The article seems to dance around the issue, so one has to ask: Is this primarily a migrant issue or a Muslim migrant issue? The NYT article mentions people from Eritrea, which is a mixed Islamic/Christian country. In the article though are found references to people with Muslim sounding names and also mentions women wearing burqas. Reading between the lines it sure sounds like the issue is primarily with migrants of Muslim background, though this is possibly not the case. Obviously rape is a problem in all sorts of different cultures, but it is possible that members of certain groups are much more prone to raping if they are placed in the right circumstances.

Owen Lattimore on the Buryats:

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think Obama looks much like a typical African American, or even typical of mixed Black/White people in the Americas. Obama’s East African features seem fairly prominent. I wonder if you were to intermarry Western Europeans with Nilotics, if their first generation descendants would look more like Obama does.

Buildings do indeed go up fast in China, but Chinese construction often has problems of its own. They use cheap materials and throw things together in a shoddy, sometimes dangerous(to occupants) way. “Tofu buildings” is an expression people use. Lots of loud jackhammers are involved, forget about getting any sleep if you’re near. That wouldn’t be a problem if construction workers were inactive at night, but because they want to get the job done quickly(and because there is no enforcement, you’re not supposed to actually do that kind of work at all hours of the night), it’s not unusual for them to work past midnight in areas full of occupied apartment buildings.

China still has a large amount of cheap labor available for construction work, if you do not do well in education you’re destined for manual labor(or farm work, but that’s mostly old people). If they lacked this large population of manual laborers, this process of throwing stuff together quickly and replacing it after it starts to fall apart(not just because of poor build quality, people do not maintain what they have either) would probably be exorbitantly expensive.

The Puritans departed to what is now the USA, where they were quite successful.

China has an aging demographic, is already past its peak as a manufacturing hub due to increasing costs, has rampant capital flight into the U.S., has little meaningful cultural output(unlike both Japan and South Korea), and is sitting atop the worst potential housing bust in human history. Furthermore much of China, lots of Guizhou or Yunnan for example is miserably poor. They have little natural resources, a giant population to feed, and are totally dependent on international trade. No one would confuse China with South Korea if they visited the two places. Pollution is horrible, you can’t drink from the tap, roads are bad, scammers everywhere, all of the signs of a low trust society are there. If China manages to be relatively stable over the next 40 years, I would consider that a huge success for them.

Militarily China is not highly projection based, has little geographic barriers, is facing a declining pool of recruits, and is surrounded by people who don’t like them(having Pakistan as an ally is a bug, not a feature). Personally I think much of China’s military ambitions are defensive anyhow. If they think they can compete with the U.S., they’re crazy. Kim Jong-Il batshit level crazy.

I also am puzzled by the notion that significant cultural impact from Japan is only a decade old.

The U.S. is still the major export market for most of the world, especially China, it is still the top destination for capital flight, has long been the place where people park their funds when economic crises hit. There is no reason for this to change, and if it did, it would leave China with a whole lot of worthless Treasury bills. A collapse of the U.S. dollar would be a disaster for all of East Asia. I also see no reason why the U.S. Central Bank will suddenly become subject to the whims of the Chinese, it doesn’t work like that.

But none of that is going to happen because their is no alternative to the U.S. dollar. No other major consumption led economy with even close to positive demographics. No other large population country with major population centers in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Even in the event of a large global collapse, the countries most impacted would be those most reliant on international trade. That isn’t the U.S..

The idea of Mexican secessionist movement is a laugh.

There is every reason. Taiwan and South Korea are both homogenous, small countries with most of the people located in a small number of cities. If things get really bad there is at least the possibility of importing the things they most need. For a country of 1.3 billion that is not a possibility. The kinds of problems China has to deal with just to meet people’s food, water, and electricity needs are enormous. Becoming rich from export led trade is a totally different proposition for a nation of 1.3 billion compared to 27 million, or even 127 million in Japan’s case. Taiwan also has an extra advantage in that the Japanese built a lot of stuff there.

People want to keep comparing China with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and it’s fair up to a point, but you don’t have to look very hard to see in many ways China is not like these places. All of those countries are clean, efficient, low corruption, and relatively high trust. You don’t expect the buildings to fall apart for no reason, or to get intestinal parasites from drinking the water, or to run across Pakistani hitmen like you can in Hunan, or to find large numbers of people living with no electricity or running water, for ordinary people to throw their trash everywhere, or to have children being given fake vaccines, or for the country’s official statistics to all be in a fog of uncertainty in terms of their reliability etc. Some of these problems those other East Asian nations didn’t even have when they were poor.

China is similar to other East Asian nations in many of its weaknesses, low arable land, poor natural resources(aside from coal and some mineral reserves in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they have almost nothing), difficult to navigate waterways(building a giant dam in the middle of their best river isn’t helping), and dense, aging populations. But it lacks most of the strengths of those other countries(other than high IQ). The optimistic prediction is that they will grow a little bit over time, will lift some more people out of poverty, and maybe the building quality and pollution in some of the big cities will improve a little. That’s assuming nothing major happens to damage world trade. Reaching per capita levels of Taiwan or South Korea, when economic growth has already slowed down, when fertility is low, where is that economic growth going to come from? Hard to have that much consumption led growth with a declining population. Their manufacturing boom peaked years ago. They’re a natural resource importer. They’re also a poor place for nuclear or renewable energy. Since manufacturing went down much of the new investment is in junk finance. How are they going to grow at such massive levels?

Ironically some of the precursors to modern hydraulic fracturing best practices like multilateral drilling were Russian innovations.

“It’s not that these problems didn’t exist back then.”

The claim was not that the problems didn’t exist, it’s that they didn’t exist to the same extent. The buildings the Japanese built in both China and Taiwan when they occupied them were better than most of the designed to fall apart junk being built in China now. That’s a fact. While you are probably correct that some of the social ills I mentioned are not critical to economic growth(although that’s not really necessary to my argument, if they correlate with economic growth that works just as well for me), some of the things I mentioned actually are sources of inefficiency. Not having the population vaccinated or having higher levels of corruption are not good for economic growth. Again, we’re talking about China reaching per capita levels similar to Taiwan or South Korea, it takes a lot for that to happen.

Also in the case of Japan specifically I think you’re flat out wrong. Even before you were born these differences were there. Some of these differences regarding China and Japan can go back to the Meiji Restoration. Japan did not have a ruling dynasty selling off portions of its land to Russians just because it was afraid they wouldn’t do the proper honors at court. Or to have military commanders decide not to show up during major battles. You can try the seniority angle all you like(and I don’t read Reddit), but you know perfectly well that China in many ways is a very different place from Japan even in the 1950s. If you think differently, just go to Taiwan there’s plenty of old infrastructure there to prove you wrong.

Yes, you can make sort of a parallel, in the past Japan say used to make inferior knock-offs of Western products and they over time improved, in their case to the point of high efficiency. But to over-extrapolate and think China is going to be as developed as Taiwan or South Korea, given all of the problems it has, I think is unlikely.

And no, even in Korea, which was poorer than China, not all of these things were a problem to the same degree. A country as large as China with its location and history inevitably will have to deal with types of problems those other countries will not, or will not to the same degree. China is different, that’s the point of my response to the sentiments in this thread. Note I never claimed Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan never had any problems with corruption, cohesiveness, etc.

Marfan syndrome?

What is the first state the strategy worked in?

When conducting short term analysis, people put a bit too much emphasis on variables like demographics, ideological orientation, how much funding the candidate is going to get, etc. trying to fit things into neat and tidy models.

Another tendency I see that seems to be flawed is to assume that the more groups a candidate appeals to, the better their chances of winning. This approach implicitly rejects the idea that the lack of coherency among the various groups can itself be a source of difficulty for a party. This seems an especially irrational approach when the choice isn’t between the Republican and the Democrats, it’s actually between the Republican, the Democrat, and not voting. Do these analysts ever say anything useful about changes in the third category from election to election? I don’t think so.

If one synthesizes these two ideas(neither of which are original, they have been said many times), one may reach the conclusion that the Democrat coalition is much less coherent, much more conflict prone, and that what Democrats need to win in a particular election(short term analysis here) is a charismatic candidate who can paper over the differences. Bill Clinton, Obama, and JFK all fit this pretty well. They didn’t win because they were simply panderers who made a bunch of promises to everyone, all of the Democrats do that. They won because of charisma. It seems to me, none of the candidates listed above fit that description, and especially not Kamala Harris, as one commenter has mentioned.

All of this stuff about demographics etc. is an important concern long term, but people are a bit too pessimistic regarding the next election. For example are felons really going to vote in high enough numbers to make a difference? It doesn’t seem obvious to me that they will. I see both Anatoly Karlin and Audacious Epigone taking it as all but given that Trump is going to lose the next election, even though no strong candidates have emerged yet and it is unclear why the world is going to be so different in 2020 from what it was in 2016. If they are going to speak with such confidence, they should give stronger reasons.

I’m not dismissing their points as a non-concern, far from it, but I don’t think the weight they are putting into them is realistic.

Irish nationalism has always been about anti-British feelings, it’s never been about being pro-Irish. When Irish fury can’t be directed towards blaming all of their problems on the U.K., they’re completely defenseless.

To say the same about Irish Catholicism would be an enormous exaggeration, but there’s even a whiff of the tendency there. Certainly historically.

The Kennedy’s would have never sniffed the Presidency without the support of the Irish Catholic rank and file. Don’t kid yourself.

If that’s the case then Ireland’s economy has been a massive over performer. I doubt most of the national IQ estimates are reliable, particularly regarding fine-grained differences.

In any case, lower IQ seems to be positively correlated with anti-immigration feelings in Western countries. So your story is unlikely to fit either way.

Look at many immigrants who come to the West. They have no love for the host population, but are perfectly willing to come for the goodies.

It’s probably a bit more complicated in the British Isles. Most of the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh people who care about these things have more of a love/hate relationship with the English than a purely hate based one.

“The 10.5% of Republican men who are on board with democratic socialism are a little perplexing at first, but I’m guessing that there are a lot of Republicans – especially among Catholics – who are Republican mostly because of the abortion issue. (Also, it’s plausible that the bread winners for large Catholic families with five or more kids would be on board because of the high cost of health care, college tuition, etc. That describes a good neighbor of ours who had nothing good to say about Obama, but sure wanted to take advantage of Obama care. ) ”

If one glances at the history of the American labor movement or public funding of parochial schools for example, one finds this kind of parasitic behavior among Catholics in the U.S. ever since they started arriving in large numbers.

Going from being a “rough-and-tumble”, staunchly Roman Catholic/Anglo-Celtic-European society in terms of cultural mindset and outlook, to being open borders/immigration/multiculturalism/”diversity”/globalism cucks within less than two decades, is pretty stupid at the national level, if you ask me.

The question is about the plausibility of the hypothesis that a relatively lower intelligence leads to cuckery, which is what is implied in your response to the Anonymous poster, and also seems to be implied in the first paragraph here. As far as I can tell though, the correlation is the opposite of what is needed to support your hypothesis. Whether something sounds dumb is a completely different matter, and anyway there’s plenty of evidence of smart people behaving foolishly.

It’s not “my story” – it is an actual FACT that the Irish have long been regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being one of those with the lowest average IQ among the historic European nations, and dubbed the “niggers of Europe”. (Needless to say, this does NOT mean that all Irishpeople are dumb, that there are/have been no smart and highly talented Irish individuals, etc., etc.)

Right, and I question the extent to which that perception is true.

My understanding is that the relative overperformance of the “Irish Tiger” over the last two decades was due to the aforementioned neoliberal globalist elites deciding to turn conveniently-located Ireland into a financial, tax, and services outsourcing haven, not to any great progress by the native Irish in industry, technology, production etc. – and even that has turned down in the past few years. Isn’t that so?

You are certainly correct. The question however is to what extent has Ireland being a financial globalist haven overstates economic performance. You could reduce the size of Ireland’s GDP by half, and they would still have a per capita GDP higher than the Mediterranean countries, even Italy, which despite all of its problems still has some industry and manufacturing. Divide the GDP by 3, and you still have a per capita GDP greater than all of Eastern Europe plus Portugal. Dividing it by 3 would make Ireland’s GDP per capita about twice that of Russia’s, and about 3 times greater than Ukraine or the Balkan countries.

It just so happens that there are some measures like “modified gross national income” which do make the Irish economy look much less impressive. But again, if that’s the case, we’re still nowhere near Romania levels, much less Albania, Ukraine, or Moldova. It may be plausible that the Irish are below average among Northwestern European peoples, but I doubt they are among the dumbest in Europe. Furthermore I strongly doubt Richard Lynn’s estimates of national IQ, even though the general picture of low IQ in Africa, middling in Southeast Asian and Latin America, high in Europe and slightly higher in parts of Northeast Asia is undoubtedly correct.

Judging from the tone of your reply, you sound to me like either a triggered rah rah Irish patriot, or a neoliberal parrot repeating the worn tropes. Am I wrong?

You’re wrong in this case, I’m American, I don’t have a drop of Irish blood as far as I know(though I probably have Ulster Scott ancestry, which could mean I have an Irish ancestor somewhere), and my views on the historical Irish Catholic immigration into the U.S. are negative in the extreme. I despise the Catholic Church, and I’m not a neoliberal either.

Frankly I view the move away from the kind of politics from earlier in the 20th century, which was more racially based, more WASP culturally based, more sectarian, more pro-eugenic, more pro-militia, all to be partly a result of mass immigration of Catholics first, the “diverse” later. I view extreme pro-Capitalist views like Rand’s(real name Rosenbaum) to be a largely Jewish ideology, and actually see a lot of symmetry between neoliberals and Communists, in that both in different ways have been committed to destroying traditional cultures. I view the same type of symmetry between Conservative Catholics(who are conservative because they think the most important issues in the world are gay marriage and making sure more Black babies are born) and Jewish liberals. These groups fight against each other on the unimportant issues, or one group plays the role of useful idiot protesting some issue but being unable to do anything to stop it, but on the stuff that really matters, they work together, and the prominence given to the relatively unimportant issues actually restricts coverage of the things that actually matter.

which was more racially based, more WASP culturally based, more sectarian, more pro-eugenic, more pro-militia,

+more isolationist I should have said

Agreed, one of the most important failings of the Trump administration has been unpreparedness in appointing people to government. As much as the Republicans who have been working against him since day one deserve criticism, Trump has done a poor job of finding people who support his agenda. The exception would be Lighthizer and some of those people, who have carried out some Trumpian actions on trade.

After George McGovern’s landslide defeat in 1972, political columnist David Broder came up with a way for Democrats to win the presidency. Broder wrote they should nominate a Southerner. In 1976, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter was elected. A Northern liberal would have lost. Except for another Southerner, Bill Clinton, the Democrats couldn’t elect (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry failed) a Northern liberal until 2008.

Both Carter and Clinton were seen as moderates, of a sort.

If (when) the Democrats lose in 2020, will some columnist suggest (very carefully) the way to win is to nominate a straight, pale, male?

A straight White male(or a Whitish Hispanic) with Bill Clinton’s qualities could still unite the Democratic Party and win elections. But I haven’t seen anyone like that on offer.

The U.S.’ trade as a percentage of GDP(that’s trade with all countries, not just China) is one of the lowest in the world, and could be lower if it were determined to make it so. Furthermore, in terms of important things, things you need to be able to survive on your own, the U.S. is self-sufficient, China is not.

The U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world, by far the best agricultural land in the world, some of the best navigable waterways in the world, enormous population, is the largest oil producer(with top 10 producing Canada right next door as well). People looking for long term U.S. decline are barking up the wrong tree if they think trade problems will be the U.S.’ undoing. For other countries, being able to trade with the U.S. is very important, but the reverse is not true, and never has been.

Militarily, what threat is any country to the U.S.? Imagining a country trying to sail over and invade the U.S. is risible.

“Well, the coastal cities of China are certainly a lot cleaner than those of Taiwan.”

Yeah, I don’t trust your observations. Feel free to sample China’s tap water and put your observations to the test.

A pile of rocks like Stonehenge pleads for the relative backwardness of its creators when compared to what their contemporaries were doing elsewhere. The other artifacts you cite are just as unimpressive.

Take heart, Karlin, societal development and cultural sophistication are actuated by a range of factors independent of human intelligence. So even though Northern Europe was a barbaric backwater for most of human history, that doesn’t necessarily speak to the intelligence of those people, or the lack of same.

Just a few hundred years ago, the “healthcare” practiced by Northern Europeans was less sophisticated than that which was practiced by Australopithecus africanus that lived 3 million years ago. Now they are on the cutting edge in health science. That demonstrates that all humans have dormant potential that requires a lot or a little to actualize, subject to circumstances, influences, location, culture, etc.

“Who knows what sub-Saharan Africa is capable of? Clearly, not a lot of human capital today, but in 200 years, who knows.”

Sub-Saharan Africans have been in the Americas and the Caribbean for over 200 years. What great things have they done in that time?

The solution for the Democrats would be a charismatic youngish alpha male White guy(or Whitish Hispanic). Someone like Bill Clinton. But they don’t seem to have anyone like that. Trump is going to win the next election.

The only tragedy is that this vermin was eventually allowed re-entry to the U.S.

There are a lot of complaints nowadays from American nativist types about Jewish American attitudes towards Israel. Rightly so. But one should never forget that countless numbers of them were also pro-Soviet.

Vietnam also has less Indian admixture than the rest of mainland Southeast Asia, which is probably also a factor in higher Vietnamese IQ.

Teachers are lazy, incompetent parasites who picked child abuse for a career. The fact that they attract praise from the public is a demonstration of Stockholm Syndrome.

They should be sent to concentration camps.

The Kurds fought on both sides of the Iran Iraq War, ethnically cleansed and massacred Assyrians who had more right to territory than they did, and have been a pain in the neck to every other people in the Middle East. Atrocities against them were predictable and not something any other capable authoritarian in that region wouldn’t have done. We weren’t on the right side, we shouldn’t have even been fighting in the Middle East.

In Iraq we caused more trouble in the area that existed previously, and neither the people we opposed there or the people were supported were any good.

Not comparable. The USS Liberty was a technical research ship in international waters. The Lebanon attack happened against soldiers in Lebanese territory.

Donut doesn’t go far enough. Israel should not have been allowed to exist as a country after USS Liberty.

“Protestant sects too have this element, or at least pretend to, but I sort of think they’re hedging, they don’t really believe it. If they had really believed it, then they would never have persecuted the Church.”

But of course Catholic massacres, executions by burning at the stake, and forced removal of children from their parents, all of which started the whole mess, is completely justified and had nothing to do with later Protestant actions.

The left doesn’t need to attack the proposal. Instead they can come up with an even more radical proposal. This is just admitting defeat, trying to make short term gains(one election) while taking long term losses. All you would be doing here is possibly creating bi-partisan support for reparations, and making immigration restriction tied up with other issues.

It’s worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don’t show weakness towards them. They don’t respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.

In previous articles Cockburn was gloating about how Protestants will soon be irrelevant in Northern Ireland as they will be outbred. His Irish background comes from his mother who was Protestant. He’s a traitor to his own people, just like his commie father was.

Eliot Engel is a Jew of course.

If you go back a century or even a bit before that, intellectuals in the Anglosphere were keenly interested in evolution, almost treating it like a cult. It influenced not only traditional scientific disciplines but also fields like ethical philosophy. Furthermore the eugenics movement actually had some political success in some U.S. states, Sweden, Switzerland, and some other places. Nina Kouprianova’s claim is wrong because it lacks historical perspective.

Her line about people in their “teens and early twenties” makes it worth making another historical comparison. It shouldn’t be forgotten that utopian leftist ideas like Marxism have traditionally been dismissed as adolescent fantasies, but they cannot be said to have never won any cultural or civilizational wars.

I couldn’t edit in time. But I want to note that a century ago physical anthropology was a subject with some hobbyist support from the public and very much was the HBD subject of its era. I earlier mentioned fields like science and philosophy, but anyone who has read Robert E. Howard much knows this material made its way into literature as well.

The enemy of hereditarianism of the time, Boas, used the same “nerdy” methods like analyzing skull shapes as part of (fraudulent) studies for the United States Immigration Commission. These results were later used to argue for immigration reform. So these nerdy ideas that only teens and early twenties should care about actually matter a great deal.

Bernie Sanders was arguably the free stuff candidate last election and Blacks hated him.

Green energy is mostly a sham and Chinese implementation of it is a sham.

You can’t produce steel, run tankers, create artificial fertilizers, fly airplanes, etc. with renewable energy. Furthermore most of the so-called renewables used today are old technology, like wood, charcoal, straw, hydroelectric energy etc. Back in the day we used old renewables as a much greater share of our total energy. The result of which was massive deforestation and near extinction for many species of whales. Nowadays North America and Europe are reforesting and the whales are recovering thanks to fossil fuels. Even hydroelectric dams are not particularly good for the environment. They have been catastrophic for eels and lampreys in many areas for example.

Solar and wind use are trivial. If you look at historic energy transitions, they take many decades, and renewables are going to be even slower. In the current day it actually takes decades just for global fossil fuel usage as a percentage of total energy to go down 1%. Solar and wind both really only work in certain areas of the world, they have to be turned off during seasons when natural disasters are a threat, their output is unpredictable and low, and they’re not particularly robust. Wind power has the extra negative that it is unpleasant to live around, and is bad for birds and bats.

Even worse many idiots are recommending biofuels, which are a massive cause of deforestation, drive up food prices, and are a disaster for the environment. Export of them are good for some third world countries however, which also means they are bad for the environment.

As for electric cars, they’re not going to make a big difference in the end. The amount of energy it takes to produce new cars and the fact that Americans in particular continue to want bigger cars and more powerful engines means the efficiency gains will be minor. The impact on the grid of having large numbers of people charging their vehicle overnight is probably going to mean more plants will have to be open at late hours. It may even be a net energy loss.

Green energy is a bad idea. Solar panels are a niche application only and we should ban all new windmills. The U.S. + Canada are practically energy independent already, and that’s with shutting down some coal mines and offshoring which we can reopen in the future. China cornering the renewables market is no national security threat, it’s just a bad investment for the Chinese(in particular since there’s little use domestically for it). Environmentalists of the current day probably are a national security threat however.

Intellectual types are often more susceptible to propaganda, as compared with the apathetic masses. This was one of the themes in Orwell’s 1984.

What you say about East Asians doesn’t look accurate for the U.S. as a whole. With Japanese we have a pretty good model of what happens with Northeast Asians. They come over, assimilate, mix heavily with Whites(in the case of Japanese there aren’t many full blooded Japanese left), and are both financially successful and politically weak. Meanwhile the source country develops, because Northeast Asians are smart, and the influx of immigrants slows down or stops. Now if we really tried hard we could find a way to let Chinese rule the country, but it would take effort. Right now I don’t see much effort in that direction. Affirmative action for example works against East Asians. Asians aren’t politically powerful.

For Southeast Asians, what I say about Northeast Asians is likely to apply to the Vietnamese as well. What’s the next group? Filipinos? They rather like White people, and are highly unlikely to rule over them anywhere.

South Asians long term are likely to be a more serious threat.

I think Chinese are still subject to the same population dynamics as Japanese and Koreans. As China continues to develop, the desire to immigrate will decrease, while the fertility of the Chinese decreases, and the Chinese who have been in the U.S. longer will become more likely to assimilate. Of course I don’t say we [I]couldn’t[/I] screw this up if we tried, particularly since there are a lot more Chinese out there.

Indians are a completely different animal. They are naturally clannish in a way that is wildly underestimated, fertility in India is higher, development at a Northeast Asian level will not occur, and worst of all, the actual Indian government has numerous policies to aid their people in getting work visas to the U.S. As you also point out, Indians are also much more politically active, and aside from some Indian Christians(who are a tiny minority of total Indians) are one party loyalists. Another factor to keep in mind is that Indians are more regarded as oppressed minorities by the mainstream than East Asians are. Large scale Indian immigration is a more serious threat.

1. People can cheaply travel anywhere in a few hours, as a result of open trade routes, and modern transportation technology

It is also cheaper to deport people en masse because of modern technology. One day some sufficiently ruthless and powerful government will take advantage of this.

A strong country or coalition could simply take over large territories that no one wants to live in and send its unwanted peoples there. I’m thinking Western Sahara or maybe somewhere in the Arctic.

Switzerland and parts of Scandinavia were also highly supportive of eugenics before WW2, even somewhat after actually. In Sweden there were academics advocating both social democracy and eugenics together. Gunnar Myrdal is an example. This is the same guy who would later write The Negro Problem chastising American Whites about their treatment of Blacks.

Citizenship has value, particularly in prosperous countries. The more people that have it, the less valuable it is. It is something we should value and take pride in passing on to our descendants, rather than carelessly passing it out to every one who comes around asking for it. Greater population density and higher property/land values harms quality of life.

The idea of superior races is correct though, as is the idea that some cultures are better than others. We should openly espouse these ideas, particularly when they are obviously correct.

Anyone who takes a look at STD rates in Russia or Ukraine will disabuse themselves of the notion that Eastern European women are less promiscuous. They are also literally whored out all over the globe. Most of this nonsense about Eastern Europe seems to come from people with malice towards Western Europe and especially the Anglosphere. In reality, Slavs have the trashiest subcultures in all of the West outside of immigrant groups.

It’s hard for me to feel any sympathy for educational administrators. If they would all eat each other that would be nice.

Eastern Europe isn’t only Russia and Ukraine. Poland and other pockets of Eastern Europe are significantly healthier. STD rates are hardly a perfect measure of sexual mortality either.

Russia and Ukraine alone represent a large fraction of Eastern Europe’s population, enough to make what I say true even if there were very little problems elsewhere. I use STDs as just an example, because the stats are easy to check. I think it’s a notable one too, because in countries where there is not open encouragement of homosexuality or large numbers of Blacks, it’s inexcusable to have such high STD rates.

The popular sex tourism locations in Europe are in Eastern Europe, almost all in Slavic countries. Some of that is due to lower income, but much of it isn’t, the people of Prague for example aren’t poor.

There are other metrics. Breast implants per capita and other plastic surgeries are unusually common in many countries there, especially considering they are poorer. It’s not just Russia or Ukraine either. There are subcultures in Serbia for example that are incredibly trashy.

Polish girls are known for being easy among foreigners. Granted this probably only applies to a certain sub section in certain cities, and I would agree with you that the Poles are not one of the most degenerate peoples in this respect. But none of this really negates what I said.

It’s also outdated nonsense to say that Russians are whored out, Moldovans and some Ukrainians are though.

It may be in decline, but not really a myth. Russia women are still selling their wares, and are quite popular in Asia. Mind you I don’t wish to bash Eastern European prostitutes, many of them have probably been forced into their position by all kinds of unsavory characters, but nevertheless these kinds of examples disprove the naïve claims made about Eastern European women. Eastern European women aren’t exactly underrepresented in the porn industry either.

Considering western Europe and especially the Anglosphere was the source of the sexual revolution, the resentment is well deserved. Slavic dysfunction can be justified somewhat by the imposal of very poor, and unwanted, rule through Bolshevism and the subsequent societal collapse in the 90’s. The Western elites didn’t have to kill millions of people to impose their morality, it was willingly and enthusiastically adopted by the masses. The rot is much deeper there..

The worst aspect of your first sentence, emphasizing the Anglosphere, is that it gives the French a free pass. Despicable. Also wrong. The idea that Anglophone countries are looser than Mediterranean or Scandinavian countries is false. In reality Whites in the U.S. have historically been more sexually conservative than Whites in most of Europe, and has been that way for a long time.

Your summary of Soviet history is nonsense. First, it’s more complicated than that. In the early days of Bolshevism there was quite a bit of sexual revolution in the cities, in excess of what was going on in the non-Mediterranean west, but later it was repressed, and had basically disappeared post-WW2.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union fell because people(especially the leaders) didn’t want to keep it going, not because any outside force caused it to fall. It was the desires of people in the Soviet Union to imitate the West that caused them to give up what were otherwise perfectly stable regimes. One could make a better case that the degeneracy caused the collapse, not the other way around as you put it. Of course I don’t actually support communist regimes, but it’s undeniable that the societies were more conservative.

I could also take your second last sentence and turn it around as well. Westerners had to be propagandized for decades to create the conditions that began in the 1960s. The Soviet Eastern Europe were far more closed off societies, but they nevertheless were keen to embrace supposedly Western norms.

Let me add that when I talked about people with malice, I was not only referring to Eastern Europeans themselves. Many of the people from Anglophone countries who talk about how much better Eastern European women are tend to be the types who are losers back home in the sexual marketplace.

The spreading of poz is not only a goal of the all pervasive American media and entertainment industry, but is an explicit policy goal of the state department. Russia isn’t perfect, but at least it’s not a dildocracy ruining the rest of the world.

No one is forced to follow Western fashions or watch Hollywood movies. Unfortunately the people of the rest of the world want this stuff. Russia doesn’t cause that many problems nowadays simply because they do not have much soft power.

Were ancient Greece and Rome “pozzed” because they had a lot of homosexuals and bisexuals?

Instead of using terms like “political correctness,” which are context dependent because different societies have different norms and values, we should just say the Greeks and Romans were degenerate perverts. So are many people in our modern societies.

I think you can make arguments based on Greek philosophical ideas that homosexuality/bisexuality is against the principles of natural law or similar ideas. Perhaps some Catholic theologian has done so. For me to do so frankly would require much more reading of the material, which I will not do now. Suffice to say, such behavior in the case of male/male is associated with promiscuity, diseases, pedophilia, and both forms are counter to the biological notion of sex as reproduction. I would also suggest most people have an instinctive negative reaction to it. All of these facts suggest to me that the behavior is counter to how people should behave. One should discourage it just as one should discourage playing with feces. There are both practical and philosophical reasons to be opposed to it.

Of course some people will suggest homosexuals can’t help being the way they are. That is a reasonable response if the argument is that we shouldn’t kill them or something. But if the question is whether we should openly encourage such behavior, or change society to accommodate it, or if bisexuality is normal behavior, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from toleration. Better would be to oppress them.

Things which harm society at large are likely to harm you, or at least your descendants. Although it sounds like you don’t care to have any descendants, which may be part of the problem.

Other religious traditions have always existed alongside Confucianism in China.

One more item to add to the bucket list of good things Europeans did for the world.

I know many of those old racial theories about Nordics also included cephalic index, with the idea that the Nordic race was more dolichocephalic. Some theorists of the time thought Swedes were more dolichocephalic than Finns, but I don’t have any figures.

However, even if none of the traits peaked in Scandinavia, it may still be the case that Scandinavians are more likely to have all of the traits(except for red hair) than others.

Yet many past societies willingly executed people for serious offenses. They also tended to have honor based codes where revenge was seen as justified. Many people are in fact beyond the pale, and many of the worst sorts of criminals were born with traits that make them behave the way they do. False religious doctrines ought to be rejected.

This is plainly false. It would certainly be true for the reverse case, a woman who has slept around will be undesirable for a decent man, but a man who has done so but still has many desirable qualities can find a decent woman.

The bigger problem is that most men who have bedded many partners tend to have many negative qualities and tend not to have particularly high standards in their partners anyway.

You’re wrong. In terms of metallurgy, shipbuilding, home construction, the plow, the wheel, domesticated animals, and just about anything you want to name, northern Europe was far more advanced than sub-Saharan Africa.

It’s typical for papists to be Mediterranean boot lickers but this is taking it way too far. You’re mouthing Afrocentrist talking points.

Your theory of Northern Europeans having an advantage over sub-Saharan Africans because they were more connected to the Mediterranean would predict Sudan to be a technological and cultural powerhouse, which it never was.

Northern Europeans benefitting from more advanced Mediterranean technologies also pre-dates Christianity, it was as true in Pagan times as it was in Christian. The majority of sub-Saharan Africa had no metallurgy, no literacy, no domestic animals other than dogs and cattle(which Middle Easterners brought), no ocean based trade, had living arrangements that were closer to paleolithic Europeans, and were either extremely primitive agriculturalists or hunter gatherers prior to European contact.

The Romans were not great scientists or inventors, pre or post Christianity.

Many women do in fact hate it when men are passive and like it when they plan things ahead or outright lead them. Thorfinnsson is giving good advice on this matter.

I think the relationship you describe between stages of development and pollution is real, but I expect it only explains part of the differences between countries, and I don’t just mean because of differences in population or resource needs.

Even if the Chinese did not ease up on their industrialization in terms of output, the fact would remain that many of their industrial works are inefficient therefore more polluting than they had to be. Making matters worse is that Chinese state investment funds a lot of this stuff in places like the northeast keeping it alive longer. One could also make the case that back in the days of European and American industrialization, many of the tools which allow cleaner production were not around yet, and that these tools and methods were mostly developed by Westerners.

I also suspect if one were to focus on water pollution and compare China to Japan, more pessimism would be justified. As far as I can tell, most of Japan’s water pollution problems were solved in the 70s or earlier. We’re more than 30 years into China’s massive economic growth, and water quality in China is still a disaster. Frankly I don’t think 2o years from now the problems will be solved.

This doesn’t even get into littering, overfishing the world’s waters, or driving animals to extinction, where the Chinese are about as bad as any group of people have ever been.

As far as people’s attitudes, I hear people in cities are very unhappy about the air pollution, but I don’t hear the same about water pollution. People still litter extensively(though there are lots of people employed to clean it up in cities, to be fair) and the kind of nature appreciation you describe isn’t really a thing yet. I expect people’s attitudes will not change in a serious way until the generations who lived under Mao are dead.

Ashkenazi Jews went through a bottleneck during that time, and they were also a group in an unusual situation with a high degree of specialization. They also have a lot of weird patterns in terms of rare diseases which suggest something unusual. None of those things apply to northern Europeans.

Also, there are many groups of people, particularly in cold regions, who have never lived in densely populated areas that have IQs higher than 85. Ainu, southern Tungus peoples, Mongols, Sami, and Eskimos are all easy examples of traditional hunter gatherers or pastoralists. All of these groups except Eskimos are over 90 in all estimates I have seen.

What you’re suggesting is implausible.

I also see no reason why urbanization in modern societies should select for high IQ, not in the third world or anywhere else.

In Protestant countries, conservative Catholics are the enemy and should be crushed. In North America, Irish Catholics and French Canadians in the case of the U.S. and Canada respectively are the groups most responsible for multiculturalism and mass immigration.

Cro-Magnons might have had other genes for light skin. Although SLC45A2 seems to have a large impact on skin color, we still do not understand of the genes involved in skin color variation in Europeans. We also know of populations in for example Ethiopia which have SLC45A2 but are dark skinned.

If you look at the behaviors of many White people, including Democrat voting ones, things like putting their kids in “good” schools, going out of their way to live in non-diverse areas, etc. you see evidence that on some level they know the score. But they aren’t willing to do anything about it, and often hypocritically support policies that worsen the problem. I think William Pierce got this right years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-psP87DBTXo
Video Link

If you look at the behaviors of many White people, including Democrat voting ones, things like putting their kids in “good schools,” living in non-diverse areas, etc. you see evidence that on some level they know the score. But they aren’t willing to do anything about it, and often hypocritically support policies that worsen the problem. I think William Pierce got this right years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-psP87DBTXo
Video Link

From what I have heard, raids or piss tests take place outside of nightclubs and the like where drugs are often found. Particularly ones where expats congregate. Lots of idiot foreigners think they can get away with smoking marijuana in China. The Chinese should be praised for this particular repression. Or perhaps criticized for not doing it enough. Foreigners should be expected to be on good behavior when they are allowed into countries other than their own.

China sometimes punishes people for dumb things too. They once jailed a Chinese girl streamer for five days for singing a line from the national anthem while imitating a conductor.

Rural parts of the EU are almost entirely white.

Catholic immigration was a mistake

I find Duke of Qin’s comment about Taiwan being a fake and gay country with regards to tradition vs. values to be quite entertaining. Its Taiwan that seems to have a more authentic traditional Chinese culture. The mainlanders effectively destroyed traditional Chinese culture during Mao’s cultural revolution. That’s why China today resembles a science fiction novel or movie where everything is new and there is no “culture” per se.

Vikernes has already created another channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnJ3dbo5ur8gYEo3ImOUOpg

The chances that those are dead fetuses rather than rubber dolls or something seems exceptionally low.

Perhaps a good time to remind people that those who associate with low quality people are usually low quality themselves.

It depends on the nature of the war. Attacks on tankers are not good news for countries which rely on oil from the Middle East. If these sorts of attacks were to become more common, it could send oil prices skyrocketing. That would be bad for China, but not a problem for Russia or the U.S.

Good overview stuff from RT

Backing Pompeo’s ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident is a massive anti-Iran online propaganda campaign

Twitter has announced that it is removing 4,779 accounts associated or backed by Tehran, the latest strike in the ongoing anti-Iran campaign perfectly timed to coincide with the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

… at least, it wasn’t Twitter that brought the “Iran Disinformation Project” crashing to a halt earlier this week. The State Department shut down the social media campaign it created to “counter Iranian propaganda” after it supposedly went rogue, smearing any and all critics of Trump’s hawkish Iran policy as paid operatives of the Iranian government. Human rights activists, students, journalists, academics, even insufficiently-militant American propagandists at RFE/RL, Voice of America and other US-funded outlets were attacked by @IranDisinfo – all on the US taxpayer’s dime.

Congress only learned of the project in a closed-door hearing on Monday, when the State Department confessed the troll campaign had taken $1.5 million in taxpayer money to attack those same taxpayers – all in the name of promoting “freedom of expression and free access to information.”

The group contracted to operate Iran Disinfo is run by an Iranian immigrant and claims to focus on strengthening “civil society” and “democracy” back home, though its work is almost exclusively US-focused and its connections with pro-war think tanks like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have alarmed congressional staffers.

….

Nor was the State Department’s trolling operation the only anti-Iran psy-op to be unmasked this week. Heshmat Alavi, a virulently anti-Iranian columnist promoted by the Trump administration and published in Forbes, the Hill, and several other outlets, was unmasked as a propaganda construct operated by the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) … The fictional Alavi’s stories were used to sell Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal to the Washington Post and other more reputable outlets, as well as to promote the MEK as a “main Iranian opposition group” and viable option for leadership post-regime-change.

Apart from having the usual levels of stupidity in making decisions the Americans are not getting good value for money. That’s what happens when you see everything through a “gig economy” lens, even regime change, and pay with freshly printed money.

The U.S. doesn’t need Middle East oil and dollar hegemony exists because of our wealth and prosperity(biggest export market) not the other way around.

The idea that American prosperity is reliant upon Saudi Arabia is the same kind of reasoning that led people to suppose Iraq was a military threat to the U.S. Third world countries don’t matter that much.

In the U.S. case, where international trade as a percentage of GDP is quite small, where fossil fuels are abundant, where agricultural products are abundant, and where there are zero nearby military threats, even most first world countries don’t matter much. This means the U.S. can have a totally irrational and destructive foreign policy and it makes little difference.

The U.S. does not currently get anything from being in the Middle East. The U.S. does not “control” anything. I highly doubt Russia, China, or a joke like the EU could manage anything better, and China and Russia have less money to throw around.

The United States is the world’s largest oil producer, but somehow you think environmentalists hold its energy industry hostage. Not the case.

Am I to understand that 1830 is just the arbitrary year this study’s data starts? The fertility decline seems to have started earlier.

Anyway, most forms of decadence seem to start in France.

Kurds will betray anyone and everyone at the drop of a hat.

I assume that thesis was about Northeast Asian and not about East Asians in general. I wouldn’t take data on Chinese mainlanders to be particularly representative of Northeast Asians as a whole. That China is a low trust society is obvious.

But Chinese mainlanders make up the majority of NEAs.

True.

In any case, the second set of data suggests that Japanese and Koreans are similar.

But they’re not similar. Anyone who has been to any of the places knows damn well mainlanders are not similar to Japanese, Koreans, or even to Taiwanese. You’re much more likely to get scammed, not have your wallet returned, or have bribed someone in mainland China. I highly doubt the coin flip test has much relevance to the real world.

Spain and Portugal do not have particularly impressive mean IQs, probably due to North-African admixture.

Lynn and Vanhanen put Spain and Portugal’s national IQs at 97 and 94 respectively. They put Italy and Greece’s at 96 and 93. I have never heard anyone claim Basques or Sardinians are smarter than their neighbors. I don’t think the North African admixture has made a big difference in national IQ in any of those countries.

I would agree with you. It used to not be unusual for people that young in the U.S. to get married at those ages. Most of them turned out alright.

All of what you say suggests society today is decadent and headed towards a path of extinction(or very serious decline at least) via reduced fertility. What it does not suggest is that people having sex before they are 18 is wrong.

I’m disagreeing with the premise that the U.S.’ easy money, easy credit society is dependent upon oil from the Middle East. People make the mistake that because the rest of the world trades with the U.S., that the U.S. is reliant upon that trade. It’s the other way around. If we say screw the rest of the world, it will hurt the rest of the world a great deal more than us.

And you don’t know that they wouldn’t have turned out better if they never had sex at all. By the same argument, since neurological formation is not complete in teenagers, we should also ban them from having jobs, money, or doing anything their parents don’t want them to do.

Contrary to what you say, I would suggest we know very little about what it means for a system not to be “fully developed,” to quote Audacious Epigone and that we know next to nothing about what not being “fully developed” says about what people can and cannot do. The problem with this kind of analysis, is that we know perfectly well that hunter gatherers and many past societies had sex and marriage long before the age you think people should have it.

We are supposed to assume these people had it all wrong for millennia because hamsters who had sex at earlier ages do not swim as well. That’s putting your argument in an absurdist way, but it’s worth doing so because it brings us back to the first sentence I wrote in this post. If you look at that junk science hamster study, what it actually shows is that hamsters who have never had sex perform “better” on mazes, sucrose consumption(a measure used to show well hamsters feel pleasure), and forced swimming tasks than hamsters exposed to sex after 80 days post-puberty, and that the 80s performed better on those tasks than hamsters exposed to sex after 40 days.

From this data, if I was a person prone to think in absurd ways, I would conclude that hamsters should not have sex. Or even more absurdly, that because hamsters are that way, humans shouldn’t have sex. It may also be worth mentioning also that those male hamsters who were exposed to a stimulated female but didn’t copulate were disregarded from the study.

^Correction, it’s 40 and 80 days after birth, not after puberty. Hamsters reach sexual maturity between 4-6 weeks after birth.

Those two questions just about answer each other. Most consumer products in China are low quality compared to the products China exports. But China is itself a huge market, and in many ways it’s closed off to outsiders. So Chinese companies, even lower quality ones, have a big market at home.

Over time the quality of Chinese goods in the domestic market will continue to improve of course.