Sailer says:
I've long argued that the elite consensus on the proper goal for K-12 education — to raise black and Hispanic performance by roughly one standard deviation while preventing whites and Asians from improving (which is what it would take to Close the Gap) — is obviously wrong

But this claim seems a bit shaky. Elites know that the same "get tough" or more intensive methods will ALSO raise White and Asian scores. And that has been the case. More emphasis on test scores will also boost the prestige and profile of high academically performing individuals from certain groups such as white Jews or Asians- thus solidifying certain elite access patterns. White elites also support such measures because they know they will help THEIR children against Asian competition. They are not doing it out of pious concern for blacks. The notion that elites are "hurting" whites and Asians per above is dubious- its what they want the naive to believe.

Matthew sez:
But billionaires mostly give their money to schools at the very bottom (because it makes them look compassionate), and to the schools at the very top that their own children and grandchildren attend.
Only they don't. What billionaires give to schools at the very bottom is chump change in aggregate- but that chump change makes them look good and compassionate. Keep in mind that what they give is often supplemented by the taxpayer- in the form of school buildings, facilities, insurance and other costs. WHen Gates gives money to schools, he does not have to pay for school buildings or utilities for example. His "small schools initiative" for example used existing infrastructure.

Whiskey sez:
Asking the White middle and working class to sacrifice their kids futures for the sake of racial equality is a non-starter…
^^Yes and white elites are not asking for any such "sacrifice." The same "back to basics" test prep focus that raises black scores helps raise WHITE scores even more. White elites enjoy looking compassionate, but the bottom line is that they aren't giving anything away to black people.

The elites believed that magic American or British or French dust would turn the Third World into industrious, money-generating First Worlders.
ANd in some cases it has. But the magic dust has also failed to turn several white nations into industrious, money-generating First Worlders as the massive subsidies going to white Balkan areas, or continued turmoil/failure over the years in various of such areas attest.

Through education and schooling because everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.
Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education and incomes than 1910 Poles.

Education Realist said:
And I think Steve already discussed my post on Diverse Schools, which is how charters do benefit whites: http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-parental-diversity-dilemma/

Indeed. And it was always expected that charter schools would benefit whites. Only the naive HBD faithful belieive that "elites" are "hurting" white people via things like charter schools. And you raise excellent points on the decreasing relevance of IvyLeaguism, or schooling and teaching- much more realistic and accurate than the simplistic "racial reductionism" so prevalent in some quarters.

Anon sez:

First, there is no such thing as race. Now, there may be the reality of races but being aware of it is evil.

Credible scientists using hard data show that there is no such thing as BIOLOGICAL race in the sense of the rigorous threshold used to differentiate subspecies among mammals. But as far as race as a social construct, you can have as many "races" and "constructs" as you want including a "Jewish race", "Aryan race" or even… "Swedids"..
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2597/templetonracedebunk2003.jpg

countenance says:
ven though they're not supposed to have any sort of selective admission criteria, charters do find ways around it, mainly by selecting for motivated students by making the application process tedious and time consuming for the parents. That said, charters are skimming off the "top," not taking anyone from the basement.

KIPP also spends a lot of resources.

Indeed. And white people have figured out just what Realist says on his blog. They can use charters to not only boost test scores of their kids but to also put some distance between themselves and unloved "minorities" or bureaucrats. The notion of charters as "giveaways" to "undeserving" minorotees is just another installment of the right-wing propaganda narrative.. As Realist notes:

——————————————–
Look at the history of most progressive charters and you’ll find they are initiated by white people who fit into one or more of the following categories:

— Unnerved by the high percentage of low-achieving, low-income kids at their neighborhood school.
— Unwilling to risk the lottery system for the good schools in their district.
— Unable to afford private school, or a house in a homogenous suburb.
— Unsure their kids are going to be able to compete with the top kids in their neighborhood school (particularly in high school)
— Unhappy with the public school’s treatment of their idiosyncratic little snowflake.
————————————-

^^ANd the above includes whites who use charters to escape hard-nosed Asian competition.

Peter says:
But HBD aware people often fail to come to grips with the issue that now that we have strip-mined the lower classes of most of the intelligent hard-working people, what are we supposed to do with the left overs? The idea that the right combination of economic incentives will get them off their asses is probably nonsense since they lack the planning skills and cognitive capacity to respond to economic incentives according to the standard textbook.

No we haven't "strip-mined" the lower classes of most of the intelligent, hard-working people. This statement has no basis in reality. But lets go with it for a moment. Why should HBDers be concerned? After all, if the most ambitious and intelligent move out of the lower classes isn't that a good HBD thing- a just, deserved separation, with the higher IQ reaping the rewards?

NOTA says:
Haiti.. probably would see some significant improvement if they had a functional enough society to avoid cholera and malnutrition and get everyone some schooling
Maybe, but cholera and malnutrition were very well represented amoong whites in various eras- like the white Irish and white southerners in the United States (Sowell 1981, 2005). And such maladies are also well represented in modern white nations such as some in the Balkans. As recently as 1994, Albania suffered a cholera epidemic, and in the early 1990s was virtually destitute- facing widespread malnutrition and economic collapse. It took the Italians, who shipped in tens of thousands of tons of basic food items throughout Albania to save the country. See "Operation Pelican" aid mission.

But the available gains from improving them are probably pretty small, because the kids in those schools are already at least attending some kind of school, getting some kind of exposure to books and reading and smart teachers who want them to learn something.
Actually the factors listed above present a basis for making large improvements. ANd that has occurred historically with both white and black schools over time. Such improvements do not occur overnight. WWI US Army intelligence tests for example show Jews scoring dismally despite centuries of Jewish advantages in learning and literacy, and Jewish immigrants having relatively high levels of literacy.

It would be a *really* good for the country if we knew how to make that better, and that creates a lot of incentive to claim to know how, even if you don't.
Actually we do know how to make it better, including doing such things as removing racist barriers, promoting equality before the law (not really accomplished in America until the 1970s), promoting economies encouraging work and saving, and reducing government interference, confiscatory policies and disincentives. The removal of white Jim Crow blockades and barriers for example was a boon to black Americans, enabling an acceleration of income and education gains- aided by an expanding economy that raised all boats in the post WW2 era. Corrections in internal factors- just as the white Irish slowly reined in their violence, crimiality and substance abuse are also part of the package. In past eras blacks actually did better on such internal factors than before the welfare state implemented by white liberals gained sway.

And numerous policies implemented by said white liberals, supposedly "specially for blacks" are actually designed to help WHITE people. The main beneficiaries of "Affirmative Action" for example are white women.
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1413

Pat says:
Black people don't give to charities.
You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-blacks-donors-idUSTRE81M1WI20120223

Mr Anon says:
What "credible scientists"? Name them. What "hard data"? Show it

I already gave the hard data and names of scientists in the link above, and if I gave more the blog would be filled with more links debunking your claims yet again. But since you asked, let me repeat the link, which you oh so conveniently avoided, and add a few more. You says its all untrue "bullshiit" and "false assertion" but credible scientists as noted below show your claims are false. You really do not know what you are talking about.

original
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2597/templetonracedebunk2003.jpg

Add:
1)
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/239/templeton1humanracesinf.jpg

2)
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2731/templeton2humanracesinf.jpg

"Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communitites of Color" and it is about "Identity-based Philanthropy", i.e. – giving to your own. That's a very different thing than overall charitable giving

^^But even if the above is true, it still debunks the claim. You say:

Black people don't give to charities.

The very information you proffer above shows the original statement is false.

Anon956says:

Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education than Thomas Edison

OK, but do you realize that you are debunking your own assertion above. You originally said:

everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.

But in that you now say the Hispanic immigrants today would have higher incomes, you have in essence falsified your own initial claim.

As for income, how many Poles in 1910 were on government assistance? I guess all that education hasn't really helped the Mexicans of 2013.
But that's the problem with your claim. You have provided little credible to back it up. How many Poles WERE on gubment assistant in 1910 versus Mexicans? You have provided nothing credible to answer your own question. And in 1910, very few Americans were on public assistance, Pole, Mexican or whatever..

The main thing one should look at is that Mexico and the Mexicans have had 103 years to develop since 1910, and what have they created? The exodus of so many Mexicans over the last thirty years tells us not much.

Actually the exodus of Mexicans is nothing unusual for a population with many immigrants, and does not tell us much vis a vis Poles. Some return to Mexico, others stay on. And in fact, Mexicans have progressed significantly in the US economy- from early employment as predominantly farm and railway labor to holding mostly urban occupations. They are very different from 1910. As such they have seen substantial increases in income over the years. Just the process of urbanization renders your claim false. See Sowell (1981) Ethnic America, 245-270

Has nothing to do with being smarter but rather debunking several of your bogus claims. Still waiting for you to show these blacks who never give to charity or why credible scientific data is false "bullshit". What's taking you so long?

As for the Balkans, if you had any inkling of even basic world news you would know that the EU has provided such subsidies under its Structural Funds programs and Common Agricultural Policy.

ANd speaking of inklings, what's taking you so long in providing credible support for your earlier claims?

As such, I do admit that your Mexicans of 2013 have more formal education than Thomas Edison.
Fair enough.

So obviously the Poles of 1910, whom you compared unfavorably to the Mexicans of 2013, were, by your own admission, not dependent upon the gubment (your term).
I didn't compare the Poles unfavorably per se. I questioned the claim that there is no significant difference between Poles of 1910 and Mexicans today. There is a world of difference, and as demonstrated already, the claim is false.

And didn't say Mexicans were not dependent on the gubment. I asked-quote "How many Poles WERE on gubment assistance in 1910 versus Mexicans?" You first broached the question to insinuate that Mexican income is somehow uniquely dependent on government assistance, compared to Poles 1910. If so, what data do you proffer in support of your insinuation? And I again ask- how do you answer your own question?

So why are the high achieving Mexicans of 2013 so dependent upon the government today?
To what extent are high achieving Mexicans dependent on government assistance? Based on what parameters and data?

The mass exodus of Mexicans is not normal
Fair enough- you are asking why so many Mexicans are leaving their homeland to go north. You have to define what "normal" is. In the 19th and 20th century Europe sent tens of millions of migrants to the US in search of land and jobs. To what extent is that immigration "normal" and why would similar Mexican movement be "abnormal"?

a rough guestimate would be that there are approximately 17 million Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, in the USA.
This means more Mexicans have come to the USA as immigrants in the past 3 decades or so as all the combined Germans, Italians and British who ever came here in the first 350 years of English settlement.

Your measurement indices are somewhat shaky and you give no credible source only your own guesstimate, which seems also shaky. Mexican immigration is not extraordinary as to speed or volume. It is surpassed by Italian immigration as to who entered the most over the shortest period. Italians show the most immigration over the shortest period. Here is what one scholar actually says.:
Between 1880 and 1920 more than 4.1 million Italians entered the US. No other ethnic group in the American history sent so many immigrants in such a short time." –Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity …By Roger Daniels 2007: 188

ANd your statistics seem strangely selective. Why do you leave out other white immigrants besides Brits, Germans and Italians? Isn't it a bit of sleight of hand- so as to make the Mexican numbers look excessively huge? A massive number of OTHER white Euros ALSO came to the US, By leaving them out you are also clearly trying to pump up the Mexican bogeyman as "abnormal"..

From original article:
Why is unfettered Darwinism so subversive of the reigning political pieties?

As pointed out- it isn't, for the Left can use Darwinism to bash conservatives, on religious AND scientific grounds.

Thereafter the prestige of evolutionary biology encouraged egalitarians to discard that corny creed of spiritual equality – and to adopt the shiny new scientific hypotheses that humans are physically and mentally uniform.

^^Only thing is, they don't say humans are physically and mentally uniform. Most card carrying liberals do not go around saying African Dinka- who average around 6' or more in height are the same as short, cold-adapted Eskimos, nor do they deny differences in IQ among populations. As Sowell showed long ago- IQ differences are all over the place- northern Italians post higher scores than southern Italians for example. The debate is not on whether there are differences in posted scores on things called IQ tests. All recognize there are and do not "deny" the data. The debate is the causes of the differences, and the exact strength of things called IQ scores to significant life outcomes as compared to other relevant variables, besides IQ scores.

For Darwinism requires hereditary inequalities.
Few Card carrying liberals deny that there are hereditary inequalities. Of course there are. Tall people on the average will tend to do better on the basketball court than short people. Who is going about "denying" this? But things like income level are subject to a lot more complex factors, weighing in more complex ways than the height example- ranging from geography to union membership, to education and many other variables. Liberals have done a service in debunking simplistic right-wing "IQ IS ALL" claims.

The left fears Darwinian science because its dogma of our factual equality cannot survive the relentlessly accumulating evidence of our genetic variability.
Actually "the Left" are big boosters of the concept of genetic variability. Mainstream scholars (lets assume they are all lefty for the sake of argument) have shown for example that the most diverse people in the world- whether as measured by DNA or phenotypic traits like skin color. Far from rejecting or avoiding Darwinism, such variability is right up Darwin's alley.

Gould is reduced to insisting we chant: "Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow: … Human equality is a contingent fact of history"
And Gould, despite weaknesses on other matters still remains correct on the above. Human equality IS contingent on a whole slew of interrelated variables rather than the simplistic "IQ SCORES" meme of many right wingers as the be all and end all of human existence.

. Darwin's great contribution was the precise engine of evolution: selection.
Actually selection is only ONE force in the engine of evolution. As any college sophomore knows, GENETIC DRIFT can play just as strong a part in evolutionary outcomes as selection.

A race is simply an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some degree. In turn, a species is a race that inbreeds virtually exclusively, typically due to reproductive incompatibilities with outsiders.
^^If so, then this is what many "liberals" have said for decades. Humanity has interbred extensively causing a very small proportion of human diversity to be credibly assigned to "race." Many right wingers actually view "race" as almost exclusively interbreeding units with only minor overlap. But this is not how Darwinian evolution has worked. Europeans and Asians are subsets of African diversity and as Cavalli-Sforza showed, Europeans may not be a primary "Race" at all, but a mixed breed, one third African, and two-thirds Asian. (Cavalli-Sforza 2001, Genes, Peoples, and languages)
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/870

Yet, we are also almost endlessly subdividable into partially inbred races, each with recognizable genetic tendencies.
Actually what you say here does not show or define biological "race" at all as in many other mammalian species, but simply a range of human variability. If races as you say are "inbred to some degrees" then Cavalli-Sforza is right- Europeans are a mixed breed- one third African, two-thirds Asian and NOT a primary "race" at all.

To stay one species, we have to be many races.
Not quite actually. To stay one species, we have a range of adaptation over different locales and climes. That doesn’t mean that the species is divided into biological "races" at all.

The more environments we have been selected to adapt to, the more trade-offs selection has had to make. Thus, the more diversity, the more meaningless it is to boast that your group is supreme overall. But the more implausible it also is to expect all groups to be identically favoured in each particular setting or skill — whether it is engineering, charisma, running the 100 metres, or stand-up comedy.
Fair enough, but very few people are running around saying there are just as many 100 meter sprinters of African descent as white 100 meter sprinters. And engineering or sprinting have changed hands over human history. Ancient Egyptians, a tropical African population as credible scholars show, have done pretty well with engineering, an ancient Greeks, a cold-adapted European population did well with Olympic type sprints, marathons and such in antiquity long before any African runners showed up on the European culture area radar.

For example, over the 6,000 or so years that New World Indians have lived 12,000 feet up in the Andes, individuals with genetic variations useful in that harsh environment — e.g., larger lungs — have left more descendents than their less gifted neighbors.

True, but keep in mind that in the birthplace of anatomically modern humanity, Africa, the built in diversity of its peoples, along with its numerous micro-climates means virtually all bases of variability can be covered. Light-skinned, narrow nosed people can be found in sweltering West African savannah, and broad nosed, dark skinned types can be found on high altitude East African mountains. High altitude locales, BUT ALSO deserts themselves can favor peoples with narrower noses, without needing any "race mix" from elsewhere to explain why.

Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck by the contrast between the taciturn, even morose aborigines of South America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."
And here Darwin got it wrong, confusing numerous cultural filters with fixed "racial" characteristics.

Darwin wouldn't be surprised to learn which race had invented rap music.
But Darwin still got it wrong. Rap is a very specialized 20th century form, but the white Irish had something equivalent long before black "gangsta" rappers showed up, with a bawdy, rhyming style filled with profanity. See histories of the white Irish and their use of "flash talk."

Here again, cultural filters are confused with embedded, fixed "racial" characteristics. Documentation on the taciturn Zulu regiments under Chaka does not show any special penchant for merriment or "trash talk" – quite the contrary. Likewise the hard-nosed bowmen of Nubia that barred Islamic expansion in Northeast Africa for centuries show no such "black comedy" leanings. To the contrary their opponents noted their dour demeanour as they took care of business.

Steve Randy Waldman says:

“Marriage promotion” is a destructive cargo cult

Not at all.

————————————– —————
Promoting marriage among this population is not merely ineffective. It is at best ineffective. If the marriage-promoters persuade people to marry despite circumstances that render it likely they will marry poorly, the do-gooders will have done outright harm.

The weakness of this argument is that marriage also works for those not in the more affluent, advantaged class Waldman identifies as best positioned for marriage. Upper and middle class people may agonize as to their choices in marrying up or down, or whether potential mates meet their height requirement (not at all infrequent these days on female 'checklists') or whether the in-laws earn enough money, but those who are stuck with a pool of lower level choices, can within that pool, derive greater benefit from marriage in terms of stability, ability to save for longer term, etc relative to others similarly situated who bounce from one unstable "hookup" to another. Many immigrants demonstrate this all the time, as do some religious minorities, as did many people at lower socio-economic conditions n the past. Every census between 1890 and 1940 for example shows blacks posting higher marriage rates than whites.

————————————– —————

Overcoming peoples’ well-founded misgivings about the quality of potential mates with moral exhortations and clipboards of superficial social science might well destroy lives.

Doubtful. There have ALWAYS been such exhortations- for centuries- indeed they appear in the Bible. But it has usually been the case for centuries that people will balance moral exhortation with practical consideration and/or religious conviction. Marriage promotions schemes or campaigns will not prevent people from doing their own math. The notion of "destroying lives" seems overblown.

————————————– —————

But it would create more tragedies than successes, tragedies that very likely would be blamed on personal deficiencies of the unhappy couple while the successes would be victories for marriage itself in some insane ideological version of the fundamental attribution error.
Again overblown. Marriages always post individual winners and losers. The key question is the aggregate benefits for society and children.

————————————– —————

There is some evidence, for example, that where prevailing social norms prohibit premarital fun stuff and push towards early marriage, people do marry earlier and they marry poorly
The study cited notes that more conservative states like Alabama or Arkansas have more divorces. This may well be so, but it does not necessarily mean that people marry more poorly, nor does it mean that the presence of "conservative religious groups" have any direct bearing on that higher divorce rate. In fact, high levels of less restrained sexual behavior can go hand in hand with conservative local mores. Some mostly Catholic countries have long shown this, as do immigrant groups to the US like the white Irish who posted out-of-wedlock rates higher than blacks in some eras. In fact the authors note: "New answers: early marriage and low income among religious conservatives are part of the story. Unpacking these variations, Glass and Levchak found that the high divorce rate among conservative religious groups is indeed explained in large part by the earlier ages at first marriage and first birth, and the lower educational attainment and lower incomes of conservative Protestant youth."

Marriage promotion schemes typically DISCOURAGE marriage at earlier ages, and DISCOURAGE marriage before SOME basic foundation at economic independence. Very few promotion schemes go about saying- “get married while in yo teens, while you ain't working.”

Steve Randy Waldman says:

Before you get to smiling families, you have to create the material circumstances that render marriage on average a good deal. For poor women in particular, it very often is no longer a good deal.

Fair enough, but if this were the case, then there would be very few marriages on earth. If humans had to wait for good material circumstances Europe or America’s population would be drastically smaller. In fact humans have found marriage, on the balance, not a good enough institution to pursue even when material circumstances are NOT good. Material circumstances do not have to be good- they just have to be good enough on the balance, and said circumstances will change over time. Poor dirt farmers in the Midwest for example, didn’t wait for bountiful crops and overflowing granaries and stables, but went ahead anyway and got married. Over time, their stable societies produced more wealth.

“Waiting for perfection” or overwhelmingly favorable mate choices is one of the downsides of the modern era, as can be seen in the countless dating sites with their “checklists” – from height requirements to how “stylish” potential partners are, to income level requirements. One sees women on these sites for years for example, doggedly reshuffling their checklists and profile pictures, even as their market value drops with each passing month.

————————————– —————
We could bring back norms of shame surrounding single motherhood, or create other kinds of incentives to reduce the nonadoption birth rate of people statistically likely to raise difficult kids. It is possible… I think it would be monstrous.

Why would that be “monstrous?” If said women have bad prospects at finding good mates why should they be encouraged to marry? Most marriage promotion schemes are not blanket endorsements for marriage. They do not say- get married no matter how bad the prospect. It would be hard to find any such credible marriage promotion program that does that.

Women unlikely to marry who wish to have children by all means should. The shame is ours, not theirs. It belongs to those of us who call ourselves “elite”, who are so proud of our “achievements” that we walk away without a care from the majority of our fellow citizens and fellow humans, from people who in other circumstances, even in the not so distant past, would have been our friends and coworkers, lovers and spouses. It’s on us to join together what we have put asunder.

This is naïve, and a call for society to hold out a blank check for people’s whose choices are damaging their own futures. Why should we feel “guilty”, and why should we continue to subsidize what in many cases are bad choices, no questions asked? In fact it is those subsidises in the name of “societal guilt” that might very well INCREASE the amount of bad choices people keep making. A good argument could be made for an affluent society to ensure that none of its citizens starve and that the most vulnerable members, children, at least get a basic floor of support and help. But this is different from saying that society has to keep subsidisng bad
choices.

In much worse times, when the deck was stacked and the game rigged against them, blacks still posted higher marriage rates than whites for 50 years. And as the gay marriage controversy showed, despite huge out-of-wedlock rates, blacks in polls expressed strong support of marriage as the preferred family form. They KNOW alternative arrangements are not as productive. Society should STILL continue to promote traditional marriage, and yes should still do all it can to create or boost an employment situation where men have a chance at finding stable employment rather than promote untrammeled deskilling and outsourcing, or the erosion of incentives to work and save through government policies.

Steve Randy Waldman says:

For poor women in particular, it very often is no longer a good deal.

Yes, but looking at the big picture, when they willfully decide to have even more out-of-wedlock births, even though birth control is cheap and readily available, they simply compound their problems, and that of society in the longer term. Saying “there are no good men, so I am going ahead and having a baby by an unstable loser” – then having a baby with the same lousy prospect, is ultimately self-defeating. One of the things supporting such self-defeating behavior is readily available gubment subsidies that keep adding to the problem.

Why isn't there an all purpose dismissive term for that category of anti-racism/egalitarianism that is constantly seeking to come up with cargo cult like answers to questions sufficiently addressed by HBD? You know, the magical variant of anti-racism (to be distinguished from the people who simply don't like tribalism, don't want to give it momentum by endorsing HBD but aren't out there evangelizing for crackpot cargo cult theories either (like Wise).

Actually "HDB" itself has aspects of a "cargo cult" including numerous bogus assumptions and claims.

Harry Baldwin zez:
I think there was the kernel of a point in that article. Waldman is saying that believing that just getting and staying married will produce the same results that successful middle class people get from doing the same is not necessarily realistic.

Sure, but in some ways Waldman spins a strawman. Everyone knows that mere belief in marriage in no panacea. People have to do more calculating than that- from age, to earning prospects, etc etc. IN fact, "middle class people" are not needed to prove marriage on the aggregate, works (no it is not perfect for everyone). Poor people have proved it long ago- from dirt farmers to slum laborers. Blacks for example up until the mass urbanization movement of WW2, posted higher marriage rates than whites for a period of 50 years (Sowell 1981, 2005).

Bug Bill sez:
The one big difference is that our liberal Great Society grandparents would recoiled in horror and confess to having horrible judgment if they could see today's ~80% black ghetto bastardy rate. The author, on the other hand, is so far gone that he champions black bastardy as an alternative lifestyle which we are all supposed to pay for and enable.
Actually white people are no paragons of "judgment" on bastardy. The white Irish posted higher rates of illegitimacy in various eras than blacks- some 50 percent in some decades (Sowell 1981, 2005). And Waldman is not "championing" black bastardy any more than said white bastardy. In the 19th century whites were not particularly impressive examples of "virtue." Aside from the white Irish, there was white Vienna (46% illegitimacy) and ultra-white Stockholm (49% illegitimacy). In ultra-white Sweden as a whole at the start of the 20th century barely half of Swedish women married and around one-sixth of children were born out of wedlock.

Fast forward several decades and reputed white "role models" remain unimpressive. White Australia in the 1980s weighed in at 35% illegitimacy. (BErger 2006, Burns and Scott 1994). In the early 1980s illegitimacy rates were on the order of 45% in Iceland and Sweden and 40% in Denmark. (Report on Immigrant populations and demographic development in the member states of the Council of Europe. Rinus Penninx, Council of Europe. 1984) By the year 2000, out of wedlock births in "Nordic"white Sweden had reached 53% of all births (Klein 2004) By contrast, as late as 1950 the US black illegitimacy rate stood at 17%, well below that of the touted white Swedish "role models" above. The black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was STILL lower than the 28% posted by US whites in 2000.

peter says
I suggest we outsource any of Greenspan's speaker appearances immediately.
Co-sign!

RR said
@Grey Enlightenment,

..what makes you think the skill shortage (which would really be an intelligence shortage) would be met by importing foreigners? Most of the high tech immigrants who come here have fairly mediocre intellects. They just work for less.

Who says they are only "mediocre intellects?" Actually given declines in US education, immigrants in many cases are BETTER prepared and more disciplined than Americans. Its not merely the simplistic "cheap labor." The skill visas are precisely because many immigrants, on the average, post BETTER metrics in preparation, motivation and training than readily US workers, on the average. This is why some companies for example will hire immigrant Indian network analysts over an American – not simply due to "cheap" labor, but the Indians likely will show up at the door ALREADY holding several industry standard certifications, and ALREADY having some relevant work experience. Unless the US moves to improve the preparation and discipline end of its workforce outsiders will retain an advantage that creates demand for them..

And if we changed our immigration laws to only allow the truly super smart to immigrate here, how do we maintain control of the country? Or would that matter to you?
^Why would super smart Indian or Russian immigrant workers be a threat to "control of the country"? What mystical powers would they step off the boat and deploy thereby? Do you have any concrete examples as to how control will be lost?

Grey Enlightenment said…

But if more high tech immigration isn't allowed and retraining the workforce isn't feasible due to limitations of IQ, that means economic regression is the only outcome. We cannot have it both ways. If we're IQ realists we have to accept the majority of unemployed Americans won't be able to meet the increasing cognitive demands of work, leaving immigration as the only alternative to fill the skill shortage.

Who says we can't retrain US workers? We can, provided there is enough hard-nosed leadership to see through the job,- from elementary and secondary to improved vocational training, like the rigorous German model. We have thousands of military veterans that would benefit from good training programs as well. Who says "limitations on IQ" would prevent our vets from that retraining?

Let's say only one American has the qualifications but charges six figures but you found an Indian that will do it for five. You can verify both will produce the same quality of work. If you have only five figures in your budget, what choice do you have? The American can do it for five figures and have the job, but it's not worth his effort and he will work elsewhere.
^^OK fair enough, but WHY doesn't the American want to take the job for 5 figures? Inflated union wages/benefits and cumbersome work rules could be one reason hindering American competitiveness, but what else?

ANON535 says
Secondary education in the US has, indeed, deteriorated. Because it is 100% focussed on narrowing the white/black achievement gap. So all the resources go to where they will do the least good

^Laughable. "100 %" of secondary education is not geared towards reducing the black-white gap. Most secondary school expenditures benefit white students and the highest per capita secondary school expenditures in in white school zones.

ben tillman says
if your cost of goods (or services) sold is greater than the market price, you are misallocating assets. You are proposing to waste a coder's skills on something the market says he should not be doing. And you want the government to force us to subsidize this.

But Grey Enlightmnt's beginning scenario assumes that the lower wages paid the Indians would enable his prices to be quite competitive, not greater than the market price. And how are the coder's skills wasted? If the proud white American coder can get the contract but refuses to work for the lower wage then the problem lies with the proud American worker, not the company. The company isn't wasting his skills. And who says the government would be subsidizing anything? If the white guy refuses to work, but others are willing, that's free markets at work. The white guy is free to move on and seek a higher wage. The Indian guy is free to get the contract and earn the money on the table. The scenario says the American decides the job is not worth his effort. Fine. Move on then and let someone else do the work.

Cail says:
Why should you get something that costs six figures in this country for five figures, just because that's what your budget says? I
The cost differential has nothing to do with his budget. He may have an annual budget for a certain project and has to keep within that. To stay under budget he has to seek that cheaper alternative. Nothing in his scenario suggests he feels he is "entitled" to anything. Your own example makes his case. If you have $5 to spend- you aint gonna eat steak and lobster, and in most cases DO NOT EXPECT OR FEEL ENTITLED TO steak and lobster. No "entitlement" appears in his scenario.

Your choice, in other words, is the same as if the cheap Indian genius didn't exist (and he probably doesn't): either find a way to increase your programming budget to attract an American or cancel the project. Just as businessmen and project managers and homeowners have been doing with their budgets forever.
Actually those cheap (relatively speaking) Indian geniuses exist- why is why many are still in demand on those Visas. And why would Grey be limited to 2 choices, spend more or quit? In fact Grey has a THIRD option- seek a cheaper alternative. This is what businessmen and project managers and homeowners have been doing with their budgets forever.

Cail says:
If we as a society need a widget, and it costs $100K to make the widget but we're only willing to pay $10K for it, then it turns out we don't need the widget very badly, doesn't it? Same thing applies to labor. If your terribly important research will only support paying five figures and no American will do it for that, then it can't be all that important, and we'll all get by somehow anyway.

This makes little sense. You are saying if society finds the initial price too high, then it should just quit. But this is not how economies run in the real world. If an initial price is too high, society doesn't just give up. It seeks alternatives, like cheaper ways of getting the desired good or service and this includes such options as using cheaper labor inputs. When bloated union costs were making US autos very expensive, consumers just didn't give up and take it. No, they sought out cheaper foreign alternatives that in many cases had equal or better quality. US automakers had to innovate and become competitive as a result, and make their prices more competitive. No society merely quits because an initial price look unfavorable.

iStevefan says:
Unfortunately the GOP will continue to push the five I’s: Immigration, Intervention, Income taxes, International (free) trade & Israel. Unfortunately those issues don’t matter or help the average white voter.
—————————
Actually the “five I’s” can work very nicely to the benefit of the average white voter.

IMMIGRATION- Immigration is not only negative. Low wage Mexican laborers expand output, and furnish cheaper goods and services for those white voters, and based on some scholarly studies, said Mexicans contribute more in tax overall than they take out in public services. The surplus is pocketed by whites.

INTERVENTION- Here again, who says white voters are “suffering”? They benefit quite well from government programs- from military spending in the south, to sweetheart contracts set up with whit unions, to well entrenched well funded mostly white educational bureaucracies, to the army of white bureaucrats and miscellaneous processors of paper that administer said interventions In fact in states. Right wingers can’t seem to understand that their stream of railing propaganda against “the coloreds” misses the real story- the average white voter LIKES government largesse- they benefit in numerous ways. This is why white liberals keep cleaning up at the polls. They understand such things.

INCOME TAXES- Again, who says the average white voter is mired in a vale of suffering? White voters get the benefit of numerous tax breaks, including one of the most favorable for years- mortgage interest deduction. They also gain from other things- EIC, various deductions etc. Again, white liberals understand this better than assorted rightists.

INTERNATIONAL (FREE trade)- Again, lower prices for goods and services are a boon to the average white voter- just ask Walmart, and its white shoppers, and just ask all those white buyers of foreign made or foreign company owned cars, or who enjoy electronic devices of foreign made parts origin. Free trade also boosts income in numerous other sectors of the economy- just ask all those white retailers who make a living from cheaper goods, sometimes better quality goods, of foreign origin. Actually the average white voter loves free trade. Right wingers still haven’t figured this out yet.

ISRAEL- The irony here is that the Zionist project called today’s “Israel” is a favorite project of CONSERVATIVE white voters. And white the US has been mired in the Middle East morass for decades, it has done so for its own reasons- such as securing cheap supplies of oil- a commodity beloved by white voters. Israel has been a liability at times, but also an asset- a handy proxy club against those pesky Arabs. Strategically the US has benefited numerous times because of Israel in the Middle East and that benefit translates into cheap fuel for the US white voter.

In short, the “five I’s” matter very much to the average white voter and he/she as directly benefited as a result.

Having waded thru the “heriditarian” blogsphere/web sphere the last year I notice that Ron Unz is persona non-grata in several places for his excellent ( and balanced) review of Lynn and VanHaven, who are treated as virtual gods by many of the faithful. Unz’s analysis has revealed shaky feet of clay however, and he refused to take the easy way out- letting the chips fall where the data led. I would argue that Unz has shown more courage in his forthright and accurate analysis than the many self-styled claims of “bucking conventional wisdom” when critiquing some obviously flawed aspect of liberalism. Too often such claims also themselves construct a series of strawmen- such as “liberals deny group differences in performance ” etc- a tiresome insult to the intelligence, that just smacks of propaganda boilerplate.

It should be noted that other critiques of Lynn and Vanhaven show their lack of current knowledge of many anthropological issues. They hold for example that Africans should have been able to domesticate buffalo, sorghum, millet and rice but were simply too lazy to do it. As one reviewer on Mises.org dryly notes African water buffalo are one of the most dangerous and unpredictable large mammals in Africa (unlike the relatively docile Asian genus used in rice cultivation and other applications) and that, contrary to Lynn and VanHaven, Africans DID domesticate such grains as sorghum, millet, etc along with numerous others. Lynn and VanHaven’s claim that “they did not put enough effort into it” smacks not merely of ignorance of current data, but per the reviewer, “nothing more than anti-black propaganda.” And this is indeed the case in much of the “heriditarian” blogsphere- the whiff of the racial curmudgeon- that undermines its credibility.

Per the Mises critique, Lynn and Vanhanen are also guilty of positing “heredity” and “the environment” as completely independent variables… the reality is that they are inseparable sides of a single coin: changing environmental conditions deeply impact genetic developments, just as organisms with novel adaptations alter their own surroundings.

Unz does not address another point- namely the laughably weak Lynn/VanHaven contention that “cold climate challenges” in Europe and Asia produced high IQs in the contemporary era. In fact the foundational civilizations arose in areas that were tropical or semi-tropical- from Mesopotamia, to India to Egypt. Egypt for example, has about 20% of its territory in the tropical zone and its founders came from the tropical south as credible mainstream scholarship since the 1980s shows. Lynn and vanHaven are simply clueless about such things, though numerous published studies were in place for them to access.

Other weaknesses show- the allegedly “retardation level” scores of Africans, when in fact the data used by Lynn and vanHaven to come to this sweeping conclusion is deeply flawed, piecemeal and obsolete. There are many other points that can be addressed but Unz has covered most of them. He has done a service by an unflinching analysis, and willingness to actually dig into the numbers and statistics being claimed as sublime “truth”, something many in this area do not seem willing to do, despite self-styled claims of “courage.”

When schools reopen this fall, demographic changes will have tipped the balance to nonwhite students.
———————-

^^So what? Demographics happen, hard as this is for liberals to believe. In various eras and places of American history, demographics also ousted sturdy WASP stock and replaced them with violent, oft drunken Irish Catholics, but America survived. Populations are not static they change. Get over it liberals. In any event, white people are already safely ensconced in overall white majority schools, or within mixed schools, on tracks that are heavily white. So why all the whining and crying from liberals?

Christopher Caldwell famously said:
“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”
—————————-
^^Indeed, and that may be because the main beneficiaries of Affirmative action are white women.

When schools reopen this fall, demographic changes will have tipped the balance to nonwhite students.
———————-

^^Hardly an earth-shattering crisis. Demographics happen, hard as this is for liberals to believe. In various eras and places of American history, demographics also ousted sturdy WASP stock and replaced them with violent, oft drunken Irish Catholics, but America survived. Populations are not static they change. In any event, white people are already safely ensconced in overall white majority schools, or within mixed schools, on tracks that are heavily white.

Christopher Caldwell famously said:
“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”
—————————-
^^Indeed, and that may be because the main beneficiaries of Affirmative action are white women.

They went and replaced boring vanilla white bread student bodies with vibrant diversity and we ought to get down on our knees and thank them for it everyday.
———————–
^Actually this is only partially the case. There has always been diversity within school districts. The segregated ones had their black, yellow and brown schools and their white schools -from California to Mississippi- all within single districts. Whites benefited nicely at times – pocketing taxes paid by the minorities and fobbing them off with inferior facilities. When desegregation came, numerous segregated schools were closed, faculties fired or downgraded, allowing onies spent and slots once located in those institutions to be transferred to more centralized white control/ Even more bountiful, the 1960s saw more federal funding put in the grasp of white run school boards, including “magnet school” funding where minority numbers were deliberately held DOWN in favor of whites (See Divided We Fall, 2013, by Sarah Garland). Far from “diversity” being a vale of tears, the white educational establishment made out quite handsomely via increased federal funding to education in the 1960s. As Thomas Sowell once famously observed- “the poor are a goldmine” for allegedly “concerned” to exploit for their own self-serving agendas.

But even within this pattern there were always mixed schools in America. In California for example as far back as the 19th century, Asian, Indian, Black and White kids attended the same schools in some districts. Indeed, it is documented that white teachers often commented favorably on Asian discipline and work, compared to the whites. This was of course before California went on its anti-Asian binge, including mass murder of innocent Chinese by white mobs. Men like Jackie Robinson and hard-nosed football later tough-guy actor Woody Strode are products of an integrated California education system, as is Jesse Owens who won glory for the US at the Olympics. Schools with different ethnicities are nothing new in America, and those with all white groups have themselves produced massive violence, lack of work ethic, low standards etc. As Michael Barone shows on this excellent book (2001) The New Americans, the white Irish themselves produced crime rates exceeding Black Americans in some eras, and had their own negative version of “acting white”- disparaging those Irish students that achieved in school.

PS Owens was out of Ohio State

Joe says:
Wow! only four comments! This is an eye opening essay.
—————————–

Of course. Unz is a serious analyst who eschews cheap red meat bait re “the yellow peril”- the kind that builds easy comment counts elsewhere.
—————————————–

People who complain about the way-things-are-now are party p0opers and impolite. The first media approved reaction is to scoff and then shun them.

^^Indeed so on some counts, in some mainstream media and academia, unless the compaints are along approved liberal lines.
—————————————–

But generally the major league sports of baseball, football and basketball are THE only thing you can talk about publicly, on which you can safely agree. The racial divisions we have created with our blessed multiculturalism, have starkly different interests and the differences are too real in the workplace to discuss them so we all act like Putnam’s turtles and talk NFL training camp lingo.
——————————-

^Rather a stretch. No one has muzzled right wingers from speaking out, as the torrent of books, articles, blogs, tweets, web sites, talk radio venues and even Fox News reporting shows. Workplaces are/were never ideal places to discuss politics anyway- as workers who have offended their bosses on some political position can attest. Water cooler chat as a realistic metric is rather problematic. Also keep in mind that “racial divisions” were in place in America and prospering at a healthy clip long before the multi-culti fads of the 1980s and 1990s. Racial divisions have been in place since the start of US history- they are not something created recently. Actually they are somewhat less now than in the past.
———————————-

RON UNZ says:
But if so, then we must admit that Richard Lynn, a prominent British scholar, has been correct in predicting for a decade or longer that the global dominance of the European-derived peoples is rapidly drawing to its end and within the foreseeable future the torch of human progress and world leadership will inevitably pass into Chinese hands.

Two points.
Yes that global dominance is declining but this does not mean China automatically assumes the reins. In fact as your article itself points out, China has several structural weaknesses and demographic ones too. Then there is China’s reliance on trade with European/Euro-derived nations. If this collapses, so does a huge chunk of Chinese wealth and/or growth, particularly their export sector. European decline thus may also be accompanied by Chinese decline in the long run.

Second, the torch of human progress is only one side of the coin. There are also the depths of human depravity and filth pioneered or expanded by Europeans- as Stalin’s Holodomor, Hitler’s Shoah, the destructive burdens of Marxism, the burgeoning child porn production of Europe, “gay” marriage, and other assorted evils in between. The era of fulsome European dominance produced 2 massively destructive world wars and countless other smaller conflicts in the 20th century. Backtrack before that and European hegemony has a very mixed record- new medicine for the natives in some places, but genocide too, and so on. The European record, like that of other peoples, is a mixed one that is hardly a beacon of human progress or “role model” of moral goodness when the total picture is looked at.

RON UNZ ssid:
“Given the American realities of the last dozen years, it is quite remarkable that the scholars who wrote a book entitled Why Nations Fail never glanced outside their own office windows.”

^Another excellent, unflinching analysis…

Unz’s thesis is well buttressed by the economic and historical data of conservative Thomas Sowell and others as to the process of urbanization. Hence blacks more heavily urbanized, even within just the south, post higher incomes, IQs and other such metrics than their rural counterparts. Such data have been around a long time. It is telling that they are so often ignored or waved away in the knee jerk rush to condemn Unz because he does not hew to the racialist party line of “the faithful.” See Sowell’s 1970s ‘Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups” just for starters. Kudos to Unz for letting the data speak for themselves, unpopular as this may be. And they do speak, undermining the all too sweeping, even messianic pronouncements of those claiming to know “the truth.”

Unz wonders why the ostrich like hiding by liberal types at hard evidence debunking cherished “truths” of the heriditarian faithful. He is right in part to point to liberal fear that their HBD opponents might be right after all, so they bury their heads in the sand. This would suggest a certain element of liberal hypocrisy.- a topic several black spokesmen like Malcolm X have addressed.

Another possibility is that while the “HBD” school has a vigorous amen corner, liberals may consider it marginal and irrelevant because they already share standard HBD assumptions of “lesser breeds” and so on tacitly. They see no need to keep beating a dead horse publicly, see no need to maintain some sort of public master race posture (thus sparking draining battles as minorities push back), and do not want to openly appear harsh, racist or mean-spirited.They need to maintain that more virtuous than thou posture. (They could of course point to IQ patterns indicating liberals are smarter than duller right-wingers as well, per the data of Kanazawa et al)

Another bonus of a reputedly more ‘caring’ posture is that engagement with minority stalking horses provide excellent fodder for liberal agendas. Hence black civil rights memes can be pressed into service to advance gay agendas . Interestingly, gays themselves also posting better IQ metrics per assorted HBD data.

In short the ostrich approach may yield a further two-fer:
1-that more virtuous than thou – posture contrasted against the sneering, racist HBd brigades, and

2- with the posture established, flexibility in manipulating various social issues to further their agendas (socialist/leftist/anti-traditional values/whatever)

A final possibility os that there is already plenty of debunking of Lynn, Vanhanen and assorted HBD claims but such debunking is heavily focused in academia- from race, to anthropology to IQ specialists. There is noa shortage of academics who have exposed deep holes in the HBD narrative. Wicherts for example referenced above is just one example. Oubre 2007 in her 2 volume set is another. Then there are the legions of modern anthropologists blowing deep holes in assorted HBD “truths” such as reputed “wandering Caucasoids” flitting about the ancient African continent to bring the natives civilization. Many such HBD narratives, oft declared with messianic fervor, are frankly, laughable, when credible scholars with hard evidence are brought to bear. With all that in place, the mainstream media is lazy and does not want to address what may be quite technical details. It may be easier to ignore it since the heavy damage has already been done by academics. This lazy approach, as Unz notes however, concedes the field, at least in popular arenas to the racialist brigades.

Are you still on your anti-black kick? Where you have to turn everyone’s
blog post into your own little paranoid “Two Minutes of Hate”? You can’t
even keep your bogus propaganda straight between posts on different sites.
Was the Taco Bell burned down as you ay here, or had windows smashed?
Which is it? Don’t you at least try to make your propaganda consistent across
websites?

UNZ says:
Although these signatories may be credible experts in their own scientific fields, their participation revealed themselves to be total laughingstocks as public intellectuals, demonstrating that they had not even bothered to read the book they were so harshly condemning.

This is dubious. There have been several credible, highly detailed, in-depth reviews of Wade’s book, with several weaknesses, and shaky claims pointed out and debunked on the scientific merits. Why on earth do those scientists have to read the book in its entirety to “validate” any negative views they have? How many conservatives have actually read Marx’s sprawling “Das Kapital” – a massive multi-volume work extending hundreds of pages to be able to critique it? Saying “you have to read the book” is a weak argument, especially when there’s no shortage of detailed analyses.

One of their central charges against Wade was that he had claimed that worldwide differences in IQ test results were due to recent natural selection and largely caused by genetic differences. Yet as Wade has now pointed out, he had actually made exactly the opposite suggestion, noting on pp. 192-3 of his book the strong evidence that large differences in worldwide IQ may be caused by environmental factors such as wealth and education, with changes in those conditions sometimes causing relative IQ rises of 10 or 15 points within just a single generation or so.

Not quite. Actually the main issue for the critics n the letter was that Wade was MISREPRESENTING their research to support his speculation. They state just that- quote:

“Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.”

To say that the critics charge Wade with saying “worldwide differences in IQ test results were due to recent natural selection” is a strawman. And in his book, Wade engages precisely in such speculation.

Therefore, I find it very odd that his most strident critics apparently have not bothered to carefully read the book they were attacking.

It is odd, that busy experts in their field should take time out to read numerous speculations by a non-scientist, many of them questionable, when there is no shortage of detailed analyses and summaries of such speculation done by other scientists.

One might suspect that the organizers of the vilification campaign perhaps quietly feared that Wade’s views were likely correct and that reading his persuasive book might reduce their zeal in criticizing it, much like the timorous ideological opponents of Richard Lynn had for years avoiding his writings, thereby failing to notice that he had scored a game-ending own-goal against his IQ-determinist theories.

This is a dubious stretch. Actually they have no such “quiet fear.” What they fear is the raft of misrepresentations, distortions and unsubstantiated speculation being passed off as science, and even worse, speculations and claims misrepresented as being support by their work. And Richard Lynn has no end of critics who debunk his claims on the merits. Indeed, Unz himself quotes a few in his review of Lynn’s work. Far from “timorously” avoiding his work, it has been debunked on numerous occasions using hard scholarship. See for example:
Wicherts, J. M., et al. Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C. Personality and Individual Differences (2009), SCIENCE

Lynn’s own goals have long been noted in academia Its the mainstream press and mainstream blogsphere that for the large part has failed to notice such.

Andrea says:
The real problem with blacks in the US has much more to do with physical and emotional differences than IQ differences. Fear of blackness has to do with black thuggery and aggression than with lower black IQ. The black problem has to do with the fact that blacks are bigger, more muscular, and more aggressive. Black aggressiveness is made all the more aggressive since they know they can push around other races who are afraid of blacks. Blacks know they can whup the asses of all other races combined.
————————————

Glad you can share your laughable “anthropology model.” But carry on..

“Black aggressiveness is made all the more aggressive since they know they can push around other races who are afraid of blacks. ”

^^Repetition obviously works… lol.. But perchance peaceable white people would be “role models” of “non-violence.” Just ask six millions Jews murdered by such “peacable” folk, or the additional tens of millions murdered by white Josef Stalin during his Holodomor.

UNZ says:
In that long analysis and the series of a dozen or more columns that followed, I had provided the overwhelming empirical evidence against what I termed “the Strong IQ Hypothesis”

Indeed this is so.

Wonder says:
the truth is that most people of all races can lead a good prosperous life – IF – they live in productive non-coercive mostly private culture.
But where has any such culture existed? And can’t people under authoritarian governments live good, prosperous lives? Germans have long done it- since the 1800s, and prior to WW2.

Jason says:
The problem is, in order to have a fairly free society with private property, you have to have the right population to begin with . You need a majority that is capable of sustaining such a thing. You can’t establish and maintain the political system you recommend with most populations on earth. That requires a general IQ that is fairly decent as well as some traits that appear to be at least somewhat genetic. When we look around at the last 10,000 years, there is really only one race that has ever created such free, non-coercive societies, at least occasionally.

Actually it is an open question whether whites have produced such a society. It took until almost the 1970s for white America to finally get around to allowing certain darker citizens to vote, or get a hamburger or motel room someplace without legal harassment, or marrying the person of their choice without being jailed as “criminals,” or exercising their right to buy and dispose of private property freely without government restriction or private agenda acting under cover and color of government law. And since when have whites created non-coercive societies? American society has never ceased being coercive in certain ways, In fact, this is something white conservatives complain bitterly about- how coercive white run government impinges on white freedom. They forecast this coercion to get even worse in the future. Even the famous Sweden Nordic “role model” has run a fairly coercive tax and regulatory regime for decades.

HAROLD SAYS:
Blacks are actually shorter than whites on average, especially Germanic whites.
But to repeat, what is absolutely certain according to every study: Whites are taller than blacks.

What is absolutely certain is that you are wrong. The various studies depend on the sampling scheme and sub-population. Certain sub-populations of blacks like the Dinka are actually the tallest people in the world, surpassing even the Dutch. Dinka height statistics are often cited from the 1960s, but this ignores
much improved nutritional conditions overall for East Africans since then. Stats in the 1990s drew from
impoverished hungry people in refugee camps, hardly a representative full snapshot of the Dinka population. Just as Europeans are not sitting still, neither are Africans ROgers and Bainbridge cited almost 6 feet for the Dinka in 1963, but scholars Eveleth and Tanner using a broader dataset, and Floud et al, report measurements that place the Dinka taller than other populations. And these measurements increase in favorable health and nutritional conditions which are much improved for the Dinka overall since 1963

^ D. F. Roberts, D. R. Bainbridge: Nilotic physique. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1963, p. 341-370

“..but there seems to be a consistent pattern in all three groups.. Children of African stock are more advanced in growth at all ages than European children unless their growth has been restricted by environmental factors, and it therefore seems likely that infection would have been the main factor responsible for this slowing down in height growth..”
–Floud et al 1990 Health, Health and History

Peter says:
“a game-ending own-goal”.
That’s over the top and triumphalist, Mr. Unz. The data he collected might show what Lynn believes, it might show the opposite of what Lynn believes or it might be inconclusive. I think you yourself said that your findings don’t seem to apply to Asians. Lynn’s data isn’t a “game-ending own-goal.”
Peter Frost has done a good job explaining why mining historic data from disparate studies is problematic compared with better controlled studies like sibling studies, twin studies, etc.
————————– ——–

Unz is correct and he is not being “triumphal” at all. He is just stating the facts, and is backed up by numerous analyses in academia debunking Lynn. See Wicherts reference above for example. Unz’s singular contribution is his clear exposition of the facts (as opposed to heavy academic specialist jargon) and how he bolsters his conclusions with solid data. His analysis loses nothing because of its readability.

Likewise the Asian example does not undermine Unz. East Asians have benefited from several environmental factors- including a beneficial East-West climate axis, and favorable transportation axes (Diamond 1997. The fundamental peopling of China from the allegedly “slower” tropical south (Hong Shi, et al 2008, Chu et al 1998) also undermines so-called “cold climate challenge” notions. China despite lower socio-economic metrics like wealth AT PRESENT compared to lower IQ European areas with higher wealth, China for millennia in the past, until recent centuries was the most advanced technological nation on earth that as late as 1830, despite a fall-off, still produced about one-third of global economic output. So in THE PAST, China was the pace-setting “First World.” Genetics always is in the mix because socio-economic/enviro factors also influence genes. In any event, socio-economic/enviro influences have nor disappeared at all, and can well account for East Asians/areas under heavy Chinese influence/Chinese IQ still maintaining their level about that of some other more prosperous Europeans. And controlled studies are bound by limited samples, and starting assumptions and definitions of the study executors. If some fail to jibe with well established historic data only illustrates their limitations.

Wonder says:
To their shame, the liberal elite use our animal emotions and fears to gain power over us – they promote hate – they divide us, pitting us against each other, thus using our fears to gain political power. The argument against them is not more biological genetic separation – it is to take a step up in human attainment. It is to reach above to a higher plane of organization then biological DNA organization. That plane is the intellectual idealism found in private Christian Western philosophy. That is the only place where a measure of peace, freedom, and prosperity has been attained.

How is liberal use of animal emotion and fear any different from hereditarian use of “animal emotion and fear”- including the snarling racist hate that lies just below the seemingly polite surface of some hereditarian types and groups? How are the violent screeds of right wingers that indeed “promote hate” any different? And as for “dividing us and pitting us against one another” this is standard modus operandi for the Gobbel-like propagandists of other hereditarian types. The greatest divider of white people for all time wasn’t a “liberal” but a very race conscious white right winger- an ex-corporal named Schickelgruber. He was responsible for the violent deaths of about 30 million white people, about a third of them children. An estimated 11 to 17 million civilians died as a direct or indirect result of Schickelgruber’s ideological policies, including the systematic genocide of around 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, along with a further 5 to 6 million ethnic Poles and other Slavs (including Ukrainians and Belarusians—Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups.

And how exactly will the “the intellectual idealism found in private Christian Western philosophy” defeat liberalism? In fact, Christian Western philosophy is roundly mocked by some hereditarians as the province of weaklings. The ex-corporal Schickelgruber indeed dismissed much of Christian philosophy as a product of “Jewish fables.” And numerous followers of said “Christian Western philosophy” went to war to preserve their right to keep millions in vicious human bondage. There were others that opposed such bondage- they were the “liberals” of the day – the Christian abolitionists- and they were scorned and mocked as weaklings. Indeed scholar Mark Noll’s book- The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (2006) demonstrates that few people listened to Abolitionist arguments against racism, even though they invoked Biblical principle. How does your approach propose to turn back the well established disdain of NON-LIBERALS for Christian Western philosophy?

And how is “private” supposed to solve anything? In politics and even in religion, the private sphere is buttressed and closely interlinked with the public. Hence southern white preachers defending slavery embraced state power, as did segregationists of numerous stripes. Alleged boosters of “free markets” oft became sudden non-boosters when it appeared designated race enemies like blacks might actually get a chance to exercise THEIR free market rights and transactions. Hence despite talking a good game about government non-interference and private property rights, the same talkers moved to invoke and involve state power to bar blacks from real estate free market transactions, and from alleged “across the board” government financing of such transactions.

In more personal matters, boosters of “private” Christian philosophy welcomed state power deployed to break up interracial marriages – thus Mildred Loving and her husband Richard found their home invaded by police at 2am and they were arrested and thrown in jail for the “crime” of marriage. Many boosters of private Christian philosophy hailed this use of state power to disrupt or destroy private matters. The presiding judge was a genuine southerner and a religious man and he heartily endorsed the use of state power (and divine inspiration) – invoking almighty God as a primary endorsement in his ruling, along with state law.

Note as regards the IR marriage case cited above, the Lovings never asked for anything extra- no special favors, no unprecedented redefinitions of marriage, but equal treatment- and it should be noted that IR marriages were in several states during the colonial era, perfectly LEGAL, until PUBLIC, state power stepped in to destroy action in that private sphere. The introduction of public power to disrupt a once legal, intimate private transaction was hailed by many Christians at the time.

So based on the above, how does your approach propose to turn back the well established disdain of NON-LIBERALS for Christian Western philsosphy, and how does your approach propose to overcome the well documented disdain among promoters of Christian Western philosophy for such things as simple fairness and justice? For what was once legal and normal? Be SPECIFIC and concrete as to your approach in your reply, if you will.

Conservative organizations have done similar things to HBD scholars but it is not necessarily because of mere discussion of IQ disparities between ethnic groups. Everyone knows there are IQ disparities. Who doesn’t know that Asians have greater IQ scores than whites for example or blacks lower? This fact has been booted about popular culture for decades. It is no secret. Everyone knows. There is no need to “muzzle” anyone. The central issues relate not to the fact of disparities but the relative weights of environment versus genetic causes, along with various other technical issues. The issue is complex. What conservative organizations are wary about is the simplistic claims emanating from many HBDers, announced so often with evangelical certainty as if only they have discovered “the truth.”

Is it really “the truth” that “evolution” circa 40,000BC “selected” for “Caucasoids” that would in say 1982 yield a particular IQ score? How come scholars see some Cro-magnon “Caucasoids” in that ancient era (Holliday 2010, Trinkhaus 2005et al) as more like today’s Africans, based on their tropical limb indices or cranial data rather than today’s white Europeans? What happened to the alleged ‘Caucasoid” “evolution?” Or others that dismiss the “truth” using hard data as “anthropological folklore”? (Brace 2005). Is it really “the truth” that testosterone is responsible for the alleged “tendency” for blacks to be violence, but somehow, conveniently mysteriously exempts lower testosterone whites and Asians like Adolf Hitler, or Ghenghis Khan, whose body counts number in the tens of millions? Conservative organizations have been blindsided time and time again by dubious HBD claims that undermine their credibility. Even worse is when these claims are advanced with such fervor and turn out to be not all they were advertised to be, and gave liberals a enjoyable field day of mockery and criticism.

Conservative organizations are also wary of the racist wing of HBD, which is not far away from more polite venues, formats and spokesmen. Time and time again they have been embarrassed by people they have supported and committed to, and racist wing-nuts come out of the closet either directly or by clear association. Again, over and above the specific personality, the embarrassment was a joy to liberals who exploited it to the hilt. On top of all this is the personal conduct of HBD sympathizers and supporters. Pundit Dinesh Dsouza while hailed as a defender of Christian morality, self-destructed as president of conservative Kings College by what appeared to be an adulterous relationship for example.

Claims of “political correctness” or “persecution” wear thin and appear increasingly self-serving when conservative entities keep taking multiple hits and embarassments on these counts.

The white suburbs in Detroit are full of people working government jobs and quasi-government jobs in healthcare and education and assorted nonprofits.

UnReal Woman are you saying part of the problem is unproductive social spending being consumed by white workers? Why would this be a problem? Teachers Unions are mostly white and consume a huge amount of local budgets, but remember that those dedicated workers are ensuring that children get a decent education.

Why would what the white teens do be a problem?

More and more anthropologists are taking a closer look at what happened just before the advent of farming, a period called the “Broad Spectrum Revolution”:

Fair enough.

But is that the whole story? Was farming the trigger for this chain of events?

Of course a farming “revolution” does not explain everything, and farming had to have its antecedents. It did not arise out of thin air obviously. Hence in the ancient Nile Valley a foraging, plant protection and herding culture preceded and worked parallel with agriculture before agriculture became dominant.

The Austronesian advantage seems to have been threefold: (1) a more flexible and innovative approach; (2) a less present-oriented time orientation that extended further into the past and the future; and (3) a less individualistic approach to life that made collective goods and goals more possible.

None of the above means farming was not a key component. Was farming the ONLy factor? Of course not- agreed. An entire cultural package is at work including economic and subsistence systems. As already noted there were MIXED farming foraging regimes as part of the package. The innovative approach is not at all incompatible with early farmers, and had to be used in successful farming. Less present time orientation applied in the modern sense is a bit dubious. A drive to found new settlements could just as well be driven by climate change, personal and group conflict and disease vectors, rather than any present time driven orientation. Collectivism likewise seems a stretch as a significant reason for the expansion.

We associate the dawn of civilization with a shift toward future time orientation and a resulting complexification of technology, yet this shift seems to have first begun among hunter-gatherers of the sub-Arctic, where the yearly cycle required development of technologies for storage, meat refrigeration, and heat conservation, as well as other means to collect unpredictable and widely dispersed resources. This ‘first industrial revolution’ pre-adapted early modern humans for later cultural developments in places farther south.

Things like “future time orientation” seem a stretch as far as a highly significant influence. Other factors like environmental change, or interpersonal/intergroup conflict can drive movement just as easily. In the tropical Nile Valley of southern Egypt and nearby regions the Badarians, who cluster with other tropical Africans in scholarly analyses of population affinity, ran a productive mixed economy and for their era, produced one of the highest population densities in the world (Pinhasi 2011). They did not need cold storage pre-planning and such.

And it is an open question whether non-tropical environments have unpredictable and widely dispersed resources. To the contrary the rich resource base of Europe from numerous aquatic resources in lakes and rivers, to equally rich plant and animal species made food resourcing quite stable and predictable. Lewin 1988 (In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 196-199) shows that far back in the European past, massive parts of Western Europe such as France enjoyed rich environmental conditions with numerous wild species to hunt- quote: “the Upper Paleolithic people of Western Europe probably enjoyed a greater degree of social-complexity than is projected by the simplistic hunter-gatherer model. They had a rich diversity of resources, and a high degree of stability and predictability of these resources year to year.” And not only animals but the wild ancestors of key food crops were in places such as chickpeas and wheat-like variants of spelt, etc. Even the far north, places like Sweden’s Iron Gates zone had rich lake and river fishing resources- amply supporting population. Nor were resources necessarily dispersed where peoples could not get to them. Indeed the many navigable waterways of Europe and other temperate regions FACILITATE communication, in contrast to many parts of Africa with sandbar, waterfall and cataract clogged rivers.

Overall I would agree that time orientation, etc played a part. Whether it is as dominant or significant as some people claim, remains an open question.

Terry says:
To me Blench leaves out a fourth factor, so important that it probably should be number 1. The ‘original’ Austronesians appear to have been the first group able to cross the Taiwan Strait. In other words they had developed a greatly improved boating technology. This allowed greater mobility, and would explain every other aspect of their expansion.

Not every other aspect- boating tech would be part of a mix among other factors. Frost’s idea of cultural orientations would be part of that mix.

EatCheese says:
I am guessing that agriculture started in places like the fertile crescent because of increasing population numbers.
Could be. Also agriculture was invented independently in several different locations.

Dave chamberlain says:
. So why you passed over the obvious primary reason for this expansion (higher intelligence) and emphasized the natural cultural results of it is beyond me.
There is no obvious reason that intelligence is the primary reason, when there are so many other key factors in the mix. Declining crop yields in an area can cause people to move locations- it does not require dramatic pictures of burgeoning ancient “g.” And how would intelligence in tropical Austronesians be measured circa lets say 5000-7,000 BC? And why would survival in the far north be an automatic indicator of high IQ, when it is tropical and sub-tropical populations that generated the primary innovations of more elaborate and advanced civilization? Frost is right to look at the broad cultural palette, avoiding simplistic, deterministic explanations.

The next year Ruth Benedict wrote Race: Science and Politics to show that racism was more than a Nazi aberration, being in fact an ingrained feature of American life. Both of them saw the coming European conflict as part of a larger war. This is one reason why the war on racism did not end in 1945. <

Agreed. In this Frost is correct. Racism did correlate with Nazism and Boas and Benedict moved to take action. It is correct to point out that Benedict correctly diagnosed racism as more than a Nazi aberration, but was in fact a common feature of white America. In fact, some German propaganda during WW2 specifically charged Americans with hypocrisy for being anti-nazi, noting that the brutalities of white Jim Crow were not that far off from their own anti-jewish action. Germans were just more efficient and open about it- and willing to bring racism to its logical conclusion- liquidation of the targeted "Other."

She argued that such behavioral traits cannot be innate, since they assume different patterns in different human populations and in different time periods of a single population.
Benedict is correct here because she was aware that the notion of “innate” characteristics could be reverse applied to white people. Indeed the Allied refrain against Germans as special brute beasts of cruelty and violence could well be applied to whites in general- Exhibit A being Nazism, but also lesser manifestations like racist American violence and practices.

Middletown is a typical example of our usual urban fear of seeming in however slight an act different from our neighbours. Eccentricity is more feared than parasitism. Every sacrifice of time and tranquillity is made in order that no one in the family may have any taint of nonconformity attached to him. Children in school make their great tragedies out of not wearing a certain kind of stockings, not joining a certain dancing-class, not driving a certain car. The fear of being different is the dominating motivation recorded in Middletown. (Benedict, 1989, p. 273)

In this Benedict is correct- and it has nothing to do with “political correctness.” Long before “political correctness” became in vogue “Middleton” was often seen as conformist, falling in line with the dictates of government leaders. William Whyte’s famous “Organization Man” (1956) argued against this stifling conformism long before political correctness gained ascendancy. Likewise white feminists like Bella Abzug filled pages with complaints against the conformity and me-tooism of white middle class life. Such critiques were already in place long before Civil Rights became popular or liberal college professors gained power. In short, Middletown has had issues with conformity long BEFORE PC campus police gained their high profile, or “the liberal media” supposedly rode triumphant.

natural selection tends to hardwire any recurring behavioral response.
Agreed in part, but it is also true that a particular behavioral response may have little to do with natural selection.

Middletown America is no more tolerant today than it was in her time. Americans are simply obeying a new set of rules, whose first commandment is now “Thou shalt not be intolerant.” People are still fearful of being different from their neighbours. It’s just that the fears have another basis. People are still insulted for being different.

Actually Middletown America is much more tolerant than in the past, when you could be physically assaulted or murdered for being the wrong color in the wrong place, or were denied business licenses by Irish political machines that controlled such licenses. In many ways, white America has cleaned up some negatives. The rules of political correctness are primarily in force in certain political correct venues like college campuses and were designed and enforced by high IQ white liberals. Middletown is rolling along quite nicely. Whites have learned to suppress their worse OPEN racism, but that does not mean they no longer dislike blacks and other minorities. Some Whites today are just LESS OPEN about it.

To say an individual is “racist” is to stigmatize him, to assign him to a heinous category, and to abuse him verbally […] The “racist” individual is thus expelled from the realm of common humanity and excluded from the circle of humans who are deemed respectable by virtue of their intrinsic worth. Through a symbolic act that antiracist sociologists denounce as a way of “racializing” the Other, the “racist” is in turn and in return categorized as an “unworthy” being, indeed as an “unworthy” being par excellence. For, as people say, what can be worse than racism?

Overstated by Taguieff. While the club of “racism” has been used by high IQ white liberals to enforce a version of conformity in certain venues where they hold power, the impact of a charge of “racism” is less than earth-shattering. For one thing it often translates into mere rhetoric. Argue with someone, call them “racist”. Big deal. Al Sharpton’s charges of “racism” in various incidents has hardly reduced white America to frightened children cowering at the sound of the word. In fact, white America has not at all been “muzzled” by charges of racism. There is a massive torrent of books, articles, media, web content etc that shows quite the opposite, and this is nothing new. Back in the Reagan era there was a torrent of books, articles, popular talk show hosts like Limbaugh and conservative think tanks railing against liberalism and political correctness. Today that torrenthas expanded especially on the web. Far from being fearful white America has aggressively confronted charges of racism and accusers.

Ruth Benedict saw Middletown as a difficult case, particularly its extreme guilt culture, and she drew on the language of education and psychotherapy to frame this difficulty in terms of long-term treatment
Indeed but Middletown’s “extreme guilt culture” is not the product of anti-racism but such things as the conformism and me-tooism so prevalent during Ww2, and white religious traditions that promoted a deep culture of guilt. Such patterns were ALREADY in place before the significant rise of civil rights, political correctness, etc.

By the time of her death in 1948, Boasian anthropology had become fully mobilized for the war on racism. This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.”

This is debatable. Boaist anthropology never really engaged in a “war on racism.” Yes there were strong anti-racist elements but this does not constitute a war. What is missing here is the fact that the added data access after WW2 exposed numerous dubious, distorted and falsified constructs in anthropology like the dubious “racial” schemata of Carelton Coons. Tings like the “Hamitic Hypothsis”, or the artificial pigeonholing of complex data into simplistic “race models” and narratives simply could not stand up to critical scrutiny. Such scrutiny expanded after WW2. This is one of the primary reasons Boasim also expanded. It is not simply a matter of “political correctness” – that catchall explanation used by many. This is itself a simplistic meme that obscures the rickety nature of long accepted truths and methodologies in anthropology, whether it be alleged “wandering Caucasoids” sweeping into Africa to allegedly bring the natives civilization (See numerous critiques by well known anthropologist CL Brace) or attempting to bash complex archaeological and anthropological data into shaky and ever multiplying race categories. By the end of WW2, a lot of asserted “truths” were exposed as mere assertions resting on shaky methodology and assumptions.

This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.”

This is partially true as regards radical high IQ whites in certain PC venues where they hold power. But there was never any mobilization against America itself. In fact white America gained handsomely from the increased postwar calls for more racial tolerance. For one, as credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) such calls were an integral part of the US winning the Cold War against stinging Soviet propaganda thrusts on America’s racial hypocrisy- purporting to be fighting for democracy abroad, when it refused to guarantee democracy at home for those citizens who happened to be black. This is why even conservatives like Ike ordered his Little Rock Desegregation actions and other civil rights measures of his admin to be broadcast in numerous languages on Voice Of America and other international PR organs. Ike took such pains with a mere internal American matter in response to often accurate Soviet reports of American hypocrisy, demonstrating that white America was attempting to clean up its own house. I

Likewise the administration of Kennedy was repeatedly embarrassed by racist white realtors, restaurant owners, hotel proprietors who pushed around Third World diplomats when they attempted to do normal business in the self-styled leader of the “Free World.” President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation and other racist practices in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to ugly diplomatic incidents with representatives of countries where military and economic concessions were sought (Klarman 1994). In short white America moved to clean up some of its act out of self-interest.

White America also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. Middletown or white America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. Minimal effort on civil rights (how big of a concession was it to let some black guy eat a hamburger 2 tables down?) demonstrated “something was being done” but as Ike himself pointed out- such actions would not affect “the hearts of minds” of white people. Ike was right in part. white America’s “hearts and minds” may be far from changed. It had to clean up certain OPEN abuses to maintain its self-image of virtue, but deep down old hatreds remain. Benedict seemed to understand this when she spoke of “the psychopathic tragedies in America.”

What Benedict failed to forsee or forecast, is that much of White America, or Middletown (there are exceptions) would become good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and would still pursue racist outcomes using what appeared to be neutral non-racist methods. Thus real estate agents for decades no longer posted openly racist ads, but would quietly steer “undesirable” minorities to lesser property. White city councils would no longer send forth police to attack negroes who failed to leave “sundown towns” at night, but became more sophisticated- keeping them out by a subtle web of zoning controls and regulations that reduced the supply of housing (minimum lot sizes, rent controls etc). Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter WIlliams have long pointed out such patters and their works are studded with examples. Benedict called for education to overcome ingrained white prejudices. She failed to forecast that a day would come when whites themselves would enthusiastically call for education- using it as self-serving cover to benefit themselves. Hence mostly white teachers unions retain an iron grip on urban education- white people get paid in the name of “education” and “social justice.”

he problem is, what Ruth Benedict fostered, was a returned to biological prowess – she killed the intellectual golden goose that brought us this wonderful advancing culture. Her cohorts are killing the culture that has given us freedom and longer lives. What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity. In today’s social sciences biological diversity is studied (i.e., race, tribe, and sex) not the great Western Christian classical and philosophical ideas that got us to where we were.

Frost actually argues against some of this.

Sailer raises some interesting info as regards the debilitating tropical environment that hindered development on Africa, but does not develop these points and thus leaves several gaps. Lets recap a few:

1) Acemoglu et al do not blame “extractive” versus “inclusive” institutions as an all purpose explanation for “anything bad that ever happened anywhere in the history of the world.” This is not what they say.

2) Sailer’s comparison of the tropical Africa o the tropical Yucatan Mexico also misses the ball. Africa was not “far behind” other tropical places such as the Yucatan. In fact Africa produced some of the most sophisticated large scale civilization in human history- in the Nile Valley. And almost 20% of Egypt falls within the tropical belt. Its fundamental peopling was by tropical Africans (Zakrewski 2004, 2007; Yurco 1996, 1989, Keita 2005, 1992; Lovell 1999; et al) not the “Middle Easterners” or Europeans” or Asiatics (like Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Persians, Hyskos, Arabs etc) who were only to come in significant numbers later. Here’s what conservative anthropologist Nancy Lovell, someone recommended by Mary Lefkowitz herself has to say about that:

“There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.”
–Nancy C. Lovell, ” Egyptians, physical anthropology of,” in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 1999). pp 328-332

.

3) Sailer’s “litmus test” of big ruins is undermined by the fact that:

(a) the African peoples of the Nile Valley produced structures equal or greater. Egypt is obviously greater but And “Sub-Saharan” Africa includes the kingdom of Kush, which had its own writing system, iron industry and monumental construction. The southward movement of the Sahara obscures this fact, making numerous African cultures far to the north “sub-Saharan. Kushite civilization documented by credible scholars along these lines easily produces plenty of ruins and monuments.

(b) Impressive stadium like ruins are scarce in ancient “hotbeds” of Caucasoid purity- northern Europe for example. They are scarce in the territory of virtuous Nordics or Germanics- appearing neither or barely in ancient Germany, Sweden, Holland, France etc etc. The British Isles are no different- where are the pyramids of Wales for example? Stonehenge in England is one of the few big northern European monumental constructs, but this is more than matched in the Nile Valley and the Kingdom of Kush in the Sudan- itself a “sub-Saharan” entity that produced its own ancient pyramids and burial complexes, despite a resource base that had a fraction of what was available to their Egyptian cousins on the much vaster, more populous territories of the northward Nile. Then there is the kingdom of Askum – sub-Saharan- which produced monoliths weighing 700 tons as Reader himself notes.

.
4) Sailer claims Reader’s argument is that the reason there are few ruins is because there was little wealth in sub-Saharan Africa before outside interventions . This is untrue. Reader makes no such claims. In fact Reader repeatedly shows Africa had plenty of sophisticated civilizations and wealth long before any outsiders showed up. Reader does manage to mention monumental construction in Africa’s Nile Valley which includes the Kingdom of Kush – itself a sub-Saharan entity with administrative links deep into the Sudan and trade links as far afield as Central Africa. QUOTE:

“the wealth and power of Meroe at its height during the last few centuries BC is not at all surprising, particularly since the island of Meroe was also richly endowed with both iron ore and the hardwood timber needed for charcoal..

Among the monumental ruins of a civilization lying today on the island of Meroe, huge mounds of slag testify to the scale of iron production that powered its rise and ultimately brought about its downfall…

“Even iron-smelting technology, so powerful a formative element of the Meroe civilization, is older in West and central Africa and therefore cannot have been introduced from Meroe.. any residual feeling that Egypt or Nubia must have been responsible for developments in sub-Saharan Africa will have to be abandoned and Bantu-speaking people accepted as innovators in their own right.”
–Reader (pages 191-199)

Finally Reader mentions Askum- a “sub-Saharan” African civilization with plenty of big ruin- QUOTE:
“The early Askumites built in stone. They erected massive carved monoliths over the graves of their leaders (one was 33 meters long and weighed over 700 tonnes, arguably the largest single piece of worked stone ever hewn.” (Reader, pg 208).

In short, Reader is not saying what Sailer claims he said- quite the contrary.

.
5) Sailer correctly notes the environmental problems, but such problems also appear in Europe. White “role models” in parts of Europe lacking good soils or having environmental disadvantages, such as Ireland, or the Balkans did not accumulate much wealth either. Africa is nothing special in this regard. Such mundane things as geography, climate etc etc- points long observed by Thomas Sowell in his “Culture” trilogy some years before Reader, or his Ethic America (1981) almost 2 decades before Reader’s tome. .

.
6) “Tropical Africans” would include the Africans of Egypt and the Sudan, where there were indeed recognizable urban populations. But lack of urbanization is nothing special. As late as the 1700s Early Industrial Revolution era, China for all its advances only had about 3-4% of its population urbanized (W. Easterly 2014 The Tyranny of Experts. 146). As late as 1914, only 14-15% of Russia, a massive land, was urbanized. London as late as the 1500s had a mere 50,000 inhabitants, smaller than contemporary Cairo on the African continent (Urban World History: An Economic and Geographical Perspective By Luc-Normand Tellier 2009)

.
7) Sailer’s claims on Europe exercising “sexual restraint” for ‘darwinian advantages” are illogical and untrue. In fact high child mortality rates in historical Europe did encourage “thoughtless procreation,” with the simple logic that the more children on hand, the more chance some might survive that mortality. Just as Europeans found it advantageous to have plenty of children to ride out high child mortality, so also Africans found it advantageous to have plenty of children to ride out the impact of the debilitating wave of tropical diseases that cut down their children.

.
8) Sailer also fails to grasp that in Africa, high procreation rates are themselves a parental investment to ensure some survivability into the next generation. Until they die those children have to be fed or cared for. Furthermore as credible scholars have long shown, Africa has the lowest infanticide rate in the world, far below supposedly more virtuous European or Asiatic “role models” (QUOTE: “Africa has been reported to have a lower incidence of infanticide than all of the other continents.” –Milner, L.S. (2000). Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: the stain of infanticide. University Press. p. 160 ) Hardly a picture of missing “parental investment.”

Harry flashman says:
Kush was a very late bloomer and was a source of slaves. When Kushites invaded Egypt they essentially copied Egyptians. Then dismantled the place. The Assyrians kicked out Taharqo.

Dubious. Kush was around circa 2000BC, and in fact, by 1550-1570 BC almost overran Egypt. And in fact they were a power in their own right- not only during and after the dynastic era, but pharaonic culture in part is closely related to and derives from Nubian precursors. As for slavery, Palestine and Mesopotamia also furnished numerous slaves in antiquity. And the Nubian pharaohs circa 800BC actually were RESTORATIONISTS of ancient Egyptian culture. After the Persians defeated the Egyptians to end the dynastic era, the Kushites built up the powerful Mereotic kingdoms to the south that were not mere copies of Egypt but independent cultural entities in their own right as credible scholars show. As for copying, Europe itself is a massive copier and borrower – from things like writing, to key plant and animal domesticates, to even cultural products like Christianity, which did not come from Europe but from people called Jews in the sub-tropical the Middle East.

KUSHITE INVASION OF ANCIENT EGYPT
http://wysinger.homestead.com/article10.html

DATA ON KUSH

Scara Brae is in the tip of Scotland and is as old a settlement as you’d find.
As for Skara Brae, it is rather unimpressive. It is a Neolithic village that produced very little of the “big” monumental pieces talked about by Sailer. You are trying to puff it up with dubious assertion, but it consists of a mere eight clustered houses. Readers can check out the massive houses of the little village below.
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/skarabrae/

Flimflam. The South East of England was densely populated.
We are not talking about density of population over a big region, but URBANIZATION density in that earlier time as discussed by Sailer. Cairo today still has more people than London, but in that earlier time, credible scholars show that Africa had city populations quite comparable with, or exceeding other cities in several contemporary European kingdoms.. Africa did not have massively dense urban populations everywhere, but neither did Europe. In fact African cities compare favorably- Algiers in the 1600s had 150,000, Mekenes in Morocco 200,000. In West Africa, Kano had about 75,000 in the late 1500s, and Niani, capital of Mali had 60,000 inhabitants in 1324. (James Tarver 1996- The Demography of Africa- pg 93). Reader himself also notes (page 225) that complex urban societies arose in West Africa a millennia before Arab arrival.

QUOTE: “West African history was ‘unshackled from the Arab stimulus paradigm in the 1970s.. wherein the transformation to a complex urban society began 1,000 years before the arrival of the Arabs.”

^^That’s Sailer’s own reference, Reader, speaking, page 225.

Furthermore dispersed African urbanization patterns are nothing unusual. In fact Reader shows they are comparable to China’s urbanization pattern, in similarly situated eras. Quote:
“Remarkably similar settlement processes appear to have characterized the urbanization process at sites of similar age in China, suggesting that this alternative to hierarchical social system and coercive centralized control strategy of classical definition may have occurred worldwide..”

You really need to get a grasp of modern archaeology and history, and what Reader actually said as opposed to what someone CLAIMS he said.

Harry flashman says:
Kush was a very late bloomer and was a source of slaves. When Kushites invaded Egypt they essentially copied Egyptians. Then dismantled the place. The Assyrians kicked out Taharqo.

Laughable. Kush was around since 2000BC, and in fact, around 1550-1570 BC during the 17th dynasty, almost overran Egypt. And in fact they were a power in their own right- not only during and after the dynastic era, but pharaonic culture in part is closely related to and derives from Nubian precursors. As for slavery, Palestine and Mesopotamia also furnished numerous slaves in antiquity. And the Nubian pharaohs circa 800BC actually were RESTORATIONISTS of ancient Egyptian culture. After the Persians defeated the Egyptians to end the dynastic era, the Kushites built up the powerful Meriotic kingdoms to the south that were not mere copies of Egypt but independent cultural entities in their own right as credible scholars show. (K. Schillingford, 2004. A history of sub-Saharan Africa). As for copying, Europe itself is a massive copier and borrower – from things like writing, to key plant and animal domesticates, to even cultural products like Christianity, which did not come from Europe but from people called Jews in the sub-tropical the Middle East.

quote:
Far from Egypt being the supreme power of the Nile Valley, clearly Kush was at that time. “Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kushites might have eliminated it. That’s how close Egypt came to extinction.”
–Vivian Davies, Director, British Museum-Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan. 2004 on the Kushite invasion- El-Kab, 17th Dynasty

Scara Brae is in the tip of Scotland and is as old a settlement as you’d find.
As for Skara Brae, it is rather unimpressive. It is a Neolithic village that produced very little of the “big” monumental pieces talked about by Sailer. You are trying to puff it up with dubious assertion, but it consists of a mere eight clustered houses. Readers can check out the “massive” houses of the little village below.
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/skarabrae/

Flimflam. The South East of England was densely populated.
We are not talking about density of population over a big region, but URBANIZATION density in that earlier time as discussed by Sailer. Cairo today still has more people than London, but in that earlier time, credible scholars show that Africa had city populations quite comparable with, or exceeding other cities in several contemporary European kingdoms.. Africa did not have massively dense urban populations everywhere, but neither did many parts of Europe. In fact some African cities exceed in population or compare favorably- Algiers in the 1600s had 150,000, Mekenes in Morocco 200,000. In West Africa, Kano had about 75,000 in the late 1500s, and Niani, capital of Mali had 60,000 inhabitants in 1324. (James Tarver 1996- The Demography of Africa- pg 93). Reader himself also notes (page 225) that complex urban societies arose in West Africa a millennia before Arab arrival.
QUOTE: “West African history was ‘unshackled from the Arab stimulus paradigm in the 1970s.. wherein the transformation to a complex urban society began 1,000 years before the arrival of the Arabs.”

^^That’s Sailer’s own reference, Reader, speaking, page 225.

Furthermore dispersed African urbanization patterns are nothing unusual. In fact Reader shows they are comparable to China’s urbanization pattern, in similarly situated eras. Quote:
“Remarkably similar settlement processes appear to have characterized the urbanization process at sites of similar age in China, suggesting that this alternative to hierarchical social system and coercive centralized control strategy of classical definition may have occurred worldwide..”

You really need to get a grasp of modern archaeology and history, and what Reader actually said as opposed to what someone CLAIMS he said.

ROBERT WEISSBERG SAYS:

Such racial turmoil is conceivable.
hardly. The 1960s was a time of broad ferment, Vietnam, Civil Rights, Great Society etc. No one seriously comparing eras expects anywhere near the turmoil today.

Further add current government’s timidity when confronting looters and arsonists lest (it is believed) “excessive” force exacerbate the disorder.
Who says government has been “timid”? By what measure? Give a concrete example.

Meanwhile, the Left-dominated mass media happily fuels this anger. Pictures of looters unhampered by police inexpensively fill hours of airtime
Another strange claim. In fact there have been scores of arrests. WHo says looters are “unhampered”? Such “freedom to loot” certainly does not prevail in the sphere of reality.

Outside of a few professional agitators, disgruntled blacks will not be encouraged to riot beyond what has already occurred. Yes, disruptive incidents still happen, often involving clueless whites, but these noisy, festive marches are a far cry from the violence that plagued Newark, Detroit, and Los Angeles ..
This is glaringly obvious. In what way does America learn anything here? That the 1960s in not 2014?

Instead, black leaders will call for “national discussions on race” and hector whites to fix a “broken system” in which blacks themselves escape responsibility.
In which fantasy world do blacks “escape” responsibility? Scores were arrested in Ferguson for looting an other disorders. Where has responsibility been waived aside?

Expensive body cameras will be bought whose purpose, it is assumed, will be to reign in aggressive racist cops (but see here).
Body cameras all agree are no panacea- there are pros and cons such as malfunction or distraction. But one positive aspect that seems to have been missed by the usual fulminating right white wingers is that said cameras expose citizens behaving badly and expose FALSE citizen charges of “police brutality.”

But the most successful, anti-riot measures will be dialing down aggressive pro-active policing such as stop and frisk
Wo says “stop and frisk” is some sort of panacea? It has several drawbacks, including as court cases show, quotas imposed on officers to “prove” they are working, and more negative police interaction over minor infractions. As one retired ex-cop tells me- in the old days we would just tell people to move on, and that would be that. Today they are “vectored” by computer program to hottspots, they have to meet a quota of people to frisk, and they have to trump up charges to justify a lot of the quota stops, and six cops with their little computer gizmos have to show up to tell this fat guy selling two-bit cigarettes to move on.

According to broken windows, petty violations–public drinking, spray painting graffiti, airmailing garbage out the window, in-your-face panhandling and vandalism and the like– signal a tolerance for more serious criminality.
And several studies show that “broken windows” is not all its cracked up to be. It is ONE of a mix of factors that have helped lower crime rates. Among other things, in cities where there was NO “broken windows” program crime rates kept going down anyway. See for example Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing, 2005 by Bernard E. Harcourt

Broken windows policing as an added bonus also helps solving major crimes since it is easier to apprehend petty criminals. In New York City, for example, those arrested jumping subway turnstiles, a misdemeanor, were often also found to have outstanding warrants for felonies.
Sure. Cracking down on knuckleheads will dredge up their rap sheet, and the repeat offenders. Police departments have done this for years before tidy “broken windows” theories appeared. Any strict policing approach will yield this kind of result. NYPD could have done such things long before alleged “saviour” Guilliani appeared.

Broken windows policing explains the explosive events in both Ferguson and New York City.

Certainly in NYC. Ferguson, who knows? Officer Wilson may just have wanted another knucklehead to get out of the street- a routine thing cops do in towns everywhere, without computerized hotspots, stop and frisk quotas or “broken windows” theory.

Reality, however, is more complicated; no precise consensus exists on “quality of life” and truth be told, today’s law enforcement defined “quality of life” is only consistent with Northern European values. Strict implementation is, to be blunt, cultural imperialism insofar as quality of life standard vary enormously. Behavior acceptable in Calcutta brings a public canning in Singapore.
What you fail to mention here is that “northern European values” would include the white Irish, notorious in the history of New York for violence, disorder and substance abuse. All the ghetto riots in the 1960s do not even begin to approach the body count of one midsized Irish riot in the 1800s as scholars like Thomas Sowell show.

The bottom line is that police can readily apply these “cultural sensitivity” principles to neighborhoods populated by lower-class blacks even if crimes are committed in plain sight and outrage middle class sensibilities. No law needs to be altered and I’d guess that local police cooperation would be forthcoming. Just pay no heed to petty drug-dealing, hookers soliciting johns, illegal gambling, broken bottles, groups of feral children wandering around past midnight, open public drinking, or motorists disregarding traffic lights.
But your neat formula is shaky on 2 counts.

1) There are numerous white communities in America, including the rural south, Appalachia and assorted trailer parks, and tonier hoods where a higher class of white crooks operate prostitution, sex slavery, massive drug sales and the like. Your “modest proposal” curiously, exempts these WHITE venues that also seem to NOT share alleged “northern European values.”

2) Disorder such as ” petty drug-dealing, hookers soliciting johns, illegal gambling, broken bottles, groups of feral children wandering around past midnight, open public drinking..” were staples of lower class WHITE Irish hoods in times past, and they were a lot worse than today. In NYC itself over 10,000 white children “roamed the streets” homeless for example. 50% of the arrests were of the white Irish even though they made up just 25% of the population. And things like violence and substance abuse among them are legend. And by the way, the white Irish themselves, are, wait for it.. “Northern European,”

Let’s be xclear: we are not claiming that the blackening of a city somehow enhanced the quality of life for blacks since they can now define “quality of life” to mirror their values. The opposite is probably true as measured by dysfunctional schools, fewer decent shopping options, endemic crime and random shootings killing innocent bystanders. In fact, many residents of such hellholes might prefer to move to localities with fewer blacks, even if whites impose “white” values,
The fatal weakness of your argument is that “white values” themselves embrace violence, substance abuse and disorder, as documented extensively by historians. Random killings for example were a routine occurrence among such “northern European “role models” as were high out of wedlock rates. As for urban corruption- who are the foremost “role models” of such but white people- from the machines of Tammany Hall, to the Daley machine in Chicago- all dominated by those reputed paragons of virtue- northern Europeans? What changed things is a surging expanding economy in the 19th and 20th centuries, and continued pressure by public and private agencies, including churches to clean up personal behavior, AND clean up corrupt municipal and state bureaucracies. And by the way many of those bureaucracies were and to some extent still are dominated by “northern Europeans.” The classic “Irish cop” for example had the quaint habit sometimes of arresting Jewish VICTIMS of crime while letting perps go free. See Howe’s classic World of Our Fathers) Now imagine that- another example of “northern European values” anyone?

Throughout his lengthy article, Weissberg repeatedly and dishonestly, distorts and misrepresents sources he claims supports his position. This raises questions about his own “personal responsibility.”

To build up his “irresponsible blacks” narrative for example, he says:

” the CDC actually denies this “more-unprotected-risky-sex, more HIV” connection as far as young black homosexuals are concerned…”

But Weissberg’s claims here are open distortion. On the same “supporting” reference he links to, the CDC specifically states that- quote:

“Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in MSM [5]. Unprotected receptive anal sex is the sexual behavior that carries the highest risk for HIV acquisition [6]. For sexually active MSM, the most effective ways to prevent HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, are to avoid unprotected anal sex and always use condoms [7”
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/racialethnic/aa/brief/

Weissberg’s sleight of hand quotes from the early part of the CDC publication, leaving out what is said later down the page. In short the so-called “denial” Weisberg claims does not exist. He simply lies about and misrepresents his sources. Since when has the CDC “denied” that risky sex carries the highest risk of HIV? Weissberg dishonestly claims something as “fact” and “truth” when his own “supporting reference”, the CDC publications, contradict his claims.

Weissberg then continues his distortion and misrepresenation. He opines: and “Instead of stating the obvious—risky unprotected anal sex is the culprit—the CDC just alleges that young gay/bisexual African American males become HIV positive because of who they are, not what they do.”

But yet another CDC related government publication on HIV among blacks a contradicts Weissberg’s bogus narrative about “denial”:- quote-

“Some populations are impacted more than others. African Americans ages 13 to 24 represent only 15 percent of the U.S. teenage population, but accounted for 57 percent of new diagnoses of HIV infection in 2010… African American youth actually have lower rates of drug abuse than Whites and Hispanics… In general, middle and late teen years are when young people engage in risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviors. Unsafe sexual practices increase a person’s risk of contracting HIV, and using drugs and alcohol can increase the chances of unsafe behavior by altering judgment and decision-making.”
(Diagnoses of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2010, HIV Surveillance Report, Volume 22)

Weissberg styles himself an apostle for “personal responsibility.” Perhaps he should heed his own advice and exercise some of that “personal responsibility”, rather than dishonestly misrepresenting sources.

Presumably under Weissberg’s “New Order” white police no longer need plant evidence.

—————————————————————————————————-
ARTICLE EXCERPT:
A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.

The bombshell testimony from Stephen Anderson is the first public account of the twisted culture behind the false arrests in the Brooklyn South and Queens narc squads, which led to the arrests of eight cops and a massive shakeup.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fabricated-drug-charges-innocent-people-meet-arrest-quotas-detective-testifies-article-1.963021

^^More “northern European values” at work…

Moving along, Weissberg’s “new order” proposal has been tried elsewhere- separate out “troublesome” ethnic groups and let them be policed by their own kind, in their own teeming ghettoes. Northern Europeans have extensive experience with such things. Only 60 years ago a similar proposal was in full blown operation, and it worked! The “trouble” minorities then were called Jews, and after they were separated out into their respective ghettoes, good white northern Europeans, called Germans, appointed members of their own race, the Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst, to police said minorities.

Ever generous, northern European values were not afraid to contemplate the “unspeakable..” As expected, the troublesome minority numbers were whittled down by starvation, disease and murder, after which, their ghetto dwellings were cleansed and the inhabitants shipped “elsewhere.” One final joke- the faithful minority police, the Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst, were themselves shipped off for cleansing in the final states. There you have it- its all there: bothersome minorities, a necessary ethnic separation from those bothersome uttermensch, confinement to their wasted locales, and so on. Weissberg’s “Northern European values” at work…

TomB says
Indeed it seems to me this piece comes close to a sort of … Outrage Baiting, and its focus on race and homosexuality makes it wildly susceptible to appearing to be Outrage Baiting of the lowest denominator.
———-
Indeed. Weissberg’s “outrage” approach deliberately distorts and misreporesents what the CDC reports and documents say. He claims CDC is not doing anything to warn about how personal behavior drives HIV/AIDS problems, when in fact the very same “supporting references” from the CDC that he uses to bolster this claim, flatly contradict it.

TomB says:
In [the CDC’s words], “Published research does not provide definitive answers about why new HIV infections among young, black/African American gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) have increased.”

The key word here is INCREASED. The young black gays were ALREADY irresponsible in some ways, just like young white gays. In fact the CDC ITSELF, in one of Weissberg’s “supporting” links, noted an upsurge of unsafe sex without condoms in studies of mostly white gays. “Irresponsibility” is no black monopoly. But the CDC raises a legitimate question as to why the INCREASE? All ALREADY know that personal responsibility is part of the mix. As the CDC points out, published research gives no definitive answer on why.

Why is this statement of fact a bad thing? Is it increases in irresponsibility? How so after the education campaigns? Poor quality in HIV education? Growing acceptance of the gay lifestyle by the larger society? Growing resentment by gays that the joyous freedom of the pre-AIDS days has been dampened and hindered by the condom and med regimen, leading to riskier behavior increases? These are some of the issues raised in the serious literature. In short the issue does not boil down to the simplistic “bad bureaucrats ‘deny”personal responsibility’ narrative Weissberg would have us believe. Since when is it “bad” to look at such issues, and since when is a plain statement of fact that published research has no definitive answers, some sort of sinister CDC “avoidance” or “denial” of the issues?

Weissberg takes the CDC quote above out of context to ramp up his distortion tactics to say that the CDC was slighting or avoiding the issue of personal responsibility. Quote by Weissberg:
“Instead of stating the obvious-risky unprotected anal sex is the culprit-the CDC just alleges that young gay/bisexual African American males become HIV positive because of who they are, not what they do.”

But this is an outright lie. In fact, 2 paragraphs down on the same page the CDC specifically says:

‘Unprotected receptive anal sex is the sexual behavior that carries the highest risk for HIV acquisition [6]. For sexually active MSM, the most effective ways to prevent HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, are to avoid unprotected anal sex and always use condoms [7″
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/racialethnic/aa/brief/

Weissberg simply misrepresents and distorts what the CDC is doing and saying in this area.

—————————————————————————————

TomB says:
Proceeding then right to the heart of the author’s argument that the CDC is wildly abandoning the idea of personal responsibility go look at that “race” page of the linked document one. And wee where the CDC is involved in no less than seven projects which are clearly aimed at individuals and at getting them to behave in more responsible ways. Seven. (See above-noted “race”-page link again.) http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/racialethnic/aa/facts/index.html)

^Stop it. You are actually referencing the actual facts rather than the propaganda narrative. The dishonest Weissberg deliberately misrepresents his sources, all the while posturing in high dudgeon about “irresponsibility”.

The CDC is perfectly reasonably in looking at several factors. Decisions don’t flow out of a vacuum. Lower socio-economic people for example sometimes make decisions differently than the more affluent and vice versa. In fact conservatives make this point all the time. One of their favorite references is to Theodore Dalrymple’s classic “Life At the Bottom” which concerns mostly the white lower class for example.

Lower socio-economic white decision making similar to blacks. Far from blacks being the unique basket cases of ignorance Weissberg insinuates, people like blacks, on the relative margins, are often hit hardest by the disease. Middle class people with more education have more resources, more supports, more education and more political clout. Their behavior and decisions tends to be different from those more on the margins with “the culture of the poor,” as sociologists, (and conservatives) have long noted. These are the facts of life even conservatives agree with, not “political correctness.”

While AIDS is oft seen as a “middle class disease” in developed nations, this is not the case in some of the leading ones. (See Aggleton et al. 2000. AIDS in Europe: New Challenges for the Social Sciences) Mostly white Italy for example is one of the most developed economies but those of lower socio-economic status have higher HIV rates. The same thing is seen in mostly white Spain and mostly white Eastern Europe- AIDS is concentrated most strongly in marginalised or lower socio-economic groups. US blacks are not unique in this pattern. Like other marginalized groups in the West, they have been hit hardest compared with those most favored, and yes of course, their decision-making is like those other marginal white groups. But notice only one certain group gets especially singled out for Weissberg’s fulminations about “responsibility.”

TOMB SAYS: Once again I’d note that at least to a significant degree the CDC has not eschewed personal responsibility:
Exactly. Anyone taking the time to read the links can see how dishonest the article is. For those interested in facts, rather than facile propaganda, HIV infections have been climbing steadily- up 17.7 percent since 1999. The trend of riskier condomless sex goes back to the early/mid 1990s. It is nothing new, and is well represented among white gays. In fact things like riskier condomless “barebacking” is on the rise, and has been since the 1990s. Blacks may be the worse impacted as far as new cases, but they are relative latecomers to an INCREASING trend ALREADY IN PLACE among white gays.

Even more telling, the same trend of riskier sex is in place in WHITE countries with VERY FEW BLACKS. In lily white Netherlands for example, one study showed white homosexuals increasing risky, condomless sex since the 1990s. Studies in mostly WHITE Melbourne, Sydney, Budapest and Russia for example, document the same trend. In short, as one recent scholarly study notes: “gay men in the Western world are less likely to use condoms that they were a decade ago.” (Michael Shernoff (2013) Without condoms). This is the overall trend, in general, in the white West.

But notice how Weissberg conveniently singles out mostly blacks for his posturing lectures. Why blacks? Because he can ramp up his race-bait “black plague” narrative while ensuring that the spotlight is not put on paler, reputed “role models.”

FROST SAYS:
1. Human evolution did not end in the Pleistocene or
even slow down. In fact, it speeded up with the advent of
agriculture 10,000 years ago, when the pace of genetic change
rose over a hundred-fold. Humans were no longer adapting to
relatively static natural environments but rather to
faster-changing cultural environments of their own
making.
Agreed that human cultural elaboration and certain physical
changes (better diet and health for example) have accelerated
overall. But natural environments were/are never static. In fact
climate change, diseases, natural disasters etc, together with
good old random genetic drift are well represented in the mix for
human adaptation along with cultural factors. And to say people
are no longer adapting to natural environments is not strictly
so. Europeans adapted to paler skin within relatively recent
times (some 6k to 12k years ago- Jablonski 2000) as one example.

And in what sense is "evolution" "speeding
up?" Are inherited traits for being passed on more rapidly
than in the past? Are tall people for example passing on their
genes more rapidly than in the past? In what meaningful sense is
there a "speedup" in evolution, as opposed to simply a
local population expansion that adds more bodies, which in turn
means more chances of people with a certain trait as part of that
expansion? Or a contraction that emphasizes a particular trait
due to founder effect? Assorted HBD proponents are rather vague
on the alleged "speed up" point.

2. When life or death depends on your ability to follow
a certain way of life, you are necessarily being selected for
certain heritable characteristics.
Fair enough but has natural selection and the transmission of
acquired traits itself undergone a speedup? If so how? And in
what sense is the speedup meaningful compared to other factors
that also influence evolution such as genetic drift?

Some of these are dietary—an ability to digest milk
or certain foods. Others, however, are mental and behavioral,
things like aptitudes, personality type, and behavioral
predispositions.

While HBD proponents make a number of assertions in these areas,
actual supporting data re like "aptitudes, personality type,
and behavioral predispositions" is somewhat spotty. For
example what evolutionary factors lead to the behavioral
disposition to mass murder Jews over numerous centuries for
example? Critics point out that alleged evolutionary links to
behavioral predispositions and traits are meaningless- given the
wide time spans of human evolution, and varying environments, not
to mention individual variation, and the close intertwining of
both environmental and genetic factors, in which that evolution
took or takes place. Is the alleged "humble"
self-effacing Asian "predisposition" for example due to
"evolution"? The Japanese in WW2, the Mongols in
medieval times, the aggressive southern Asian tropicals of
Vietnam that defeated the US venture in the Second Indochina War,
and the Chinese in various eras cast doubt on simplistic claims
of alleged "evolutionary predispositions."

This is because a way of life involves thinking and
behaving in specific ways.
But a "way of life" is not necessarily a product of
"evolution."

3. This gene-culture co-evolution began when humans had
already spread over the whole world, from the equator to the
arctic.
It is not only genes and culture reacting and interacting but the
environment as well. All three factors are in a mix that makes up
human evolution.

So it followed trajectories that differed from one
geographic population to another. Even when these populations had
to adapt to similar ways of life, they may have done so
differently, thus opening up (or closing off) different
possibilities for further gene-culture co-evolution.
Not quite. The adaptation of different populations does not
"close off" anything. Some populations may show more
abundant features of a particular element, but the fact is that
human populations interact and share both genes, methods, tools
and ideas, and have been doing so for millennia. Europeans for
example got their alphabet and Christian religion from
sub-tropical peoples of the Middle East. These in turn derived an
alphabet from a location in Africa (Egypt) that pioneered some,
if not the earliest forms of writing as credible scholars
(Darnell 2003, Dreyer 1999) show. About 20% of that African
location by the way lies in the tropical zone.

4. Humans have thus altered their environment via
culture, and this man-made environment has altered humans via
natural selection.
Fair enough, but the environment has also shaped humans, and
their cultures, and has also passed these changes along in the
form of natural selection.

This is probably the farthest we can go in formulating a
unified theory of human biodiversity.
And the theory is a shaky one in numerous respects.

For Gregory Clark, the key factor was the rise of
settled, pacified societies, where people could get ahead through
work and trade, rather than through violence and plunder. For
Henry Harpending and Greg Cochran, it was the advent of
agriculture and, later, civilization. For J. Philippe Rushton and
Ed Miller, it was the entry of humans into cold northern
environments, which increased selection for more parental
investment, slower life history, and higher cognitive
performance. Each of these authors has identified part of the big
picture, but the picture itself is too big to reduce to a single
factor.
Unfortunately a tendency in the "HBD" field is to
reduce things to simplistic single factors or a very narrow range
of factors. Rushton’s theories by the way have been extensively
debunked by numerous scholars. Denizens of cold weather regions
for example are hardly role models when it comes to parenting.
They kill infants for example at a much higher rate than denizens
of tropical zones, such as Africans. (See Milner, L.S. (2000).
Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: the stain of infanticide.)

5. Antiracist scholars have argued against the
significance of human biodiversity, but their arguments typically
reflect a lack of evolutionary thinking.
This is misleading. Actually most recognize human
"biodiversity" as a matter of course. Few deny there is
a difference between a pale northern Swede on the farm, and a
dark, southern Zulu on the cattle range. That is not at issue. At
issue is the claim that there are meaningful
"evolutionary" or "genetic" explanations for
numerous social phenomena or behaviors, as opposed to better
explanations rooted in particular environments, which would
include cultural changes, among particular peoples, at particular
times. Monotheism for example sparked certain cultural changes
that have little substantial relation to "evolution" in
cold climates.

Nor is such skepticism about the alleged power of evolution or
genetic determinism the province of anti-racists or liberals. In
his detailed works over 2 decades, widely read and respected
conservative scholar Thomas Sowell (a friend of Charles Murray by
the way) extensively questions simplistic "genetic"
explanations for the many social phenomena over ethnic multiple
groups, over multiple eras. He shows that alleged HBD
"predispositions" claimed for multiple peoples do not
stand up to hard data.

Yes, human populations are open to gene flow and are
thus not sharply defined (if they were, they would be species).
It doesn’t follow, however, that the only legitimate objects
of study are sharply defined ones. Few things in this world would
pass that test.
But numerous HBD proponents take precisely that approach- that
different human populations for example represent different
species, or sub-species of humanity. They insist on sharply
bounded races, supposedly carrying "evolutionary
predispositions." This is JP Rushton’s approach as well as
the more pedestrian Steve Sailer, and others in between. They
phrase the case differently for different audiences but the
bottom line is unmistakable.

A population boundary typically coincides with a
geographic or ecological barrier, such as a change from one
vegetation zone to another or, in humans, a change from one way
of life to another.

To some extent but sometimes not much at all. And cultural change
does not necessarily demarcate sharply defined boundaries, but
rather a continuum. Europeans, who count some of their ancestry
from the Middle East, Asia and Africa, depending on the times
examined, share plenty of significant cultural strands with these
other regions, and indeed many of these strands are now even seen
as "European"- such as the massively influential
Christian religion, which is not European, but originated from a
sub-tropical people in the Middle East, called Hebrews, aka Jews.
HBD proponents like the idea of boundaries because populations
can then be simplistically diced up and categorized into
stereotyped "races" in whatever preferred hierarchies
suits their ideology of the moment. But the real world is a lot
more complex than this.

It thus separates not only different populations but
also differing pressures of natural selection. This is why
genetic variation within a population differs qualitatively from
genetic variation between populations. The first kind cannot be
ironed out by similar selection pressures and thus tends to
involve genes of little or no selective value.
You don’t provide a concrete example of this claim, and it is
contradicted by contrary data on the ground. Genetic variation
within populations can involve genes of selective value. In
Africa, genetically related sub-Saharan populations differ on
lactose tolerance for example.

The second kind occurs across population boundaries,
which tend to separate different ecosystems, different vegetation
zones, different ways of life … and different selection
pressures. So the genes matter a lot more.
At times, but not necessarily. Again you offer no concrete
specific examples to back this claim, nor specific reference. But
just on face value. contrary data easily appears. The mere fact
of a geographic boundary does not necessarily increase the
importance of genes, because (a) boundaries shift over time (like
the Sahara which even now is not stable), (b) people in the real
world are mobile and move back and forth across boundaries, and
(c) people with similar genes easily are found on both sides of
boundaries, making the gene factor moot. People speaking the same
language, and related genetically, easily exist on both sides of
various boundaries for example, and differences do not
necessarily mean genes are more prominent.

We see the same genetic overlap between many sibling
species that are nonetheless distinct anatomically and
behaviorally. Because such species have arisen over a relatively
short span of time, like human populations, they have been made
different primarily by natural selection, so the genetic
differences between them are more likely to have adaptive,
functional consequences … as opposed to “junk
variability” that slowly accumulates over time.
True in part, but the opposite is also true. Genetic drift can
cause as great a variation as natural selection.

The above synthesis should not be controversial. Yet it
is. In fact, it scarcely resembles acceptable thinking within
academia and even less so within society at large. There are two
main reasons.

Not quite. One big reason it is controversial is the sometimes
shaky, distorted and dubious nature of "human
biodiversity" claims. The numerous scholarly debunkings of
JP Rushton and others demonstrate this in spades. Likewise the
recent refutation of HBD writers like Nicholas Wade by several
leading scholars, much more expert than Wade in anthropology,
human genetics, palentology, etc. These heavyweight scholars
rightly note that Wade continually distorts their work to
manufacture support for his HBD ideology.
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/08/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution

This is one of the key reasons for "controversy" in the
field- the weak, oft distorted claims and speculations of HBD
proponents.

In reading the literature of the time, one is struck by
the restraint of early proponents of environmental determinism,
especially when they argue against race differences in mental
makeup.

The restraint referred to is one determinist HBD proponents
should learn from. However, few credible anti-racist scholars, or
even activists deny that on constructs such as 20th century IQ
tests, people conceived to be of different "races" in
various recent race constructs, score differently. Alleged
"denial of differences" is a standard strawman of HBD
proponents. Who is going about "denying" this? The main
point of contention is not that there are differences, nor that
genetics play a role. Of course genetics play SOME role in making
humans differ. That is not at issue. The main issue is the impact
of genetic and environmental factors, and the varying weights
different factors have at, and in, particular times, places,
peoples and environments.

Why didn’t the war on racism end when the Second
World War ended? For one thing, many people, feared a third
global conflict in which anti-Semitism would play a dominant
role. For another, antiracism took on a life of its own during
the Cold War, when the two superpowers were vying for influence
over the emerging countries of Asia and Africa.
This analysis is a bit flawed. WW2 was not substantially a war
AGAINST racism. Not at all. In fact, racism, (on both sides- the
Axis particularly) was one of the psychological drivers of the
war- whether it be the industrial mass murder of subhuman
uttermensch, to the milder racist relocations of American
citizens of Japanese descent (and the usual "anti-Jap’
racial sentiment explicitly and routinely expressed from the top
commanders on down), to the vicious Japanese racism (and
slaughter) against Chinese. All the major powers of WW2 were
racist to one degree or another. The war assumed an anti-racist
cast, only in the aftermath, because of the discovered mass
murder of millions of Jews and other marginal groups. The crime
(defined as such by Europeans prior to the war and committed most
starkly by them) was too big and too openly documented to sweep
under the rug and dismiss as mere ethnocentrism, or age old
tribal conflict against outsiders.

The end of the Cold War might have brought an end to the
war on racism, or at least a winding down, had it not replaced
socialism with an even more radical project: globalism.

This analysis is also misleading. Anti-racism was a significant
part at times, of the Cold War. The US Civil Rights Movement for
example made excellent fodder for the Soviets in charging US
democracy with hypocrisy. US policymakers likewise made
concessions to the blacks to counter points the Soviets scored
internationally on this score, as credible studies of the issue
show. See Mary Dudziak, 2000, Cold War Civil Rights). Racism was
still heavily embedded in numerous Western polities during the
Cold War, decreasing somewhat over time in the US as the 1970s
receded but still significant, as credible scholars show. As late
as the 2000s US government anti-discrimination agencies like the
EEOC have a backlog measured in YEARS, and various
"testers" in housing and employment still document its
existence. A late as the 1990s it took numerous lawsuits and
congressional action to curb unlawful police search and seizure
methods against minority motorists. THe end of the Soviet Union
in 1989 did not by any means lead to a tapering off of racism.
There were reductions in OPEN racism and polls show less racist
attitudes in general to be sure, but the phenomenon of racism is
alive and well after the Cold War, albeit in less open, more
muted forms.

This two-way movement redistributes wealth from owners
of labor to owners of capital. Businesses get not only a cheaper
workforce but also weaker labor and environmental standards. To
stay competitive, workers in high-wage countries have to accept
lower pay and a return to working conditions of another age. The
top 10% are thus pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone
else throughout the developed world. They’re getting richer
… not by making a better product but by making the same
product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor.

Agreed.

With the collapse of the old left in the late 1980s, and
the rise of market globalization, antiracism found a new purpose
… as a source of legitimacy for the globalist project.

Agreed in part. Anti-racism has been manipulated by the globalist
project, but some anti-racist organizations have also in part
fought the globalist corporatism, such as their advocacy on the
part of indigenous and marginal peoples displaced by corrupt
native elites working with equally corrupt Western corporate
interests.

Antiracism was subservient to the political
left.
Agreed.

This was not a natural state of affairs, since the
antiracist movement—like the Left in general—is a
coalition of ethnic/religious factions that prefer to pursue
their own narrow interests.
Keep in mind however that the Left has always cobbled together
disparate coalitions, just as the right has cobbled together
coalitions ranging from rabid racists, to more moderate religious
types. The right has also frequently manipulated its own
"race card" for profit- continually playing on race to
make political gains- whether it be the "coded" race
language of the Reagan or Nixon regimes, to the well known
"Southern strategy," to the successful "white
hands" and Willie Horton political ads of Republican
politicians. The white Right has always exploited and manipulated
race for its own ends, openly and indirectly, both in America and
Europe.
Anti-racists have often cut through the propaganda and called the
game for what it is.

So we reoriented. Leftist rhetoric was out and slick
marketing in. Our educational materials looked glossier but now
featured crude “Archie Bunker” caricatures of working
people, and the language seemed increasingly anti-white. I
remember feeling upset, even angry. So I left.
Fair enough, although crude Archie Bunker caricatures have been
around since the 1970s to portray conservative whites. Before
Archie came along, liberal/left folk also had a field day with
portrayals of white southern racists and their sympathizers. It
should be noted that in some cases these caricatures have some
truth to them.

There is a substantial slice of the US population for example
that is racist, or if not explicitly such, will vote and act
along racial lines. Furthermore they can be mobilized to win
political victory with the right coded appeals, using their
higher percentages of voting registration as Steve Sailer has
pointed out. Race works for the right on many levels, and
anti-racists have accurately pointed this out numerous times.

Looking back, I realize things had to happen that way.
With the disintegration of the old socialist left, antiracists
were freer to follow their natural inclinations, first by
replacing class politics with identity politics, and second by
making common cause with the political right, especially for the
project of creating a globalized economy. Antiracism became a
means to a new end.
I am not sure anti-racism makes common cause with the political
right. It really depends on the anti-racists in question. In some
cases, anti-racists are OPPOSED to the globalist project, and see
corporate greed and exploitation as that of an ever more affluent
white elite gaining at the expense of non-white indigenous
peoples. Other anti-racists oppose elite policy, such as those
that question the legitimacy of Israel’s harsh Palestinian
policies, and the support for Israel in some American corporate
circles. Anti-racists were also a thorn in the side for various
corporate interests during the apartheid days of South Africa.
Perhaps in other cases your analysis may hold true, but I think
you need more specific examples to bolster your argument.

This phony consensus is also being pushed at a time
when the demographic cauldron of the Third World is boiling over.
This is particularly so in sub-Saharan Africa, where the decline
in fertility has stalled and actually reversed in some countries.
The resulting population overflow is now following the path of
least resistance—northward, especially with the chaos due to
the NATO-led invasion of Libya. In the current context,
immigration controls should be strengthened, and yet there is
lobbying to make them even weaker. The idiocy is beyond belief.

Sub-Saharan immigration to Europe is not a major problem,
compared to say Mexico which shares a common land border with the
US. A problem yes but one that is much easier to control than
immigration from WITHIN the EURASIAN landmass. Muslim immigration
from Turkey or the Balkans is much more a problem than say people
from Ghana. Refugees from Burkina Faso are not exactly queuing up
in terrorist cells to establish sharia law in Frankfurt. There is
really no major crisis on this score. Libya by the way is in
North Africa not sub-Saharan Africa.

We in North America can nonetheless prepare the way by
learning to speak up and stand up, and by recognizing that the
“Right” is just as problematic as the “Left.”

Agreed. And both "right" and "left" need
credible solutions to one of the most entrenched problems that is
influencing the whole numbers debate- the continued refusal of
Europeans to keep their fertility rates up. The reasons vary- the
expansion of the gay lifestyle, free-wheeling abortion (white
Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world), white
feminist liberation, decline of traditional religious mores in
favor of monogamy and family, postponement of marriage by the
European young, etc etc. Until this central issue among Europeans
is addressed, all the voting will in the long run, make little
difference.

Numinous says:
To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism”
was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the
right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities,
character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical
appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project
for idle left-wing activists, as you seem to describe it.

Indeed. Anti-racism has very much been a grassroot black thing
from the beginning, with or without the presence of elite
organizations like the NAACP. Long before the NAACP, and long
before the NAACP even assumed any prominence, there were
significant numbers of black anti-racist organizations, and
powerful black anti-racist public figures. How could there not be
among those who were suffering most from racism? Even
accommodation like Booker T Washington secretly financed court
cases challenging racist laws. The NAACP is a latecomer to the
party as far as anti-racism movements and organizations.

SEAN SAYS:
Ireland has many unemployed and is letting in more
immigrants now than ever before. So is Denmark, which some bad
jokers will tell you has shown a modern Western economy run on
democratic lines can stop the inexorable increase in Third World
immigration.
Agreed. Ireland has seen an increase in immigration, particularly
from Eastern Europe, followed by Asia and then Africa.
Interestingly, it is the higher IQ Irish that are more tolerant
about immigration than the lower IQ whites. [Denny, K and C Ó Gráda
(2013), “Irish attitudes to immigration during and after the
boom”,] Some have pointed to economic downturns which harden
anti-immigrant attitudes but the pattern of the higher IQ being
more apparently liberal still holds, and tracks with the HBD
research of Kanazawa and others. As IQ grows, so does liberalism
in a substantial number of cases. In the US, the pattern also is
seen- higher IQ whites often seem less racist than lower IQ
whites.

Peter, the final straw for you was that poster from the
anti racist organisation that you talked about a while ago. There
is a concealed loathing for the lower orders. It showed a white
man yelling ‘You’re stealing my job’ at a
dark-skinned person. What struck me was the way the two were
portrayed. The white man had a bald head, a hideous face, and a
huge beer belly. He was also dressed in overalls, presumably to
show he was a manual laborer. In contrast, the dark-skinned man
was neatly dressed and normal in appearance”).
But this is no different from or worse than similar right wing
propaganda pieces displaying a stereotypical, brutish minority juxtaposed
against a cleaner more virtuous white. Illana Mercer’s book for
example, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot”, a right wing favorite, does it
quite cleverly- playing on the "black cannibal" meme,
and featuring a nubile white girl crouching pensively while dusky
handprints play over her body. The White Right is just as devious
and manipulative on the race propaganda front as the left. The
"coded" racial appeals of the southern strategy or Jesse
Helms successful "white hands" political ad are just a
few illustrations of how the Right wing profitably milks "the
race card".

And as a belief that race is unimportant is the sine qua
non that defines the identity of upper class whites, they feel
virtuous about benefiting from the destruction of (their) people.
The classes that the rulers are drawn from are very, very good at
running things; it comes naturally to them. I mean, from a few
things you’ve said over the years, I would think your
parentage is not really working class even though your early
environment was. In that anti racist organisation you were in, I
bet there were a high proportion of upper middle class people at
the top.
It is rather naive to believe that upper class whites don;t think
race is important. They do think it is important, they just want
to DISGUISE and HIDE their concern under other veneers and
pretexts. As conservative Thomas Sowell has pointed out, upper
class white liberals have "ethnically cleansed"
numerous neighborhoods by making the supply of housng shrink via
zoning controls that hinder new construction or the free market
in rentals. The happy end result- less darker types who are priced
out. Upper class whites also controlled the corporate and
political levers that implemented the often devastating
"urban renewal" policies that destroyed numerous
minority and working class white neighborhoods, leaving the door
open for corporate land grabs or gentrification by the more
affluent white. They can do all this yet appear cool, progressive
and "into diversity" at the same time. Only the naive
have not caught on to the game.

The problem with the anti-racism movement is that they
assumes only White people are capable of being racists. They
should just blatantly re-name themselves the anti-White movement
and not beat around the bush about it. I prefer when my enemies
are just straight up blunt about their cruel
intentions.
Who says anti-racists are ANTI-white? To the contrary some are
very pro-white. They just want the OPEN, ugly aspects of white
supremacy to disappear under a kinder, gentler seeming veneer. As
noted by some conservative scholars white liberals (anti-racists
among them) have created all white zones using "non
racial" levers that work to price out and freeze out their
darker brethren. How many low income or working class housing
developments you seen in tony upper white liberal suburbs?

Furthermore measures pushed b white anti-racists often benefit
mostly white people. "Affirmative action" quotas for
example mostly benefit white women, as has the expansion of
government spending in such things as education- the overwhelming
bulk of those gaining employment thus are white. Same with numerous
government programs. Welfare does not only benefit more white
people but welfare benefits are relatively HIGHER in states with
higher white populations than states with larger minority
populations. White people are rigging the system to help
themselves while speaking cool progressive things bout
"diversity." Only gullible white right wingers have not
caught on to the game- or maybe they have and are just running a
propaganda front to keep it going as long as possible.

ANON928 SAYS
By the latter half of the 20th century, Western middle
and lower classes were no longer benefiting from globalism and
its primary beneficiaries were the wealthy and non-Western
populations.
Not quite. For one thing, the cheaper goods and services produced
at times by globalization are of benefit to Western middle and
lower classes. Much of the trendy gadgets and designer fashion
enjoyed by the affluent and middle class white are produced n
much poorer Third World venues. Who says they derive no benefit?

Furthermore, the physical immigration of Third WOrld populations
benefits the middle and to a lesser extent the working lcass in 2
ways: (a) they often take on the dirty jobs that middle and
working class don;t want (like the proud lower socio-economic
whites that disdainfully refuse to pick crops in the field
"like Mexicans") and (b) the immigrants particularly
the undocumented in some analyses produce a net benefit in output
greater than the services they consume. As a result, their
younger populations support the pension and entitlement payouts
for an aging, more affluent white population. And even when that
white population is smaller in relative numbers, their higher
rates of voting participation and deeper political pockets, can
trump less organized, less able to vote immigrant populations, as
Steve Sailer has pointed out.

UNITY742 SAYS:

Chinese and Japanese immigrants in early 20th Century California
may not have ‘liked’ white attitudes towards Orientals
but it didn’t stop them from successfully organizing their
own communities or leave a ‘legacy of disadvantage’
that had to be compensated for when barriers to their
participation in the larger society came down. Racism” as a
political movement only matters when a truly inferior population
has no other way to compete economically with a superior
population. Thus South African ‘apartheid’ or American
‘segregation’ were ‘morally evil’ because the
excluded population, left to themselves, could not exist at the
same level as the population who did not want to socialize with
them.
Dubious. Your argument is weak. Who says blacks were
"unable" to do anything? In fact as conservative
scholar Thomas Sowell shows blacks did successfully organize
their own communities in spite of much harsher conditions than
Japanese or Chinese, or Jews. As Sowell shows they too built
schools, churches familes and businesses to the extent able under
prevailing conditions. Other ethnic groups in the US had it
easier Sowell notes. California for all its early racism was a
better place, comparatively speaking than the Jim Crow South. The
Chinese suffered progroms to be sure but nothing like almost a
century of progroms endured by blacks or a century of persistent
racial murder called lynching.
Japanese and Chinese in addition
had their own national governments to speak up on their behalf.
The Burlingame treaty of 1869 for example stipulated certain
rights for Chinese immigrants in the US as part of a deal if the
US wanted more trade with China. Chinese immigration was limited
afterwards but again, the US simply could not impose the vicious
JIm Crow regime on Chinese that it had on blacks. And all the
Chinese anti-exclusion practices from laws to punitive taxes were
old news to American blacks, endured well into the 1960s.

Likewise the US had to temper its racism when dealing with
Japanese and could not institute the
total, vicious Jim Crow that it imposed on blacks. In California
Japanese and white children for example attended integrated
school in numerous venues for decades, quite unlike the US South
(Sowell "Ethnic America"). The emergency of dominant
Japanese agriculture in some locales that caused so much white
jealously could not have happened with blacks in the South.
Japanese and Chinese via their US born children in addition were
able to skirt many anti-Asian laws on top of all this.
Jews in the US, while experiencing some discrimination, did not face the
centuries of slavery that destroyed families and
cultural organization, nor endure the grinding apartheid decades
afterwards than US blacks faced. And US blacks only became fully
organize after WW2, whereas Jews had a century to work with in
the freer, urban venues with more opportunities.

Secondly,contrary to what you claim, Racism as a
political movement" first becomes significant when the
DOMINANT GROUP moved to suppress those lower down the ladder.
Racism began there. And apartheid and Jim Crow were not morally
evil because excluded populations could not exist "left to
themselves." Quite the contrary. In fact excluded
populations often pleaded specifically TO BE LEFT TO THEMSELVES
without the interference of whites and were doing quite well on
their own without white hegemony. Indians for example time and time
again asked to be simply left alone, but greedy whites time and
time again refused – using bogus "treaties" or outright
wars of extermination to seize their lands and displace them.

Likewise black freedom fighters throughout the Atlantic World
(the maroons), including the hard-fighting black Seminoles in
Florida, did not ask to to hang around with white people, but
demanded t be LEFT ALONE TO THEMSELVES. They didn’t give a damn
about so-called "white levels."

And apartheid and Jim Crow were morally evil because they
involved a deep and corrupt hypocrisy on the part of whites not
to mention massive deception and massive, murderous violence and
exploitation. White anti-racists candidly expose the game for
what it is, seeing through the standard, self-serving right wing
propaganda. Your argument simply does not hold water.

LEFTIST CONSERVATIVE SAYS:
The fundamental truth here is that
multiculturalism/political correctness/affirmative action, etc
all work to increase corporate profits and the wealth of the
upper class.
Actually the opposite is the case historically. "Affirmative
action" for example, when operating in favor of whites,
worked very nicely to increase white wages, wealth and profits-
from white unions that excluded black competition, to white
corporations that suppressed black labor organizing for more
wages or better conditions, or worked to dispossess black farmers
from owning land in the Jim Crow south. White people have
profited greatly from white "affirmative action."

As scholar Daria Roithmeyer shows in her book
on white racial cartels -"Reproducing racism"-
ANTI-competitive white racial cartels paid off handsomely for
white people in US history. Rothmayr details for example how
white unions conducted strikes to force companies to fire
productive black workers. Result: less competition, greater white
wages, income and opportunity. This pattern is contrary to the
propaganda narrative of virtuous white "merit" holding
sway.

And “multiculturalism” has enabled numerous white people to get
paid- whether in be in expanded gubment programs to allegedly “help” minorities
or as bureaucrats “coordinating” assorted “diversity” initiatives. Then there
is they psychic payment of being considered more cool and virtuous. This is
especially so with higher IQ whites.

PS: correction to above- not “organized” but fully “urbanized” after WW2.

RON UNZ SAYS:
The rate at which new mutations appear in a population is obviously proportional to the size of that population, and as the number of people has increased 100x or more over the last 10K years, the rate of new, potentially beneficial mutations has similarly increased by that same factor. Meanwhile, for highly beneficial mutations, the speed at which they sweep to fixation in an entire population is largely independent of the population size, basically log N. Therefore, mutation-driven evolution enormously accelerated as the human population on earth rapidly increased. That’s a crucial reason why evolution has probably speeded up so dramatically in the last 10K years.

Thank you Ron Unz for your thoughtful comments. I have no particular quarrel with the idea of acceleration per se but rather the sweeping HBD claims in some quarters that downplay important factors like geography, environment. founder effect and genetic drift, and launch into subsequent race hierarchy models based on stereotypical categories of humanity, unrealistic notions of natural selection, or alleged behavioral predispositions due to evolution, as already detailed above. Serious, careful, expert scientists dispute many of these claims as noted too, including some of Wade’s claims.
Your take on population expansion is interesting. Some seem to forget that natural selection is less effective in smaller population sizes. Population expansion from Africa showed a pattern of the loss of genetic diversity, as compared to the original African source. Yet Africa itself had its own internal population expansions- before and after global spreads, and also saw the appearance of the mutations you mention. Indeed, long-term effective population size was greatest in Africa early on. Pre-agricultural acceleration, as well as that greater factor, the agricultural, particularly in the Nile Valley as it was populated foundationally from the south, would also be part of this mix. The mutation influenced acceleration you note thus is a universal phenomenon, not limited to a particular place or group. Also in the mix is the environmental drivers that shaped that acceleration. I will check out other links you reference. I have no doubt science will shed more light on the role of population expansions.

Peter Frost says:
Actually, many antiracist scholars do. They’ll point to Lewontin’s study and say that the genetic differences within a group of Swedes are greater than the genetic differences between them and a group of Zulus. It’s important to address that argument, notably by pointing out that we see the same genetic overlap between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct.

Fair enough. Some may overstate the case, I have no doubt, relying on Lewontin’s 1970s work. I see a more balanced trend in some saying it depends on the level of genetic detail drilled down to, with geographically close populations generally being more similar.

But there could have been a winding down of the war on racism. By the 1990s, most antiracist organizations were faced with declining revenues, declining membership, and a general loss of purpose with the collapse of the old Left.

I more or less agree, and only dispute various right wing (and some liberal) formulas on the web and in traditional media that naively (or cynically) declare the “end of racism.” Your critique is echoed by several others, former leftists included. By the 1990s the major fermenting civil rights issues had indeed receded, and assorted activists seemed to be stretching the racism meme out of proportion – i.e. some excesses of Sharpton, etc.

In the U.S., the political right is dominated by a single demographic: White Christian Americans. It is thus easier to manipulate: once you have that demographic in your pocket, you’re home free. The political left is harder to manipulate because there are more factions to convince or buy off.
Agreed.

They have the job of speaking eloquently and convincingly. And that’s why there has been a systematic effort to purge academia and politics of “racists.”
Fair enough. Anyone can see the dominance of the liberal/left in the mainstream media and on campus. I only object to distorted formulas that claim virtual liberal totalitarianism with everyone else muzzled. This has not been so. There has been no shortage of vocal anti-liberal/left opposition, and that’s before the big rise of things like Fox News or Limbaugh on talk radio. Affirmative action for example has attracted no end of criticism or commentary, and has been a major and profitable wedge issue for the white right wing for years.

“Sub-Saharan immigration to Europe is not a major problem”
When I read that statement, I fell off my chair.

Hold on though 🙂 As I specifically said, continuing the sentence above:
“.. compared to say Mexico which shares a common land border with the
US. A problem yes but one that is much easier to control than
immigration from WITHIN the EURASIAN landmass. Muslim immigration
from Turkey or the Balkans is much more a problem than say people
from Ghana.

The Muslim issue, involving peoples from the Middle East, Anatolia and
the Balkans are much more a problem to Europe, especially a Europe that
is not reproducing itself and is increasingly giving up foundational Christian traditions.

SEAN says:

Affirmative action was explicitly racial and against whites on the basis of their race. Whites were capable of drawing conclusions about who to not to vote for. And in fact Nixon did not reverse AA, quite the opposite.
Actually whites pioneered the preferential treatment patterns of “affirmative action” for almost 2 centuries prior to the 1970s. As for the modern formulation of AA with its timetables and court cases, AA actually began at the behest of WHITE union members who were discriminated against by corporations due to union membership. Courts recognized that merely saying “please stop” was meaningless and initiatied goals, timetables and quotas for making whole the damage done to the white unionists (Sowell 2004, 1975). And whites have milked AA very profitably. The main beneficiaries are white women, particularly in public sector and linked venues such as in governmental contracting. On top of that are the usual “front” manipulations that at times saw such things as white Portugese businessmen receiving the lions share of “minority” construction contracts in the nations’ capital under the guise of being “Hispanic.” (Sowell 2004). In any event, AA has been a sick man for years crippled by court challenges and bureaucratic opposition. And as Sowell repeatedly shows, AA has had little overall impact on black economic progress which was on an upswing decades BEFORE any significant application of AA in the 1970s.

As for Richard Nixon, one of his specific purposes in initiating his so-called “Philadelphia Plan” in 1969/70 was not simply his exasperation at the entrenched racism and intransigence of white unions to equal opportunity for blacks, but to drive a wedge in the Democratic coalition. After his Philly PLan had began working its wedge magic, Nixon specifically struck an ANTI Affirmative Action stance, charging Dems with being quota-happy and stoking white counter-reaction, particularly in the South. Almost every credible scholarly history on this specific topic shows this. See for example- Yuill, K, 2006. Richard Nixon and the Rise of Affirmative Action. A shrewd politician, Nixon’s gambit paid off, and is still profitable to this day for the white right.

The real correlation is with higher social class, whose interests are with immigration because affluent liberals are made more affluent by immigration, as I said the upper classes despise the lower orders and being a stupid overpaid overweight manual worker is the ultimate insult for the chattering classes, as shown in the poster Peter wrote about. High IQ working class people are not in favour of immigration.
Agreed in general. But high IQ working class people do not dominate society to the extent that high IQ liberals do- from the media, to corporations, to government, to education. Many HBDers tout high IQ, but what is ironic is that higher IQ types are disproportionately represented in the liberal column, along with some other things undermining traditional values. High IQ volk for example not only tend to lean more liberal, but on the average are more atheist, or non/anti religious. (Zuckerman 2013).

BILL P SAYS:
Come on now, Enrique, you can’t seriously believe that favoring one’s own kind was invented only 200 years ago by Americans. Do you think the rest of the world were holy equalists who treated everyone the same regardless of what tribe they were from?
Not at all Bill. Just saying that the notion of AA, or more accurately preferential treatment policies, as Thomas Sowell calls them, is very much a white thing in the US, and its outlines, in such things as court cases and quotas, originated with white people, namely white union members. Keep in mind too that modern AA race quotas, as they took shape in Nixon’s “Philadelphia Plan” were something initiated also by WHITE people. Credible histories of the subject show that there was really no clamor of black leaders on the late 1960s for head count quotas. In fact black leaders, and even prominent Dems, in the late 1960s SHIED AWAY from quotas. It was white Nixon that pushed quotas as part of his cynical racial wedge strategy.
See Univ of Mi graphic below:

As for your dismissal of high IQ working class people as irrelevant, keep in mind that affirmative action (the real kind I mean — not the imaginary one mentioned above), has been kicking more and more whites down the stairs to the working class. This means that there is a growing number of high IQ whites in the working class, and you may eventually discover that this will matter quite a lot more than was anticipated.
You are completely wrong. AA has had little to do with economic declines of white people. This is simply the usual nonsensical, oft naive “HBD” propaganda. That decline has many causes. AA is very far down on the list. Crumbling white families and divorces for example are an ongoing trend since the 1970s and have nothing to do with any AA quotas. The shift away from blue collar manufacturing that hurt white employment is something long underway and has nothing to do with any AA quotas. You have to start analyzing things in depth. I recommend you read conservative Thomas Sowell’s hard-hitting exposes of AA. Sowell is a fierce OPPONENT of quotas, and one of the striking things he shows about quotas is how little they have to do with overall or general black progress. Black employment, income gains, college attendance, home ownership etc etc were all on the upswing BEFORE AA quotas of the 1970s. Civil Rights Act of 1964 definitely helped in these gains, but the CRA congressional deliberation and that of its sponsors specifically REJECTED quotas, and the positive trends noted above were already moving even BEFORE the CRA.

Sowell shows that while a minority of already better off blacks saw some benefit, especially in government, most blacks did not need, nor did they rely much on any quotas to advance. The neutral GI Bill for example in the 1950s sparked a boom in black college enrollment as it did among many white returning veterans. This was long BEFORE quotas. The booming post-war economy lifted all boats in addition, and did much, much more to advance black incomes and employment than any AA quotas. And I don’t dismiss high IQ in the working class. I only say that higher IQs are concentrated in those of higher social class, on the average, and these higher IQ types tend to be on the average, more liberal, atheist, etc etc, as various HBD writers have shown.

Frost argues that the some debate is often phoney, because the better off elites are playing all sides, racism, anti-racism, etc, controlling the game, while a flurry of phony debate dominates the zone below. I have to agree in part. Thus for example the elites push for more immigration or legalization, while at the same time erecting barriers that ensure THEIR interests are protected from any negative consequences. Hence they may erect numerous zoning controls to restrict housing supplies ensuring that the unwashed mass of immigrant or minority types are priced out of tony white suburbs and schools. They may also push for various public power seizure of land that poor people live on for so-called “re-development” and “urban renewal”- using state power to dispossess the lower income so they can gain valuable urban properties for higher end gentrification and profitable development benefiting the more affluent. While minorities have been hardest hit, old line white ethnics have also suffered on this score.

Elites may rail against “sweatshop” conditions in Third World venues, but they are busy snapping up luxury designer goods and gadgets made more cheaply in those venues, or they are shifting investment monies and production offshore to these “terrible sweatshop” locales. HBDers may rail against “the liberals,” but it is allegedly more “conservative” corporate types that are also in part responsible for incentivizing illegal immigration in their quest for cheap labor. It was these same corporate types that manipulated, pushed and profited from the fraudulent mortgage boom, and when the balloon popped they got bailed out- some walking away with nice bonuses, and none of the top bigwigs saw any jail time. Allegedly “conservative” politicians are also part of the game. They will push all the right buttons to get right-wing/Tea Party votes, but once these are sown up and they are in power, its business as usual. In short Frost’s piece would warn us that we are being played in many ways, and that some of these debates raging in the zone are ultimately phony. Controllers of the game sit back, and are probably laughing.

SEAN SAYS:
The San Francisco General Strike, Auto-Lite strike and Minneapolis general strike of 1934 could not have been suppressed by ” preferential treatment patterns” (ie beatings) of white union men by police, hired goons and vigilantes then.
The examples you give are of general union strikes. I am not talking about those, but rather of the fact that modern AA quotas with their remedies for discrimination began as a measure benefiting white union people in the 1930s who were being discriminated against because of union membership.(Sowell 1975). Courts imposed remedies, having recognized that merely saying “please stop” would do little to deter corporate bosses or compensate white unionists hurt by the bosses discriminatory actions.
It should be noted that white unions are among the biggest, most vicious opponents of merit and equal opportunity where blacks are concerned. There were several strikes for example that forced companies to fire good black workers, people who had been on the job for decades, so whites could take over their slots. White union goons also murdered black workers because they were employed in so-called “white only” jobs. This continued on into the late 1940s. The ugly history of the railroads shows such things in stark detail.

You are not seriously saying, are you, that whites could not have noticed that AA was explicitly anti white without Nixon saying the Democrats were taking it too far? Nixon (unlike Goldwater) did not oppose civil rights, and he won, then he integrated white schools. Whites had nowhere else to go because Democrats were always going to be worse than Republicans.
AA as noted was a white thing to begin with. AA never began as anti-white. iT began as a measure, for which there was the white union precedent, of forcing white unions to live up to their rhetoric about “fighting for the working man”, and to cease their openly racist practices. By 1969 when Nixon was in office, many of those practices, such as separate seniority lists for black workers to ensure they never moved up beyond a certain point, were illegal. Nixon was within the law in getting unions to cleanup their act. Even then, unions dragged their feet for years and found ways to water down provisions, such as tokenism. BUT, Nixon also saw quotas as a shrewd way to split the Dem coalition of labor, Jews, and blacks. Every credible history shows this. So while he pointed to his Philly plan as “fighting discrimination” his broader purpose was a racial wedge strategy, and indeed, having himself implemented the major quota plan, he turned around and argued loudly about the unfairness of quotas.

Nixon got to play it both ways. He knew unions would drag their feet, and obstruct and delay. But he also knew his quota plan would expose their racist practices, anger blacks and liberals who saw them, and drive a wedge in the Dem coalition. It would also “signal” white Southerners that he really was on their side and bolster rising GOP “backlash” prospects in the South. In this white Nixon was successful, and his cynical calculus is profitably used by the white right to this day.
Frost’s article invites readers to look beyond phony surface debates and grasp the deep game being played. Nixon’s gambit is one of those deep games. Liberal elites are also playing a number of deep games as well, many of which operate under cover of supposedly “helping” blacks but in reality are nothing of the sort- they are mostly benefiting themselves, and other white agendas. Corporate elites likewise may speak patriotic language, while undercutting the home volk in their search for cheap labor.

SILVIO SILVER SAYS:
Nevertheless, if that’s true of some of them it’s not necessarily true of all them. And it wont’ do to use the fact that it’s true of some of them in order to obfuscate the bottom line reality that whites really are being screwed out of any kind of a future. Whites are told they simply must submit to racial extinction. If “genocide” is too strong a word for that to your way of thinking, then feel free to nominate less emotive term that still gets the point across.

Laughable pablum. White people aren’t being “replaced” by any stretch of the imagination into “racial extinction.” And who says that there is some sort of sacred “percentage” of America that HAS to be white? What is this “holy number”: 70%? 80%? 90%? Where did this “holy number” come from, and who says it is supposed to be enshrined in stone for all time?

And what you convenient seem to forget is that white people themselves are failing to reproduce- it is they who are sowing the seeds of their own extinction. Where is this “conspiracy” of minorities “forcing” white people not to reproduce? What? “Gangsta” rappers or “eternal” Jews roaming the white suburbs preventing white people from having sex and making babies? Puhleeze..

The reasons for white failure vary- such as the increasing white embrace of homosexual culture including “gay” marriage that undermines traditional family mores, the rise of white feminism that bashes men and continues that undermining in some ways, and the rise of white male “slackers” who have pulled back from their responsibilities, especially in the face of white female gains and power. All these things have been put in place by white people, not minorities. These trends have been much discussed by white conservatives and liberals. Amazon groans with books on them. No one is “forcing” white people into these trends. They are heading down that road of their own volition, with their eyes wide open. It is of course much easier to blame “evil minorities” than to face the reality. The “white genocide” meme is standard “stormfront” propaganda.

I can understand that the language used here can have a jarring effect since today’s western culture ve1emently insists that whites have no racial interests – in fact, whites supposedly don’t even exist – but ask yourself how the excuse-making behaviour described above would sound in a cultural environment which rejects claims that whites have no racial interests?

Equally laughable. Who says whites have no racial interests? They have always had racial interests, and indeed one of the key founding factors of America was white racial interests. It is enshrined in parts of the early US constitution for example. Everyone, even liberals, recognizes that white have racial interests. What the game is today is that white don't want to appear too OPEN about it, as they were in the days of Jim Crow. OPEN racism eventually backfired on white people because it exposed their hypocrisy, and their hypocritical claims to virtue, merit, democracy and such. That hypocrisy became an international issue during the Cold War, as the Soviets had a field day twisting the knife. This is one reason some Civil Rights concessions were granted, to remove the embarrassment of white hypocrisy being exposed.

Today’s white game is one of “plausible denial.” They don’t want to appear too OPEN in pursuit of their interests, preferring a soothing propaganda front of multicultural pablum, and stirring words about merit and togetherness etc. But behind the scenes, whites are pursing their own racial interests with vigor and never ceased to do so. Whites may proclaim bold commitments to “diversity” and so on, but behind the scenes enact policies that serve to price minorities out of various venues, ensuring that there is in reality, trivial “diversity.” Or they may boldly denounce “affirmative action” for the culluds, while quietly steering “affirmative action” policies that help white women. Anti-racist whites have long seen through the cynical game, as have many blacks, as have clear-eyed libertarians like Thomas Sowell.

BILLP SAYS:
Not true, Enrique. White males were the first group to see slower job growth and lower labor force participation in the early 1980s, right at the beginning of the shift away from an egalitarian society. This is because affirmative action started to be implemented in a meaningful way right at that time.
Bill, your point that white males have seen slower job growth and labor force participation is accurate. I agree. But the data shows that AA has little to do with this trend. For one thing, the white decline is heavily a product of a shift away from manufacturing, into the service economy. This is a trend in place since the 1960s, accelerating into the 1980s. AA has very little to do with this. Even HBD favorite Charles Murray in his lament for white America “COming Apart” notes the trend. Let me quote him:
“High-paying unionized jobs have become scarce and real wages for all kinds of blue-collar jobs have been stagnant or falling since the 1970s.” (Murray, Coming Apart)

Pushing women into the workplace was also a result of affirmative action, and that had a negative effect on marital stability for non-elite whites. Affirmative action has been a net negative for whites, and liberals often gloat over our reduced status, saying things like “white men are enraged because they are no longer ‘privileged’” (as though the white working class ever was).
I don’t dispute that AA has had an impact for white women, especially in government influenced sectors, and liberal dominated bastions like colleges. You are correct. But keep in mind that the economic expansion of WW2 brought a lot of women into the workplace, and the shift away from manufacturing to services also brought a lot of women in. As far as the volume of women pouring into the workplace, AA is minor. The upward trend was already underway before AA quotas kicked in.

Also keep in mind that the 1980s was a time of retrenchment. Under the Reagan regime, AA compliance oversight was rolled back, and government agencies like the EEOC had their budgets cut, developing a backlog measured in YEARS. Far from the 1980s being a surge time for AA, it was a time of retrenchment.(Kayley and Dobbin 2005). Your notion of a 1980s AA boom doesn’t stand up to the facts.

Affirmative action has had real, negative effects on non-elite white males, and that was by design. You may deny this, but it is universally unpopular with these non-elite whites. Is this because they are all stupid, ignorant, inbred rednecks as the anti-racist left would have us believe? Are they suffering from mass delusion? Were they fooled by aliens? Or the Republicans (who simply exploited white resentment of Democrats who sold them out)? No, they aren’t really that stupid. They know that affirmative action is against their interests.
I see your argument to some extent, and yes some non-elite white males have suffered. But the impact of AA quotas has been small. AA was pitched as a way also to help the poor blacks. But in fact it has done little for them and rather helped those already better off, or better positioned. But all credible data shows that AA quotas has had little to do with the decline of non-elite white males. They were already on the downslope with the decline of manufacturing and union jobs- ongoing since the 1970s. Non-elite white males have also lost out because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened up numerous “protected” or “reserved” jobs to open competition. White employers found they could get equal or better black labor, cheaper than the white union people they had to earlier employ. This opening up of previously “off-limits” jobs is not AA quotas, but standard equal opportunity door opening endorsed by both liberals and conservatives.

In SOME cases yes, AA did hurt non-elites, but the overall impact is small, compared to the much larger economic trends that have hurt non-elite white males. One study of govt contractors with AA between 1974 and 1980, for instance, Leonard (1984;1990) [Leonard, Jonathan, “Impact of Affirmative Action on Employment, Journal of Labor Economics, etc] finds that among contractors black male employment rose from 5.8% to 6.7, an unimpressive .9 percent, LESS than even 1%- rather trivial. In the same study whites fell from 58.3% to 53.3%, an equally unimpressive 5%. But in firms not covered by AA, white employment STILL dropped anyway from 44.8% to 41.3% and black employment still rose anyway from 5.3 to 5.9%. In short, the black gains under AA were a minimal 1%, and were unimpressive compared to blacks without AA who moved ahead anyway. Without AA there were still black gains.

The overall picture is of AA having a minimal or small impact. Without AA involved, the white guys were STILL on the downslope. AA made little difference to the white overall trend. Indeed credible studies of “reverse discrimination” show that it has had little effect on whites. (Blumrosen 1996). This is contrary to the standard HBD propaganda line of vast numbers of white jobs being lost to “quotas for blacks”. Such claims are fantasy.

But let me ask you- what sort of policy prescriptions would you put in place to reverse the trends you see?

Sean says:
Slavery was extremely controversial from the beginning of the USA, but there was a cotton boom and the best land was malarial, which meant the more malaria-resistant Africans were required. That caused a war by whites against whites for blacks that virtually destroyed the South. You seem to think that was nothing remarkable, yet it is a powerful counter example to the thesis that whites were running the country to benefit themselves.

I agree that the mass production of things like cotton, which was one of the key drivers that made the US rich required slaves to do that work. True. And yes, I would agree with some conservative arguments that the North, which so often lectured the south was complicit in slavery, as indeed some books like 2005’s “Complicity” show. New York for example became the commercial and financial capital of the US early on partially through the massive cotton trade. In short, BOTH the white North and South reaped handsome profits and wealth from the slave economy.

The white South went to war to preserve that profitable state of affairs. Some say it was “state’s rights.” But what was the key “states rights” that was at issue? Slavery. No revisionist arguments can get around this central fact. Some argue that the North didn’t care about blacks but wanted to preserve its industrial and commercial hegemony, and that meant crushing an independent south. This may be true, but again, what was the key issue making up that hegemony? The wealth created by slavery which the North also coveted. So both areas benefited from slavery, and the bottom line of the war was slavery.

The worst thing that happened to free blacks after the Civil War was the eradication of hookworm, which had given them a powerful advantage over white farmers, who were less resistant to the disease.
This statement makes no sense Sean. If hookworm alleviated the suffering of free blacks and made them healthier, how would this be the worse thing that happened to them? These positive outcomes are actually the opposite. In any event hookworm eradication campaigns in the south after the Civil War benefited whites as well.

The Republican party in Chicago is an admittedly extreme example, but when Republican Big Bill Thompson narrowly won in 1927 he got 93 % of the black vote. .. The fact remains blacks had the vote because whites had fought a civil war among themselves.
Prior to the Civil War most northern states prevented blacks from voting. After the Civil War the withdrawal of northern troops from the south enabled most southern regimes to crush black voting rights for almost a century. The north didn;t really hurt its head over that.

There is not a single instance of Nixon or anyone speaking for him even implying he would oppose civil rights, or much less doing anything against civil rights legislation. Indeed, once in power he actively brought in affirmative action. And everyone knew what AA and busing meant for whites. The working class whites in places like Boston were completely helpless. It is massively stretching words to say Nixon or the Republicans pursued a ‘strategy’ of taking white votes away from Democrats in the South .
Dubious. You merely offer personal opinion. But every credible history of the Nixon regime shows the opposite of what you claim. In fact Nixon did deploy a “southern strategy” and actively courted white voters using “coded” appeals, and, while racist unions stalled and delayed, actively developed the cynical racial wedge plan using “affirmative action” as the wedge.
See Univ of Mi graphic below:

Barry Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,; and the net effect was to not to increase his support nationally, which made it obvious the reservoir of potential extra support that could be tapped by a strategy of appealing to white southerners by attacking civil rights for blacks would have came at an extremely high cost had Nixon tried to use it. Whatever his motivation, the fact is Nixon did not try a ‘southern strategy’, and Goldwater’s example suggests the strategy simply did not exist as an option for anyone who wanted to win the country.
Wrong again, for the reasons listed above. And in fact Goldwater’s “southern” gambit did yield some traction, and his campaign saw an increasing shift of white southerners to the GOP, even as blacks started to swing Dem. Nixon did not use open racist appeals like George Wallace, and seemed more friendly towards civil rights. Nevertheless he continued Goldwater’s outreach approach using “coded” racial appeals.
It was a shrewd double game. He knew racist unions would stall, delay and sandbag his quota plan, but he rammed it down on them, knowing also it would bring them into conflict with other Dem coalition members. At the same time quotas themselves would cause friction with Jews, and indeed they did as some Jewish liberals in time became prominent opponents of quotas. Nixon then turned around and argued against the unfairness of quotas, thus gaining white southern support. It was a master stroke by tricky Dick.
Lee Atwater: “Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I’ll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.“
Reagan was not racist compared to Fabus and Wallace. But his campaign did use “coded” racial appeals- whether it be invoking stereotypical “welfare queens”, or “states rights”. Naturally his campaign denied any racial angle, but the game of “plausible denial” and “signaling” certain white constituents was well understood. Reagan’s administration followed up by rolling back EEO enforcement mechanisms and oversight, and cutting the EEOC budget to skeletal levels. Books such as “The Rise of Southern Republicans”, 2010, or “Dog Whistle Politics”, 2013 give numerous detailed examples. Lee Atwater of course would never OPENLY admit the game. What politician would?

However the judicial rationale originated, AA was in truth and in fact anti white measures by a white society. No one forced them. What has been a majority white thing is legal protection and privilege of people simply on the basis of their race. (ie AA for people who were not even Americans) . White people are the only people who have come up with ideas like that and put them into practice to their own detriment.
AA was never an anti-white policy. As noted before Nixon cynically used AA quotas as a knife to split the Dem coalition. It is true that by 1969 a lot of the practices of white unions were illegal, such as separate black seniority lists to route black workers into dead end slots, or the limitation of apprentice pipelines to white friends, buddies and cronies, so few blacks could not get a toehold on the skilled job ladder. Nixon correctly told the unions to clean up these abuses, and tired of their stalling, imposed the quotas of the Philly Plan on them. Where years of appeals failed, hard numbers talked. But Nixon also turned that to advantage as credible studies show, and used the situation to split the Dem coalition- divide and conquer.
Furthermore, quotas were stalled and sandbagged using a variety of devices from the get-go. Some workplaces went the “tokenism” route- hire a few blacks to make a lawsuit go away and prevent the lawyers from digging too deeply into racist practices. Others used bureaucratic sleight of hand to end-run lawsuits and consent agreements by promoting huge numbers of whites into certain job slots or eligibility lists, thus clogging the pipeline for years so very few blacks moved up. Lawsuit after lawsuit in the 1970s revealed all these shenanigans, as did government investigations. Whites in turn also filed numerous lawsuits to block and sandbag quotas, and often succeeded. The Adarand and Croson decisions from over 20 years ago for example, gutted so-called contract set-asides. Bluntly put, the reputed vale of tears and suffering for white people under “cullud” quotas is bogus.

And where quotas did go into effect they were quickly expanded to cover white women, and in time, the bulk of the beneficiaries of quotas became white women. White conservatives could thus rail against “the culluds”, even as their white daughters, girlfriends and wives ultimately reaped most of the benefits. Whites also found lots of ways to game the system, such as using bogus “minority” front men. The rich white Fanjul family in Florida garnered huge benefits by using a “Hispanic” angle, as did white Portugese businessmen in Washington DC for several years (Sowell 2004). In short, white people have served themselves well using AA quotas. They just like to disguise the game.

SEAN SAYS:
[White people] They will cease to be majorities in every major western country in about 50 years. Nothing can stop that now.

Maybe. The main problem is that white people refuse to reproduce themselves at replacement level. They are going into the “gay” thing, including “gay” marriage- thus downgrading traditional family mores and relationships, and both white men and white women are delaying marriage, even as white females gain more power and influence. An immigration freeze will only delay this trend. Some look to white Russia for salvation, but while white Russia, which still has the highest abortion rate in the world has shown recent gains in birth rates, the overall forecast is still down-sloping.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/white-deaths-outnumber-births-for-first-time/2013/06/13/3bb1017c-d388-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

Some cynics say that whites always have to option of expanding the “whiteness” category, much as was done with the Irish and Italians, who at one time in America were not considered to be of “good white stock”. Whites they argue can always go the “mestizo” route, as is done in South America. In scenario, a mixed “mestizo” group- of whites, Hispanics and Asians assumes a middle position, but whites, as in Brazil and other parts of South America, remain on top. In this way, white supremacy is still maintained.

Furthermore, whites even as a minority are a majority of voters, and gain by having entitlements paid for my youngr minority populations. QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
In California, we roll our eyes at this,” he said. “Whites have been a minority here since 1999. But whites are still a majority of voters. Babies don’t vote. Older people vote. So it doesn’t have any direct functional meaning.”

But Frey said the natural decrease in whites suggests that aging whites will increasingly come to rely on the younger, mainly minority population to underwrite social programs that will sustain them. “Last year, we saw the majority of babies are minorities,” he said. “Now we see more whites are dying than being born. Together, that tells us a lot about where we’re going as a country.”
———————————
Hence some critics say, given that whites have this option, and can still remain on top, even as a minority, what are they complaining about?

SilvioSilva says:
My guess is: no way, Jose – whites are on this earth to cater to the desires of other races, not to pursue their own.
This seems naive. The record of history shows the opposite. Even assorted “diversity” initiatives have some agenda that benefits whites, if only to provide a handle for additional government controls, manna for the white left, or excellent rhetorical racial talking points for the right. And the “diversity” thing quietly incorporates white women, ensuring that whites benefit on the back end anyway. As Derbyshire notes, reputed “colored” issues are frequently used as stalking horses in the cold war battle battle between white factions. Whatever the exact configuration, or phony debates, its primarily a white game.

It’s not about “remaining on top.” It’s about securing long-term racial existence and enjoying the fruits of positive racial identity, even if that means no more than escaping the predations of anti-white racial blocs (such as of blacks, to cite the most notorious example).
But it is about remaining on top. That’s the uh, bottom line. And who says long term racial existence and positive racial identity isn’t preserved even with a smaller white population? Even the “South American” mestizo solution, for all its subtle gradations of color coding, still has white as the highest value.

And a smaller white population can still run the game, and do, using the minorities to white advantage. The aging of the white population for example will require increasingly younger minority bodies to help meet future subsidy payments for that aging population, not to mention adding to overall output. California’s whites lost their numerical majority in 1999, but they are still the majority of voters. All those illegals and their kids don;t vote. So the game is still controlled by whites. In longer term, the “mestizo hierarchy” option still remains available to whites, not to mention plenty of presence in other, less populous states. The mestizo hierarchy model still means white racial identity and existence. Once adjustments are made for inevitable demographic change, whites are still comfortably situated well into the next century and beyond.

One critical area of course where whites can always help themselves is reproducing at replacement levels. However white trends show a failure to to this increasingly- there are white shifts towards “gay” alternatives, “gay” marriage, more white feminism, more delay of marriage and childbearing, and less white respect for traditional family and moral strictures. These are long term white trends ongoing since the 1970s. And they are seen not only in the US but in other white nations as well. Supposed Aryan “role models” in Sweden circa 2000 for example had more than half their births out of wedlock. In the US non-college white women now post about the same 50% out of wedlock rate. Both are way higher than the black OOW rate that stood at around just 20-22% in 1960 (Sowell 2005).
As far as abortions, white Russia posts the highest rate in the world, killing two white children for each live birth. White broken families are a trend also going back decades. In 1965 there were about 480,000 divorces. A decade later this had climbed to one million and increasing. The same pattern is seen in other mostly white countries. “Mexican illegals” or “ghetto blacks” are not to blame for these white trends. They are long standing patterns, that in some cases have been embraced and celebrated by whites. Reducing the flow of illegals at the border may slow the numerical growth of minorities, but will not fundamentally reverse these longstanding white trends.

Some pin their hope on a rise in white “racial consciousness.” But aside from some short term publicity and political gains, this too is dubious in the long term. Whites ALREADY have plenty of racial consciousness. They just are not as OPEN about it as in the past, and have adopted more sophisticated “plausible denial” strategies. But the bottom line remains. They have mostly segregated themselves off from assorted darker minorities- hence schools for example while more mixed than in the past, overall in many areas remain just as segregated today as in the days of Jim Crow. Affirmative Action has been a sick man corpse for over a decade- gutted by white opposition and co-optation.

Intermarriage rates are likewise unimpressive, and only appear significant because the numbers are starting from a very low base to begin with. The impact of interracial marriages is mostly felt in MINORITY communities not white ones. Black-white marriages for example only make up LESS that 1% of all marriages- a laughably trivial number. And as Razib Khan notes in his piece on white genetics, white Americans are overwhelmingly European to an incredibly high degree for a population with roots on this continent for 400 years. Hysterical propaganda about “genetic annihilation” is laughably bogus. In short, it is an open question whether another round of racial “consciousness” will do much to reverse the white trends noted above.

Silvio said:
Now you are raising the spectre of the current developments as a prelude to an Apartheid state where a white racial minority will be in control in perpetuity,. That is really sick, and proves you don’t give whites credit for the explicit anti racial moral principles that are almost universally espoused by actual white human beings, especially the ones in positions of power. So, assumed by themselves to have an aim of retaining control of societies that they are clearly not acting to retain control of, and condemned by themselves as greedy even as they are giving everything away.
Not at all actually, and I did not speak of any apartheid as regards the “mestizo hierarchy” option. The old apartheid days are long gone. The “mestizo hierarchy” gambit clearly will have a “mixed” group and more flexible racial arrangements- BUT, white will still be ranked on top. This is the situation now in several South American countries.
And I specifically say several times that today’s white game is one of subtle cover and “plausible denial”. This is obvious. Anti-racists have long noted that OPEN racism and OPEN apartheid is no longer fashionable, but behind the scenes, white racism is alive and well. Ironically, many HBDers seem to agree with them on this point, and indeed, see racism as a good, justifiable thing.

As regards giving whites credit for anti-racial moral principles, I already SPECIFICALLY noted the positive contributions of many white anti-racists above, but you sweepingly condemn all blacks as an “anti-white racial bloc”, which is completely untrue and easily contradicted by credible history. There are SOME “anti” factions as among any other groups, but this is a minority among blacks. Most for example, supported Martin Luther King and his civil rights campaigns.

Furthermore many HDEers, or sympathizers sneer at white anti-racism, or efforts to extend to blacks full rights enjoyed by other citizens. They mock it as weakness, and sneer at even the minimal efforts to basic decency that some whites sought to guarantee their fellow black citizens- the right to vote, the right to participate freely in free markets, the right to be treated equally before the law, etc. Indeed some prominent HBDers say they would ROLL BACK back or revoke even minimal basics- like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Convicted felon and HBD favorite Dinesh Dsouza for example advocates just that in his book “The End of Racism.”

According to Enrique, white society is morally bankrupt , even when they are going to war with other whites for the benefit of blacks.
But did whites really go to war for the benefit of black people? Many HBDers and assorted “southern heritage” types say NO. They never tire of arguing that the Civil War was not for the benefit of blacks. Indeed people like Sailer point out that Lincoln wanted nothing more than to ship “the black problem” back to Africa, and indeed dragged his feet on the Emancipation proclamation, and indeed ensured that said Proclamation only applied to the white south, NOT the supposedly more enlightened North. His observations are accurate. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Lincoln did not apply it in the white north where he had the power to do so.

You always return to that idea idea that whites never are in the right. You have not given them credit for a single moral act. You are denying any actual decline in the power of the white community. And you NEVER accept that whites communities are anything but evil.
Not at all. I gave credit to white anti-racists above, and ordinary whites who fought against Jim Crow. But as already noted, many HBDers embrace racism- terms vary- “natural racism” and “rational racism”- or whatever- but their bottom line is clear. In fact HBDers sneer at whites who seek to give the black man a better deal. They dismiss for example the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and indeed would revoke it. Heaven forbid that there may be a black man 2 tables down eating his hamburger in peace. Indeed most HBDers mostly see whites as paragons of virtue and goodness- and they justify or excuse racism and all kinds of atrocious behavior on the part of whites as “natural” or “based on evolution.”

HBDer Jared Taylor for example specifically promotes a brand of “natural racism” as good and proper for whites. He is coy in his public phrasing for different audiences, but the conclusions are obvious. White people prefer their own kind he says, therefore, the American apartheid state dismantled in the 1960s and 1970s was actually a good thing. It was fine, and indeed natural and rational for white America to deny black people the vote, block them from getting a decent education, oust them from jobs, pay them less for the same work, give them inferior public services, etc etc. Underneath the polite phrasing and “coded” appeals, the white HBD bottom line is clear. White anti-racists have broken the “coded” talk and have brought it out into the open. For that they deserve credit.

I brought up AA and you say whites were the beneficiaries. I brought up the civil war you say the “bottom line of the war was slavery”.
But it is a fact that whites in many instances ARE the beneficiaries of AA, and I spell it out in detail above using the data of CONSERVATIVE scholars, like Thomas Sowell. And as for the Civil War, yes, the bottom line WAS slavery. Dude, this is History 101.

BTW you completely misunderstand that 200o paper of Jablonski; she doesn’t say white skin appeared late, she said humans’ skin lightened as soon as they lived at high latitude. That is now known to be wrong. And blacks are more resistant to hookworm, just like whites have adapted to other selection pressures. No one is to blame for people having useful adaptations because of a particular evolutionary history, not even whites.
Actually Jablonski says no such thing. She doesn’t say human skin lightened as soon as they lived in high latitude. She notes that skin lightened as an adaptive change to differing levels of UV radiation. Obviously this would not be an immediate or instant change, as people moved from the tropics to higher latitudes with less UV. And yes, I agree with you that as a result of resistance built up in tropical locations, Africans are on the average more resistant to hookworm, just as whites as a result of higher latitudes had to adjust to less tropical zone level radiation. But you said:
” The worst thing that happened to free blacks after the Civil War was the eradication of hookworm, which had given them a powerful advantage over white farmers, who were less resistant to the disease.”
Which again, doesn’t make sense. The blacks were ALREADY MORE resistant than white people. The ALREADY had the advantage. But even then hookworm was still a serious health problem, for BOTH blacks and whites. How then could it be a bad thing for hookworm to be eradicated? Lives were saved by hookworm eradication, including more white lives. If anything the eradication of hookworm was actually of more benefit to white people.

Galtonian says:
In order to evade being labeled as EVIL RACIST SINNERS, many Race-Realists have tried to pretend that they are not actually RACISTS, but this not true because according to accepted dictionary definitions even if one merely believes that there are important innate differences between ethnoracial groups then one is a racist.
Indeed, and unlike those who have nothing substantive to say, you make a good point. Many whites on a whole are STILL “race realists” – they just don’t want to be seen as OPENLY racist, for that undermines their claims to moral goodness and virtue. HBDers themselves recognize this. Jewish HBDer Weissberg for example specifically advises today’s white racists to downplay the snarling redmeat racism of the past, and go for a more subtle, muted racialism, using coded language, “plausible denial”, and various covers, drawing upon the inherent or latent racism of today’s whites. It is a shrewd strategy that is the order of the day among leading figures. Unfortunately, anti-racists keep messing up the game by exposing it to a wider audience, as their many books demonstrate. By the way believing there are innate differences between ethnoracial groups does not make one a racist. It is the MISREPRESENTATION and DISTORTION of those differences, as to their detailed content and cause, and use of said MISREPRESENTATION and DISTORTION to disparage and attack other ethnoracial groups, that makes one a racist.

Christianity, particularly Protestantism, has always been rather left-wing in the sense that it has been anti-hierarchical.
A fair assessment, but being anti-hierarchical is no monopoly of the left wing. Conservative Protestantism in some cases has also been very anti-hierarchical. Indeed, such Protestants in many ways were the wet blankets, the killjoys- insisting on such stuff as salvation by faith rather than cash pressure on the palm, or dampening the free wheeling sexual fun and corruption enjoyed by the some of the friars and monks, and heavens, criticizing the elaborate Catholic hierarchy. And conservative Protestant “temperance” types have also been active in social and charity work among the downtrodden, despised, and the underdog. Straight-laced conservative Protestants were and are responsible for numerous missionary endeavors among the less favored in society, including the United States, where they were important in establishing schools for black ex-slaves after the Civil War.

The new Western secular religion now professes pious belief in the absolute innate equality of all people and peoples. The inculcation of these sorts of beliefs about equality are also attractive to Jews because now Jews are no longer seen as being excluded from the religion of the majority Christian population.
Fair enough and this is supported in part even by Black nationalist Malcolm X, who noted that the same minimal civil rights measures for blacks, also benefited people like Jews who were better positioned to take advantage of opportunities. But a belief in the innate equality of all peoples is nothing new, and did not begin with the new Western secular religion. In fact, such beliefs were espoused by white churchgoers long before, who in later centuries became the vanguard of an influential Abolitionist movement, which in turn was influential, after a long period, in getting slavery to be abolished. As credible histories such as Adam Hochchild’s “Bury the Chains”, or conservative Thomas Sowell’s analyses show, slavery in many ways was quite profitable. The Christian Abolitionists did not triumph in isolation, but still achieved a remarkable victory over not only some forms of racism, but the greed that made the slave system run.
Consequently the new Atheists and the new secular-Christians/Jews profess to believe that everyone is innately equal and that Racism is the absolute greatest sin. The Dark Enlightenment refers to the modern mainstream Western EQUALITARIAN mindset as “the Cathedral”; this makes perfect sense because the pro-multicultural antiracist viewpoint is indeed the new religious doctrine of the West.
Your substantive observation, if one is honest, is a reasonable one on some counts. Said mindset has become a fashionable mantra, and has been used as a weapon to bash traditional mores and Christianity. It could be added though that a belief in the equality of all peoples did not begin with the new Atheists or secular Jews and liberals. Certain branches of Protestantism have centuries past strongly advocated for the innate equality of people, and in some eras were successful on the basis of this argument- the Abolitionists for example.

It is easy to new secular religion of left-liberal EQUALITARIANISM believes that racism is WRONG, but they see this as “wrong” in the moralistic sense of “right and wrong” (i.e. racism is evil and sinful) but not really “wrong” in the scientific true/false sense of being untrue . Most left wing whites.. but they see it as a great sin to openly acknowledge these facts
Another solid argument, unlike those who have nothing to say, can add no value, and don’t understand the key issues in the anti-racism meme. OPENLY is the operative word. Some express a naive bafflement that white people will not crank up a bold “race consciousness” campaign or prepare for “racial war.” But most white people are eminently practical. They already got things sown up. Why stir up another hornet’s nest, or fierce pushback from the “culluds”, when a “down low” racialism gets the job done much more quietly and effectively?

They are already comfortably well off. They have mostly segregated away from the “NAMS” in schools and housing with plenty of police power to suppress any problems. Interracial marriages are trivial, and even in their biggest manifestation (Hispanic-White) numbers are small, and are not often immediately recognizable to the casual white observer, who in any event can do nothing about them, and has no interest in butting into other people’s business. And even when a minority as in California, whites are still the majority of voters. Who needs an open, snarling “white power” campaign, when white supremacy is well in hand? Why stir up another round of turmoil from “the culluds,” when most are not really focused on white people or their whiteness, but are simply ordinary people focused on going about their daily business?

Peter Frost notes that the left wing has incorporated anti-racism as a means to pursue numerous agendas. He is correct. Hence for example, the proponents of “gay” marriage use the language of anti-racism to stifle or sidetrack serious debate. But I think Frost could have added that anti-racists these days are themselves getting frustrated by the reluctance of white people to jump on the “anti-racism” bandwagon. Leading anti-racists express this frustration time and time again, noting that discussions of race among white people, even white liberals, are often sidetracked, muffled, censored or passed over in silence. The book by prominent anti-racist Edward Bonilla-Silva, “Racism Without Racists” goes over some of this in detail. Even white liberals are increasingly tired of the anti-racism meme and want to change the subject to something more soothing.

It is sometimes claimed that the anti-racists have massive power- almost totalitarian control of universities, the media, government etc etc. But leading anti-racists themselves say quite the opposite. Again and again they are not just stymied by conservative white reluctance to buy what they are selling, but even by lack of enthusiasm from white liberals for the subject, and their tendency to sidetrack or muffle “open” discussion of the narrative. They also are frustrated by “gestural” behavior- such as some celebrity saying something about whiteness- but it is merely a trendy gesture- as said white celebrity quickly returns to their gated communities and lily white suburbs and schools. In short, anti-racists, despite publicity given to a small cadre of individuals, ain’t getting the massive traction people claim they are getting, even from liberals.

Sean,
There actually is no “consensus” that anti-racism is a code word for anti-white, save in the usual right wing propaganda pools. Anti-racism that rejects or downplays the OPEN racial discrimination, murder, etc of the past is actually quite acceptable to most white people, which is why assorted “race warriors” and ex Ku Kluxers like David Duke don’t get elected. Even David Duke these days shies away from the OPEN “white supremacist” label in the general media, just as most white Americans do. Unlike certain HBDers or sympathizers, most white Americans have no interest in rolling back or revoking the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nor do they wish a return to the apartheid system of Jim Crow celebrated or justified by said HBDers. Nor do they show much stomach for OPEN racist appeals,or activities. Most white people today are eminently practical and realistic.

They know that the time for OPEN racism has passed, and in practical terms, such OPEN racism is too much trouble and hassle. The racialism of the past would not fly these days- it would provoke too much fierce pushback from “the culluds”, who are no longer the patient, silent sufferers of the yore. White people have run the numbers and have chosen the realistic course. Who needs another draining round of media battles, lawsuits and street protests? And the racialism of the past is bad for business on top of that. These days boycotts and pressure tactics can be very effective in the new Internet age, and can damage a company’s reputation AND sales nationally and internationally virtually overnight. Mere “politically correctness” does not stop white corporations from OPENLY refusing to hire black people- lost sales will.

Furthermore, just as in the Cold War, white people want to appear, good, just and virtuous, rather than evil. This is not something that suddenly sprung up with “political correctness” in the 1980s, as right wing mythology has it. As early as the 1940s and 1950s one sees the Truman and Eisenhower administration concerned about white America losing face overseas because of its racial policies. During the Cold War white people sometimes had to grant Civil Rights concessions to maintain their stance of virtue, and non-hypocrisy. Numerous credible scholarly studies document how the Cold War and Civil Rights interacted like this- see Mary Dudziak’s Cold War Civil Rights book for example.

THis was long before “political correctness” became such a big meme in the 1980s. In the 1950s, Eisenhower, a man much criticized as too slow on Civil Rights by the NAACP etc, to demonstrate that the “leader of the Free World” was not filled with mean-spirited racists, and to further US interests and influence in securing various military basing and commercial concessions in the Third World, invited perplexed non-white diplomats to the White House after they were rudely turned away and insulted from Washington DC businesses. Even in a purely American internal matter, like the Little Rock crisis, Ike made sure that his decision to send troops to protect integration was internationally broadcast in 43 languages on Voice of America, just so people around the world knew knew the United States was not filled with rabid white racists. Ike was quite frankly embarrassed by mean-spirited white behavior- like spitting on little kids. Note this was a Republican president in the 1950s, not “politically correct” college campuses or media of the 1980s.

The Kennedy Administration, was likewise hit with numerous incidents involving African diplomatic officials. President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to such incidents. The US State Department even called on realtors in Washington D.C., to lighten up on their discriminatory practices in the nation’s capital, which was creating ugly diplomatic situations when bemused non-white foreign diplomats and officials tried to do normal business in the erstwhile “leader of the Free World.” Asian and African diplomats could go to Bonn, Paris or London and conduct normal business like other people, but was soon as they arrived in America, “the Leader of the Free World” they were treated like dogs. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was to write: “the biggest single burden that we carry on our backs in our foreign relations in the 1960’s is the problem of racial discrimination here at home.” (Klarman 1994)

In short, any notion that anti-racism is a product of the 1980s, 90s and 2000s that somehow “made white people look bad” is sheer rubbish. White people made themselves look bad decades before, and responsible white officials at the highest levels recognized this, and moved to correct it. Anti-racism as being opposed to OPEN manifestations of racism is not at all unreasonable to most white people, and both Republican and/or Democratic presidents, going back to the 1940s, also show this. Anti-racism becomes unpopular when it begins to point out the hidden, covert or “under the table” racism that has replaced the open variety, and when it becomes a handmaid of the Left to push more extreme leftist agendas. Hence “gay” marriage or lifestyle boosters use the language of antiracism to stifle or sidetrack in-depth, open debate or criticism.99

SaILER SAYS:

Book blurb says:
Yet through factoids and analysis, he demonstrates something that American parents desperately need to hear: Children are raised in all sorts of ways, and they all turn out just fine.

Sailer is right to point out the dubious nature of the above claim if applied as a blanket statement in support for “anything goes” parenting.

I took a larger point from all this — namely that humans have a tremendous capacity for living inside their culture and accepting those arrangements as natural, and finding other arrangements weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.
If this is a “liberal” statement for anything goes parenting, it fails. Presumably white liberals don’t find aborting millions of babies every year as “weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.”

Cultural anthropology is striking for its aversion to critical thinking. One of the weirder aspects is that every cultural group is treated as equally informative.
Dubious. Sailer is quite misinformed about anthropology, cultural or otherwise. There is plenty of “critical thinking” involved. And cultural anthro has its ideologues like every other field, but it recognized long ago that it has an obligation to render as accurate and neutral a description of actual data collected, rather than overlay basic data collection with propaganda. This is in stark contrast to the HBD approach which applies propaganda categories first, then tries to forcibly shoehorn data into those dubious categories.

But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.
Laughable. Cultural anthropologists render as far as possible an accurate description of the phenomena under study, whether it be kinship patterns, or religious beliefs. What counts is data, not propaganda claims about whether what “barely” compares to something else. Comparison is going on all the time. This is obvious to any high school sophomore who opens a textbook that discusses cultural anthro. He would learn for example how Margaret Mead, for all her good work in the field, distorted some of the peoples she studies because of inaccurate assumptions and ideological blinders.

In other words, children tend to die in large numbers, so why get all sentimental over them? Of course, this is partly self-fulfilling.

A fair observation but if callous disregard of children is in view, white Westerners abort millions every year as a matter of convenience. Asiatics are role models here as well. White Russia is the leader ins such things, aborting two white children for each live birth.

Grey Enlighten says:
The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it’s actually the left, in their denial of the science they don’t agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true ‘creationists’. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.
^^Keep in mind that the data of Ron Unz himself has debunked several aspects of IQ and wealth of nations.

Hanging judge says:
Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

Outcomes don’t depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.
Actually nurture can trump nature easily. Success for either factor depends on particular circumstances at particular times rather than simplistic “nature is all” claims.

Carol says:
I hate that false equivalence of cultures. PBS is rife with it. It’s hard to find good old first-world tourism shows most the international programming is forever dwelling on the plight of hapless negroes in Africa or latinos in Central America. And then to blight the musical world, there’s World Music. No I don’t put cajon-beating or Peruvian flute tooting up there with Horowitz or Bird. I just don’t.
It is obvious you don’t have a clue about what plays on PBS and are only repeating standard right wing talking points. PBS has plenty of programming on “first-world tourism” – whether it be Rome, Venice, Canada, the British Isles etc etc. And “international programming” has long been dominated by things dealing with Britain and the British, like the classic “Masterpiece theater” and many others.

Jack D says:
I think that parents, who are spending their own resources (unlike the government) have an instinctive feel for which investments are likely to pay off. If you have a kid with a lot of potential, you will lavish a lot of attention on him so that he (or she) can reach that full potential.
Indeed. This actually makes sense.

Zeepei says:
Object-oriented ontology and speculative realism are two trends outside of purely analytic philosophy making strong arguments against the dominant view that relegates science to second-tier status.
In what way does the dominant view relegate science to second-tier status? Give a concrete example. To the contrary, many leftie liberals are quite boosterish on science. Indeed, “science” or what can be argues as science provides a handy club to bash traditional religion and traditional cultural mores.

K. Arujo says:
If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness.

Dubious on some counts. While there has been SOME PC abuse by the Left, the right also has ITS own version of “conservative correctness” which is deployed to dismiss and censor debate. Rather than address concerns about the harassment of women online for example, their complaints can be dismissed as “political correctness” without addressing the issue in detail. The same “PC dismissal tool” is also deployed in many other contexts, including faux claims of “persecution” when assorted conservative claims are challenged. The tactic avoids detailed, and indeed open debate by allowing for quick dismissal of the issue and associated data. And “open debate” is not an automatic pass for filthy language or crude, disrespectful behavior. It is ironic that some conservatives talk about “civility” and lament its “decline”, but quickly dismiss problems such as the rude, hateful, systematic harassment of women online (see “Gamergate” fiasco on Google) as mere “PC”, and thus unworthy of attention or addressing.

It’s all about money and power. Rich Liberals in big cities turn up their noses at ‘white trash’ in trailer parks. While NY rich support ‘stop and frisk’ against blacks in NY, they blame all the race problems on the whites of Ferguson.

Indeed. Some white liberalism, like some “conservative correctness” is itself fraught with hypocrisy.

So, it’s not fascist democracies vs liberal democracies but fascist oligarchic democracies vs tribal-identity oligarchic democracies.
Agreed.

If Germany had maintained an alliance with the USSR, war would have been limited. Also, there would have been no Holocaust, at least not on a large scale. Also, as Poland would have been occupied by Germans and Russians, they would have hidden their crimes. Nazi crimes were exposed because they lost the war.

Not necessarily. Who says there would not have been a large scale Holocaust if the Nazi-Soviet Pact held? There may have been a SMALLER large-scale one than that which actually occurred, but while the actual murder squads did not FULLY deploy until late 1941, there were already moves afoot in the German section of Poland in 1941 to begin the “final solution.” The first Jews to be “cleansed” for example were German Jews dispatched to Warthegau, in Poland, in 1941. By the end of 1940, 325,000 Poles and Jews from the Wartheland and the Polish Corridor were expelled to General Government, often forced to abandon most of their belongings. The mass murder machinery did not crank up full steam until the latter half of 1941, but the gears were already in motion. Even if the Pact had held, Jews in the occupied areas were still doomed by the fascists.

Bill P says:
We need a philosophical basis for communities that can survive and thrive in the modern world. And religious, too, but that goes without saying. We can look back at the last century and clearly identify the failures, such as fascism, Christianity, communism, capitalism and the various New Age cults, and we often do, but it seems to me that precious few people these days are actually putting in the effort to find a solution to the ongoing destruction of community.

Your post may be contradictory on some points You note that the Christian guy in Seattle succeeded in building community save for his own personal peccadilloes, greed, power-hunger etc. And you note the need for moral principles to be foremost, and even say that the religious angle “goes without saying.” How then do you say that Christianity has been a failure, when it has provided a strong sense of community, DESPITE the failures of various individuals? Even the flawed Catholic Church has provided community in numerous areas, despite its deceptions and authoritarianism. Would you not say that Christianity provides the “philosophical basis for communities that can survive and thrive in the modern world”? Indeed, are not certain religious minorities thriving in the modern era with their own tightly knit communities? The Sikhs are but one example.

Sean says:
Paul Collier’s proposal is for selected people from the Third World to be brought over and given Western education. That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what. Very expensive, but it would give Western academics good jobs.

It would not necessarily give Western academics good jobs because forone thing the US may WANT the selected people to STAY and thus help overcome critical skill shortages in the US itself. This has already happened with several fields from medicine, to engineering, to nursing, and even to teaching as the recruitment of conservative, hard-nosed Caribbean teachers by New York some years ago demonstrates. And some of the people staying or being recruited themselves may become academics.

Moreover, we probably need to admit that, yes immigrants do bring benefits to their countries, but us taking the most enterprising people from their countries will turn them into hell holes.

Not really, because in some cases the countries in question have merely stepped up training to not only overcome the “brain drain” but to produce a “surplus” of skilled workers for “export” to the US. Philipino nurses are one example- heavily recruited by health care organizations in the US, and the Philipines continues to crank out more and more. And some of the brain drain immigrants do return to their home countries also.

The marriage systems and selection for sons means by and large the migrating populations are always going to have an excess of males, who have not been subjected to relaxed sexual selection.
It may have little to do with “sexual selection” involving women. An excess of males relates in part to the labor being sought. Hard, difficult manual labor will initially mean that mostly younger stronger males will migrate, as happened to some groups in the US and elsewhere. Males are also able to handle the dangers of migration better than females in many circumstances. Females who migrated to America unescorted in migrant ships were sometimes assaulted or molested for example. AFTER the males are established, then more females start coming along.

Peter Frost says:
– halt an immigration surge that is already spinning out of control. We’re in the early stages of a demographic tsunami, and the word is not too strong.

– create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

– preserve the genetic heritage of Europe not because we completely know what we’re trying to save, but because we often don’t know.

These propositions are reasonable in terms of looking after the interests of white people. But I believe Frost could have added one more thing, namely that whites are not sufficiently replacing themselves demographically/genetically. Different writers give a variety of reasons- the increasing embrace of homosexuality including “gay” marriage, a more feminist or female friendly culture in which women have emerged as significant breadwinners, and thus reducing the traditional male provider role, and reducing male workforce participation.

Another reason is increasing behavior patterns that hinder sustaining stable family relationships (the white out of wedlock rate now for example exceeds that of blacks in early years of the 1960s, and non-college white women in the US are posting OOW rates up to 50% (NY Times 2010). Increasing white acceptance of and use of abortion is another area. The nation with the highest rate of abortion in the world is white Russia for example, which kills 2 white babies for each live white birth. There has also been a rise in the preference of co-habitation among whites which makes for less stable family relationships overall. Given these trends among whites, the easy solution many embrace (cutting the numbers of Mexicans at the border) will slow, but not halt the inevitable.

Some racialist fire-breathers blame intermarriage and garner much propaganda attention, but in reality, intermarriage is a small potatoes trend with minor impact on the white population as a whole. Black-white intermarriages for example are LESS than 1% of all marriages, a laughable chump change amount, despite their visibility. Hispanic -Asian-White pairings are a bit more but again, these, in terms of overall population numbers, are minor players. The emotional huffing and puffing in some quarters over mixed race couples makes for a lot of drama, but such mixes are small potatoes compared to the central problem of increasing white failure to reproduce at replacement level.

Anon 701 says:
Presumably you [Frost] don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

This isn’t a solution because it doesn’t address the problem, which is government restriction on free association. People already tend to associate in general along ethnic or racial lines. But government restriction on free association prevents exclusive communities from being established. Even if there are no explicit strictures, the effects and “disparate impact” are considered by the government as indicating de facto explicit strictures.

“Free association” restrictions have not prevented ethnic groups from mingling according to ethnic or racial lines. Most US whites for example, outside certain right wingers and white libertarians, have shed few tears over the end of so called “restrictions” like forbidding blacks to eat in certain restaurants, or renting a hotel room. They have no interest in ,and reject assorted conservative or libertarian “freedom of association” arguments along these lines. Who needs that negative racial hassle which continually besmirched the US image throughout the world in the 1950, and 1960s?

Eisenhower for example had to invite African diplomats denied service in US restaurants to the White House for example to demonstrate that the US was not the racist totalitarian state depicted by the Soviets and other detractors. Kennedy had to urge Maryland realtors to hold down racist practices that were creating ugly incidents when non-white diplomats attempted to do normal business in the erstwhile leader of the “Free World.” The success of the Civil Rights Movement removed a great deal of embarrassment for white people along these lines, particularly as they sought to negotiate for more control over or access to Third World resources.

In fact general same-ethnicity association has already been secured by a variety of more subtle “non racial” measures, ranging from zoning restrictions that suppress the supply of housing (meaning less minorities in suburban hood and in schools), or use of pricing for products and services that again, mean less minorities since they, on the average have less wealth or income, or access. Racially segregated “freedom of association” ski-slopes for example are not necessary, because, aside from cultural preferences in recreation, more expensive winter sports, lodgings etc will price more minorities out of the market- meaning less minority bodies in particular venues.

White people have already figured all this out, and don’t need, or want to establish any OFFICIAL legal barriers to create “exclusive” white enclaves, as in the past. In fact to have too OPEN a barrier EXPOSES the subtle web of exclusionary measures (deliberately or inadvertently) already put in place by whites. The trick these days is not to be too OPEN about it.

Anon 753 says:
Islam places limits on polygamy of 4 wives and restricts fornication and adultery making it less polygamous in practice. Whereas contemporary secular society permits and even promotes fornication, promiscuity, female sexual freedom, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc, making it much more polygynous in practice despite officially only allowing monogamy legally.

Yes, certain aspects of contemporary white society effectively create the behavior patterns you mention. But these may not necessarily be “new” white trends. In the 1850s, in Sweden’s biggest city, Stockholm, for example, the illegitimacy rate was close to 50%. As Burns and Scott (1994) show, by the mid 19th century when reliable cross-national figures are widely available, it was found than in illegitimacy, (Stockholm (with a 46% rate in the 1850s) was second only to Vienna (49%) among European capitals. Indeed this trend was a continuation since the early 1800s. Nor was this solely a pattern for mid century 1800s. In ultra-white Sweden at the start of the 20th century, barely half of Swedish women married and around one-sixth of children were born out of wedlock. Nor was this solely an urban Stockholm phenomenon. High illegitimacy rates and declining marriage rates were also found in rural areas as well (A companion to nineteenth-century Europe, 1789-1914, By Stefan Berger, Wiley 2006.)

By contrast, as late as 1950 the US black illegitimacy rate stood at 17%, well below that of the white Swedish models above, and for 50 years, black marriage rates were higher than that of US whites (Sowell 2004- Black Rednecks, White Liberals), and better than the Swedish pattern over several decades. The black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was STILL lower than the 28% posted by US whites in 2000.

Closer into the 20th century, white Nordics are no paragons of virtue: By the year 2000, out of wedlock births in Nordic Sweden had reached 53% of all births- a steep rise from a mere 10% illegitimacy rate in mid century. ([i]A population history of the United States By Herbert S. Klein, Cambridge University Press. 2004. p. 216)[/i] Nor are supposedly more virtuous white people of other “Nordic” nations any better. In the early 1980s illegitimacy rates were on the order of 45% in Iceland and Sweden and 40% in Denmark.
(Report on Immigrant populations and demographic development in the member states of the Council of Europe. Rinus Penninx, Council of Europe. 1984 )

K Arujo said:
PC as it is mostly employed in the West is almost entirely ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’–with a capital ‘L’, as true liberalism should be for free speech. I wouldn’t even call current ‘progressives’ the Left. Leftism, as far I can tell, is dead. Marxism is dead, communism is dead, working class politics is dead. Today’s Liberals are more about creating safe and prosperous spaces for themselves in gentrified cities than in caring about the People.

A fair enough analysis on some counts although I would not characterize ALL liberals as such. And liberal PC also has its conservative counterpart.

Gay marriage’ isn’t leftist. It was pushed, promoted, and funded by the oligarchs of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc from day one. Most homosexual activists sought an alliance mainly with rich, powerful, and influential elites. They disdained most of the unwashed masses. The cult of narcissism has always been a hallmark of ‘gay’ sensibility. Though there were homosexual Marxists and leftists in the past, the trajectory of homosexual activism was bound to be elitist since ‘gay sensibility’ is about stuff like fancy design and the arts and fame and glamour.

OK, but don’t you think more than the oligarchs are involved? Hasn’t the “gay thing” has often been identified with leftist politics, with gay activists using leftist gains or forums to push their agenda onward? For example they have hijacked the black civil rights meme successfully, so that objections to said marriages are seen as tantamount to the bad old days of Jim Crow in some media and public quarters. And doesn’t the “fabulous” thing serve as a wedge that leftists can use to attack various traditional institutions- like churches for example- a favorite target of many leftists?

This is why, if liberalism is to have real value, it must be for free speech for all sides no matter how much you disagree with them. Unless one is for free speech, one cannot be said to be truly liberal. Traditionally, liberals were better on free speech and civil liberties than conservatives were.
Agreed.

Look how the government is forcing ‘gay marriage’ —but not incest marriage and polygamy(so much for ‘marriage equality’)—on all fifty states and even forcing cake shops out of business for refusing to catering to ‘gay weddings’. These cakeshops will sell to homosexuals, but they will not go along with ‘gay marriage’ that totally desecrates the true meaning of marriage by associating the bio-moral institution of marriage with the dubious ‘sexual’ behavior of homosexuals.

The hijacking of the civil rights meme is a key success in this process. But based on what I have read, (Randall Kennedy ‘s Interracial Intimacies, etc), blacks initially arrived on US soil as time-limited indentured servants with the right to LEGALLY marry whom they wished and LEGAL B-W unions are recorded way back since the 1600s. These were later suppressed and banned as colonial governments sought to expand and protect slavery. Court rulings in the 1960s “legalizing” such unions were hailed as a progressive step but the rulings were just giving back what was legal before- in that rights people already had, were taken away by governments. All the court rulings did was restore the rights people had previously enjoyed. By contrast gays never had any legal right to marry either in the US or elsewhere in the West. But of course you will not here much about this in various debates.

While it’s true that some Conservatives want to end a certain debate by calling something ‘politically correct’, they are still not saying that there should be a law or rule that forbids the discussion itself. They are saying that they, as individuals, don’t care to discuss it and don’t want to take part in it. So, if you bring up the issue of sexual harassment, some conservatives might say, “we’ve all heard it before, it’s the same old PC crap, and I’m through talking about this.” They might not engage with you, but they are not saying there should be a rule that bans you from discussing it openly or with others. They, as individuals, just don’t want to hear about it or discuss it any further. In contrast, Liberals now use political correctness to pass laws and to enforce rules and codes that FORBID people from saying something anywhere and anytime.

A solid assessment of the difference, that is the reality on some campuses. I would have to agree.

Peter says:
What is the picture when we look at common-law relationships? (which are now just as numerous). I’m not really arguing with you. I’m just curious.
I got my stats from an article referencing 2008 Us Census figures. I would not be surprised if co-habitation/common law arrangements are equal or more, a trend increasingly seen among whites. Common law may swell the numbers beyond the official marriage stats, though numbers remain small however, and are likely to have a much bigger impact among blacks than whites. About 14.4 percent of black men and 6.5 percent of black women are currently in such mixed marriages, due to higher educational attainment, a more racially integrated military and a rising black middle class that provides more interaction with other races.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/marriage?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/forricher
————————————————————————————-

– “more expensive winter sports, lodgings etc will price more minorities out of the market- meaning less minority bodies in particular venues.”

You’re committing an error of logic. Yes, America’s elite is disproportionately white (and Asian) and, yes, they can afford to live wherever they want and send their children to whatever schools they want. It doesn’t follow, however, that the terms “elite” and “White Americans” are synonymous.

Wasnt saying that at all, but pointing out to the poster that lamented a decline in racial freedom of associations, that such racial association can still be indirectly achieved by various mechanisms, without the need for OPEN racial segregation laws.

————————————————-

– affordable housing and schools for young families
– secure neighborhoods for young families (which ties in with the first point)
– encouragement to start family formation at a younger age. Right now it is difficult to enter a stable, well-paying job until you are in your late 20s or early 30s. This is partly due to employers demanding a university degree for jobs that clearly don’t require a university degree. We need to rethink the idea of having to complete one’s education before starting a family.
– marriage should be delegalized. There should be a separate kind of contract for people who wish to reproduce. Such a “reproductive contract” could not be dissolved unilaterally by either party.

I think these are reasonable proposition that can apply across the board, regardless of race. Rampant “credentialism” for example has locked many out of decent jobs when too often the jobs in question do not require a college degree, and may even have been made simpler by automation and outsourcing. Do people who book rental cars on site for travelers need college degrees for example? Or airline counter personnel? Many employers are just using credentialism as a cheap screening device to cut their personnel recruitment workload. And since women are doing better than men educationally, regardless of race, credentialism increasingly means men will be slipping behind in the labor market, meaning the marriage market for men on the short end will get harder, as women tend to want to “marry up.”

There really needs to be a well organized vocational/technical educational system like Germany has for those not on a college track, that can match youth with increasingly skilled jobs without needing to sit 4 years on campus. the drive to provide cheap higher education turns out to be not so cheap.

Can you expand on “de-legalization” of marriage? Are you talking private contracts replacing government sanctioned licenses and such? And doesn’t this mean some sort of legal process, enforced in court would have to control in case of breach of contract?

BillP says:
Your “White People” have had exclusionary measures in place since before colored people entered the picture.
I went to school with a lot of rich people, about two-thirds white gentile and one-third white Jewish, and the people they were most interested in excluding were other white people. Coming from a middle/working class family, I was socially excluded myself, so I ended up with mainly ethnic Jewish and Asian friends at that school until I left against my parents’ wishes (they thought the rich people pixie dust would rub off on me, but it was pretty clear to me that this was not going to happen).

^^Of course, I agree Bill, and this was never/is not at issue. The point is that white people have numerous exclusionary measures in place, more so for the culluds than other white people. This is American History 101. Your white Jewish friends for example never had to face mobs attacking and burning down their houses in America, because they happened to move in next to some gentiles. They usually had the great advantage of being seen as white, and could avoid all that, to a much greater extent than any black people could ever do.

And the second point to the poster who laments the end of racial “freedom of association” is that government has not implemented any terrible civil liberty crushing “freedom of association.” The lament is shaky. Freedom of association has always had limits- nothing new. Government limits certain accociations across the board, but that does not mean no one has freedom. Semi-naked adult men for example cannot freely associate with juveniles in public toilets (at least not yet in most jurisdictions- though I am sure liberals somewhere are working on it). Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows private discrimination as perfectly legal. If you have a private club, you can legally discriminate to your heart’s content. Its only if you are offering goods and services to the general public that you have to follow the same rules for ALL the public- black, white or green. Some white people have made excellent use of this exemption in everything from private schools, to private clubs. And white people have long used outwardly “neutral” seeming measures to accomplish the same racial exclusions.

In fact white liberals are among the foremost practitioners. While lecturing the rest about “diversity”, white liberals have often erected a vast and effective web of exclusion in many ways. Carefully crafted housing and zoning ordinances for example in many places hinder construction or development or use of middle to lower cost housing that more minorities might afford. The result is less minorities in their neighborhoods, all the while condemning conservatives for “lack of diversity.” Likewise “progressive” white unions have dropped OPEN racist job barriers, but have implemented numerous “under the table” barriers that accomplish the same end- such as dual seniority lists, or the need for “recommendations” by other union members (mostly white to begin with- ha hah) in order to get a union card to work, or advertising only the lowest paid job openings while ensuring that only “word of mouth” (white guy to white guy) tells about better available jobs, and so on. Numerous academic studies, court cases and EEOC filings have revealed these shenanigans by white liberals and so-called “progressives.”

the black security guard came out and berated me for smoking. I said I wasn’t on school property and didn’t have a class that period so he should leave me alone. He looked me in the eye and said “white trash,” then haughtily moved along.
Maybe he done you wrong, but another equally valid scenario is that it was probably against school policy for unknown persons or persons not in an established class from being on campus, and smoking to boot. If you were not on school property, how come you were on campus smoking, so that a guard had to intervene? The story does not add up, and some may say that rather than following school policy, you are unfairly blaming the black guard for being “unfair” when caught.

Ironically, today these “exclusionary” whites would probably prefer you to some white kid from a broken family whose father fixed pipes for a living. From my perspective, it just looks like privileged colored people rubbing it in and piling on less fortunate whites along with their plutocrat white allies.

Doubtful. The reality is, as detailed above, that white people have mobilized and used every advantage for themselves, and will continue to do so. Even the Civil Rights victories served white interests by:

(a) Removing the embarrassment America suffered internationally over its flawed democracy and racial policies

(b) Allowed white people to pawn off or dump unwanted or lower value resources on the coloreds- such as unloading lower end housing stock in already declining/low growth neighborhoods,

(c) Got numerous white people paid as administrators and miscellaneous processors of paper for government programs to help the poor, which of course included the white poor

(d) Enabled some white people to feed profitably from the tide of government spending that began in the 1960s to help the less fortunate. White school districts for example, fired almost 30,000 black teachers and closed numerous thriving black schools, while snapping up the cash Washington sent down to help the black poor get better educations. Most of the cash was redirected for overall white benefit- no surprise there.

I am not disputing that “class” may be a more potent variable these days than race in some cases, though class may have a racial aspect. Eventually class identification may trump race. A recent study from the Pew Research Centre looking at the demography and economics of intermarriage reported that marriages between a white spouse and an Asian spouse had the highest combined average annual earnings ($70,952).

But a $3 question- are such affluent people, indeed, even affluent whites voting against their own interests by voting Democrat as some allege? Or are both parties the same- making no difference to the bottom line of the affluent?

You’re making the same error of logic that I see among many people who call themselves “leftist” today. They equate white Americans in general with America’s elite. Since the elite is disproportionately white and privileged, whites in general are privileged. Non sequitur.

I think you are missing the thrust of that point. It is not whether whites are seen as America’s elite. Some may make this argument, as whites firmly control most economic, political and cultural levers. But that wasn’t at all the point to the lamenting poster. It was whether government action has totally taken away freedom of racial association- a standard complaint among some right wingers, HBD and libertarian types lamenting that a black guy has freedom to eat his hamburger 2 tables down. In fact some of these types call for a rollback of civil rights laws to banish the black guy if so desired by the restaurant owner- such as convicted felon an right wing pundit Dinesh Dsouza in his book, “The End of Racism.” Good luck with that.

Whatever these laments for the alleged golden age of racial exclusivitism, government has not “taken away” freedom of racial association, as can be seen in the detailed examples and academic studies on the topic. White people can discriminate and associate exclusively, or primarily with one another legally using private entities, or creating and manipulating various governmental and non-governmental process, seemingly neutral on the surface.

I would be very surprised if the numbers were a lot smaller for people living together. I remember seeing a study that claimed that 25% of the children born to white American mothers have a father from another racial group. Maybe that’s a case of false memory syndrome.

Far as I remember reading, co-hab was the same or more, or a rising trend, like the trendline among whites as well. The 25% figure has got to be false memory, or they are calculating “hidden” non-European ancestry in whites, including those “passing.” or they are throwing in Hispanics classifying themselves as “white” or biracial types. Though IR unions increased much in the 1990s, the increase looked impressive I think because of the low starting base. In the last decade they have actually gone down among Asians and Hispanics, as new waves of immigration from Latino/Asian sources provide more same-ethnic partner options for these groups. IR unions thus are a long, long way from having significant impact on the white population. Even the millennials in your link article, though more likely for an IR hookup, still largely follow traditional marriage patterns based on race.

Let me throw out a question here for you then Peter. Given these slow trends in actual IR marriages or co-habs, what do you think of the argument some make as to a “mestizoization” happening in the US, making it somewhat like Brazil or the South American countries? Under the “mestizo” formula, white remains on top, but becomes a more amorphous category, as numerous biracials and others reclassify themselves as “white.” This is already so partially with Hispanics like Cubans, some Puerto Ricans and various other Latinos, some of whom who may look like a brown-skinned illegal fresh off the Mexican border but still classify themselves as “white.” Likewise assorted “Middle Eastern” types like Arabs. The neat American “racial check box” categories it is argued would no longer apply, though racial hierarchism, would remain. Under this argument, “white” people would, technically, not be declining statistically, but increasing, as more people were incorporated into a more nebulous category. This happened with the Irish, and swarthy Italians in the US for example- once considered outside the pale of “proper” WASP whiteness.

If you wish to reproduce, there should be some kind of court-enforceable contract that could be unilaterally dissolved only if the other party changes his/her mind about reproduction. Such a contract would ensure that both parties jointly work together to start a family and raise the children to adulthood. This “reproductive pact” could still be dissolved by either party but there would be penalties.

But I would say a penalty is already the case with marriage now. To get out of a marriage in most states is expensive- its gonna cost you several thousand dollars in most cases. Its cheaper if both parties are single and kept their assets separate, but often this is not the case, and the presence of children and joint property to divide, increases the expense even more. Throw in child support and alimony costs, getting into a marriage creates what can be a painful exit penalty.

As for the second point, zoning by-laws exist in all advanced countries. They exist for a good reason: housing generates third-party costs that are not picked up by builders. Most municipalities have had bitter experience with builders who stick them with the bill for infrastructure (schools, sewers, roads, etc.). In many cases, limits to the water supply and the need to preserve good farmland impose upper limits on how much housing should be built.

Agreed zoning laws have a valid place, but it is also documented that they have been used specifically for discriminatory purposes, or as Thomas Sowell shows, are subtly used to produce a byproduct that is roughly the same as the old explicit Jim Crow laws of old.

Let me ignore your argument that union membership is a “privilege” and not a “right.” How many Americans are actually unionized? In 2013, only 11.3% of all American workers belonged to a union, down from 20.1% in 1983. And most of those workers are in the public sector, which has an equitable representation of minority groups. In fact, African Americans are overrepresented.

Never said union membership is a privilege, or a right, but that white unions have a long history of deliberate discrimination based on race, using explicit and non-explicit, seemingly more neutral measures, like “union card” requirements or manipulated seniority lists. And the recent drop in union memberships doesn’t change the discriminatory history and pattern of unions. Well into the 1990s there were plenty of court cases or EEOC filings related to just that.

Re public employment blacks are not significantly overrepresented in government employment compared to some others whites- they make up around 13% of the population and weigh in at around the same proportion of the state and local workforce, while constituting about 11% of the overall labor pool. As for the federal government their proportion is about 18%. Employment in government is nothing special compared to other white groups. The white Irish have often heavily used public employment- in some decades the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans (Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York Irish, p. 313), well above current or past African-American percentages.

You’re partly right when you argue that unionized workers with seniority are “whiter” than either unionized workers without seniority or non-unionized workers. This is partly a reflection of broader demographic changes
True, but also partly a reflection of long-standing patterns of union discrimination based on race, which have not disappeared by any means. See the Cato Institute’s “Unions and Discrimination” 2010.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-4.pdf

Unions have a place as a counterweight to the top 1%. During the boom of the 1920s, too much of the GDP went to the top 1% and not enough to working people. When the speculative bubble burst in 1920, there simply wasn’t enough demand elsewhere in the economy to pick up the slack. The rest was “history.” Literally.
Sure unions are a counterweight, and needed to keep the corporate hegemons honest. But as conservatives have often pointed out, unions have sometimes become bulwarks of the same leftist or socialist elements negatively impacting free markets. No doubt union supporters would argue differently.

The problem is that the cost of divorce does not necessarily fall on the person who unilaterally wants to break the marriage contract. In fact, there is a tendency for people to initiate divorce when it is financially advantageous for them to do so. I’m not saying this is always the case, but this is a major reason why many young men are reluctant to marry.
I would have to agree with what you say here. The thing is how then can demographic declines be reversed given the more wary attitude many white young men these days have towards marriage? Perhaps your contractural alternative might equalize costs a bit, but still we have a contract with penalties attached. Perhaps one alternative is to still keep marriage but step up use of “pre-nup” agreements.

Peter says:
is it possible that the high rate of capital punishment gradually removed propensities for violence from the gene pool? This hypothesis is modeled by Frost and Harpending, who conclude that such natural selection could explain a little over half of the reduction in the homicide rate. The rest of the decline may have partly resulted from violent men being increasingly marginalized in society and on the marriage market.

Possibly high capital punishment rates removed violent individuals and presumably a penchant for individual violence passed on to their descendants. Criminologist Manuel Eisner’s comprehensive survey of Europe plotted about 100 per 100,000 homicide deaths for Europeans in the Middle Ages, a high point, followed by declines in the centuries thereafter. You put the figure at 24 per 100,000 for later centuries, further on in the post. This would track with your thesis, as to an increasingly stronger state increasingly suppressing violent propensities. There has been an uptick in homicide in recent decades in the West but nothing remotely like the previous European high point. The death penalty in the past was applied for a long list of offenses that today would draw a mere fine or short jail sentence- criticizing the national leader, petty theft, etc. There were numerous forms of sadistic capital punishment: burning at the stake, disemboweling, breaking on the wheel, etc. This raft of harsh practices may possibly have helped also to cull the more violent.

Re violent men being marginalized in society and on marriage market- possibly, but it is also possible that Europe’s numerous wars, with body counts in tens of millions also did good service in culling or mutually liquidating the more violent. If removing violent bodies from the gene pool is in view per the Frost/Harpending approach, then war I think plays a major role in culling such, including those more naturally aggressive and violent, from all sides of the contending forces. In this sense, some argue that war has served to “tame” these violent propensities in Europe, by removing those most susceptible – in short, channeling the still underlying violent nature of these individuals into state violence. On the other hand, some argue that war promotes the success of the most violent, both by bringing to leadership those most aggressive and bloody-minded, as well as producing victors that can more successfully reproduce themselves. Women increase their chances of reproductive success by aligning themselves with the victors (Potts and Hayden 2013. Sex and War).

Peter says:
The immediate causes were legal and cultural: harsher punishment and a shift in popular attitudes toward the violent male—who went from hero to zero.
Possibly, but on the flip side, violent males in many instances have been celebrated, particularly for their usefulness in an occupation often consuming Europe and its offshoots, war. The victors of these wars subsequently consolidate their reproductive success. Europe’s constant warfare has certainly resulted in a number of winners and losers. Perhaps Europe has learned in recent decades from the terrible destruction wrought in unleashing these males, and has implemented measures- such as the EU, UN etc etc to avoid such sweeping catastrophes in the future.

Peter says:
There is good evidence that personal violence is more common in the U.S. among white southerners than among white northerners. Southern whites are descended disproportionately from settlers who came from the northern English borderlands, where endemic violence persisted until the 18th century and where any encounter with non-kin, however innocent, could turn violent. ” In a world of treachery and danger, blood relationships became highly important. Families grew into clans, and kinsmen placed fidelity to family above loyalty to the crown itself” (Fischer, 1989, p. 628). White southerners also tend to attach more importance to “honor.” Disputes over honor (insults, slights on one’s reputation or the reputation of one’s family, etc.) are a major cause of personal violence.
Your point is indeed correct, as noted also by such writers as Sowell 2005. The south attained initial Civil War success by channeling this natural individual white southern propensity for violence into a motivated instrument of state violence. The rise of hard-nosed northern leaders who learned to do likewise, spelled doom for the south. As some historians point out, Sherman’s bloody-minded “March to the Sea,” was specifically calculated to impress upon the white south that it too would reap the whirlwind of violence it had inflicted on others.

Lion of the Judah-sphere says:
why did East Asia develop such low crime rates (lower than Europe) despite being relatively clannish?
Clannishness does not necessarily correlate in violence, if there is a central force dampening INTER-CLAN violence. East Asia can be a case of both factors at work- strong state coercion suppressing conflict between multiple groupings so the central hegemon can extract more resources across the board, AND WITHIN-GROUP clannishness that maintains social peace and holds down crime. Clannishness can work in tandem with strong state coercion suppressing inter-clan conflict. In fact the central hegemon can grant various leaders of clan groupings extra powers they may not have had before his ascent to police INTRA clan disruption- thus serving his broader ends. The central hegemon for example can support more pliant or submissive candidates to lead various clans under his control.

Peter says:
Unlike the situation in Western Europe, pacification did not lead to the creation of a peaceful, high-trust environment where individuals could survive as individuals without having to seek help and protection from kinsmen.
Not necessarily. East Asia has produced its fair share of high-trust environments, and indeed this is part of why East Asian business has been successful in many cases. The rotating credit associations for example that were instrumental in raising capital of Asians in the US to start businesses depend on a high degree of mutual trust. In fact analysts of “Asian values” produce solid evidence of high trust environments in East Asia. And Europe itself has been far from exempt in pursing clannishness for protection and help. The Irish are a prime example of clannishness at work, a phenomenon contributing much to their political success in places like the US. Likewise Italian Americans have at times been marked by mutually suspicious clannishness, particularly along regional and even intra-regional lines (Sowell- Ethnic America).

Hbd chick – Durkheim saw the decline of homicide rates as resulting from the liberation of the individual from collective bonds rather than as the consequence of the coercive potential of the state.
I would have to side with Frost/Harpending here. The arrow is in the other direction. Liberation from collective bonds for example has at times seen an INCREASE in homicidal violence. The Irish for example under less centralized English control and oppression in moving to America, still posted relatively high homicide rates. Likewise white southerns, as noted by Frost and other historians above, have long been noted for their individualistic ethos, but posted higher violence rates than some supposedly more “civilized” or controlled venues in the north.

HBDchick says:
that enough of the most violent members of medieval northern european society were removed from the population so that the frequencies of “genes for violent behavior” were significantly lowered in those populations.
Executions would only be one factor in the mix. Europe’s numerous wars consumed much of the available supply of violent individuals and this impacted their genetic legacies. This enhanced the pacification Frost speaks of.

Peter says:
These trends mirror the strengthening of the modern state, specifically its ability to monopolize the use of violence and to locate and execute violators of that monopoly.
Agreed, with the addition that the rising modern state also channeled the more aggressive types into approved channels of violence like Europe’s many wars, which in turn helped consume the genetic potential of the more violent males. In short, state violence suppressed individual violence, and then channeled the products towards the state’s own aggressive ends in conquest. This in turn, down the road, enhanced individual pacification. I think your notion of efficient state executions and suppression also works when wars are considered.

hbdchi also sees the Italian city states as a possible contradiction to your theory. But this does not shake the theory much. Only a small range of offenses brought the full weight of the state’s wrath in the city states- certainly homicide, but also “public order” type crimes, such as defamation of public officials. Much of the criminal workload in the city states was handled via monetary fines. See Trevor Dean’s Crime and Justice in Late Medieval Italy. As Dean says “Corporal and capital punishment was rare.” Your theory thus holds up, in that the city states did not deploy fatal sanctions as often as other European jurisdictions.

Director says:
The monopoly of violence is directly connected to Artillery and small arms. In this case the drop in homicide is strongly associated with the King having an artillery train and battalions of men who enforced the peace. They called it peace…

Firearms certainly played a role down the road, but bear in mind that the state was growing more powerful and was effectively suppressing localized violence well BEFORE the arrival of firearms. I believe you are correct to the extent that artillery, firearms, etc required more centralized resource concentration and extraction. Only the state really could afford the long-term expense of mass use of such weaponry.

Cracker1 says:
If a Chechen comes to the US and kills people, we count that as a homicide. If our armed forces or proxies kill a Chechen in Iraq or elsewhere, I doubt that it is counted as a homicide. The “official homicide rate” is not an un-biased natural phenomenon; it is a culturally produced data-point and depends on many factors; the main one being the identity of the compiler and their cultural relationship to the possible homicide candidate.
Indeed. The rate depends in part on whose doing the counting and making the definitions. The Romans spoke scornfully of “wild barbarians” and “rebels” in Germania. But from the Germanic perspective, were they thus, or were they people naturally defending their territory against a predatory hegemon determined to seize and exploit their resources? Ironically, towards the end of Rome, much of the fighting forces were made up of these “barbarians.” The Roman regime suppressed localized smaller scale violence, and channeled the people and resources seized into state violence, to continue its predatory expansion.

anon 143 says:
the breakdown in clannishness in NW Europe made the state apparatus more efficient and so made the selection process much stronger. (The state apparatus being more efficient is shown simply from the fact that the data is available so early compared to most other places.)
Agree in part that the breakdown in clannishness was due to the more powerful state apparatus. The state in turn channeled the resources and people seized into its own official state violence program. Hence the Scot and Irish bodies were deployed frequently to carry out the state violence in other venues once they had been crushed internally. But the clans did not renounce individual violence. The northern European Irish for example are notorious for their violence in the US, making today’s street gangs seem like Boy Scouts. In fact the state militia at times had to be called out in places of heavy Irish settlement, as in parts of New York, to suppress their violence.

So a violent,clannish culture might *require* early marriage to sustain itself.
Not necessarily. Traditional violent Irish culture was marked by relatively LATE marriage patterns, as Sowell et al show.

ZBlog says:
3) How about the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War? Both were meat grinders drawing in violent men to fight and die. Reasonable estimates say both reduced the number of men by far more than administrative processes.
Agreed, which is why I say above that more executions are only a piece of the picture. Those meat grinders you speak off, helped kill off or cull the individually violent, making their genes more difficult to reproduce, and enhancing pacification.

Unit472 says
So my hypothesis was the murder rate would be cyclical as the most violent were killed or imprisoned and then start to rise again about 15-20 years later as their children ( and most of these young black violent males have children before they are ‘decommissioned’) reach the peak age for violence. Empirically this seems to be the case as the murder rates fell for a time but then seemed to start rising again.

Actually during the 1990s, the homicide rate went UP from lower points in the 1980s, and actually PEAKED in the 1990s before commencing a long downward slide. This slide can be attributed to various causes- better policing as you note to be sure, the rise of anti-violence voices in the black community as seen in the numerous neighborhood programs and groups that sprung up in NY during the period, and a reduction in the age cohort. Violence may have killed off some offenders, but the demographic decline is also due to migration from denser higher crime, NE urban areas, and more abortions.

The 1990s saw a demographic trend of lower birthrates for many groups, as shown by US census stats. For example White births per 1000 women dropped from 15.8 to 13.9, as did Asians: (19 to 17.1). Fertility rates per 1000 women also dropped for both whites, blacks and Asians. Only Hispanics registered an increase.

Ron UNZ says:
First, we’re really talking about a tiny genetic impact, maybe executing 1-2% of the males in each generation
True, but could not the constant wars of Europe, also serve as a culling mechanism for the most violent cohorts, thus hastening their removal from the genetic pool?

So to the extent there was any selective pressure against violence/criminality genes, I think on net it would have been a very small fraction of 1% per generation.
Agreed, I think broader variables like warfare are at play. As you say elsewhere, what we have are not genetics per se, but simply removal or reduction of the age cohorts that are more likely to be more violent. But could not this culling via warfare, also play out in a genetic impact?

Randal parker says:
John Boswell’s The Kindness Of Strangers is that child abandonment was extremely common in the period.
Would you say such abandonment has a genetic basis? In 19th century urban America tens of thousands of children were abandoned and homeless. It was almost automatically assumed, and contemporary stats confirmed this, that these children would be Irish (Sowell -Ethnic America)

Cracker 1 says- re Peter Frost on abortion:
Frost:—–That was largely thanks to Roe vs. Wade (1973). It’s not just because the abortion rate rose among African Americans; it’s also because it rose especially high among the women of AA “alpha males.” Those males are still having plenty of sex, but it’s no longer translating into reproductive success.

Cracker 1: Please read this and think about what you have written. You have serious potential as a scholar. You will not have any degree of success unless you can recognize the above paragraph as the nonsense that it is.

Why would be nonsense? Abortion is not the ONLY factor at play obviously. But Frost is in numerous company with others who make a similar argument using credible data. It is not a far-fetched race theory but an empirical one examined by serious people. The link below gives some pro and con arguments.

http://www.hli.org/2012/10/does-abortion-really-reduce-crime/

The primary objection to the notion is that crime did not drop among young people- the very first population that should have been first affected. Other critics hold that nations with high abortion rates showed a large increase in crime some years after they legalized abortion. Also Russia has many crime increases under free wheeling abortion policies that kill 2 white kids for each live white birth. In addition, the murder rate in the early 1990s- 1993- for the high abortion generation of 14 to 17 year olds had crime rates some 3.6 times higher than the low abortion generation of the 1980s before them.

Among blacks the murder rate actually went up some 500% from 1984 to 1993, again, under conditions of free wheeling abortion- much higher than when there was more restrictive or less free-wheeling abortion. Objectors also argue that the huge increase in violent crime that peaked in 1991 and then declined is more closely related to the crack epidemic not abortion, with the crime rate rising and falling exactly where crack was more accessible. Crime also began to go up in 1984-91, after a previous decline in the early 1980s under less abortion.

Hbd chick says
– i bet that the reduction in homicide rates from 1200-1500 has more to do with that [increased outbreeding and decline of clannishness] than with a strong state enforcing its laws.
Maybe, but bear in mind that the decline in clannishness is itself partly the product of a strong coercive state. Hence the Scottish and Irish were subjugated by the British hegemons. This in turn weakened the clan system and led the incorporation of such clannish peoples into the larger British imperial enterprise.

both the irish and the scots-irish were latecomers to what i’ve dubbed The Outbreeding Project in medieval europe, and neither of them really experienced manorialism during the period, so both groups remained comparatively clannish until…well, until today!
Indeed I agree such clannishness did not totally disappear, but it is a fact that a stronger central hegemon brought about an increasing decline in local clannishness, or local tribalism etc- something a fact on the ground since the Middle Ages. As early as the 1300s for example the British were meddling in Scottish affairs, and the Normans were earlier meddling in Welsh affairs. Furthermore the central hegemon need not be an invading or foreign power- it could be an indigenous regional hegemon which crushes smaller local groupings to create a larger polity. The era around the medieval Scottish Wars of Independence for example saw Scottish regimes organized on a much broader basis than narrow localism, and indeed such regimes were international in outlook, dealing with France, England etc. Thus whether by foreign intruder, or native national/regional hegemon, the narrower provincial or tribal groupings were weakened early by a stronger central power in the Medieval period. This would track somewhat with the manorial system idea- it replaced other more narrow traditional clannish/kinship structures in favor of a wider economic and social grouping, linked to royal power.

whatever you do, do not confuse rebel individualism with the small-family individualism of “core” europeans like the (southeastern) english or the dutch. two very different things, those are — the first means you hate authority, the second means you are a very cooperative citizen by nature.
Fair enough, and your example shows there are differences in Europe. Even within England- you mention southeastern England compared to the cruder, ruder, more fractious borderlands of the north, that as Peter notes, heavily yielded the denizens of the white south in the US. These “wilder” or to use some common parlance of the time “less civilized” regions were crushed or subjugated in various time eras- the Scots and Irish etc beginning in the medieval era, the white south in the late 1800s. Once the stronger hegemon has crushed the fractious periphery, its remnants, while still maintaining strong local ties or sentiments, are incorporated into a larger polity. This happened with Scotland and Ireland- North, and with the US, where white southerners came eventually to be overrepresented in the armed forces after the Civil War, particularly in the senior ranks.

I find your mention of the manorial system intriguing and in part it supports my point about the importance of the stronger central hegemon. The manorial system was intimately associated with mobilizing resources for providing cavalry for royal armies. The “lord of the manor” usually supervised several manorial estates and appointed officers (bailiffs, stewards etc) to extract revenue, regulate administrative matters, and mobilize fighting contingents in service of the center. Manorial court powers could be locally sourced but often they also obtained power through a grant of “franchise” from the king or commonly recognized royal type boss. Exempting certain capital offenses, the manorial administration had wide powers, including judicial powers under these “franchise” grants. And serfs had to provide labor services to the ruling laird, or pay a part of their output to the manorial boss, or his designated villeins or underlings. Other lower class groups like landless laborers, fishermen, etc were also subject to this power. Reeves appointed the the manorial boss supervised agriculture, labor services and extraction of rents. The overlord also boosted his income by charging for use of his mill, bakery or winepress etc.

In short, the manor was a significant pillar in the rise of, or consolidating the power of royal and by extension, state power. This central power in turn, moved to crush local clans, tribes and other traditionalist groupings, redirecting the manpower and resources seized on the periphery, towards the center, to carry out the state’s bigger violence projects elsewhere.

So the “core” northern Europeans of SE ENgland, Germany etc, may have been more collectivist in orientation indeed as you say, particularly in terms of organizing larger groupings of resources to conduct violence on a larger scale. The extensive castle-building, succession and dynastic wars by royal hegemons in many European areas, is testimony to this pattern of larger scale violence and domination, compared to smaller groupings like Scottish clans. The Norman intruders for example, took advantage of internal squabbling in Wales to subjugate the tribes there, (including extensive castle building for territorial control) and later incorporated the famous Welsh bowmen into larger violence projects on the continent and regionally. See Ireland 1170-1509, Society and History By Desmond Keenan).

Tying into the thread’s notion, such larger scale violence projects, including Europe’s constant religious wars mentioned by Ron Unz, spread over other parts of Europe, may have helped cull more naturally aggressive or violent types, removing their impact from the genetic pool- or in other words, enhancing Europe’s “genetic pacification.”

HBDchick says:
there’s no evidence for that and, in fact, the evidence indicates that events ran in the other direction — clans and clannishness disappeared first, strong states came afterwards.

Not so. Much data shows that narrow tribal ways, clannishness etc weakened under pressure from the the more centralized coercive state or force. And as I say above, the hegemon need not be a foreign invader, but can be a native/indigenous power at the center subjugating the clans or tribes on the periphery and incorporating them into a larger grouping.. I do not dispute clannishness may partially have changed on its own. New migrations for example could broaden and weaken the narrow initial base.

But I don’t see where clans disappeared first BEFORE the strong state came in. To the contrary the clans hung around a long time, and in fact were, and had to be in place, to be suppressed by the central power. The Welsh clans were well in place, and had not disappeared, when the Norman hegemons subjugated them. Likewise for the Scots and some Irish. Even the Scottish Highland clans were around as late as the 1700s to fight and lose at the disastrous battle of Culloden- after which the British imperialists commenced a devastating program of Highland “pacification.”

you’re thinking of clannishness as a set of social structures (literally societies with clans), i’m talking about clannishness as a set of behavioral traits in a population. s’alright! unless you’re a mindreader (or have read my blog), there’s no reason you would’ve known that. (^_^)

lol, I ought to see more of your blog, for this manorial argument you made is one I have not heard before. But anyway, I was not 100% thinking of literal clans. I can see somewhat your point on the mindset, the outlook, the behavioral traits- which is why I mentioned the Irish and their behavioral patterns in America, far away from the homeland. I would agree with you that such patterns are somewhat different from what prevailed in the more Germanic zones.

Anon 250 says

I’m not convinced war *disproportionately* selected against violent individuals. Even in eras where soldiers were self-selecting and probably mostly naturally violent and would suffer disproportionate casualties in battle, I think they probably killed a lot more non-violent civilians every time they sacked a city or stole food from the peasantry.

Quite possibly. Back in those days sometimes, the military was at least SOMETIMES used as a dumping ground for “undesirables” or misfits, into the lower ranks. Vagabonds, beggars etc were often impressed into the military, in both the naval and land forces, though again, as time went on military forces throughout Europe became better paid and more professionalized. The Ottomans, Germans and the British back in Medieval times and later all to some extent, used forced draft military recruitment to flush “undesirables” from the ranks of the better folk. It was a known phenomenon in Europe. Even in Russia one study notes:

“In Russia, communities and landlords used conscription to send off criminals, troublemakers, drunkards and men deemed disobedient, unruly or simply lazy. It is hardly surprising that armies time and again complained about the quality of the personnel that was provided to them in this way.”
(–Erik Jan Zucher, Fighting for a living)

So to some extent European militaries, at some level drew off the “dregs” of society, variously defined in their own eras. Casulaty rates in war would no doubt impact these at a higher rate, cutting off their participation in the gene pool. But like you say, this should not be viewed as the ONLY factor at play. Maybe its a combo of things. Perhaps the ongoing executions of remaining lower end people on the civilian side, combined with their continual liquidation on the military front, combined together to “cull” the European gene pool. Those at the top, the elites in a sense, may have used these strategies to ensure that only the better people, those more malleable, and submissive would, in the long haul, win the gene inheritance sweepstakes.

It could be said that the European elites gained a two-fer bonus. If dirty work needed to be done, then the lower end people could be deployed to good effect, whether in Europe or in various colonial enterprises. If a more submissive, higher quality remaining population needed to be deployed they could do just as well. Hence as Christopher Browning’s study “Ordinary Men” shows, ordinary German accountants, bakers, store clerks etc, good submissive bourgeois types, in the unglamorous SS police battalions, were among the most zealous, vicious killers during the Holocaust. Internal pacification made possible more efficient external violence directed against neighboring peoples. Those at the top got the dirty work done, no matter who was used.

ANON 450

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to think the answer lies in the raw math. Men are not entirely without agency. In the late 8th century, King Offa was starting to put reeves in place, even in small territories. Getting away with murder simply became more difficult as we moved into the late middle ages. With the King providing alternatives to violence for settling disputes, violence was going to fall, with or without a cull.

Hmm, agreed. The growing power of the state would suppress the old private vendetta/revenge systems, and give the center a greater monopoly on violence or provide more forums for dispute resolution. It would be interesting t compare various European systems. Did the English common law approach do a better job compared to the more codified continental approach or is the bottom line in both cases the same? Were the Germanic zone systems more equitable compared to the Mediterranean zone, and so on.

Ron Unz says:

I think a general problem among HBD people is to assume that *everything* is HBD/genetic, presumably as a natural counter-reaction to our equally absurd reigning ideology that *nothing* is HBD/genetic. It seems to me that sometimes things are mostly HBD, sometimes they’re mostly not, and very often it’s difficult to tell.

Indeed.

Since I don’t think America traditionally executed tens of thousands of criminals each year, the cause of the 85% decline must have been somewhat different. Offhand, the rises and falls seem vaguely related to external social/political/cultural events, with a huge spike a little before the Civil War and decades of decline afterward. And the rises and falls make me doubtful about any sort of genetic explanation, which would be more likely to be mono-directional.

I would agree. And the American numbers kept falling despite the continual arrival of numerous lower end European immigrants, like the Irish, who brought extensive violence to the areas in which they settled. Today’s so-called urban “tough guys” would not have lasted long in the old-line Irish hoods, or on New York Irish gang battlegrounds like “San Juan Hill.” There are a lot of factors at play in those fluctuations. Changing laws for example making it easier for criminals to evade punishment, “bargain justice”, along with demographic swings and economic factors such as the decline in poverty, are all important in the mix rather than the simplistic genetic explanations favored in some quarters.

The spike in the 1850s may be attributable in part to the American West . High murder areas included the usual suspects such as Dodge City Kansas (165 per 100,000) but also places like San Fran and several other California jurisdictions also posted high rates. Even allegedly milder Oregon posted a rate around 30 per 100,000. (Randolph Roth- Homicide Rates in the American West) Using modern FBI formulas, Los Angeles County in the 19th century ran up a body count of about 414 homicides per 100,000. (McKanna 2002. Race and Homicide in 19th Century California). Nor is the West unique. Studies show the heavily Scotch-Irish Kentucky-Tennessee borderlands posting a rate of 24 per 100,000 starting in the 1850s. So indeed there are a complex of factors in the mix.

Sean says:

Except as John Dewey noted universal morality absolutely cannot cross rivers or mountains when these mark the boundaries of a state. Moral beliefs are a result of the situation that the entity finds themselves in.

Not really. “Universal” morality is just that- it cuts across state boundaries which could in any event change from century to century or in even less time. And of course morality will be shaped by particular cultures, languages situations etc. that’s a given- but there still are certain universal bottom lines against theft, murder, lying, and incest. The language, labels and categories vary across cultures, but the very notion of morality, and certain universal bottom line patterns are in place, cutting across all cultures.

And Christianity did not “revolutionize” morality by making it absolute and universal per the other poster Universality morality has always been in place, and in fact is recognized as such by the Christians. See Romans 1- which notes that men have no excuse for doing evil- all have certain universal moral codes and recognitions of a higher power. For example, someone committing incest 3000 years ago can’t claim he is exempt from the laws of morality because he never heard of Christianity. If there is a judgment day on the other side of death by said higher power, the laws of “universal morality” will be quite enough to convict men.

HBDCHICK says:

in places where there was early and long-lasting outbreeding — southeastern england, northwestern france, northern germany — and manorialism — this is where you see “clannishness” disappearing before the rise of strong, centralized states.

Fair enough. On your blog you have some data showing the patterns of this core. The outbreeding effect and subsequent manorialism can be seen in the Norman conquest of England for example, which would suppress localism and tribalism and incorporate the conquered into a larger imperial or at least regionally authoritarian sphere. You say the NW European societies (excluding Ireland) became more “corporate” as a result.

I think your framework could work both ways in supporting my point or Peter’s. If the corporate hegemons continued to centralize power and monopolize violence – (state executions rather than private vendetta for example), then maybe the gene pool of the lower end types decreased, as per Frost. If the corporate hegemons used their conquests or new structures to extract and mobilize resources on a larger scale, for large scale violence against neighbors or weaker groups, as in the constant dynastic and religious wars based in, or across NW Europe, then war-related liquidation or attrition of the cohort of pressed into military service, would also lessen their genetic pass through to future generations.

Sean says

No Enrique, “Ordinary Men” showed the exact opposite. They hated killing. The paper we are discussing brings out how starting in the whole trend was for non lethal punishments.

Wrong Sean. In fact, the book Ordinary Men showed that these bourgeois stalwarts- merchants, civil servants, academics, farmers, students, managers, skilled and unskilled workers. etc for the most part, were ordinary German men and women. Hundreds of thousands were involved not a small minority, and they faced little retribution for opting out. And it shows that they murdered Jews willingly, approvingly, even zealously. In fact some even proudly invited their girlfriends and wives to various killing sites to witness the good, cleansing work. SOME may have expresses regret and discomfort I agree, and that too is documented, but in large, the book, and others shows these ordinary people diligently murdering other human beings, including children, in cold blood.

It is telling that your “supporting” link does not point to the actual Browning book but a totally different tome on “gut feelings.” Curious omission, for someone who sweepingly denies what the book plainly lays out.

Compare what the ordinary Algerians did to the pied-noir:

Sure, I agree the Algerian War saw savage brutalities on both sides. here is one account of the “civilized” side:
” But in the end we were as barbarous as the F.L.N. I mentioned interrogations. Do you think that suspects talked because they enjoyed conversation? It was la torture loosened their tongues. Muslim women were raped by whole squads, had high pressure hoses put in their rectums. Old men and boys had legs broken with crowbars. And beatings, with whips and mallets, without mercy.”
And even worse is shown in various academic writeups:
https://sgsnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/savage_war_of_peace_chap_9.pdf

And Enrique, Germany in WW2 did not have the same morality as existed in other countries, look at my “this morality” link above.

I checked your link. German morality was not necessarily out of sync with other countries. It depends. Some parts were quite in sync with that of the other major power on the European/Eurasian landmass- Russia, under Comrade Stalin, who cooly murdered tens of millions in his Holodomor. Your “This Morality” link actually espouses views quite congenial to some modern “HBD” types. For example the words of the Fuhrer on marriage- that “it must have the larger goal of increasing and maintaining the species and the race. That only is its meaning and its task.” (Mein Kampf, p. 275) is something that would attract much support in certain more conservative quarters today, and was not all that controversial in the 1930s. The Fuhrer’s 5 propositions:

1-The work of the individual has only one purpose: to serve the whole group.
2-Major accomplishments are possible only by the division of labor.
3-Each bee risks its life without hesitation for the whole.
4-Individuals who are not useful or are harmful to the whole are eliminated.
5-The species is maintained by producing a large number of offspring.

would have found significant support in Europe at the time he wrote it, and in Eastern Europe as well under communist hegemony. Indeed the “eugenics” parts would have be supported by some quite prominent intellectuals in the US. Today’s China would love it, save for the larger offspring part. German militarism soured many, but many of the moral arguments made in Mein Kampf before such actual military conquests or intimidation, or the Holocaust, such as Jewish over-representation in certain events, movements or organizations might have found broad agreement in Europe. HBD writer Kevin Macdonald indeed argues that National Socialism can be seen as an Anti-Jewish Evolutionary Strategy that had deep roots in the past historical European interactions with Jews, rather than being the outlandish creation of one alleged “madman.”

If Macdonald is correct about Nazism as a logical evolutionary strategy, then perhaps it could be said that the controllers of northwest Europe undertook actions to “select” for a more congenial European gene pool. Their continuous program of capital punishment executions culled lesser stocks- hindering their reproduction – while the Holocaust under the National Socialism evolutionary program liquidated putative “alien elements” from that gene pool as well. Europe’s many wars would be a third “culling” mechanism to purge and refine the European gene pool- and indeed the Fuhrer argued that war was a purifying mechanism that ultimately would improve the stock of the volk.

If you look at what actually broke up Scottish Highland clans it was the clan chiefs trying to make money. Once civil commercial society arrived there was no need for ‘outbreeding’, the chiefs abandoned their retainers (relatives) and moved into luxurious apartments in Edinburgh and London.

I do not dispute that the British imperial project, or the Norman imperial project further back suppressed and later incorporated outlying clans and tribes- such as incorporating some Scot/Welsh leaders into the British ruling class framework, and incorporating the lower classes as foot soldiers for larger war projects at home, regionally and abroad.

You can look at international relations in the same way. The most pacifistic people in Europe (Germany) acted like a pack of ravening wolves seventy years ago . Is that because peaceful ideology was not invented until recently? Obviously the ideology was available but they thought it didn’t meet their needs. Now they do.

I don’t think the Germans were that pacifistic. They were the focus of, or started 2 world wars that killed tens of millions. Even before this, the Germans were waging plenty of war in Europe, or fighting among one another internally for hegemony. Prussia achieved hegemony by force of arms, not pacifism, and then later on a more centralized German state challenged British and French hegemony. Like you say, peaceful ideology did not necessarily meet their needs over the long run. And Germany (and France, Britain etc) shows that more peaceful pacific bourgeois people may be such INTERNALLY in their lands, but outwardly wage more aggressive, larger scale, more destructive war on their neighbors and further afield. Europe’s many wars show this patten as well.

My reading of what Ron Unz is saying is he thinks it hasn’t been shown in the paper that there was sufficient removal of extreme aggressive behaviour that was due to genes. Murderous violence would be the uncontrolled extreme of a quality that could sometimes pay off .

Maybe. In some cases murderous violence can pay. Larger scale aggressive war would be one way to remove a lot of people from the gene pool.

America was a frontier with good land sometimes scarce (as in Appalachia), sometimes there for the taking. Probably there would be selection for aggressive behaviour where good land was scarce. In some parts of the US the recipe for reproductive success would be low personal consumption, and hard work.

I would agree that on a hostile frontier situation, an aggressive behavior can be a positive as far as self-preservation. Some argue that is why the wilder, cruder Scotch Irish, coming from the violent UK borderlands, oppressed by the central hegemons or classes of Britain, excelled as mountain men and advance pioneers. I am glad you mention this for it may provide a counterpoint to the notion of the peaceful, pacified European. In this case of the dangerous frontier, the wilder outliers, the suppressed clan remnants, proved more successful than the “effete” types further down the line.

This could be extended to the white south, heavily populated by the more backward, cruder English borderland types. The enthusiasm with which they fought the initial Civil war battles shook the North and gave initial success, until harsher northern warlords arose that applied ruthless, crushing, bringing home the true cost of war to those who opposed central hegemony. Sherman’s “March Thru Georgia” is one example of this. The victorious center in the US thus pacified the outlying region, just as it did in Europe so many centuries ago. It may be that the northern victory eventually selected for more pacified white Americans.

It should be noted that areas heavily populated by these more backward whites, relatively speaking, on the average, tend to be poorer, more violent etc, show more substance abuse, out of wedlock births, and/or slower to progress economically as has been the case with the white south, Appalachia, and even the relatively slower wealth production by such groups as the Irish in their settings. The Irish for example were relatively slow rising among European ethnic groups, and did not achieve income parity with other Americans until the 1950s.

RON UNZ says:
Let’s consider a real life example. Over the last couple of decades, black urban homicide rates have dropped by more than half, certainly not a 90% reduction, but still quite considerable. Why has that happened? Well, probably lots of different reasons, but maybe one of them is that around 30% of all urban black men have “disappeared”—they’re dead or in prison. So if you eliminate 30% of the most violent males, the homicide rate drops by 60%, which seems plausible.

My impression is that the vast majority of black/black homicides tend to be thuggish individuals killing each other over petty insults or quarrels, often while high on drugs. Similarly, I’d guess that a large fraction of Olde English homicides fell into the same category—people drunkenly stabbing each other over minor insults at a tavern.

This is reasonable, and also comparable to the Irish, who had relatively high homicide rates, much of it linked to the effects of substance abuse- alcohol abuse being a marker of the Irish. As far as violent crime as a whole, the Irish incarceration rate reached a huge 55 per thousand around 1860 for example, more than any native or foreign group (Epstein and Gang 2010. Migration and Culture, Vol 8) The homicide rates in question are also comparable to early English patterns. The European homicide rate was generally high, much higher than the US rate of 5.5 per 100,000 in 2000. In some European cities it was quite high. The supposedly more self-restrained Dutch, of Amsterdam, posted a whopping 47 homicides per 100,000 in the 16th century, higher than any rate ever recorded for New York City, Irish and all. As some writers like Norbert Elias have argues (already ref above), Europe underwent a “civilizing process” in the 16th and 17th centuries that brought Euro homicide rates down substantially in later decades and centuries per his “civilizing” model. The primary reason for the drop is a decline in male to male fights. (Stott 2009).

Removal of violent individuals, whether physically (by whatever means- execution, migration or war, or both), or by removing the incentives and actual fights (by whatever means- like a stronger state suppressing and monopolizing violence) seems to me to be a stronger basis for the decline, though Frost’s genetic pass-through theory may have a smaller secondary effect on the drop down the road.

Sean says:
It looks like there has been selection against people who act violently on their own initiative. The field of violent behavior has thus been increasingly limited to violence “under orders”, i.e., that is condoned by legitimate authority. Pacification of social relations has probably affected a diverse range of behavioral traits, which in turn vary in their heritability.

Agreed.

Clark discusses this point in his book: during the same period that the homicide rate was declining, there was a parallel decline in the popularity of blood sports, like cock fighting and bear and bull bating.

Indeed, there was a decline in private cruelty/violence, even as the state began to monopolize and institutionalize the violence and cruelty in other forms, albeit with greater recognized collective legitimacy. Torture by state authorities was routine for example.

We live in an amoral world that has become progressively “moralized” under the influence of Christian morality. This is where I profoundly disagree with Enrique’s contention that universal morality existed before Christianity. At best, one can find a trend toward universal morality in pre-Christian times, and this trend has continued over the past two millennia, a notable example being the “war on murder” of the late medieval and early modern era.

A greater moral influence because of Christianity does not at all negate the fact that universal morality existed BEFORE Christianity. Christian influence intensified certain aspects and put it in a new framework of God’s grace and mercy via the sacrifice of Christ per the doctrine of the Christians.

In fact, in Romans 1 Apostle Paul himself refers to the notion of a universal morality, and indeed a universal recognition at some level of a higher power or higher supernatural force, which would serve to hold men accountable on judgment day even if they never heard of Christianity. So to say that universal morality did not exist before Christianity, is a claim itself contradicted by the Christian scriptures. And if the trend continued, well it had to continue something already there.

Cfacket1 says:
decline in the popularity of blood sports, like cock fighting
Since when?

It has declined, compared to where it was before, and this holds true with dog-fighting, bull baiting etc. This is part of the “civilizing” process for Europeans Norbert Elias mentioned above

I think the perspectives of Ron Unz and Peter Frost can be reconciled in part, by seeing that both are right, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC DECADES OR YEARS MEASURED, AND DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS WITHIN EACH TERRITORY. In some years, and in some locations, America did just as well as Europe, in others, America was worse.

Per Roth 2009, colonial America saw significant decreases :

“In Maryland the rate at which unrelated European adults killed each other fell from 29 per 100,000 adults per year to 15 per 100,000 between the mid-1670s and the mid-1690s. In Virginia it fell from 37 per 100,000 to 10 per 100,000 and in New England form 6 per 100,000 to an astonishing rate of 1 per 100,000. By the end of the century, the homicide rates for colonists in the Chesapeake was for the first time was within the range of contemporary western European rates- roughly 12 per 100,000 per year. The rate in New England may well have been the lowest in the Western world.”
–Randolph Roth, 2009. American Homicide

The coming of significant amounts of Irish after this period, caused an upward spike, but in general, the trend was down. Thus Frost is correct when he notes Europe’s sharp drop setting the pace, but Unz is right as well in that America matched this drop, depending on place and time.

The real crux of the matter is not the fact of a decline- both places show decline. It is whether removal of more criminals via execution had a substantial enough impact to quote: “gradually remove propensities for violence from the gene pool.” In other words, as more violent Europeans were removed via execution, more placid, pacified Europeans emerged and came to dominate the gene pool. That is the acid test. I am more inclined to lean in Ron UNz’s direction on this; other significant factors from migration, to war, to simple attrition as violent people killed each other off, that effected simple removal, are more substantial factors at play, although Frost’s argument I think still has enough traction to qualify as a factor somewhere in the mix, because he notes: “this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.”

To the extent that more efficient central governments taking over the monopoly on violence acted as a deterrent against violent acts, and encouraged removal of more violent people, or changing cultural mores made raw violence and vendetta less acceptable, then the notion of SOME impact, if only small scale, is reasonable. Whether the removal was substantial enough in the GENE POOL to account for the significant pattern in Europe over centuries, though is an open question, since there are numerous other factors in the mix.

—————————————————————————-

One criticism not addressed, per “Marginal Revolution” blog, is that one of the central weaknesses of Harpending and Frost is in assuming that criminals do not have opportunities for reproductive success. In support, the riter on MR proffers some research showing that criminals generally had higher reproductive success. QUOTE:

From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics.

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.”
–Yao et al. 2010. Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, vol 35, 6, 481-488

In short, MR’s argument is that criminals, by having more children with more women, and having less parental investment as part of their behavior, are more capable of leaving behind enough “negative genes” than the more righteous or pacified. Criminals may be executed at some point, but by then, they have already sown their tainted genes far and wide enough to secure reproductive success.

Ron Unz says:
Ten generations of drunken thugs eliminating each other from the gene-pool could have a significant impact though I can’t see how we could calculate anything given all the unknowns.

Indeed, simple attrition among the violent can also a factor in the mix. Attrition working in tandem with stronger central regimes and their executions, could also have brought about removal of the more violent. Attrition need not be individual or small scale, but is seen in the large scale melees of Britain and Europe where hundreds, sometimes thousands of violent men went went at each other in melees, riots etc etc. (Jolly Fellows: Male Milieus in Nineteenth-Century America- Richard Stott) In America the Irish were foremost practitioners of the large scale melee, fielding hundreds of violent criminal gang members going at it furiously. At least one history considers the numbers and zeal deployed by the Irish as approaching some level of military capability requiring the call-up of the state militia several times to quell the Irish violence. As Thomas Sowell often notes, all the deaths in all the black ghetto riots of the 1960s are still less than some SINGLE Irish riots back in the day.

I don’t think atrocities disprove pacification.

1) A relatively pacified population will still contain plenty of people who aren’t and if they’re selected or self-selected into specialist units then that unit will behave very differently to the average of the whole population. French paratroopers in Algeria != average French.

Maybe, since some data shows criminals have substantial reproductive success. But it is by no means clear that the psychopaths’ isolation into specialist units leaves for a kinder, gentler remainder. As Christ Browning’s book “Ordinary Men” shows, the mild mannered accountants, cooks and bakers in the “second string” SS Police battalions murdered tens of thousand of civilians as zealously as any “Mad Max” front-line SS army Unit. The central state may suppress individual vendettas, but then channels people into a more efficient killing machine to meet its objectives.

Athletes always get more special breaks than non- athletes, whites included. Nothing new or special about that. Then there are the frat boys who have been getting away with rape and other things in several places. White feminists on mostly white campuses have been complaining about this for years, and plenty of documentation supports their claims- such as the Penn State frat boys posting pictures of passed out women they sexually exploited.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_fraternity_bystande.html

What else is to be expected in places run by liberals?

White feminists on mostly white campuses have been complaining about the shenanigans white frat boys have been getting away with for years, and have the documentation to back this up, like
the frat boys below who posted pics of women they sexually exploited.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_fraternity_bystande.html

What else is new in places run by liberals?