up in DD’s blog. Why did elites ignite Ferguson if they believe in HBD? The answer is that by focusing black rage on Ferguson, they can focus rage away from NYC’s harsh policing policies. That’s why. Notice that the national media hasn’t gone after the NYPD very much during the whole Ferguson situation? Elites can bash Ferguson, but they strongly support tough policing in NYC.
HBD realism is embraced when it benefits national elites. It’s not embraced with policies that don’t impact national elites. The reason is because elites don’t care that much about the welfare of the masses, but they do pursue their interests.
Consider this: Why does Charles Murray still have a cushy think tank job but Sam Francis was tossed to the curb?
Feelings make power
And power creates truth.
2. Immigration policies have been modified to bring in large numbers of high-IQ immigrants, primarily on H1B and student visas. Australia and Canada are even more aggressive on this.
3. Prestigious universities admit applicants primarily on the basis of GPA and test scores.
4. Prestigious employers higher on the basis of the applicant's degree, GPA, and university attended.
5. Non-university educated individuals are pretty much barred from ascending the career ladder of any major organization these days. Those who ascend often hold degrees from prestigious schools. For example, Goldman Sachs usually only hires Ivy League graduates.
6. Most large schools have AP and honors classes for gifted kids. We also have very high quality university instruction for them too.
7. Welfare for single mothers has been clamped down on.
8. Policing and prison sentences tend to very harsh. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.While HBD may not be acknowledged in public speeches, most of the experts understand HBD and use it to develop national policies. There's widespread acceptance of HBD.Now you might say, "If HBD is widely understood, why do elites promote low-IQ immigration?" The reason for that is while low-IQ immigration may be damaging to the country and to common Americans, it's very beneficial to elites. Elites love having access to large amounts of cheap, docile blue collar. The benefits to them vastly exceed the costs. Sure low IQ immigration may not be good for the country, but it's good for elites. That's what matters to elites. Also, immigrants tend to have low crime rates (see Ron Unz's articles), so they're not threatening to elites. Immigrants are particularly beneficial when they settle in large cities, which ethnically cleanses out crime-prone blacks. As Ron Unz has pointed out, Hispanic immigrants have made East Pala Alto and Los Angeles county much safer by driving out blacks. There are negative affects to immigration, sure. Most of these negative effects of immigration (poorer schools, overcrowding, gangs) can be easily dealt with through insulation. Elites insulate themselves from the negative impact of immigration (mainly by living in rich areas and using private schools), while benefiting from cheap immigrant labor. They live in glitzy parts of Los Angeles county and Manhattan, while employing cheap Mexican nannies. Immigration is mostly upside for them, with little downside.Elite institutions like the Ivy Leagues, Wall Street, Hollywood, private schools, and Silicon Valley are very restrictive about who they admit. For all their talk about "diversity", they sure don't have many low IQ NAMs from underprivileged backgrounds. This is because elites are HBD-aware and don't want to ruin their institutions by bringing in low-IQ NAM masses. The issue of Ferguson was brought up in DD's blog. Why did elites ignite Ferguson if they believe in HBD? The answer is that by focusing black rage on Ferguson, they can focus rage away from NYC's harsh policing policies. That's why. Notice that the national media hasn't gone after the NYPD very much during the whole Ferguson situation? Elites can bash Ferguson, but they strongly support tough policing in NYC. HBD realism is embraced when it benefits national elites. It's not embraced with policies that don't impact national elites. The reason is because elites don't care that much about the welfare of the masses, but they do pursue their interests.
Elites embrace HBD and Race Realism (RR) in nuanced ways to benefit their own status and power. The reason it makes us upset is that we’ve had to come to the disturbing conclusion that there is nothing inherent in HBD and RR that means that its adherents will automatically become ethnonationalist. In fact, today’s HBD and RR implementations are done by and for the benefit of those who are anti-ethnonationalist. HBD and RR doesn’t mean that white billionaires in Manhattan will start feeling racial solidarity with lower class whites in West Virginia. All it means is that white billionaires in Manhattan will enhance their own power and use them as bludgeons against lower class whites.
Consider this: Why does Charles Murray still have a cushy think tank job but Sam Francis was tossed to the curb?
“In its aversion to logic and romanticizing of anger (it’s become routine: the media reports the anger of such as the Ferguson mob as if it proves the justice of their cause; one burned-down Quickie Mart a solid argument, two a slam dunk) the Narrative argues that feelings make facts, but its sharper proponents know the reality: feelings make power.”
—
And the narrative channels Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” in that it always converts hatred from the Left into “anger” and anger from the right into “hatred.”
2. Immigration policies have been modified to bring in large numbers of high-IQ immigrants, primarily on H1B and student visas. Australia and Canada are even more aggressive on this.
3. Prestigious universities admit applicants primarily on the basis of GPA and test scores.
4. Prestigious employers higher on the basis of the applicant's degree, GPA, and university attended.
5. Non-university educated individuals are pretty much barred from ascending the career ladder of any major organization these days. Those who ascend often hold degrees from prestigious schools. For example, Goldman Sachs usually only hires Ivy League graduates.
6. Most large schools have AP and honors classes for gifted kids. We also have very high quality university instruction for them too.
7. Welfare for single mothers has been clamped down on.
8. Policing and prison sentences tend to very harsh. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.While HBD may not be acknowledged in public speeches, most of the experts understand HBD and use it to develop national policies. There's widespread acceptance of HBD.Now you might say, "If HBD is widely understood, why do elites promote low-IQ immigration?" The reason for that is while low-IQ immigration may be damaging to the country and to common Americans, it's very beneficial to elites. Elites love having access to large amounts of cheap, docile blue collar. The benefits to them vastly exceed the costs. Sure low IQ immigration may not be good for the country, but it's good for elites. That's what matters to elites. Also, immigrants tend to have low crime rates (see Ron Unz's articles), so they're not threatening to elites. Immigrants are particularly beneficial when they settle in large cities, which ethnically cleanses out crime-prone blacks. As Ron Unz has pointed out, Hispanic immigrants have made East Pala Alto and Los Angeles county much safer by driving out blacks. There are negative affects to immigration, sure. Most of these negative effects of immigration (poorer schools, overcrowding, gangs) can be easily dealt with through insulation. Elites insulate themselves from the negative impact of immigration (mainly by living in rich areas and using private schools), while benefiting from cheap immigrant labor. They live in glitzy parts of Los Angeles county and Manhattan, while employing cheap Mexican nannies. Immigration is mostly upside for them, with little downside.Elite institutions like the Ivy Leagues, Wall Street, Hollywood, private schools, and Silicon Valley are very restrictive about who they admit. For all their talk about "diversity", they sure don't have many low IQ NAMs from underprivileged backgrounds. This is because elites are HBD-aware and don't want to ruin their institutions by bringing in low-IQ NAM masses. The issue of Ferguson was brought up in DD's blog. Why did elites ignite Ferguson if they believe in HBD? The answer is that by focusing black rage on Ferguson, they can focus rage away from NYC's harsh policing policies. That's why. Notice that the national media hasn't gone after the NYPD very much during the whole Ferguson situation? Elites can bash Ferguson, but they strongly support tough policing in NYC. HBD realism is embraced when it benefits national elites. It's not embraced with policies that don't impact national elites. The reason is because elites don't care that much about the welfare of the masses, but they do pursue their interests.
In 1996 I ran into a childhood friend who was a lawyer with a mid-level SF firm which specializes in asbestos defense litigation. He told me that they only hire from Harvard, Columbia and Stanford.
22pp22:
You’ve got it all backwards. America doesn’t have foreign debts and doesn’t borrow money from the Asians.
The Asians pay tribute to the US, and take in return for laboring away for us to produce the goods we want, and orienting their economies to be our workshops, little bits of paper with green ink that promise them 3% interest.
And any time we want, we could just print up other little bits of paper that don’t pay interest and call in the first set of green printed paper. Or we can declare that we don’t pay interest anymore because the interest rate is now 0%.
Think carefully about who is better off in this transaction, it doesn’t seem clear to you. The foreign country and workers who slave away all year long to provide Americans with tangible goods, or the Americans who simply run a budget deficit by paying themselves more than the government taxes to create the necessary money out of nothing to purchase those foreign made goods. Its kind of like being able to go out in your back yard, pluck $20 bills off the trees, and buy whatever you need from people who actually need to work. The guy who can do that is much better off than the guy who must trade his labor to scrap together the resources to live out the year.
If the Internet had remained the domain of straight smart white males, as it was circa 2000, it may very well have blown up the narrative.
Who cares about Dave Brat? All real power lies with the President. Purging of White cops, Nice White lady teachers, ed policy etc.
Women feel, men argue. Diversity religion is equal parts White women loathing of beta males and lack of credible threats of White male violence. See Chicks dig Chechens.
I will note a globalized no rules but force world gives power to those most adept at using force, violence etc. amplified by technology.
For example, seize corporate data and hold it for ransom until some goal is met. Anonymous already did this with Mastercard, Visa, and Wikileaks donations. Demand firing of H1 Bs, ending AA and merit hiring, etc.
Rent a mob is 20 the Century. Ransome ware is now.
You've got it all backwards. America doesn't have foreign debts and doesn't borrow money from the Asians.
The Asians pay tribute to the US, and take in return for laboring away for us to produce the goods we want, and orienting their economies to be our workshops, little bits of paper with green ink that promise them 3% interest.
And any time we want, we could just print up other little bits of paper that don't pay interest and call in the first set of green printed paper. Or we can declare that we don't pay interest anymore because the interest rate is now 0%.
Think carefully about who is better off in this transaction, it doesn't seem clear to you. The foreign country and workers who slave away all year long to provide Americans with tangible goods, or the Americans who simply run a budget deficit by paying themselves more than the government taxes to create the necessary money out of nothing to purchase those foreign made goods. Its kind of like being able to go out in your back yard, pluck $20 bills off the trees, and buy whatever you need from people who actually need to work. The guy who can do that is much better off than the guy who must trade his labor to scrap together the resources to live out the year.
You may be right for now, but I have travelled alot, and every time I go to America, Joe-Average seems that little bit poorer. Eery time I go to Korea, Jae-Average seems that little bit richer. What you say is entirely true from the vantage point of the wealthy and the wealthy are important, but a country where only the wealthy matter and the rest of underemployed and impoverished is Third World.
Today the Asians may pay us tribute, but eventually we'll have to pay our debt (with interest) back. Then we will pay them tribute. Our children will pay them tribute. Our grandchildren will pay them tribute. As our economy and standard of living are crushed by high debt repayment, their economies will flourish.
It's even more sad that much of our borrowed money is wasted on bull, like the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, very few of your politicians, media personalities, or intelligentsia will tell you that. They'll tell you about Indiana bakers who won't make gay wedding cakes and they'll tell you about the "ISIS threat", but they won't tell you about the realistic consequences of our debt policies.
Bell Curve was discussed and debated openly on campuses when it came out.
Now open talk of it's finding could lead to expulsion.
Except for the section about racial differences, the Bell Curve wasn’t that controversial.
You can openly talk about HBD in public. Just don’t mention racial differences in IQ.
For example, you can make the argument that test scores are predominately a function of IQ. Just don’t mention the white-black gap is a function of IQ. You can argue that criminals tend to produce criminal children, but don’t argue that black criminals produce criminal children.
I remember a 20/20 special in which parents selected donors from high-IQ people so they’d have IQ children. That was not controversial. I’ve seen plenty of shows and movies with HBD-related view points. As long as you avoid discussing race, HBD is mentionable in public.
The reason HBD is not discussed by political leaders and sociologists is because we live in a diverse country. So any open HBD discussion eventually will have to run into the issue of low black IQ. Therefore, leaders discuss HBD in private while publicly ignoring it.
The U.S. national debt is unprecedented by historical standards. There was a brief period during WWII when our national debt was comparably large, but it was only a few years – our national debt (measured by debt:GDP ratio) is projected to increase for the next several decades. Our debt is also much more foreigner-owned than during the WWII era.
Today the Asians may pay us tribute, but eventually we’ll have to pay our debt (with interest) back. Then we will pay them tribute. Our children will pay them tribute. Our grandchildren will pay them tribute. As our economy and standard of living are crushed by high debt repayment, their economies will flourish.
It’s even more sad that much of our borrowed money is wasted on bull, like the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, very few of your politicians, media personalities, or intelligentsia will tell you that. They’ll tell you about Indiana bakers who won’t make gay wedding cakes and they’ll tell you about the “ISIS threat”, but they won’t tell you about the realistic consequences of our debt policies.
If we hyper inflate our money supply, then foreigners will want higher interest rates for our treasury bonds in the future. If we don't pay that rate, they will not buy our bonds. So we'll have to cut spending, which will bring down the average person's standard of living.
Today the Asians may pay us tribute, but eventually we'll have to pay our debt (with interest) back. Then we will pay them tribute. Our children will pay them tribute. Our grandchildren will pay them tribute. As our economy and standard of living are crushed by high debt repayment, their economies will flourish.
It's even more sad that much of our borrowed money is wasted on bull, like the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, very few of your politicians, media personalities, or intelligentsia will tell you that. They'll tell you about Indiana bakers who won't make gay wedding cakes and they'll tell you about the "ISIS threat", but they won't tell you about the realistic consequences of our debt policies.
Also, if we print too much money to pay our debts, then we will experience hyperinflation. That’s a horrible scenario to contemplate too.
If we hyper inflate our money supply, then foreigners will want higher interest rates for our treasury bonds in the future. If we don’t pay that rate, they will not buy our bonds. So we’ll have to cut spending, which will bring down the average person’s standard of living.
newseek, in their big 1970s civil rights issue, (what is to be done or something like that), conceded that blacks have mean IQ of 85.
But that is not the kind of euphemizing and dog whistling that the GOP does. In fact, it does the opposite. It euphemizes and dog whistles in order to get the votes of people it has no intention of serving, of people it intends to betray, of people it has been systematically betraying now for 50 years. It's not enough to know that a con is going on. You also have to know that you are not the mark.
How do we get leaders who are both on "our" side and who euphemize and dog whistle? How does the left do it? Well, it takes former radicals and their close associates who have "moderated" and lets them euphemize and dog whistle. The equivalent, for the GOP, would be for it to support a euphemizing and dog whistling David Duke.
Gasp! That can't happen! That strategy is not open to the GOP or to our side. Exactly. That strategy is only open to the side with iron control of infotainment. Thus, we have to use a strategy which does not involve euphemisms and dog whistles. Because in the euphemism and dog whistle con, we are the marks. Always.
There is no clever trick. No short cut. There is only getting the US to the point where calling some white politician "racist" not only doesn't make him radioactive but causes whites generally to rally enthusiastically to his side. Where he does not even have to issue a denial. Licking Al Sharpton's shoes is not a step towards that goal.
Great comment. I always liked this quote from Thomas Frank’s ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas.’
“Grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated then ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.”
Also as far as the racism accusation goes, no YT person can ever wriggle out of that, better to say you agree with Avenue Q, the musical and their song “Everyone’s just a little bit racist.”
And wonder why YT is the only one called on the carpet to not be?
Today the Asians may pay us tribute, but eventually we'll have to pay our debt (with interest) back. Then we will pay them tribute. Our children will pay them tribute. Our grandchildren will pay them tribute. As our economy and standard of living are crushed by high debt repayment, their economies will flourish.
It's even more sad that much of our borrowed money is wasted on bull, like the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, very few of your politicians, media personalities, or intelligentsia will tell you that. They'll tell you about Indiana bakers who won't make gay wedding cakes and they'll tell you about the "ISIS threat", but they won't tell you about the realistic consequences of our debt policies.
Default is far more likely than meaningful repayment.
"Grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated then ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."
Also as far as the racism accusation goes, no YT person can ever wriggle out of that, better to say you agree with Avenue Q, the musical and their song "Everyone's just a little bit racist."
And wonder why YT is the only one called on the carpet to not be?
That’s a nice quote. Maybe I should read that book.
2. Immigration policies have been modified to bring in large numbers of high-IQ immigrants, primarily on H1B and student visas. Australia and Canada are even more aggressive on this.
3. Prestigious universities admit applicants primarily on the basis of GPA and test scores.
4. Prestigious employers higher on the basis of the applicant's degree, GPA, and university attended.
5. Non-university educated individuals are pretty much barred from ascending the career ladder of any major organization these days. Those who ascend often hold degrees from prestigious schools. For example, Goldman Sachs usually only hires Ivy League graduates.
6. Most large schools have AP and honors classes for gifted kids. We also have very high quality university instruction for them too.
7. Welfare for single mothers has been clamped down on.
8. Policing and prison sentences tend to very harsh. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.While HBD may not be acknowledged in public speeches, most of the experts understand HBD and use it to develop national policies. There's widespread acceptance of HBD.Now you might say, "If HBD is widely understood, why do elites promote low-IQ immigration?" The reason for that is while low-IQ immigration may be damaging to the country and to common Americans, it's very beneficial to elites. Elites love having access to large amounts of cheap, docile blue collar. The benefits to them vastly exceed the costs. Sure low IQ immigration may not be good for the country, but it's good for elites. That's what matters to elites. Also, immigrants tend to have low crime rates (see Ron Unz's articles), so they're not threatening to elites. Immigrants are particularly beneficial when they settle in large cities, which ethnically cleanses out crime-prone blacks. As Ron Unz has pointed out, Hispanic immigrants have made East Pala Alto and Los Angeles county much safer by driving out blacks. There are negative affects to immigration, sure. Most of these negative effects of immigration (poorer schools, overcrowding, gangs) can be easily dealt with through insulation. Elites insulate themselves from the negative impact of immigration (mainly by living in rich areas and using private schools), while benefiting from cheap immigrant labor. They live in glitzy parts of Los Angeles county and Manhattan, while employing cheap Mexican nannies. Immigration is mostly upside for them, with little downside.Elite institutions like the Ivy Leagues, Wall Street, Hollywood, private schools, and Silicon Valley are very restrictive about who they admit. For all their talk about "diversity", they sure don't have many low IQ NAMs from underprivileged backgrounds. This is because elites are HBD-aware and don't want to ruin their institutions by bringing in low-IQ NAM masses. The issue of Ferguson was brought up in DD's blog. Why did elites ignite Ferguson if they believe in HBD? The answer is that by focusing black rage on Ferguson, they can focus rage away from NYC's harsh policing policies. That's why. Notice that the national media hasn't gone after the NYPD very much during the whole Ferguson situation? Elites can bash Ferguson, but they strongly support tough policing in NYC. HBD realism is embraced when it benefits national elites. It's not embraced with policies that don't impact national elites. The reason is because elites don't care that much about the welfare of the masses, but they do pursue their interests.
Great comment.
HBD is a dead end not only due to race. IQ is a dead end. Any serious discussion of IQ means acknowledging that 50% of the people are below average intellectually. And who the hell wants to admit that he (or his kids, parents, etc) is below average?
It’s distasteful to openly discuss how one group may be borderline retarded on average. It smacks of gloating really and polite people just don’t do that. Add in the fact that this group is a recognizable race and you compound the problem a hundredfold. And as distasteful as that is, it’s insulting to have to admit that you or someone you love is as cognitively challenged as the average member of the dumbest group. Acknowledging IQ in the abstract is perhaps okay, but everyone thinks they live in Lake Wobegon and that they got “C” grades only because they didn’t really apply themselves, certainly not because they were a bit slow-witted.
“HBD is a dead end not only due to race. IQ is a dead end. Any serious discussion of IQ means acknowledging that 50% of the people are below average intellectually. And who the hell wants to admit that he (or his kids, parents, etc) is below average?”
Perhaps a reason to get people to think a little bit more about the group they belong to and a little less about themselves as individuals. HBD means group differences are real and probably should be discussed, addressed, noticed, dealt with. If not, sooner or later it all blows up and everyone wonders how that could have happened.
1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.
2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.
3. "Deep State." The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they've been too well entrenched. They've become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It's also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.
4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country's problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.
I don't see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren't especially favorable to us. For example, let's say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What's the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.
Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn't it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn't the masses trust their "cognitive elites"?
Most common sense policies don't even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women ("1 and done" as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.
Reality Check:
1. NAMs have higher IQ than Indians/south asians.
2. NAMs have higher IQ than MENAs, who are classified as white caucasians by the US Census Bureau.
Where is your data?
You can be all those things and not get kicked out of Academia or fired from Corporate America.
But say that you think the evidence shows that avg black IQ is a standard deviation lower than white and asian IQ ... not even suggesting any policies based off that, just saying that you think that's a true fact about the world ...
Reality Check:
1. The IQ of white caucasian MENAs is 1.5 SD lower than that of Singapore, Shanghai, Seoul et al
2. The IQ of syrians who are among the whitest of MENAs is almost 2 SD lower than east asians.
3. The IQ of Irish, Greeks, Lithuanians, Serbs, Romanians is a full SD lower than that of multi-racial (non-white) Singapore.
4. The IQ OF black americans is higher than that of 2 billion MENAs + south asians.
[…] HBD and the thrill of transgression. […]
1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.
2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.
3. "Deep State." The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they've been too well entrenched. They've become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It's also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.
4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country's problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.
I don't see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren't especially favorable to us. For example, let's say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What's the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.
Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn't it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn't the masses trust their "cognitive elites"?
Most common sense policies don't even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women ("1 and done" as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.
“let’s say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What’s the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.”
So the presence of Chinese people in White 1st world countries are not in the best interest of Whites, but you have no problem with the presence of Blacks in White 1st world countries even though White women in the U.S and Europe are way more likely to be raped by Black men than they are by Chinese men. Black male on White female rape is by far the most common type of interracial rape in the world. No other forms of interracial rape come close.
I think black migration isn't in our interest either.
but just because Chinese migrants are better doesn't mean that a huge Chinese/Indian influx is a good thing.
1. Immigration. There needs to be a permanent end to immigration to the US. Immigration lowers wages, erodes American culture, and creates a low-trust society.
2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.
3. "Deep State." The military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and a variety of organizations and individuals constitute the Deep State. From the JFK assassination onward, they've been too well entrenched. They've become particularly powerful since 9/11. My view is that this Deep State is eroding democracy, freedom, and privacy. It's also bankrupting us through parasitism and promoting policies not favorable to the national interest. There need to be limits placed on their power.
4. Traditional norms. Traditional norms with respect to family, religion, masculinity, marriage, race, and cultural/national identity. This is an issue of lesser importance, but I think that many of this country's problems could be solved through strengthening through bringing back some of these ideas. Traditional American culture is actually fairly moderate by global standards, so a partial return to traditionalism could be beneficial without being repressive.
I don't see fighting for HBD to be nearly that important. The reason is that even if we proved our HBD principles were right tomorrow, that might lead to policies that aren't especially favorable to us. For example, let's say we prove NAMs have lower IQs than whites. What's the consequence of that? I could see our elites pushing for large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians (as is the case in Australia, Canada, NZ), which is not in our interest.
Proving HBD principles correct could also legitimize oligarchization and Jewish domination of our country. After all, if Jews and oligarchs are smarter than the average white, isn't it best to put power in their hands? Shouldn't the masses trust their "cognitive elites"?
Most common sense policies don't even need a HBD-based rationalization. For example, we can justify cutting immigration by appealing to a wage depression argument. On an issue like ferility, we can justify aggressive family planning for less educated, lower income women ("1 and done" as Steve Sailer said) on the basis of wanting these women to invest in themselves. Non-HBD explanations work effectively and are probably more palatable to the public too.
Hi JohnnyWalker123,
I would support such a party.
But I wouldn’t support the second plank. As you point out, the oligarchs already control the government. They won’t permit it’s machinery to be used against themselves. Indeed most current regulations end up favoring the rich. Who has the resources to hire lawyers to make sure their interests aren’t hurt or to find the loopholes? Does regulation make it harder for a rich person or a poor person to start a business? Why do you think most of the mega-corporations supported Obamacare? The law makes it harder, much harder, for smaller businesses to compete with bigger ones. Which one can better afford a compliance officer?
I know. Showing them how to game the system is how I make my money. The first time I worked with an industrial association, I was astounded that they were asking the government to regulate them more. Why would they want laws passed against themselves. Then I realized that they were getting laws passed requiring their competitors to do things that increased the competitor’s costs
Taxes and regulation have been increasing for years, but the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing. Working from the inside, it’s obvious to me that government regulation causes the gap to grow. It’s intended to.
It’s not working, so let’s try something else.
The first step, in my opinion is to repeal all these laws. Let the rich compete with the lower classes with fair rules.
I think taking back the govt from the oligarchs is the only possible solution to the current problems. As long as the govt remains in their hands, immigration, free trade, and wage erosion will continue to prevail.
The way to take back the govt is to form a third party (a "dissident party") and use its powers against the oligarchs. End immigration, leave NAFTA and other free trade deals, raise tariffs, bring in a $15/hour minimum wage, institute a high tax on capital gains and inheritance (for millionaires), end the "War on Terror", financial regulation, etc. Unions will have to play a role too in negotiating higher wage.
The regulations I approve of are financial regulations that make it hard to financially speculate and inflate bubbles. The type of regulations that hurt oligarchs, not small businessmen or regular workers. For example, when the Great Depression started, a large number of financial regulatory measures were pushed through. This kept banking and finance very controlled until the regulations were repealed in the 1980s and 1990s, which ushered in an era in which oligarchs made huge sums of money by manipulating markets.
Even other non-financial regulations aren't that bad, as they keep immigrants out of our labor force. For example, when trucking was deregulated in the late 1970s, pay crashed as the profession was flooded with immigrants. So some regulations are actually supportive of American workers, though I agree that some regulations are not in our interest.
So the presence of Chinese people in White 1st world countries are not in the best interest of Whites, but you have no problem with the presence of Blacks in White 1st world countries even though White women in the U.S and Europe are way more likely to be raped by Black men than they are by Chinese men. Black male on White female rape is by far the most common type of interracial rape in the world. No other forms of interracial rape come close.
Who said I want blacks immigrating to Western countries?
I think black migration isn’t in our interest either.
but just because Chinese migrants are better doesn’t mean that a huge Chinese/Indian influx is a good thing.
I would support such a party.
But I wouldn't support the second plank. As you point out, the oligarchs already control the government. They won't permit it's machinery to be used against themselves. Indeed most current regulations end up favoring the rich. Who has the resources to hire lawyers to make sure their interests aren't hurt or to find the loopholes? Does regulation make it harder for a rich person or a poor person to start a business? Why do you think most of the mega-corporations supported Obamacare? The law makes it harder, much harder, for smaller businesses to compete with bigger ones. Which one can better afford a compliance officer?
I know. Showing them how to game the system is how I make my money. The first time I worked with an industrial association, I was astounded that they were asking the government to regulate them more. Why would they want laws passed against themselves. Then I realized that they were getting laws passed requiring their competitors to do things that increased the competitor's costs
Taxes and regulation have been increasing for years, but the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing. Working from the inside, it's obvious to me that government regulation causes the gap to grow. It's intended to.
It's not working, so let's try something else.
The first step, in my opinion is to repeal all these laws. Let the rich compete with the lower classes with fair rules.
Hi, JB.
I think taking back the govt from the oligarchs is the only possible solution to the current problems. As long as the govt remains in their hands, immigration, free trade, and wage erosion will continue to prevail.
The way to take back the govt is to form a third party (a “dissident party”) and use its powers against the oligarchs. End immigration, leave NAFTA and other free trade deals, raise tariffs, bring in a $15/hour minimum wage, institute a high tax on capital gains and inheritance (for millionaires), end the “War on Terror”, financial regulation, etc. Unions will have to play a role too in negotiating higher wage.
The regulations I approve of are financial regulations that make it hard to financially speculate and inflate bubbles. The type of regulations that hurt oligarchs, not small businessmen or regular workers. For example, when the Great Depression started, a large number of financial regulatory measures were pushed through. This kept banking and finance very controlled until the regulations were repealed in the 1980s and 1990s, which ushered in an era in which oligarchs made huge sums of money by manipulating markets.
Even other non-financial regulations aren’t that bad, as they keep immigrants out of our labor force. For example, when trucking was deregulated in the late 1970s, pay crashed as the profession was flooded with immigrants. So some regulations are actually supportive of American workers, though I agree that some regulations are not in our interest.
1. NAMs have higher IQ than Indians/south asians.
2. NAMs have higher IQ than MENAs, who are classified as white caucasians by the US Census Bureau.
Which Non Asian Minorities are you referring to?
Where is your data?