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
The Open Borders Gene?
🔊 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

Some Guy writes:

Epigone, did you ever investigate the correlation between views on immigration and fertility?

I recall AltHype showing a study that views on immigration was a particularly heritable political trait(0.6). Thus whichever side breeds more is likely to come out on top on immigration policy in the end.

In nearly 3,000 posts, the blog does not appear to have taken a look at that. It’s an inexplicable oversight since the General Social Survey makes it easy to do, albeit with suboptimally small non-white samples. So now that will be rectified:




While views on immigration may be significantly heritable there is scant evidence here that one view is outbreeding the other, as might be expected to be the case with something like views on the desirability of having children. So the results are inconclusive–but unlike Stephen Gould we did run the numbers.

GSS variables used: LETIN1A(1-2)(4-5), RACECEN1(1)(2), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), AGE(40-89), CHILDS(0)(1)(2)(3-8)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Children, GSS, Immigration 
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[141] • Disclaimer says:

    In Europe, it’s the countries most welcoming of immigrants (Western European countries) that have the most fertile indigenous people. Southeastern Europeans cannot reproduce. I also noticed that East Asians have very low fertility rates and a persistent fear of non-East Asian immigrants.

    Fear of immigrants has always struck me as a profund insecurity and timidity that I would expect to translate in to a psychological inability to repeatedly impregnate the female, and perhaps even a physical limitation (forked micropenis, azoospermia) to conception.

    • Troll: Rosie
  2. TG says:

    Um, missing the point, I think.

    Pressure for excessive RATES of immigration comes entirely from the rich, because of their lust for the easy profits that come from cheap labor.

    What makes you think that the opinion of the average person has any impact on this whatsoever?

    • Agree: Nodwink
    • Replies: @songbird
    , @Franz
  3. It could also be appropriately called the OPEN BORDERS “GAME”…..etc. Utterly absurd. The U.S. can reach the moon at a time desk computers weren’t even around or were extremely weak, yet, this same nation can’t guard its borders. A ha….

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  4. Some Guy says:

    Thanks for the investigation. Looks like there’s a weak correlation between number of children and anti-immigration views.

    I think your analysis is confounded by age though, since you used such a wide age group(40 to 89) and fertility and views on immigration have changed a lot due to non-genetic reasons between the generations.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  5. Thanks. There may be a cause vs. effect conundrum. Does respondents’ fertility affect their response or is their response determined by how immigration affected their fertility? Among whites, for example, is it that the less fertile parents resent immigration more than the more fertile parents, or is it that the less fertile parents have already found that their fertility was driven below their desired level while the more fertile aren’t innately less hostile, they just have yet to feel that effect.

    If the GSS includes data for desired family size as well as actual family size, then it could be possible to determine how much of the difference is “thwarted fertility” versus innate fertility.

    Separately, it is remarkable how unpopular immigration is across the board, in spite of decades of favorable agitprop. If US electoral politics were actually market-driven, candidates would be competing to outdo each other with anti-immigration measures. But instead, political candidates are doing more or less the opposite, and most of the few who pose as anti-immigration sell out once in office. So it is safe to conclude that whatever drives US politics, it isn’t the sentiments of the voters.

  6. iffen says:

    I don’t believe that “views on immigration” and current opposition to open borders are equivalent terms.

  7. songbird says:
    @TG

    IMO, they need the demonstrators, the media, and the people signaling on social media. Then there are the bureaucrats who are ideologically invested in it.

    Would that it was a gene, and some drug could cure it. Open borders is probably the most deranged aspect of modern progressivism. There are a million reasons to hate it – a reason for every rational person, from the profound to the petty.

    It is not my biggest reason for despising it, but, recently, it has hit me how every act of international cooperation, however limited in scope – from neighboring countries working together, to countries with low genetic distance or similar culture working together, or to very different but civilized countries working together like Japan and the UK – all of it without exception is doomed to devolve into some bureaucratic orgy of self-destruction. All the realms where we could work together to accomplish interesting things, like the conquest of space – all of it is eternally doomed to the subversion of people who want my people forced out of existence.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  8. dfordoom says: • Website
    @songbird

    Open borders is probably the most deranged aspect of modern progressivism.

    It’s got some stiff competition. The trans agenda is much more deranged. Feminism is much more deranged.

    From the point of view of the elites open borders is entirely rational. Supporting a policy that serves your own best interests might be selfish and it might even be evil but I don’t think you can describe it as deranged.

    • Replies: @songbird
  9. BenB says:

    Since political views are heritable and conservatism outbreeds leftism, the question may alternatively be framed as, to what extent is anti-immigration sentiment an inherent part of conservatism?

    • Agree: Some Guy
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  10. A123 says:

    Who wrote that quextion?

    Was it these guys?

    PEACE 😇
     

  11. Neat idea. The results don’t say much, but that’s okay: that is why the question was asked. Upon inspection, not every pair of variables in the world is required to correlate.

  12. @Dr.C. Fhandrich

    “The U.S. can reach the moon at a time desk computers weren’t even around…”

    Lol…

    Watch the moment men first landed on the moon…

  13. Franz says:
    @TG

    What makes you think that the opinion of the average person has any impact on this whatsoever?

    Right.

    The average native-born person is disgusted with all these aliens trotting around after being told by some corporate spokes-twat that it’s now “their country.” But they can ram “their culture” around with impunity.

    Most common reaction was my now-deceased uncle who said he was nauseous the first time he saw a bilingual sign. It was at the end of the 70s, Ron Reagan was already campaigning to force the government to control the borders, my uncles part of the country was only starting to see the heavy Mexican influx. It was like that: Nobody in most of the country was aware till it was too late.

    Most people in the first two decades after the law changed in the mid-60s saw nothing at all. They figured Teddy Kennedy & all the rest had just re-written the law so it wasn’t “racist.” Then they found out how duped they were. Proof that you can’t be too paranoid.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  14. songbird says:
    @dfordoom

    The trans agenda is much more deranged. Feminism is much more deranged.

    These things are bad, but naturally limited in scope.

    Trannies: relatively very few people will ever seriously consider surgery. Anyone of age who does is clearly insane, or an extreme deviant, and it is perhaps good that they don’t pass on their genes. Of course, this doesn’t cover all the bases – tranny entertainment media (easy to avoid), intrusion into women’s sports (maybe, a redpill for a lot of people), and forced pronouns (bad, but there are many spheres, where you can completely avoid this).

    Feminism: harder to avoid, but a large number of women are not susceptible. Smaller organizations are not as susceptible. Feminists are primarily concentrated around urban centers. Hard to encounter in rural areas.

    Open borders: this even effects rural areas. You cannot escape its effects – at least not for long. Shall I return to the isolated tiny village of half of my ancestors, near spots where there wasn’t even electricity until the 1970s? It’s already there – there’s actually “refugee” centers within walking distance – as it was back then – of all the isolated spots my more recent ancestors lived. Shall I retreat into Northern New England? It’s also already there too. And in every place its effects are growing, absolutely no limit to it – open borders is the greatest derangement of them all.

    • Agree: Some Guy, V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @dfordoom
  15. Anonymous[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    The middle class are also pretty cowardly.

    For a long time the immigrants pretty much only went to the Toronto and Vancouver areas. Whites who could afford it stayed in nice white areas, whites who couldn’t left for whiter, smaller cities.

    Since Trudeau was elected in 2015, demographics have changed remarkably. Every city now – regardless of size – is full of Arabs standing around in parking lots, Indians ambling around, Chinese “students” “learning”.

    We ignored it because we could. It was easier to ignore than to change. Now, yes it is much too late. Talk to an average white person privately, they agree that there are too many immigrants. But the time to change course was at least 20 years ago.

  16. Anonymous[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @songbird

    Open borders = white genocide.

    White people are still acting like they don’t notice anything… going from the honky church to the unseasoned restaurant, carrying on as usual.

    Only now there is a group of 10 arab yoofs also walking down the sidewalk… they certainly see us… as their groups grow it will be impossible for whites to live normally.

    Alot of it is denial and coping. It’s hard to accept that you are actually being genocided and that the entire system and country you grew up in hates you.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  17. dfordoom says: • Website
    @songbird

    Feminism: harder to avoid, but a large number of women are not susceptible. Smaller organizations are not as susceptible. Feminists are primarily concentrated around urban centers. Hard to encounter in rural areas.

    I disagree. Women who overtly identify as feminists might be primarily concentrated around urban centres but feminism has permeated every aspect of modern society. Every Christian church has surrendered to feminism. Feminist propaganda is universal in schools. Feminist propaganda is present in all popular entertainment. Every major political party has surrendered to feminism. The legal system enforces feminism.

    No ideology has ever been so successful in infiltrating itself into every corner of society. Listen to the average conservative (or even social conservative) talking and you will find that they have accepted most of the feminist agenda. Often they’re not even aware that they’re parroting feminist ideology.

    Feminism has been a major factor in the plummeting birth rates across the globe. It has been a major factor in the assault on the institution of marriage. All children are exposed to massive amounts of feminist propaganda. If you ever went to school, if you have ever owned a TV set, if you have seen any movies made since the 1960s, if you have ever participated in social media, you have been exposed to feminist ideology.

    No ideology has ever been so successful , or so destructive. No ideology has ever been based so completely on nonsense, dishonesty and self-delusion. It’s derangement beyond anything that could ever have been anticipated.

    There are still plenty of people (almost certainly a large majority of people) who do not accept the open borders ideology. It is almost impossible to find a single person who has not accepted a large part of the feminist agenda. Most people have accepted most of the feminist agenda.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @songbird
  18. Anonymous[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @BenB

    The sharp decline in white liberal fertility is pretty interesting imo.

    I live in an affluent SWPL area. It’s totally common for a 30-something to be childless and unmarried. I know one boomer family with 4 kids – the 3 daughters have 0 kids and are single in their 30s. The son is in his late 20s; he may have some.

    White, secular conservatives or general right wingers, tend to be more dysfunctional. More alcohol/drug abuse, more divorce, less tidy yards. And yet they keep having about 1.7 or 1.8 kids each. Move to more rural and religious white people, and the number goes above 2.

    There just seems to be something wrong with white liberals, and I believe it’s caused by genetics. The white behavioral patterns continue through generations regardless of environment. In 50 years, white liberals will pretty much be extinct.

    Unfortunately, their “imports” (remember, liberals are more intelligent and have much more influence on society) are worse than them – they are dying off, and they’re trying to bring the rest of us down with them.

  19. dfordoom says: • Website
    @BenB

    and conservatism outbreeds leftism

    Which means nothing. Conservatives have kids then send them to school where they get indoctrinated. Then they send them to college where they become angry blue-haired SJW lesbians or pale pasty antifa soyboys. They let their kids get exposed to movies and social media where they get further indoctrination.

    The breeding advantage of conservatives gets wiped out by the fact that a large proportion of their children are tuned into liberals.

    But still conservatives cling to their illusions that they’re going to outbreed liberals.

    If conservatives successfully outbred liberals they’d be winning the culture war. But they’re not outbreeding liberals in practice and they’re losing the culture war.

  20. dfordoom says: • Website
    @BenB

    Since political views are heritable

    There’s a problem with that. Political affiliation/orientations today do not mean the same things they did in the past.

    For example in 1950 no conservative would have believed a single part of the feminist agenda. Today most conservatives, including all mainstream conservatives, believe the feminist agenda almost in its entirety.

    In 1950 all leftists believed in economic justice. Today very few leftists believe in economic justice.

    Words like liberal, leftist, conservative, left-wing, right-wing have changed their meanings out of all recognition.

    Most mainstream conservatives today would have been regarded as extreme liberals in 1950. Most leftists today would have been considered right-wing in 1950.

    There is therefore no way to prove, or disprove, that political views are heritable.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @songbird
  21. @dfordoom

    It is almost impossible to find a single person who has not accepted a large part of the feminist agenda.

    The generational gap between you and me probably makes it hard for me to understand you. What sorts of things would a person believe, or how would the person behave, if he or she had not accepted a large part of the feminist agenda?

    [MORE]

    For example, I happen to believe [i] that mothers should not be asked to work outside the home, [ii] that fathers have a responsibility to lead, [iii] that marriage is more about raising families than about making the couple happy, [iv] that artificial birth control is wicked, [v] that seating women on juries (for we still have juries in the United States) is unwise, [vi] that female consent in intimate relationships is of a different nature than the law imagines it to be, and [vii] that the women’s franchise has been, at best, a rash experiment. (@Rosie will not be very happy with me at this point, regrettably, but my comments are not really meant for her attention. I do not seek to make a point or to persuade, but only to give an example.)

    On the other hand, feminists will extrapolate from the foregoing that I must believe that women should be denied education, forbidden to hold property, required to cover their heads, or beaten—none of which are true.

    I do not know whether I have accepted a large part of the feminist agenda, for I do not know what relations between the sexes were like in the distant, perhaps mythical past. The feminist agenda seems to consist of several, ill-defined layers, some of which were laid down before I was born and were implicit in my upbringing. Your comments would thus be read with interest.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  22. Anon[194] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you for your 2 posts. The idea that political affiliation is heritable and that conservatives are therefore going to supplant Leftists is an example of the kind of extremely simple-minded ignorance and barbarity that has come to exemplify the dissident right.

    Leftism is unique in that it seems more like a pathology that anyone can fall in to given the right circumstances in life, rather than an ideology. I speak as a subscriber to Ted Kaczynski’s ideas. In his famous manifesto (Industrial Society and Its Future), he suggests that Leftism is frequently induced in middle class whites when their “power process” is disrupted.

    The “power process”, according to Kaczynski, is ideally satisfied by living a hunter gatherer lifestyle, however, even true working class trade people manage to satisfy theirs, by doing strenuous work like roofing and mowing lawns. Basically, in Kaczynski’s view, working hard all day keeps you from getting bored, and this keeps you from developing the psychological attributes (sleep deprivation, guilt, anxiety, pleasure-seeking) that are common among Leftists.

    Here’s a nice screenshot of the manifesto as it was published in the papers — most people who read it online have never seen this diagram:

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/washington-post-newspaper-contains-the-unabombers-manifesto-september-picture-id772293?s=612×612

    My problem with this interpretation is that this principle can also be applied to many so-called”conservatives”, like those who continue to mindlessly support Donald Trump (who has been exposed as a poser and a slave for Israel). People who spend all day blogging in desperate support for the fledgling Republican Party are no different from Leftists who drive thousands or miles to protest police brutality against black people. Both are engaging in surrogate activities in a pathetic attempt to feel important in their otherwise unremarkable lives. And just like Leftists, Trumptards refuse all compassionate efforts to get them to give up their insane support for the Republican Party, and to admit that Trump, et al. are swindlers who don’t give a flying fuck about them and who will never do anything to change the status quo.

    I alao know a lot of people on the dissident right previously identified as Leftists, and a lot of them brought their disgusting Leftist tendencies (like environmental sustainability, masochistic identification with rape victims, hatred of authority, obsession with pedophilia) to the table.

    In fact, many of these so-called “conservatives” are simply Irish-Italian “Jews” who are urked that they have to pay 5% of their income in taxes rather than 1% or even 0%. They are often involved in some kind of seedy underhanded small business operation, like selling thrift store clothes on ebay at 800% above value, or running a serial killer-themed bar where they sell beer and pizza that they pulled out of a dumpster behind a strip mall somewhere. Look deeper in to their life history and you’ll find a horrifying suite of malignant behaviors, such as Satanism, enviro-fudgepacking, homo-cagefignting, self-harm, cuckery, alcoholism, fraud, corruption, and Jehova’s-witnessism.

  23. By the mid 2020s there will be an airport book called “The Anti-Racist Gene” about how the upper class is actually genetically superior to the workers

  24. songbird says:
    @dfordoom

    There is therefore no way to prove, or disprove, that political views are heritable.

    It would be better to say “inclinations” than “views.” Views depend on the zeitgeist. Though, apparent discontinuity with the distant past is hardly a refutation of genetics.

    The Dutch are among the tallest people in the world today, but they were not always so tall. This is not to say that height is not highly heritable in Holland today – it is. In fact, strictly speaking, it is more heritable today, than it was 500 years ago.

    Of course, politics shape the environment (which influences the expression of genes) in ways that height does not. For instance, by creating social pressures to conform. The defining characteristic of an ideology is that it is totally opposed to the refutation of its core ideas. (liberalism’s core idea is equality) If it succeeds to power (as liberalism did after the Enlightenment) then it will shape the entire mainstream political spectrum (as liberalism has.)

    Some incorrectly assert that the word “liberal” was stolen. This is not the case. Our societal changes over the past two hundred years or so are largely down to the way that liberalism has evolved, due to social and technological changes, and a sort of unidirectional entropy or corruption, facilitated by its inability to refute its egalitarian core, and its extremely aggressive attacks on any outsiders who attempt to do so.

    Many liberals were originally wary of federal power, since aristocrats and the Church had a lot of influence over national governments, making them have a hierarchical character, but this dynamic has changed. The root basis of government has become universal suffrage, at least on paper, which has resulted in a massive shift in their attitudes. They are now against any sort of localism (as localism suggests inequality, between places). A hundred years ago, this made many of them nationalists, but, today, it has advanced to the point where many have become globalists.

    I might add that ideology is emotive and not scientific. The people that liberalism advocates for (and there have been many of them) often end up as its victims. (Just as many gays were killed by HIV because of an inability to shut down the bathhouses.)

    • Agree: Some Guy
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  25. songbird says:
    @dfordoom

    Every Christian church has surrendered to feminism.

    If so, the signaling isn’t as strong. The Pope has not come out in favor of female priests or abortion, but he has come out in favor of open borders.

    Feminist propaganda is present in all popular entertainment.

    It is certainly pervasive, (as is diversity propaganda) but I don’t think it has a growing appeal. Unlike diversity, the sex ratio is kind of limited, so it is harder to chase those feminist dollars, by increasing the proportion of women in the population, or by exporting the movie to the Amazons of Greek fables. In fact, I think its purchase on women has probably peaked and is shrinking a little bit, as the more extreme adherents don’t pass on their genes, and more young women vow not to become like their lonely aunts, and as the college bubble contracts, if not bursts.

    I don’t know if there is a village in France, where one cannot find a man, but there are certainly many, where one cannot find a Frenchman. He has been geographically pushed out of existence in some places. That is something that the butch dykes could never manage.

  26. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I do not know whether I have accepted a large part of the feminist agenda,

    You probably haven’t, but you belong to an extremely small minority. You have to remember that the people who hang out on sites such as this are very very untypical of the general population.

    Every item on the list you’ve provided of things that you believe would today be regarded as horrifying by most people. It would, interestingly enough, be regarded as horrifying by most Christians (remember that the Christians who comment regularly here also represent the extreme end of the ultra-conservative wing of Christianity).

  27. dfordoom says: • Website
    @songbird

    liberalism’s core idea is equality

    That wasn’t always the case. I don’t think 19th century classical liberals believed in equality. Of course it depends on how you define equality. 19th century classical liberals believed more in freedom than equality. It’s talking about British classical liberals.

    Today some people use the term economic liberalism to refer to leftist economic views when in fact a 19th century classical liberal would today be a gung-ho free marketeer.

    The problem is that words like liberalism, progressivism, leftism don’t mean precisely the same thing and have become hopelessly entangled. And economic liberalism (which has itself as I said changed its spots) and social liberalism are entirely unconnected.

    So there is no way anyone can speak sensibly of the idea of liberalism being heritable.

    It would be better to say “inclinations” than “views.” Views depend on the zeitgeist.

    Agreed. It is possible that some “inclinations” may be heritable – inclinations towards authoritarianism for example. But even that’s debatable – is a person inclined to authoritarianism because of heredity or because of his upbringing? And some people consciously or unconsciously react against their upbringing.

    The idea that there is any actual heritability in any of this is dubious and probably unprovable. It’s just another example of cope, like the idea that conservatives will outbreed liberals. Pure cope.

    • Replies: @Some Guy
  28. @Some Guy

    Yeah, that’s a good point. I used 40+ to get at completed fertility (or close to it).

  29. Some Guy says:
    @dfordoom

    The idea that there is any actual heritability in any of this is dubious and probably unprovable.

    It’s as easy to prove as any other heritability: do identical twins have more similar political views than non-identical twins? The answer is yes. The genetic changes just aren’t as quick as environmental changes. Just like IQ has been increasing despite low IQ people having more children because the environment has improved.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS