The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Candor Continued
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Humbly asking for your indulgence to riff on the same COTW topic from a week ago. From Twinkie:

Whites are more likely to commit violent crimes, use drugs, have children out of wedlock, and utilize welfare than Asians are in this country. Does that mean whites as a whole should be condemned for their higher rates of anti-social behaviors? Of corse not. You criticize the individuals for the transgressive behaviors and, better yet, try to structure the society in ways to discourage vice and encourage industry, thrift, and virtue among whites, especially the downscale ones who exhibit these negative behaviors.

It’s the same with blacks. Although there will always be gaps between blacks and whites, only a few decades ago, the black rate of illegitimate births was lower than that of whites today. Even setting aside the moral considerations, it’s useless and counterproductive to condemn blacks as a whole. It’s better to fashion our society as best as we can to encourage and guide blacks to stay out of trouble, work productively, marry, and lead good family lives. That benefits all of us, non-blacks included.

As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale. I’d rather we encouraged more and more of them to adopt the political outlook of, say, Stephen Miller and contribute their considerable talents to our shared cause of making America great again.

The cat is out of the bag. It’s not going back in without violence and destruction, with an associated level of misery no one who is genuinely prepared for would ever welcome. The revolution in our understanding of human behavior via genetics that is transpiring at this very moment may be our last chance at managing what the West has become, with scientific truth rather than the contemporary crop of sociological superstitions that misinform us today.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: COTW 
Hide 209 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I will disagree here.

    Group based condemnations do have a way of working, especially when the elite is motivated to shape their followers into line.

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.

    The first time many whites encounter group based condemnation is on the university campus, and many of them wilt under pressure and become Woke. They lose any sympathy for their SwineRight parents and brethren. In the same visage, whites are unable to define why they should deserve “group rights” when everyone else gets them.

    What do we think is more believeable?

    That Con Inc will call the NAACP/LaRaza/ADL “racist” and tell them to dissolve in the name of social amity?

    or

    That Con Inc can be brought to heel and adopt some kind of a white identity politics that will get us group rights?

    • Agree: West Reanimator
    • Replies: @Ash Williams

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.
     

    "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

    - Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html

     

    Qui Bono, Shlomo?
    , @Not my economy
    The internet rightwing wants “group rights for Whites” and I’m ok with that but I think it’s a ways off. Yes most are cool with it but the enemy is too adapted for shutting down that discussion.

    We have an opening to talk about “white working class”. This is an Official Category as per the media industrial complex so we are allowed to discuss it. Use what we got.

    In reality, nearly all whites are members of this class whether we realize/accept it or not. But let’s not worry about those details for now.

    Yes it would be nice to break out of the enemy frame but when you’re playing monopoly, you pass go and you collect 200 — you don’t screech autistically about how we should really be playing risk instead. Accept the conditions on the ground. White working class.
  2. Even setting aside the moral considerations, it’s useless and counterproductive to condemn blacks as a whole.

    No, we should not condemn entire groups for what individuals do. But the real issue isn’t about condemnation but general understanding.
    In other words, even though not all blacks are violent criminals or thugs, the fact remains that blacks are more muscular and more aggressive than whites. So, when the races integrate, there will be many more cases of black-on-white violence and thuggery.
    For that GENERAL fact, whites should seek separation from blacks. Blacks have thug-supremacist edge over whites.

    Also, it’s no use condemning even blacks who do act violently. Why? So much of black violence is less the result of black moral failing than black genetic programming. In a way, Mike Tyson can’t be blamed for being what he is. He was born with thug genes. It’s like we can’t blame wolves for being wolf-like or bears for being bear-like. Given black genetics, many more of them are prone to act thug-like. Thus, it’s less moral failing than natural expression of black genes.

    So, instead of condemning blacks, I say we should understand them. They evolved in Africa in competition with wild dangerous animals and they developed the oogity-booity genes of warriors, hunters, and thugs. I don’t condemn this. And, in understanding this fact about blacks, it should be obvious that any non-black race has much to lose by integrating with the ghastly Negroes.
    When we consider the BAMMAMA factor — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — , there is no reason why non-blacks should integrate with blacks. Though there are plenty of nice and peaceable blacks, the fact is the violence and thuggery will ALWAYS be black on white than vice.

    As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale.

    We don’t condemn all the Jews or the whole Jewish community. After all, there are plenty of sane and decent Jews. But Power Politics isn’t about individuals but the general line. For instance, Nazi Germany had plenty of Germans who despised Hitler and didn’t want wars. These decent Germans didn’t hate Poles or Russians. But Germany was controlled by Hitler and the great majority of Germans came to support him. So, the general line of Germany at the time was pro-Nazi, imperialist, aggressive, and dangerous.
    Same with Japan. Plenty of Japanese didn’t support Japan’s imperialism in China, but they had no power. The effective power in Japan at the time was militarist and imperialist. Peaceable Japanese folks who opposed militarism were irrelevant.

    Under such conditions, does it make sense to speak of individuals? So, we shouldn’t see Germany or Japan as enemy because it’s only individuals doing bad stuff? No, there was German Power and it was a collective force of German elites and German masses. Sure, not all German elites were enthused for war and not all of German masses admired Hitler. But enough did, and that meant ALL OF GERMANY was used for war. Under such circumstances, we have no choice but see Germany as a bloc than a collection of individuals.
    Same with US and Iraq War. Plenty of Americans were opposed to the war, but the war party prevailed, and the whole US war machine supported by all US taxpayers waged war. So, if people around the world hated the US as an evil imperialist power, it would have been just. Not because all Americans supported the war but because the general line of American Power was for Wars for Israel.

    Same goes for Jews. While every Jew is an individual, it’s no less true that many Jews act as a collective, a power bloc. And this Jewish power bloc is virulently hostile toward whites, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, and Russians. While we can appreciate Jewish dissenters like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, they are essentially ineffective and powerless to do anything about the Jewish Power bloc that is willing to do ANYTHING, even cook up paranoid lies about Russia Collusion, to get what it wants.

    So, it’s not a matter of us condemning every Jew. Rather, it’s about seeing the Jewish Power Bloc for what it is: the sinister supremacist hegemon over America. And even if not all Jews support it, the fact is the great majority of Jews are on the side of the likes of Adam Schiff and Nadler.
    And for that reason, just as the world had no choice but to fight all of Germany and all of Japan during WWII, we have no choice but to fight the entirety of Jewish Power. We are not up against a bunch of Jewish individuals but a Jewish collective that is hellbent on securing Jewish hegemony over all the world. This is not a matter of condemning every Jewish individual but calling out on Jewish Power that is tribal, supremacist, and supported by the majority of Jews.

    • Agree: Ash Williams
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Wish I had an Agree for you, but all I can say for now is Kudos.
    , @Twinkie
    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    In the same vein, I do not consider my non-Asian neighbors to be at war with me, because whites in Morgantown are doing meth and engaging in EBT fraud and blacks in Detroit are shooting each other.

    By all means, let us discuss group differences and the policy implications thereof in full honesty and transparency. But, at the same time, let us treat those we come into contact daily - neighbors, coworkers, people who serve us lunch or sell us coffee, etc. - as individuals, not avatars of some racial average. I see absolutely zero reason to harbor hostility toward those Jews or blacks of good will... especially if they stand on the same side of the political-cultural divide as I do.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Mike Tyson is an uber-peacenik now, funnily enough.
  3. That’s some good wisdom from Twinkie.

    HBD may or may not be true – what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today, that’s a powerful argument in favor of culture.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers – if that can change so dramatically in so short a time, and Koreans are so different today, then we have to start thinking about the role of culture in group behavior.

    HBD may be right, but why not focus on what we can change – which seems to be a tremendous amount, if history is any guide.

    Once, we used to be able to experiment with reality as we found it. We didn’t know everything, but we were willing to try things.

    Now, we say we know things and aren’t willing to try things that go against what we think we know. We know genetics determines behavior – and it doesn’t matter if Koreans did a 180 degree turn in behavior in 50 years. We know it can’t be true.

    This was the attitude in the Middle Ages – they knew a bunch of things because Aristotle said so, and it didn’t matter if the real world was different. They knew.

    It took a revolution in thinking to move away from certainty and towards open minded pragmatism.

    The fact is, we know from history that group behavior changes dramatically in short spaces of time – there are so many examples. A pragmatic approach would suggest we try and work with that – even if we don’t fully understand it.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic, well, does that match the historical record? It matches some facts that we know, but far from all. So we can’t say it’s a good theory from a pragmatic point if view.

    We’re at a point where we’d rather say we know even if it doesn’t cover so many facts and doesn’t let us do anything – than honestly admit we don’t know and just explore and tinker and try and make things happen based on historical examples, even without fully understanding.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    That’s some good wisdom from Twinkie.
     
    Thanks for the kind words!

    HBD may or may not be true – what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.
     
    Genetics and environment are not static nor are they separate. There is a constant feedback loop between people and their environments (including culture).

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today
     
    No, "if" there. Do an internet search. I posted the number on Unz a couple of years ago.

    Of course, white rate of illegitimate birth back then was still lower than that of blacks. I am not suggesting that the black-white gap can be closed. That may be very difficult, perhaps even impossible. What I am suggesting is that, at one point, we had a society and a culture that kept in check this particular sociopathy among blacks at a lower rate than they do today among whites.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers
     
    Long before Mr. Linh Dinh wrote that article, I posted the link to Jack London's "Yellow Peril" on Unz and quoted how London described Koreans (brief summary: the Chinese are hard-working, the Japanese are clever, the Koreans are dumb, cowardly, and lazy, and, by golly, with the Japanese in charge of the Chinese, the yellows will overrun the white race!).

    because Aristotle said so
     
    Hey, now, don't knock Aristotle. He was a most wise Ancient whose take on virtue is priceless.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic
     
    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn't mean we can't genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).
    , @nebulafox
    >This was the attitude in the Middle Ages – they knew a bunch of things because Aristotle said so, and it didn’t matter if the real world was different. They knew.

    The much needed rational Aristotlean injection into Western thought that Aquinas gave was a key step on the road out of the Dark Ages and into full Western recovery: and in the end, pre-eminence. Man had a brain, it was time to use it.

  4. Maybe Twinkie’s recollections comes with not having to live in the West Virginia of China?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Maybe Twinkie’s recollections comes with not having to live in the West Virginia of China?
     
    I am not Chinese, but I have been to Xinjiang (it's one of the reasons I am a PNG in PRC). ;)
  5. @Priss Factor

    Even setting aside the moral considerations, it’s useless and counterproductive to condemn blacks as a whole.
     
    No, we should not condemn entire groups for what individuals do. But the real issue isn't about condemnation but general understanding.
    In other words, even though not all blacks are violent criminals or thugs, the fact remains that blacks are more muscular and more aggressive than whites. So, when the races integrate, there will be many more cases of black-on-white violence and thuggery.
    For that GENERAL fact, whites should seek separation from blacks. Blacks have thug-supremacist edge over whites.

    Also, it's no use condemning even blacks who do act violently. Why? So much of black violence is less the result of black moral failing than black genetic programming. In a way, Mike Tyson can't be blamed for being what he is. He was born with thug genes. It's like we can't blame wolves for being wolf-like or bears for being bear-like. Given black genetics, many more of them are prone to act thug-like. Thus, it's less moral failing than natural expression of black genes.

    So, instead of condemning blacks, I say we should understand them. They evolved in Africa in competition with wild dangerous animals and they developed the oogity-booity genes of warriors, hunters, and thugs. I don't condemn this. And, in understanding this fact about blacks, it should be obvious that any non-black race has much to lose by integrating with the ghastly Negroes.
    When we consider the BAMMAMA factor -- blacks are more muscular and more aggressive -- , there is no reason why non-blacks should integrate with blacks. Though there are plenty of nice and peaceable blacks, the fact is the violence and thuggery will ALWAYS be black on white than vice.


    As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale.
     
    We don't condemn all the Jews or the whole Jewish community. After all, there are plenty of sane and decent Jews. But Power Politics isn't about individuals but the general line. For instance, Nazi Germany had plenty of Germans who despised Hitler and didn't want wars. These decent Germans didn't hate Poles or Russians. But Germany was controlled by Hitler and the great majority of Germans came to support him. So, the general line of Germany at the time was pro-Nazi, imperialist, aggressive, and dangerous.
    Same with Japan. Plenty of Japanese didn't support Japan's imperialism in China, but they had no power. The effective power in Japan at the time was militarist and imperialist. Peaceable Japanese folks who opposed militarism were irrelevant.

    Under such conditions, does it make sense to speak of individuals? So, we shouldn't see Germany or Japan as enemy because it's only individuals doing bad stuff? No, there was German Power and it was a collective force of German elites and German masses. Sure, not all German elites were enthused for war and not all of German masses admired Hitler. But enough did, and that meant ALL OF GERMANY was used for war. Under such circumstances, we have no choice but see Germany as a bloc than a collection of individuals.
    Same with US and Iraq War. Plenty of Americans were opposed to the war, but the war party prevailed, and the whole US war machine supported by all US taxpayers waged war. So, if people around the world hated the US as an evil imperialist power, it would have been just. Not because all Americans supported the war but because the general line of American Power was for Wars for Israel.

    Same goes for Jews. While every Jew is an individual, it's no less true that many Jews act as a collective, a power bloc. And this Jewish power bloc is virulently hostile toward whites, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, and Russians. While we can appreciate Jewish dissenters like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, they are essentially ineffective and powerless to do anything about the Jewish Power bloc that is willing to do ANYTHING, even cook up paranoid lies about Russia Collusion, to get what it wants.

    So, it's not a matter of us condemning every Jew. Rather, it's about seeing the Jewish Power Bloc for what it is: the sinister supremacist hegemon over America. And even if not all Jews support it, the fact is the great majority of Jews are on the side of the likes of Adam Schiff and Nadler.
    And for that reason, just as the world had no choice but to fight all of Germany and all of Japan during WWII, we have no choice but to fight the entirety of Jewish Power. We are not up against a bunch of Jewish individuals but a Jewish collective that is hellbent on securing Jewish hegemony over all the world. This is not a matter of condemning every Jewish individual but calling out on Jewish Power that is tribal, supremacist, and supported by the majority of Jews.

    Wish I had an Agree for you, but all I can say for now is Kudos.

  6. And the fact is, maybe as a culture we’re tired of trying things and would rather just seek comfort in certainty. Ok, we know groups can’t change, and that’s that. No exhausting attempt to figure stuff out that we don’t fully understand. No groping in the dark. We stand on firm ground knowing things with certainty. Historical facts and real world behavior be damned.

    There is comfort and rest in such a simple attitude. Trying things without really understanding them doesn’t give you that feeling of comfort and rest. Its complex and uncertain.

    Another possibility is that as a culture we simply aren’t willing to make the changes that would affect group behavior. We can guess what it would take, but don’t want to do it. Maybe we have to become more collectivist and more supportive of each other, and we’re afraid to do that because it would mean producing fewer geniuses or something.

    So when we say HBD is true, it may mean that under our current culture groups will behave as they are now. We could change group behavior for the better, but that would mean sacrificing other things we want.

    Things usually involve a tradeoff – Asians do better on most social indices, but produce fewer geniuses and great leaders. Maybe whites are ok with creating dysfunction in a large section of the underclass if they can produce characters like Bezos or that guy from Tesla (really can’t remember his name right now).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Ok, we know groups can’t change, and that’s that.

    I honestly don't believe that's true: in either direction, for that matter. Groups can regress as well as progress.

    To take one example, while I don't have exact statistics, I'm reasonably confident that black Americans did not display the same levels of anti-social behavior and social rot in the 1920s that has become more or less normative in inner cities today. This was despite the white majority at the time having far harsher attitudes on race-sometimes verging on the outright barbaric, i.e, lynching-than they would during the riots of the 1960s, let alone in the 21st Century, alongside the barely veiled legal discrimination of the time.

    It's interesting to note that many of the problems that have been ailing working-class black communities for several decades-above all the breakdown of the family structure and reliable employment, particularly for men-have begun to wreak havoc with poorer declassed whites over the last couple of decades. They are the same problems, they just hit the blacks earlier and harder.

  7. Consider the weather.

    Suppose someone notes that the days will gradually go from winter to spring to summer.

    But then, suppose someone complains that such observation is unfair because not every day fits this pattern. After all, not every subsequent day is warmer than the previous one. Indeed, there are days in April that are cooler than in March, and there are days in May that are cooler than in April(and on occasion even in March or February). So, not every individual day fits the pattern of warming from winter to summer. Some subsequent days are actually colder. Still, when we look at the overall weather trend and patterns, it’s obvious that winter will yield to spring then summer. Those individual anomalies were useless in stopping the coming of summer.

    Same with traveling. A highway doesn’t always curve in one direction. It swerves left and right constantly, but if you’re driving northward and there are more turns westward than eastward, the fact is you’ll end up in the northwest than northeast. And despite all the individual turns eastward on the highway, the westward turns were the truly decisive ones and brought you to some place in the northwest far from the northeast.

    It’s like boxing. It’s not like the punches all go one way. Some punches go the other way. But if more punches go one way, the winner is the heavier puncher who landed more blows.
    So, when we look at Jewish Power, it’s obvious there isn’t just one side. There are Jews like Stephen Miller and others who have second thoughts about Diversity. But for every blow they land, there are 100 blows landed by the other side. So, in the end, which Jewish Force will win and dominate the core of the Jewish agenda? The ineffective individuals or the massive power bloc?
    Jewish Globalists are like George Foreman. Jewish patriots are like Jerry Cooney.
    In the Foreman-Cooney fight, who cares about the blows landed by Cooney when Foreman’s punches flattened him in two rounds? Likewise, even though we can appreciate Jewish patriots like Paul Gottfried, let’s not fool ourselves. They are palookas and totally ineffective against the Bloombergs and Zuckerbergs of the world.

    If there are 100 logs, and if 90 log lean in one direction while 10 logs lean in the other direction, do the contrarian 10 really matter?

  8. @216
    I will disagree here.

    Group based condemnations do have a way of working, especially when the elite is motivated to shape their followers into line.

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.

    The first time many whites encounter group based condemnation is on the university campus, and many of them wilt under pressure and become Woke. They lose any sympathy for their SwineRight parents and brethren. In the same visage, whites are unable to define why they should deserve "group rights" when everyone else gets them.

    What do we think is more believeable?

    That Con Inc will call the NAACP/LaRaza/ADL "racist" and tell them to dissolve in the name of social amity?

    or

    That Con Inc can be brought to heel and adopt some kind of a white identity politics that will get us group rights?

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html

    Qui Bono, Shlomo?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore
     
    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee's statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It's not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).
    , @nebulafox
    >“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    And they ask why Singapore is no democracy...

    Singapore is a good example of both the limits and promise of effective policy in governing a multi-racial state. There are still gaps between different racial groups, and while Singapore is more meritocratic than anywhere else you'll see in the region, that doesn't mean it can erase the realities of racial and cultural differences.

    It is true that the housing estates are forced to have a certain quota of each ethnic group on them to prevent ghettos from forming. So Xiao Lee, Ibrahim, and Ganesh will end up growing up together and interacting together at first. But once they get to school, things get tracked pretty quickly, and as life goes on, cultural differences become apparent. Xiao Lee wants to go out and drink, Ibrahim obviously doesn't drink. They end up becoming more distant, not because they dislike each other, but because they can hang out with friends from their own race who share their own sensibilities. That kind of thing. Humans follow the path of least resistance most of the time. This isn't to say interracial friendships and relationships do not form: quite the contrary! But life isn't perfect, and no matter what you do, in a multi-racial society, you will have some degree of self-selected segregation.

    (And, of course, part of the reason that Singapore is no democracy is because if it were, the Han majority would simply use demographics to get their way on everything. With the influx of immigrants from the PRC who are far less socially conditioned than the local Singaporean Chinese, one could argue that a degree of authoritarian control is more needed now, not less.)

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other. (Proximity to their co-ethnics underlines the differences: I've heard absolutely withering comments from Singaporean Chinese about the boorish behavior of mainlanders or from Singaporean Malays on the laziness of their Malaysian co-ethnics.) They will defend each other when push comes to shove. They recognize each other as their countrymen, whatever their differences in looks, religion, or culture. And in the end, that's the critical factor for your solvency as a nation-state. It'd be wonderful if we all got along and hung out together, but that doesn't decide your future, the willingness to bond during a crisis does. It cannot be understated how much of an achievement that is, given the circumstances of Singapore's creation.

    I'm not sure how useful looking at Singapore in the specifics is: very different place from the US in too many ways to state here. The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we've gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.) But as a general rule, it is a good instruction primer on what can realistically be achieved: and what can't be.

  9. The revolution in our understanding of human behavior via genetics that is transpiring at this very moment may be our last chance at managing what the West has become, with scientific truth rather than the contemporary crop of sociological superstitions that misinform us today.

    You write like you really believe that there is no ideological component of what you have termed scientific truth, but actually scientific superstitions are no less misleading than the sociological ones.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You write like you really believe that there is no ideological component of what you have termed scientific truth, but actually scientific superstitions are no less misleading than the sociological ones.
     
    Science these days is political. That can't be evaded. Maybe the actual hard sciences like physics aren't but the soft sciences and the pseudosciences are very very political. In the soft sciences and the pseudosciences truth doesn't matter. What matters is whether their theories are politically useful or not.

    Anyone who thinks that the soft sciences deal in objective truth is living in a fantasy world. And if it's not physics or engineering it's soft science.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    My point is far less ambitious. I only ask that our public conversation consider things like biology and genetics, that nature be accorded something more than 0% influence.
  10. anonymous[372] • Disclaimer says:

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
    It has failed for these reasons:

    Real Politics – Minorities don’t really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.

    Human Nature – people blame others for their own failures and perceived persecutions. Blacks will always blame whites. Jews will always blame gentiles. The white majority/founders will always be blamed. There will always be bad blood.

    Genetics/Culture – it doesn’t matter which is the cause of the problems. Re-programming a failing ethnic group’s culture or their genes isn’t going to work. The re-programming requires totalitarian government.

    The white majority is no more – At best a policy of “citizenship” can work if you have a majority population in control, agreeing to recognize minorities as fellow citizens. We now live in a multi-tribal society where every tribe is at war with every other for its own piece of the action. All the political and social forces are driving people to hunker down with their own tribe and war against the others. That is what the Obama age has brought into full view.

    The only way you will get the republic of citizens you describe is in a country with a relatively homogeneous culture. America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.

    • Agree: West Reanimator
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.
     
    We're going to have war regardless.  It's baked in.  The point is to win it.
    , @Rosie

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
     
    This.

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.
     
    I don't understand this assumption. Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.

    I can't imagine honest dialogue helping anything. Indeed, it might make matters worse. It's time for a divorce.

    , @Twinkie

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
     
    Straw man. I didn't write anything about giving a "hand up" to anybody. I am categorically opposed to welfare and most forms of entitlements.

    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
     
    Really? Since when have we had a public program of "judge people by the content of their character"?

    We have had some form of affirmative action or another since the 19th Century, and the current incarnation of the judging people by group identity goes back to the 1960's.

    I don't think my program, as such, has been tried for a quite a while, if at all.

    Minorities don’t really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.
     
    "Like all people... simply want money... cheat to get it." I think this is called projection.
  11. @Ash Williams

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.
     

    "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

    - Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html

     

    Qui Bono, Shlomo?

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore

    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee’s statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).
     
    Agreed. There's not a single country in which whites vote as a bloc.

    And apart from blacks in the US, other racial groups don't really vote as a bloc either in most western countries.

    And Christians don't really vote as a bloc either. Maybe the Evangelicals do but Christians in general don't.

    So overall, as you say, Lee Kuan Yew may have been right about Singapore but he was mostly wrong about everywhere else.
    , @Pericles


    Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

     

    When you look around the poker table and can't spot the patsy ...
    , @ulithi
    Let's see if whites vote as a bloc when they become 15-20 % of the population .
    , @Sushipal
    Slowly but surely, we'll eventually see whites start to vote together as a block, as the GOP is the "white party" & the Dems are now the POC party.
    , @anon

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).
     
    I see no reason for it not to be. And yes, whites do vote as a bloc -- increasingly so. In some states, over 70% of whites vote republican, usually where racial tensions run the deepest. As some states have trended blue due to non-white immigration, others have trended red for the same reason: Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota. George W. Bush got maybe 54% of the white vote nationally while Romney got nearly 60%. This has been a trend that has generally been increasing with time. If whites don't yet vote as a monolith, it is only because whites have been the supermajority throughout all of American history; ideological issues have been a luxury. Both trends are changing in tandem.

    Further, the expressed importance of subjects like religion and economic dogma is decreasing among whites, so it's obvious that disparate white groups will have increasingly fewer things to divide them with time. This possibly indicates an increasing potential for white bloc voting. This potential is perhaps demonstrated by republican refusal to abandon their representative Donald Trump, despite all his troubles and scandals. This wasn't true of either Richard Nixon or George W. Bush -- back when America was far more homogeneous. This is a notable change. No matter what the man has done, he's been immune to disapproval from his white base. This is a phenomenon also seen in many majority minority districts where bloc voting is the norm. For example, the incompetent black mayor of New Orleans during Katrina, Ray Nagin, was re-elected by his black constituents despite his poor performance.

    I see no reason why the same pattern repeated in nearly every diverse country won't also repeat in the United States as well. IMO, to believe otherwise is merely wishful thinking.

    I’d rather we encouraged more and more of them to adopt the political outlook of, say, Stephen Miller and contribute their considerable talents to our shared cause of making America great again.
     
    That's not going to happen -- not with Jews, Asians, or any other minority group ... and for good reason: humans have evolved to pick the winning side; you're here because your ancestors weren't stupid enough to be on the wrong side of their past social group. In a democracy where 50% +1 vote wins the day, the party that's on the right side of demographics carries the day. None of those groups are going to want to saddle up with the losing side -- white republicans -- and risk becoming targets of the new boss in town. That observation ultimately dooms any prospect of attracting Jews or Asians to the republican side. It is to their benefit to ally themselves with the ascending POC coalition in order to avoid retaliatory persecution when whites are no longer in charge. Human nature doesn't care about your election strategy.
  12. @Znzn
    Maybe Twinkie's recollections comes with not having to live in the West Virginia of China?

    Maybe Twinkie’s recollections comes with not having to live in the West Virginia of China?

    I am not Chinese, but I have been to Xinjiang (it’s one of the reasons I am a PNG in PRC). 😉

  13. @Ash Williams

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.
     

    "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

    - Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html

     

    Qui Bono, Shlomo?

    >“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    And they ask why Singapore is no democracy…

    Singapore is a good example of both the limits and promise of effective policy in governing a multi-racial state. There are still gaps between different racial groups, and while Singapore is more meritocratic than anywhere else you’ll see in the region, that doesn’t mean it can erase the realities of racial and cultural differences.

    It is true that the housing estates are forced to have a certain quota of each ethnic group on them to prevent ghettos from forming. So Xiao Lee, Ibrahim, and Ganesh will end up growing up together and interacting together at first. But once they get to school, things get tracked pretty quickly, and as life goes on, cultural differences become apparent. Xiao Lee wants to go out and drink, Ibrahim obviously doesn’t drink. They end up becoming more distant, not because they dislike each other, but because they can hang out with friends from their own race who share their own sensibilities. That kind of thing. Humans follow the path of least resistance most of the time. This isn’t to say interracial friendships and relationships do not form: quite the contrary! But life isn’t perfect, and no matter what you do, in a multi-racial society, you will have some degree of self-selected segregation.

    (And, of course, part of the reason that Singapore is no democracy is because if it were, the Han majority would simply use demographics to get their way on everything. With the influx of immigrants from the PRC who are far less socially conditioned than the local Singaporean Chinese, one could argue that a degree of authoritarian control is more needed now, not less.)

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other. (Proximity to their co-ethnics underlines the differences: I’ve heard absolutely withering comments from Singaporean Chinese about the boorish behavior of mainlanders or from Singaporean Malays on the laziness of their Malaysian co-ethnics.) They will defend each other when push comes to shove. They recognize each other as their countrymen, whatever their differences in looks, religion, or culture. And in the end, that’s the critical factor for your solvency as a nation-state. It’d be wonderful if we all got along and hung out together, but that doesn’t decide your future, the willingness to bond during a crisis does. It cannot be understated how much of an achievement that is, given the circumstances of Singapore’s creation.

    I’m not sure how useful looking at Singapore in the specifics is: very different place from the US in too many ways to state here. The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we’ve gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.) But as a general rule, it is a good instruction primer on what can realistically be achieved: and what can’t be.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other.
     
    Yup. Native Singaporean Chinese absolutely loathe the "class-less new money" Chinese immigrants from the mainland. And Singaporean Indians actually have higher average income than the Singaporean Chinese do, and regard themselves as a First World - Singaporean - people, not the grubby, ignorant masses of India. It's Singaporean Indians who pointedly told me that Indian (Tamil, in this case) food in Singapore is the best and cleanest in the world, not that in India.

    The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we’ve gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.)
     
    I like Mr. Derbyshire's description of the U.S. as a soup and immigrants as salt - a little bit of salt blends into and makes the soup tasty, but too much ruins the soup.
    , @Ash Williams

    The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans.
     
    Yeah, that's observably false. It takes at least three generations before they assimilate, and that assumes a homogeneous society that replaces the one of their country of origin.

    Too many, too fast. War is baked in, unless Operation Wetback 2.0 commences apace. FYI, not looking forward to either, but the latter is preferable to the former, by far.
  14. @Priss Factor

    Even setting aside the moral considerations, it’s useless and counterproductive to condemn blacks as a whole.
     
    No, we should not condemn entire groups for what individuals do. But the real issue isn't about condemnation but general understanding.
    In other words, even though not all blacks are violent criminals or thugs, the fact remains that blacks are more muscular and more aggressive than whites. So, when the races integrate, there will be many more cases of black-on-white violence and thuggery.
    For that GENERAL fact, whites should seek separation from blacks. Blacks have thug-supremacist edge over whites.

    Also, it's no use condemning even blacks who do act violently. Why? So much of black violence is less the result of black moral failing than black genetic programming. In a way, Mike Tyson can't be blamed for being what he is. He was born with thug genes. It's like we can't blame wolves for being wolf-like or bears for being bear-like. Given black genetics, many more of them are prone to act thug-like. Thus, it's less moral failing than natural expression of black genes.

    So, instead of condemning blacks, I say we should understand them. They evolved in Africa in competition with wild dangerous animals and they developed the oogity-booity genes of warriors, hunters, and thugs. I don't condemn this. And, in understanding this fact about blacks, it should be obvious that any non-black race has much to lose by integrating with the ghastly Negroes.
    When we consider the BAMMAMA factor -- blacks are more muscular and more aggressive -- , there is no reason why non-blacks should integrate with blacks. Though there are plenty of nice and peaceable blacks, the fact is the violence and thuggery will ALWAYS be black on white than vice.


    As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale.
     
    We don't condemn all the Jews or the whole Jewish community. After all, there are plenty of sane and decent Jews. But Power Politics isn't about individuals but the general line. For instance, Nazi Germany had plenty of Germans who despised Hitler and didn't want wars. These decent Germans didn't hate Poles or Russians. But Germany was controlled by Hitler and the great majority of Germans came to support him. So, the general line of Germany at the time was pro-Nazi, imperialist, aggressive, and dangerous.
    Same with Japan. Plenty of Japanese didn't support Japan's imperialism in China, but they had no power. The effective power in Japan at the time was militarist and imperialist. Peaceable Japanese folks who opposed militarism were irrelevant.

    Under such conditions, does it make sense to speak of individuals? So, we shouldn't see Germany or Japan as enemy because it's only individuals doing bad stuff? No, there was German Power and it was a collective force of German elites and German masses. Sure, not all German elites were enthused for war and not all of German masses admired Hitler. But enough did, and that meant ALL OF GERMANY was used for war. Under such circumstances, we have no choice but see Germany as a bloc than a collection of individuals.
    Same with US and Iraq War. Plenty of Americans were opposed to the war, but the war party prevailed, and the whole US war machine supported by all US taxpayers waged war. So, if people around the world hated the US as an evil imperialist power, it would have been just. Not because all Americans supported the war but because the general line of American Power was for Wars for Israel.

    Same goes for Jews. While every Jew is an individual, it's no less true that many Jews act as a collective, a power bloc. And this Jewish power bloc is virulently hostile toward whites, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, and Russians. While we can appreciate Jewish dissenters like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, they are essentially ineffective and powerless to do anything about the Jewish Power bloc that is willing to do ANYTHING, even cook up paranoid lies about Russia Collusion, to get what it wants.

    So, it's not a matter of us condemning every Jew. Rather, it's about seeing the Jewish Power Bloc for what it is: the sinister supremacist hegemon over America. And even if not all Jews support it, the fact is the great majority of Jews are on the side of the likes of Adam Schiff and Nadler.
    And for that reason, just as the world had no choice but to fight all of Germany and all of Japan during WWII, we have no choice but to fight the entirety of Jewish Power. We are not up against a bunch of Jewish individuals but a Jewish collective that is hellbent on securing Jewish hegemony over all the world. This is not a matter of condemning every Jewish individual but calling out on Jewish Power that is tribal, supremacist, and supported by the majority of Jews.

    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    In the same vein, I do not consider my non-Asian neighbors to be at war with me, because whites in Morgantown are doing meth and engaging in EBT fraud and blacks in Detroit are shooting each other.

    By all means, let us discuss group differences and the policy implications thereof in full honesty and transparency. But, at the same time, let us treat those we come into contact daily – neighbors, coworkers, people who serve us lunch or sell us coffee, etc. – as individuals, not avatars of some racial average. I see absolutely zero reason to harbor hostility toward those Jews or blacks of good will… especially if they stand on the same side of the political-cultural divide as I do.

    • Agree: iffen, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    There was a real risk of war breaking out with one of Singapore's larger Islamic neighbors during the Konfrontasi-era, shortly after independence and the context under which that happened. It's why they got help from the IDF. Part of the reason Singapore is so cramped is because so much land needs to be given to a fully functioning military. (Stuff you no doubt already know, judging from your background...)

    Not much of an analogue to that with the US, La Raza fantasists aside.

    , @Priss Factor

    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.
     
    Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    And keep in mind... Palestinians and Jews used to live side by side in Palestine before Jews decided to take the land and destroy Palestinians. Just because various peoples seem to co-exist in the same territory doesn't mean that they are not at war. Jews always settled in Palestine with long-term goal of taking it. And Jews have a long-term goal of turning whites into a minority and cucks of Jews.

    Also, what is globo-homo but Jewish crusade to destroy Christianity and replace it with Queertianity?

    And blacks have been waging violent criminal war on other races and on other blacks. How do you explain white flight and Jew Flew?
    , @Ash Williams

    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.
     
    It's pretty clear Jews are at war with whites, it's just that whites don't realize it yet. Yes NAJALT, but enough of them are that it's created quite the problem... Which won't resolve well for many.

    If things get bad enough, you'll see things separate into defacto "countries", for sure.
  15. @AaronB
    And the fact is, maybe as a culture we're tired of trying things and would rather just seek comfort in certainty. Ok, we know groups can't change, and that's that. No exhausting attempt to figure stuff out that we don't fully understand. No groping in the dark. We stand on firm ground knowing things with certainty. Historical facts and real world behavior be damned.

    There is comfort and rest in such a simple attitude. Trying things without really understanding them doesn't give you that feeling of comfort and rest. Its complex and uncertain.

    Another possibility is that as a culture we simply aren't willing to make the changes that would affect group behavior. We can guess what it would take, but don't want to do it. Maybe we have to become more collectivist and more supportive of each other, and we're afraid to do that because it would mean producing fewer geniuses or something.

    So when we say HBD is true, it may mean that under our current culture groups will behave as they are now. We could change group behavior for the better, but that would mean sacrificing other things we want.

    Things usually involve a tradeoff - Asians do better on most social indices, but produce fewer geniuses and great leaders. Maybe whites are ok with creating dysfunction in a large section of the underclass if they can produce characters like Bezos or that guy from Tesla (really can't remember his name right now).

    >Ok, we know groups can’t change, and that’s that.

    I honestly don’t believe that’s true: in either direction, for that matter. Groups can regress as well as progress.

    To take one example, while I don’t have exact statistics, I’m reasonably confident that black Americans did not display the same levels of anti-social behavior and social rot in the 1920s that has become more or less normative in inner cities today. This was despite the white majority at the time having far harsher attitudes on race-sometimes verging on the outright barbaric, i.e, lynching-than they would during the riots of the 1960s, let alone in the 21st Century, alongside the barely veiled legal discrimination of the time.

    It’s interesting to note that many of the problems that have been ailing working-class black communities for several decades-above all the breakdown of the family structure and reliable employment, particularly for men-have begun to wreak havoc with poorer declassed whites over the last couple of decades. They are the same problems, they just hit the blacks earlier and harder.

    • Agree: iffen, Talha
  16. @Twinkie
    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    In the same vein, I do not consider my non-Asian neighbors to be at war with me, because whites in Morgantown are doing meth and engaging in EBT fraud and blacks in Detroit are shooting each other.

    By all means, let us discuss group differences and the policy implications thereof in full honesty and transparency. But, at the same time, let us treat those we come into contact daily - neighbors, coworkers, people who serve us lunch or sell us coffee, etc. - as individuals, not avatars of some racial average. I see absolutely zero reason to harbor hostility toward those Jews or blacks of good will... especially if they stand on the same side of the political-cultural divide as I do.

    >The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    There was a real risk of war breaking out with one of Singapore’s larger Islamic neighbors during the Konfrontasi-era, shortly after independence and the context under which that happened. It’s why they got help from the IDF. Part of the reason Singapore is so cramped is because so much land needs to be given to a fully functioning military. (Stuff you no doubt already know, judging from your background…)

    Not much of an analogue to that with the US, La Raza fantasists aside.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Singaporean military packs a punch waaaay above its weight, and the Singaporeans take no chances and make sure they have a very capable ally have a big chunk of its fleet serviced on its soil, even without officially hosting the said ally in a military base and without incurring local resentment (Yongsan, Okinawa, etc). Smart folks, these Singaporean leaders. ;)
  17. @AaronB
    That's some good wisdom from Twinkie.

    HBD may or may not be true - what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today, that's a powerful argument in favor of culture.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers - if that can change so dramatically in so short a time, and Koreans are so different today, then we have to start thinking about the role of culture in group behavior.

    HBD may be right, but why not focus on what we can change - which seems to be a tremendous amount, if history is any guide.

    Once, we used to be able to experiment with reality as we found it. We didn't know everything, but we were willing to try things.

    Now, we say we know things and aren't willing to try things that go against what we think we know. We know genetics determines behavior - and it doesn't matter if Koreans did a 180 degree turn in behavior in 50 years. We know it can't be true.

    This was the attitude in the Middle Ages - they knew a bunch of things because Aristotle said so, and it didn't matter if the real world was different. They knew.

    It took a revolution in thinking to move away from certainty and towards open minded pragmatism.

    The fact is, we know from history that group behavior changes dramatically in short spaces of time - there are so many examples. A pragmatic approach would suggest we try and work with that - even if we don't fully understand it.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic, well, does that match the historical record? It matches some facts that we know, but far from all. So we can't say it's a good theory from a pragmatic point if view.

    We're at a point where we'd rather say we know even if it doesn't cover so many facts and doesn't let us do anything - than honestly admit we don't know and just explore and tinker and try and make things happen based on historical examples, even without fully understanding.

    That’s some good wisdom from Twinkie.

    Thanks for the kind words!

    HBD may or may not be true – what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.

    Genetics and environment are not static nor are they separate. There is a constant feedback loop between people and their environments (including culture).

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today

    No, “if” there. Do an internet search. I posted the number on Unz a couple of years ago.

    Of course, white rate of illegitimate birth back then was still lower than that of blacks. I am not suggesting that the black-white gap can be closed. That may be very difficult, perhaps even impossible. What I am suggesting is that, at one point, we had a society and a culture that kept in check this particular sociopathy among blacks at a lower rate than they do today among whites.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers

    Long before Mr. Linh Dinh wrote that article, I posted the link to Jack London’s “Yellow Peril” on Unz and quoted how London described Koreans (brief summary: the Chinese are hard-working, the Japanese are clever, the Koreans are dumb, cowardly, and lazy, and, by golly, with the Japanese in charge of the Chinese, the yellows will overrun the white race!).

    because Aristotle said so

    Hey, now, don’t knock Aristotle. He was a most wise Ancient whose take on virtue is priceless.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic

    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn’t mean we can’t genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).

    • Replies: @AaronB

    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn’t mean we can’t genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).
     
    That's an excellent way of putting it, that does justice to both sides of the debate.

    We will never solve the HBD "debate" because both sides have some truth to them.

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.

    However, do you only apply it to future generations? If so, I would say it applies to the current generation - any individual can have a different set of genes activated in different environments.

    Ones genetic potential for violence can be activated in one environment but not another, etc.
    , @Curmudgeon

    black illegitimate births were lower than whites today
     
    There is a lot to unpack in that. The births have never been "illegitimate" they have been "out of the legitimacy of wedlock".
    Since the glorification of the Black male as being "real" men, how many "White" births out of wedlock are mixed race? It is not uncommon to see White women with their pet Black male and mixed race children. Some of those children are from a different Black sperm donor.

    Children born out of wedlock are not necessarily a problem. Many couples with such children, live as a family unit with every bit as much commitment as married couples. While the lack of "legal" commitment may be less, the moral commitment is really what counts. A married couple with children with an uncommitted parent is worse than an unmarried couple with commitment.

    The problem identified for Black males is their lack of commitment, beyond being the sperm donor, to the female, irrespective of race.
  18. @nebulafox
    >“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    And they ask why Singapore is no democracy...

    Singapore is a good example of both the limits and promise of effective policy in governing a multi-racial state. There are still gaps between different racial groups, and while Singapore is more meritocratic than anywhere else you'll see in the region, that doesn't mean it can erase the realities of racial and cultural differences.

    It is true that the housing estates are forced to have a certain quota of each ethnic group on them to prevent ghettos from forming. So Xiao Lee, Ibrahim, and Ganesh will end up growing up together and interacting together at first. But once they get to school, things get tracked pretty quickly, and as life goes on, cultural differences become apparent. Xiao Lee wants to go out and drink, Ibrahim obviously doesn't drink. They end up becoming more distant, not because they dislike each other, but because they can hang out with friends from their own race who share their own sensibilities. That kind of thing. Humans follow the path of least resistance most of the time. This isn't to say interracial friendships and relationships do not form: quite the contrary! But life isn't perfect, and no matter what you do, in a multi-racial society, you will have some degree of self-selected segregation.

    (And, of course, part of the reason that Singapore is no democracy is because if it were, the Han majority would simply use demographics to get their way on everything. With the influx of immigrants from the PRC who are far less socially conditioned than the local Singaporean Chinese, one could argue that a degree of authoritarian control is more needed now, not less.)

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other. (Proximity to their co-ethnics underlines the differences: I've heard absolutely withering comments from Singaporean Chinese about the boorish behavior of mainlanders or from Singaporean Malays on the laziness of their Malaysian co-ethnics.) They will defend each other when push comes to shove. They recognize each other as their countrymen, whatever their differences in looks, religion, or culture. And in the end, that's the critical factor for your solvency as a nation-state. It'd be wonderful if we all got along and hung out together, but that doesn't decide your future, the willingness to bond during a crisis does. It cannot be understated how much of an achievement that is, given the circumstances of Singapore's creation.

    I'm not sure how useful looking at Singapore in the specifics is: very different place from the US in too many ways to state here. The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we've gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.) But as a general rule, it is a good instruction primer on what can realistically be achieved: and what can't be.

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other.

    Yup. Native Singaporean Chinese absolutely loathe the “class-less new money” Chinese immigrants from the mainland. And Singaporean Indians actually have higher average income than the Singaporean Chinese do, and regard themselves as a First World – Singaporean – people, not the grubby, ignorant masses of India. It’s Singaporean Indians who pointedly told me that Indian (Tamil, in this case) food in Singapore is the best and cleanest in the world, not that in India.

    The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we’ve gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.)

    I like Mr. Derbyshire’s description of the U.S. as a soup and immigrants as salt – a little bit of salt blends into and makes the soup tasty, but too much ruins the soup.

    • Replies: @Sushipal
    And too much salt gives you high blood pressure & kills you!
    , @Mikey D.
    The main issue as far as i can see it is that we've gone past the point where a recalibration like you've been talking about is possible, let alone desirable.

    Peaceful separation of groups is probably the best we can hope for. But while you do hope for it, I suggest you simultaneously stock up on ammo.
  19. @nebulafox
    >The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    There was a real risk of war breaking out with one of Singapore's larger Islamic neighbors during the Konfrontasi-era, shortly after independence and the context under which that happened. It's why they got help from the IDF. Part of the reason Singapore is so cramped is because so much land needs to be given to a fully functioning military. (Stuff you no doubt already know, judging from your background...)

    Not much of an analogue to that with the US, La Raza fantasists aside.

    Singaporean military packs a punch waaaay above its weight, and the Singaporeans take no chances and make sure they have a very capable ally have a big chunk of its fleet serviced on its soil, even without officially hosting the said ally in a military base and without incurring local resentment (Yongsan, Okinawa, etc). Smart folks, these Singaporean leaders. 😉

    • Agree: Talha
  20. @Twinkie
    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    In the same vein, I do not consider my non-Asian neighbors to be at war with me, because whites in Morgantown are doing meth and engaging in EBT fraud and blacks in Detroit are shooting each other.

    By all means, let us discuss group differences and the policy implications thereof in full honesty and transparency. But, at the same time, let us treat those we come into contact daily - neighbors, coworkers, people who serve us lunch or sell us coffee, etc. - as individuals, not avatars of some racial average. I see absolutely zero reason to harbor hostility toward those Jews or blacks of good will... especially if they stand on the same side of the political-cultural divide as I do.

    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    And keep in mind… Palestinians and Jews used to live side by side in Palestine before Jews decided to take the land and destroy Palestinians. Just because various peoples seem to co-exist in the same territory doesn’t mean that they are not at war. Jews always settled in Palestine with long-term goal of taking it. And Jews have a long-term goal of turning whites into a minority and cucks of Jews.

    Also, what is globo-homo but Jewish crusade to destroy Christianity and replace it with Queertianity?

    And blacks have been waging violent criminal war on other races and on other blacks. How do you explain white flight and Jew Flew?

    • Agree: Ash Williams
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man." -- Eli Yashai, former deputy prime minister under Bibi Netanyahu.

    I cannot envision an official in any other "white" country, even Russia, publicly saying that in the 21st Century. I'm not exactly an Israel fan-boy (I don't hate them, but I don't want them dictating US policy, and I certainly find GOP Establishment's tendency to be more actively Israeli nationalist than American nationalist profoundly disgusting and humiliating), but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement. Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or...

    I'm guessing the biggest reason is because they don't inhabit a strange mental universe where it remains 1973 forever. They can't afford to.

  21. @Priss Factor

    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.
     
    Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    And keep in mind... Palestinians and Jews used to live side by side in Palestine before Jews decided to take the land and destroy Palestinians. Just because various peoples seem to co-exist in the same territory doesn't mean that they are not at war. Jews always settled in Palestine with long-term goal of taking it. And Jews have a long-term goal of turning whites into a minority and cucks of Jews.

    Also, what is globo-homo but Jewish crusade to destroy Christianity and replace it with Queertianity?

    And blacks have been waging violent criminal war on other races and on other blacks. How do you explain white flight and Jew Flew?

    >Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    “Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man.” — Eli Yashai, former deputy prime minister under Bibi Netanyahu.

    I cannot envision an official in any other “white” country, even Russia, publicly saying that in the 21st Century. I’m not exactly an Israel fan-boy (I don’t hate them, but I don’t want them dictating US policy, and I certainly find GOP Establishment’s tendency to be more actively Israeli nationalist than American nationalist profoundly disgusting and humiliating), but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement. Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or…

    I’m guessing the biggest reason is because they don’t inhabit a strange mental universe where it remains 1973 forever. They can’t afford to.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement.
     
    This is false, mostly because you're conflating the Likud military-industrial Zionists with all others.

    If you were correct, then AIPAC would not dominate both American political parties. Ah, but it does.

    Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or…
     
    Soros hates the Likud. This is true. He does not hate Israel.

    There are two sides to Zionism: left wing Zionism, and right wing Zionism.

    Both hate the goyim and both are Jewish supremacists. But one, the Likudniks, are more aggressive - they are the hammer to the left winger's subversion.

    None of the world's most powerful Jews are explicitly anti-Zionist. They're either right wing Likud Zionist, or left wingers. But the end goals are still the same.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    This gets at the glaring problem that is in my view never satisfactorily addressed by the Jew-haters who talk about ZOG--the American Jews most hostile to American nationalism also tend to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Unapologetic Israel-firsters don't much care about American nationalism, but they're generally supportive of it. Netanyahu has voiced support for a US-Mexico border wall on multiple occasions, for example.

    American neocons are an exception, but they're a minority even among Jewish elites.

  22. It does not benefit us all for blacks to work hard, have families, and live “productive” lives. The positive contributions of the “talented tenth” to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without? The negative contributions of blacks far outweigh their positive contributions. They are an accursed race.

    The greatest thing for non-blacks in the U.S. that has happened in recent years to the black population are welfare reform and widespread abortion(thank you liberals). These haven’t made blacks behave better so much as ensure there are less of them. This is what we need more of.

    More successful members of hostile minorities only means more powerful people who despise you. Incidentally, just because some blacks might become more successful does not mean affirmative action will go away, that blacks will vote differently, that blacks will become less hostile to whites, etc.

    I don’t agree in the case of Jews or Indians either, but the case is more complex with the former and the latter has a shorter history in the U.S.(at least in large numbers)

    The Twinkie post comes across like it was written decades ago when it was politically normal for large numbers of whites to publicly articulate anti-black views. That hasn’t been the case for a long time. We have tried what Twinkie suggests for decades, and experience shows it’s a waste of time.

    • Replies: @res

    It does not benefit us all for blacks to work hard, have families, and live “productive” lives.
     
    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.

    What is not beneficial is using affirmative action and disparate impact theory to mismatch underqualified blacks into positions where they might be well compensated but are less productive than others might be if chosen by ability only.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    American blacks have punched way above their weight in multiple areas of entertainment. You may not get much from that--I personally don't, either--but most Americans, whites included, do.
  23. @AaronB
    That's some good wisdom from Twinkie.

    HBD may or may not be true - what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today, that's a powerful argument in favor of culture.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers - if that can change so dramatically in so short a time, and Koreans are so different today, then we have to start thinking about the role of culture in group behavior.

    HBD may be right, but why not focus on what we can change - which seems to be a tremendous amount, if history is any guide.

    Once, we used to be able to experiment with reality as we found it. We didn't know everything, but we were willing to try things.

    Now, we say we know things and aren't willing to try things that go against what we think we know. We know genetics determines behavior - and it doesn't matter if Koreans did a 180 degree turn in behavior in 50 years. We know it can't be true.

    This was the attitude in the Middle Ages - they knew a bunch of things because Aristotle said so, and it didn't matter if the real world was different. They knew.

    It took a revolution in thinking to move away from certainty and towards open minded pragmatism.

    The fact is, we know from history that group behavior changes dramatically in short spaces of time - there are so many examples. A pragmatic approach would suggest we try and work with that - even if we don't fully understand it.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic, well, does that match the historical record? It matches some facts that we know, but far from all. So we can't say it's a good theory from a pragmatic point if view.

    We're at a point where we'd rather say we know even if it doesn't cover so many facts and doesn't let us do anything - than honestly admit we don't know and just explore and tinker and try and make things happen based on historical examples, even without fully understanding.

    >This was the attitude in the Middle Ages – they knew a bunch of things because Aristotle said so, and it didn’t matter if the real world was different. They knew.

    The much needed rational Aristotlean injection into Western thought that Aquinas gave was a key step on the road out of the Dark Ages and into full Western recovery: and in the end, pre-eminence. Man had a brain, it was time to use it.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I'm not really knocking Aristotle. He was very important, not least as preparation, and a great philosopher by any measure.

    But a large part of whar initiated the scientific revolution was the rediscovery of the Skeptics during the Renaissance.

    So I guess I'm suggesting we rediscover some of that old Skeptic attitude we seem to be losing lately.
  24. Singaporeans are mostly soft city kids whose maids carry their bags to school to depend on their tech tree to give them an edge (special forces may be different), man to man the Philippines, Malaysian, and Indonesian army are a lot tougher since their recruits come from poor rural areas which gives them a certain hardiness and capability to withstand deprivation than soft urban recruits lack, although their tech is of a lot lower level.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Singaporeans are mostly soft city kids

    This is a problem all over the region, not just in Singapore. Even in mainland China, you see a lot of problems that would sound oddly familiar. E-addiction, obesity, a focus on instant gratification, being unable to work in teams, etc, etc, etc. The greater point is that a lot of the stuff we complain about the US with my generation is happening all over the developed world.

    Not all of it, to be sure (the education system is as much of a pressure cooker as ever), and definitely not with identical manifestations/degrees. But a lot of this really is a just consequence of all-encroaching modernity. We've created technology our brains have not really adapted to handle. We've created food surpluses that our bodies required hours at the gym to compensate for. It's a relatively good problem to have compared to having starving waifs in slums or dirt poor villages, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

  25. The Japanese looked pretty dumb at the Mariana’s Turkey Shoot, and its military was basically a one trick pony, Mao’s army and the German Wehrmacht was a lot more versatile and professional, once the Japs lost their very very well trained navy pilots their quality dropped like a rock, too much emphasis on quality over quantity and too rigid a mindset really.

  26. Honestly can people here just stop fucking fellating the East Asians, they are not all that, I think the pictures of Japs turned to ash from the Tokyo firebombings and Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that point, and the Americans can prove that point a thousand times over until the amount of Japs living in the Home Islands are basically zero. Copypastad from foreign policy.comThey were radically different. The German was far more skilled than the Japanese. Most of the Japanese that we fought were not skilled men. Not skilled leaders. The German had a professional army. . . . The Japanese army was very much like ours in a sense. They had a small corps of officers who were professionals. But the bulk of their people were not professionals in the sense of knowing their business and so on. They didn’t have the equipment that we had. They didn’t know how to handle combined arms-the artillery and the support of the infantry-to the same extent we did. They were gallant soldiers, though. They fought to the end and you had to knock them off-that was all there was to it. And we had to do that right on Guadalcanal. . . . The Japanese were very gallant men. They fought very, very hard, but they were not nearly as skillful as the Germans. But the German didn’t have the tenacity of the Japanese.”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The Wehrmacht was more skilled than anybody else, Asian or otherwise. The average soldier was better educated than his Western or Soviet counterpart, despite the massive damage done over time by the anti-intellectual tendencies of the regime. This was reflected in doctrines like Aufstragtaktik that relied heavily on the ability of junior officers and noncoms to make their own independent decisions-that had to be as sparse as possible, yet clear-about tactics on a run-time basis.

    It paid off: as late as the autumn of 1944, second rate units consisting of middle-aged men and teenagers managed to grind up the US Army in the Hurtgen Forest, a battle which is not going to have a Spielberg film made about it anytime soon. What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower, not infantry. Had the Nazis been more sane and not decided to take on the Anglo-Americans and the USSR simultaneously, who knows what they could have done?

    Ironically, the IDF has been the only major military force post-WWII to successfully implement the task-based programming of the Wehrmacht. Which maybe is less shocking than one might think, looking at Israel's rather Prussia-esque geopolitical situation, especially earlier in its history.
  27. @Twinkie

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore
     
    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee's statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It's not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    Agreed. There’s not a single country in which whites vote as a bloc.

    And apart from blacks in the US, other racial groups don’t really vote as a bloc either in most western countries.

    And Christians don’t really vote as a bloc either. Maybe the Evangelicals do but Christians in general don’t.

    So overall, as you say, Lee Kuan Yew may have been right about Singapore but he was mostly wrong about everywhere else.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I don't think he was necessarily wrong about *everywhere* else-see the former Yugoslavia for a far more pernicious example than Singapore or Malaysia. Unlike in Singapore, Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks still attend separate schools, live separate lives, and some would probably would be happy to kill each other again if things go to hell.

    About the USA, I still agree, though it does seem like our elites want to do everything they can to drive us into a millet style system by driving down national cohesion and encouraging identity politics. I don't think they'll succeed in the long run, if there's a Schelling points style intent there, but who can say to what damage will be done first?

    To be fair to LKY, though, he was one of the most prominent non-universalist major political figures in recent history. He would have been the first to state that different countries need to find different ways of doing things that best reflect their own national realities.

    , @Sushipal
    Not true. ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat. And this is exactly why race is such a hot political topic right now. Thanks to mass immigration, which happens to be nonwhite & votes overwhelmingly for policies to disarm us, & make "hate/rude" speech illegal, the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights! Hello totalitarian govt!
  28. @Znzn
    Honestly can people here just stop fucking fellating the East Asians, they are not all that, I think the pictures of Japs turned to ash from the Tokyo firebombings and Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that point, and the Americans can prove that point a thousand times over until the amount of Japs living in the Home Islands are basically zero. Copypastad from foreign policy.comThey were radically different. The German was far more skilled than the Japanese. Most of the Japanese that we fought were not skilled men. Not skilled leaders. The German had a professional army. . . . The Japanese army was very much like ours in a sense. They had a small corps of officers who were professionals. But the bulk of their people were not professionals in the sense of knowing their business and so on. They didn’t have the equipment that we had. They didn’t know how to handle combined arms-the artillery and the support of the infantry-to the same extent we did. They were gallant soldiers, though. They fought to the end and you had to knock them off-that was all there was to it. And we had to do that right on Guadalcanal. . . . The Japanese were very gallant men. They fought very, very hard, but they were not nearly as skillful as the Germans. But the German didn’t have the tenacity of the Japanese."

    The Wehrmacht was more skilled than anybody else, Asian or otherwise. The average soldier was better educated than his Western or Soviet counterpart, despite the massive damage done over time by the anti-intellectual tendencies of the regime. This was reflected in doctrines like Aufstragtaktik that relied heavily on the ability of junior officers and noncoms to make their own independent decisions-that had to be as sparse as possible, yet clear-about tactics on a run-time basis.

    It paid off: as late as the autumn of 1944, second rate units consisting of middle-aged men and teenagers managed to grind up the US Army in the Hurtgen Forest, a battle which is not going to have a Spielberg film made about it anytime soon. What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower, not infantry. Had the Nazis been more sane and not decided to take on the Anglo-Americans and the USSR simultaneously, who knows what they could have done?

    Ironically, the IDF has been the only major military force post-WWII to successfully implement the task-based programming of the Wehrmacht. Which maybe is less shocking than one might think, looking at Israel’s rather Prussia-esque geopolitical situation, especially earlier in its history.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower
     
    Trucks, lots of trucks. And fuel to power them.

    Meanwhile the Germans had to de-mechanize the bulk of their army. As the saying went, “Panjedivisionen, nicht Panzerdivisonen.”*

    *Uttered by a German general, after observing what happened to many German units. Panzer means tank/AFV, Panje is a horse-pulled wagon requisitioned by Germans in Russia.

    https://c7.alamy.com/comp/C453G6/german-soldiers-on-a-panje-wagon-1941-C453G6.jpg
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Had the Nazis been more sane and not decided to take on the Anglo-Americans and the USSR simultaneously, who knows what they could have done?
     
    This is terribly ignorant.

    A) Nazi Germany attempted to negotiate Britain out of the war but, as many revisionist historians have explained, Churchill refused to accept Hitler's almost laughably lenient terms (Hitler, who admired the British Empire even more than the Kaiser, offered the British the use of the Kriegsmarine to defend said Empire) because Churchill figured correctly that British intelligence, Jewish lobbying, and FDR could combine to get America into the war within a year or two.

    B) Once German negotiating failed to kick Britain out, Germany had basically no choice but to push further eastward in order to secure oil supplies.

    C) Forget about hindsight. At the time, most Allied observers believed Germany would crush the Soviets.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQdjGJJktfk


    Ironically, the IDF has been the only major military force post-WWII to successfully implement the task-based programming of the Wehrmacht.
     
    The last time the IDF tried to fight anything like a real enemy in a real war was in 2006. Hezbollah forces kicked their butts, which is why the Israelis pulled out their ground forces and started sending in the bomber planes. There is no comparison between the Wehrmacht (let alone the Waffen SS) and the IDF. For generations, the IDF has had massive advantages in money, firepower, and brainpower - and above all American backing - that the Germans never dreamed of having after about 1941. (And, speaking of lesser known aspects of American backing, of course the Germans were never able to steal and cheat their way into having a nuclear deterrent like that of Israel.)
  29. @dfordoom

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).
     
    Agreed. There's not a single country in which whites vote as a bloc.

    And apart from blacks in the US, other racial groups don't really vote as a bloc either in most western countries.

    And Christians don't really vote as a bloc either. Maybe the Evangelicals do but Christians in general don't.

    So overall, as you say, Lee Kuan Yew may have been right about Singapore but he was mostly wrong about everywhere else.

    I don’t think he was necessarily wrong about *everywhere* else-see the former Yugoslavia for a far more pernicious example than Singapore or Malaysia. Unlike in Singapore, Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks still attend separate schools, live separate lives, and some would probably would be happy to kill each other again if things go to hell.

    About the USA, I still agree, though it does seem like our elites want to do everything they can to drive us into a millet style system by driving down national cohesion and encouraging identity politics. I don’t think they’ll succeed in the long run, if there’s a Schelling points style intent there, but who can say to what damage will be done first?

    To be fair to LKY, though, he was one of the most prominent non-universalist major political figures in recent history. He would have been the first to state that different countries need to find different ways of doing things that best reflect their own national realities.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  30. @nebulafox
    The Wehrmacht was more skilled than anybody else, Asian or otherwise. The average soldier was better educated than his Western or Soviet counterpart, despite the massive damage done over time by the anti-intellectual tendencies of the regime. This was reflected in doctrines like Aufstragtaktik that relied heavily on the ability of junior officers and noncoms to make their own independent decisions-that had to be as sparse as possible, yet clear-about tactics on a run-time basis.

    It paid off: as late as the autumn of 1944, second rate units consisting of middle-aged men and teenagers managed to grind up the US Army in the Hurtgen Forest, a battle which is not going to have a Spielberg film made about it anytime soon. What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower, not infantry. Had the Nazis been more sane and not decided to take on the Anglo-Americans and the USSR simultaneously, who knows what they could have done?

    Ironically, the IDF has been the only major military force post-WWII to successfully implement the task-based programming of the Wehrmacht. Which maybe is less shocking than one might think, looking at Israel's rather Prussia-esque geopolitical situation, especially earlier in its history.

    What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower

    Trucks, lots of trucks. And fuel to power them.

    Meanwhile the Germans had to de-mechanize the bulk of their army. As the saying went, “Panjedivisionen, nicht Panzerdivisonen.”*

    *Uttered by a German general, after observing what happened to many German units. Panzer means tank/AFV, Panje is a horse-pulled wagon requisitioned by Germans in Russia.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Trucks, lots of trucks.

    It's a good thing that Henry Ford wasn't really a Nazi like some claim.
  31. @nebulafox
    >Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man." -- Eli Yashai, former deputy prime minister under Bibi Netanyahu.

    I cannot envision an official in any other "white" country, even Russia, publicly saying that in the 21st Century. I'm not exactly an Israel fan-boy (I don't hate them, but I don't want them dictating US policy, and I certainly find GOP Establishment's tendency to be more actively Israeli nationalist than American nationalist profoundly disgusting and humiliating), but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement. Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or...

    I'm guessing the biggest reason is because they don't inhabit a strange mental universe where it remains 1973 forever. They can't afford to.

    Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Trucks, lots of trucks. And fuel to power them.

    God bless American industry.

    It's almost as if being a nation that makes tangible goods is better for both your prospects and your mental health than being a nation consisting of rule-transformers and service drones. Not that I'm under illusions that the age of great American industry can be revived in the current age of automation, but we can-and must-get back to doing things that actually are of value. I'm deeply convinced on some gut level that an economy of lawyers, MBAs, and service workers just is not going to be long-term tenable, even without all the unhelpful little accelerationisms America's ruling classes are throwing in.

    >Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”

    Perceptive guy. He got that from CS Lewis. I don't have a chest (yet...) but I'm at least connected to reality enough to know that this is not a virtue. Nowadays, chestless men who look better and better but carry nothing under the surface (call 'em iceberg men) seem to be made into a perverted ideal. Shades of the Last Man.

    As a side note, I found Van Creveld's book on Hitler in the afterlife to be quite entertaining: and speaking as someone who compulsively studied Hitler for years, he gets relatively close to nailing his psychology. He's not perfect, but I think in the tone and spirit it resembles what a real resurrected Hitler would be saying, which is way more than what you can say for most writers. (He's also yet another ironic example of Israelis who are anything but lefties-Meir Dagan-publicly undermining Bibi and his fanboys at FOX by bluntly stating that Iran is a cold but rational actor...)

    , @AaronB
    This is another great example of how certain genes get activated in different cultural environments.

    I have personally seen American Jews immigrate to Israel and undergo a personality transformation in a few years. And their kids become complete Israelis.

    It would be amusing to compile a list of examples where groups activate different gene sets based on environment and change behavior in a short space of time.

    But at this point there is enough evidence to suggest that individuals and groups activate different gene sets in response to different environments. Surely potential responses are not unlimited, but based on history there does seem to be a surprisingly wide margin of change here - sometimes 180 degree turns.

    Which makes total sense from an evolutionary perspective - our species colonized the entire planet and has flourished in a wide variety of environments. Most animals can't do that. A human can go from living in England to living in the Sahara and flourish in both places. Most animals can't. So it seems obvious humans cone equipped with an unusually wide and diverse set of genes that can be activated as environment changes.
  32. @Twinkie

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore
     
    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee's statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It's not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    When you look around the poker table and can’t spot the patsy …

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    When you look around the poker table and can’t spot the patsy …
     
    Don't gamble. Problem solved.
  33. @Weston Waroda

    The revolution in our understanding of human behavior via genetics that is transpiring at this very moment may be our last chance at managing what the West has become, with scientific truth rather than the contemporary crop of sociological superstitions that misinform us today.
     
    You write like you really believe that there is no ideological component of what you have termed scientific truth, but actually scientific superstitions are no less misleading than the sociological ones.

    You write like you really believe that there is no ideological component of what you have termed scientific truth, but actually scientific superstitions are no less misleading than the sociological ones.

    Science these days is political. That can’t be evaded. Maybe the actual hard sciences like physics aren’t but the soft sciences and the pseudosciences are very very political. In the soft sciences and the pseudosciences truth doesn’t matter. What matters is whether their theories are politically useful or not.

    Anyone who thinks that the soft sciences deal in objective truth is living in a fantasy world. And if it’s not physics or engineering it’s soft science.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Failed physicist here. The overwhelming amount of people I met in physics wanted one thing, and one thing only: to be allowed to carry out their research in peace. That's not malicious, it is all you can ask any proud physics geek worth his salt to do, but the problem there is that they'll typically mouth whatever they need to mouth in order to be left alone. In physics, that's thankfully not much of an issue, because you can't really make strongly correlated electrons or lattice QCD or general relativity into political issues without getting laughed out of any serious room.

    But biology is another story. With genetics research shaping up to be the 21st Century equivalent to quantum mechanics in importance and China busy pouring ridiculous sums of money into it, I believe it is imperative for the United States to get going in that field, and fast, irrespective of whatever sacred cows it would slaughter. This is not just a matter of national security, but however much the US is flawed, it would probably be much better for the world if America was the first to reach the ground-breaking technology that is coming. But who would dare tackle serious genetics research in the US that might-nay, almost certainly would-break the tenets of Gouldism that our cultural gatekeepers have embraced as pseudo-religious dogma?

  34. @dfordoom

    You write like you really believe that there is no ideological component of what you have termed scientific truth, but actually scientific superstitions are no less misleading than the sociological ones.
     
    Science these days is political. That can't be evaded. Maybe the actual hard sciences like physics aren't but the soft sciences and the pseudosciences are very very political. In the soft sciences and the pseudosciences truth doesn't matter. What matters is whether their theories are politically useful or not.

    Anyone who thinks that the soft sciences deal in objective truth is living in a fantasy world. And if it's not physics or engineering it's soft science.

    Failed physicist here. The overwhelming amount of people I met in physics wanted one thing, and one thing only: to be allowed to carry out their research in peace. That’s not malicious, it is all you can ask any proud physics geek worth his salt to do, but the problem there is that they’ll typically mouth whatever they need to mouth in order to be left alone. In physics, that’s thankfully not much of an issue, because you can’t really make strongly correlated electrons or lattice QCD or general relativity into political issues without getting laughed out of any serious room.

    But biology is another story. With genetics research shaping up to be the 21st Century equivalent to quantum mechanics in importance and China busy pouring ridiculous sums of money into it, I believe it is imperative for the United States to get going in that field, and fast, irrespective of whatever sacred cows it would slaughter. This is not just a matter of national security, but however much the US is flawed, it would probably be much better for the world if America was the first to reach the ground-breaking technology that is coming. But who would dare tackle serious genetics research in the US that might-nay, almost certainly would-break the tenets of Gouldism that our cultural gatekeepers have embraced as pseudo-religious dogma?

    • Replies: @PNWmossback
    Sorry. The rot has already reached the hard sciences.

    https://identitypolitics.news/2019-09-18-stanford-university-launches-dumbed-down-physics-course-for-minorities.html

    https://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2017/05/scientific-breakthrough-researcher-ties-quantum-physics-to-marginalization-oppression-and-identity-politics.html

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/identity-politics-sciences-15967.html

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/26/stanford-launches-physics-course-for-underrepresented-minority-students/

    The list goes on...

    I've watched the U of WA computer science prrogram go down this road. Sad.

    Any area of study heavily populated by Whites - especially white males - is now under seige and at the front lines.
  35. Can someone tell me the audience to which these calls are directed? After identifying the audience, can you explain why that audience might heed your call?

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Why don't you just come out and say that the average Black is a mental retard and let the chips fall where they may?
  36. @Twinkie
    Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”

    >Trucks, lots of trucks. And fuel to power them.

    God bless American industry.

    It’s almost as if being a nation that makes tangible goods is better for both your prospects and your mental health than being a nation consisting of rule-transformers and service drones. Not that I’m under illusions that the age of great American industry can be revived in the current age of automation, but we can-and must-get back to doing things that actually are of value. I’m deeply convinced on some gut level that an economy of lawyers, MBAs, and service workers just is not going to be long-term tenable, even without all the unhelpful little accelerationisms America’s ruling classes are throwing in.

    >Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”

    Perceptive guy. He got that from CS Lewis. I don’t have a chest (yet…) but I’m at least connected to reality enough to know that this is not a virtue. Nowadays, chestless men who look better and better but carry nothing under the surface (call ’em iceberg men) seem to be made into a perverted ideal. Shades of the Last Man.

    As a side note, I found Van Creveld’s book on Hitler in the afterlife to be quite entertaining: and speaking as someone who compulsively studied Hitler for years, he gets relatively close to nailing his psychology. He’s not perfect, but I think in the tone and spirit it resembles what a real resurrected Hitler would be saying, which is way more than what you can say for most writers. (He’s also yet another ironic example of Israelis who are anything but lefties-Meir Dagan-publicly undermining Bibi and his fanboys at FOX by bluntly stating that Iran is a cold but rational actor…)

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    but we can-and must-get back to doing things that actually are of value. I’m deeply convinced on some gut level that an economy of lawyers, MBAs, and service workers just is not going to be long-term tenable
     
    What you say makes sense. But the current setup suits those who have the power and the money so it won't be changing any time soon.

    The Chinese seem to be less stupid. We can only hope, for the sake of the world as a whole, that it's the Chinese who ultimately triumph.
  37. @Znzn
    Singaporeans are mostly soft city kids whose maids carry their bags to school to depend on their tech tree to give them an edge (special forces may be different), man to man the Philippines, Malaysian, and Indonesian army are a lot tougher since their recruits come from poor rural areas which gives them a certain hardiness and capability to withstand deprivation than soft urban recruits lack, although their tech is of a lot lower level.

    >Singaporeans are mostly soft city kids

    This is a problem all over the region, not just in Singapore. Even in mainland China, you see a lot of problems that would sound oddly familiar. E-addiction, obesity, a focus on instant gratification, being unable to work in teams, etc, etc, etc. The greater point is that a lot of the stuff we complain about the US with my generation is happening all over the developed world.

    Not all of it, to be sure (the education system is as much of a pressure cooker as ever), and definitely not with identical manifestations/degrees. But a lot of this really is a just consequence of all-encroaching modernity. We’ve created technology our brains have not really adapted to handle. We’ve created food surpluses that our bodies required hours at the gym to compensate for. It’s a relatively good problem to have compared to having starving waifs in slums or dirt poor villages, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

    • Agree: Talha, Audacious Epigone
  38. @nebulafox
    >Trucks, lots of trucks. And fuel to power them.

    God bless American industry.

    It's almost as if being a nation that makes tangible goods is better for both your prospects and your mental health than being a nation consisting of rule-transformers and service drones. Not that I'm under illusions that the age of great American industry can be revived in the current age of automation, but we can-and must-get back to doing things that actually are of value. I'm deeply convinced on some gut level that an economy of lawyers, MBAs, and service workers just is not going to be long-term tenable, even without all the unhelpful little accelerationisms America's ruling classes are throwing in.

    >Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”

    Perceptive guy. He got that from CS Lewis. I don't have a chest (yet...) but I'm at least connected to reality enough to know that this is not a virtue. Nowadays, chestless men who look better and better but carry nothing under the surface (call 'em iceberg men) seem to be made into a perverted ideal. Shades of the Last Man.

    As a side note, I found Van Creveld's book on Hitler in the afterlife to be quite entertaining: and speaking as someone who compulsively studied Hitler for years, he gets relatively close to nailing his psychology. He's not perfect, but I think in the tone and spirit it resembles what a real resurrected Hitler would be saying, which is way more than what you can say for most writers. (He's also yet another ironic example of Israelis who are anything but lefties-Meir Dagan-publicly undermining Bibi and his fanboys at FOX by bluntly stating that Iran is a cold but rational actor...)

    but we can-and must-get back to doing things that actually are of value. I’m deeply convinced on some gut level that an economy of lawyers, MBAs, and service workers just is not going to be long-term tenable

    What you say makes sense. But the current setup suits those who have the power and the money so it won’t be changing any time soon.

    The Chinese seem to be less stupid. We can only hope, for the sake of the world as a whole, that it’s the Chinese who ultimately triumph.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    They're going through a crucible right now.
  39. @Twinkie

    What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower
     
    Trucks, lots of trucks. And fuel to power them.

    Meanwhile the Germans had to de-mechanize the bulk of their army. As the saying went, “Panjedivisionen, nicht Panzerdivisonen.”*

    *Uttered by a German general, after observing what happened to many German units. Panzer means tank/AFV, Panje is a horse-pulled wagon requisitioned by Germans in Russia.

    https://c7.alamy.com/comp/C453G6/german-soldiers-on-a-panje-wagon-1941-C453G6.jpg

    Trucks, lots of trucks.

    It’s a good thing that Henry Ford wasn’t really a Nazi like some claim.

  40. “The positive contributions of the “talented tenth” to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?’

    There’s a lot of nonsense in the comments. But this comment caught my eye.

    “The positive contributions of the “talented tenth” to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?”

    It would be nice to know something about human beings. The human race and there is only one human race, not several. There are humans with an array of adapted traits, none of those traits transform into establishing a new species.

    And human beings could and would survive without any of the inventions on the planet, though one might benefit from the practice of inoculations or the filament in light bulbs, both innovations by blacks that have changed the fortunes of billions.

    But had they never been invented the human species would march forward. HBD is not anything new. It is more detailed. But its the old divine right by way of biology contend. But the millions of exceptions shatter its foundations to superior intellect or morality that resides in ant articular human group, that is locked in place.

    in the previous candor conversation the arguments ignore the hard questions.

    “It’s true, as Abraham Lincoln himself stated, that Africans oppress others by their mere presence (proven by the way everyone who is not allowed to fight to keep Africans out is forced to flee them)”

    no one is stopping toy from making the argument to deny blacks into the country. N o oe is even stopping anyone from making the HBD contend.

    But ignoring the hard questions about its veracity won’t score many points in advancing the case. And i am not sure that those deep in the knees of its construction would appreciate your applications for example, you say blacks are incapable of doing math, engineering, or other complex tasks and yet:

    there are black engineers
    mathmeticians
    physicians
    scientists
    computer coders

    If it is genetic one has to explain those contradictions. Laugh me guess – they have white genetics., which means they are actually white . . .

    laugh.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm

    though one might benefit from the practice of inoculations or the filament in light bulbs
     
    Neither of which were invented by black people. Lewis Howard Latimer made some useful improvements though.
  41. @Twinkie

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore
     
    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee's statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It's not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    Let’s see if whites vote as a bloc when they become 15-20 % of the population .

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    when they become 15-20 % of the population .
     
    Oh, you can predict the future! Why don’t you pick some derivatives?
  42. You see, all it takes is a few idiots impaled and paraded through a big city to have the rest of the idiots kill themselves voluntarily, or change their opinion (but never forgive them, for idiocy is irreparable, slave labor is better).

    Nobody wants violence, but sometimes it’s a necessity

  43. @nebulafox
    >Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man." -- Eli Yashai, former deputy prime minister under Bibi Netanyahu.

    I cannot envision an official in any other "white" country, even Russia, publicly saying that in the 21st Century. I'm not exactly an Israel fan-boy (I don't hate them, but I don't want them dictating US policy, and I certainly find GOP Establishment's tendency to be more actively Israeli nationalist than American nationalist profoundly disgusting and humiliating), but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement. Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or...

    I'm guessing the biggest reason is because they don't inhabit a strange mental universe where it remains 1973 forever. They can't afford to.

    but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement.

    This is false, mostly because you’re conflating the Likud military-industrial Zionists with all others.

    If you were correct, then AIPAC would not dominate both American political parties. Ah, but it does.

    Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or…

    Soros hates the Likud. This is true. He does not hate Israel.

    There are two sides to Zionism: left wing Zionism, and right wing Zionism.

    Both hate the goyim and both are Jewish supremacists. But one, the Likudniks, are more aggressive – they are the hammer to the left winger’s subversion.

    None of the world’s most powerful Jews are explicitly anti-Zionist. They’re either right wing Likud Zionist, or left wingers. But the end goals are still the same.

  44. @nebulafox
    The Wehrmacht was more skilled than anybody else, Asian or otherwise. The average soldier was better educated than his Western or Soviet counterpart, despite the massive damage done over time by the anti-intellectual tendencies of the regime. This was reflected in doctrines like Aufstragtaktik that relied heavily on the ability of junior officers and noncoms to make their own independent decisions-that had to be as sparse as possible, yet clear-about tactics on a run-time basis.

    It paid off: as late as the autumn of 1944, second rate units consisting of middle-aged men and teenagers managed to grind up the US Army in the Hurtgen Forest, a battle which is not going to have a Spielberg film made about it anytime soon. What won the war for the Allies in the West was artillery and airpower, not infantry. Had the Nazis been more sane and not decided to take on the Anglo-Americans and the USSR simultaneously, who knows what they could have done?

    Ironically, the IDF has been the only major military force post-WWII to successfully implement the task-based programming of the Wehrmacht. Which maybe is less shocking than one might think, looking at Israel's rather Prussia-esque geopolitical situation, especially earlier in its history.

    Had the Nazis been more sane and not decided to take on the Anglo-Americans and the USSR simultaneously, who knows what they could have done?

    This is terribly ignorant.

    A) Nazi Germany attempted to negotiate Britain out of the war but, as many revisionist historians have explained, Churchill refused to accept Hitler’s almost laughably lenient terms (Hitler, who admired the British Empire even more than the Kaiser, offered the British the use of the Kriegsmarine to defend said Empire) because Churchill figured correctly that British intelligence, Jewish lobbying, and FDR could combine to get America into the war within a year or two.

    B) Once German negotiating failed to kick Britain out, Germany had basically no choice but to push further eastward in order to secure oil supplies.

    C) Forget about hindsight. At the time, most Allied observers believed Germany would crush the Soviets.

    Ironically, the IDF has been the only major military force post-WWII to successfully implement the task-based programming of the Wehrmacht.

    The last time the IDF tried to fight anything like a real enemy in a real war was in 2006. Hezbollah forces kicked their butts, which is why the Israelis pulled out their ground forces and started sending in the bomber planes. There is no comparison between the Wehrmacht (let alone the Waffen SS) and the IDF. For generations, the IDF has had massive advantages in money, firepower, and brainpower – and above all American backing – that the Germans never dreamed of having after about 1941. (And, speaking of lesser known aspects of American backing, of course the Germans were never able to steal and cheat their way into having a nuclear deterrent like that of Israel.)

  45. @Twinkie

    That’s some good wisdom from Twinkie.
     
    Thanks for the kind words!

    HBD may or may not be true – what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.
     
    Genetics and environment are not static nor are they separate. There is a constant feedback loop between people and their environments (including culture).

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today
     
    No, "if" there. Do an internet search. I posted the number on Unz a couple of years ago.

    Of course, white rate of illegitimate birth back then was still lower than that of blacks. I am not suggesting that the black-white gap can be closed. That may be very difficult, perhaps even impossible. What I am suggesting is that, at one point, we had a society and a culture that kept in check this particular sociopathy among blacks at a lower rate than they do today among whites.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers
     
    Long before Mr. Linh Dinh wrote that article, I posted the link to Jack London's "Yellow Peril" on Unz and quoted how London described Koreans (brief summary: the Chinese are hard-working, the Japanese are clever, the Koreans are dumb, cowardly, and lazy, and, by golly, with the Japanese in charge of the Chinese, the yellows will overrun the white race!).

    because Aristotle said so
     
    Hey, now, don't knock Aristotle. He was a most wise Ancient whose take on virtue is priceless.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic
     
    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn't mean we can't genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).

    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn’t mean we can’t genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).

    That’s an excellent way of putting it, that does justice to both sides of the debate.

    We will never solve the HBD “debate” because both sides have some truth to them.

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.

    However, do you only apply it to future generations? If so, I would say it applies to the current generation – any individual can have a different set of genes activated in different environments.

    Ones genetic potential for violence can be activated in one environment but not another, etc.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    I think someone made the point that there is really no large difference between East Asian and SouthEast Asians, basically Malays, just like there are no large difference between Albanians, Germans, and Sicilians, and even Pashtuns, so if we are are compared Whites to Asians, then it should also include South East Asians like the Malays, Austranesian Filipinos, Laotians, Rohingyans, Bamars, and Hmongs, like we also include Slavs, Southern Slavs like Serbians, Greeks Albanians, Sicilians, and even Berbers or Christian Arabs, and not just Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians when we talk about Whites. If you want to compare using East Asians alone, then a better comparison would be to compare them with West Germans, Dutch, and Waloonians only. Basically if people are cherry picking using on high IQ Pacific Rim Asian like Han Chinese, Koreans and Japs only (and speaking of Northeast Asia, why do people exclude Mongolians in these comparisons), then you can cherry pick by using only high IQ European groups.
    , @Twinkie

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.
     
    I wrote “selected,” not “activated.”
  46. @nebulafox
    >This was the attitude in the Middle Ages – they knew a bunch of things because Aristotle said so, and it didn’t matter if the real world was different. They knew.

    The much needed rational Aristotlean injection into Western thought that Aquinas gave was a key step on the road out of the Dark Ages and into full Western recovery: and in the end, pre-eminence. Man had a brain, it was time to use it.

    I’m not really knocking Aristotle. He was very important, not least as preparation, and a great philosopher by any measure.

    But a large part of whar initiated the scientific revolution was the rediscovery of the Skeptics during the Renaissance.

    So I guess I’m suggesting we rediscover some of that old Skeptic attitude we seem to be losing lately.

  47. @iffen
    Can someone tell me the audience to which these calls are directed? After identifying the audience, can you explain why that audience might heed your call?

    Why don’t you just come out and say that the average Black is a mental retard and let the chips fall where they may?

  48. @AaronB

    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn’t mean we can’t genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).
     
    That's an excellent way of putting it, that does justice to both sides of the debate.

    We will never solve the HBD "debate" because both sides have some truth to them.

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.

    However, do you only apply it to future generations? If so, I would say it applies to the current generation - any individual can have a different set of genes activated in different environments.

    Ones genetic potential for violence can be activated in one environment but not another, etc.

    I think someone made the point that there is really no large difference between East Asian and SouthEast Asians, basically Malays, just like there are no large difference between Albanians, Germans, and Sicilians, and even Pashtuns, so if we are are compared Whites to Asians, then it should also include South East Asians like the Malays, Austranesian Filipinos, Laotians, Rohingyans, Bamars, and Hmongs, like we also include Slavs, Southern Slavs like Serbians, Greeks Albanians, Sicilians, and even Berbers or Christian Arabs, and not just Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians when we talk about Whites. If you want to compare using East Asians alone, then a better comparison would be to compare them with West Germans, Dutch, and Waloonians only. Basically if people are cherry picking using on high IQ Pacific Rim Asian like Han Chinese, Koreans and Japs only (and speaking of Northeast Asia, why do people exclude Mongolians in these comparisons), then you can cherry pick by using only high IQ European groups.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Basically if people are cherry picking using on high IQ Pacific Rim Asian like Han Chinese, Koreans and Japs only (and speaking of Northeast Asia, why do people exclude Mongolians in these comparisons), then you can cherry pick by using only high IQ European groups.
     
    Your argument (if I'm understanding you correctly) would tend to suggest that racial differences are unimportant. The real differences are ethnic and (mostly) cultural. If that's your argument then I agree with it.
  49. Basically a better idea will be to compare Hmongs, Cambodians and Malays with Albanians, Greeks, Sicilians, and Serbs, and compare the Chinese, Japs, and Koreans with West Germans, Flemish, Dutch, and Northern Italians, like European Italians who live in the Po basin, and Danes, and maybe compare the Mongols with the Scandinavians, Eastern Slavs, and the Celts/Scots Irish.

  50. The example of Singapore is not one that we should take to prove anything. That place has been locked down in Police State fashion since way before that became fashionable here*. That’s likely what they HAVE to do there to keep those three similar sized ethnic groups from causing a huge blow-up. Someone mentioned Yugoslavia already, but I’ll also do that, along with bringing up the whole Soviet Union.

    The only thing that held those differing religious/ethnic groups together in both those places was hard-core Communist control. They may have had much different ideas about Mohammed vs. Jesus and about everything else, but they were all Communists, or they’d better have been! We see what happened as soon as the yoke of Communism was detached. Is that what we want here? A Police State has already been formed to some degree in America (just go to the airport), and maybe that’s all that’s gonna keep this place from blowing sky high too.

    It’s a shame that it didn’t have to be this way. None of that is necessary with a unified similar-cultured population, such as was America as late as 1985. (It took a long time for the immigration invasion, both legal and illegal, to reach a critical mass – think offspring.)

    America was a good melting pot when immigrants came in small numbers, such as the period 1921 to 1965. Assimilation works only with small numbers. Just think about it. You may bug out to Colombia, learn Spanish (it’s easy), quit American TV and internet news, get along with the natives, and marry a cute senora. You still would have to lose some of your American ways, such as caring about organization, being on time, that sort of thing. Those with the right mindset could be assimilated.

    If a townfull of us head to Colombia, buy the land, and fix things up as Americans do, well that’ll be a little piece of America. The Colombians may not even mind a whole lot. It’s just one little town of people that don’t fit in, but they pay their taxes … etc. That was Miami and parts of Los Angeles in America in the 1980s. OK, I don’t have to go there, it’s just a couple of places, so no problem. When this spreads around the whole country, there’s no assimilation, just an invasion.

    .

    * Almost 20 years ago, a girl from Singapore was telling me that she saw nothing at all wrong with their government spying on every citizen (back then, it was email, geo-location, and phone calls.) I was dumfounded, but she had a nice ass, so …

    • Replies: @Talha
    That's a fairly good summary actually. Being an immigrant myself from the early 80's, I've also noted the difference in the America I came into versus the America of today - the transformation has been so vast just within one generation...and some would like it to keep going at break-neck speed. It's nuts.

    Peace.
    , @anon
    If a townfull of us head to Colombia, buy the land, and fix things up as Americans do, well that’ll be a little piece of America. The Colombians may not even mind a whole lot.

    Communities of central Europeans did just that in the 19th century, and not just to Colombia but also to Argentina as well. There are still villages in the foothills of the Argie side of the Andes that look more like Bavaria than Spain, including blue-eyed, blonde people. But they all speak some form of Spanish. That's what being immersed in a larger culture tends to do, absent a countervailing force. Over time, the outsiders blend in with the locals / natives. It takes active work on the part of a community to resist this. See the Mennonites in Mexico for another example, I have met blue-eyed Mexicans with reddish hair whose primary language is Mexican Spanish, with Germanic and Englishish very secondary. Absent that countervailing force, people tend to blend in with their neighbors to some degree. They acculturate. They intermarry. They 'go native'. They act like their neighbors.

    Except when a countervailing force keeps them distinct, by essentially punishing the majority for being a majority. The countervailing force in the US dates back a couple of generations now, and it has become very obvious to some observers. It is another thing we are not supposed to notice, and it is another factor in the ongoing fragmentation / tribalization of the US.

    Noticing what is right in front of us is a form of candor that is not at all encouraged.

  51. For Twinkie, I don’t know if it was your main point that we treat individuals well, no matter what their race/ethnicity, but for most of us that is a given. It is something we need to keep in mind on those days that we read of so much ruination coming from certain groups of people (again, as groups!) Once in a while, I’ve found myself just ignoring someone with a stereotype in my mind that I just don’t want to deal with his crap today. Of course, that’s rude, and usually unwarranted.

    It’s great, Twinkie, to see, or read from, a Steven Miller or Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas too (come to think of it). That’s why America is in such a quandary though. We can’t be Nazis and attempt to ship a whole group of “this kind” out, or worse. Most individuals are good people. Yet, we need to fight back the stupidity and we know mostly where it lies. We need to re-form a society that doesn’t encourage the stupidity.

  52. @Achmed E. Newman
    The example of Singapore is not one that we should take to prove anything. That place has been locked down in Police State fashion since way before that became fashionable here*. That's likely what they HAVE to do there to keep those three similar sized ethnic groups from causing a huge blow-up. Someone mentioned Yugoslavia already, but I'll also do that, along with bringing up the whole Soviet Union.

    The only thing that held those differing religious/ethnic groups together in both those places was hard-core Communist control. They may have had much different ideas about Mohammed vs. Jesus and about everything else, but they were all Communists, or they'd better have been! We see what happened as soon as the yoke of Communism was detached. Is that what we want here? A Police State has already been formed to some degree in America (just go to the airport), and maybe that's all that's gonna keep this place from blowing sky high too.

    It's a shame that it didn't have to be this way. None of that is necessary with a unified similar-cultured population, such as was America as late as 1985. (It took a long time for the immigration invasion, both legal and illegal, to reach a critical mass - think offspring.)

    America was a good melting pot when immigrants came in small numbers, such as the period 1921 to 1965. Assimilation works only with small numbers. Just think about it. You may bug out to Colombia, learn Spanish (it's easy), quit American TV and internet news, get along with the natives, and marry a cute senora. You still would have to lose some of your American ways, such as caring about organization, being on time, that sort of thing. Those with the right mindset could be assimilated.

    If a townfull of us head to Colombia, buy the land, and fix things up as Americans do, well that'll be a little piece of America. The Colombians may not even mind a whole lot. It's just one little town of people that don't fit in, but they pay their taxes ... etc. That was Miami and parts of Los Angeles in America in the 1980s. OK, I don't have to go there, it's just a couple of places, so no problem. When this spreads around the whole country, there's no assimilation, just an invasion.






    .

    * Almost 20 years ago, a girl from Singapore was telling me that she saw nothing at all wrong with their government spying on every citizen (back then, it was email, geo-location, and phone calls.) I was dumfounded, but she had a nice ass, so ...

    That’s a fairly good summary actually. Being an immigrant myself from the early 80’s, I’ve also noted the difference in the America I came into versus the America of today – the transformation has been so vast just within one generation…and some would like it to keep going at break-neck speed. It’s nuts.

    Peace.

  53. @anonymous
    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a "hand up" to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
    It has failed for these reasons:

    Real Politics - Minorities don't really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.

    Human Nature - people blame others for their own failures and perceived persecutions. Blacks will always blame whites. Jews will always blame gentiles. The white majority/founders will always be blamed. There will always be bad blood.

    Genetics/Culture - it doesn't matter which is the cause of the problems. Re-programming a failing ethnic group's culture or their genes isn't going to work. The re-programming requires totalitarian government.

    The white majority is no more - At best a policy of "citizenship" can work if you have a majority population in control, agreeing to recognize minorities as fellow citizens. We now live in a multi-tribal society where every tribe is at war with every other for its own piece of the action. All the political and social forces are driving people to hunker down with their own tribe and war against the others. That is what the Obama age has brought into full view.

    The only way you will get the republic of citizens you describe is in a country with a relatively homogeneous culture. America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don't want.

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.

    We’re going to have war regardless.  It’s baked in.  The point is to win it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side. It's not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump's eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.

  54. “The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.”

    Sapir-Worf

    High context cultures will enforce societal norms against individual wants,

    It’s not much of a guess which culture is high context verses low context — environment. Importing chinese, japanese, mexicans, is not the answer

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/sapir-whorf-hypothesis

  55. @Twinkie

    That’s some good wisdom from Twinkie.
     
    Thanks for the kind words!

    HBD may or may not be true – what we do know without a doubt, is that group behavior can change in response to culture in a very short time.
     
    Genetics and environment are not static nor are they separate. There is a constant feedback loop between people and their environments (including culture).

    If a short while ago black illegitimate births were lower than whites today
     
    No, "if" there. Do an internet search. I posted the number on Unz a couple of years ago.

    Of course, white rate of illegitimate birth back then was still lower than that of blacks. I am not suggesting that the black-white gap can be closed. That may be very difficult, perhaps even impossible. What I am suggesting is that, at one point, we had a society and a culture that kept in check this particular sociopathy among blacks at a lower rate than they do today among whites.

    Linh Dinh has an article up now quoting Jack London at the turn of the last century saying that Koreans are notoriously lazy, thriftless, and useless as workers
     
    Long before Mr. Linh Dinh wrote that article, I posted the link to Jack London's "Yellow Peril" on Unz and quoted how London described Koreans (brief summary: the Chinese are hard-working, the Japanese are clever, the Koreans are dumb, cowardly, and lazy, and, by golly, with the Japanese in charge of the Chinese, the yellows will overrun the white race!).

    because Aristotle said so
     
    Hey, now, don't knock Aristotle. He was a most wise Ancient whose take on virtue is priceless.

    If we have a theory that behavior is mostly genetic
     
    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn't mean we can't genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).

    black illegitimate births were lower than whites today

    There is a lot to unpack in that. The births have never been “illegitimate” they have been “out of the legitimacy of wedlock”.
    Since the glorification of the Black male as being “real” men, how many “White” births out of wedlock are mixed race? It is not uncommon to see White women with their pet Black male and mixed race children. Some of those children are from a different Black sperm donor.

    Children born out of wedlock are not necessarily a problem. Many couples with such children, live as a family unit with every bit as much commitment as married couples. While the lack of “legal” commitment may be less, the moral commitment is really what counts. A married couple with children with an uncommitted parent is worse than an unmarried couple with commitment.

    The problem identified for Black males is their lack of commitment, beyond being the sperm donor, to the female, irrespective of race.

  56. @Twinkie

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore
     
    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee's statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It's not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    Slowly but surely, we’ll eventually see whites start to vote together as a block, as the GOP is the “white party” & the Dems are now the POC party.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    Glad to see someone figured it out.

    Can't figure out if those who disagreed are (((special people))) figuring out that they killed the golden goose that supports Israel (it's a slow death) and hoping against hope... Or just huwyites doing the same (but for themselves).

    Too bad hope isn't a strategy!
  57. @Twinkie

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other.
     
    Yup. Native Singaporean Chinese absolutely loathe the "class-less new money" Chinese immigrants from the mainland. And Singaporean Indians actually have higher average income than the Singaporean Chinese do, and regard themselves as a First World - Singaporean - people, not the grubby, ignorant masses of India. It's Singaporean Indians who pointedly told me that Indian (Tamil, in this case) food in Singapore is the best and cleanest in the world, not that in India.

    The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we’ve gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.)
     
    I like Mr. Derbyshire's description of the U.S. as a soup and immigrants as salt - a little bit of salt blends into and makes the soup tasty, but too much ruins the soup.

    And too much salt gives you high blood pressure & kills you!

  58. @Twinkie
    Sabras are Menschen, whereas Martin van Creveld called diaspora Jews “men without chests.”

    This is another great example of how certain genes get activated in different cultural environments.

    I have personally seen American Jews immigrate to Israel and undergo a personality transformation in a few years. And their kids become complete Israelis.

    It would be amusing to compile a list of examples where groups activate different gene sets based on environment and change behavior in a short space of time.

    But at this point there is enough evidence to suggest that individuals and groups activate different gene sets in response to different environments. Surely potential responses are not unlimited, but based on history there does seem to be a surprisingly wide margin of change here – sometimes 180 degree turns.

    Which makes total sense from an evolutionary perspective – our species colonized the entire planet and has flourished in a wide variety of environments. Most animals can’t do that. A human can go from living in England to living in the Sahara and flourish in both places. Most animals can’t. So it seems obvious humans cone equipped with an unusually wide and diverse set of genes that can be activated as environment changes.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  59. @dfordoom

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).
     
    Agreed. There's not a single country in which whites vote as a bloc.

    And apart from blacks in the US, other racial groups don't really vote as a bloc either in most western countries.

    And Christians don't really vote as a bloc either. Maybe the Evangelicals do but Christians in general don't.

    So overall, as you say, Lee Kuan Yew may have been right about Singapore but he was mostly wrong about everywhere else.

    Not true. ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat. And this is exactly why race is such a hot political topic right now. Thanks to mass immigration, which happens to be nonwhite & votes overwhelmingly for policies to disarm us, & make “hate/rude” speech illegal, the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights! Hello totalitarian govt!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat.
     
    Today, yes. But as late as 1992, Asians voted more Republican than whites.

    Not immutable, like I wrote.
    , @dfordoom

    the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights!
     
    But if you take a look at the Anglosphere countries with very very high immigration levels, namely the US, Australia and Britain, it's the parties of the Left that are currently unable to win elections. In Australia and Britain the parties of the Right are enjoying an unprecedented level of political dominance.

    ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat.
     
    It depends on how you define bloc voting. I wouldn't say 70% Democrat is equal to bloc voting.

    You'd have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don't know. Maybe they do.

    I'd also like to see an ethnic breakdown.

    And when you say ALL racial groups, there are only three racial groups in the US anyway aren't there? Whites, blacks and Asians. Hispanic isn't a race. It isn't even a coherent ethnic or cultural group. So are you talking about racial groups or ethnic groups or cultural groups or groups of immigrants?
  60. anon[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    The example of Singapore is not one that we should take to prove anything. That place has been locked down in Police State fashion since way before that became fashionable here*. That's likely what they HAVE to do there to keep those three similar sized ethnic groups from causing a huge blow-up. Someone mentioned Yugoslavia already, but I'll also do that, along with bringing up the whole Soviet Union.

    The only thing that held those differing religious/ethnic groups together in both those places was hard-core Communist control. They may have had much different ideas about Mohammed vs. Jesus and about everything else, but they were all Communists, or they'd better have been! We see what happened as soon as the yoke of Communism was detached. Is that what we want here? A Police State has already been formed to some degree in America (just go to the airport), and maybe that's all that's gonna keep this place from blowing sky high too.

    It's a shame that it didn't have to be this way. None of that is necessary with a unified similar-cultured population, such as was America as late as 1985. (It took a long time for the immigration invasion, both legal and illegal, to reach a critical mass - think offspring.)

    America was a good melting pot when immigrants came in small numbers, such as the period 1921 to 1965. Assimilation works only with small numbers. Just think about it. You may bug out to Colombia, learn Spanish (it's easy), quit American TV and internet news, get along with the natives, and marry a cute senora. You still would have to lose some of your American ways, such as caring about organization, being on time, that sort of thing. Those with the right mindset could be assimilated.

    If a townfull of us head to Colombia, buy the land, and fix things up as Americans do, well that'll be a little piece of America. The Colombians may not even mind a whole lot. It's just one little town of people that don't fit in, but they pay their taxes ... etc. That was Miami and parts of Los Angeles in America in the 1980s. OK, I don't have to go there, it's just a couple of places, so no problem. When this spreads around the whole country, there's no assimilation, just an invasion.






    .

    * Almost 20 years ago, a girl from Singapore was telling me that she saw nothing at all wrong with their government spying on every citizen (back then, it was email, geo-location, and phone calls.) I was dumfounded, but she had a nice ass, so ...

    If a townfull of us head to Colombia, buy the land, and fix things up as Americans do, well that’ll be a little piece of America. The Colombians may not even mind a whole lot.

    Communities of central Europeans did just that in the 19th century, and not just to Colombia but also to Argentina as well. There are still villages in the foothills of the Argie side of the Andes that look more like Bavaria than Spain, including blue-eyed, blonde people. But they all speak some form of Spanish. That’s what being immersed in a larger culture tends to do, absent a countervailing force. Over time, the outsiders blend in with the locals / natives. It takes active work on the part of a community to resist this. See the Mennonites in Mexico for another example, I have met blue-eyed Mexicans with reddish hair whose primary language is Mexican Spanish, with Germanic and Englishish very secondary. Absent that countervailing force, people tend to blend in with their neighbors to some degree. They acculturate. They intermarry. They ‘go native’. They act like their neighbors.

    Except when a countervailing force keeps them distinct, by essentially punishing the majority for being a majority. The countervailing force in the US dates back a couple of generations now, and it has become very obvious to some observers. It is another thing we are not supposed to notice, and it is another factor in the ongoing fragmentation / tribalization of the US.

    Noticing what is right in front of us is a form of candor that is not at all encouraged.

  61. @Mr. Rational

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.
     
    We're going to have war regardless.  It's baked in.  The point is to win it.

    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side. It’s not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump’s eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    You might not want to call the action in Afghanistan a war, but it is.  And that's what actions against the US Globohomo Government will resemble, a lot.
    , @dfordoom


    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.
     
    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.
     
    I agree. And apart from fantasies there's no prospect of another organised side emerging.

    If there is chaos, unrest and riots the only result will be to give the one organised side an excuse for introducing savage repression.

    It’s not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump’s eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.
     
    It seems very unlikely. Who is Trump's successor as leader of the Trump faction going to be? Is there anyone at all who seems a likely successor? The Trump faction is in practice a one-man band. That is Trump's great failure - he failed to create a party or even a faction. Probably because he was never interested.

    After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.
    , @Mr. Rational

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.
     
    There are very much two sides now:  the oppressors and the oppressed.

    Chaos and unrest de-legitimizes the ruling oppressors.  Eventually the majority will simply cease to go along with the program, and the system of oppression will fall apart.  This will leave the oppressors nearly defenseless and probably get them the wicked backlash they so richly deserve.  I doubt I will live long enough to see it, but I'm sure it's coming.
  62. @iffen
    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side. It's not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump's eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.

    You might not want to call the action in Afghanistan a war, but it is.  And that’s what actions against the US Globohomo Government will resemble, a lot.

  63. I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale. I’d rather we encouraged more and more of them to adopt the political outlook of, say, Stephen Miller and contribute their considerable talents to our shared cause of making America great again.

    That’s pretty much my opinion as well. I spent most of the 90s as a sort of cartoon Nazi (even went to jail for it), but anti-Semitism is an intellectual dead end. Irrespective of what one may personally happen to feel about the Jews, it makes sense to ally with them. Our enemies hate them too.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Irrespective of what one may personally happen to feel about the Jews, it makes sense to ally with them. Our enemies hate them too.
     
    "If you are faced with an enemy and a traitor, and you have only one bullet, shoot the traitor."
  64. @AaronB

    We know a large fraction of personality (which determines behavior) is inherited. But that doesn’t mean we can’t genetically select for another personality (based on recessive genes) in the descendants of the said person through environmental manipulation (geography, culture, etc.).
     
    That's an excellent way of putting it, that does justice to both sides of the debate.

    We will never solve the HBD "debate" because both sides have some truth to them.

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.

    However, do you only apply it to future generations? If so, I would say it applies to the current generation - any individual can have a different set of genes activated in different environments.

    Ones genetic potential for violence can be activated in one environment but not another, etc.

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.

    I wrote “selected,” not “activated.”

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?

    If so, this is more optimistic even than my take.
  65. @Twinkie

    So genes determine behavior, but environment determines which genes get activated.
     
    I wrote “selected,” not “activated.”

    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?

    If so, this is more optimistic even than my take.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?
     
    Please do not put words in my mouth or set up straw men.

    1. Consider the possibility that Jack London was hyperbolic, wrong, or observed selectively. Other Western observers of the same period were more complimentary of Koreans. Note that during the time of London’s sojourn through Korea, it had experienced multiple wars and civil conflict, so his view was likely skewed by the particular conditions deprivation of the time.

    2. There are non-genetic factors that act as a drag - poor nutrition, contaminated water, lead poisoning, etc. Koreans also had the same Confucian examination system as the Chinese did and likely experienced the same selection mechanism, i.e. cognitive elites gaining official positions, prospering, and having higher fertility. So the underlying human quality was probably fairly good.

    3. London wrote the essay in 1904. 100 years is 4-5 generations and, if the selection pressure is strong enough (and certainly that can be argued for contemporary Korea since 1900), and if the human quality was already good, it is long enough to produce elevated intelligence, especially if drags were removed.
  66. @AaronB
    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?

    If so, this is more optimistic even than my take.

    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?

    Please do not put words in my mouth or set up straw men.

    1. Consider the possibility that Jack London was hyperbolic, wrong, or observed selectively. Other Western observers of the same period were more complimentary of Koreans. Note that during the time of London’s sojourn through Korea, it had experienced multiple wars and civil conflict, so his view was likely skewed by the particular conditions deprivation of the time.

    2. There are non-genetic factors that act as a drag – poor nutrition, contaminated water, lead poisoning, etc. Koreans also had the same Confucian examination system as the Chinese did and likely experienced the same selection mechanism, i.e. cognitive elites gaining official positions, prospering, and having higher fertility. So the underlying human quality was probably fairly good.

    3. London wrote the essay in 1904. 100 years is 4-5 generations and, if the selection pressure is strong enough (and certainly that can be argued for contemporary Korea since 1900), and if the human quality was already good, it is long enough to produce elevated intelligence, especially if drags were removed.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    These are all possible explanations, I agree.

    Do you think it's possible for an individual or a group to activate - so to speak - different genes in response to different environments? For instance - Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.

    I am interested if you consider this possible, and if not, why not.

    It seems to me there are lots of examples of this kind of thing - change too rapid to be selected for. Obviously, humans are not infinitely malleable - but I wonder if we can find a way within HBD theory of genetic constraint to account for rapid change. One way would be gene activation - epigenetics is it called?
    , @Mark G.
    Korea is a good example of how non-genetic factors are important. Compare North Korea and South Korea. South Koreans are more hardworking and industrious and much wealthier than North Koreans and it's not just because of their genes since there isn't that much genetic variation between the two. Other recent historical examples would be East versus West Germany or Hong Kong versus mainland China. Genes are an important ingredient of economic success but you need additional ingredients too. You probably couldn't take Somalia and turn it into Switzerland but you could take the poverty stricken Korea of Jack London's day and turn it into the economic power house of today, at least part of it.
  67. @Twinkie

    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?
     
    Please do not put words in my mouth or set up straw men.

    1. Consider the possibility that Jack London was hyperbolic, wrong, or observed selectively. Other Western observers of the same period were more complimentary of Koreans. Note that during the time of London’s sojourn through Korea, it had experienced multiple wars and civil conflict, so his view was likely skewed by the particular conditions deprivation of the time.

    2. There are non-genetic factors that act as a drag - poor nutrition, contaminated water, lead poisoning, etc. Koreans also had the same Confucian examination system as the Chinese did and likely experienced the same selection mechanism, i.e. cognitive elites gaining official positions, prospering, and having higher fertility. So the underlying human quality was probably fairly good.

    3. London wrote the essay in 1904. 100 years is 4-5 generations and, if the selection pressure is strong enough (and certainly that can be argued for contemporary Korea since 1900), and if the human quality was already good, it is long enough to produce elevated intelligence, especially if drags were removed.

    These are all possible explanations, I agree.

    Do you think it’s possible for an individual or a group to activate – so to speak – different genes in response to different environments? For instance – Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.

    I am interested if you consider this possible, and if not, why not.

    It seems to me there are lots of examples of this kind of thing – change too rapid to be selected for. Obviously, humans are not infinitely malleable – but I wonder if we can find a way within HBD theory of genetic constraint to account for rapid change. One way would be gene activation – epigenetics is it called?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    One way would be gene activation – epigenetics is it called?
     
    No, that's just the normal gene regulatory system.  Epigenetics is the supposed "learning" of gene activation/deactivation patterns which is passed down to future generations through the gametes.  Needless to say this sounds pretty far-fetched as regards higher organisms, especially mammals.
    , @Twinkie

    Do you think it’s possible for an individual or a group to activate – so to speak – different genes in response to different environments?
     
    You cannot activate genes you do not have.

    For instance – Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.
     
    I don't think that's what happened. I think there was a (self-) selection mechanism at work here. The Jews who emigrated to what is today Israel were - to put nicely - more adventurous and risk-taking types who were willing to toil in the desert and fight Arabs while the Jews who went to, say, the United States were "low risk, high reward" types (which can also translate as "no chest, high IQ"). Indeed, American Jews seem to test to have a higher average IQ than Israeli Jews do (even setting aside the Sephardim and the Mizrahim).

    Whenever you have mass-migration, there is always some kind of selection/self-selction. Look at the Indian immigrants in the U.S. Something like 70+% of them have college degrees (U.S. average is 30% or so). For that matter, African immigrants in the U.S. have higher high school graduation rate than just about any ethnic group. Highly selected (cognitively), compared to the general populations back home.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Humans are of course not infinitely malleable, but we are an incredibly adaptable species, probably the most adaptable species in the world.
  68. As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale

    Unless you are ok with white genocide, then all jews must be condemned, to want to ally with the number one enemy is both lunacy and highly immoral. The few “good” jews is just some of them being uncertain if Israel will be accepted by the non white world.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams

    Unless you are ok with white genocide, then all jews must be condemned,
     
    Sorry, but I can't condemn Jews like Ron Unz, Henry Makow, etc. They have implicitly or explicitly pushed back against the Great Replacement as they understand it's not in anyone's interest to do so.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Besides being immoral, this is also highly ineffective. There is probably nothing that makes normal people more repulsed and disgusted by the idea of white identity than the "Hitler was right" tripe.
  69. The many comments about Singapore oblige me to repost this foreign-service-officer (supposedly) joke. An Indian, an American, and a Singaporean are asked: What is your opinion of the nutritional value of beef? The Indian replies: What is beef? The American replies: What is nutritional value? The Singaporean replies: What is an opinion?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Three Malays, they do drugs.

    Three Chinese, they gamble.

    Three Indians, they drink.

    One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest everybody. :)
  70. @Sushipal
    Slowly but surely, we'll eventually see whites start to vote together as a block, as the GOP is the "white party" & the Dems are now the POC party.

    Glad to see someone figured it out.

    Can’t figure out if those who disagreed are (((special people))) figuring out that they killed the golden goose that supports Israel (it’s a slow death) and hoping against hope… Or just huwyites doing the same (but for themselves).

    Too bad hope isn’t a strategy!

  71. @Twinkie
    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    In the same vein, I do not consider my non-Asian neighbors to be at war with me, because whites in Morgantown are doing meth and engaging in EBT fraud and blacks in Detroit are shooting each other.

    By all means, let us discuss group differences and the policy implications thereof in full honesty and transparency. But, at the same time, let us treat those we come into contact daily - neighbors, coworkers, people who serve us lunch or sell us coffee, etc. - as individuals, not avatars of some racial average. I see absolutely zero reason to harbor hostility toward those Jews or blacks of good will... especially if they stand on the same side of the political-cultural divide as I do.

    The last time I checked, blacks, whites, Jews, etc. are all American citizens, and are not separate countries that are at war.

    It’s pretty clear Jews are at war with whites, it’s just that whites don’t realize it yet. Yes NAJALT, but enough of them are that it’s created quite the problem… Which won’t resolve well for many.

    If things get bad enough, you’ll see things separate into defacto “countries”, for sure.

  72. @neutral

    As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale
     
    Unless you are ok with white genocide, then all jews must be condemned, to want to ally with the number one enemy is both lunacy and highly immoral. The few "good" jews is just some of them being uncertain if Israel will be accepted by the non white world.

    Unless you are ok with white genocide, then all jews must be condemned,

    Sorry, but I can’t condemn Jews like Ron Unz, Henry Makow, etc. They have implicitly or explicitly pushed back against the Great Replacement as they understand it’s not in anyone’s interest to do so.

    • Replies: @neutral
    Then you are condemning white people, trying to point out a few anomalies and ignoring 99.9% of the rest is the height of foolishness.
  73. @SafeNow
    The many comments about Singapore oblige me to repost this foreign-service-officer (supposedly) joke. An Indian, an American, and a Singaporean are asked: What is your opinion of the nutritional value of beef? The Indian replies: What is beef? The American replies: What is nutritional value? The Singaporean replies: What is an opinion?

    Three Malays, they do drugs.

    Three Chinese, they gamble.

    Three Indians, they drink.

    One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest everybody. 🙂

  74. @EliteCommInc.
    "The positive contributions of the “talented tenth” to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?'



    There's a lot of nonsense in the comments. But this comment caught my eye.


    "The positive contributions of the “talented tenth” to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?"


    It would be nice to know something about human beings. The human race and there is only one human race, not several. There are humans with an array of adapted traits, none of those traits transform into establishing a new species.

    And human beings could and would survive without any of the inventions on the planet, though one might benefit from the practice of inoculations or the filament in light bulbs, both innovations by blacks that have changed the fortunes of billions.


    But had they never been invented the human species would march forward. HBD is not anything new. It is more detailed. But its the old divine right by way of biology contend. But the millions of exceptions shatter its foundations to superior intellect or morality that resides in ant articular human group, that is locked in place.

    in the previous candor conversation the arguments ignore the hard questions.

    "It’s true, as Abraham Lincoln himself stated, that Africans oppress others by their mere presence (proven by the way everyone who is not allowed to fight to keep Africans out is forced to flee them)"


    no one is stopping toy from making the argument to deny blacks into the country. N o oe is even stopping anyone from making the HBD contend.

    But ignoring the hard questions about its veracity won't score many points in advancing the case. And i am not sure that those deep in the knees of its construction would appreciate your applications for example, you say blacks are incapable of doing math, engineering, or other complex tasks and yet:


    there are black engineers
    mathmeticians
    physicians
    scientists
    computer coders

    If it is genetic one has to explain those contradictions. Laugh me guess - they have white genetics., which means they are actually white . . .

    laugh.

    though one might benefit from the practice of inoculations or the filament in light bulbs

    Neither of which were invented by black people. Lewis Howard Latimer made some useful improvements though.

  75. @Twinkie

    Are you suggesting that in 50 years, Korean genes were selected away from being lazy and thriftless toward being hardworking and industrious?
     
    Please do not put words in my mouth or set up straw men.

    1. Consider the possibility that Jack London was hyperbolic, wrong, or observed selectively. Other Western observers of the same period were more complimentary of Koreans. Note that during the time of London’s sojourn through Korea, it had experienced multiple wars and civil conflict, so his view was likely skewed by the particular conditions deprivation of the time.

    2. There are non-genetic factors that act as a drag - poor nutrition, contaminated water, lead poisoning, etc. Koreans also had the same Confucian examination system as the Chinese did and likely experienced the same selection mechanism, i.e. cognitive elites gaining official positions, prospering, and having higher fertility. So the underlying human quality was probably fairly good.

    3. London wrote the essay in 1904. 100 years is 4-5 generations and, if the selection pressure is strong enough (and certainly that can be argued for contemporary Korea since 1900), and if the human quality was already good, it is long enough to produce elevated intelligence, especially if drags were removed.

    Korea is a good example of how non-genetic factors are important. Compare North Korea and South Korea. South Koreans are more hardworking and industrious and much wealthier than North Koreans and it’s not just because of their genes since there isn’t that much genetic variation between the two. Other recent historical examples would be East versus West Germany or Hong Kong versus mainland China. Genes are an important ingredient of economic success but you need additional ingredients too. You probably couldn’t take Somalia and turn it into Switzerland but you could take the poverty stricken Korea of Jack London’s day and turn it into the economic power house of today, at least part of it.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Once you've seen Northern defectors in the South, you understand why the South Korean public is nowhere near as gung-ho on reunification as they let on, or at least why the younger generations who have no emotional ties with the North and who'd bear the costs aren't. The defectors often end up in the underclass. They understandably have a difficult time adjusting to a hyper-capitalist society where you are expected to make your own decisions every day, and simply do not have the skills or background required to keep pace. The ones around my age who had the ill luck to be babies/toddlers during the worst of the 90s famine years are physically stunted (many, particularly the women forced into the sex trade in China and who sometimes find themselves doing the same thing in the South, also suffer from PTSD), and even if they weren't, their speech gives them away as North Koreans.

    The gap between West and East Germany was nowhere near the gap between North and South Korea, culturally or economically. (Tellingly, the Berlin Wall was a joke compared to the DMZ.) And yet it was there. And it showed upon reunification, not just in the well-documented subsidies that had to be shipped east: guess where the AfD has the most support in Germany! The mentality is still different to this day. So, I can only imagine what it would be like for the two Koreas, who actually had a shooting war and almost no contact with each other prior to the 1990s, when Chinese and South Korean media started slipping into the North.

  76. encourage and guide blacks to stay out of trouble

    .

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  77. @Servant of Gla'aki

    I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale. I’d rather we encouraged more and more of them to adopt the political outlook of, say, Stephen Miller and contribute their considerable talents to our shared cause of making America great again.
     
    That's pretty much my opinion as well. I spent most of the 90s as a sort of cartoon Nazi (even went to jail for it), but anti-Semitism is an intellectual dead end. Irrespective of what one may personally happen to feel about the Jews, it makes sense to ally with them. Our enemies hate them too.

    Irrespective of what one may personally happen to feel about the Jews, it makes sense to ally with them. Our enemies hate them too.

    “If you are faced with an enemy and a traitor, and you have only one bullet, shoot the traitor.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    “If you are faced with an enemy and a traitor, and you have only one bullet, shoot the traitor.”
     
    Have more than one bullet.
  78. @AaronB
    These are all possible explanations, I agree.

    Do you think it's possible for an individual or a group to activate - so to speak - different genes in response to different environments? For instance - Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.

    I am interested if you consider this possible, and if not, why not.

    It seems to me there are lots of examples of this kind of thing - change too rapid to be selected for. Obviously, humans are not infinitely malleable - but I wonder if we can find a way within HBD theory of genetic constraint to account for rapid change. One way would be gene activation - epigenetics is it called?

    One way would be gene activation – epigenetics is it called?

    No, that’s just the normal gene regulatory system.  Epigenetics is the supposed “learning” of gene activation/deactivation patterns which is passed down to future generations through the gametes.  Needless to say this sounds pretty far-fetched as regards higher organisms, especially mammals.

    • Thanks: AaronB
  79. @anonymous
    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a "hand up" to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
    It has failed for these reasons:

    Real Politics - Minorities don't really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.

    Human Nature - people blame others for their own failures and perceived persecutions. Blacks will always blame whites. Jews will always blame gentiles. The white majority/founders will always be blamed. There will always be bad blood.

    Genetics/Culture - it doesn't matter which is the cause of the problems. Re-programming a failing ethnic group's culture or their genes isn't going to work. The re-programming requires totalitarian government.

    The white majority is no more - At best a policy of "citizenship" can work if you have a majority population in control, agreeing to recognize minorities as fellow citizens. We now live in a multi-tribal society where every tribe is at war with every other for its own piece of the action. All the political and social forces are driving people to hunker down with their own tribe and war against the others. That is what the Obama age has brought into full view.

    The only way you will get the republic of citizens you describe is in a country with a relatively homogeneous culture. America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don't want.

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.

    This.

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.

    I don’t understand this assumption. Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.

    I can’t imagine honest dialogue helping anything. Indeed, it might make matters worse. It’s time for a divorce.

    • Replies: @J. R. Chloupek
    Rosie, separation between conservative traditionalists and liberal freedom fetishers is not possible, literally. Deep Red areas house liberals, and Deep Blue areas contain conservatives. All organizations contain a mixture of such groupings, as do families and other genetic combinations. It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America, unless citizens really want to return to autarky, i.e., economic self-sufficiency like frontier times. Not gonna happen.
    To change things, people must grow up, accept differences as tolerable in a modus vivendi that prohibits physical harm to others, lying, or theft by any means, and band together as one to force oligarchs to share the wealth generated by collective action through a sovereign wealth fund paying a universal basic income as a social insurance scheme that spreads any and all risks to income. I'd say a general strike until the rich surrender would work, but if some want to pursue a political trigger mechanism, more power to them. We must fight to win like the powers that be among the wealthy do. I'm ready, are you?
    , @Talha

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand...It’s time for a divorce.
     
    Yes, it shouldn't be. With open dialogue, this is possible. The issue at hand is opening up the dialogue to make it even an acceptable idea.

    Within my own lifetime, I have witnessed nations horrifically broken apart and separated and some separated through an open an legal and friendly process - and some in between those two situations. The really big one being the Soviet Union. Obviously the situation is not exactly the same, but where there is (enough of) a will, there is a way.

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart...well, it's not likely going to happen, even violently. That's just the breaks.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.
     
    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world. The very small minority that might support such a solution has zero power, zero influence and close to zero wealth. Their views enjoy no elite support and no mass support.

    Those who would oppose it have immense power, immense influence and immense wealth. They have absolute elite support and overwhelming mass support. Plus they have the military, the security/intelligence services, the police and the bureaucracy on their side. They are all absolutely determined that there is not going to be any separation.

    The proportion of the population that would actually support separation, once the costs were explained to them, would be around 1%. It's an idea that has no popular support whatsoever.

    What would those costs be? Firstly, being a tiny impoverished statelet surrounded by much more powerful and very very hostile neighbours. Secondly, the absolute certainly that draconian sanctions would be imposed on that tiny statelet, so it would face economic strangulation.

    Do you really believe liberals would tolerate the existence of a breakaway conservative white nationalist state?
  80. @Znzn
    I think someone made the point that there is really no large difference between East Asian and SouthEast Asians, basically Malays, just like there are no large difference between Albanians, Germans, and Sicilians, and even Pashtuns, so if we are are compared Whites to Asians, then it should also include South East Asians like the Malays, Austranesian Filipinos, Laotians, Rohingyans, Bamars, and Hmongs, like we also include Slavs, Southern Slavs like Serbians, Greeks Albanians, Sicilians, and even Berbers or Christian Arabs, and not just Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians when we talk about Whites. If you want to compare using East Asians alone, then a better comparison would be to compare them with West Germans, Dutch, and Waloonians only. Basically if people are cherry picking using on high IQ Pacific Rim Asian like Han Chinese, Koreans and Japs only (and speaking of Northeast Asia, why do people exclude Mongolians in these comparisons), then you can cherry pick by using only high IQ European groups.

    Basically if people are cherry picking using on high IQ Pacific Rim Asian like Han Chinese, Koreans and Japs only (and speaking of Northeast Asia, why do people exclude Mongolians in these comparisons), then you can cherry pick by using only high IQ European groups.

    Your argument (if I’m understanding you correctly) would tend to suggest that racial differences are unimportant. The real differences are ethnic and (mostly) cultural. If that’s your argument then I agree with it.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.
  81. @Rosie

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
     
    This.

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.
     
    I don't understand this assumption. Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.

    I can't imagine honest dialogue helping anything. Indeed, it might make matters worse. It's time for a divorce.

    Rosie, separation between conservative traditionalists and liberal freedom fetishers is not possible, literally. Deep Red areas house liberals, and Deep Blue areas contain conservatives. All organizations contain a mixture of such groupings, as do families and other genetic combinations. It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America, unless citizens really want to return to autarky, i.e., economic self-sufficiency like frontier times. Not gonna happen.
    To change things, people must grow up, accept differences as tolerable in a modus vivendi that prohibits physical harm to others, lying, or theft by any means, and band together as one to force oligarchs to share the wealth generated by collective action through a sovereign wealth fund paying a universal basic income as a social insurance scheme that spreads any and all risks to income. I’d say a general strike until the rich surrender would work, but if some want to pursue a political trigger mechanism, more power to them. We must fight to win like the powers that be among the wealthy do. I’m ready, are you?

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Deep Red areas house liberals, and Deep Blue areas contain conservatives. All organizations contain a mixture of such groupings, as do families and other genetic combinations. It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America
     
    Yes, I agree totally.
    , @Rosie

    I’m ready, are you?
     
    I'm ready for a White socialist ethnostate. I'm not interested in getting a bigger piece of the pie while my people disappear from the face of the Earth.
  82. @dfordoom

    Basically if people are cherry picking using on high IQ Pacific Rim Asian like Han Chinese, Koreans and Japs only (and speaking of Northeast Asia, why do people exclude Mongolians in these comparisons), then you can cherry pick by using only high IQ European groups.
     
    Your argument (if I'm understanding you correctly) would tend to suggest that racial differences are unimportant. The real differences are ethnic and (mostly) cultural. If that's your argument then I agree with it.

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.
     
    Used all my reactions, but yes, pretty much.
    , @Twinkie

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans.
     
    I think I know what you mean, but here your sentence constructions seems to indicate that you believe Greeks, Slavs, and Germans belong to "the same racial group" as "southern Mongoloids."

    And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.
     
    Well, if we are playing that game, wouldn't actual Caucasians such as Chechens and Dagestanis be also "Caucasoids"? So really, by the same logic, "Caucasoid" IQ or achievements are "not all the impressive" since the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians, such as banditry, terrorism, murdering children at schools and such.

    Okay, enough fun. I think you and Rosie could benefit from reading Razib Khan's site and/or other related sites on population genetics.

  83. @Rosie

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
     
    This.

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.
     
    I don't understand this assumption. Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.

    I can't imagine honest dialogue helping anything. Indeed, it might make matters worse. It's time for a divorce.

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand…It’s time for a divorce.

    Yes, it shouldn’t be. With open dialogue, this is possible. The issue at hand is opening up the dialogue to make it even an acceptable idea.

    Within my own lifetime, I have witnessed nations horrifically broken apart and separated and some separated through an open an legal and friendly process – and some in between those two situations. The really big one being the Soviet Union. Obviously the situation is not exactly the same, but where there is (enough of) a will, there is a way.

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart…well, it’s not likely going to happen, even violently. That’s just the breaks.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart…well, it’s not likely going to happen, even violently. That’s just the breaks.
     
    It's very hard for me to understand this. I wouldn't be the least bit bothered by the idea of genuine self-determination for "Red Indians" or descendants of black slaves. I would rather have Indians continue existing rather than ceasing to exist, after all.

    It almost seems like spite, or worse, intent to exploit and persecute the erstwhile majority.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    When the system of global finance collapses, a lot of things that seemed unimaginable yesterday will be thought worthy of consideration. We could be seeing the beginning of that collapse right now.
  84. @Znzn
    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.

    Used all my reactions, but yes, pretty much.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    I mean Ashnenazi Jews.
  85. @Talha

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand...It’s time for a divorce.
     
    Yes, it shouldn't be. With open dialogue, this is possible. The issue at hand is opening up the dialogue to make it even an acceptable idea.

    Within my own lifetime, I have witnessed nations horrifically broken apart and separated and some separated through an open an legal and friendly process - and some in between those two situations. The really big one being the Soviet Union. Obviously the situation is not exactly the same, but where there is (enough of) a will, there is a way.

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart...well, it's not likely going to happen, even violently. That's just the breaks.

    Peace.

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart…well, it’s not likely going to happen, even violently. That’s just the breaks.

    It’s very hard for me to understand this. I wouldn’t be the least bit bothered by the idea of genuine self-determination for “Red Indians” or descendants of black slaves. I would rather have Indians continue existing rather than ceasing to exist, after all.

    It almost seems like spite, or worse, intent to exploit and persecute the erstwhile majority.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I wouldn’t be the least bit bothered by the idea of genuine self-determination for “Red Indians” or descendants of black slaves.
     
    Look, I don't care either. I've been on record as fully supporting a white ethno-nationalist break-off state from the US (as long as they ban Islam in its territory). If people don't want to live near me, I don't want to live near them - and I'm even willing to move to another part of the country if there were land swaps involved*.

    It almost seems like spite, or worse, intent to exploit and persecute the erstwhile majority.
     
    But, 5-8% is nowhere near the majority (even of whites that still have the majority for a while yet) so I don't understand.

    I'm not saying it's right, I'm just telling you that if you have 5-8% support, the idea is not getting anywhere. That's just reality.

    Peace.

    *Heck, my family is Muhajir (migrants), we basically closed shop in India and moved to Pakistan, so it's in our history.
  86. @ulithi
    Let's see if whites vote as a bloc when they become 15-20 % of the population .

    when they become 15-20 % of the population .

    Oh, you can predict the future! Why don’t you pick some derivatives?

  87. @Sushipal
    Not true. ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat. And this is exactly why race is such a hot political topic right now. Thanks to mass immigration, which happens to be nonwhite & votes overwhelmingly for policies to disarm us, & make "hate/rude" speech illegal, the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights! Hello totalitarian govt!

    ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat.

    Today, yes. But as late as 1992, Asians voted more Republican than whites.

    Not immutable, like I wrote.

  88. @Rosie

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart…well, it’s not likely going to happen, even violently. That’s just the breaks.
     
    It's very hard for me to understand this. I wouldn't be the least bit bothered by the idea of genuine self-determination for "Red Indians" or descendants of black slaves. I would rather have Indians continue existing rather than ceasing to exist, after all.

    It almost seems like spite, or worse, intent to exploit and persecute the erstwhile majority.

    I wouldn’t be the least bit bothered by the idea of genuine self-determination for “Red Indians” or descendants of black slaves.

    Look, I don’t care either. I’ve been on record as fully supporting a white ethno-nationalist break-off state from the US (as long as they ban Islam in its territory). If people don’t want to live near me, I don’t want to live near them – and I’m even willing to move to another part of the country if there were land swaps involved*.

    It almost seems like spite, or worse, intent to exploit and persecute the erstwhile majority.

    But, 5-8% is nowhere near the majority (even of whites that still have the majority for a while yet) so I don’t understand.

    I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just telling you that if you have 5-8% support, the idea is not getting anywhere. That’s just reality.

    Peace.

    *Heck, my family is Muhajir (migrants), we basically closed shop in India and moved to Pakistan, so it’s in our history.

  89. @Mr. Rational

    Irrespective of what one may personally happen to feel about the Jews, it makes sense to ally with them. Our enemies hate them too.
     
    "If you are faced with an enemy and a traitor, and you have only one bullet, shoot the traitor."

    “If you are faced with an enemy and a traitor, and you have only one bullet, shoot the traitor.”

    Have more than one bullet.

    • LOL: Talha
  90. @Rosie

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.
     
    Used all my reactions, but yes, pretty much.

    I mean Ashnenazi Jews.

  91. @AaronB
    These are all possible explanations, I agree.

    Do you think it's possible for an individual or a group to activate - so to speak - different genes in response to different environments? For instance - Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.

    I am interested if you consider this possible, and if not, why not.

    It seems to me there are lots of examples of this kind of thing - change too rapid to be selected for. Obviously, humans are not infinitely malleable - but I wonder if we can find a way within HBD theory of genetic constraint to account for rapid change. One way would be gene activation - epigenetics is it called?

    Do you think it’s possible for an individual or a group to activate – so to speak – different genes in response to different environments?

    You cannot activate genes you do not have.

    For instance – Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.

    I don’t think that’s what happened. I think there was a (self-) selection mechanism at work here. The Jews who emigrated to what is today Israel were – to put nicely – more adventurous and risk-taking types who were willing to toil in the desert and fight Arabs while the Jews who went to, say, the United States were “low risk, high reward” types (which can also translate as “no chest, high IQ”). Indeed, American Jews seem to test to have a higher average IQ than Israeli Jews do (even setting aside the Sephardim and the Mizrahim).

    Whenever you have mass-migration, there is always some kind of selection/self-selction. Look at the Indian immigrants in the U.S. Something like 70+% of them have college degrees (U.S. average is 30% or so). For that matter, African immigrants in the U.S. have higher high school graduation rate than just about any ethnic group. Highly selected (cognitively), compared to the general populations back home.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    You cannot activate genes you do not have.
     
    Agreed. But you may have genes you don't know about because you're in the wrong environment.

    I don’t think that’s what happened. I think there was a (self-) selection mechanism at work here
     
    That is possible. I suppose we don't really know. A large percentage of the Ashkenazi population are from un-selected holocaust refugees who had no choice, and the Jews from the Muslim world are also un-selected, and they are about 60% of the population.

    Actually, since you make a good point about the Ashkenazim, I think the Jews from Muslim countries are a better example - centuries of no real military tradition, suddenly becoming excellent soldiers.

    Anyways, Israel is just one example. There are many others.

    I guess we will have to disagree about which theory best fits all the facts. HBD seems like a partial theory at best to me.

    But since you, an HBD proponent, are talking about trying to change the culture for the better - maybe our differences don't matter.
  92. @Znzn
    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans. And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans.

    I think I know what you mean, but here your sentence constructions seems to indicate that you believe Greeks, Slavs, and Germans belong to “the same racial group” as “southern Mongoloids.”

    And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.

    Well, if we are playing that game, wouldn’t actual Caucasians such as Chechens and Dagestanis be also “Caucasoids”? So really, by the same logic, “Caucasoid” IQ or achievements are “not all the impressive” since the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians, such as banditry, terrorism, murdering children at schools and such.

    Okay, enough fun. I think you and Rosie could benefit from reading Razib Khan’s site and/or other related sites on population genetics.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    What is the Hmong crime rate in the US compared to the Chechen crime rate here? And my point remains that that Ashkenazi Jews and Indian Brahmins score above Han Chinese, though OK that might not be a fair comparison. And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure, Gulf Arab are not a good comparison because their African component is too high. And you have nature and nurture, what is the crime rate of Westernized Chechens vs. Westernized Hmongs?
    , @Talha

    the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians
     
    I agree here that this the right method according to what has been proposed earlier in the thread, but it won’t make a huge difference; the people of that region aren’t that many - maybe 25 million or so altogether (and I mean everyone; Georgians, Avars, Chechens, Circassians, Armenians, etc.). Not enough to significantly alter anything.

    And just the Chechen types are less than 5 million.

    Peace.

  93. @anonymous
    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a "hand up" to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
    It has failed for these reasons:

    Real Politics - Minorities don't really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.

    Human Nature - people blame others for their own failures and perceived persecutions. Blacks will always blame whites. Jews will always blame gentiles. The white majority/founders will always be blamed. There will always be bad blood.

    Genetics/Culture - it doesn't matter which is the cause of the problems. Re-programming a failing ethnic group's culture or their genes isn't going to work. The re-programming requires totalitarian government.

    The white majority is no more - At best a policy of "citizenship" can work if you have a majority population in control, agreeing to recognize minorities as fellow citizens. We now live in a multi-tribal society where every tribe is at war with every other for its own piece of the action. All the political and social forces are driving people to hunker down with their own tribe and war against the others. That is what the Obama age has brought into full view.

    The only way you will get the republic of citizens you describe is in a country with a relatively homogeneous culture. America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don't want.

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.

    Straw man. I didn’t write anything about giving a “hand up” to anybody. I am categorically opposed to welfare and most forms of entitlements.

    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.

    Really? Since when have we had a public program of “judge people by the content of their character”?

    We have had some form of affirmative action or another since the 19th Century, and the current incarnation of the judging people by group identity goes back to the 1960’s.

    I don’t think my program, as such, has been tried for a quite a while, if at all.

    Minorities don’t really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.

    “Like all people… simply want money… cheat to get it.” I think this is called projection.

    • Replies: @anon


    I didn’t write anything about giving a “hand up” to anybody. I am categorically opposed to welfare and most forms of entitlements.
     
    I was referring to this statement in your comment:

    "It’s better to fashion our society as best as we can to encourage and guide blacks to stay out of trouble, work productively, marry, and lead good family lives."

    Granted this doesn't have to mean a hand up, or welfare. But it is in the ball park.


    “Like all people… simply want money… cheat to get it.” I think this is called projection


    As a matter of fact I am one of the least money-motivated people you will ever meet, and I don't cheat. Alas, my comment on people is based on long years of observing politics.
  94. @Twinkie

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans.
     
    I think I know what you mean, but here your sentence constructions seems to indicate that you believe Greeks, Slavs, and Germans belong to "the same racial group" as "southern Mongoloids."

    And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.
     
    Well, if we are playing that game, wouldn't actual Caucasians such as Chechens and Dagestanis be also "Caucasoids"? So really, by the same logic, "Caucasoid" IQ or achievements are "not all the impressive" since the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians, such as banditry, terrorism, murdering children at schools and such.

    Okay, enough fun. I think you and Rosie could benefit from reading Razib Khan's site and/or other related sites on population genetics.

    What is the Hmong crime rate in the US compared to the Chechen crime rate here? And my point remains that that Ashkenazi Jews and Indian Brahmins score above Han Chinese, though OK that might not be a fair comparison. And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure, Gulf Arab are not a good comparison because their African component is too high. And you have nature and nurture, what is the crime rate of Westernized Chechens vs. Westernized Hmongs?

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Calling Karlin? Do Chechens, unmixed Berbers, and Ossetians have a lower IQ than Malays? And pure Caucasoid Arabs are basically Sephardic Jews and Maronites, which would compare favorably even vs. Han Chinese?
    , @Twinkie

    And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure
     
    I don't know the answer to that and, frankly, I do not care. But I do know that Hmongs haven't engaged in terrorist bombings in the U.S. (though I think they do have elevated crime rates).

    In any case, it's silly to lump the Japanese with the Hmong, as it is to lump the Chechens with the Englishmen. Broad racial categories have some utility, but if you are even remotely interested in how the real world works and be able to evaluate groups of people accurately, the more granular the data and sampling, the better.
  95. @Ash Williams

    Unless you are ok with white genocide, then all jews must be condemned,
     
    Sorry, but I can't condemn Jews like Ron Unz, Henry Makow, etc. They have implicitly or explicitly pushed back against the Great Replacement as they understand it's not in anyone's interest to do so.

    Then you are condemning white people, trying to point out a few anomalies and ignoring 99.9% of the rest is the height of foolishness.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    If you think the mass of Jewry isn't as brainwashed as the goyim, you're fooling yourself. In fact, they're even MORE brainwashed, by necessity. If anyone has to believe the narrative about the poor, persecuted Jews, it's the lumpenjuden.

    By condemning them en masse, you play right into the uberjuden's hands. Most are blissfully unaware, and are functionally no different from goyim. However, many reject the globohomozio narrative, and so are not to blame. A precious few wake up to the peril and should be lauded and encouraged. In this respect, Jews are exactly like wyppl. They serve a means to the power elite's ends.

    AFA condeming white ppl, given how they easily abuse their fellows, vote to pick their neighbor's pocket, cheer to bomb those they know nothing about, believe the most transparent of lies, and lick the boot of tyrants in the name of saaaaaftey... Welp, they're pretty fucking condemnable.

    FFS, if someone doesn't learn the first time they lose at three card monte, why should we only blame the grifter?
  96. @Znzn
    What is the Hmong crime rate in the US compared to the Chechen crime rate here? And my point remains that that Ashkenazi Jews and Indian Brahmins score above Han Chinese, though OK that might not be a fair comparison. And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure, Gulf Arab are not a good comparison because their African component is too high. And you have nature and nurture, what is the crime rate of Westernized Chechens vs. Westernized Hmongs?

    Calling Karlin? Do Chechens, unmixed Berbers, and Ossetians have a lower IQ than Malays? And pure Caucasoid Arabs are basically Sephardic Jews and Maronites, which would compare favorably even vs. Han Chinese?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I would guess that Chechen/general Caucasus IQ is similar to that of US Hispanics and Balkanoids. So probably similar to Malays.

    The regions where they are dominant majorities have ~0.5 S.D. lower IQs than ethnic Russian regions.

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/map-russia-iq-2017.png
  97. @Twinkie

    I mean Malays and Austranesians are basically southern Mongoloids and belong to the same racial group, just like Greeks, Slavs, and Germans.
     
    I think I know what you mean, but here your sentence constructions seems to indicate that you believe Greeks, Slavs, and Germans belong to "the same racial group" as "southern Mongoloids."

    And you have a lot of people arguing that Jews and Parsis, or Indian Brahmins are Caucasoids, so really Mongoloid IQ is not all that impressive vs. Whites/Caucasoids.
     
    Well, if we are playing that game, wouldn't actual Caucasians such as Chechens and Dagestanis be also "Caucasoids"? So really, by the same logic, "Caucasoid" IQ or achievements are "not all the impressive" since the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians, such as banditry, terrorism, murdering children at schools and such.

    Okay, enough fun. I think you and Rosie could benefit from reading Razib Khan's site and/or other related sites on population genetics.

    the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians

    I agree here that this the right method according to what has been proposed earlier in the thread, but it won’t make a huge difference; the people of that region aren’t that many – maybe 25 million or so altogether (and I mean everyone; Georgians, Avars, Chechens, Circassians, Armenians, etc.). Not enough to significantly alter anything.

    And just the Chechen types are less than 5 million.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    And just the Chechen types are less than 5 million.
     
    Chechens are pretty outsized in the mayhem they generate. Besides, they aren't the only "problematic" "Caucasoids."

    As there are "fancy"Asians and "jungle" Asians, there are "fancy" whites and "mountain" whites or "desert" whites. They are different peoples with very different cultures and histories of civilizational development, period.
  98. @Pericles


    Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

     

    When you look around the poker table and can't spot the patsy ...

    When you look around the poker table and can’t spot the patsy …

    Don’t gamble. Problem solved.

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Lol, +1 insightful, you should have a column in NR.
  99. @Znzn
    What is the Hmong crime rate in the US compared to the Chechen crime rate here? And my point remains that that Ashkenazi Jews and Indian Brahmins score above Han Chinese, though OK that might not be a fair comparison. And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure, Gulf Arab are not a good comparison because their African component is too high. And you have nature and nurture, what is the crime rate of Westernized Chechens vs. Westernized Hmongs?

    And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure

    I don’t know the answer to that and, frankly, I do not care. But I do know that Hmongs haven’t engaged in terrorist bombings in the U.S. (though I think they do have elevated crime rates).

    In any case, it’s silly to lump the Japanese with the Hmong, as it is to lump the Chechens with the Englishmen. Broad racial categories have some utility, but if you are even remotely interested in how the real world works and be able to evaluate groups of people accurately, the more granular the data and sampling, the better.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Broad racial categories have some utility, but if you are even remotely interested in how the real world works and be able to evaluate groups of people accurately, the more granular the data and sampling, the better.
     
    Yep.
  100. @Talha

    the high achievements of the Western Europeans should be averaged with the Chechen-iness of the, you know, real Caucasians
     
    I agree here that this the right method according to what has been proposed earlier in the thread, but it won’t make a huge difference; the people of that region aren’t that many - maybe 25 million or so altogether (and I mean everyone; Georgians, Avars, Chechens, Circassians, Armenians, etc.). Not enough to significantly alter anything.

    And just the Chechen types are less than 5 million.

    Peace.

    And just the Chechen types are less than 5 million.

    Chechens are pretty outsized in the mayhem they generate. Besides, they aren’t the only “problematic” “Caucasoids.”

    As there are “fancy”Asians and “jungle” Asians, there are “fancy” whites and “mountain” whites or “desert” whites. They are different peoples with very different cultures and histories of civilizational development, period.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I get it. Totally agree, they are pound for pound pretty scary, but there’s simply not that many of them to make a difference - I mean how many Chechens are there (like 2-3 million?) and Avars (1 million?). It’s just a mathematics thing.

    Peace.
  101. anon[577] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew, former president of Singapore
     
    With all due respect to the late Lee Kuan Yew, social interests encompass religion. Lee's statement is highly reflective of his particular society, Singapore, and its idiosyncracies (a mix of Christian-Confucian-Buddhist and atheist Chinese, Muslim Malays, and Hindus).

    It's not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    It’s not an immutable axiom that applies to all societies. Note, for example, that the whites in the United States do not vote as a bloc, but are divided by economic and social interests (pro-buinsess vs. pro-labor, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, pro-gun rights vs. gun control, etc.).

    I see no reason for it not to be. And yes, whites do vote as a bloc — increasingly so. In some states, over 70% of whites vote republican, usually where racial tensions run the deepest. As some states have trended blue due to non-white immigration, others have trended red for the same reason: Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota. George W. Bush got maybe 54% of the white vote nationally while Romney got nearly 60%. This has been a trend that has generally been increasing with time. If whites don’t yet vote as a monolith, it is only because whites have been the supermajority throughout all of American history; ideological issues have been a luxury. Both trends are changing in tandem.

    Further, the expressed importance of subjects like religion and economic dogma is decreasing among whites, so it’s obvious that disparate white groups will have increasingly fewer things to divide them with time. This possibly indicates an increasing potential for white bloc voting. This potential is perhaps demonstrated by republican refusal to abandon their representative Donald Trump, despite all his troubles and scandals. This wasn’t true of either Richard Nixon or George W. Bush — back when America was far more homogeneous. This is a notable change. No matter what the man has done, he’s been immune to disapproval from his white base. This is a phenomenon also seen in many majority minority districts where bloc voting is the norm. For example, the incompetent black mayor of New Orleans during Katrina, Ray Nagin, was re-elected by his black constituents despite his poor performance.

    I see no reason why the same pattern repeated in nearly every diverse country won’t also repeat in the United States as well. IMO, to believe otherwise is merely wishful thinking.

    I’d rather we encouraged more and more of them to adopt the political outlook of, say, Stephen Miller and contribute their considerable talents to our shared cause of making America great again.

    That’s not going to happen — not with Jews, Asians, or any other minority group … and for good reason: humans have evolved to pick the winning side; you’re here because your ancestors weren’t stupid enough to be on the wrong side of their past social group. In a democracy where 50% +1 vote wins the day, the party that’s on the right side of demographics carries the day. None of those groups are going to want to saddle up with the losing side — white republicans — and risk becoming targets of the new boss in town. That observation ultimately dooms any prospect of attracting Jews or Asians to the republican side. It is to their benefit to ally themselves with the ascending POC coalition in order to avoid retaliatory persecution when whites are no longer in charge. Human nature doesn’t care about your election strategy.

  102. @Sushipal
    Not true. ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat. And this is exactly why race is such a hot political topic right now. Thanks to mass immigration, which happens to be nonwhite & votes overwhelmingly for policies to disarm us, & make "hate/rude" speech illegal, the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights! Hello totalitarian govt!

    the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights!

    But if you take a look at the Anglosphere countries with very very high immigration levels, namely the US, Australia and Britain, it’s the parties of the Left that are currently unable to win elections. In Australia and Britain the parties of the Right are enjoying an unprecedented level of political dominance.

    ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat.

    It depends on how you define bloc voting. I wouldn’t say 70% Democrat is equal to bloc voting.

    You’d have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don’t know. Maybe they do.

    I’d also like to see an ethnic breakdown.

    And when you say ALL racial groups, there are only three racial groups in the US anyway aren’t there? Whites, blacks and Asians. Hispanic isn’t a race. It isn’t even a coherent ethnic or cultural group. So are you talking about racial groups or ethnic groups or cultural groups or groups of immigrants?

    • Replies: @Sushipal
    You’d have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don’t know. Maybe they do.

    Yes they do. Every study I have, shows that offspring of U.S. immigrants in the last 20yrs vote *even* more liberally!

    I should have better clarified, "ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat." I should have left out the word "racial" because I meant to include ALL ethnic & cultural (NONWHITE groups) South American, Central American, Asians (all types far-eastern, middle-eastern, far southeast asian), native american indians , eskimos, etc, etc, etc.
    Every nonwhite person in the U.S. votes overwhelmingly democrat ~70% of the time, since the 1960s.
    Looking at nonwhite vs white voting patterns tells you everything you need to know. Nonwhites just aren't going for the GOP. I think the news keeps this info so censored because they don't want to incite a govt overthrow when whites wake up to the fact that the GOP will soon never be able to win any more elections.
  103. @Twinkie

    And just the Chechen types are less than 5 million.
     
    Chechens are pretty outsized in the mayhem they generate. Besides, they aren't the only "problematic" "Caucasoids."

    As there are "fancy"Asians and "jungle" Asians, there are "fancy" whites and "mountain" whites or "desert" whites. They are different peoples with very different cultures and histories of civilizational development, period.

    I get it. Totally agree, they are pound for pound pretty scary, but there’s simply not that many of them to make a difference – I mean how many Chechens are there (like 2-3 million?) and Avars (1 million?). It’s just a mathematics thing.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Avars are racially mixed Mongols.
  104. Why are you comparing Scots Irish with Celtic blood and Slavs with Han Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, a more proper comparison will be to compare Nordics only or people with White Anglo Saxon Protestant ancestry only, or Episcopalian Whites only with Northeast Asians, and there even is not a pure Han Chinese, Korean, and Japanese race. Southern Han Chinese have too much Austronesian blood in them to be considered pure, and Northern Han Chinese have too much Altaic and Mongol blood in them to be considered purely Han, and anyway Han Chinese is more of a cultural marker than genetic marker. Koreans also have too much Altaic and Mongol blood in their veins to be considered pure, and Southern Japs have too much Ryukyuan and Austronesian blood in them to be considered pure, while Northern Japs have too much Ainu blood in them to be considered a pure racial group. And there are only 3 racial groups anyway, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    This is, sorry to say, pure idiocy. Nobody worth anything in the modern world is “pure.” Most modern population groups are hybrids. Both Koreans and Japanese are genetically a mix of roughly 1/3 Siberian hunter-gatherers and 2/3 Southeast Asian rice farmers. The Chinese, by the way, have a small, but detectable amount West Eurasian ancestry that the Japanese lack (contrary to some WN claims that the Japanese are part whites). Razib Khan thinks that was mediated via the Turko-Mongols, and he’s likely right. Not to be outdone, Europeans also have varying degrees of East Eurasian genetic input aside from their steppe and Anatolian farmer ancestries.

    You can thank the vast Eurasian steppes for these bidirectional gene flows.
    , @Twinkie

    Why are you comparing Scots Irish with Celtic blood and Slavs with Han Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, a more proper comparison will be to compare Nordics only or people with White Anglo Saxon Protestant ancestry only, or Episcopalian Whites only with Northeast Asians
     
    The English are at most only half Germanic in ancestry, the rest is Brythonic. In fact, there is some linguistic evidence (names of early kings and such) that Wessex was ethnically a British kingdom, in which there was an elite imitation of the Saxons, rather than being founded by Saxon conquerors.

    Yet these part “Celtic” people are far more responsible for making of the late modern world than the Scandinavians who remained relatively backward and poor until quite recently in history.
  105. @Talha
    I get it. Totally agree, they are pound for pound pretty scary, but there’s simply not that many of them to make a difference - I mean how many Chechens are there (like 2-3 million?) and Avars (1 million?). It’s just a mathematics thing.

    Peace.

    Avars are racially mixed Mongols.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Even less then, I guess...

    Peace.
  106. @iffen
    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side. It's not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump's eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.

    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.

    I agree. And apart from fantasies there’s no prospect of another organised side emerging.

    If there is chaos, unrest and riots the only result will be to give the one organised side an excuse for introducing savage repression.

    It’s not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump’s eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.

    It seems very unlikely. Who is Trump’s successor as leader of the Trump faction going to be? Is there anyone at all who seems a likely successor? The Trump faction is in practice a one-man band. That is Trump’s great failure – he failed to create a party or even a faction. Probably because he was never interested.

    After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    That is the most likely outcome, but we don't really know the actual strength and endurance of populist uprisings until they recede and we can look back and evaluate the effects that they had on the political world. My little crystal ball tells me that Bloomberg and a brokered convention will "open the eyes" of a significant slice of the educated populace. Just like Obama demonstrated that the RQ is still with us, the Democrats may demonstrate their political bankruptcy for all to see.

    In addition to paying attention to my crystal ball I'm spending some time reading the tea leaves of the MSM. I'm trying to figure out exactly how they paint the matrix to their specifications. For example, they are painting a picture of Nazis in control of various European parliaments which seems to mean that they are more worried than they let on.
    , @nebulafox
    >After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    Oh, I have no doubt that the K Street boys will try to re-impose their failed ideology on the party, because just like the Bourbons, they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. But long-term, they will fail. Spectacularly. Bushism is dead, whether the GOP cares to acknowledge that reality or not.

    It does not matter one iota how much Trump has caved into GOP Establishment in policy: his political success in the primaries back in '16 revolved around him ignoring or openly mocking a post-Cold War Republican orthodoxy that fails to serve anybody but its donors. Plutocrat fetishization, treating free trade as holy scripture, engaging in losing Middle East wars, and opening the border with Mexico are policies that are not going anywhere with an increasingly declassed base. There's no taking that back. The voters were so alienated from it by then that they were willing to gamble immediately on somebody who visibly drove them bonkers, regardless of his own trustworthiness. Future insurgents will recognize that and act accordingly, and the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do not have a superdelegate system in place to stifle insurgencies.

  107. @Rosie

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
     
    This.

    America will not have that homogeneous culture again, short of a war we all don’t want.
     
    I don't understand this assumption. Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.

    I can't imagine honest dialogue helping anything. Indeed, it might make matters worse. It's time for a divorce.

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.

    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world. The very small minority that might support such a solution has zero power, zero influence and close to zero wealth. Their views enjoy no elite support and no mass support.

    Those who would oppose it have immense power, immense influence and immense wealth. They have absolute elite support and overwhelming mass support. Plus they have the military, the security/intelligence services, the police and the bureaucracy on their side. They are all absolutely determined that there is not going to be any separation.

    The proportion of the population that would actually support separation, once the costs were explained to them, would be around 1%. It’s an idea that has no popular support whatsoever.

    What would those costs be? Firstly, being a tiny impoverished statelet surrounded by much more powerful and very very hostile neighbours. Secondly, the absolute certainly that draconian sanctions would be imposed on that tiny statelet, so it would face economic strangulation.

    Do you really believe liberals would tolerate the existence of a breakaway conservative white nationalist state?

    • Replies: @anon

    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world.
     
    That's only an indication of the lack of human capital among reactionary conservatives. It's honestly not that hard to get started. If, instead of marching around, the alt-right had put all their efforts into organizing partition, then they would be in a far better position now.

    Here's a general outline of how it could work:

    Co-opt local republican parties and reform them such that they have their own public financing (styled on union dues), win local and state offices as republicans on a platform of partition and / or fighting the blue menace until you're ready to come out with partition. When you're in charge, manipulate state laws to make your efforts easier -- empower yourselves while deplatforming your enemies. Co-opt all the state institutions and repurpose them to serving your interests*; talent can be drawn from a reformed state party dedicated to seeking out and putting talent on retainer**. Then, when you're strong enough, secede. The West Virginia governor publicly offering red counties in Virginia incorporation into West Virginia is a sign that maybe it's not really so implausible after all. The first psychological steps are being taken right now ... and by a boomer at that. More will be taken once the shock of Trump losing the election wears off. Get a few governors, agitate, prepare.

    Seriously guys, this is not hard. Study the works of Lenin and other revolutionaries. Nearly every problem you've encountered was addressed successfully by them. Lenin heavily indoctrinated senior leaders who then acted as gatekeepers, keeping out the kinds of yahoos who ruined the alt-right; he was a master of written rhetoric and code talk; he was incessant, despite being (perhaps rightly) pegged as a NEET on this website; he worked to delegitimize the ruling government through propaganda; he forwarded a clear, concise goal that offered adherents -- at least in their minds -- a better deal than what they had in the present (and their ideology was utopian, so that further inspired people); he waited until the time was right. The ultimate goal was to seize power in Russia. That was simple enough for people to organize around. What stops you from doing the same? At least on a state level? There are red states with enough votes to get it done already if push comes to shove. Really, what's wrong with you guys? Seriously.

    Eventually, tensions will build among conservatives as they realize they can no longer win elections due to the demographic invasion they never consented to. The left will come down on the right with extreme censorship and oppression, which will only anger people more. Then something will happen -- a war, an economic downturn, a government crackdown gone too far. At that point, one of your states can outright announce their independence. Blue states may react, but red states are as large as some European countries. If half a dozen red states walked out of the Union tomorrow, there is probably nothing anyone could do about it. They don't have the stomach to fight and hold territory that large while also running a global empire; Russia and China would almost certainly use the distraction as an opportunity to grab territory elsewhere.

    This can be done. I'd be much less puzzled if people realized that but simply disagreed on how easy this would be to accomplish. Maybe people think it's too hard and not worth it. That's fair. I'd understand that. But I am truly astounded no one here seems to have even thought about it in the first place. What I have listed here is just a very broad outline. I could go in depth if I wanted. Why can't you?

    *Example policies that would make your life easier: 1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you 2) make doxing a felony 3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise -- doesn't matter what 4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony 5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA's Base) .... etc.

    **Most state parties are actually poorly organized. They could be reformed in such a way as to resemble old school unions: card-carrying members who pay dues and vote, deplatforming wealthy donors who'd otherwise co-opt the agenda. The party could organize social gatherings, sponsor scholarships, pay for alternate media organizations, run private indoctrination schools, etc. All of this would serve to create an parallel political apparatus. Unlike Trump who has no base of support in the managerial state, you could simply create your own from the ground up.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Why does it have to be a "conservative white nationalist state"?

    Britain had an election on breaking away, and 52% of the country supported it. Polls in the US show support for separation around 25% (the Calexit movement polled at about the same level of support), but it's higher than that among younger people.

    Until the global credit economy implodes--and we may be seeing the beginning of just that--it's a long shot. But you're being hyperbolic by asserting that it would have 1% support. You're an Aussie, so you never broke away, but secession is literally how our country was born.
  108. @Twinkie

    And I think Chechens might have a higher IQ than Hmongs, though I am not sure
     
    I don't know the answer to that and, frankly, I do not care. But I do know that Hmongs haven't engaged in terrorist bombings in the U.S. (though I think they do have elevated crime rates).

    In any case, it's silly to lump the Japanese with the Hmong, as it is to lump the Chechens with the Englishmen. Broad racial categories have some utility, but if you are even remotely interested in how the real world works and be able to evaluate groups of people accurately, the more granular the data and sampling, the better.

    Broad racial categories have some utility, but if you are even remotely interested in how the real world works and be able to evaluate groups of people accurately, the more granular the data and sampling, the better.

    Yep.

  109. @Znzn
    Why are you comparing Scots Irish with Celtic blood and Slavs with Han Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, a more proper comparison will be to compare Nordics only or people with White Anglo Saxon Protestant ancestry only, or Episcopalian Whites only with Northeast Asians, and there even is not a pure Han Chinese, Korean, and Japanese race. Southern Han Chinese have too much Austronesian blood in them to be considered pure, and Northern Han Chinese have too much Altaic and Mongol blood in them to be considered purely Han, and anyway Han Chinese is more of a cultural marker than genetic marker. Koreans also have too much Altaic and Mongol blood in their veins to be considered pure, and Southern Japs have too much Ryukyuan and Austronesian blood in them to be considered pure, while Northern Japs have too much Ainu blood in them to be considered a pure racial group. And there are only 3 racial groups anyway, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid.

    This is, sorry to say, pure idiocy. Nobody worth anything in the modern world is “pure.” Most modern population groups are hybrids. Both Koreans and Japanese are genetically a mix of roughly 1/3 Siberian hunter-gatherers and 2/3 Southeast Asian rice farmers. The Chinese, by the way, have a small, but detectable amount West Eurasian ancestry that the Japanese lack (contrary to some WN claims that the Japanese are part whites). Razib Khan thinks that was mediated via the Turko-Mongols, and he’s likely right. Not to be outdone, Europeans also have varying degrees of East Eurasian genetic input aside from their steppe and Anatolian farmer ancestries.

    You can thank the vast Eurasian steppes for these bidirectional gene flows.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    As I said if you want to argue it this way, only WASPS should be compared with East Asians, if you want to isolate 2 high performing groups. Or maybe compare Ashkenazi Jews and Parsis to East Asians. And my point is that you can even argue that East Asians and Mongoloids are not a distinct group they are way too mixed anyway and it is hard to delineate where each race begins or ends precisely, therefore race may be an artificial construct, it depends on how you interpret the Rorschach test, and race may not have a completely biological basis.
  110. @Twinkie
    This is, sorry to say, pure idiocy. Nobody worth anything in the modern world is “pure.” Most modern population groups are hybrids. Both Koreans and Japanese are genetically a mix of roughly 1/3 Siberian hunter-gatherers and 2/3 Southeast Asian rice farmers. The Chinese, by the way, have a small, but detectable amount West Eurasian ancestry that the Japanese lack (contrary to some WN claims that the Japanese are part whites). Razib Khan thinks that was mediated via the Turko-Mongols, and he’s likely right. Not to be outdone, Europeans also have varying degrees of East Eurasian genetic input aside from their steppe and Anatolian farmer ancestries.

    You can thank the vast Eurasian steppes for these bidirectional gene flows.

    As I said if you want to argue it this way, only WASPS should be compared with East Asians, if you want to isolate 2 high performing groups. Or maybe compare Ashkenazi Jews and Parsis to East Asians. And my point is that you can even argue that East Asians and Mongoloids are not a distinct group they are way too mixed anyway and it is hard to delineate where each race begins or ends precisely, therefore race may be an artificial construct, it depends on how you interpret the Rorschach test, and race may not have a completely biological basis.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Ashkenazi Jews
     
    Half Italian, half Levantine. No Nordic input.

    Parsis
     
    Highly endogamous Persians. Again, non-Nordic.
  111. @Znzn
    Calling Karlin? Do Chechens, unmixed Berbers, and Ossetians have a lower IQ than Malays? And pure Caucasoid Arabs are basically Sephardic Jews and Maronites, which would compare favorably even vs. Han Chinese?

    I would guess that Chechen/general Caucasus IQ is similar to that of US Hispanics and Balkanoids. So probably similar to Malays.

    The regions where they are dominant majorities have ~0.5 S.D. lower IQs than ethnic Russian regions.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s, so 0.5 SD below Slavs would put Caucasians in the low 90s range thereabouts, above Malays. But your map shows them in the mid-90s. I mean if people are going to cherry pick high performing Mongoloids out of thin air, I am also going to pick the highest performing Caucasoids that I can find as a comparison. Ethnic and racial categories are a bit of a mess purely biologically speaking so you can pick and exclude subgroups as much as you choose. Plus nature vs nurture.
  112. @Znzn
    Why are you comparing Scots Irish with Celtic blood and Slavs with Han Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, a more proper comparison will be to compare Nordics only or people with White Anglo Saxon Protestant ancestry only, or Episcopalian Whites only with Northeast Asians, and there even is not a pure Han Chinese, Korean, and Japanese race. Southern Han Chinese have too much Austronesian blood in them to be considered pure, and Northern Han Chinese have too much Altaic and Mongol blood in them to be considered purely Han, and anyway Han Chinese is more of a cultural marker than genetic marker. Koreans also have too much Altaic and Mongol blood in their veins to be considered pure, and Southern Japs have too much Ryukyuan and Austronesian blood in them to be considered pure, while Northern Japs have too much Ainu blood in them to be considered a pure racial group. And there are only 3 racial groups anyway, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid.

    Why are you comparing Scots Irish with Celtic blood and Slavs with Han Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, a more proper comparison will be to compare Nordics only or people with White Anglo Saxon Protestant ancestry only, or Episcopalian Whites only with Northeast Asians

    The English are at most only half Germanic in ancestry, the rest is Brythonic. In fact, there is some linguistic evidence (names of early kings and such) that Wessex was ethnically a British kingdom, in which there was an elite imitation of the Saxons, rather than being founded by Saxon conquerors.

    Yet these part “Celtic” people are far more responsible for making of the late modern world than the Scandinavians who remained relatively backward and poor until quite recently in history.

  113. @Anatoly Karlin
    I would guess that Chechen/general Caucasus IQ is similar to that of US Hispanics and Balkanoids. So probably similar to Malays.

    The regions where they are dominant majorities have ~0.5 S.D. lower IQs than ethnic Russian regions.

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/map-russia-iq-2017.png

    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s, so 0.5 SD below Slavs would put Caucasians in the low 90s range thereabouts, above Malays. But your map shows them in the mid-90s. I mean if people are going to cherry pick high performing Mongoloids out of thin air, I am also going to pick the highest performing Caucasoids that I can find as a comparison. Ethnic and racial categories are a bit of a mess purely biologically speaking so you can pick and exclude subgroups as much as you choose. Plus nature vs nurture.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s,
     
    92.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-iq-by-country/

    Mongolia is 101, by the way.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    It shows them around 91 (setting Russia as a whole to 100). See the red regions (Dagestan-Ingushetia-Chechnya = DICh), they are 95%+ Caucasian.

    The other republics in the Caucasus have large Russian minorities (firm majorities in a few) so are shifted upwards.
  114. @Znzn
    As I said if you want to argue it this way, only WASPS should be compared with East Asians, if you want to isolate 2 high performing groups. Or maybe compare Ashkenazi Jews and Parsis to East Asians. And my point is that you can even argue that East Asians and Mongoloids are not a distinct group they are way too mixed anyway and it is hard to delineate where each race begins or ends precisely, therefore race may be an artificial construct, it depends on how you interpret the Rorschach test, and race may not have a completely biological basis.

    Ashkenazi Jews

    Half Italian, half Levantine. No Nordic input.

    Parsis

    Highly endogamous Persians. Again, non-Nordic.

  115. And as a last point, maybe it is innapropriate to include Scandinavians in comparison with Han Chinese, if you only want to compare East Asians in areas with high trade intensity, vs. Whites in areas with high trade intensity, which can also affect IQ. Like only compare Rhineland Germans with Northern Chinese Plain and Yangtze River Chinese. And of you plot them, Germanics do make up a distinct group, just like Northeast Asians make up a distinct group, so the comparison is appropriate.

  116. @Twinkie

    When you look around the poker table and can’t spot the patsy …
     
    Don't gamble. Problem solved.

    Lol, +1 insightful, you should have a column in NR.

  117. @J. R. Chloupek
    Rosie, separation between conservative traditionalists and liberal freedom fetishers is not possible, literally. Deep Red areas house liberals, and Deep Blue areas contain conservatives. All organizations contain a mixture of such groupings, as do families and other genetic combinations. It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America, unless citizens really want to return to autarky, i.e., economic self-sufficiency like frontier times. Not gonna happen.
    To change things, people must grow up, accept differences as tolerable in a modus vivendi that prohibits physical harm to others, lying, or theft by any means, and band together as one to force oligarchs to share the wealth generated by collective action through a sovereign wealth fund paying a universal basic income as a social insurance scheme that spreads any and all risks to income. I'd say a general strike until the rich surrender would work, but if some want to pursue a political trigger mechanism, more power to them. We must fight to win like the powers that be among the wealthy do. I'm ready, are you?

    Deep Red areas house liberals, and Deep Blue areas contain conservatives. All organizations contain a mixture of such groupings, as do families and other genetic combinations. It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America

    Yes, I agree totally.

  118. “Neither of which were invented by black people. Lewis Howard Latimer made some useful improvements though.”

    uhh, no doubt he made some innovations. Usually when is granted a patent, its for an invention. The inventions by blacks in any number of fields contradicts your claim. And because, blacks were not permitted to to access ownership, there are plenty more that are probably unknown —-
    The point is that the assail that hbd has answers to color issues is my shrift. As very few blacks are criminals and the numbers don’t support that african americans are any more prone to crime than previous generations of people who were out-groups.

    And if you do some homework on inoculations, you will find otherwise as to the first known practice in the west.

    Take a stroll through the southern plantations: natural air cooling systems . . . are not white interventions.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    James Bowman Lindsay, Marcellin Jobard, Frederick de Moleyns, John W Starr, Alexander Lodygin, Joseph Swan, and Thomas Edison all made carbon filaments before Latimer.

    And if you do some homework on inoculations, you will find otherwise as to the first known practice in the west.
     
    The West learned about inoculation from the Ottomans.
  119. @Mark G.
    Korea is a good example of how non-genetic factors are important. Compare North Korea and South Korea. South Koreans are more hardworking and industrious and much wealthier than North Koreans and it's not just because of their genes since there isn't that much genetic variation between the two. Other recent historical examples would be East versus West Germany or Hong Kong versus mainland China. Genes are an important ingredient of economic success but you need additional ingredients too. You probably couldn't take Somalia and turn it into Switzerland but you could take the poverty stricken Korea of Jack London's day and turn it into the economic power house of today, at least part of it.

    Once you’ve seen Northern defectors in the South, you understand why the South Korean public is nowhere near as gung-ho on reunification as they let on, or at least why the younger generations who have no emotional ties with the North and who’d bear the costs aren’t. The defectors often end up in the underclass. They understandably have a difficult time adjusting to a hyper-capitalist society where you are expected to make your own decisions every day, and simply do not have the skills or background required to keep pace. The ones around my age who had the ill luck to be babies/toddlers during the worst of the 90s famine years are physically stunted (many, particularly the women forced into the sex trade in China and who sometimes find themselves doing the same thing in the South, also suffer from PTSD), and even if they weren’t, their speech gives them away as North Koreans.

    The gap between West and East Germany was nowhere near the gap between North and South Korea, culturally or economically. (Tellingly, the Berlin Wall was a joke compared to the DMZ.) And yet it was there. And it showed upon reunification, not just in the well-documented subsidies that had to be shipped east: guess where the AfD has the most support in Germany! The mentality is still different to this day. So, I can only imagine what it would be like for the two Koreas, who actually had a shooting war and almost no contact with each other prior to the 1990s, when Chinese and South Korean media started slipping into the North.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  120. @dfordoom


    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.
     
    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.
     
    I agree. And apart from fantasies there's no prospect of another organised side emerging.

    If there is chaos, unrest and riots the only result will be to give the one organised side an excuse for introducing savage repression.

    It’s not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump’s eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.
     
    It seems very unlikely. Who is Trump's successor as leader of the Trump faction going to be? Is there anyone at all who seems a likely successor? The Trump faction is in practice a one-man band. That is Trump's great failure - he failed to create a party or even a faction. Probably because he was never interested.

    After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    That is the most likely outcome, but we don’t really know the actual strength and endurance of populist uprisings until they recede and we can look back and evaluate the effects that they had on the political world. My little crystal ball tells me that Bloomberg and a brokered convention will “open the eyes” of a significant slice of the educated populace. Just like Obama demonstrated that the RQ is still with us, the Democrats may demonstrate their political bankruptcy for all to see.

    In addition to paying attention to my crystal ball I’m spending some time reading the tea leaves of the MSM. I’m trying to figure out exactly how they paint the matrix to their specifications. For example, they are painting a picture of Nazis in control of various European parliaments which seems to mean that they are more worried than they let on.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm highly skeptical that the GOP will nominate another Jeb or Mitt anytime soon. Every poll shows the Republican electorate has become much more Trumpist since 2015.
  121. @dfordoom


    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.
     
    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.
     
    I agree. And apart from fantasies there's no prospect of another organised side emerging.

    If there is chaos, unrest and riots the only result will be to give the one organised side an excuse for introducing savage repression.

    It’s not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump’s eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.
     
    It seems very unlikely. Who is Trump's successor as leader of the Trump faction going to be? Is there anyone at all who seems a likely successor? The Trump faction is in practice a one-man band. That is Trump's great failure - he failed to create a party or even a faction. Probably because he was never interested.

    After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    >After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    Oh, I have no doubt that the K Street boys will try to re-impose their failed ideology on the party, because just like the Bourbons, they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. But long-term, they will fail. Spectacularly. Bushism is dead, whether the GOP cares to acknowledge that reality or not.

    It does not matter one iota how much Trump has caved into GOP Establishment in policy: his political success in the primaries back in ’16 revolved around him ignoring or openly mocking a post-Cold War Republican orthodoxy that fails to serve anybody but its donors. Plutocrat fetishization, treating free trade as holy scripture, engaging in losing Middle East wars, and opening the border with Mexico are policies that are not going anywhere with an increasingly declassed base. There’s no taking that back. The voters were so alienated from it by then that they were willing to gamble immediately on somebody who visibly drove them bonkers, regardless of his own trustworthiness. Future insurgents will recognize that and act accordingly, and the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do not have a superdelegate system in place to stifle insurgencies.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    It took many years for the "Reagan Democrats" to assert their political power within the Republican Party. During all that time and now, the real problem is the "Reagan Republicans"; they are just not going to dissolve.
    , @dfordoom

    The voters were so alienated from it by then that they were willing to gamble immediately on somebody who visibly drove them bonkers,
     
    But more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. Trump won purely because Rust Belt voters were desperate. But voters as a whole preferred Clinton.

    That's the problem. Most people are not alienated from the current system.

    The Trump victory wasn't really a populist uprising. It wasn't a thorough-going rejection of the current system. Most of those who voted for Trump would have voted for Jeb Bush. The only voters truly prepared to reject the current system were a small number of voters in the Rust Belt.

    Trump did not tap into a massive sense of unrest and alienation and anger. That massive sense of unrest and alienation and anger that would have been needed to fuel a true populist political uprising was simply not there.
  122. @nebulafox
    >After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    Oh, I have no doubt that the K Street boys will try to re-impose their failed ideology on the party, because just like the Bourbons, they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. But long-term, they will fail. Spectacularly. Bushism is dead, whether the GOP cares to acknowledge that reality or not.

    It does not matter one iota how much Trump has caved into GOP Establishment in policy: his political success in the primaries back in '16 revolved around him ignoring or openly mocking a post-Cold War Republican orthodoxy that fails to serve anybody but its donors. Plutocrat fetishization, treating free trade as holy scripture, engaging in losing Middle East wars, and opening the border with Mexico are policies that are not going anywhere with an increasingly declassed base. There's no taking that back. The voters were so alienated from it by then that they were willing to gamble immediately on somebody who visibly drove them bonkers, regardless of his own trustworthiness. Future insurgents will recognize that and act accordingly, and the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do not have a superdelegate system in place to stifle insurgencies.

    It took many years for the “Reagan Democrats” to assert their political power within the Republican Party. During all that time and now, the real problem is the “Reagan Republicans”; they are just not going to dissolve.

  123. anon[404] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.
     
    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world. The very small minority that might support such a solution has zero power, zero influence and close to zero wealth. Their views enjoy no elite support and no mass support.

    Those who would oppose it have immense power, immense influence and immense wealth. They have absolute elite support and overwhelming mass support. Plus they have the military, the security/intelligence services, the police and the bureaucracy on their side. They are all absolutely determined that there is not going to be any separation.

    The proportion of the population that would actually support separation, once the costs were explained to them, would be around 1%. It's an idea that has no popular support whatsoever.

    What would those costs be? Firstly, being a tiny impoverished statelet surrounded by much more powerful and very very hostile neighbours. Secondly, the absolute certainly that draconian sanctions would be imposed on that tiny statelet, so it would face economic strangulation.

    Do you really believe liberals would tolerate the existence of a breakaway conservative white nationalist state?

    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world.

    That’s only an indication of the lack of human capital among reactionary conservatives. It’s honestly not that hard to get started. If, instead of marching around, the alt-right had put all their efforts into organizing partition, then they would be in a far better position now.

    Here’s a general outline of how it could work:

    Co-opt local republican parties and reform them such that they have their own public financing (styled on union dues), win local and state offices as republicans on a platform of partition and / or fighting the blue menace until you’re ready to come out with partition. When you’re in charge, manipulate state laws to make your efforts easier — empower yourselves while deplatforming your enemies. Co-opt all the state institutions and repurpose them to serving your interests*; talent can be drawn from a reformed state party dedicated to seeking out and putting talent on retainer**. Then, when you’re strong enough, secede. The West Virginia governor publicly offering red counties in Virginia incorporation into West Virginia is a sign that maybe it’s not really so implausible after all. The first psychological steps are being taken right now … and by a boomer at that. More will be taken once the shock of Trump losing the election wears off. Get a few governors, agitate, prepare.

    Seriously guys, this is not hard. Study the works of Lenin and other revolutionaries. Nearly every problem you’ve encountered was addressed successfully by them. Lenin heavily indoctrinated senior leaders who then acted as gatekeepers, keeping out the kinds of yahoos who ruined the alt-right; he was a master of written rhetoric and code talk; he was incessant, despite being (perhaps rightly) pegged as a NEET on this website; he worked to delegitimize the ruling government through propaganda; he forwarded a clear, concise goal that offered adherents — at least in their minds — a better deal than what they had in the present (and their ideology was utopian, so that further inspired people); he waited until the time was right. The ultimate goal was to seize power in Russia. That was simple enough for people to organize around. What stops you from doing the same? At least on a state level? There are red states with enough votes to get it done already if push comes to shove. Really, what’s wrong with you guys? Seriously.

    Eventually, tensions will build among conservatives as they realize they can no longer win elections due to the demographic invasion they never consented to. The left will come down on the right with extreme censorship and oppression, which will only anger people more. Then something will happen — a war, an economic downturn, a government crackdown gone too far. At that point, one of your states can outright announce their independence. Blue states may react, but red states are as large as some European countries. If half a dozen red states walked out of the Union tomorrow, there is probably nothing anyone could do about it. They don’t have the stomach to fight and hold territory that large while also running a global empire; Russia and China would almost certainly use the distraction as an opportunity to grab territory elsewhere.

    This can be done. I’d be much less puzzled if people realized that but simply disagreed on how easy this would be to accomplish. Maybe people think it’s too hard and not worth it. That’s fair. I’d understand that. But I am truly astounded no one here seems to have even thought about it in the first place. What I have listed here is just a very broad outline. I could go in depth if I wanted. Why can’t you?

    *Example policies that would make your life easier: 1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you 2) make doxing a felony 3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise — doesn’t matter what 4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony 5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA’s Base) …. etc.

    **Most state parties are actually poorly organized. They could be reformed in such a way as to resemble old school unions: card-carrying members who pay dues and vote, deplatforming wealthy donors who’d otherwise co-opt the agenda. The party could organize social gatherings, sponsor scholarships, pay for alternate media organizations, run private indoctrination schools, etc. All of this would serve to create an parallel political apparatus. Unlike Trump who has no base of support in the managerial state, you could simply create your own from the ground up.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What I have listed here is just a very broad outline. I could go in depth if I wanted. "

    Please go more into depth. How do you specifically plan to put these policies into place given the knowledge of the elites, Jews, boomers, and normies who are, well, aware of your machinations?

    1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you
    2) make doxing a felony
    3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise — doesn’t matter what
    4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony
    5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA’s Base)
    , @dfordoom

    Co-opt local republican parties and reform them such that they have their own public financing (styled on union dues), win local and state offices as republicans on a platform of partition and / or fighting the blue menace until you’re ready to come out with partition. When you’re in charge, manipulate state laws to make your efforts easier — empower yourselves while deplatforming your enemies. Co-opt all the state institutions and repurpose them to serving your interests*; talent can be drawn from a reformed state party dedicated to seeking out and putting talent on retainer
     
    You're going to need a small army of disciplined highly motivated foot soldiers to do that. Where are they going to come from?

    Then, when you’re strong enough, secede.
     
    The problem with that is that there aren't really Red States and Blue States. There are Blue cities and Red rural areas. Urban populations in Red States are mostly liberal.

    So you're going to have a significant population of urban liberals who will bitterly oppose you. But it's worse than that. The vast majority of mainstream conservatives/mainstream Republicans will bitterly oppose you as well. In fact 95% of the population will be opposed to secession. Are you going to send 95% of the population to re-education camps? Or terrorise the 95% into going along with you. Because that's what you'd have to do. The Bolsheviks were willing to do stuff like that. Are you willing to?

    Eventually, tensions will build among conservatives as they realize they can no longer win elections
     
    But in all western countries with very high immigration levels parties of the Right are still winning elections. It's the parties of the Left that are struggling.

    The left will come down on the right with extreme censorship and oppression, which will only anger people more.
     
    Unfortunately history demonstrates that extreme censorship and oppression works. Lenin succeeded because Tsarist Russia was only moderately repressive. Had Tsarist Russia been truly repressive Lenin and his pals would have been lined up against a wall and shot very early on instead of being left to plot against the state.

    Example policies that would make your life easier: 1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you 2) make doxing a felony 3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise — doesn’t matter what 4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony 5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA’s Base) …. etc.
     
    All of which would only be possible if you already hold complete power. But you don't.

    Lenin heavily indoctrinated senior leaders who then acted as gatekeepers, keeping out the kinds of yahoos who ruined the alt-right
     
    That's correct as far as it goes. You need rigid party discipline. But for that you need a Lenin and you need a disciplined highly organised party apparatus. Neither of which you have. Lenin also had the advantage that the war had already undermined the existing government. You don't have that advantage. Lenin also had a program capable of winning mass support- Bread, Land and Peace. You don't have that either. Lenin was also working within a framework of long-established opposition to the state so there were plenty of experienced agitators on which to draw. You also don't have that.
  124. @Znzn
    Avars are racially mixed Mongols.

    Even less then, I guess…

    Peace.

  125. anon[271] • Disclaimer says:

    It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America

    It’s not. The distribution is not equal in all areas. Having a pure area isn’t necessary. A heavily red American state could secede with a majority in the legislature or governor / national guard leading the way (or even by popular vote), then afterwards a transfer of populations would happen over time as the new entity pursued a new immigration policy just like any other nation. It could offer incentives, etc. Isn’t this something like what Israel did? Isn’t this what happened after the American Revolution? Don’t you guys read history books or ever think outside the box? Say Mississippi seceded. All that state would need is a very small fraction of Trump voters in other places to move there, perhaps after leaving the Union, to become a viable nation state — and a veritable whitetopia at that (at least more than the US is now). Only a very small fraction would be necessary to have a conservative population as large as Denmark. Secession is really not that hard with state backing, at least organizationally. Getting it started is the hard part. But the process of separating itself is quite feasible. Those who claim otherwise either haven’t thought about it or are merely pretending it’s harder than it really is in order to throw off the dogs from a trail they don’t want people going down.

    • Replies: @J. R. Chloupek
    Mr. Anon, you are not addressing the point made in the comment you cite to, that all human groupings contain both give the unknown future aherents and preservationists, meaning if you truly wanted to self-segregate it would be impossible unless you were willing to cut ties with family, friends, co-workers, etc. 100 percent, and even if you could or did, that would not be permanently effective due to children of the new partitions citizens becoming red or blue infiltrators due to their genetics. Liberalism and conservativism is part of the human condition, within and between people. There is no escape, sir. Finding a peaceful modus vivendi equilibrium is the only solution. Create a sovereign wealth funded universal basic income to cover all idiosyncratic risks to income and peace will be purchased. Join me in that fight.
  126. @dfordoom

    the GOP will not be able to win any more elections & we will all soon lose our constitutional 1A & 2A rights!
     
    But if you take a look at the Anglosphere countries with very very high immigration levels, namely the US, Australia and Britain, it's the parties of the Left that are currently unable to win elections. In Australia and Britain the parties of the Right are enjoying an unprecedented level of political dominance.

    ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat.
     
    It depends on how you define bloc voting. I wouldn't say 70% Democrat is equal to bloc voting.

    You'd have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don't know. Maybe they do.

    I'd also like to see an ethnic breakdown.

    And when you say ALL racial groups, there are only three racial groups in the US anyway aren't there? Whites, blacks and Asians. Hispanic isn't a race. It isn't even a coherent ethnic or cultural group. So are you talking about racial groups or ethnic groups or cultural groups or groups of immigrants?

    You’d have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don’t know. Maybe they do.

    Yes they do. Every study I have, shows that offspring of U.S. immigrants in the last 20yrs vote *even* more liberally!

    I should have better clarified, “ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat.” I should have left out the word “racial” because I meant to include ALL ethnic & cultural (NONWHITE groups) South American, Central American, Asians (all types far-eastern, middle-eastern, far southeast asian), native american indians , eskimos, etc, etc, etc.
    Every nonwhite person in the U.S. votes overwhelmingly democrat ~70% of the time, since the 1960s.
    Looking at nonwhite vs white voting patterns tells you everything you need to know. Nonwhites just aren’t going for the GOP. I think the news keeps this info so censored because they don’t want to incite a govt overthrow when whites wake up to the fact that the GOP will soon never be able to win any more elections.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    You’d have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don’t know. Maybe they do.
     
    Yes they do. Every study I have, shows that offspring of U.S. immigrants in the last 20yrs vote *even* more liberally!
     
    But that's not what I said. I asked if the fourth and fifth generations of immigrant background still voted 70% Democrat. You're talking about second generation immigrants.

    Nonwhites just aren’t going for the GOP.
     
    You don't think that might be because the GOP is perceived as being purely the party of the rich? So it might actually be a class thing, not a racial or ethnic thing. The GOP is attractive to the upper class and the upper middle class. No sane person who is not upper class or upper middle class would vote for them.

    Maybe if the GOP were to adopt reasonable policies in regard to healthcare they might do better. Maybe if they seemed likely to seriously address issues like housing. Maybe if tax cuts for the rich wasn't the only thing they cared about they might do better. Maybe it's not a case of nonwhites hating the Republican Party. Maybe it's a case of the Republican Party having nothing but contempt for the lower orders.
  127. @iffen
    We’re going to have war regardless. It’s baked in. The point is to win it.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side. It's not a sure thing that a political and ideological side will form from the ashes of Trump's eventual burnout, whether that is this year or 2024.

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.

    There are very much two sides now:  the oppressors and the oppressed.

    Chaos and unrest de-legitimizes the ruling oppressors.  Eventually the majority will simply cease to go along with the program, and the system of oppression will fall apart.  This will leave the oppressors nearly defenseless and probably get them the wicked backlash they so richly deserve.  I doubt I will live long enough to see it, but I’m sure it’s coming.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Individuals are squat against organized groups. The oppressors are currently just hunting down and shooting the stragglers--no organizations(s) equals no change.
  128. @Twinkie

    Do you think it’s possible for an individual or a group to activate – so to speak – different genes in response to different environments?
     
    You cannot activate genes you do not have.

    For instance – Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.
     
    I don't think that's what happened. I think there was a (self-) selection mechanism at work here. The Jews who emigrated to what is today Israel were - to put nicely - more adventurous and risk-taking types who were willing to toil in the desert and fight Arabs while the Jews who went to, say, the United States were "low risk, high reward" types (which can also translate as "no chest, high IQ"). Indeed, American Jews seem to test to have a higher average IQ than Israeli Jews do (even setting aside the Sephardim and the Mizrahim).

    Whenever you have mass-migration, there is always some kind of selection/self-selction. Look at the Indian immigrants in the U.S. Something like 70+% of them have college degrees (U.S. average is 30% or so). For that matter, African immigrants in the U.S. have higher high school graduation rate than just about any ethnic group. Highly selected (cognitively), compared to the general populations back home.

    You cannot activate genes you do not have.

    Agreed. But you may have genes you don’t know about because you’re in the wrong environment.

    I don’t think that’s what happened. I think there was a (self-) selection mechanism at work here

    That is possible. I suppose we don’t really know. A large percentage of the Ashkenazi population are from un-selected holocaust refugees who had no choice, and the Jews from the Muslim world are also un-selected, and they are about 60% of the population.

    Actually, since you make a good point about the Ashkenazim, I think the Jews from Muslim countries are a better example – centuries of no real military tradition, suddenly becoming excellent soldiers.

    Anyways, Israel is just one example. There are many others.

    I guess we will have to disagree about which theory best fits all the facts. HBD seems like a partial theory at best to me.

    But since you, an HBD proponent, are talking about trying to change the culture for the better – maybe our differences don’t matter.

  129. @Mr. Rational

    There will not be a war. There may be chaos, unrest and riots, but no war. A war requires some semblance of organized sides and there is currently only one side.
     
    There are very much two sides now:  the oppressors and the oppressed.

    Chaos and unrest de-legitimizes the ruling oppressors.  Eventually the majority will simply cease to go along with the program, and the system of oppression will fall apart.  This will leave the oppressors nearly defenseless and probably get them the wicked backlash they so richly deserve.  I doubt I will live long enough to see it, but I'm sure it's coming.

    Individuals are squat against organized groups. The oppressors are currently just hunting down and shooting the stragglers–no organizations(s) equals no change.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  130. Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.

    1) Violent crime by blacks is just a tool in a discussion that is used by HBD to press for their interests and wake up the normies. By itself, violent crime isn’t bad by definition. Just last century there were plenty of cases when white people shot election officials during rigged elections. Too bad that this doesn’t happen much anymore and is one of the reasons of all types of lies becoming so widespread. Killing a robber in your house during invasion is justified. Byron David Smith killed his home invaders and it’s a shame that he’s now behind bars.

    It’s the way blacks perform violent crime that is bad, it’s parasitic in nature and doesn’t benefit society in the slightest, unlike the violence from the previous paragraph.

    And, being HBD crowd, we know that for the most part this behavior comes from genetics. Barring eugenics and genocide, there’s no good way to control this evil as of now, but these two tools are verbotten in modern society.

    2) Divorce and out of wedlock rates in the past for blacks are irrelevant. What they show us is that in the past the society was less free for black women so they weren’t in position to leave abusive husbands. The violence and all the today’s stuff was there, just didn’t manifest itself in divorce rates as much, as stable marriage was something that was imposed on blacks culturally and economically and something that they were happy to get rid of once they got the freedom to do so.

    3) Our goal is a citizen who is naturally willing to do good for society and for himself and who works for human prosperity in the long run. Not a being that is forced by law enforcement or culture to do that in a half ass fashion. We want the number of naturally good citizens grow and naturally bad citizens diminish. We want to filter our society for crap, instead of letting it be. Once the share of people who aren’t good naturally, but have to be supervised and controlled by law enforcement goes up a certain percentage the society collapses. You’ll see. And Twinkie, among others, is the one who works on getting it happening soon.

    • Disagree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor

    Wait a minute!

    Why are you trying to limit our options?

    Why can't he be both?

    , @Rosie

    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.
     
    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor. He's also not a moron. That leaves one option.
  131. @Znzn
    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s, so 0.5 SD below Slavs would put Caucasians in the low 90s range thereabouts, above Malays. But your map shows them in the mid-90s. I mean if people are going to cherry pick high performing Mongoloids out of thin air, I am also going to pick the highest performing Caucasoids that I can find as a comparison. Ethnic and racial categories are a bit of a mess purely biologically speaking so you can pick and exclude subgroups as much as you choose. Plus nature vs nurture.

    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s,

    92.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-iq-by-country/

    Mongolia is 101, by the way.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    I adjusted it for the 30 percent Chinese and Indian population, and based the IQ score on the Philippines and Indonesia, so its a guesstimate. Since I am taking about Malays are 98 percent of Filipinos and Indonesians.
  132. Thoroughly unmoved by these comments for HBD as some manner of policy advance. The science doesn’t exist that explains genes to morality, except in rare cases of extremes and even then the variable of environment is ever present.

    And talking as though the science does exist may sound salient, but upon examination, it falters. No, it falls apart. Instead admitting to the contradicts that exist in the real world or the numerous consequences that pose serious hurdles, it is often that one pretends they don’t exist — because they are serious gaps in logic or analytical models.

    And why the social model is problematic is that you cannot test for outcomes against dislike environments because no matter how one slices it or attempts to account for it in models, it is not real. The other hurdle and the matter that is ever tripping up advocates for HBD are those environmental factors that are artificial. You also want to pretend that they are imagined or nonexistent. And you do so despite the overwhelming evidence. Currently HBD as a social application is a circular argument.

    Much like Darwin’s theory of evolution. You have to fill in the gaps, not with evidence but speculation. You don’t have the missing links, and nothing suggests that said missing links if found would further support Darwin’s theory.

    We know that cognition time and time again over rules the supposed biological section process, that opportunity and time make “natural selection” impossible or a hurdle from point A to point B such that other choices are made.

    ————————————-

    You have no idea what genetics is missing for cognition because there simply is not genetic model for any one cognitive process.

    • Replies: @J. R. Chloupek
    The problem with trying to apply genetic advances in public policy vis-à-vis specific groups is that we honestly don't have the technology to view reality at the subatomic particle level, without which capability we cannot truly know the impact of various gene combinations on human behavior, either internally or as effected by the social or physical environment. That being the case, we are only guessing that certain genes will result in the person becoming an anti-social psychopath worthy of preemptive incarceration, for example, or that other genetic combinations require certain people obtain or be barred from specific occupations. The truth right now is that the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. So in a fair world as it exist now we would not use genetic information to run our lives, except on the most superficial level, or where the genetic cause of specific diseases counsels specific treatments. Anything else, we are just supporting our bigotry with pseudo-science. Humility is in order.
  133. @EliteCommInc.
    Thoroughly unmoved by these comments for HBD as some manner of policy advance. The science doesn't exist that explains genes to morality, except in rare cases of extremes and even then the variable of environment is ever present.

    And talking as though the science does exist may sound salient, but upon examination, it falters. No, it falls apart. Instead admitting to the contradicts that exist in the real world or the numerous consequences that pose serious hurdles, it is often that one pretends they don't exist -- because they are serious gaps in logic or analytical models.

    And why the social model is problematic is that you cannot test for outcomes against dislike environments because no matter how one slices it or attempts to account for it in models, it is not real. The other hurdle and the matter that is ever tripping up advocates for HBD are those environmental factors that are artificial. You also want to pretend that they are imagined or nonexistent. And you do so despite the overwhelming evidence. Currently HBD as a social application is a circular argument.

    Much like Darwin's theory of evolution. You have to fill in the gaps, not with evidence but speculation. You don't have the missing links, and nothing suggests that said missing links if found would further support Darwin's theory.

    We know that cognition time and time again over rules the supposed biological section process, that opportunity and time make "natural selection" impossible or a hurdle from point A to point B such that other choices are made.

    -------------------------------------

    You have no idea what genetics is missing for cognition because there simply is not genetic model for any one cognitive process.

    The problem with trying to apply genetic advances in public policy vis-à-vis specific groups is that we honestly don’t have the technology to view reality at the subatomic particle level, without which capability we cannot truly know the impact of various gene combinations on human behavior, either internally or as effected by the social or physical environment. That being the case, we are only guessing that certain genes will result in the person becoming an anti-social psychopath worthy of preemptive incarceration, for example, or that other genetic combinations require certain people obtain or be barred from specific occupations. The truth right now is that the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure. So in a fair world as it exist now we would not use genetic information to run our lives, except on the most superficial level, or where the genetic cause of specific diseases counsels specific treatments. Anything else, we are just supporting our bigotry with pseudo-science. Humility is in order.

  134. @Znzn
    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s, so 0.5 SD below Slavs would put Caucasians in the low 90s range thereabouts, above Malays. But your map shows them in the mid-90s. I mean if people are going to cherry pick high performing Mongoloids out of thin air, I am also going to pick the highest performing Caucasoids that I can find as a comparison. Ethnic and racial categories are a bit of a mess purely biologically speaking so you can pick and exclude subgroups as much as you choose. Plus nature vs nurture.

    It shows them around 91 (setting Russia as a whole to 100). See the red regions (Dagestan-Ingushetia-Chechnya = DICh), they are 95%+ Caucasian.

    The other republics in the Caucasus have large Russian minorities (firm majorities in a few) so are shifted upwards.

  135. @anon

    It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America
     
    It's not. The distribution is not equal in all areas. Having a pure area isn't necessary. A heavily red American state could secede with a majority in the legislature or governor / national guard leading the way (or even by popular vote), then afterwards a transfer of populations would happen over time as the new entity pursued a new immigration policy just like any other nation. It could offer incentives, etc. Isn't this something like what Israel did? Isn't this what happened after the American Revolution? Don't you guys read history books or ever think outside the box? Say Mississippi seceded. All that state would need is a very small fraction of Trump voters in other places to move there, perhaps after leaving the Union, to become a viable nation state -- and a veritable whitetopia at that (at least more than the US is now). Only a very small fraction would be necessary to have a conservative population as large as Denmark. Secession is really not that hard with state backing, at least organizationally. Getting it started is the hard part. But the process of separating itself is quite feasible. Those who claim otherwise either haven't thought about it or are merely pretending it's harder than it really is in order to throw off the dogs from a trail they don't want people going down.

    Mr. Anon, you are not addressing the point made in the comment you cite to, that all human groupings contain both give the unknown future aherents and preservationists, meaning if you truly wanted to self-segregate it would be impossible unless you were willing to cut ties with family, friends, co-workers, etc. 100 percent, and even if you could or did, that would not be permanently effective due to children of the new partitions citizens becoming red or blue infiltrators due to their genetics. Liberalism and conservativism is part of the human condition, within and between people. There is no escape, sir. Finding a peaceful modus vivendi equilibrium is the only solution. Create a sovereign wealth funded universal basic income to cover all idiosyncratic risks to income and peace will be purchased. Join me in that fight.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Finding a peaceful modus vivendi equilibrium is the only solution.
     
    The problem is that you have a lot of people on the far right who don't want a peaceful solution. They just want destruction. In their fantasies destruction will create a situation in which they finally become winners instead of losers. You're not dealing with rational actors.

    Most sane normal people want a peaceful solution. There are sane normal people on the far right but there are also a lot of out-and-out crazies and there are enough of the crazies to keep the far right permanently marginalised.
  136. @huwhyte ppl
    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.

    1) Violent crime by blacks is just a tool in a discussion that is used by HBD to press for their interests and wake up the normies. By itself, violent crime isn't bad by definition. Just last century there were plenty of cases when white people shot election officials during rigged elections. Too bad that this doesn't happen much anymore and is one of the reasons of all types of lies becoming so widespread. Killing a robber in your house during invasion is justified. Byron David Smith killed his home invaders and it's a shame that he's now behind bars.

    It's the way blacks perform violent crime that is bad, it's parasitic in nature and doesn't benefit society in the slightest, unlike the violence from the previous paragraph.

    And, being HBD crowd, we know that for the most part this behavior comes from genetics. Barring eugenics and genocide, there's no good way to control this evil as of now, but these two tools are verbotten in modern society.

    2) Divorce and out of wedlock rates in the past for blacks are irrelevant. What they show us is that in the past the society was less free for black women so they weren't in position to leave abusive husbands. The violence and all the today's stuff was there, just didn't manifest itself in divorce rates as much, as stable marriage was something that was imposed on blacks culturally and economically and something that they were happy to get rid of once they got the freedom to do so.

    3) Our goal is a citizen who is naturally willing to do good for society and for himself and who works for human prosperity in the long run. Not a being that is forced by law enforcement or culture to do that in a half ass fashion. We want the number of naturally good citizens grow and naturally bad citizens diminish. We want to filter our society for crap, instead of letting it be. Once the share of people who aren't good naturally, but have to be supervised and controlled by law enforcement goes up a certain percentage the society collapses. You'll see. And Twinkie, among others, is the one who works on getting it happening soon.

    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor

    Wait a minute!

    Why are you trying to limit our options?

    Why can’t he be both?

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Maybe he's a maroon or a moran?
  137. @anon

    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world.
     
    That's only an indication of the lack of human capital among reactionary conservatives. It's honestly not that hard to get started. If, instead of marching around, the alt-right had put all their efforts into organizing partition, then they would be in a far better position now.

    Here's a general outline of how it could work:

    Co-opt local republican parties and reform them such that they have their own public financing (styled on union dues), win local and state offices as republicans on a platform of partition and / or fighting the blue menace until you're ready to come out with partition. When you're in charge, manipulate state laws to make your efforts easier -- empower yourselves while deplatforming your enemies. Co-opt all the state institutions and repurpose them to serving your interests*; talent can be drawn from a reformed state party dedicated to seeking out and putting talent on retainer**. Then, when you're strong enough, secede. The West Virginia governor publicly offering red counties in Virginia incorporation into West Virginia is a sign that maybe it's not really so implausible after all. The first psychological steps are being taken right now ... and by a boomer at that. More will be taken once the shock of Trump losing the election wears off. Get a few governors, agitate, prepare.

    Seriously guys, this is not hard. Study the works of Lenin and other revolutionaries. Nearly every problem you've encountered was addressed successfully by them. Lenin heavily indoctrinated senior leaders who then acted as gatekeepers, keeping out the kinds of yahoos who ruined the alt-right; he was a master of written rhetoric and code talk; he was incessant, despite being (perhaps rightly) pegged as a NEET on this website; he worked to delegitimize the ruling government through propaganda; he forwarded a clear, concise goal that offered adherents -- at least in their minds -- a better deal than what they had in the present (and their ideology was utopian, so that further inspired people); he waited until the time was right. The ultimate goal was to seize power in Russia. That was simple enough for people to organize around. What stops you from doing the same? At least on a state level? There are red states with enough votes to get it done already if push comes to shove. Really, what's wrong with you guys? Seriously.

    Eventually, tensions will build among conservatives as they realize they can no longer win elections due to the demographic invasion they never consented to. The left will come down on the right with extreme censorship and oppression, which will only anger people more. Then something will happen -- a war, an economic downturn, a government crackdown gone too far. At that point, one of your states can outright announce their independence. Blue states may react, but red states are as large as some European countries. If half a dozen red states walked out of the Union tomorrow, there is probably nothing anyone could do about it. They don't have the stomach to fight and hold territory that large while also running a global empire; Russia and China would almost certainly use the distraction as an opportunity to grab territory elsewhere.

    This can be done. I'd be much less puzzled if people realized that but simply disagreed on how easy this would be to accomplish. Maybe people think it's too hard and not worth it. That's fair. I'd understand that. But I am truly astounded no one here seems to have even thought about it in the first place. What I have listed here is just a very broad outline. I could go in depth if I wanted. Why can't you?

    *Example policies that would make your life easier: 1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you 2) make doxing a felony 3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise -- doesn't matter what 4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony 5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA's Base) .... etc.

    **Most state parties are actually poorly organized. They could be reformed in such a way as to resemble old school unions: card-carrying members who pay dues and vote, deplatforming wealthy donors who'd otherwise co-opt the agenda. The party could organize social gatherings, sponsor scholarships, pay for alternate media organizations, run private indoctrination schools, etc. All of this would serve to create an parallel political apparatus. Unlike Trump who has no base of support in the managerial state, you could simply create your own from the ground up.

    “What I have listed here is just a very broad outline. I could go in depth if I wanted. ”

    Please go more into depth. How do you specifically plan to put these policies into place given the knowledge of the elites, Jews, boomers, and normies who are, well, aware of your machinations?

    1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you
    2) make doxing a felony
    3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise — doesn’t matter what
    4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony
    5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA’s Base)

  138. @nebulafox
    >After Trump the GOP will be back to what it was pre-Trump. It will be as if Trump never happened. The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    Oh, I have no doubt that the K Street boys will try to re-impose their failed ideology on the party, because just like the Bourbons, they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. But long-term, they will fail. Spectacularly. Bushism is dead, whether the GOP cares to acknowledge that reality or not.

    It does not matter one iota how much Trump has caved into GOP Establishment in policy: his political success in the primaries back in '16 revolved around him ignoring or openly mocking a post-Cold War Republican orthodoxy that fails to serve anybody but its donors. Plutocrat fetishization, treating free trade as holy scripture, engaging in losing Middle East wars, and opening the border with Mexico are policies that are not going anywhere with an increasingly declassed base. There's no taking that back. The voters were so alienated from it by then that they were willing to gamble immediately on somebody who visibly drove them bonkers, regardless of his own trustworthiness. Future insurgents will recognize that and act accordingly, and the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do not have a superdelegate system in place to stifle insurgencies.

    The voters were so alienated from it by then that they were willing to gamble immediately on somebody who visibly drove them bonkers,

    But more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. Trump won purely because Rust Belt voters were desperate. But voters as a whole preferred Clinton.

    That’s the problem. Most people are not alienated from the current system.

    The Trump victory wasn’t really a populist uprising. It wasn’t a thorough-going rejection of the current system. Most of those who voted for Trump would have voted for Jeb Bush. The only voters truly prepared to reject the current system were a small number of voters in the Rust Belt.

    Trump did not tap into a massive sense of unrest and alienation and anger. That massive sense of unrest and alienation and anger that would have been needed to fuel a true populist political uprising was simply not there.

    • Disagree: iffen
  139. @iffen
    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor

    Wait a minute!

    Why are you trying to limit our options?

    Why can't he be both?

    Maybe he’s a maroon or a moran?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Not a maroon, but maybe he could be a coconut macaroon which are brown on the outside and white on the inside.

    He could be a sort of moran as he has the Maasai warrior bearing and spirit.
  140. @Twinkie

    Malaysia have IQs in the mid-80s,
     
    92.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-iq-by-country/

    Mongolia is 101, by the way.

    I adjusted it for the 30 percent Chinese and Indian population, and based the IQ score on the Philippines and Indonesia, so its a guesstimate. Since I am taking about Malays are 98 percent of Filipinos and Indonesians.

  141. @nebulafox
    Failed physicist here. The overwhelming amount of people I met in physics wanted one thing, and one thing only: to be allowed to carry out their research in peace. That's not malicious, it is all you can ask any proud physics geek worth his salt to do, but the problem there is that they'll typically mouth whatever they need to mouth in order to be left alone. In physics, that's thankfully not much of an issue, because you can't really make strongly correlated electrons or lattice QCD or general relativity into political issues without getting laughed out of any serious room.

    But biology is another story. With genetics research shaping up to be the 21st Century equivalent to quantum mechanics in importance and China busy pouring ridiculous sums of money into it, I believe it is imperative for the United States to get going in that field, and fast, irrespective of whatever sacred cows it would slaughter. This is not just a matter of national security, but however much the US is flawed, it would probably be much better for the world if America was the first to reach the ground-breaking technology that is coming. But who would dare tackle serious genetics research in the US that might-nay, almost certainly would-break the tenets of Gouldism that our cultural gatekeepers have embraced as pseudo-religious dogma?

  142. @neutral
    Then you are condemning white people, trying to point out a few anomalies and ignoring 99.9% of the rest is the height of foolishness.

    If you think the mass of Jewry isn’t as brainwashed as the goyim, you’re fooling yourself. In fact, they’re even MORE brainwashed, by necessity. If anyone has to believe the narrative about the poor, persecuted Jews, it’s the lumpenjuden.

    By condemning them en masse, you play right into the uberjuden’s hands. Most are blissfully unaware, and are functionally no different from goyim. However, many reject the globohomozio narrative, and so are not to blame. A precious few wake up to the peril and should be lauded and encouraged. In this respect, Jews are exactly like wyppl. They serve a means to the power elite’s ends.

    AFA condeming white ppl, given how they easily abuse their fellows, vote to pick their neighbor’s pocket, cheer to bomb those they know nothing about, believe the most transparent of lies, and lick the boot of tyrants in the name of saaaaaftey… Welp, they’re pretty fucking condemnable.

    FFS, if someone doesn’t learn the first time they lose at three card monte, why should we only blame the grifter?

  143. @anon

    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world.
     
    That's only an indication of the lack of human capital among reactionary conservatives. It's honestly not that hard to get started. If, instead of marching around, the alt-right had put all their efforts into organizing partition, then they would be in a far better position now.

    Here's a general outline of how it could work:

    Co-opt local republican parties and reform them such that they have their own public financing (styled on union dues), win local and state offices as republicans on a platform of partition and / or fighting the blue menace until you're ready to come out with partition. When you're in charge, manipulate state laws to make your efforts easier -- empower yourselves while deplatforming your enemies. Co-opt all the state institutions and repurpose them to serving your interests*; talent can be drawn from a reformed state party dedicated to seeking out and putting talent on retainer**. Then, when you're strong enough, secede. The West Virginia governor publicly offering red counties in Virginia incorporation into West Virginia is a sign that maybe it's not really so implausible after all. The first psychological steps are being taken right now ... and by a boomer at that. More will be taken once the shock of Trump losing the election wears off. Get a few governors, agitate, prepare.

    Seriously guys, this is not hard. Study the works of Lenin and other revolutionaries. Nearly every problem you've encountered was addressed successfully by them. Lenin heavily indoctrinated senior leaders who then acted as gatekeepers, keeping out the kinds of yahoos who ruined the alt-right; he was a master of written rhetoric and code talk; he was incessant, despite being (perhaps rightly) pegged as a NEET on this website; he worked to delegitimize the ruling government through propaganda; he forwarded a clear, concise goal that offered adherents -- at least in their minds -- a better deal than what they had in the present (and their ideology was utopian, so that further inspired people); he waited until the time was right. The ultimate goal was to seize power in Russia. That was simple enough for people to organize around. What stops you from doing the same? At least on a state level? There are red states with enough votes to get it done already if push comes to shove. Really, what's wrong with you guys? Seriously.

    Eventually, tensions will build among conservatives as they realize they can no longer win elections due to the demographic invasion they never consented to. The left will come down on the right with extreme censorship and oppression, which will only anger people more. Then something will happen -- a war, an economic downturn, a government crackdown gone too far. At that point, one of your states can outright announce their independence. Blue states may react, but red states are as large as some European countries. If half a dozen red states walked out of the Union tomorrow, there is probably nothing anyone could do about it. They don't have the stomach to fight and hold territory that large while also running a global empire; Russia and China would almost certainly use the distraction as an opportunity to grab territory elsewhere.

    This can be done. I'd be much less puzzled if people realized that but simply disagreed on how easy this would be to accomplish. Maybe people think it's too hard and not worth it. That's fair. I'd understand that. But I am truly astounded no one here seems to have even thought about it in the first place. What I have listed here is just a very broad outline. I could go in depth if I wanted. Why can't you?

    *Example policies that would make your life easier: 1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you 2) make doxing a felony 3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise -- doesn't matter what 4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony 5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA's Base) .... etc.

    **Most state parties are actually poorly organized. They could be reformed in such a way as to resemble old school unions: card-carrying members who pay dues and vote, deplatforming wealthy donors who'd otherwise co-opt the agenda. The party could organize social gatherings, sponsor scholarships, pay for alternate media organizations, run private indoctrination schools, etc. All of this would serve to create an parallel political apparatus. Unlike Trump who has no base of support in the managerial state, you could simply create your own from the ground up.

    Co-opt local republican parties and reform them such that they have their own public financing (styled on union dues), win local and state offices as republicans on a platform of partition and / or fighting the blue menace until you’re ready to come out with partition. When you’re in charge, manipulate state laws to make your efforts easier — empower yourselves while deplatforming your enemies. Co-opt all the state institutions and repurpose them to serving your interests*; talent can be drawn from a reformed state party dedicated to seeking out and putting talent on retainer

    You’re going to need a small army of disciplined highly motivated foot soldiers to do that. Where are they going to come from?

    Then, when you’re strong enough, secede.

    The problem with that is that there aren’t really Red States and Blue States. There are Blue cities and Red rural areas. Urban populations in Red States are mostly liberal.

    So you’re going to have a significant population of urban liberals who will bitterly oppose you. But it’s worse than that. The vast majority of mainstream conservatives/mainstream Republicans will bitterly oppose you as well. In fact 95% of the population will be opposed to secession. Are you going to send 95% of the population to re-education camps? Or terrorise the 95% into going along with you. Because that’s what you’d have to do. The Bolsheviks were willing to do stuff like that. Are you willing to?

    Eventually, tensions will build among conservatives as they realize they can no longer win elections

    But in all western countries with very high immigration levels parties of the Right are still winning elections. It’s the parties of the Left that are struggling.

    The left will come down on the right with extreme censorship and oppression, which will only anger people more.

    Unfortunately history demonstrates that extreme censorship and oppression works. Lenin succeeded because Tsarist Russia was only moderately repressive. Had Tsarist Russia been truly repressive Lenin and his pals would have been lined up against a wall and shot very early on instead of being left to plot against the state.

    Example policies that would make your life easier: 1) state-sponsored social media alternatives so the left can no longer deplatform you 2) make doxing a felony 3) deplatform left-wing groups such as the SPLC and ADL under some guise — doesn’t matter what 4) ban federal letter agencies from operating within the state; those caught are guilty of a serious felony 5) ban entrapment efforts by state agencies (the CIA’s Base) …. etc.

    All of which would only be possible if you already hold complete power. But you don’t.

    Lenin heavily indoctrinated senior leaders who then acted as gatekeepers, keeping out the kinds of yahoos who ruined the alt-right

    That’s correct as far as it goes. You need rigid party discipline. But for that you need a Lenin and you need a disciplined highly organised party apparatus. Neither of which you have. Lenin also had the advantage that the war had already undermined the existing government. You don’t have that advantage. Lenin also had a program capable of winning mass support- Bread, Land and Peace. You don’t have that either. Lenin was also working within a framework of long-established opposition to the state so there were plenty of experienced agitators on which to draw. You also don’t have that.

    • Agree: iffen
  144. @nebulafox
    >“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    And they ask why Singapore is no democracy...

    Singapore is a good example of both the limits and promise of effective policy in governing a multi-racial state. There are still gaps between different racial groups, and while Singapore is more meritocratic than anywhere else you'll see in the region, that doesn't mean it can erase the realities of racial and cultural differences.

    It is true that the housing estates are forced to have a certain quota of each ethnic group on them to prevent ghettos from forming. So Xiao Lee, Ibrahim, and Ganesh will end up growing up together and interacting together at first. But once they get to school, things get tracked pretty quickly, and as life goes on, cultural differences become apparent. Xiao Lee wants to go out and drink, Ibrahim obviously doesn't drink. They end up becoming more distant, not because they dislike each other, but because they can hang out with friends from their own race who share their own sensibilities. That kind of thing. Humans follow the path of least resistance most of the time. This isn't to say interracial friendships and relationships do not form: quite the contrary! But life isn't perfect, and no matter what you do, in a multi-racial society, you will have some degree of self-selected segregation.

    (And, of course, part of the reason that Singapore is no democracy is because if it were, the Han majority would simply use demographics to get their way on everything. With the influx of immigrants from the PRC who are far less socially conditioned than the local Singaporean Chinese, one could argue that a degree of authoritarian control is more needed now, not less.)

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other. (Proximity to their co-ethnics underlines the differences: I've heard absolutely withering comments from Singaporean Chinese about the boorish behavior of mainlanders or from Singaporean Malays on the laziness of their Malaysian co-ethnics.) They will defend each other when push comes to shove. They recognize each other as their countrymen, whatever their differences in looks, religion, or culture. And in the end, that's the critical factor for your solvency as a nation-state. It'd be wonderful if we all got along and hung out together, but that doesn't decide your future, the willingness to bond during a crisis does. It cannot be understated how much of an achievement that is, given the circumstances of Singapore's creation.

    I'm not sure how useful looking at Singapore in the specifics is: very different place from the US in too many ways to state here. The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we've gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.) But as a general rule, it is a good instruction primer on what can realistically be achieved: and what can't be.

    The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans.

    Yeah, that’s observably false. It takes at least three generations before they assimilate, and that assumes a homogeneous society that replaces the one of their country of origin.

    Too many, too fast. War is baked in, unless Operation Wetback 2.0 commences apace. FYI, not looking forward to either, but the latter is preferable to the former, by far.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  145. @Sushipal
    You’d have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don’t know. Maybe they do.

    Yes they do. Every study I have, shows that offspring of U.S. immigrants in the last 20yrs vote *even* more liberally!

    I should have better clarified, "ALL racial groups, aside from whites, vote 70+% left/liberal/Democrat." I should have left out the word "racial" because I meant to include ALL ethnic & cultural (NONWHITE groups) South American, Central American, Asians (all types far-eastern, middle-eastern, far southeast asian), native american indians , eskimos, etc, etc, etc.
    Every nonwhite person in the U.S. votes overwhelmingly democrat ~70% of the time, since the 1960s.
    Looking at nonwhite vs white voting patterns tells you everything you need to know. Nonwhites just aren't going for the GOP. I think the news keeps this info so censored because they don't want to incite a govt overthrow when whites wake up to the fact that the GOP will soon never be able to win any more elections.

    You’d have to see a generational breakdown. Do thoroughly assimilated fourth and fifth generation immigrants still vote 70% Democrat? I don’t know. Maybe they do.

    Yes they do. Every study I have, shows that offspring of U.S. immigrants in the last 20yrs vote *even* more liberally!

    But that’s not what I said. I asked if the fourth and fifth generations of immigrant background still voted 70% Democrat. You’re talking about second generation immigrants.

    Nonwhites just aren’t going for the GOP.

    You don’t think that might be because the GOP is perceived as being purely the party of the rich? So it might actually be a class thing, not a racial or ethnic thing. The GOP is attractive to the upper class and the upper middle class. No sane person who is not upper class or upper middle class would vote for them.

    Maybe if the GOP were to adopt reasonable policies in regard to healthcare they might do better. Maybe if they seemed likely to seriously address issues like housing. Maybe if tax cuts for the rich wasn’t the only thing they cared about they might do better. Maybe it’s not a case of nonwhites hating the Republican Party. Maybe it’s a case of the Republican Party having nothing but contempt for the lower orders.

  146. @EliteCommInc.
    "Neither of which were invented by black people. Lewis Howard Latimer made some useful improvements though."


    uhh, no doubt he made some innovations. Usually when is granted a patent, its for an invention. The inventions by blacks in any number of fields contradicts your claim. And because, blacks were not permitted to to access ownership, there are plenty more that are probably unknown ----
    The point is that the assail that hbd has answers to color issues is my shrift. As very few blacks are criminals and the numbers don't support that african americans are any more prone to crime than previous generations of people who were out-groups.


    And if you do some homework on inoculations, you will find otherwise as to the first known practice in the west.


    Take a stroll through the southern plantations: natural air cooling systems . . . are not white interventions.

    James Bowman Lindsay, Marcellin Jobard, Frederick de Moleyns, John W Starr, Alexander Lodygin, Joseph Swan, and Thomas Edison all made carbon filaments before Latimer.

    And if you do some homework on inoculations, you will find otherwise as to the first known practice in the west.

    The West learned about inoculation from the Ottomans.

    • Replies: @Talha

    The West learned about inoculation from the Ottomans.
     
    It had some other specific term and was done a slightly different way, but...yeah. And it's possible the Ottomans got it from somewhere else.

    Peace.
  147. @J. R. Chloupek
    Mr. Anon, you are not addressing the point made in the comment you cite to, that all human groupings contain both give the unknown future aherents and preservationists, meaning if you truly wanted to self-segregate it would be impossible unless you were willing to cut ties with family, friends, co-workers, etc. 100 percent, and even if you could or did, that would not be permanently effective due to children of the new partitions citizens becoming red or blue infiltrators due to their genetics. Liberalism and conservativism is part of the human condition, within and between people. There is no escape, sir. Finding a peaceful modus vivendi equilibrium is the only solution. Create a sovereign wealth funded universal basic income to cover all idiosyncratic risks to income and peace will be purchased. Join me in that fight.

    Finding a peaceful modus vivendi equilibrium is the only solution.

    The problem is that you have a lot of people on the far right who don’t want a peaceful solution. They just want destruction. In their fantasies destruction will create a situation in which they finally become winners instead of losers. You’re not dealing with rational actors.

    Most sane normal people want a peaceful solution. There are sane normal people on the far right but there are also a lot of out-and-out crazies and there are enough of the crazies to keep the far right permanently marginalised.

  148. @EldnahYm
    James Bowman Lindsay, Marcellin Jobard, Frederick de Moleyns, John W Starr, Alexander Lodygin, Joseph Swan, and Thomas Edison all made carbon filaments before Latimer.

    And if you do some homework on inoculations, you will find otherwise as to the first known practice in the west.
     
    The West learned about inoculation from the Ottomans.

    The West learned about inoculation from the Ottomans.

    It had some other specific term and was done a slightly different way, but…yeah. And it’s possible the Ottomans got it from somewhere else.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Bingo!

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

    Peace.
  149. @Talha

    The West learned about inoculation from the Ottomans.
     
    It had some other specific term and was done a slightly different way, but...yeah. And it's possible the Ottomans got it from somewhere else.

    Peace.
  150. anon[263] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    What Twinkie and Audacious Epigone are describing is the Civil Rights movement as it was originally sold: Judge people by the content of their character and give blacks (and others) a “hand up” to a better start in life.
     
    Straw man. I didn't write anything about giving a "hand up" to anybody. I am categorically opposed to welfare and most forms of entitlements.

    That program has now been road tested and it has failed.
     
    Really? Since when have we had a public program of "judge people by the content of their character"?

    We have had some form of affirmative action or another since the 19th Century, and the current incarnation of the judging people by group identity goes back to the 1960's.

    I don't think my program, as such, has been tried for a quite a while, if at all.

    Minorities don’t really want equal rights or a fair chance. Like all people everywhere they simply want money and will cheat to get it.
     
    "Like all people... simply want money... cheat to get it." I think this is called projection.

    I didn’t write anything about giving a “hand up” to anybody. I am categorically opposed to welfare and most forms of entitlements.

    I was referring to this statement in your comment:

    “It’s better to fashion our society as best as we can to encourage and guide blacks to stay out of trouble, work productively, marry, and lead good family lives.”

    Granted this doesn’t have to mean a hand up, or welfare. But it is in the ball park.


    “Like all people… simply want money… cheat to get it.” I think this is called projection

    As a matter of fact I am one of the least money-motivated people you will ever meet, and I don’t cheat. Alas, my comment on people is based on long years of observing politics.

  151. @J. R. Chloupek
    Rosie, separation between conservative traditionalists and liberal freedom fetishers is not possible, literally. Deep Red areas house liberals, and Deep Blue areas contain conservatives. All organizations contain a mixture of such groupings, as do families and other genetic combinations. It is literally impossible in a modern society to separate by outlook, as someone would have to uproot themselves to achieve the splits necessary to partition America, unless citizens really want to return to autarky, i.e., economic self-sufficiency like frontier times. Not gonna happen.
    To change things, people must grow up, accept differences as tolerable in a modus vivendi that prohibits physical harm to others, lying, or theft by any means, and band together as one to force oligarchs to share the wealth generated by collective action through a sovereign wealth fund paying a universal basic income as a social insurance scheme that spreads any and all risks to income. I'd say a general strike until the rich surrender would work, but if some want to pursue a political trigger mechanism, more power to them. We must fight to win like the powers that be among the wealthy do. I'm ready, are you?

    I’m ready, are you?

    I’m ready for a White socialist ethnostate. I’m not interested in getting a bigger piece of the pie while my people disappear from the face of the Earth.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    White socialist ethnostate
     
    Where fat women are prized, women get to sleep around while state-supported, and men who don’t marry women they bed are assaulted by her family.

    You will get a lot of takers, I’m sure.
  152. @huwhyte ppl
    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.

    1) Violent crime by blacks is just a tool in a discussion that is used by HBD to press for their interests and wake up the normies. By itself, violent crime isn't bad by definition. Just last century there were plenty of cases when white people shot election officials during rigged elections. Too bad that this doesn't happen much anymore and is one of the reasons of all types of lies becoming so widespread. Killing a robber in your house during invasion is justified. Byron David Smith killed his home invaders and it's a shame that he's now behind bars.

    It's the way blacks perform violent crime that is bad, it's parasitic in nature and doesn't benefit society in the slightest, unlike the violence from the previous paragraph.

    And, being HBD crowd, we know that for the most part this behavior comes from genetics. Barring eugenics and genocide, there's no good way to control this evil as of now, but these two tools are verbotten in modern society.

    2) Divorce and out of wedlock rates in the past for blacks are irrelevant. What they show us is that in the past the society was less free for black women so they weren't in position to leave abusive husbands. The violence and all the today's stuff was there, just didn't manifest itself in divorce rates as much, as stable marriage was something that was imposed on blacks culturally and economically and something that they were happy to get rid of once they got the freedom to do so.

    3) Our goal is a citizen who is naturally willing to do good for society and for himself and who works for human prosperity in the long run. Not a being that is forced by law enforcement or culture to do that in a half ass fashion. We want the number of naturally good citizens grow and naturally bad citizens diminish. We want to filter our society for crap, instead of letting it be. Once the share of people who aren't good naturally, but have to be supervised and controlled by law enforcement goes up a certain percentage the society collapses. You'll see. And Twinkie, among others, is the one who works on getting it happening soon.

    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.

    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor. He’s also not a moron. That leaves one option.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor.

    He's white on the inside, but not the outside. If you apply your "my people" ideology even-handedly, wouldn't that make him a traitor to "his people"?
    , @Twinkie

    huwite
     
    I’m not interested in your dumb ad hominem and such, but I’d like to note that I’ve met Jared Taylor. Should you meet him one day, you might want to ask why he lives in an area where the 15+%* of the population is made up of the “enemy” (as you implied above) - an area he described on TV as having intelligent and attractive people.

    Also, when he isn’t playing to the crowd, he is pretty contemptuous of low IQ, obese white women (or self-declared “white warrior” types).

    *The total nonwhite population fraction in his area is 25%.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    He forgot the fourth option, "none of the above".
  153. @Rosie

    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.
     
    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor. He's also not a moron. That leaves one option.

    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor.

    He’s white on the inside, but not the outside. If you apply your “my people” ideology even-handedly, wouldn’t that make him a traitor to “his people”?

  154. @Znzn
    Maybe he's a maroon or a moran?

    Not a maroon, but maybe he could be a coconut macaroon which are brown on the outside and white on the inside.

    He could be a sort of moran as he has the Maasai warrior bearing and spirit.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Maasai warrior bearing and spirit.
     
    I’ve seen the Maasai firsthand. Let’s just say they are not all that.

    And I’m not brown.
  155. @216
    I will disagree here.

    Group based condemnations do have a way of working, especially when the elite is motivated to shape their followers into line.

    The fact that Asians outperform whites on many social indicators, especially criminality and educational attainment, is taken as evidence that immigration should be expanded.

    The first time many whites encounter group based condemnation is on the university campus, and many of them wilt under pressure and become Woke. They lose any sympathy for their SwineRight parents and brethren. In the same visage, whites are unable to define why they should deserve "group rights" when everyone else gets them.

    What do we think is more believeable?

    That Con Inc will call the NAACP/LaRaza/ADL "racist" and tell them to dissolve in the name of social amity?

    or

    That Con Inc can be brought to heel and adopt some kind of a white identity politics that will get us group rights?

    The internet rightwing wants “group rights for Whites” and I’m ok with that but I think it’s a ways off. Yes most are cool with it but the enemy is too adapted for shutting down that discussion.

    We have an opening to talk about “white working class”. This is an Official Category as per the media industrial complex so we are allowed to discuss it. Use what we got.

    In reality, nearly all whites are members of this class whether we realize/accept it or not. But let’s not worry about those details for now.

    Yes it would be nice to break out of the enemy frame but when you’re playing monopoly, you pass go and you collect 200 — you don’t screech autistically about how we should really be playing risk instead. Accept the conditions on the ground. White working class.

    • Agree: iffen
  156. “James Bowman Lindsay, Marcellin Jobard, Frederick de Moleyns, John W Starr, Alexander Lodygin, Joseph Swan, and Thomas Edison all made carbon filaments before Latimer.”

    So we’re switching the original claim to who came first instead who ran period. Ohh your wiliness is well noted, but rejected. The original statement was incorrect on its face and so we can dismiss the african americans never invented anything or invented anything of value . . . clearly the discussion demonstrates the comment and its implications incorrect..

    I could list a host of others but those on the table, make the point. I stand by position on inoculations and the carbon filament and have prided cites for both and other african american inventors and their inventions more than once.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm

    So we’re switching the original claim to who came first instead who ran period. Ohh your wiliness is well noted, but rejected. The original statement was incorrect on its face and so we can dismiss the african americans never invented anything or invented anything of value . . . clearly the discussion demonstrates the comment and its implications incorrect..
     
    You fail at reading comprehension. The original one sentence statement: "Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?" Your responses to this have only further emphasized my point, so thanks for that.
  157. @EliteCommInc.
    "James Bowman Lindsay, Marcellin Jobard, Frederick de Moleyns, John W Starr, Alexander Lodygin, Joseph Swan, and Thomas Edison all made carbon filaments before Latimer."


    So we're switching the original claim to who came first instead who ran period. Ohh your wiliness is well noted, but rejected. The original statement was incorrect on its face and so we can dismiss the african americans never invented anything or invented anything of value . . . clearly the discussion demonstrates the comment and its implications incorrect..

    I could list a host of others but those on the table, make the point. I stand by position on inoculations and the carbon filament and have prided cites for both and other african american inventors and their inventions more than once.

    So we’re switching the original claim to who came first instead who ran period. Ohh your wiliness is well noted, but rejected. The original statement was incorrect on its face and so we can dismiss the african americans never invented anything or invented anything of value . . . clearly the discussion demonstrates the comment and its implications incorrect..

    You fail at reading comprehension. The original one sentence statement: “Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?” Your responses to this have only further emphasized my point, so thanks for that.

  158. @Rosie

    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.
     
    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor. He's also not a moron. That leaves one option.

    huwite

    I’m not interested in your dumb ad hominem and such, but I’d like to note that I’ve met Jared Taylor. Should you meet him one day, you might want to ask why he lives in an area where the 15+%* of the population is made up of the “enemy” (as you implied above) – an area he described on TV as having intelligent and attractive people.

    Also, when he isn’t playing to the crowd, he is pretty contemptuous of low IQ, obese white women (or self-declared “white warrior” types).

    *The total nonwhite population fraction in his area is 25%.

  159. @Rosie

    I’m ready, are you?
     
    I'm ready for a White socialist ethnostate. I'm not interested in getting a bigger piece of the pie while my people disappear from the face of the Earth.

    White socialist ethnostate

    Where fat women are prized, women get to sleep around while state-supported, and men who don’t marry women they bed are assaulted by her family.

    You will get a lot of takers, I’m sure.

  160. @iffen
    Not a maroon, but maybe he could be a coconut macaroon which are brown on the outside and white on the inside.

    He could be a sort of moran as he has the Maasai warrior bearing and spirit.

    Maasai warrior bearing and spirit.

    I’ve seen the Maasai firsthand. Let’s just say they are not all that.

    And I’m not brown.

  161. @EldnahYm
    It does not benefit us all for blacks to work hard, have families, and live "productive" lives. The positive contributions of the "talented tenth" to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn't live without? The negative contributions of blacks far outweigh their positive contributions. They are an accursed race.

    The greatest thing for non-blacks in the U.S. that has happened in recent years to the black population are welfare reform and widespread abortion(thank you liberals). These haven't made blacks behave better so much as ensure there are less of them. This is what we need more of.

    More successful members of hostile minorities only means more powerful people who despise you. Incidentally, just because some blacks might become more successful does not mean affirmative action will go away, that blacks will vote differently, that blacks will become less hostile to whites, etc.

    I don't agree in the case of Jews or Indians either, but the case is more complex with the former and the latter has a shorter history in the U.S.(at least in large numbers)

    The Twinkie post comes across like it was written decades ago when it was politically normal for large numbers of whites to publicly articulate anti-black views. That hasn't been the case for a long time. We have tried what Twinkie suggests for decades, and experience shows it's a waste of time.

    It does not benefit us all for blacks to work hard, have families, and live “productive” lives.

    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.

    What is not beneficial is using affirmative action and disparate impact theory to mismatch underqualified blacks into positions where they might be well compensated but are less productive than others might be if chosen by ability only.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @EldnahYm

    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.
     
    If it is destructive for them that's not necessarily a problem for the larger society.

    Twinkie never actually made an argument for why we would all be better off if blacks would have traditional families, work jobs, etc. With mass immigration we have a test for this. Even starting as late as 1997 to today, you will find the number of black owned businesses has declined substantially. It should be easy then to point out the deleterious effects of this change. Think of all those black run businesses that provided all those services we now miss. Well actually, I can think of nothing. The actual truth is that blacks contribute virtually nothing of value.

    It's not the comparison with whites. Mestizos, Southeast Asians, Indians, all are better workers than blacks. Even the old bullshit argument about how Whites won't do certain jobs that others groups will can no longer be applied. Aside from sportsball and other distractions, blacks are simply inferior.

    Let me make a specific point about why successful blacks do the larger society no good: They are terrible at policing the behavior of their co-ethnics. Regarding criminal activity, they tolerate it, they move out to live in white areas if they can afford it, they ask for government money, they blame others. They will not even call the police against serious offenses much of the time. They expect whites to do that too. But they also loathe the rules and behaviors whites adopt to create less crime prone zones. This means that attempts to uplift blacks will cost more to the society than it will ever get back(it should also be mentioned that "successful" blacks are often highly corrupt when given the opportunity).

    As I said earlier, the best recent policy changes with regards to blacks were brought about under liberal administrations: abortion on demand and welfare reform. Conservative preachings are worse than useless. The relevant thing isn't how dysfunction blacks are, it's how many of them there are. If more blacks are put in prison to keep them away from the rest of society, while abortions increase and births decline, that will be the best scenario. This is what we should be trying to accomplish with policy if we were a more sane society.

  162. Oh for the love of…I guess you can’t be black anymore to play a black role, you have to be the right kind of black…this stuff is just going to eat itself alive:

    Peace.

  163. @res

    It does not benefit us all for blacks to work hard, have families, and live “productive” lives.
     
    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.

    What is not beneficial is using affirmative action and disparate impact theory to mismatch underqualified blacks into positions where they might be well compensated but are less productive than others might be if chosen by ability only.

    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.

    If it is destructive for them that’s not necessarily a problem for the larger society.

    Twinkie never actually made an argument for why we would all be better off if blacks would have traditional families, work jobs, etc. With mass immigration we have a test for this. Even starting as late as 1997 to today, you will find the number of black owned businesses has declined substantially. It should be easy then to point out the deleterious effects of this change. Think of all those black run businesses that provided all those services we now miss. Well actually, I can think of nothing. The actual truth is that blacks contribute virtually nothing of value.

    It’s not the comparison with whites. Mestizos, Southeast Asians, Indians, all are better workers than blacks. Even the old bullshit argument about how Whites won’t do certain jobs that others groups will can no longer be applied. Aside from sportsball and other distractions, blacks are simply inferior.

    Let me make a specific point about why successful blacks do the larger society no good: They are terrible at policing the behavior of their co-ethnics. Regarding criminal activity, they tolerate it, they move out to live in white areas if they can afford it, they ask for government money, they blame others. They will not even call the police against serious offenses much of the time. They expect whites to do that too. But they also loathe the rules and behaviors whites adopt to create less crime prone zones. This means that attempts to uplift blacks will cost more to the society than it will ever get back(it should also be mentioned that “successful” blacks are often highly corrupt when given the opportunity).

    As I said earlier, the best recent policy changes with regards to blacks were brought about under liberal administrations: abortion on demand and welfare reform. Conservative preachings are worse than useless. The relevant thing isn’t how dysfunction blacks are, it’s how many of them there are. If more blacks are put in prison to keep them away from the rest of society, while abortions increase and births decline, that will be the best scenario. This is what we should be trying to accomplish with policy if we were a more sane society.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @huwhyte ppl

    Twinkie never actually made an argument for why we would all be better off if blacks would have traditional families, work jobs, etc.
    ...
    Aside from sportsball and other distractions, blacks are simply inferior.
     
    Agreed. They are, on average, useless at best, harmful at worst, in white societies.

    The question is what to do with this. In case of a miracle we better have a plan what to do. And I don't think we should reinvent the wheel, we should stick to the old Liberia deportation route (or a blue state as by the time of the miracle the dissolution of the union will probably happen).

    To buy support of pussies in a modern democracy (as we don't get to repeal the 19th until the total collapse of society) this will have to be tied to reparations. Want to get that one-time payment of 200,000 dollars in reparation? This is tied to losing your citizenship and a one-way ticket to Liberia (the consent of which is bought with another chunk of reparations money). Want to stay but don't contribute to society (which is calculated as a net sum of property taxes and criminal behavior impact)? Mandatory sterilization.
    , @res

    If it is destructive for them that’s not necessarily a problem for the larger society.
     
    Agreed about that, but I suspect the two have a pretty good correlation. And I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.

    The relevant thing isn’t how dysfunction blacks are, it’s how many of them there are.
     
    Embrace the power of "and."

    You realize that's a false dichotomy, right? Roughly speaking, the most relevant thing is (how many of them there are) * (how dys/functional they are on average). One benefit of the prison approach (and rule/norm enforcement in general) is it tends to remove/constrain the most dysfunctional.
  164. “You fail at reading comprehension. The original one sentence statement: “Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?” Your responses to this have only further emphasized my point, so thanks for that.”

    Nice try. My response was that there is no human invention that humans could not live without. In otherwords regardless of the invention by what human being, humans could do with out it.

    I then went on to say that here are but two inventions that have effected billions of loves and did so positively.

    Nice try. I never attempted to defend inventions that humans could not do without because humanity would continue without any inventions.

    So your straw man, which suggests I made an argument in defense of an invention that humans could not live without is dismissed.

    It leaves one case that does make sense — there are inventions that are beneficial to humans, I note two both are acknowledged as been creations of of blacks or otherwise innovated by the same. Further where Jenner or westerners got their invention was from watching black slaves who pinctured the skin of those ill. Upon investigation, the treatment was explained — the innovation by Jenner of injections does not discount that reality.

    note: I do appreciate you clarifying the record.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    inoculation -- I am not sure this is the source I provided in the past . . . but makes the case


    https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-onesimus-slave-cotton-mather

  165. @EliteCommInc.
    "You fail at reading comprehension. The original one sentence statement: “Is there a single black invention that you couldn’t live without?” Your responses to this have only further emphasized my point, so thanks for that."


    Nice try. My response was that there is no human invention that humans could not live without. In otherwords regardless of the invention by what human being, humans could do with out it.


    I then went on to say that here are but two inventions that have effected billions of loves and did so positively.

    Nice try. I never attempted to defend inventions that humans could not do without because humanity would continue without any inventions.

    So your straw man, which suggests I made an argument in defense of an invention that humans could not live without is dismissed.


    It leaves one case that does make sense -- there are inventions that are beneficial to humans, I note two both are acknowledged as been creations of of blacks or otherwise innovated by the same. Further where Jenner or westerners got their invention was from watching black slaves who pinctured the skin of those ill. Upon investigation, the treatment was explained --- the innovation by Jenner of injections does not discount that reality.


    note: I do appreciate you clarifying the record.

    inoculation — I am not sure this is the source I provided in the past . . . but makes the case

    https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-onesimus-slave-cotton-mather

  166. @EldnahYm

    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.
     
    If it is destructive for them that's not necessarily a problem for the larger society.

    Twinkie never actually made an argument for why we would all be better off if blacks would have traditional families, work jobs, etc. With mass immigration we have a test for this. Even starting as late as 1997 to today, you will find the number of black owned businesses has declined substantially. It should be easy then to point out the deleterious effects of this change. Think of all those black run businesses that provided all those services we now miss. Well actually, I can think of nothing. The actual truth is that blacks contribute virtually nothing of value.

    It's not the comparison with whites. Mestizos, Southeast Asians, Indians, all are better workers than blacks. Even the old bullshit argument about how Whites won't do certain jobs that others groups will can no longer be applied. Aside from sportsball and other distractions, blacks are simply inferior.

    Let me make a specific point about why successful blacks do the larger society no good: They are terrible at policing the behavior of their co-ethnics. Regarding criminal activity, they tolerate it, they move out to live in white areas if they can afford it, they ask for government money, they blame others. They will not even call the police against serious offenses much of the time. They expect whites to do that too. But they also loathe the rules and behaviors whites adopt to create less crime prone zones. This means that attempts to uplift blacks will cost more to the society than it will ever get back(it should also be mentioned that "successful" blacks are often highly corrupt when given the opportunity).

    As I said earlier, the best recent policy changes with regards to blacks were brought about under liberal administrations: abortion on demand and welfare reform. Conservative preachings are worse than useless. The relevant thing isn't how dysfunction blacks are, it's how many of them there are. If more blacks are put in prison to keep them away from the rest of society, while abortions increase and births decline, that will be the best scenario. This is what we should be trying to accomplish with policy if we were a more sane society.

    Twinkie never actually made an argument for why we would all be better off if blacks would have traditional families, work jobs, etc.

    Aside from sportsball and other distractions, blacks are simply inferior.

    Agreed. They are, on average, useless at best, harmful at worst, in white societies.

    The question is what to do with this. In case of a miracle we better have a plan what to do. And I don’t think we should reinvent the wheel, we should stick to the old Liberia deportation route (or a blue state as by the time of the miracle the dissolution of the union will probably happen).

    To buy support of pussies in a modern democracy (as we don’t get to repeal the 19th until the total collapse of society) this will have to be tied to reparations. Want to get that one-time payment of 200,000 dollars in reparation? This is tied to losing your citizenship and a one-way ticket to Liberia (the consent of which is bought with another chunk of reparations money). Want to stay but don’t contribute to society (which is calculated as a net sum of property taxes and criminal behavior impact)? Mandatory sterilization.

  167. @EldnahYm

    Disagree. The relevant comparison is not with whites but with the unproductive (or actively destructive) lives they might live instead.
     
    If it is destructive for them that's not necessarily a problem for the larger society.

    Twinkie never actually made an argument for why we would all be better off if blacks would have traditional families, work jobs, etc. With mass immigration we have a test for this. Even starting as late as 1997 to today, you will find the number of black owned businesses has declined substantially. It should be easy then to point out the deleterious effects of this change. Think of all those black run businesses that provided all those services we now miss. Well actually, I can think of nothing. The actual truth is that blacks contribute virtually nothing of value.

    It's not the comparison with whites. Mestizos, Southeast Asians, Indians, all are better workers than blacks. Even the old bullshit argument about how Whites won't do certain jobs that others groups will can no longer be applied. Aside from sportsball and other distractions, blacks are simply inferior.

    Let me make a specific point about why successful blacks do the larger society no good: They are terrible at policing the behavior of their co-ethnics. Regarding criminal activity, they tolerate it, they move out to live in white areas if they can afford it, they ask for government money, they blame others. They will not even call the police against serious offenses much of the time. They expect whites to do that too. But they also loathe the rules and behaviors whites adopt to create less crime prone zones. This means that attempts to uplift blacks will cost more to the society than it will ever get back(it should also be mentioned that "successful" blacks are often highly corrupt when given the opportunity).

    As I said earlier, the best recent policy changes with regards to blacks were brought about under liberal administrations: abortion on demand and welfare reform. Conservative preachings are worse than useless. The relevant thing isn't how dysfunction blacks are, it's how many of them there are. If more blacks are put in prison to keep them away from the rest of society, while abortions increase and births decline, that will be the best scenario. This is what we should be trying to accomplish with policy if we were a more sane society.

    If it is destructive for them that’s not necessarily a problem for the larger society.

    Agreed about that, but I suspect the two have a pretty good correlation. And I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.

    The relevant thing isn’t how dysfunction blacks are, it’s how many of them there are.

    Embrace the power of “and.”

    You realize that’s a false dichotomy, right? Roughly speaking, the most relevant thing is (how many of them there are) * (how dys/functional they are on average). One benefit of the prison approach (and rule/norm enforcement in general) is it tends to remove/constrain the most dysfunctional.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.
     
    I think we need to narrow our definition of "fellow citizens" to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.
  168. @res

    If it is destructive for them that’s not necessarily a problem for the larger society.
     
    Agreed about that, but I suspect the two have a pretty good correlation. And I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.

    The relevant thing isn’t how dysfunction blacks are, it’s how many of them there are.
     
    Embrace the power of "and."

    You realize that's a false dichotomy, right? Roughly speaking, the most relevant thing is (how many of them there are) * (how dys/functional they are on average). One benefit of the prison approach (and rule/norm enforcement in general) is it tends to remove/constrain the most dysfunctional.

    I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.

    I think we need to narrow our definition of “fellow citizens” to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    So I guess that makes you a non-citizen.
    , @dfordoom

    I think we need to narrow our definition of “fellow citizens” to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.
     
    That would make all bankers and billionaires non-citizens. And most CEOs in every industry. Certainly every CEO in the defence sector. And every CEO in the media/entertainment industries.

    Plus the majority of senators and congressmen.
  169. @Mr. Rational

    I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.
     
    I think we need to narrow our definition of "fellow citizens" to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.

    So I guess that makes you a non-citizen.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Snark ill-becomes you.

    My definition of those who acknowledge reciprocal obligations includes practically all of conservative White America.  It excludes all hostile Africans-in-America, most if not all followers of the profit moohammad, every last fake refugee who "came here for a better life" at the expense of me and mine, all illegal aliens and most of their anchor babies, and those whites and (((whites))) who hate those who merely want to be left alone (some explicitly wish harm to us).  That last group includes pretty much all who call Trump voters "pig people" and worse.

    You seem to have the street cred to be part of that group, if you'll accept membership.
  170. @Twinkie
    So I guess that makes you a non-citizen.

    Snark ill-becomes you.

    My definition of those who acknowledge reciprocal obligations includes practically all of conservative White America.  It excludes all hostile Africans-in-America, most if not all followers of the profit moohammad, every last fake refugee who “came here for a better life” at the expense of me and mine, all illegal aliens and most of their anchor babies, and those whites and (((whites))) who hate those who merely want to be left alone (some explicitly wish harm to us).  That last group includes pretty much all who call Trump voters “pig people” and worse.

    You seem to have the street cred to be part of that group, if you’ll accept membership.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Your political view is no different than the one held by the SJWs who have decided that we can't enforce our immigration laws because literally everyone is a "citizen" of the US. They are guided only by their personal beliefs and desires and disregard the rule of law and the Constitution. Mobocracy is not a good thing, whether that be your flavor or the woke flavor.
    , @Twinkie

    hostile Africans-in-America
     
    You should know, if you read me on Unz at all, that I have a low regard for blacks in general. And I have encountered a lot of hostile blacks in my life - for a while I fought against blacks daily as a youngster - that validate my general sentiment based on data.

    Yet the vast majority of blacks I’ve met have been non-hostile and quite normal if a little “slow.” Do they vote as I do and hold the same cultural beliefs? Probably not (though some assuredly do). Nonetheless I am not willing to paint people of good will, who merely disagree with me politically and are of lower intellect, as my enemy, the way I see, say, Islamic terrorist groups that will cut my head off on camera if given the opportunity.

    Whether we like it or not, they are our fellow American citizens, and as such, we ought to find ways to put most, if not all, our citizens to productive work and guide them to worthwhile and moral lives.

    A good start, I think, is to introduce the German-style three-tier secondary education system. And of course that’s only feasible if we can discuss group differences honestly.
  171. @Mr. Rational

    I think it reasonable to wish for less self-destructiveness for all of our fellow citizens.
     
    I think we need to narrow our definition of "fellow citizens" to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.

    I think we need to narrow our definition of “fellow citizens” to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.

    That would make all bankers and billionaires non-citizens. And most CEOs in every industry. Certainly every CEO in the defence sector. And every CEO in the media/entertainment industries.

    Plus the majority of senators and congressmen.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    And I'm okay with that.
  172. @Priss Factor

    Even setting aside the moral considerations, it’s useless and counterproductive to condemn blacks as a whole.
     
    No, we should not condemn entire groups for what individuals do. But the real issue isn't about condemnation but general understanding.
    In other words, even though not all blacks are violent criminals or thugs, the fact remains that blacks are more muscular and more aggressive than whites. So, when the races integrate, there will be many more cases of black-on-white violence and thuggery.
    For that GENERAL fact, whites should seek separation from blacks. Blacks have thug-supremacist edge over whites.

    Also, it's no use condemning even blacks who do act violently. Why? So much of black violence is less the result of black moral failing than black genetic programming. In a way, Mike Tyson can't be blamed for being what he is. He was born with thug genes. It's like we can't blame wolves for being wolf-like or bears for being bear-like. Given black genetics, many more of them are prone to act thug-like. Thus, it's less moral failing than natural expression of black genes.

    So, instead of condemning blacks, I say we should understand them. They evolved in Africa in competition with wild dangerous animals and they developed the oogity-booity genes of warriors, hunters, and thugs. I don't condemn this. And, in understanding this fact about blacks, it should be obvious that any non-black race has much to lose by integrating with the ghastly Negroes.
    When we consider the BAMMAMA factor -- blacks are more muscular and more aggressive -- , there is no reason why non-blacks should integrate with blacks. Though there are plenty of nice and peaceable blacks, the fact is the violence and thuggery will ALWAYS be black on white than vice.


    As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale.
     
    We don't condemn all the Jews or the whole Jewish community. After all, there are plenty of sane and decent Jews. But Power Politics isn't about individuals but the general line. For instance, Nazi Germany had plenty of Germans who despised Hitler and didn't want wars. These decent Germans didn't hate Poles or Russians. But Germany was controlled by Hitler and the great majority of Germans came to support him. So, the general line of Germany at the time was pro-Nazi, imperialist, aggressive, and dangerous.
    Same with Japan. Plenty of Japanese didn't support Japan's imperialism in China, but they had no power. The effective power in Japan at the time was militarist and imperialist. Peaceable Japanese folks who opposed militarism were irrelevant.

    Under such conditions, does it make sense to speak of individuals? So, we shouldn't see Germany or Japan as enemy because it's only individuals doing bad stuff? No, there was German Power and it was a collective force of German elites and German masses. Sure, not all German elites were enthused for war and not all of German masses admired Hitler. But enough did, and that meant ALL OF GERMANY was used for war. Under such circumstances, we have no choice but see Germany as a bloc than a collection of individuals.
    Same with US and Iraq War. Plenty of Americans were opposed to the war, but the war party prevailed, and the whole US war machine supported by all US taxpayers waged war. So, if people around the world hated the US as an evil imperialist power, it would have been just. Not because all Americans supported the war but because the general line of American Power was for Wars for Israel.

    Same goes for Jews. While every Jew is an individual, it's no less true that many Jews act as a collective, a power bloc. And this Jewish power bloc is virulently hostile toward whites, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, and Russians. While we can appreciate Jewish dissenters like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, they are essentially ineffective and powerless to do anything about the Jewish Power bloc that is willing to do ANYTHING, even cook up paranoid lies about Russia Collusion, to get what it wants.

    So, it's not a matter of us condemning every Jew. Rather, it's about seeing the Jewish Power Bloc for what it is: the sinister supremacist hegemon over America. And even if not all Jews support it, the fact is the great majority of Jews are on the side of the likes of Adam Schiff and Nadler.
    And for that reason, just as the world had no choice but to fight all of Germany and all of Japan during WWII, we have no choice but to fight the entirety of Jewish Power. We are not up against a bunch of Jewish individuals but a Jewish collective that is hellbent on securing Jewish hegemony over all the world. This is not a matter of condemning every Jewish individual but calling out on Jewish Power that is tribal, supremacist, and supported by the majority of Jews.

    Mike Tyson is an uber-peacenik now, funnily enough.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Which is nice. I've seen him punch a bag at this age on the Joe Rogan show and it is still quite scary. And he doesn't even workout any more (because it reactivates his ego):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZVvcjoMzRk

    He's sounding like a Sufi there, man.

    Peace.

  173. @Weston Waroda

    The revolution in our understanding of human behavior via genetics that is transpiring at this very moment may be our last chance at managing what the West has become, with scientific truth rather than the contemporary crop of sociological superstitions that misinform us today.
     
    You write like you really believe that there is no ideological component of what you have termed scientific truth, but actually scientific superstitions are no less misleading than the sociological ones.

    My point is far less ambitious. I only ask that our public conversation consider things like biology and genetics, that nature be accorded something more than 0% influence.

    • Replies: @iffen
    My point is far less ambitious. I only ask that our public conversation consider things like biology and genetics,

    So your call for candor is directed toward MSM cadre and intelligentsia who wish to look for positions outside of their respective fields?
  174. @dfordoom

    I think we need to narrow our definition of “fellow citizens” to exclude those who feel no reciprocal obligations to us.
     
    That would make all bankers and billionaires non-citizens. And most CEOs in every industry. Certainly every CEO in the defence sector. And every CEO in the media/entertainment industries.

    Plus the majority of senators and congressmen.

    And I’m okay with that.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    And I’m okay with that.
     
    This is why the dissident right should focus on bankers and billionaires as the real enemy. Everybody outside the 1% hates bankers and billionaires. It's the one cause that could unite people behind a political movement. Just maintain a tight focus on that one issue and winning becomes not only possible but almost assured.

    If you want to deport people, deport bankers and billionaires. Or find suitable employment for them. There are always ditches that need digging, and toilets that need cleaning.

    And maybe deport the senators and congressmen to Liberia. Except that I don't hate Liberians so I wouldn't wish that on them. The senators and congressmen can clean toilets as well.
  175. @Mr. Rational
    And I'm okay with that.

    And I’m okay with that.

    This is why the dissident right should focus on bankers and billionaires as the real enemy. Everybody outside the 1% hates bankers and billionaires. It’s the one cause that could unite people behind a political movement. Just maintain a tight focus on that one issue and winning becomes not only possible but almost assured.

    If you want to deport people, deport bankers and billionaires. Or find suitable employment for them. There are always ditches that need digging, and toilets that need cleaning.

    And maybe deport the senators and congressmen to Liberia. Except that I don’t hate Liberians so I wouldn’t wish that on them. The senators and congressmen can clean toilets as well.

  176. @Mr. Rational
    Snark ill-becomes you.

    My definition of those who acknowledge reciprocal obligations includes practically all of conservative White America.  It excludes all hostile Africans-in-America, most if not all followers of the profit moohammad, every last fake refugee who "came here for a better life" at the expense of me and mine, all illegal aliens and most of their anchor babies, and those whites and (((whites))) who hate those who merely want to be left alone (some explicitly wish harm to us).  That last group includes pretty much all who call Trump voters "pig people" and worse.

    You seem to have the street cred to be part of that group, if you'll accept membership.

    Your political view is no different than the one held by the SJWs who have decided that we can’t enforce our immigration laws because literally everyone is a “citizen” of the US. They are guided only by their personal beliefs and desires and disregard the rule of law and the Constitution. Mobocracy is not a good thing, whether that be your flavor or the woke flavor.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    No different?  Seriously, dude, just WHAT are you smoking now?
  177. @Audacious Epigone
    My point is far less ambitious. I only ask that our public conversation consider things like biology and genetics, that nature be accorded something more than 0% influence.

    My point is far less ambitious. I only ask that our public conversation consider things like biology and genetics,

    So your call for candor is directed toward MSM cadre and intelligentsia who wish to look for positions outside of their respective fields?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    We have some extremely influential readers here. There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.
  178. @iffen
    Your political view is no different than the one held by the SJWs who have decided that we can't enforce our immigration laws because literally everyone is a "citizen" of the US. They are guided only by their personal beliefs and desires and disregard the rule of law and the Constitution. Mobocracy is not a good thing, whether that be your flavor or the woke flavor.

    No different?  Seriously, dude, just WHAT are you smoking now?

    • Replies: @iffen
    You seem to have missed the part of knowledge that deals with the relationship between the particular and the general; the part concerning reductionism.
  179. @Mr. Rational
    No different?  Seriously, dude, just WHAT are you smoking now?

    You seem to have missed the part of knowledge that deals with the relationship between the particular and the general; the part concerning reductionism.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    It takes some mighty deep cognitive dissonance to equate polar opposites.
  180. @iffen
    You seem to have missed the part of knowledge that deals with the relationship between the particular and the general; the part concerning reductionism.

    It takes some mighty deep cognitive dissonance to equate polar opposites.

    • Thanks: iffen
  181. @Audacious Epigone
    Mike Tyson is an uber-peacenik now, funnily enough.

    Which is nice. I’ve seen him punch a bag at this age on the Joe Rogan show and it is still quite scary. And he doesn’t even workout any more (because it reactivates his ego):

    He’s sounding like a Sufi there, man.

    Peace.

  182. @Mr. Rational
    Snark ill-becomes you.

    My definition of those who acknowledge reciprocal obligations includes practically all of conservative White America.  It excludes all hostile Africans-in-America, most if not all followers of the profit moohammad, every last fake refugee who "came here for a better life" at the expense of me and mine, all illegal aliens and most of their anchor babies, and those whites and (((whites))) who hate those who merely want to be left alone (some explicitly wish harm to us).  That last group includes pretty much all who call Trump voters "pig people" and worse.

    You seem to have the street cred to be part of that group, if you'll accept membership.

    hostile Africans-in-America

    You should know, if you read me on Unz at all, that I have a low regard for blacks in general. And I have encountered a lot of hostile blacks in my life – for a while I fought against blacks daily as a youngster – that validate my general sentiment based on data.

    Yet the vast majority of blacks I’ve met have been non-hostile and quite normal if a little “slow.” Do they vote as I do and hold the same cultural beliefs? Probably not (though some assuredly do). Nonetheless I am not willing to paint people of good will, who merely disagree with me politically and are of lower intellect, as my enemy, the way I see, say, Islamic terrorist groups that will cut my head off on camera if given the opportunity.

    Whether we like it or not, they are our fellow American citizens, and as such, we ought to find ways to put most, if not all, our citizens to productive work and guide them to worthwhile and moral lives.

    A good start, I think, is to introduce the German-style three-tier secondary education system. And of course that’s only feasible if we can discuss group differences honestly.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    You should know, if you read me on Unz at all, that I have a low regard for blacks in general.
     
    I think you have too much sympathy for them because you also fear being seen as "the other".

    Yet the vast majority of blacks I’ve met have been non-hostile and quite normal if a little “slow.” Do they vote as I do and hold the same cultural beliefs? Probably not (though some assuredly do). Nonetheless I am not willing to paint people of good will, who merely disagree with me politically and are of lower intellect, as my enemy
     
    They don't just disagree with you politically.  On average, each one takes about $10,000 per year in public funds largely paid by Whites and other high-performing minorities like you.  We can't afford them.

    Whether we like it or not, they are our fellow American citizens
     
    Per the Fourteenth Amendment which the former South was forced to ratify against its will and far superior judgement.  Let me admit here that my own ancestors screwed the pooch on this one.  My state voted for Lincoln in 1860 and some of my ancestors had to have fought for the Union.  In hindsight, there was no excuse for this.  They should have given the South relief on tariffs and stopped trying to pass judgement on the African problem given their ignorance.

    There are a great many blacks who will go out of their way to inconvenience or harm such as me.  I have had the misfortune to run into several who have actually done so.  I have not received any sympathy or help from other blacks; they side with their own.  By the parable of the Good Samaritan, they are not my neighbor (meaning not fellow citizens).

    we ought to find ways to put most, if not all, our citizens to productive work and guide them to worthwhile and moral lives.
     
    We used to have such a system; it was called Jim Crow, which enforced White cultural and behavioral hegemony over Africans.  Indeed, black dysfunction was seriously tamped down under Jim Crow and black outcomes were considerably better than today.  But that was all dismantled because our elites followed the siren song of equalism, which failed because blacks are demonstrably not equal.

    It's not just the laws that have changed.  In this age of computerization, mechanization and AI, there are increasingly many jobs that machines and software do better than the weak-minded.  One hydraulic backhoe does the work of a dozen men with shovels.  Software is set to replace many white-collar jobs such as paralegals doing research.  The IQ floor for productive work in the USA is somewhere around 88, and that floor is rising.  Meanwhile, the average IQ of blacks in the USA used to be somewhere around 85, but has probably fallen due to dysgenic breeding.  More than half of all US blacks are literally too stupid to hold productive employment here.  OTOH, they're smart enough to fit... in Africa.

    A good start, I think, is to introduce the German-style three-tier secondary education system.
     
    That only helps if there's a job waiting at the end of the program.  Increasingly that isn't the case, and things will get worse very rapidly in the next decade or two.  Africans are living fossils, a race without a future in our world.

    that’s only feasible if we can discuss group differences honestly.
     
    You claim you want to discuss the differences honestly, but you have rejected the results out of hand.
  183. @Twinkie

    hostile Africans-in-America
     
    You should know, if you read me on Unz at all, that I have a low regard for blacks in general. And I have encountered a lot of hostile blacks in my life - for a while I fought against blacks daily as a youngster - that validate my general sentiment based on data.

    Yet the vast majority of blacks I’ve met have been non-hostile and quite normal if a little “slow.” Do they vote as I do and hold the same cultural beliefs? Probably not (though some assuredly do). Nonetheless I am not willing to paint people of good will, who merely disagree with me politically and are of lower intellect, as my enemy, the way I see, say, Islamic terrorist groups that will cut my head off on camera if given the opportunity.

    Whether we like it or not, they are our fellow American citizens, and as such, we ought to find ways to put most, if not all, our citizens to productive work and guide them to worthwhile and moral lives.

    A good start, I think, is to introduce the German-style three-tier secondary education system. And of course that’s only feasible if we can discuss group differences honestly.

    You should know, if you read me on Unz at all, that I have a low regard for blacks in general.

    I think you have too much sympathy for them because you also fear being seen as “the other”.

    Yet the vast majority of blacks I’ve met have been non-hostile and quite normal if a little “slow.” Do they vote as I do and hold the same cultural beliefs? Probably not (though some assuredly do). Nonetheless I am not willing to paint people of good will, who merely disagree with me politically and are of lower intellect, as my enemy

    They don’t just disagree with you politically.  On average, each one takes about $10,000 per year in public funds largely paid by Whites and other high-performing minorities like you.  We can’t afford them.

    Whether we like it or not, they are our fellow American citizens

    Per the Fourteenth Amendment which the former South was forced to ratify against its will and far superior judgement.  Let me admit here that my own ancestors screwed the pooch on this one.  My state voted for Lincoln in 1860 and some of my ancestors had to have fought for the Union.  In hindsight, there was no excuse for this.  They should have given the South relief on tariffs and stopped trying to pass judgement on the African problem given their ignorance.

    There are a great many blacks who will go out of their way to inconvenience or harm such as me.  I have had the misfortune to run into several who have actually done so.  I have not received any sympathy or help from other blacks; they side with their own.  By the parable of the Good Samaritan, they are not my neighbor (meaning not fellow citizens).

    we ought to find ways to put most, if not all, our citizens to productive work and guide them to worthwhile and moral lives.

    We used to have such a system; it was called Jim Crow, which enforced White cultural and behavioral hegemony over Africans.  Indeed, black dysfunction was seriously tamped down under Jim Crow and black outcomes were considerably better than today.  But that was all dismantled because our elites followed the siren song of equalism, which failed because blacks are demonstrably not equal.

    It’s not just the laws that have changed.  In this age of computerization, mechanization and AI, there are increasingly many jobs that machines and software do better than the weak-minded.  One hydraulic backhoe does the work of a dozen men with shovels.  Software is set to replace many white-collar jobs such as paralegals doing research.  The IQ floor for productive work in the USA is somewhere around 88, and that floor is rising.  Meanwhile, the average IQ of blacks in the USA used to be somewhere around 85, but has probably fallen due to dysgenic breeding.  More than half of all US blacks are literally too stupid to hold productive employment here.  OTOH, they’re smart enough to fit… in Africa.

    A good start, I think, is to introduce the German-style three-tier secondary education system.

    That only helps if there’s a job waiting at the end of the program.  Increasingly that isn’t the case, and things will get worse very rapidly in the next decade or two.  Africans are living fossils, a race without a future in our world.

    that’s only feasible if we can discuss group differences honestly.

    You claim you want to discuss the differences honestly, but you have rejected the results out of hand.

  184. @Twinkie

    However: the native Singaporean Chinese, Malays, and Indians all identify with each other far more than with their co-ethnics in other countries, and despite the cultural and religious differences, end up behaving a lot more like each other.
     
    Yup. Native Singaporean Chinese absolutely loathe the "class-less new money" Chinese immigrants from the mainland. And Singaporean Indians actually have higher average income than the Singaporean Chinese do, and regard themselves as a First World - Singaporean - people, not the grubby, ignorant masses of India. It's Singaporean Indians who pointedly told me that Indian (Tamil, in this case) food in Singapore is the best and cleanest in the world, not that in India.

    The USA is not, per se, a multicultural society explicitly set out: it absorbs people and makes them into Americans. (The problem is we’ve gone overbroad on the capabilities of the system in terms of numbers over the past few decades, among other things.)
     
    I like Mr. Derbyshire's description of the U.S. as a soup and immigrants as salt - a little bit of salt blends into and makes the soup tasty, but too much ruins the soup.

    The main issue as far as i can see it is that we’ve gone past the point where a recalibration like you’ve been talking about is possible, let alone desirable.

    Peaceful separation of groups is probably the best we can hope for. But while you do hope for it, I suggest you simultaneously stock up on ammo.

  185. @nebulafox
    >Jewish Power is waging race war on the white race. It is doing everything possible to turn all of US into California or NY.

    "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man." -- Eli Yashai, former deputy prime minister under Bibi Netanyahu.

    I cannot envision an official in any other "white" country, even Russia, publicly saying that in the 21st Century. I'm not exactly an Israel fan-boy (I don't hate them, but I don't want them dictating US policy, and I certainly find GOP Establishment's tendency to be more actively Israeli nationalist than American nationalist profoundly disgusting and humiliating), but to call them psychologically removed from their American coreligionists is a severe understatement. Also, Soros hates Netanyahu just as much as he hates Trump or Orban or Mahathir or Kaczynski or Bolosnaro or...

    I'm guessing the biggest reason is because they don't inhabit a strange mental universe where it remains 1973 forever. They can't afford to.

    This gets at the glaring problem that is in my view never satisfactorily addressed by the Jew-haters who talk about ZOG–the American Jews most hostile to American nationalism also tend to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Unapologetic Israel-firsters don’t much care about American nationalism, but they’re generally supportive of it. Netanyahu has voiced support for a US-Mexico border wall on multiple occasions, for example.

    American neocons are an exception, but they’re a minority even among Jewish elites.

  186. @EldnahYm
    It does not benefit us all for blacks to work hard, have families, and live "productive" lives. The positive contributions of the "talented tenth" to the U.S. have been negligible. Is there a single black invention that you couldn't live without? The negative contributions of blacks far outweigh their positive contributions. They are an accursed race.

    The greatest thing for non-blacks in the U.S. that has happened in recent years to the black population are welfare reform and widespread abortion(thank you liberals). These haven't made blacks behave better so much as ensure there are less of them. This is what we need more of.

    More successful members of hostile minorities only means more powerful people who despise you. Incidentally, just because some blacks might become more successful does not mean affirmative action will go away, that blacks will vote differently, that blacks will become less hostile to whites, etc.

    I don't agree in the case of Jews or Indians either, but the case is more complex with the former and the latter has a shorter history in the U.S.(at least in large numbers)

    The Twinkie post comes across like it was written decades ago when it was politically normal for large numbers of whites to publicly articulate anti-black views. That hasn't been the case for a long time. We have tried what Twinkie suggests for decades, and experience shows it's a waste of time.

    American blacks have punched way above their weight in multiple areas of entertainment. You may not get much from that–I personally don’t, either–but most Americans, whites included, do.

  187. @dfordoom

    but we can-and must-get back to doing things that actually are of value. I’m deeply convinced on some gut level that an economy of lawyers, MBAs, and service workers just is not going to be long-term tenable
     
    What you say makes sense. But the current setup suits those who have the power and the money so it won't be changing any time soon.

    The Chinese seem to be less stupid. We can only hope, for the sake of the world as a whole, that it's the Chinese who ultimately triumph.

    They’re going through a crucible right now.

  188. @AaronB
    These are all possible explanations, I agree.

    Do you think it's possible for an individual or a group to activate - so to speak - different genes in response to different environments? For instance - Jews in Europe responded to an environment which was not favourable to them developing military skills by declining to do so, but in Israel they activated different genes in response to an environment which favored them.

    I am interested if you consider this possible, and if not, why not.

    It seems to me there are lots of examples of this kind of thing - change too rapid to be selected for. Obviously, humans are not infinitely malleable - but I wonder if we can find a way within HBD theory of genetic constraint to account for rapid change. One way would be gene activation - epigenetics is it called?

    Humans are of course not infinitely malleable, but we are an incredibly adaptable species, probably the most adaptable species in the world.

  189. @neutral

    As I wrote before, I have criticized Jews on Unz. Nonetheless, I see no utility, let alone virtue, in condemning them wholesale
     
    Unless you are ok with white genocide, then all jews must be condemned, to want to ally with the number one enemy is both lunacy and highly immoral. The few "good" jews is just some of them being uncertain if Israel will be accepted by the non white world.

    Besides being immoral, this is also highly ineffective. There is probably nothing that makes normal people more repulsed and disgusted by the idea of white identity than the “Hitler was right” tripe.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Besides being immoral, this is also highly ineffective. There is probably nothing that makes normal people more repulsed and disgusted by the idea of white identity than the “Hitler was right” tripe.
     
    If you're going to have a dissident or oppositional political movement that identifies itself as explicitly right-wing then you're going to attract the Hitler Fanboys. And the Hitler Fanboys will destroy your political movement.

    If you're going to have a dissident or oppositional political movement that addresses problems that directly or indirectly relate to race or ethnicity then the problem becomes much more acute.

    If you want to have a successful political movement you have to deal with this problem. You have to purge the Hitler Fanboys. Otherwise you're doomed to permanent political irrelevance. The choice is yours.
  190. @Talha

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand...It’s time for a divorce.
     
    Yes, it shouldn't be. With open dialogue, this is possible. The issue at hand is opening up the dialogue to make it even an acceptable idea.

    Within my own lifetime, I have witnessed nations horrifically broken apart and separated and some separated through an open an legal and friendly process - and some in between those two situations. The really big one being the Soviet Union. Obviously the situation is not exactly the same, but where there is (enough of) a will, there is a way.

    Of course, if it really does turn out that only about 5-8% of the country want the country to be split apart...well, it's not likely going to happen, even violently. That's just the breaks.

    Peace.

    When the system of global finance collapses, a lot of things that seemed unimaginable yesterday will be thought worthy of consideration. We could be seeing the beginning of that collapse right now.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    If this is the beginning of the collapse, it's perfectly arranged for Trump.  The Kung Flu cannot be blamed on him, and his efforts to pull supply chains out of China back to the USA look prescient and the globalists look like the bad guys (rather than having plausible deniability).

    I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 49-state landslide come November.
  191. @Audacious Epigone
    When the system of global finance collapses, a lot of things that seemed unimaginable yesterday will be thought worthy of consideration. We could be seeing the beginning of that collapse right now.

    If this is the beginning of the collapse, it’s perfectly arranged for Trump.  The Kung Flu cannot be blamed on him, and his efforts to pull supply chains out of China back to the USA look prescient and the globalists look like the bad guys (rather than having plausible deniability).

    I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a 49-state landslide come November.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Agree regarding how well this could play for Trump. How idiotic do open borders sound in the middle of a global pandemic? Rhetorical, of course.
  192. @dfordoom

    Peaceful separation is just dismissed out of hand.
     
    Because no-one can come up with any plausible way it could be achieved in the real world. The very small minority that might support such a solution has zero power, zero influence and close to zero wealth. Their views enjoy no elite support and no mass support.

    Those who would oppose it have immense power, immense influence and immense wealth. They have absolute elite support and overwhelming mass support. Plus they have the military, the security/intelligence services, the police and the bureaucracy on their side. They are all absolutely determined that there is not going to be any separation.

    The proportion of the population that would actually support separation, once the costs were explained to them, would be around 1%. It's an idea that has no popular support whatsoever.

    What would those costs be? Firstly, being a tiny impoverished statelet surrounded by much more powerful and very very hostile neighbours. Secondly, the absolute certainly that draconian sanctions would be imposed on that tiny statelet, so it would face economic strangulation.

    Do you really believe liberals would tolerate the existence of a breakaway conservative white nationalist state?

    Why does it have to be a “conservative white nationalist state”?

    Britain had an election on breaking away, and 52% of the country supported it. Polls in the US show support for separation around 25% (the Calexit movement polled at about the same level of support), but it’s higher than that among younger people.

    Until the global credit economy implodes–and we may be seeing the beginning of just that–it’s a long shot. But you’re being hyperbolic by asserting that it would have 1% support. You’re an Aussie, so you never broke away, but secession is literally how our country was born.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Why does it have to be a “conservative white nationalist state”?
     
    You think you're going to get liberals to support white nationalism?

    Is this 25% support you're talking about 25% support for an actual white nationalist state? Or does it include a large number of liberals who are LARPing as a means of demonstrating their anti-Trump credentials? Like all those liberals who were going to move to Canada if Trump won, except none of them did.

    Once the Democrats regain the White House (whether that's in 2020 or 2024) liberal support for separation will drop to 0%.
  193. @iffen
    The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone very like Jeb Bush, or very like Mitt Romney.

    That is the most likely outcome, but we don't really know the actual strength and endurance of populist uprisings until they recede and we can look back and evaluate the effects that they had on the political world. My little crystal ball tells me that Bloomberg and a brokered convention will "open the eyes" of a significant slice of the educated populace. Just like Obama demonstrated that the RQ is still with us, the Democrats may demonstrate their political bankruptcy for all to see.

    In addition to paying attention to my crystal ball I'm spending some time reading the tea leaves of the MSM. I'm trying to figure out exactly how they paint the matrix to their specifications. For example, they are painting a picture of Nazis in control of various European parliaments which seems to mean that they are more worried than they let on.

    I’m highly skeptical that the GOP will nominate another Jeb or Mitt anytime soon. Every poll shows the Republican electorate has become much more Trumpist since 2015.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’m highly skeptical that the GOP will nominate another Jeb or Mitt anytime soon. Every poll shows the Republican electorate has become much more Trumpist since 2015.
     
    I predict they'll do just that in 2024.

    Trump's biggest failure has been his failure to anoint a successor. When Trump leaves office Trumpism is dead. A political movement without a leader is irrelevant.
  194. @Rosie

    Twinkie is either a moron or a traitor and he is an enemy and should be treated accordingly.
     
    Twinkie is not huwite, and therefore not a traitor. He's also not a moron. That leaves one option.

    He forgot the fourth option, “none of the above”.

  195. @iffen
    My point is far less ambitious. I only ask that our public conversation consider things like biology and genetics,

    So your call for candor is directed toward MSM cadre and intelligentsia who wish to look for positions outside of their respective fields?

    We have some extremely influential readers here. There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Talk about comment of the week!!! Very interesting piece of knowledge.

    Peace.
    , @iffen
    There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.

    You may be right. That would help explain why they seem to think the next Hitler is soon to appear if he's not here already.

    Seriously, there is quite a bit of sane dissident material out there. I just read Chris Caldwell's latest book which was published by Simon & Shuster, and unless he got cancelled yesterday, he writes for several MSM outlets.
  196. @Mr. Rational
    If this is the beginning of the collapse, it's perfectly arranged for Trump.  The Kung Flu cannot be blamed on him, and his efforts to pull supply chains out of China back to the USA look prescient and the globalists look like the bad guys (rather than having plausible deniability).

    I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 49-state landslide come November.

    Agree regarding how well this could play for Trump. How idiotic do open borders sound in the middle of a global pandemic? Rhetorical, of course.

  197. @Audacious Epigone
    We have some extremely influential readers here. There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.

    Talk about comment of the week!!! Very interesting piece of knowledge.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Is your handle's email contact a real one?
  198. @Audacious Epigone
    We have some extremely influential readers here. There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.

    There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.

    You may be right. That would help explain why they seem to think the next Hitler is soon to appear if he’s not here already.

    Seriously, there is quite a bit of sane dissident material out there. I just read Chris Caldwell’s latest book which was published by Simon & Shuster, and unless he got cancelled yesterday, he writes for several MSM outlets.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The chain has a lot of links. The bad stuff gets filtered out on it's way towards the light.
  199. @Audacious Epigone
    Besides being immoral, this is also highly ineffective. There is probably nothing that makes normal people more repulsed and disgusted by the idea of white identity than the "Hitler was right" tripe.

    Besides being immoral, this is also highly ineffective. There is probably nothing that makes normal people more repulsed and disgusted by the idea of white identity than the “Hitler was right” tripe.

    If you’re going to have a dissident or oppositional political movement that identifies itself as explicitly right-wing then you’re going to attract the Hitler Fanboys. And the Hitler Fanboys will destroy your political movement.

    If you’re going to have a dissident or oppositional political movement that addresses problems that directly or indirectly relate to race or ethnicity then the problem becomes much more acute.

    If you want to have a successful political movement you have to deal with this problem. You have to purge the Hitler Fanboys. Otherwise you’re doomed to permanent political irrelevance. The choice is yours.

    • Replies: @iffen
    You have to purge the Hitler Fanboys.

    No Jew-haters, WNs, hard core commies or libertarians.

  200. @Audacious Epigone
    Why does it have to be a "conservative white nationalist state"?

    Britain had an election on breaking away, and 52% of the country supported it. Polls in the US show support for separation around 25% (the Calexit movement polled at about the same level of support), but it's higher than that among younger people.

    Until the global credit economy implodes--and we may be seeing the beginning of just that--it's a long shot. But you're being hyperbolic by asserting that it would have 1% support. You're an Aussie, so you never broke away, but secession is literally how our country was born.

    Why does it have to be a “conservative white nationalist state”?

    You think you’re going to get liberals to support white nationalism?

    Is this 25% support you’re talking about 25% support for an actual white nationalist state? Or does it include a large number of liberals who are LARPing as a means of demonstrating their anti-Trump credentials? Like all those liberals who were going to move to Canada if Trump won, except none of them did.

    Once the Democrats regain the White House (whether that’s in 2020 or 2024) liberal support for separation will drop to 0%.

  201. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm highly skeptical that the GOP will nominate another Jeb or Mitt anytime soon. Every poll shows the Republican electorate has become much more Trumpist since 2015.

    I’m highly skeptical that the GOP will nominate another Jeb or Mitt anytime soon. Every poll shows the Republican electorate has become much more Trumpist since 2015.

    I predict they’ll do just that in 2024.

    Trump’s biggest failure has been his failure to anoint a successor. When Trump leaves office Trumpism is dead. A political movement without a leader is irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Trump’s biggest failure has been his failure to anoint a successor.
     
    That would have been suicidal.  It would have given the pushers of impeachment a specific person they could focus on as the Trumplacement, and perhaps suborn him beforehand.  We've got almost 5 years to go; Trump has plenty of time to help pick the next set of leaders, who'll lead for America rather than globohomo.
  202. @dfordoom

    I’m highly skeptical that the GOP will nominate another Jeb or Mitt anytime soon. Every poll shows the Republican electorate has become much more Trumpist since 2015.
     
    I predict they'll do just that in 2024.

    Trump's biggest failure has been his failure to anoint a successor. When Trump leaves office Trumpism is dead. A political movement without a leader is irrelevant.

    Trump’s biggest failure has been his failure to anoint a successor.

    That would have been suicidal.  It would have given the pushers of impeachment a specific person they could focus on as the Trumplacement, and perhaps suborn him beforehand.  We’ve got almost 5 years to go; Trump has plenty of time to help pick the next set of leaders, who’ll lead for America rather than globohomo.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    We’ve got almost 5 years to go; Trump has plenty of time to help pick the next set of leaders, who’ll lead for America rather than globohomo.
     
    You really think Trump has any interest in doing that?

    As for globohomo, Trump is right onboard with the homo stuff. The guy is an extreme social radical. He wants to force the LGBT agenda on the entire planet. Trump loves gays and trannies as much as he loves Israel. And he loves Israel more than he loves life itself.
  203. @dfordoom

    Besides being immoral, this is also highly ineffective. There is probably nothing that makes normal people more repulsed and disgusted by the idea of white identity than the “Hitler was right” tripe.
     
    If you're going to have a dissident or oppositional political movement that identifies itself as explicitly right-wing then you're going to attract the Hitler Fanboys. And the Hitler Fanboys will destroy your political movement.

    If you're going to have a dissident or oppositional political movement that addresses problems that directly or indirectly relate to race or ethnicity then the problem becomes much more acute.

    If you want to have a successful political movement you have to deal with this problem. You have to purge the Hitler Fanboys. Otherwise you're doomed to permanent political irrelevance. The choice is yours.

    You have to purge the Hitler Fanboys.

    No Jew-haters, WNs, hard core commies or libertarians.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    No Jew-haters, WNs, hard core commies or libertarians.
     
    Sounds good to me.
  204. @Talha
    Talk about comment of the week!!! Very interesting piece of knowledge.

    Peace.

    Is your handle’s email contact a real one?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yes it is, but let’s keep it between us if you don’t mind.

    Peace.
  205. @iffen
    There is far more reading of dissident viewpoints by mainstream figures than most people realize.

    You may be right. That would help explain why they seem to think the next Hitler is soon to appear if he's not here already.

    Seriously, there is quite a bit of sane dissident material out there. I just read Chris Caldwell's latest book which was published by Simon & Shuster, and unless he got cancelled yesterday, he writes for several MSM outlets.

    The chain has a lot of links. The bad stuff gets filtered out on it’s way towards the light.

  206. @Mr. Rational

    Trump’s biggest failure has been his failure to anoint a successor.
     
    That would have been suicidal.  It would have given the pushers of impeachment a specific person they could focus on as the Trumplacement, and perhaps suborn him beforehand.  We've got almost 5 years to go; Trump has plenty of time to help pick the next set of leaders, who'll lead for America rather than globohomo.

    We’ve got almost 5 years to go; Trump has plenty of time to help pick the next set of leaders, who’ll lead for America rather than globohomo.

    You really think Trump has any interest in doing that?

    As for globohomo, Trump is right onboard with the homo stuff. The guy is an extreme social radical. He wants to force the LGBT agenda on the entire planet. Trump loves gays and trannies as much as he loves Israel. And he loves Israel more than he loves life itself.

  207. @iffen
    You have to purge the Hitler Fanboys.

    No Jew-haters, WNs, hard core commies or libertarians.

    No Jew-haters, WNs, hard core commies or libertarians.

    Sounds good to me.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Okay. It's the two of us. Where do we go from here?
  208. @dfordoom

    No Jew-haters, WNs, hard core commies or libertarians.
     
    Sounds good to me.

    Okay. It’s the two of us. Where do we go from here?

  209. @Audacious Epigone
    Is your handle's email contact a real one?

    Yes it is, but let’s keep it between us if you don’t mind.

    Peace.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS