Unwell says:
Literature textbooks insist on including material by “diverse” authors, most of which clearly should not be there. By “should not” I mean to say that this literature has no literary merit. As readers know well, this is done in the name of multiculturalism. But one could also say that the textbook publishers have a real agenda—something more nefarious—in addition to the purported agenda.

True enough though it must be noted that textbook publishers have long tried to pacify and mollify conservative groups such as the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) and have downplayed such things as the role of slavery in making the Civil War. Indeed publishers for decades had separate versions of textbooks shipped to southern states- the “lite” versions compared to more detailed coverage for the non-southern states. Even today, in order to avoid offending powerful constitutiencies, both of the left AND right, publishers water down most content.

.
The purported agenda of the educational complex is to reflect diversity of the students and raise their self-esteem. The practical outcome of this philosophy is a literature curriculum which actually more resembles a civil rights social justice curriculum. From Rosa Parks to Martin Luther King, English class has become “down for the struggle.”

Generally true as to key/classic literary figures and works, though as a former teacher in “diverse” Jersey, I can tell you that teachers simply have too many benchmarks to cover and too little time to be engaging in any social justice groupie development work. A more important problem is the thin spread of much substantial content in the name of “coverage.”

.
Clearly social studies has been subsumed by the civil rights movement, and now English too.

This is not so at all. Open most social studies textbooks, and civil rights coverage is stuck mostly where it is prominent as such in the 1960s. Most such books are hundreds of pages in length, and have to cover over 200 years of history- everything from the American Revolution to Reaganism. There simply is no space for any civil rights takeover, and in any event most state coverage standards render any such takeover virtually impossible. Likewise English. There is no “civil rights takeover.” Even the supposedly “progressive” “SPringboard” (gag) texts do not do this. The problem is not “civil rights.” The problem is watered down coverage and emphasis on things like “constructivist” methods. Civil rights receives SHORT SHRIFT actually, and as noted above, publishers go “lite” on things like slavery so as not to offend conservative constituencies. Books such as Brudage 2009 (The Southern Past: A Clash of Race and Memory) document this extensively, including intimidation of publishers to toe the United Daughters of the Confederacy line.

A perhaps surprising staple in literature textbooks is the Iroquois Constitution.

It is hard to see any such staple per se. Most standard literature textbooks don’t mention it at all. SOME books with a clear “multi-culti” bent (as opposed to more standard texts) may include it, but as a minor part of hundreds of pages. The book “American Literature: Cultural Influences of Early to Contemporary Voices, for example is a clear “multi-culti” anthology, and specifically says it is going to use a number of diverse “voices.” The Iroquois Constitution takes up 4 pages out of over 540 pages, but also in those pages are several Bible selections and Puritan writings- even sermons. Whitman, Hemingway, Faulkner and a whole lot more of the classic “dead white guys” take up most of the slots.

The “contemporary” era has only the Jewish writer Chaim Potok’s ‘CHosen” but as a serious novel that has sold over 3 million copies, it is not unreasonable to include it as the contemporary representative. No doubt some folk might argue with the Zionist themes mentioned. Why this particular Jewish author, and why is the State of Israel involved? Weren’t there other authors that could have been used for the contemporary slot?

Now we’ve really come full circle, with Native American texts such as the above and their esoteric terminology—and no one is raising a red flag? One can only conclude that cultural bias, despite being the rallying cry of the left, is not the real issue, but only an alibi for some other agenda.

While no battery of SAT tests is asking bout fire-keepers or thistles, or Iroquois place names, agreed.

It could be said that parents lay the FRAMEWORK of empathy. They can’t teach it directly but whether in teaching about the golden rule, or social norms such as refraining from insults, etc, and in teaching religion, they lay the groundwork for the emergence of empathy later on. Different cultures would have different angles, or may be more directed towards close kin or tribe, but generally all societies and their parents want to instill some sort of framework.

Jim says:
Southern whites tend to have somewhat lower average IQ’s than northern whites but the low average IQ’s of southern states is almost entirely due to the higher black population of these states.

The presence of the blacks makes no difference. When other races data are removed and southern whites (before the substantial regional migrations of other whites from outside the south after WW2) are compared to northern whites, southern whites have clearly lower IQs than northern whites. (Montagu 1972). This tracks with Kanazawa’s data showing liberals having significantly higher IQs than conservatives. Liberals tend to be located more north, and conservatives more south on average. Such “labels” can fluctuate over time. Other data (Hodson and Busseri (2012) show lower IQ is associated with both socially conservative and more racist views.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Peter’s post notes that empathy is to be expected with near kin or ethnic tribesmen. Nothing surprising there. But some northern Europeans also show a significant capacity for empathy. Note Peter’s data above. Kanai et al and Schreiber et al, found that conservatives tend to have a larger right amygdala, associated more with threat and fear-driven responses. Liberals on the average have larger and more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC, associated with more better engagement with informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. Empathy towards more distant persons, rather than trusted kin in the local area would tend to involve this capacity for more complexity and novelty, and openness to new experiences.

But this is not the whole story, for northern Europeans can also be quite liberal as well, including those inside the Hajnal line. In fact some are possibly the most liberal populations on earth at the present time and are pacesetters in numerous novel societal changes such as gay marriage. In short, high liberalism is well represented in areas with high affective empathy, and this is demonstrated both by the brain scan data, and the socio-political data showing high levels of relative liberalism among the Hajnal “core” northern Europeans. (Note- this “core” grouping excludes much of Scotland, Wales and Ireland).

Other data confirms this general pattern. Dodd et al 2012 found that conservatives showed greater physiological responses to threatening images and liberals were more responsive to positive images. Dawes et al 2012 found that tendencies toward egalitarian and altruistic behavior correlated with the activation of the left anterior insula associated with empathy and a sense of fairness- such as rejecting unfair offers- and in situations involving admiration and compassion (Immorodino-Yang et al 2009, Mercadillo et al 2011). See book- Emotion: A Biosocial Synthesis By Ross Buck for a roundup of these studies).

There are key qualifiers to the above noted by some scholars (lets see who spots them first) and Peter’s observations on the mediating role of religion in shaping affective empathy is also important The poster above who dismissed the influence of Christianity could not be more wrong.

Interesting piece, but not as easy as it sounds. A default would have a negative ripple effect in many other ways, affecting Greek exporters, tourism, its merchant fleet, etc. Greece is also the largest economy in the Balkans with substantial investment in the region. What is the “Plan B” to cover all that after a default? And why would Russia or China step into such a situation with all those negatives in a default event? It would be nice if they had a credible alternative package waiting that would assist a credible “Plan B” but they don’t.

imnobody says:
I don’t think Christianity was important, beyond being a rationalization tool of this new empathy born out of outbreeding.

Actually as Peter shows, Christianity was a key component. The many institutions of mercy developed by the churches show this, among other things.

.
I think manorialism and the ban of the Catholic Church against cousin marriages are the causes of this increase in empathy when it comes to the Middle Ages period.

So you say but present no specific examples, nor cite any evidence. IN fact what you say here is contradictory. Up above you say Christianity was not very important, yet now you cite the Catholic Church’s ban on cousin marriages as being an influential part of the empathy mix. Which is it? The 2 positions are contradictory.

Random Observer says:
I think I get where you are coming from but there are problems with characterizing Hitler as “rational”. Not psychopathic, perhaps, even at the end, but definitely irrational by customary standards. He made too many huge strategic and operational military decisions not only without seeking the best information, but even ignoring or aggressively rejecting information available to him. Some early gambles, taken by rejecting professional advice but within reasonable boundaries of total information, paid off. Later, such gambles were taken on ever grander scale and in the face of overwhelming contrary information, and he doubled down all the time despite repeated massive disaster. That’s nearly the essence of irrationality.

At last, someone with depth, who can actually do some worthy analysis. Excellent points all. But would you not say that some seemingly irrational actions such as the Fuehrer “stand fast” – “no retreat” orders may have prevented a rout on fragile sectors of a crumbling front? See for example the argument here:

Was Hitler's strategic acumen really that bad?
byu/joelwilliamson inAskHistorians

.
Even by that standard, Hitler’s behaviour from at least December 1941 was irrational in the extreme if his goals actually included: winning the war, expanding German power in Europe, building a basis for future world power, or keeping a Nazi regime in power. His actions tended to undermine these potentially rational goals, and his actions therefore must be called irrational.

Hmm, a reasonable analysis.

.
Many have also remarked on the irrationality of his wasting so much manpower and resources on killing Jews instead of fighting enemies actually putting troops in the field. If one accepts his idea that his enemy was the Jews, and the others merely their instruments, then this becomes more rational on some level. And yet it was irrational still, since the Jews he was killing were all helpless civilians, whereas his actual enemies were deploying millions of armed men and thousands of tanks, guns and aircraft against him. Even if all were merely the military arm of the Jews, it makes no sense to waste resources on non-threatening targets to the detriment of the fight against threatening ones.

Fair enough. What you say here shows how what is viewed as “rational” can operate on different levels.

Again, unless national suicide is already the expected and accepted outcome and the sole purpose of the war is to take as many of those unarmed populations along for the ride. This is, to use the scientific term, batsh*t crazy.

Hmm, indeed.

.
On the other hand, it should have been fairly clear that Russia would prove stronger than before. If only because they had invested so much more heavily in artillery, had so many tanks [even the crappy early ones were not obviously worse than the panzer 1 and 2 Hitler started with, and the T34 was known about in June 1941] and had an obviously more motivationally capable..

I am not so sure. It is true as you say Germany was weak in certain material aspects, and Hitler went to war expecting quick victories without preparing for a long, vicious war of material, but the flip side is German advantages in QUALITY over quantity. The French had more tanks, more men, etc but German QUALITY in training, organization, ground level leadership, tactics and coordination was decisive. Likewise the Russians had a better standard battle tank but failed in communication- lack of radios for example- and coordinated tactics. It was only after severe losses, coupled with American Lend-Lease aid and more importantly recovered production that the Soviets eventually one. Hitler’s early gambles paid off utilizing Germany’s strengths against his enemies. The Germans stung the Americans painfully too when they entered the fray in North Africa, painful lessons the Americans absorbed and learned from. The Fuehrer failed to sustain that qualitative advantage over time.

.
Right up until June 22 1941, and perhaps even up to December 8 1941, German policy could be considered rational albeit reckless. From December 8 1941 at the latest it can be called rational only if the Wagnerian scenario was the desired goal.

Agreed in part. But think of the obvious second scenario.

(a) Rather than, as you correctly point out, wasting all those resources and personnel killing unarmed civilians and building extermination camps, better their labor had been pressed into helping the German war economy? And indeed per Rhodes 2002 (Masters of Death) Germany towards the end suffered labor shortages, but ironically, kept right on killing potentially productive labor. Some of this labor was skilled, and some of it fled Germany, where it was helpful in developing new weapons like the atomic bomb. Suppose all that skill had been retained on the German side?

(b) Rather than alienate tens of millions of Slavs why didn’t Hitler offer generous nationalist terms in exchange for cooperation? Many of the suppressed Slav nationalities hated Stalin. Why have all these people fighting against you when Stalin’s empire could have been divided against him? But yet, Hitler offered no option to many Slavs, except death, Hitler alienated so many that it virtually ensured a substantially hostile rear area. I read one book that estimated over a quarter of a million German troops in Russia alone had to be kept guarding lines of communication from Soviet partisan attacks.

.
, but it’s still hard to see how the Germany of 1939 could defeat the same constellation of foes the Kaiser’s empire had failed to defeat.

Hitler’s war had a reasonable prospect of victory in the East, but as some have pointed out, his many military blunders hurt those prospects. He failed to finish off Moscow, a very important target, and seemed of two minds later on, dividing his forces between the Caucasus in pursuit of “living space” resources dictated by his propaganda, and other key targets- with the end result that neither was achieved. Knowing he was facing a ruthless existential enemy in Stalin, he still failed to prepare for a worse case, and secure a full mobilization of the German economy until very late in the game. He alienated massive numbers of Slavs who had little choice but to fight for Stalin, since all Hitler offered was extermination.

He could have saved himself untold grief in the West if he had held off declaring war on the US and just provided Japan material and rhetorical support, even with the advantage of hindsight in knowing from history how US resources tipped the balance in WW1. These and other blunders wrecked any reasonable chance of victory it could be argued.

But anyway, I am done with Hitler, but as far as empathy, some do argue that a more cooperative/collaborative approach towards the Slavs, might have made a significant difference in the resources needed for occupation duty, as well as mobilized political support against Stalin.

Silvio says:
“Be specific,” you say. Okay then. There’s no evidence that Hitler ordered any holocaust – a point conceded by mainstream holocaust historians – or indeed that he had any knowledge of such. Specific enough for you?

You are of course completely wrong. Almost EVERY credible historian of the Holocaust notes that Hitler planned and ordered it. They don’t “concede” anything as bogus as you say. But see such “specifics” as historian Ian Kershaw 2000, 2008 which shows Hitler’s clear intention- from Mein Kampf to the multiple conferences to iron out the details, to reports seen and commented on with satisfaction by the Fuherer. (2000). Hitler 1936–1945: Nemesis. (2008). Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution.) See also Richard Rhodes 2002. Masters of Death which details the SS side of the machinery and the decisions made by Hitler. As early as 1939 (Jan 21 to be precise) he proclaimed to the Czech Foreign Minister: “We are going to destroy the Jews.” (pg 37). And there are literally thousands of other references, but you already knew that. See further reading on the link below from the US Holocaust Museum where historians “concede”.. lol
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

.
Anonymous says:
Are you aware that there was a great deal of systematic murder going on before Hitler got into power, very nearby in the Soviet Union?
Of course, and agreed.

.
The uncomfortable fact is, this murder and mayhem was instigated and executed to a large degree by ethnic Jews.
Let’s look at this. Josef Stalin was a NON Jewish Georgian who killed millions of civilians using Russian secret police and soldiers. So how is this something done by “ethnic Jews”?

.
In Germany there was a desperate economic situation, and politics were very polarized… street battles between Fascist Nationalist types and Bolshevik Internationalist types.
Sure. No question there.

.
Hitler was a German Nationalist… Jews being traditionally stateless international people tended to be very gung ho on international communism…They were in a death struggle – there was a very *real* conflict there.
So tens of thousands of Jews who had lived multiple generations in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, some of whom had converted to Christianity or given up Judaism, and were citizens for multiple generations, were “stateless” people?

.
It wasn’t an imaginary virus or mental illness. The Jews in Germany were extremely powerful in the Media/economy and their interests and outlook were so implacably against Hitler’s vision they had to be removed forcefully. Very harsh…but not necessarily a result of a mental illness.
OK so you are saying Jews are a perennial virus that had to be “cleansed” in Hitler’s vision? Just want to be clear about your theory.

There’s actually no documentation that confirms definitively that Hitler even wanted Jews *killed* –
lol.. you are of course completely wrong, for almost every credible historian of the Holocaust says the opposite. See at least 15 in the link below. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

.
I realize this is a controversial statement, and I don’t say it to be ‘edgy’. I simply don’t believe anything the ‘official’ channels say any longer. Perhaps I’m going a bit crazy here too Enrique! (but I don’t think so)
No I don’t think you are crazy at all. I think you are completely wrong, but you are being honest. You believe Jews are parasites and that their liquidation was a rational, reasonable act. If that is your honest opinion, hey, so be it.

To tie in with Peter’s post. Would you say that Hitler’s attitude towards said Jews demonstrated a lack of affective empathy?

Very interesting stuff, never knew the extent.

Thanks for shedding light on this. Who knew?

You say Hitler: “was a rational man making very difficult decisions in an extremely chaotic time and place.” OK, going with what you say- in what way was Hitler’s decision to carry out the systematic mass murders of the Holocaust a rational decision? Be specific.

Thomas says:
LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO. All the data we have in front of us shows clearly that liberals have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

Not really. Actually ‘HBD’ data shows that liberals have HIGHER IQs, (Kanzawa 2010), and of course there are plenty of right wing psychopaths as well. One of them, caused the deaths of over 250,000 Americans in WW2. As for morals, WW2’s systematic mass murders of tens of millions of civilians by anti-liberals speaks for itself. Perhaps you don’t understand “all the data in front of you.”

.
Sean says
So, I’m not sure that the strangers are the ones who are doing the exploiting. I think intellectuals and masters of moralistic rhetoric within a community are the ones who are using ethical issues for their personal aggrandisement, although their powers of disimilation and possibly self-deception would make true motivations difficult to determine.

Indeed. Cynical players at the top, whether of the right or left, are known to show very little empathy.

.
Anon says:
Duchesne’s view in his book The Uniqueness of Western Civilization He attributes the NW Euro take off of the modern period to the Indo-Europeans and the influence of Indo-European culture.

Duchesne put some interesting propositions on the table. But in terms of the development of empathy, it is difficult to see his Indo-Europeans as pace-setters in that regard. Peter’s argument of a later development within the Hajnal line as mediated by Christianity seems a better fit. In fact Duchesne touts the uniquely aristocratic warlike culture of the Indo-Europeans and he consistently tries to argue that the development of such aristocratic culture was an indispensable component of the rise of the West. As such his approach minimizes a lot of empathy in the Western tradition, particularly the Christian tradition. He more stresses Hellenism, the Romans, and the tribal “barbaric” cultures and their “heroic” virtues. This less empathetic, more aristocratic, domineering “heroic” approach is the foundation of his Indo-European pattern. There is relatively little place in it for “weak” things like empathy.

Peter’s argument though brings out another creditable side of the Western package. The heroic, aristocratic, domineering wielders of power, extractors of resources and crushers of the weak are not the whole picture, although critics of the West present this as the whole. There is another aspect and that is brought out by empathy. This is why often only the West will respond with such generosity to disasters and crises, why Western churches will spend massive amounts of time and money in works of mercy and relief when there is absolutely no payoff or profit to be had.

Some on the right mock this as weakling liberalism, or religion. Others point to cynical self-serving motives. There is no state of purity anywhere though, and such expansiveness, such generosity is actually a strength of the West in many cases (I do not say all). While I d0 not agree with a rigid “Hajnalism” as creating some state of perfect people, this aspect of the West is a positive one and needs to be recognized and credited more, rather than be dismissed.

peter says:
A person with high affective empathy will try to help someone in distress not because such help is personally advantageous or legally required, but because he or she is actually feeling the same distress.

Yes, and a good example of this is seen in the well known parable of the Good Samaritan, who helps the distressed victim even when it is not personally advantageous. It is significant that the priest and the Levite sidestep the suffering victim- symbolic figures perhaps of the legalistic, religious, inbred Jew- while the Gentile, the Samaritan, is the one that outstretches his hand in mercy.

.

The importance of kinship may be seen in the Ten Commandments, which we wrongfully assume to be universal in application. We are told we must not kill, steal, lie, or commit adultery if the victims are “thy neighbor,” which is explained as meaning “the children of thy people” (Leviticus 19:18).

Partially true practically, but as held by traditional Jewish and Christian teaching the 10 commandments are universal in application. The words “thy neighbor” refers to the first PRACTICAL level of application, which is only logical. One would be hard pressed to covet someone’s wife in the abstract 8000 miles away, while the commandment would be very real and immediate when applied to your neighbor’s curvy wife next door. The same principle would apply to Leviticus 19:18 which ends with “thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.” The universal application of this is universal. Practically the first people to apply this to are people close by, and related people, but this does not negate its universal application.

A number of other laws of Moses mandate kindness and empathy towards the outsider. Deuteronomy 10:18 refers to Jehovah who is merciful and generous towards the stranger. Verse 19 mandates “and ye shall love the stranger, for ye have been strangers in the land of Egypt.”

.
I have also argued that this evolutionary change has gone the farthest in Europeans north and west of the Hajnal Line (Frost, 2014a). In these populations, kinship has been a weaker force in organizing social relations, at least since the early Middle Ages and perhaps since prehistoric times.

There is some truth to this, although Jewish culture mandates affective empathy in some ways towards the alien and the stranger. Europeans are the beneficiaries of this Jewish culture in part, mediated through their adoption of Christianity, and in part, learned to be more empathetic towards non-kin, not because those in the Hajnal Line are kinder, nicer people, but because they adopted Christianity, a Jewish offshoot.

Deuteronomy Chap 24: 17 – 22 mandates that the stranger or outsider receive justice, and that the fields re not to be swept clean in the name of mean-spirited efficiency but that the surplus be left in place for the stranger, and so on.. Below are some examples of Jewish empathy towards the outsider:

From: Deuteronomy 24:
“Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, or of the fatherless; and thou shalt not take in pledge a widow’s garment.”

When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and forgettest a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not return to fetch it; it shall be for 16the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow..

When thou shakest thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterwards; it shall be for 18the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

And thou shalt rejoice in all the good that Jehovah thy God hath given to thee, and to thy house, thou, and the Levite, and 19the stranger that is in thy midst.

When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thy produce in the third year, the year of tithing, thou shalt give it to the Levite, to the stranger,

and so on..

Exodus 23: 10-12 likewise shows inclusiveness, and even the stranger, the alien, the outsider was to enjoy the rest of the Sabbath:

And the stranger thou shalt not oppress; for ye know the spirit of the stranger, for ye have been strangers in the land of Egypt. ..

Six days thou shalt do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed.

—————————————- ———————-

An initial period corresponding to the emergence of complex hunter/fisher/gatherers during the Mesolithic along the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic… Such communities were beset, however, by the problem of enforcing rule compliance on unrelated people, the result being strong selection for rule-compliant individuals who share certain predispositions, namely affective empathy, proneness to guilt, and willingness to obey moral rules and to expel anyone who does not (Frost, 2013a; Frost, 2013b).

This is reasonable, although it must be noted the record is mixed. The coastal peoples frequently victimized others with murderous violence. Their most notable eruption was in the violent Viking Age. And rule-compliant individuals with proneness to guilt, and willingness to obey moral rules and to expel anyone who does not are hardly a monopoly of northern Europe.

.
– A second period corresponding to the spread of Christianity among Northwest Europeans, particularly with the outbreeding, population growth, and increase in manorialism that followed the Dark Ages

There is some truth to this as well, although northern Europeans like Germans within the Hajnal line were to show some of the most murderous examples in history of NON-empathy, and this towards fellow Europeans some of whom, such as in Poland and Czechslovakia, have long had “Hajnal-like” family patterns like those further north. It is also hard to see how the Hajnal line patterns could have affected a level of empathy above and beyond that of other European areas. As noted above the violent Vikings were purveyors of much painful NON-empathy inflicted on victims in a wide arc across Europe- from pillage, plunder and enslavement of the Irish, to the same of hapless victims in the Slavic zone. Peter is probably correct that the influence of Christianity, softened “Hajnal harshness”.

—————————————- ——————————————– ———————-

It would be interesting to see if the expanded role of women in Northern Europe, as softened by Christianity, may have had a hand in expanded empathy. The many convents and religious associations for females for examples may have played a hand given the various charitable and mercy mission activities of these female groups. Thomas Sowell reports that in contrast to the harsher lands of the Caribbean where short-term driven absentee owners and their overseers ruthless drove their charges and imported more when they died, American plantations usually had an owner’s wife on site to provide some minimum of assistance to slave women especially where pregnancy was concerned.

This may have influenced the lower mortality rate on American plantations, as compared to a more relentlessly vicious place like Haiti, where most of the population died off within a decade and had to be replaced with fresh imports from Africa. Whether the American pattern was based on actual empathy, or on a desire to keep the workforce and its progeny alive longer for continued extraction of its labor (since new imports were restricted) is open to interpretation. But women are associated in many places with greater empathy. Women played a significant role in the Abolitionist Movement for example.

Helena says:
Is it possible that what we are witnessing is, not an aberration but, the recommencement of an evolutionary process, ie migration out of Africa towards Asia, that was abated temporarily by European colonialism (and the racial ideology of such)?

Hmm, depends on what eras you are talking about. There has been ancient African migration into Europe from very early times, both in the Paleolithic and Neolithic, via the Middle East, and to some lesser extent across the Mediterranean in the Gibraltar area per some scholars (Anderung et al) So African migration into Europe is nothing new, but rather ancient. As far as Asia there is migration there as well as studies from Iran to Arabia show, and depending how far back one wants to go, such as the OOA migratory streams you are talking tens of thousands of years.

I wonder if it could be said that European abate any African movement towards Asia in the modern era, although perhaps it could be argued that the British, once they had decided to stop their own slaving activities, suppressed Arab shipment of Africans out into Southwest Asia. African slave revolts such as the massive Zanj Revolt in the 800s that destroyed much Muslim shipping and infrastructure, also played a part in deterring large scale plantation type slavery in Arabia, per some scholars.

.
The crucial balance in civilisations surviving seems to be how the need to expand, for resources, is conducted vis any other cultures/civilisations that are incorporated or affiliated in the process of expansion.

Yes, and to some extent there will be competition, and there will, in various eras, at various levels winners and losers, or if not win/lose, changes in levels of power or influence. Egypt at one time was a world power for almost 2 millennia. That is long gone. Britain was a backwater for centuries compared to a sophisticated Rome, but that changed over time. Scotland was once a backwater until it came into the larger orbit of Great Britain. Italy-based Rome used to regularly defeat the Germans but this changed, both in certain Roman times and in modern times- compare the Wehrmacht to Mussolini’s legions for example. The Mongol armies were once the best in the world- from Afghanistan to China, to Hungary. That has changed. Once feudal Japan is a world tech leader. China at one time was the tech leader and as late as the early 1800s was producing up to one-third of world economic output, but that changed negatively. Today the trend is beginning to look positive once more for China and the “Pacific century.” If present trends continue China will becoming the world leader in output by the end of the century. As Thomas Sowell says, history will reshuffle the fortunes of peoples and nations. There is nothing sacred about today’s “lineup.” One wonders if Britain as we know it will be around in 100 years, or will the EU octopus subsume it?

.
The rationale for mass immigration into previously european countries, is economic; labour force. In time, the changed nature of the labour force will change the nature of the civilisation. That’s evolution.

Yes mass immigration will spark changes, some good, some bad. Certain the labor of the newcomers will boost economic output, beneficial in part to help pay the pensions and subsidies to ageing European populations. The social conservatism of some of the newcomers may slow down the moral relativism that seems to mark some in contemporary Europe, including the rising trend of homosexuality and “transgenderism.” The flip side in conflict, crime, etc will also weigh in the balances. Mass immigration of southern and eastern Europeans like Italians or Poles, to the US for example was often bitterly opposed for they were considered “inferior stocks” compared to more virtuous, mo betta Anglo Saxon Protestants. Immigration restrictions in the 1920s allowed Great Britain and Northern Ireland a quota of 65,721 a year as against 5,802 for Italy. Immigration of the Catholic Irish was also opposed, and detractors pointed to heavy crime, violence, alcoholism, and the corrupt urban political machines that came with the Irish.

.
The question is, where is the leading edge of human evolution; which Ydna haplogroups are still mutating? – E is.

In what way is y-DNA Haplogroup E mutating? Said Haplogroup appears in substantial levels in various parts of Europe, up to 40% in certain parts of the Balkans for example, and up to 25% in certain parts of Greece, depending on the study. Would “E” be the only thing mutating?

.
And, if europeans turn out to be an evolutionary branch, rather than the trunk that racial ideology thought, are there any other examples of humans, hominids or mammals, which constitute technologically advanced populations that turned out to be no more than evolutionary branches?

What defines an “evolutionary branch” of a species? Be precise in your definition. Exactly what? To tie in with the replicants of Blade Runner, or the mutants of X-men comic lore, would they be an evolutionary branch of humanity? In what sense? Is “evolution” the same as “change”? To what extent? If people over 20 years grow heavier under better diets, is this species “evolution” or simply routine change as people eat more? In what sense does it become “evolution”? Evolution compared to what? You have to be precise for these definitions shift all the time, sometimes in contradictory ways, depending on the agenda being argued.

Would the replicants be an example of “evolution” or would surgically altered “transgendered” Europeans be a better model 10 years hence? What about cloning? Would that be evolution? Precise definition is needed. The dark picture painted by many movies and writers suggests that technological improvements will not necessarily make for a bright future.

You are just upset because your claims have been comprehensively debunked again and again, with no credible response. And your own attempts at refutation not only fail, but the “supporting” references you proffer actually undermine your case. But again- back to the topic. Do you have any value to add to the matters of the trans-human future, as portrayed in the movies at hand? I again refer you to the link below to assist you.

http://io9.com/5530409/the-essential-posthuman-science-fiction-reading-list

Sean you yourself keep obsessively bringing up the “migrants” and have been roundly debunked multiple times. The new quotes you yet again add now, do nothing to help your case. Again, despite visible LOCAL, RECENT surges, (quote from your own reference which says: “over the past weekend..” overall, sub-Saharan African refugees to Italy has been DROPPING in recent years. And the refugee flows include a large slice of Caucasoids from Syria and Afghanistan- a point conveniently missed by hysterical pronouncements of “doom” due to “swamping” by “sub-Saharan blacks.” In Greece for example most of the “doom” is a product of the same “Caucasoids.” Data to this effect has been cited multiple times, including your own “supporting” references which contradict your claims. I don’t know why you keep on obsessively bringing up “refugees.”

Now let’s get back on topic. You mention HG Wells and he has indeed had somewhat to say about a transhuman future, just as Blade Runner touches in transhuman. As I noted already, such a project is underway in one sense in the Western world, through “transgendered” movements designed to blur the fundamental division of humanity- male and female. As one college class syllabus notes:

H.G. Wells novella The Time Machine has a strong transhuman flavour to it, full of Darwinian fears that as our technological prowess grows, the upper class will become weaker (literally) while the lower class becomes stronger through their plight (also providing a uniquely Marxist view of technology). Symbolised through the Eloi and Morlocks, Wells’ bleak vision of a transhuman future is one that has been widely recognised by contemporary critics.

Peter speculates that these types of movies and works may be an allegory of white demise. If so, then in Wells; version the lower classes will become stronger- another allegory for European demographic decline. And in another similarity in Wells all this occurs while technology is improving. Consult the works below for other perspectives if you want to add value to the matter at hand.
http://io9.com/5530409/the-essential-posthuman-science-fiction-reading-list

anon says:
And I think the claim that Sean Young’s Rachael character in Blade Runner is supposed to represent or be emblematic of non-whiteness in Blade Runner is suspect and very far-fetched.
The poster above I think says that because if you recall, the replicants were despised outliers, designed to do the dangerous work, and slated for destruction when their usefulness was over. One can liken them in real life to non-white stand-ins, an “enemy” minority – Jews – who were dispatched to the ovens when their usefulness for work in the genocide camps was over- if you extend it to the Jewish analogy. In the movie it can go both ways. The replicants are a minority, doomed for liquidation. But on earth they also have certain advantages.

jb says:
In fact, as Stephen Pinker demonstrates in his recent book, Europeans have been in the forefront of a long-term worldwide decline in violence.

A Laughable stretch that is easily debunked. What Pinker did was compare reported Euro homicide stats with rates reported from accounts that have low credibility – such as fragmentary traveler’s accounts and such among non-state peoples like the Inuit- hardly a stable procedure. Its like comparing official government statistics on liquor production versus tally stick stats that may or may not have been kept by the boys down at the moonshine still. Other scholars have debunked his shaky procedure. For example, in his book, Culture, Media and Human Violence: From Savage Lovers to Violent Complexity, Professor Jeff Lewis debunks Pinker’s use of mortality statistics and reliance on a narrow range of anthropological and archaeological evidence.

And Pinker himself shows that his is a focus on local stats in a narrow period of growing state power. He shows that Europeans are no “role models” when OTHER eras are examined. He himself says-Quote: “Scandinavians needed a couple of additional centuries before they thought better of killing each other.” When the overall picture is looked at, your notion of some “forefront” comes up short, for plenty of eras in European history has produced massive violence. In short, looking at local European mortality figures (some quite shaky particularly in earlier eras) compared to fragmentary anthropological reports (very shaky) and then extrapolating from that to build some notion of Euro virtue is deeply flawed and has been in fact exposed as such by other scholars.

His comparisons do not have credible non-state statistics on the other end- its not an apples to apples comparison. He also concentrates on LOCAL law enforcement and omits crimes like the Nazis and colonialism. He also conveniently skips over the massive death and destruction wrought by Europe’s religious wars.

——————–
Several other scholars raise he same points, and criticize the gaping holes in Pinker’s claim.

Cited refs-Wiki & detailed links to critiques:
Lewis is also very critical of the comparisons Pinker makes between the modern state and hunter gatherer societies. Pinker overrides the absence of evidence regarding hunter gatherer warfare. Like his frequently cited source, Lawrence Keeley, Pinker simply ignores the fact that there is virtually no archaeological evidence proving hunter gatherer warfare. Pinker also overlooks the terrible violence that modern states inflict on other peoples and species.” (Ref- Lewis Culture Media and Human Violence)

The economist Tyler Cowen criticized Pinker for his inadequate analysis of the centralization of the use of violence in the hands of the modern nation state.[23] (ref- Tyler Cowen debunks Pinker: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/10/steven-pinker-on-violence.html)

Andrew Brown, writing for The Guardian called the book “the comfort blanket for the smug”, describing it as “a great piece of theatre in which half-truths do battle with straw men while the reader watches in safety, defended by barricades of apparent fact against any danger of actual thought.” Brown criticized Pinker’s dismissal of Christianity, his inadequate treatment of the violence produced by Western (especially American) imperialism, and frequent historical inaccuracies.[24] (ref- Brown debunks Pinker: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/steven-pinker-better-angels-of-our-nature)

In his review of the book in Scientific American, psychologist Robert Epstein criticizes Pinker’s use of relative violent death rates — that is, of violent deaths per capita — as an appropriate metric for assessing the emergence of humanity’s “better angels.” Instead, Epstein believes that the correct metric is the absolute number of deaths at a given time. Epstein also accuses Pinker of an over-reliance on historical data, and argues that he has fallen prey to confirmation bias, leading him to focus on evidence that supports his thesis while ignoring research that does not.[25] (Ref: Epstein debunks Pinker: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bookreview-steven-pinker-the-better-angels-of-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined/)

————————————————–
In short atheist and liberal guy Pinker (there’s an irony for the HBD crowd which cites him) has produced a weak case, and your claim as well likewise stands debunked.

.
In any case, the mixing of one set of peoples tens of thousands of years ago would hardly provide any sort of “test case” for the consequences of mixing of a different set of peoples today. Mixing isn’t good or bad in and of itself; the important thing is who’s being mixed

But the poster who proffered the notion of “mix” insisted that “barbarism” was the result. Well he gets a perfect test case, for Europeans are themselves a hybrid “mix” part African and part Asian. And as credible data shows the result has been plenty of “barbarism.” And Cavalli-Sforza is a credible mainstream scientist. His data is solid, and today’s scholars who argue for the existence of races, such as Risch 2002, do not disavow him, in fact they cite him. You try to disavow mixing millennia ago, but HBDers are always playing the “race card” going back thousands of years. Why are you trying to back away from it now? HBDers are always insisting on the “reality” of race, both now and in the past. They say “current thinking” is too “politically correct.” Fine. Well they can’t duck away now from their own claims. Using their own referred race models, turns out that Europeans themselves are “racial hybrids.”

And in fact using the same HBD “race” models- Europeans are a racial mixture of older hunter-gatherers showing tropical adaptations from Africa via the Middle East or via a direct Medit route, (Holliday 2010, Anderung et al 2005.), and migrants from the subtropical Middle east (some of whom looked like today’s Africans- Brace 2005), (Bellwood et al 2003). Later migrations from the Asiatic and Eurasian steppe zone added to the race mix (Olade et l 2014, Lazardis et al 2014). In fact the steppe migrants are related to other “Asiatic” types that eventually populated the Americas. And history seems to demonstrate when you have too much white in the mix then you have systematic mass murder of multiple tens of millions. Jews would know something about “worry” where this is concerned.

Tuttle says:
I’m more inclined to suspect that the “self-flagellating conscience of the West,” a phenomenon observed by our eminent late diplomat colleague George F. Kennan, partially explains this enthusiasm for spreading the culture of victimization. Another Kennan explanation for this and much else in our diplomatic efforts: “Our actions in the field of foreign affairs are the convulsive reactions of politicians to an internal political life dominated by vocal minorities.”

Possibly, but one can be sure that a trendy-sounding, trendy-seeming “Malcolm X Lecture” put on by the US State Department is an exercise in the farcical. For most of his activist life Malcolm X was the enemy of the US government and State Department, scathing in his criticism of US policies overseas. His movements were monitored extensively both by the FBI and when overseas, the State Department, and he was considered a threatening figure. A “lecture” put on by a sworn enemy sounds like theater of the absurd.

.
I asked the Embassy’s Public Affairs Officer why he thought that sponsoring such a lecture was in the US national interest. As a gay man and immigrant himself to America (born in Prague) he explained, he identified with other victimized people. He thought such efforts positively highlighted the US government’s openness and commitment to abolish discrimination.

LOL, more probably it highlighted liberal gesturalism- trendy gestures to appear “with it”, “chic”, current or “cool” and “into” such things as “diversity”, but all merely a veneer behind which old agendas and structures of power and deceit are perpetuated, and expanded. It’s like the bogus photos of “minority students” appearing in some college brochures for colleges where very few minorities either live or attend, to give the appearance of “diversity.” Malcolm X was a race realist if nothing else, unsparing in his condemnation of white hypocrisy, and said words to the effect that he preferred to deal with an honest conservative, than a deceptive liberal.

Sean you and others were the first to bring up these topics which were long go dealt with. See Comment 42. But rather than move on, you keep failing dismally in several of the claims you keep trying to resurrect. You further add non-topic material by an obscure reference to the Communist party which had nothing to do with the topic. Before that the comments were flowing quite well. Indeed the latest is on Jewish perspectives to this whole “human life of the future” meme. I have already pointed out that Jewish authors and movie makers have had plenty of involvement in such futuristic films and media, and referenced 3 such works.

Others have also pointed out how the replicants can work both as paragons of perfection or as symbols of European decline. There are pros and cons to both these interpretations. Rather than add value, and expand the analysis, you go back to the “refugee doom” thing.
—————————————————————————–

Very well then, but these claims have been debunked a while back, and rather than refine your arguments and buttress them with credible data you only keep digging yourself into a bigger hole. I urge you to study the credible analyses put together by authors on this website. People may disagree with some conclusions, but none can gainsay that they have put reasonable data on the floor that has to be reckoned with. And I have stated elsewhere I am no fan of unfettered immigration, and in fact I have taken on assorted Mexican activists who posit an “indigenous right” to “retake” California by pointing out that (a) people from the Valley of Mexico some thousand miles distant have no credible claim- the Aztec or earlier empires never ruled Calif, and (b) any claim based on the Spaniards is itself nothing indigenous but based on a foreign, European colonial claim or jurisdiction. The so-called “retake” fails on both counts. The only people with a credible indigenous claim, are indigenous California Indians, not people from the distant Valley of Mexico.

That being said you are off base again. You and others first brought up Italy and alleged “swamping” by “blacks.” That has been debunked. Your new “supporting” link ALSO FAILS to make the case. All your link shows is that there has been a RECENT increase in boat refugees in Mediterranean. But it still does not negate that fact that as stated above, Italy has been REDUCING overall numbers. Your “supporting reference” actually undermines your case.

The alleged “massive flows” of “sub-Saharan” blacks, that is allegedly “dooming Europe”, turns out, much less hysterically, to be a portion of 6,000 people off the Libyan coast last week. Overall, the refugee stream is mixed, with- quote:

“Most of the refugees making the perilous crossing are fleeing conflict-torn Syria and Libya, the totalitarian east African country of Eritrea, and Afghanistan.”

The LATEST rescues have seen many blacks but overall, the overall stream still consists of a large proportion of Middle Eastern “Caucasoids” from Afghanistan and Syria, etc..

Now let’s look at your second supposedly “supporting” link. It says: “In Italy new migrants from Eritrea form the biggest group, followed by those from Somalia, Nigeria and Syria.” But this proportion refers to RECENT boat people activity. It does not at all negate the early fact that UNHCR data shows- that OVERALL, Italy has actually been REDUCING the number of migrants that come. In additionyou neglect to mention the volume of Middle Eastern Caucasoids in the mix. You leave out the BBC statement about where most of the migrants are from. QUOTE:

“The largest migrant group by nationality in 2015 is Syrians – more than 8,800. Then come migrants from Eritrea (more than 3,300) and Somalia (more than 2,900).”

As stated before its Caucasoids from the Middle East, including “Arab Spring” refugees- such as Tunisians in 2011- making up the largest number over a multi-year span. And as far as the other big receiver of migrants – Greece- the bulk of those coming have been the same “Caucasoids” -quote:

“But in Greece migrants from Syria are the biggest group, then Afghans..
In 2013 the total reaching Europe via the Mediterranean was much lower – about 60,000…
Back in 2011 the big challenge was thousands of Tunisians arriving on Lampedusa. ..”

In short, your “supporting references” not only contradict your claim, but actually help make my case. The RECENT uptick, is just that RECENT as far as sub-Saharan blacks are concerned, and they are not “swamping” Europe. The big dog in Europe Italy has actually seen an overall DECREASE in such people over the last few years. On top of that a big slice of that recent uptick is STILL Middle Eastern Caucasoids. The other big player Greece has also seen a recent surge- but here again, as it has been for years, most of those arriving are Caucasoids from the Middle East. How many times do I have to lay out this data for you, data that your own “supporting reference” furnishes? Your problem is again, that you can’t make a good argument and rather than raising your game, you keep making the same mistakes again and again.
———————————————————————————————–

Now lets get back to the topic at hand. Up above I ask how Jewish authors and filmmakers are dealing with the memes re the future of humankind, such as Spielberg, and current implications re “trans-humanism” which is one of the general themes Blade Runner touches on. Can you add value to the discussion along these lines?

Hmm never knew Shatner was Jewish. Spock-, not surprising. Now that you mention it, there has been substantial Jewish participation in sci-fi and fantasy, including comics. I ran across a web page years ago that broke down a whole slew of Jewish comic book heroes. There is a book called: Wandering Stars: An Anthology of Jewish Fantasy and Science Fiction, and one called: From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and Comic Books by Arie Kaplan, Harvey Pekar, J.T. Waldman.

Not saying the presence of Jews is “bad” in these venues, but one wonders about the influences or perspectives they bring, a question itself raised by the books above, some of which are written by Jews. Spielberg’s movie ‘Artificial Intelligence” raises a “trans-human” future, though he is not theonly director to do so- many non-Jewish directors have done the same. Perhaps someone has written on a “Jewish” view or influence in these futuristic movies.

In any event, a “trans-human” project is already well underway in the Western world (with whites leading the charge) , though not involving robots but the confusion, blurring, and mixing of one of the most fundamental facts of human life- the division into male and female. Already such “subversion of patriarchal gender roles” is celebrated in much white feminist, lesbian, gay literature. Whether SOME Jews will be in the forefront here is hard to say. This is a next great battleground, though one wonders if there will be anyone around with the stomach for real battle. See Time Magazine article below on a “transgendered” camp for kids. This is the project, and where ‘s its headed. No doubt a “multi-culti” gloss will be added (if not already underway too) for greater effect.

http://time.com/3743987/gender-creative-kids/

White kid being “gendered” or “sensitized” into his female side:
http://millana.tumblr.com/image/55612822737

lol, Ann Coulter is a right wing propagandist, and knows how to play her base, but she is a funny one too. That “hug” seemed a patent setup- she avoided it adroitly.

That is to say any group which sets itself apart from the human commonwealth, no matter what the reason, is acting against the interests of each individual within the group, since, no matter what each person believes, that person is a human being above all else.

The quote you give above is interesting, for in it, anti-Semitism is actually pulled into the “one world” type of meme. If the Jews refuse to join the “one world” format, and continue to view themselves as separate, then they are to be condemned. This is ironic- both Right and Left can at some level agree on this- the Jew as enemy of or dissenter from a dominant “consensus.”

Usually in a lot of sci-fi movies the”one world” picture is presented, as in Star Trek’s multi-culti crew representing all of earth, though of course, white leadership is usually prominent. Presumably Jews should be on board with this “one world” view. If not, then they would be again, the perennial outsiders, the irritating dissenters, the traitor parasites who are not “down” with the program.

This may be more than mere science-fiction. Perhaps it describes the Jewish future. Both Right and Left will agree on their status. The only thing then left is a “solution” to the Jewish problem.

Sure, there is some African migration to Italy and yes we all know that immigrant Guede was involved in the Knox case, but that is not, and was never at issue. At issue is the bogus claim of so-called “destruction” of Italy due to alleged “waves” of West Africans “swamping” both country and continent. Its all false. Sub-Saharan African refugees into Europe have actually been DECREASING as credible data cited above shows.

What you say though about organized crime in the refugee centers is troubling indeed. Criminals will always appear where a quick buck can be made. In Europe, in Kosovo and nearby regions in Albania, Bosnia, Croatia etc, the same phenomenon has appeared- with crime gangs exploiting both refugees and the camp administration for profit, including trapping females into sex slavery. The link below shows how sex trafficking in Eastern Europe exploits refugees in Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia etc.
https://womensrefugeecommission.org/resources/download/238.

NATO troops are also involved in some ways the trade claims another article:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/192/38794.html

Yet another claims that the US is protecting Eastrn European crime gangs and the drug trade:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/kosovo-s-mafia-state-and-camp-bondsteel-towards-a-permanent-us-military-presence-in-southeast-europe/30262

Rubbish. West African immigrants are not “destroying” Italy. If anything their numbers are DECLINING according to credible UN reports. Highly visible arrival at some small LOCAL ports have garnered much media attention and grist for the hysterical propaganda mills, but credible data shows no alleged “swamping” of Europe, or Italy. For example, Italy is one of the frontline states, and was able to reduce the number of illegal border crossings between the West African coast and the Canary Islands from almost 32,000 in 2006, to only 250 in 2013. Here is what one credible UN Report has to say about the “overwhelming” migration of West Africans to Europe for example.

“All indications are, however, that the number has diminished in recent years. The flow of migrants has been knocked eastward over the last decade. From the Canaries to Lampe -dusa to Greece, each route was addressed, and smugglers were running out of options. Then came the economic downturn in 2008-2009. In addition to a sharp dip in the number of irregular migrants entering, there were qualitative indications that the downturn deterred migration. Migrants interviewed by UNODC mid-way to Europe were electing to turn around, as they had been told that opportunities were drying up. By 2010, the number of irregular migrants detected entering Europe by sea plunged to less than 16,000, one-sixth the number of a decade before. But 2011 brought the unexpected: conflict in Libya and regime change in both Tunisia and Egypt. All the established points of entry experienced an increase in arrivals between 2010 and 2011, but the most striking was Lampedusa, which was overwhelmed with nearly 60,000 incoming migrants. But it appears few of these were from West Africa:

Italy as a whole experienced a sharp decline in detected West Africans, with less than 4,000 recorded. In total, just over 17,000 irregular migrants from West Africa were detected in Spain, Italy, Malta, and Greece in 2011. This includes all migrants detected, not just those arriving without paperwork. This is about one-third less than the figure in 2010, when UNODC last assessed the flow. The flow at that time was assessed at 55,000, which would suggest a figure of some 37,000 migrants in 2011.”

SOURCE: –Smuggling of West African Migrants to Europe- 2008-2011. UNDOC.

^^So much for the ludicrously alleged “destruction” … lol

A mix that is predominantly Sub-Saharan African will look — and I believe behave! — quite differently from a mix that is predominantly Eurasian.

Presumably the “Eurasian” mix will cease the systematic mass murder of tens of millions? After all it was “Eurasians” that brought us the Holocaust under Hitler (body count about 17 million if assorted “inferior” Slavs, Russian POWs, Gypsies and other subhumans are included), the Holodomor under “Comrade” Stalin (body count -oh 12 million or so), and “the thought of Chairman Mao” in Asiatic quarters (body count over 30 million). Give or take a few oddities like Pol Pot in Cambodia (body count 1.5 to 2 million), presumably Eurasian “role models” will provide much touted “leadership” in the new “mixed” era.

.
And of course the behavior of the eventual mixed population will have a huge influence on what life is like in the future, and could be the deciding factor that determines whether civilization even has a long term future, or whether it exhausts itself and collapses into permanent barbarism.

Actually you already have a test case of a “mixed” population behavior that has spawned plenty of “barbarism.” Depending on the geneticist consulted, like conservative geneticist Cavalli-Sforza, Europeans are a hybrid or “mixed” population, one third African, two-thirds Asian.

^^There you have it- the perfect test case of “behavior.”

Justin Bieber has even more Twitter followers at 65 million. Neither he nor Bill Gates are part of the “knowledge class” in “journalism and TV” that “tells people what to think.”

But could it not be argued that as a result of his entertainment empire, Bieber and his 65 million “Bee-leebers” are part of the liberal elite telling or at least influencing people in what to think?

.
The following is a question for physical and biological anthropology: Who are all these people in the “knowledge class” in “journalism and TV”, “telling us what to think”? Who exactly are these people in terms of the categories of physical and biological anthropology? Are they Dravidians, Bulgars, Boers, Laotians, Bavarians, Yoruba?

The knowledge class would be the liberals at CNN the New York Times and so on- in the mainstream media And they would be mostly high IQ Caucasoids or white people in these areas. Some HBD data shows that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. (Kanazawa 2010- Why Liberals and atheists are more intelligent) reports that that the mean adolescent intelligence of young adults who identify themselves as “very liberal” is 106.4, while that of those who identify themselves as “very conservative” is 94.8. This 12 point gap is almost as big as the B/W gap and bigger than the Asian-white gap. Two other studies conducted in the UK reached similar conclusions (Deary et al 2008). Other data before widespread white migration South from the North or Midwest after WW2, reports that southern whites have lower IQs than northern whites (Montagu 1972).

Charles Murray hails the emergence of a cognitive elite. Hence could not higher IQ white people who usually trend liberal, be in a better position to correct or shape the thinking of their more simple-minded white conservative brethren?

Sean says:
In the interwar period the American Communist Party took a position on race relations that one encounters these days exclusively in “race realist” publications. American Communists as well as black separatists called for a separate black region, preferably in the Deep South, where blacks would be able to develop politically and economically, apart from whites.

Sean this is true but what you don’t mention is that the American Communist Party (ACP) foray into separatism was quite short -lived, and never got much traction among blacks. In 1929 the ACP under Comiterm orders, began to talk up a “black belt” separatism based on Stalin’s notion of “self-determination” or “socialism in one country.” It got very little support from most Black Americans and indeed was scornfully dismissed by the NAACP as unrealistic and inappropriate to the problems on the ground that blacks faced. The ACP garnered black support not with “separatism” but outspokenness against racism, and its willingness to undertake highly public things such as the defense of the Scottsboro Boys, and of black labor organizer Angelo Herndon – a party member sentenced to 18-20 years on a Georgia chain gang for attempting to organize workers.

A mere 6 years after its separatist dalliance, the ACP dropped it entirely in favor of a broad based coalition of all races with the Roosevelt New Deal format. That was the end of that. See (The Identity Question: Blacks and Jews in Europe and America By Robert Philipson, )

to talk about the “death” of whites seems extremely overblown, and plays into the hands of the anti-racists. Even in the worst case scenario, white people will still have a lot of descendents; they will simply all be racially mixed. Nobody’s going to actually die out.

And frankly, in the long run this is guaranteed anyway. Does anybody think there will still be distinct races 50,000 years from now (if we are still around that is)? Sooner or later everybody is going to mix.

Indeed, you are basically correct, and Razib Khan’s info does not at all contradict what you say. All he basically shows is that in Brazil, despite an official policy of “whitening” of the population, there are still distinct “racial” groups. This is hardly news. The “death of the white race” claim, so often advanced with such hysterical certainty, is laughable propaganda.

The “racial mix” you speak about does not at all mean distinct ethnic groups will not exist. In south America, official “whitening” policies have not meant the disappearance of “races.” And in fact under those formats there , white hegemony is STILL maintained- the people at the top of the hierarchy are STILL primarily white, though with less rigid “race” boundaries than in America with its “one drop” rule. Even under the South American “mestizo” format, white hegemony is well in hand.

As for 50,000 years hence? Who knows? With the mobility of humans it is quite reasonable to think of more mixing occurring. It is also certain that “racial” boundaries will become more fluid. People naively assume that the US government’s little “race” style pigeonholes, and check boxes, and the formats that use them, are set in stone, apply to humanity for all time- a very laughable assumption. But this does not at all mean there will not be people with their own distinctive features, in their own distinctive locations.

People of the far north like Swedes, will likely still retain many of those features- such as relatively shorter limb proportions, likewise people of the hot tropical zone which In Africa runs from Egypt to Botswana, will likely retain elongated limb proportions. And WITHIN those areas people will continue to vary in how they look. Africa will still continue to have the highest genetic and phenotypic diversity in the world 50,000 years hence, and will still have a vast diversity of localized climates, from hot deserts, to cold high altitude plateau. Both of those by the way tend to make for narrower noses, without needing any “incoming races” or “racial migrants” to explain why people vary in how they look.

Laughable. Western Europe and its offshoots, like white America is the best armed section of the globe and that includes the ability to destroy the globe several times over with nukes. And what racial “Camp of the Saints”? This too is laughable. In fact, while LOCAL ports of entry can see very visible numbers of arrivals, OVERALL, West African refugee flow into Europe has been DECLINING as credible UN data shows.

The major surge in migration is Caucasoids” from the Middle East. ANd white Western Europe in which Christianity is actually shrinking, is a hardly a credible venue for any would be camp of “saints”. Let’s look at actual data rather than chicken-little hysteria.

Not only are most of the refugees to Europe the touted “Caucasoids,” most asylum applications are from the same “Caucasoids” – namely from the Russian Federation, Syrians and Afghans. The 2014-15 UNHCR UN agency for refugees notes that :

“the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), in particular, has increased demand for asylum throughout the region. Germany and Sweden were the most affected, with the two countries receiving more than 50 per cent of Syrian applications. Germany was the recipient of the largest number of asylum applications overall in the region in 2013, followed by France and Sweden. While Syrians now form the second-largest group of applicants, the biggest and still increasing group comprises people from the Russian Federation. Afghans and Serbian asylum-seekers are the third- and fourth-largest groups, respectively. Also among those seeking asylum each year are stateless people. There are currently an estimated 436,000 stateless people in the region..”
–UNHCR GLobal Trends 2014 and UNCHR 2013 Facts and Figures

And then there are those Caucasoid Afghans- gee whatever happened to the American Operation “Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan?:
“In 2013, the country hosting the largest number of refugees remained Pakistan, with 1.6 million refugees. Afghanistan retained the position as the biggest source country, a position it has held for 33 years however, with 2.47 million refugees, Syria is now a close second. On average, one out of every four refugees worldwide is Afghan, with 95% located in Pakistan or Iran.”

Jump to high Caucasoid numbers from Syria and Columbia:
“Escalating conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic displaced an estimated 4.5 million persons in 2013, bringing the total number of IDPs in the country to 6.5 million by year end. With close to 5.4 million internally displaced persons registered by the Government by the end of 2013, Colombia too continued to face a large displacement situation.”

Let’s look at England. The main countries of asylum seekers are again, the touted “Caucasoids,” and the first African country in the list is virtually matched neck and neck by Caucasoid Albania in the number of asylum seekers. Of the top ten countries, only 2 are African. Per UNHCR data:

Pakistan (3,343), Iran (2,417), Sri Lanka (1,808), Syria (1,669), Eritrea (1,377), Albania (1,326), Bangladesh (1,123), Afghanistan (1,040), India (965), Nigeria (915)”
–UNHCR 2014- “The UK and Asylum”

And LIBERAL Europe has been doing quite well in turning back non-Caucasoids. For instance, Italy is one of the frontline states, and was able to reduce the number of illegal border crossings between the West African coast and the Canary Islands from almost 32,000 in 2006, to only 250 in 2013. In short, in terms of refugees, asylum seekers, and even people caught at key sea borders, Europe has hardly seen massive numbers of “sub Saharan blacks” reputedly “swamping” the white homeland- hysterical “HBD” propaganda to the contrary.

Jus’ Sayin’… says:

No one ever comments on how significantly “Blade Runner” differs from the Dick novella, “Do Androis Dream of Electric Sheep?” upon which it is very loosely based. In the novella, Deckard is most definitely a human and married to a human woman. The background to the story is that life was nearly extinguished from the planet. As a result all life has become unimaginably valued by human beings. Replicants are not natural life but monstrous creations of technology created by humans to preserve natural living things from dangerous but necessary occupations, e.g., deep space mining. Deckard is human – absolutely not replicant. He is married to a human wife. He is briefly attracted to the replicant Rachel but ultimately repelled by her when he sees her callously plucking the legs off a spider. This could be critically spun as an allegory of the contemporary racial wars where humaness equates to whiteness, life to almost all other human races, and replicants to persons of predominantly sub-Saharan African ancestry.

Interesting- you have reversed the equation. On one level, replicants can be seen as role models of whiteness on earth- after all they are nice looking, strong, indestructible etc as someone says above. But they fail on earth, a metaphor for the failure of the white perfectionism project. Your take is to see the replicant as the oppressed non-white Other. I think that is a good angle that no one else on this thread has seen.

In the novella, where is most of earth’s population- on another planet? And if so, have they created the replicants in their own image- white people? Is it then a case where “real” humanity (read supposed paragons of humanity, white people), have departed for another planet, while non-white “Others” remain on a “tainted” planet earth? The presence of what looks like mostly Asians in Blade Runner might suggest this. Hence the old lament- White people gone, the “culluds” taking over.

The replicants were created to do the grunt work on other planets, but some have chosen to go to a “tainted” earth filled with the culluds. Why? Is it because the replicants want to be disassociated from their supposed “betters” on the white master planet, and hang out with humanity back on the old third planet from the sun? Why would they want to hang out with mere non-white earthlings? On the white master planet with the mo betta people, they are servitors, and serfs. But on earth they are liberated. Since they have disturbed the established order, they must be stopped, so a Deckard is sent out to wipe the slate clean.

Peter notes that a metaphor for white demographic decline can be seen in the movie. This is certainly a possibility. The whites have departed for another planet, leaving the “Other” to keep multiplying as they always do on earth. And the replicants cannot reproduce- another metaphor for white demographic failure. Another piece of this is that the out-of-place replicants represent the failure of global white technology or – so the recalcitrant foot-soldiers have to be eliminated. Some may say the replicants stand in for anti-racist whites who refuse to buy into the dominant white narrative. They must be marginalized and eliminated. or silenced. Or if they have no racial consciousness, they may stand in for alienated or poorer whites who refuse to buy into the established military-industrial complex circa 2019. So they too have to be liquidated or silenced.

Whatever the angle used, it is clear in both book and movie, that the replicants just “don’t fit”- they are outsiders, outlaws, not “our kind of people.”

As Dyer (2000) argues, “the death of whiteness is, as far as white identity goes, the cultural dominant of our times, that we really do feel we’re played out.”

Dyer argument is weak on some levels. White identity is still pretty strong, and will continue to be so for some time to come- whether as measured by white self-segregation in primarily their own schools and neighborhoods, the low levels of white intermarriage with other groups, and the unbroken mountain of white wealth and societal privilege. Even white liberals do not seek the overthrow of whiteness or white hegemony. They want to keep that core bottom line, but want WHITE ADJUSTMENT in another direction- without affecting the bottom line of white hegemony. White liberals aim to build their alternative white identity it could be said, in 3 ways:

.

a) Building an alternative white identity not predicated on oppression or open hostility towards a non-white other.
White liberals have long ago figured out that white hegemony is not dependent on a snarling “minutes of hate” format against a black and brown “other.” The “Other” can be “managed”. Snarling racism is inefficient, and provokes stressful pushback and reaction from the targeted “Other.” Who needs the hassle? White liberals have figured out that it is a much better expenditure of energy to create a “multi-culti” umbrella where the Other can be incorporated into the dominant white narrative, a sort of cultural “mestizoization”- and indeed this is where Hispanics are headed as one example.

.

b) Building a new white identity based on the strong inclusion of new sub-identities such as the homosexual or the “transgendered”.

These new white sub-identities are part, (not all) part of the wave of the future. Consider the recent TIME magazine story below on a camp for “transgendered” kids. These mostly white kids are between 6 and 12 and they have them cross-dressing. Look at young white lads below being “gendered” or “getting in touch” with themselves as girls.
http://time.com/3743987/gender-creative-kids/

White kid being “gendered” or “sensitized” into his female side:
http://millana.tumblr.com/image/55612822737

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5106d439e4b01d5a75f35d79/t/5553c088e4b05be4fb5036c9/1431552139664/?format=1000w

.

c) Solidifying the new white identity on a basis that minimizes, disparages or dismisses traditional Christianity, and/or its moral basis and effect.
Some see this as an exclusive left wing project, but the white right wing also despises Christianity. It uses Christian imagery for its own purposes, but it despises Christianity’s view of the sinfulness of all men, the equality of all men before God, the brotherhood of all true believers, the application of moral rules and guidelines to human life including fair treatment and justice for example, and the supremacy of God as a Creator, and ultimate judge.

Most hereditarian or “HBD” types for example dismiss the notion of a Supreme Creator and His work in favor of a more atheist flavored evolutionary format divided into a hierarchy of superior and inferior sub-species. Most disparage Christianity’s notions of brotherhood, and just treatment, especially where non-whites are involved. Labels, spiels, tactics and degrees vary, but this is the bottom line. In this sense both the “politically correct” white left, and the “racialist” white right are both dedicated to the demolition of, or the disparagement of the influence of Christianity.

Peter says:
This sounds ominous. It strangely resembles what some people wrote in the 19th century about the disappearing American Indian and the disappearing Australian Aborigines. It was all for the best, some argued. As “savages” declined in numbers and disappeared, their lands would be resettled and better societies created. Today, whites are being seen in this light. Their departure from existence will purportedly bring an end to inequality and suffering, thus making the world a better place. So goes the narrative, and few seem to be challenging it, no matter how outrageous it becomes.

Yes, one can see this interpretation, and I would agree with you that whites too, like other people, have a legitimate concern about the changes around them that depose some privileged positions. Sure, This is natural. The replicants may serve as symbolic of whites, being unable to regain lost demographic ground, substitute “clones” of themselves. But this may have some implications for the future. It could be that technology will reverse white demographic decline, and cloning technology will rebuild white numbers. Whether white people will seize this opportunity is open to question. The desire of today;s white women for smaller families, with more focus on careers, and the desire of the white “smart set” for trendy “designer” clones and smaller, reputedly “sustainable” populations, may clash with pressing white demographic needs.

The failure of the replicants- the epitome of whiteness, and white perfection, can be seen as an allegory for white failure in this respect. White technology or plans or earth have failed- so the recalcitrant foot-soldiers have to be eliminated. Some may say the replicants stand in for anti-racist whites who refuse to buy into the dominant white narrative. They must be marginalized and eliminated. Or if they have no racial consciousness, they may stand in for alienated or poorer whites who refuse to buy into the established military-industrial complex circa 2019. So they have to be liquidated. The replicants cannot reproduce- another metaphor for white demographic failure.

Still as you point out, there is some sort of suggestion in the movie that whites have departed for another planet, leaving a “tainted” earth for the “lesser stocks.” This can serve as a metaphor for “white flight” and a host of other things. It would also imply that whites have the power to simply recreate that hegemony in new venues, and this indeed has happened in real life per above with housing and school patterns.

Dyer quoted says:
.Whites often seem to have a special relation with death, to yearn for it but also to bring it to others. […] I have been wary of dwelling on the fearfulness – sometimes horrible, sometimes bleak – of the white association with death. To do so risks making whites look tragic and sad and thus comes perilously close to a ‘me-too’, ‘we’re oppressed’, ‘poor us’ position that seems to equalise suffering, to ignore that active role of whites in promulgating inequality and suffering.

It could easily be taken as giving us a let-out from acknowledging the privilege and effortless power of even the most lowly of those designated as white. Yet, if the white association with death is the logical outcome of the way in which whites have had power, then perhaps recognition of our deathliness may be the one thing that will make us relinquish it.

What Dyer says here can be criticized as political correctness, but the same obsession with death, whether to inflict it on others, or as tragic victims also appears in some white right-wing writing as well. Proponents of Nazism for example or similar racialist ideas embrace the infliction of pain and death on an inferior “Other”- usually non-white or a less racially pure specimen- mirroring what Dyer says about white possession and use of power. This worked out in real life during WW2, and indeed the main German antagonist gloried in the infliction of pain and death against the targeted “Other.”.

Likewise the nilhism spoken of by other white right-wing authors falls into this pattern. Even Nietzsche held that nilhism was a widespread and negative phenomenon of Western culture. In short then, pace Nietzsche the right wing hero, nilhism is a characteristic of whiteness.

Peter says:
It is really only with Blade Runner (1982) that popular culture began to acknowledge the imminence of white demise.

Perhaps but White demise is imagined in dozens of earlier films, and they like Blade Runner have no overtly “racial” angle. The many films that portray and apocalypse of nuclear war brought about by whites are an example. Some others were more explicit- such as “The Lathe of Heaven” (1979) involving a fatal disease that only affects whites. Most though portray a dismal future for mankind brought on by mankind’s greed, lust for power, obsession with technology and inability to control that technology.

In almost all of these films, the “mankind” that brings about the disastrous state are white people. So white demise has long been a topic in film- indirectly projected but the audience has no doubt that the dark, negative future (whether it be of runaway technology, runaway viruses, or runaway “Big Brother” totalitarian dictatorships) is a white future. Even Blade Runner involves mostly white technology and white role models of the future- the replicants.

.
We think of the 1980s as the Reagan Era, a time when White America pushed back after a long retreat during the previous two decades. In reality, the retreat picked up speed. ..

Some view it this way, but the reality is that White American “backlash or “push back” has been around since the 1960s, and Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater both skillfully exploited it to build a “southern strategy” of Republican ascendancy in the South. The other reality is that whites did not so much “retreat” as retool and re-adjust the false narratives and untenable behavior they had gotten away with for decades. But this re-adjustment still maintained white hegemony. Schools are not as bad as in the days of full Jim Crow for example- there has been improvement, and the elimination of outright race barriers, and blacks are free to attend where they want, a right denied them in contrast other Americans. But by in large, white people have achieved separation and segregated themselves off from non-whites, and both their schools and neighborhoods reflect this.

As far as “affirmative action” Nixon’s famous “Philadelphia plan” quota program was specifically created to drive a wedge in the Dem coalition of Blacks, Jews and Labor, and in this the tactical guile of Nixon succeeded, and is working profitably to this day, for AA is a prime mobilizer of the white right wing base. As far as AA it has been long limited and restricted to trivial proportions, and has been on life support for over a decade. Calif’s Prop 209 for example was almost 2 decades ago. Many other examples can be given but white people have not so much retreated as reasserted their hegemony under new guises, labels, and new formats, but that hegemony never went away.

.

Thus, in the year 2019, we see whites inhabiting a world that is no longer theirs, with some like Sebastian living alone within the decaying shell of their past—the grand but neglected building where most of the action takes place.

This indeed could be one way of viewing it, but the other way is that the world was never really theirs. Ethnic groups come and go. Whatever happened to the Jutes or the Vandals for example? Or the Nervii vanquished by Caesar? During the Neolithic a large slice of what would be Europe’s population entered from the sub-tropical “Middle East”- filling spaces not permanently occupied by previous hunter gatherer types.

There is nothing sacred about today’s white population, or white nations — just as we are often reminded by many on the right, there is nothing sacred about today’s State of Israel. If today’s Israel is not sacred, why should say today’s Germany be any more sacrosanct? In fact many of today’s white nations are slated to disappear in a century or so, maybe less, as the bureaucratic octopus of the European Union takes over. White America itself may not be around in a century. The people driving such trends are not Third World culluds, but whites themselves. They will come and go, just as it has in the past, and change will happen.

Generally though, despite a reshuffling in nations and jurisdictions, it can be expected that today’s whites will continue to inhabit the territory they do today in Europe. What they need to do is to reverse their self-inflicted demographic decline. Failing that, then they must re-adjust to a “mestizo” format- but that will still maintain white hegemony on top of the hierarchy. This has already been pioneered in some South American countries.

Pat says:
Dyer’s interpretation of Blade Runner (or the parts of it Frost quoted anyway) makes no sense. The “whitest” characters in the movie are the replicants (except for Rachael) — Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) and Pris (Daryl Hannah) are especially “Aryan.” There’s no reason to see Deckard (Harrison Ford) as any kind of representation of whiteness or WASPiness.

Yes, some of Dyer’s interpretations are a stretch, though drawing on such writings, I think Peter can to some extent run with it as a useful metaphor for the future. Indeed Blade Runner and others in similar genre, have generated much commentary as a foreshadowing of Western man’s future.

Pensans says:
The claim that God, not authentic religious response to God, restrains evil conduct is a standard, commonplace element of traditional Christian theology.
Indeed. Duggars correctly does not say “religion” restrains people, for “religion” could take in everything from “Aryan” cults to homicide bombers. Khan’s argument would be strong if he said SOME evangelicals felt the way he describes.

.
Chrisnonymous says:
I think the mindset of Evangelicalism leads people into considering their own very minor issues to be on par with serious anti-social behavior.

So in a small group situation, you could have three people confess

Without God, I would have gone to Dunkin Donuts again.
Without God, I would have slept with that married man.
Without God, I would have beaten up that old woman to get money for meth.

and no one bats an eye.

What you say is simply not credible, and there are few evangelicals who do not recognize levels of seriousness of various acts. They like most people, would not seriously think getting a donut is the same as robbing somebody for meth money. They do recognize however that in MATTERS BOTH GREAT AND SMALL, the grace of God as they put it, is needed to eschew temptation or wrongdoing. Grace always manifests itself PRACTICALLY, and consistency is always a practical test of the operation of grace. If you avoid theft for example, you have to be consistent and avoid both shoplifting, AND the mass theft of billions via fraudulently valued mortgage securities. Doing wrong is always in a continuum. Minor shoplifting is not the same as mass murder. But in matters both great and small they recognize the principle of right and wrong.

Khan says:
This attitude is entirely unsurprising to me, I’ve heard it many times from evangelical Christians. The theory is that without religion, and particularly their religion, they would be “a rapin’ and murderin’”.

But this is not what Duggars says at all. He doesn’t say that “religion” restrains people. Everyone knows this would be inaccurate- whether it be Islamic religious jihadists or racist “Aryan” groups and/or their sympathizers, or Spanish conquistadors murdering people while waving their holy book. Duggar says “a mercy of God” – two different things. Some systems of organized religion are merely a human construct with a gloss of religious talking points, set up for exploitation of others. Many people themselves within these constructs may eschew that exploitation and violence, but the systems may be used for such. ‘A mercy of God” is actually in OPPOSITION to such systems, and in fact, exposes them as wanting.

.
This idea that without religion there is no morality is very widespread in the subculture, to the point of being an implicit background assumption that informs reactions to many events in concert with the idea of original sin and fundamental human depravity (thank you St. Augustine and John Calvin!).
True, but only in part. There is a flip side which is explicitly stated in the Bible for example- namely the corruption and violence of organized systems of religion. See the vigorous condemnation of the Pharisees by Jesus of Nazareth for example. Such systems ARE THEMSELVES a reflection of human depravity. Ironically, the religious tenets often CONTRADICT AND EXPOSE practitioners.

.
Many evangelical Protestants in particular envisage the world before the revelation of God to Abraham, but sometime after the Fall, as a Hobbesian one of “all-against-all.”
This is not necessarily so. In fact the opposite can be easily demonstrated. Far from an anarchic “all against all” in fact, systems of government are recognized and accorded a measure of respect. The Cushite king Nimrod for example in Genesis 10, is recognized as a mighty hunter before Jehovah and his kingdom beginning at Calneh and Nineveh etc, while not glowingly endorsed, is recognized as a legitimate ordering mechanism for those under its rule. Likewise the Egyptian pharaohs were established before Abraham and they are recognized as legitimate agents of rule. In fact the Hebrews initially prosper under such an orderly government, and pharaoh’s power throughout the land of Egypt in Genesis is approvingly noted.

.
The root misunderstanding is conceiving of morality and ethics as a historical human invention, as opposed to formalizations of deep cognitive intuitions and social-cultural adaptations.
But numerous religious proponents make no claim that morality is a human invention at all. They hold to the contrary to a formula whereby a sort of fundamental “baseline” universal morality derives from the creator, allied with deep-seated human needs – such as the need for protecting families. Which is precisely what Dugars intimates when he says- “a mercy of God”. They actually do recognize deep cognitive intuitions such as a mother’s care of her children.

.
Religion co-opted and promoted morality, but it did not invent it. The Israelites put in their Lord God’s mouth their own morality that was existent before his invention!
But all human societies do have some sort of religious basis or concepts that provide guidance in life- whether it be the materially simple ancient Khosian San, to the elaborate Egyptians. The Israelite had religious concepts in place BEFORE the elaboration of their system under Moses. Abraham the Bible specifically notes, was called out of Mesopotamia, AWAY FROM the gods he worshiped on the other side of the river or flood. Religious elements were ALREADY in place., before Abraham made his move.

.
But, it does show starkly that over the last 25 years in the United States there has been a simultaneous decrease in violent crime, and, a massive wave of secularization.
The weakness of this argument is that other historical periods show the opposite. in a period of INCREASING religious observance, the 1950s, for example crime rates were also trending DOWN, and were much better than they would be in the 1960s and 1970s- a period of rising secularization. Thirdy years afe 1960, th start of the tumultuous 60s, murder rates were roughly three times higher than in the 1950s- and that is 30 years of secularization. If anything, people could argue that the decline of religion brought about worsened morality .

. I say this because the latest period of a mass population movement into Egypt from the Near East is ~8,000 year ago.

This is inaccurate. There was no such “mass population movement” into Egypt. You reference Wikipedia, which is modified almost daily to fit assorted agendas, but even the Wikipedia reference says no such thing about any mass population movements. It notes some migration into Egypt, which is to be expected, (note it also mentions the North African Neolithic already in place as well), but the cited footnotes in Wikipedia ALSo do not claim any mass migration. One of the footnotes in a cluster re “migration” for example is Bar-Josef on the Natufians, but Bar-Josef does not even mention the word Egypt in his article, showing some of the sleight of hand “edits” going on, with multiple footnotes piled in to look “authentic.” People can see through what’s going on.

Domesticates from the Middle East were incorporated primarily by peoples already in place in Egypt, though as a country with its SInai border right into Palestine and beyond, Egypt always had small scale movement. In addition the founding of the Dynasties was from the tropical south not the north whichis closer to the “Middle East.”

Archaeological data (Wendorf 2001, Wettstrom 1999) suggests that the peoples of the Sahara had already independently domesticated cattle in the early Holocene eastern Sahara, followed by the gradual adoption of grain cultivation, or gradual adoption of Near Eastern domesticates into an already established foraging and subsistence economy, rather than some mass influx of outsiders bringing benefits to the indigenes. QUOTE from 3 peer-reviewed scholars:

“Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa does not
support demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence
presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the
Fayum initially incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an
INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only over time developed a
dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming
settlers, who would have brought a more abrupt change in subsistence
strategy. “The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt..”

–Ehret, Keita, Newman, Bellwood (2004). The Origins of Afroasiatic
Science 3 v306, n5702, p1680

and

“Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates – Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat – are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).. This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).”
— Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246

Even a popular publication like National Geographic is skeptical about any “mass movement” claim.

“Linguistics and writing can give some clues to migration or major cultural interactions. Semitic and perhaps Sumerian speakers in the Near East developed agriculture some 2,000 years before it emerged in the Nile Valley. If Egypt had been peopled by a mass migration of farmers from the Near East, ancient Egyptians would have spoken either a Semitic language or Sumerian (considered a language isolate, meaning that it has no obvious close relatives). Although certain major domesticated species used in Egypt came from the Near East, it is interesting to note that the words for these in Egyptian were not borrowed from any members of the Semitic family whose common ancestor had terms for them. They are all Egyptian.

The beginnings of Egyptian writing can be traced back to the cultures that led to dynastic Egypt. Flora and fauna used in the hieroglyphs are Nilotic, indicating that the writing system developed locally, with some symbols traceable back to a period before the first dynasty rulers emerged. The titles for the king, major officials, and the royal insignia are Egyptian, which is of interest because one old theory held that the dynastic Egyptians or their elites came from the Near East; however, the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Ancient_Egypt”

Sean, I already gave you specific data on the African refugees from the UN’s own reports. As usual, you have no substantive reply or analysis or comment when your claims are debunked. So you simply duck and change the subject.

As far as Bonilla-Silva you are getting incoherent. No he is not part of any white supremacy system and no one says that he is or was. He rather exposes certain aspects of that system, and he is correct on several points. In fact certain conservatives while maintaining support of conservative principles, frankly admit some of these points. For examples white liberals in some places have ensured all-white or mostly white neighborhoods by manipulating zoning rules to drive up the cost and reduce the supply of housing. Conservative segregationists in the south also used the same tactics, only more openly. I already gave you several specific examples. As usual, you duck them all, with no substantive reply. That tells me you concede the argument. You have nothing of substance to even put up in defense of your earlier claims. All you do is keep changing the subject.

And as for the Nazis it is appropriate to mention, for some Jews like Weiner who float the “we are not white” meme invoke persecution under the Nazis to show they are also “sufferahs” like the blacks- indeed, worse suffferahs.

In an earlier episode, the WASP-y Ken Cosgrove explains that he didn’t like working at McCann-Erickson because it is “too Irish” and he didn’t fit in.

Could be a personal thing but historically the Irish have been massive discriminators against other Americans including other white Americans. From the political machines that increased the corruption of America’s big cities, to the cronyism and nepotism that monopolized government jobs and froze out other Americans, to the corrupt kickbacks, payoffs and manipulations of things like business licenses, government application of laws, etc etc. Other white Americans, including Jews, who refused to make the required payoffs were frozen out.

“In the city’s building trades such as plumbers and the masons, Irish-dominated unions adopted nepotistic membership requirements that kept out new arrivals… Similarly the Irish used their political connections to entrench themselves in both skilled and unskilled city government jobs for policemen, firefighters, rapid transit workers and school teachers, even before these workers had their unions recognized.”

As early as 1855 Irish men were the largest group of the cartmen of New York, including those that specialized in doing city work on sanitation, landfill road projects and the like. To be a private cartman one required a license; to work for the municipal government in particular one needed good connections. Even before the massive influx of the feminine Irish in 1843, the Democrat-dominated Common Council gave a large number of market licenses to Irish men, much to the chagrin of native American entrepreneurs.”
–FROM: Bayor and Meagher 1996, The New York Irish, 96-97

“As a consequence, the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930 compared with just 6 percent in 1900. This patronage helped produce a heavy concentration of Irish in jobs on the fire and police departments and in municipally owned subways, streetcars, waterworks and port facilities. Many of the city’s Irish middle class worked on the public payroll, especially in the public schools, and thousands of others labored in construction jobs tied to city expenditures. For second-generation Irish-American women, jobs as schoolteachers were the most sought-after career. Such patronage policies would help to bind the Irish working class and much of the middle class Tammany Hall for another generation.”
–Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York Irish, p. 313

———————————————————————————

The white Irish also figured prominently in establishment of corrupt urban political machines – spread across America- from Daley in Chicago, to Frank Hague in Jersey City, and numerous places in between. Let’s look at Hague. Hague has a widely known reputation for corruption and bossism and has been called “the granddaddy of Jersey bosses.” By the time he left office in 1947, he enjoyed palatial homes, European vacations, and a private suite at the Plaza Hotel. His wealth has been estimated to have been over $10 million at the time of his death, although his City salary never exceeded $8,500 per year and he had no other legitimate source of income.

During the height of his power Hague’s political machine, known as “the organization,” was one of the most powerful in the United States controlling politics on local, county, and state levels. Hague’s personal influence extended to the national level, influencing federal patronage and Presidential campaigns. The white Irish also greatly increased voter fraud in running America’ big cities. Under Irish boss Hague for example, Jersey City had 160,050 registered voters, but only 147,000 people who were at least 21 years old—the legal voting age.
(Sources: Jersey City’s Mayor Hague: Last of the Bosses…”. Life. 1938-02-07. p. 45; Hague’s End”, TIME, 1949-05-23).

White politicians like Hague caused massive tax burdens to be laid on hard-working white people, from Boston to Jersey. Indeed some of these taxes bankrupted certain businesses. (Jersey City’s Mayor Hague: Last of the Bosses…”. Life. 1938-02-07) Other notorious white public feeders – some of the worse leaders in America- include Chicago’s “Big Bill” Thompson, and James Curley of Boston. But not to worry. In their footsteps followed people like Richard Daley and Governor Rod Blagojevich, now doing 14 years in prison. (See book- Gerald Leinwand 2004. Mackerels in the Moonlight: Four Corrupt American Mayors.)

The white Irish also pioneered “official” or “legal” thuggery and abuse of civil liberties in running America’ cities. Irish boss Hague for had a law passed requiring making political speeches to obtain clearance from the chief of police. A 1930 ordinance gave the public safety commissioner—Hague himself—the power to turn down permits for meetings if he felt it necessary to prevent “riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.” The latter ordinance was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, but continued to be enforced for several years after that decision. The white Irish police were also allowed to stop and search anyone without probable cause or a warrant after 9 pm. (Sources: Jersey City’s Mayor Hague: Last of the Bosses…”. Life. 1938-02-07. p. 45).

Buchanan says:
Comes now a Pew Research Center survey that reveals the United States is de-Christianizing at an accelerated rate.
Agreed. America is becoming more like Europe on these scores.

.
What are the causes of a de-Christianized America?
High among them is the Supreme Court, which, since the Earl Warren era began, purged Christianity from all public schools and the public square — and has been met with a puzzling lack of resistance from Middle America to the secularist revolution being imposed upon it.
Agreed in part, though government supported religion was not something all Christians agreed on. Mandatory school prayers for example were by no means supported by a huge majority of Christians in the US back in the day During the debate over school prayer amendments in the 1960s, Southern Baptists led the opposition, arguing that imposing government-mandated prayer on youngsters infringed on parental rights. (Southern Baptists switched sides on the issue institutionally only after fundamentalists took control of the denomination. Many individual Baptists still oppose official school prayer. School prayer is sort of a proxy or indicator of general moral decline. As far as a specific policy there was never any monolithic agreement of Christians on the topic.

.
Second, an anti-Christian elite captured the cultural heights .. Third was the social revolution of the 1960s..
Agreed these all play/played a part.

.
Many churches came out to meet the cultural revolution halfway.
Buchanan does not make this point a separate category in his bullet list, but it is a key one- namely internal corruption, materialism and weakness in many denominations. This should be right up there with the Supreme Court, anti-Christian elite and the counter-culture. Instead Buchanan wedges it in almost as an afterthought- a secondary matter. But it is a primary matter. Conveniently blaming “the liberals” deliberately avoids a searching examination of these internal failures.

.
“Panem et circenses,” bread and circuses, were what the late Roman Empire was all about.
What Buchanan fails to mention is that the Roman empire was often corrupt, decadent, greedy, oppressive and predatory BEFORE bread and circuses became prominent. The “barbarians” who eventually overthrew Rome had several good reasons for doing so- like massacres, mass enslavement, dispossession of naive peoples from their lands, and the crushing iron boot ruthlessly extracting resources from those lands. Buchanan skips over this side of the story.

.
Our racial divisions, once ameliorated by shared belief in the same God and Bible, are rawer than they were in the 1950s.
A quite questionable claim. “Racial divisions” were much sharper in America of the 1950s. Back then black military veterans were getting their eyes gouged out by southern racists when they came home from serving their country. Black railroad-men were being murdered by white union thugs so their jobs could be given to whites. President Harry Truman refers to such things in his reforms of America’s segregationist landscape. Black kids were forbidden to go to schools 5 blocks from their house but might be shunted to inferior “cullud” schools 10 miles distant. The notion that racial divisions today are “rawer” than the 1950s is dubious.

As for shared belief, sometimes that brought SOME amelioration, such as the civil rights campaigns that drew on religion to make some progress- like ML King’s campaigns. But then again, Buchanan himself supported politicians like Goldwater who OPPOSED some of the progress brought about by such religious linkages or coalitions, and helped bolster part of the “race bait” aspects of the southern strategy with his advocacy and writing. While to his credit Buchanan supported some much needed Civil Rights reforms, he himself traded in “racial division” when it suited him.

.
Historian Arnold Toynbee said it well: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”
This may well be. Buchanan rightly highlights several weak areas that need to be fixed to stop the decline.

The data shows that sub-Saharan African DNA elements well embedded in place and shows up in certain southern European populations- everything from the cystic fibrosis mutations, to the traces of Benin sickle cell marker, to the HLA 6 data. Does this mean that all Greeks are ‘Africans’? No, they are primarily a European population, with racial admixture from sub-Saharan Africans. The divergence times make no difference, for the African DNA markers are still there and quite detectable. And true, White skin is only a relatively recent occurrence. Those early Europeans looked more like sub-Saharan Africans, as also their limb proportions show. And while a combination of dark skin and blue or light colored eyes does not show up much at all in Europe anymore, it is not at all unusual in Africa.

And are you sure the early farmers from the Middle East brought lighter skin? According to whom?

If whites abandoned anti-racism, their biases would no longer embarrass them.

What you are missing is that in the days when there was very little substantial organized white antiracism, as there is today, white people WERE embarrassed by racist white behavior.
This can be seen during the Cold war. Indeed during the Cold War the Soviet Union scored huge propaganda points by mocking American democracy as hypocritical, putting the US claim to “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” continually on the defensive internationally. There are several books on this and how removing the embarrassment of segregation became a matter of US security and foreign policy strategy, such as “Cold War Civil Rights” by Mary Dudziak (http://mdudziak.com/cwcr.aspx). And as noted above private violence was a not uncommon occurrence against blacks simply exercising their rights to free markets, violence that the Soviets took careful note of, as well as how American governments, at various levels, often passed over said violence, or actively collaborated in it. The Soviets also noted how various American jurisdictions moved to impose ludicrous and humiliating restrictions on blacks – such as forbidding them to share phone booths, water fountains, or even pet cemeteries with whites (presumably the dogs would object), and the powerlessness or lack of desire of federal authorities to address these abuses.

By 1960, America statesmen could see the damaging effect that the inefficient and repugnant elements of segregation had on the country’s international standing, and Cold War strategies, and they moved to correct this. As early as the Truman administration, the federal government was citing the Cold War imperative in its legal briefs to the US Supreme Court in support of anti-discrimination and desegregation cases. Scholar M. Klarman (1994) notes that even conservative Dwight Eisenhower invoked the need to counter damaging Soviet propaganda attacks as justification for sending troops to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower moved to reap maximum propaganda value for his decision by having what should have been a mere internal American matter translated into 43 languages for broadcasting around the world via the Voice of America.

Concrete incidents of diplomatic embarrassment continually dogged the US in the 1960s, as the diplomats of Third World nations were repeatedly subjected to the indignities of public and private discrimination and disrespect. Indeed, in 1957, US President Eisenhower himself felt compelled to invite a minister of newly independent Ghana to ‘breakfast at the White House to make amends for the refusal of a Howard Johnson restaurant in Delaware to serve him.’ Nor was Eisenhower the only president of the “free world” to be embarrassed by segregation in the US. 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.” 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)

The snarling “let’s be open” racism you seem to advocate was actually damaging to US foreign policy during the 1960s. If you are negotiating military basing rights in Asia or Africa for example, treating the diplomats sent to negotiate with you like dirt in your nation’s capital is dumb, and is the last thing a shrewd nation wants to do or to be associated with. Has nothing to do with anti-racism- its just plain good common sense. And that’s just one example.

.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to cover their biases.

You are naive. As CONSERVATIVE scholars like Thomas Sowell shows, an anti-racist veneer can actually be MORE effective cover for certain things, than the snarling “let it all hang out” racism you seem to advocate. White liberals people who want to keep their neighborhood white for example will do a lot better (avoiding lawsuits, marches etc) if they enact subtle measures like zoning controls that suppress the supply of housing- such as bigger lot requirements, “green space” restrictions for “the children”, etc etc. The end result- less minorities, whiter schools, whiter neighborhoods. The reason white liberals stay in business is that they bring value for white people. If they didn’t- they would be out of business. They have learned the art of maintaining white hegemony using “soft” means. Does this mean that liberals did not sincerely want to clean up the worse abuses? No some are/were sincere, and they wanted to clean up the worse aspects, but in a way that did not threaten overall white hegemony. Naive conservatives have not yet learned the game.

.
If whites abandoned anti-racism there would be no hypocrisy with regards to their behaviour. Therefore, it makes no sense to say whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to appear unhypocritical. See?

Again, rather naive. If whites abandoned anti-racism and adopted a “let it all hang out” racism, the game would be given away, and a lot of the “soft” measures now in place, would be exposed. This means fierce push back from the culluds. Ask yourself which is easier- to hold some trendy pablum seminars talking bout “diversity” and hiring a few tokens to keep the culluds happy or declaring a “No Non-whites” policy out in the open, that will provoke fierce negative responses?

I understand what you are trying to say. Why shouldn’t white people be openly racist, and proud of it? Let’s not pretend anymore- lets just be racist. Sure. But even an open racist approach is STILL laced with hypocrisy. You see white people are proud of certain things and claims such as “bothersome” constitutional documents, and “inconvenient” arguments about equality before the law, government as representative by the people, and such like. If they came out and said “Well all those nice things we white people speak about – we really don’t mean it” -then their previous 200 years of claiming special virtue and exceptionalism, and patting themselves on the back, would be exposed as simple hypocrisy. This is precisely the argument made by the Soviets in the Cold War. All the nice things spoken about like “democracy”, “constitutional rights” or “the Free World” were meaningless propaganda.

Fortunately there were some whites with a different vision of America, an America that was not a snarling racist camp like Nazi Germany, and someone that did take the things spoken above seriously, and as more than mere propaganda, and to their credit, as I note above re Harry Truman, they moved to rectify several wrongs, clean up abuses, and to his credit, put America on the right track. The reforms he enacted also did not at all threaten overall white hegemony.

Sean, if I start off by saying something is good in part- I think it is. There are actually good points made in the articles of Frost, and many others, and in some comments. Matter of fact I defended Frost’s “execution cull” thesis in part re the decline of violence in Europe, and I commended Ron Unz’s sterling data on Jewish monopolization of certain things in yet other posts. And in turn I disagree with both on other points. You complain that I mention indictments of racism. I would not mention such things but you yourself and others every week, keep pouring on the same dubious claims about race, such as your notions that “Pygmies” are comparable to African refugees allegedly “swamping” Europe. For example- quote:

Europeans are inherently as helpless against the correlation of forces they face as the Pygmies are against Bantu murder and sexual mutilation?

I pointed out that this claim, and numerous others similar to it were rather dubious, and gave specific examples why- ranging from exaggeration re the Pygmy-Bantu conflict, to the fact that sub-Saharan refugee numbers to the EU have actually been DROPPING recently, due in large measure to vigorous interdiction by EU nations. These actual facts contradicted your notion of “helpless” Europeans.

Re Hitler, he can’t be avoided in many antiracist discussions, for an assortment of right wingers (pick the label of your choice) essentially make arguments similar to the Fuehrer- such as the need to, or rationality of, purging the Jew parasitic infection off the host body, or various inferior sub-species of humanity. Statements like these are routine on this website all the time, and few object to them.

Re antiracism as a veneer- this too is a point sometimes made by others here. See Sailer’s recent post on Anthony Weiner, who asserts that Jews “are not white.” I actually agree (in part) with Sailer (and say so)- that Weiner may be posing, saying trendy things- lip service- faux “solidarity” – but Jews can be very well white when they want to be. Hell I even point out that a number of Jews both tacitly and explicitly supported Enoch Powell’s National Front, and agree with Sailer on Jewish alarmism- how come for example in the 1980s when anti-Semitism public expression was relatively low, the Simon Weisenthal center had such fulsome Jewish support in California?

I am no supporter of unfettered immigration by the way and have argued against some Mexican activist arguments re to be “reclaiming” California, pointing out that (a) the assertion of Spanish claims or jurisdiction based on Spanish rule is a dubious assertion of a WHITE COLONIAL claim- not anything by the native tribes, and (b) people from the valley of Mexico, multiple hundred miles distant have no inherent claim to California- they are not even indigenous to the area. The only people with any indigenous cred are the actual California Indians, not Mexican migrants from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

.
The post, if we can get back to it, is questioning if antiracism is a an emerging ideology that is poised much as communism was 100 years ago. Thanks for mentioning ‘Racism without racists’ which is enlightening.
Indeed- I mention him because as a leading anti0racist writer, he ties legitimately into the discussion. I am glad you quote him, for when I say antiracists THEMSELVES complain about LIBERALS, or that white liberals can be often just as concerned about white hegemony as any right winger, I am not just merely asserting personal opinion, but pointing to one of the leading antiracist scholars who is on record. I don’t agree with him on some points by the way, particularly his habit of using certain things as a litmus test of goodness- such as AA quotas. And yes I don’t agree with him either with his broad brush lumping of tea partiers and Republicans. But then again, he is no worse that people here.

.
Cracker1 says:
A lot of ordinary white people are going along with what they are being told and are trying really hard to not be racist. After a while nothing much has changed and they start to wonder what is wrong. The new paradigm (God, I have waited forever to use that word) is fixed. If you are white there is no escape. Previously one could work on not being racist.

But here’s the thing, plenty HAS changed, for the better. America is no longer as bad as it was on the race score. I point this out against naysayers from the right who contend that civil rights have all been a failure, nothing has changed, woe, woe, doom and gloom etc. This notion, widespread in certain quarters, and often made on this site, is dubious. America is a better place on several counts, and it should be noted that more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats.

As for the “white privilege” proponents, they say some true things in part, and do at times present incontrovertible facts. It is a fact for example that white unions locked out skilled blacks out of many trades, and even murdered some who had played by the rules and worked themselves up to better jobs, that the whites themselves coveted. But “white privilege” proponents, like Bonilla-Silva up above, lament their lack to traction for their argument among white people.

In short, they are upset that most white people, do not feel any guilt at all, and indeed reject such or change the conversation when the topic comes up. This hardly sounds like an America filled with cringing white people, “swamped” and “paralyzed” with “white guilt.” This alleged America, so often asserted here and in many other quarters, simply does not exist in any substantial sense. It’s like those arguments that “white guilt” led white people to vote for Obama, as if they were too stupid to vote on any OTHER grounds. Some of these propaganda constructs are so laughable one wonders how intelligent people believe them, and espouse them with such messianic certainty, but they do.

People like Greeks and certain southern Europeans, at one level, are in a way outliers relative to the far northern people like Scandinavians. Greeks have more sub-Saharan DNA than other Europeans scientists show. Greeks in some early eras (Angel 1972), and at certain times show genetic links black Africans, such as genetic HLA features (Chromosome 6- with sub-Saharans- Hajjej 2011), Benin Sickle Cell syndrome (Ricaut et al 2008), certain shared cystic fibrosis mutations (Dork, et al 1998), to certain Y-chromosome markers- Europeans contain the E3b sub-group, which was derived from haplogroup E originating in sub-Saharan Africa (Frukadis 2008)

African DNA among the Greeks

I’ve noticed this about some Jews. Very intelligent and capable – but an odd, almost childlike naiveté – their imagination is severely stunted when it comes to imagining threats coming from people other than Europeans.I wonder if the high IQ gets cancelled out in some way by this lack of common sense.

What you say is itself extremely naive. Who says they don’t recognize “threats?” Jews were among the earliest, most devastating opponents of affirmative action “quotas” for example, and in the 1960s defeated the black “community control” school movement in NYC with savage attacks and counterattacks. In NYC the Jewish mayor Ed Koch roundly attacked and counterattacked black opponents with glee, even calling anyone who would vote for Jesse Jackson “crazy.” Jews cheered on Republican mayor Rudy Guillani’s tenure. Giuliani consistently raised the level of his Jewish support over time, from 60 percent in his losing race in 1989 to 65 in his 1993 victory and 72 in his 1997 reelection. No one has been more conscious of their “white cred” than Jews.

.
I’ve seen Jews who truly believe they have some special bond with a blacks employee or their Latina nanny, etc. They seem unable to process the fact that they are almost always in the dominant position in these sorts of relationships and that this may actually cause resentment – that whatever they think about themselves, others do see them as white.

This is not a “Jewish” problem. EVERY employer of domestic help, depending n how they treat the people who work for them, can achieve a certain closeness, though of course both parties usually know there are limits. In many cases a special bond is forged in the domestic sphere. It happens- its part of the package- and also everyone knows it has a practical limit. The boss ain’t gonna be happy to find out that “Jose” and the little princess planning to marry next fall. Sure there are limits.

But even aside from that, Black Caribbean immigrants who worked as domestics, and non-domestics in both London and NYC for example can tell you that it was Jews who helped them get a foothold with property rentals and purchases in certain parts of those cities where the welcome mat read “unwelcome.” Whether altruism or just plain good business, the bottom line was positive as far as those immigrants were concerned.

On the flipside of course are numerous conflicts. The typical complaint- of gouging “Jew” merchants, stingy pawnbrokers or uncaring slumlords, suggests that for other Jews there was no altruism involved at all. They didn’t/don’t give a damn about any Blacks, Asians or whoever. All that counted was the cash bottom line.

.
There are real dangers in the world, but their defenses seem maladjusted in a fundamental way. I don’t think this would apply so much to Isrealis! – just particular subset of left wing diaspora types
Again, this is rather naive. Even liberal left-wing Jews watch out for the bottom line- they can be very well “white” when they want to, and do not hesitate to use that to their advantage when it suits them. No one has been more critical of other minorities than Jews, as massive amounts of documentation show. Just the “community control” school battles brought out the long knives, long sharpened on such criticism. As black activists found out, so-called “Jewish allies” were few and far between. In England Jewish frontbench opposition spokesman Sir Keith Joseph, urged the Jews of his constituency to support Margaret Thatcher’s immigration clampdown, and some Jews, when not in silent tacit support, even openly joined Enoch Powell’s race-baiting “National Front.” There has been a lot of LIP SERVICE about Jewish “solidarity” with other non-white groups, but the bottom line, in several cases is anything but solid.

Sailer may be right in the sense that Weiner may be part of the LIP SERVICE, faux “solidarity” tradition, but the bottom line is that Jews embrace whiteness, when it suits them. To their credit, SOME Jews did lend critical support to the US Civil Rights Movement.

What about the founder of Communism?

Well now there you have a point. That’s not Weiner, but Marx sure has a lot of millions on his tab. Bu couldn’t we say that people like Engels share it too? I mean, good old Germanic Engels provided much research and even bankrolled Marx, though Marx still kept dodging bill collectors and dragging his family through hell.

Anon921 says:
What is lacking is the class element. How come Weiner doesn’t try to identify with lower class whites against upper class whites? He bunches all whites together, as if every white person is a Don Draper.

But this is exactly the same stereotypical practice of many “heriditarian” types when dealing with other groups. Why is it bad if Weiner uses the same methods?

.
It’s as if all whites are Wasps and Jews are with the people of color.
But for many of the types above, Jews are an enemy “Other” – and might just as well be one of the coloreds. Jews are just more successful that’s all and attract greater envy because of it.

.
“Jews. Are. White.”
In some socio-political contexts in the United States, yes, NOW they are, but some decades ago they were considered non-white or “not quite” white.

.
Anon says
More likely, he [Korean] picked up those attitudes in the fancy college he attended. If you’re a non-white in college and say you have no problem with whites and love America, white academics don’t like you.
Not necessarily. He would not have to wait to get into a “fancy” college to get one of his several “Asian Diss Moments.” In Junior High and High school he would probably run into some whites mocking his ancestry, jealous of his harder work and academic accomplishments, etc etc. He doesn’t have to wait for alleged “elites” to teach him such things in college.

.
So, if you’re non-white and say most white Americans are good people and you love the US, white academics will see you as low grade. To win the approval of white academic elites, you have to show that you are filled with angst and alienation. Put down white America to score points with white elites.

Not at all. White elites are just as concerned about white hegemony as the white proles. The difference is they don’t want to appear MEAN or HARSH about it, and want a nobler white VENEER, as opposed to the sneering, snarling racist- but their bottom lines are the same. They just prefer a more condescending, less stressful “soft hegemony.”

Hence the same white “elites” will go home to their gated communities which have zoning controls that suppress moderate priced housing. The end result of such controls- less minorities- white neighborhoods or schools. Said “elites” will repair to their dating sites and despite fulsome paeans to “diversity: will also like most every other white, will reply to or specify “white only” as their dating match. The notion of white elites “giving away the store” to “the culluds” is a laughable line only the white gullible eat up. In fact, some white antiracists complain all the time that higher grade liberal whites are uncomfortable talking about race and are just as racist as the next man, only in a “softer” way. Its when they are in situations where “the mike is off” – in safe, white venues here no culluds disturb the decor, that they then will let their true colors show.

.
One difference between Asians and non-Asian minorities is this. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics only take on victim mentality and hardly ever criticize their own kind.
—————–
Laughable rubbish. There is a more than a century’s worth of tradition of self-criticism. Even the fiery Black Muslims, who appear in the middle of that range, are unsparing in their criticism of “the people.” Malcolm X’s “Stand Up” speeches, and even his autobiography expose the above claim as so much baloney.

.
Asians try to be white but they’ve been taught to see themselves as victims of whites. But since they are not victims of whites and do well in white society, they feel as traitors to the non-white cause. So, they are filled with ersatz white guilt.

LOL, oh well I am sure NO Asians have been victims of whites. Indeed. But this would certainly come as curious news to those hundreds of Chinese murdered by whites in earlier California, some for such “crimes” as operating hand laundries. Then there were Japanese American citizens, driven out of their hoes on the West Coast during WW2. Even more curious, why would Asians, who would not be unaware of this history be having “white” guilt about being murdered or dispossessed? If you are gonna project “white” guilt on to Asians you gotta come up with a more believable spiel dude…

DanaThomson says
Why would Weiner want to embrace the ideology of so hateful a person? For being intelligent, why are Jews so damn stupid?

Lol, Anthony Weiner has not embraced any ideology where the “murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied.” A number of “Aryan” proponents have however, albeit in more muted terms. And a number of American scholars such as Kevin MacDonald find those murders a “rational” response of the hosts in dealing with perceived “Jew parasites” in the midst of a more pure, whiter society.

.
SFG
just really hard to attract quality (in the sense of ‘successful and organized’) people to white nationalism. You mostly have highly excluded people who have nothing to lose from being outed…There are a larger number of sympathizers, as any internet comment board will show, but few people with any prospects want to risk joining an organization on the SPLC’s list;

But as you say there are a lot of “under the table” sympathizers. And white nationalism has changed its colors. The old snarling Ku Kluxer/marching jackbooter is out- he’s just too visible. Its a more sophisticated veneer these days, with the old arguments couched in scientific jargon, and a well embedded network of linked “front” websites presenting an innocuous conservative front, that allow “plausible denial” – easily fooling the gullible. Behind the front however, at the second level are the sneering legions. They come out here and there – not only on web forums but you see them snarling bile on blog comments and YouTube video comments. These days no one needs the traditional Ku Kuxer Klavern or Neo Nazi “Reich gruppe” meeting at a bar someplace. Things are more subtle, but the snarling bottom lines have not changed.

Power CHild says:
When the lady at the doctor’s office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I’m white. Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up.

Weiner is dealing in more than mere anecdote. Jews whiteness helped them “pass” of course, with all privileges attaining thereto, but it still took the primarily black Civil Rights Movement to remove some barriers against Jews. Jews were beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement, including enforcement of new laws, as well as white women, despite much huffing and puffing about how it was exclusively for “the culluds.” For example, in the court action US versus Lake Lucerne 1968, the federal government sued so that restrictive covenants forbidding sale of land to both blacks AND Jews could not be used. Some decades earlier, your winning smile would not have counted for much, in a number of places. See:

by David R. Roediger. 2006. Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White

.
Salier says
>b>One of Weiner’s goals, he suggested, was to simultaneously remind people of the overlap between Jewish culture and the culture at large, while also pointing out Jews’ non-white status and the sophisticated anti-Semitism that surrounded it — the fact that no matter how much Jews were able to pass, they always remained Other. …

Assorted “HBD” types are always pounding on Jews as being parasites leeching off a “purer” white stock, and indeed some suggest the Fuehrer’s “cleansing” operation during the Holocaust is “understandable” and “rational” as a reaction of the host body purging said parasites. And of course the Jews are considered “white” now, but some decades before it was dubious whether they were fit to be included in the reputedly rarefied ranks of whiteness. It was only after World War 2 hat they were generally considered “whitewashed.”

So Weiner spiel is not at all farfetched. And as far as many of “heriditarian” ilk, Jews certainly remain the despised or feared “Other.” See:

Karen Brodkin 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and what that Says about Race in America.

—————————————————————————————–

.
It’s slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works.

Interesting. During the 1980s when anti-semitism expression was at an all time low, the Simon Weisenthal Center of Los Angeles, had the most successful fund-raising operation of any domestic Jewish organization. So says Jewish author Edward Shapiro.

Nonsense. I challenged your continually bogus comparisons of Pygmies as somehow “representative” of all Africans of Africa migrants, and a few Bantu ner’do wells as equally “representative.” You made this claim in the “Boas” thread, were roundly debunked, and you do it here again, with still pitiful results. And you need to add your own “addendum” as to why you continually duck and run away from substantive replies when your claims are exposed as BS. You are pretty good at throwing out all these sweeping claims but when debunked you run away from defending them with any substance, usually changing the subject to yet another dubious claim, or pretending to make reply with non-reply. Up above your own “supporting” reference actually contradicts what you say. No wonder you continue to duck and run.

Oh there are plenty of “hostile neighboring savage hordes”next to the Dutch too. Why, they killed around 100,000 Dutch people not so many years ago. In fact the Dutch had the highest per capita death rate of all Nazi-occupied countries in Western Europe (2.36%). Over half (107,000) were Holocaust victims, deported and murdered Jews.

Enrique takes us off on this same tangent almost every week. I do not see what the travails of black Americans have to do with immigration.

Its you who are off base again Sean. The topic is antiracism in this thread. Up above it was asserted that segregation’s end was “disastrous” for blacks, something most antiracists would reject and that indeed, credible scholarship shows is dubious. In fact antiracists argue that their perspective is critically needed because of acceptance of similarly dubious “disaster” claims above, and the use of similar arguments by segregationists inthe past to justify Jim Crow. See leading antiracist Bonilla-Silva’s “Racism without Racists” for example.

Here’s a citation by someone very skeptical of these arguments, but with a twist. The person speaking is not another liberal antiracist, but conservative US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Quote:

“The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks,”.. no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders… The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”
–US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 2006.

.
Antiracism is not the result a conflict between different nations or races; it’s the conflict between the ethics of an earlier stage of our own civilisation, and the unfolding end game developments.

Somewhat dubious. Antiracism, does by definition involve “conflict between different nations or races.” In fact conflict is a central theme of antiracist writings, and indeed racist writings. Conflict between lesser and superior breeds or “races” for example is integral to the mindset of today’s racists, and that of the Fuehrer, some 60 years before.

Ronald West says
put the average Dutchman in the average Pygmy’s habitat and see how far the Dutchman’s bigger brain (and by implication, his higher intelligence) will see him live attempting to find his way to Nairobi.
To be sure. If suddenly placed there Dutchman would not last long, either in the rainforest or say in the Artic. By contrast the Pygmy or Inuit could forage quite successfully if dumped in the middle of Amsterdam.

.
Pincemartin says:
If the Dutch were so inclined, they could start building condos on pygmy territory tomorrow – and enjoy a comfortable life there. Can the pygmies say the same about Holland?
To be sure the Pygmies would have no problem, and it would be much easier for the Pygmies to pitch camp and survive in Amsterdam, than for the Dutch to spend multi-millions hauling concrete to start erecting condos in the middle of the Ituri forest.

.
Sean says:
Pygmies live as slaves of the Bantu and have no rights.
Exaggerated pablum, that your own reference contradicts. Read the Forest people by scholar Colin Turnbull. Far from being “slaves” they Pygmies once in or near their forest can and do run rings around the so-called “Bantu” and can easily move away from them. The “slavery” the article cites is not at all a uniform phenomenon but one based on Pygmy sufferance, when the Pygmies leave the forest to go into villages and settlements. The Pygmies join themselves to the Bantu and perform labor services to get various material goods but this is their call and their choice. Even your article notes:

“The ties between the two groups are complex and vary from family to family, village to village. Some Pygmies live exclusively in the forest, rarely visiting Bantu villages.”

And when they attach themselves it is on Bantu territory in villages, not the Pygmy forest strongholds- as the article points out -quote from article: ” are responsible for much of the hunting, fishing and manual labor in jungle villages like Enyellé.”

Furthermore the article shows the Pygmies are engaging Bantu society on their own terms. All are not rushing wholesale to serve the Bantu. They are miking their own choices, as they see fit.

Quote: “But many activists acknowledge that their task is formidable. For one, no one is quite sure what the Pygmies themselves want. Pygmies are an egalitarian people, who organize in small groups without anointing a clear leader. Although interviews with Pygmies show that nearly all want their situation to improve, some voiced reluctance at giving up their old ways – of trading a semi-nomadic jungle lifestyle, for example, for organized work or schooling.

And your own cited story shows Pygmies attacking Bantu: “Recent report Pygmy attacks on Bantu rivals in DR Congo leave 27 dead: UN”

So the picture you paint of long lines of dreary, hapless, helpless Pygmy “slaves” does not reflect actual reality of the situation, and that is proved by your own “supporting” references, which contradict what you are claiming.

.
But it follows that if whites are helpless to keep a slow but sure occupation of their land by non whites , it’s for some reason other than lack of destructive technology (London, which has far more people than Scotland is now half non-European).

^^All quite dubious. White people are not “helpless” against so-called “occupation of their lands.” Just as an example, West African refugee numbers to Europe in recent years matter of fact have been GOING DOWN overall, as UN data shows. Mos of the recent refugee migrants going to Europe are “Caucasoids” from the Middle East.

The main reason white numbers are shrinking is the fault of whites themselves: from their high rates of abortion (white Russia for example kills 2 white babies for each live white birth), to white women deferring marriage and childbearing into later years of less fertility, to high white divorce rates that lessen stability (almost 50 percent of recent white marriages in the US end in divorce), to the embrace of pattens and policies such as “gay” marriage that undermine the traditional family. All these are self-inflicted problems brought upon themselves by white people. Trying to shift the blame to “the culluds” can’t hide the blunt reality of white failures, and simply won’t work. People can easily see through that BS.

So is high cost of living to blame for why Western Europeans are having few children? It must be very expensive to live in metropolitan areas like Paris and London.

The case of the “baby boom” raises questions about the claim. After WW2 both US and European fertility rates actually went UP, even as costs of living also went UP. Fertility rates for Europe only began to fall again in the 1960s, and continue today below replacement level. Maybe the “boom” happened because of the need to replace all the people killed in the war. I mean those “advanced” Nordics in Germany lost between 5.5 and 6.9 million- with their internal “euthanasia” program murdering, er “culling” about 200,000 handicapped, disabled and mentally ill children and adults-per the German gubment’s stats 2003. The allegedly more backward Russian Slavs lost about 24 million people. Let’s not even get into what the Jews, and other Slavs, like Poles lost. Total European losses credible histories show weigh in at about 45 million (Lind 2012). World War I was another similar high body count period.

And while costs of living were going up, it should be kept in mind that incomes and wealth were also going up. Some pin their hopes on Eastern Europe, but that is no beacon of salvation. From high abortion rates, to other things, fertility rates have been dropping there too. As recently as the mid 1960s, Russia was aborting 3 white kids out of every 4 pregnancies. One touted solution is to offer incentives for more births. This has had some effect. The abortion rate has dropped. Russia today only kills 2 white kids for each live white birth. (Davanzo et al 2001. Dire Demographics.)

Baloney. The end of segregation was not “disastrous” for blacks. The end of segregation was overall a boon for them. In SOME cases, such as the quick destruction of some thriving black schools, with black parents given no or few choices, there were negatives, but every credible history of the Civil Rights Movement acknowledges the great relief that the excrescence of Jim Crow was over with. And Thomas Sowell does nt distort the picture as you are. Like every economist, and like most historians of the Civil Rights Movement, everybody realized there were tradeoffs to be made, but the net results were positive. Every social movement or policy has tradeoffs to make.

Sowell acknowledges that in SoME cases problems happened, i.e the good schools destroyed, etc. And that is nothing new. Hell leftist WEB DUbois said there were tradeoffs and that things like the black business districts were pluses. BUT he also noted that if the black businessmen had been allowed to transact freely in the market, including being able to locate a business where you wanted, their profits would have been GREATER, and black employment would have been greater.

Segregation was set up to benefit whites and exploit blacks. The much touted black business districts were fine as far as they went, but they were often handcuffed entities, forbidden to relocate to “white” areas either by law,or by various underhanded “freezeout” methods or via threat of white terrorist violence. Black building contractors are an example. Time and time again there were restrictions on their operations. WHite unions and politicians sandbagged them into less profitable “colored” areas, but when business was slow for whites, or new opportunities open up that could deliver better yields, they quickly pushed into the supposedly “reserved” colored areas, to greedily hog opportunities there as well.

On the labor front the same thing. One research study in Miami notes how practices there mirrored racist white practices nationwide. The black workers were sidetracked into forming their own “independent” unions, but like black businesses, these were truncated entities, forced to the margins, so whites could hog most of the benefits. QUOTE:

“Throughout the first half of the decade, not a single construction-related union admitted black applicants, no matter how highly qualified. This left black craftsmen, who were determined to work as skilled mechanics.. with little recourse but to form their own unions.. Generally these organizations served as segregated auxiliaries of the regular white unions..

These Jim Crow unions had difficulty conducting business. Discriminatory hiring-hall practices, for instance, limited the scope of employment for African-Americans. Invariable, white union bosses enforced “gentlemen’s agreements” restricting black operatives to job sites in “colored” districts while reserving all work in white areas for whites. During the mid-1950s, union managers violated these covenants whenever business in white areas tapered off, however, “furloughing” black artisans so that out-of-work whites could find employment in black neighborhoods..

Workmen in “colored” auxiliaries paid union dues to the main local, but they seldom received voting rights or other privileges.. labor contracts secured for white union members. Furthermore, not one of Miami’s segregated unions allowed its black members to receive apprenticeship training, effectively denying them access to the craft opportunities and vocational instruction that prepared white operatives for career advancement..

“Unions representing carpenters, painters, tilesetters, sheetmetal workers, and nearly all other building tradesmen held firmly to the color bar, refusing to admit qualified black mechanics.. By the same token, union leaders continued to enforce covenants preventing black artisans from working outside “colored” areas. And not infrequently, union officials maintained this arrangement by compelling contractors to refuse jobs to black workmen. In 1955 for example, when one contractor attempted to employ African-American carpenters on a “white” project, he was informed by the AFL business agent that “he’d better lay off if he didn’t want something to happen to his building.”
–Eric Tscheschlol, 1977. “So Goes The Negro”: Race and Labor in Miami, 1940-1963. Florida Historical Quarterly, Summer 1997, 42-67

^Note the use of white threats above to prevent operation of “free markets”- a common pattern in US history despite much glowing talk about “free markets.” below to. On paper it all looks fine- “official” black unions just like the “official” black businesses. Wow everything on paper is so “equal”- look it the culluds have their own union and own storefronts. But what was the reality? The so called “equality” just like the fake”separate but equal” doctrine elsewhere under Jim Crow, was bogus, and every credible historian acknowledges the same, rendering your claim on this score, bogus as well.

.
As for schools, the main problem for blacks was HOW desegregation was implemented, and HOW whites got paid, not the fact that segregation/Jim Crow deserved a well deserved death. In many cases whites were quite malicious- quickly tearing down black schools that were sources of community pride and achievement, and implementing the wholesale firing of experienced black administrators, teachers and coaches. The quick destruction was shaped to enhance white profit, for new federal monies coming down to aid education were shifted to white controlled districts, and could be used for the benefit of whites therein on their side of town. And new school facilities constructed with all that flowing federal money were built mostly with white contractors and labor, including the same racist union labor noted above. This was a second point of white profit.

A third angle was that the firing f the black teachers and coaches open up numerous available slots- quickly filled by whites. A fourth point of white profit concerned the many “magnet” schools that sprung up, many with brand new state of the art facilities- designed to slow “white flight,” But even here white people manipulated the game for their profit. Many of the magnets operated with a quota for whites, and since white numbers were not as large, many black kids were kept languishing on long waiting lists until the white quota had been filled- locked out of the new facilities- which by the way were built with the same white racist union labor. Not only did segregation benefit whites and rig the game, but when DE-segregation finally came whites also rigged that for their own profit was well.

In short much of the problem with desegregation is NOT the FACT of desegregation, but HOW desegregation was implemented.

Maybe but it may also correlate with higher IQ. Liberals tend to have higher IQs per Kanazawa 2010 (Why Liberals and atheists are more intelligent), and you notice the heavier, (on the average -not in every instance) liberal representation in those cities- San Francisco, Boston etc etc. Liberals also tend to support things that trend marriage downward, including more feminism, more homosexuality, and more alternatives to traditional marriage like “gay” marriage.

In addition, liberals on the average, tend to be more educated than conservatives. PEW research data on various issues show this. What this suggests is that liberal areas will more closely follow general demographic trends that occur when people have more education- namely, they tend to have fewer children. A negative relationship between fertility and education has been described consistently in most countries of the world.

There are those who argue that the future belongs to a “cognitive elite” and tout Asian style exam driven meritocracy as the wave of the future. Whatever the advantages touted, there is a downside. The higher IQ “wave of the future” will on average, trend more liberal, marry less (if Steve’s posted data is correct), have fewer children, and be more atheist. Interesting future…

Hmm, actually HBDers should be happy with the segregation. They have been advocating for its return for years, along with increased “racial consciousness” on the part of white people. Well they got it.

Child soldiers aren’t necessarily a measure of desperation. They are sometimes, but other times they are soldiers of choice because they are cost effective, as studies of the issue show. See for example the book- Child Soldiers in the Age of Fractured States by Scott Gates, Simon Reich eds. Africa is often assumed to be the main user of such soldiers, but they have been pressed into service as far away as Columbia, by the FARC guerrillas.

They can be paid very little (if at all), are easier to intimidate into doing their masters’ bidding, and can provide a modicum of military capability in situations or opposition that are not hugely difficult. Defending a town against a lightly armed adult militia for example can work quite well for child soldiers, who can take shelter in buildings and move and fire as needed. Arming them is not a problem as the world is awash in cheap small arms ever since the end of the Cold War. Furthermore their effectiveness is multiplied when operating with adult soldiers alongside them. The first American soldier killed in Afghanistan was a Green Beret, shot by a 14 year old sniper.

It is a sad reflection on the state of humanity that children now serve in 40% of the world’s armed forces, rebel groups and terrorist organizations, and have served on every continent except Antarctica.

When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

It has, but it has also done some of the greatest evil, indeed expanded it on a mass industrial scale. The German thought system was quite rational, and systematically organized to murder tens of millions of innocent people. And it was led by high IQ people- many of the top leaders of the SS for example held doctoral degrees. And Propaganda chief Goebbels earned a PhD from Heidelberg University.

It was not simply a matter of say invading and conquering some place. The SS carried detailed lists of priests, bankers, teachers, even upwardly mobile peasants, etc all marked out to be murdered. And it was effective at times in what the Germans called “decapitating” Polish leadership or people who helped guide the society, though it could not totally crush Polish resistance. Its like the US invading Canada and murdering the minister of every church, and half the school teachers in every school.

Then there was the German “cleansing” of the disabled and handicapped. Again, it was efficiently and intelligently organized- a systematic organization. Note- these were not Jews or Slavs, but fellow white Germans. Initially the killing was directed against “useless” white children, but it soon expanded. The killing zones were shrewdly located in the East, out of general public scrutiny, and the SS umbrella (Main force SS, Order Police and “Totenkopf” concentration camp guard units) kept things “in house.” Hospitals and nursing homes were emptied and the white victims shipped in railroad cars to the eastern killing fields, and then the murders of thousands of disabled white kids and adults proceeded.

It was a thought system that was very rationally organized. Eventually the white Poles also shared the fate of the white Germans- entire towns and districts of handicapped white kids, adults, psychiatric patients, and such like deemed “weak” -met their end, and indeed, the use of vans configured to kill with gas was pioneered early on there. (Rhodes, 2002. Masters of Death: the SS Einsatzgruppen)

Priss Factors says:

I think the issue of ‘racism’ is secondary to the issue of ‘who, whom’. The problem of Nazism and Holocaust was that the victims were Jewish.
Only in part. The main problem was not necessarily that Jews got killed. There are actually several factors in the mix. For one thing you have the scale, the systematic mass murder in an industrial fashion and the extreme cruelty deployed. How do you get around whipping thousands of children to drive them into gas chambers for example? Granted it was an efficient process if you wanted to murder millions of “sub-human” children quickly. Another reason the Holocaust revolts big, over and above its horrific methods, is because it was perpetrated by Germans, hailed in many quarters, even now, as the epitome of European progress and civilization. “Civilized” people like “us” are not “supposed” to do such things the propaganda line went. There goes our claims about how so much more moral and better we are than everyone else. The Nuremberg trials in part could be seen as an attempt to reclaim that moral ground.

.
Suppose Nazis had been friendly toward Jews, protected Jews, and etc. and instead carried out the Holocaust against Bulgarians.
But they almost as well just a bit further east of Bulgaria. They did also extend their “cleansing” work not to Bulgarians, but to other “lesser breeds” of Slavs, in Poland, Russia and elsewhere. Bulgaria escaped because its regime collaborated in part with the “New Order.” And by the way, Bulgaria saved its Jewish population from deportation to concentration camps.

.
Consider the issue of the Armenian genocide or ‘Armenian genocide’. If indeed we are so anti-’racist’ and so sensitive about issues of genocide, how come Israel sides with Turkey? How come Obama won’t use the G-word? How come Jewish-Americans don’t pressure him to go there? How come there is no outrage among white Americans over American administration to call it ‘genocide’
How come conservative white American presidents have ALSO sided with Turkey and refuse to push the genocide issue? How come there is no outrage among white Americans about white conservative presidents likewise refusing to condemn Turkey, but indeed for decades embracing Turkey and shipping it tons of weapons? Why should they only be SELECTIVELY upset at Obama?

.
And consider the issue of Nakba and the oppression of Palestinians. If indeed Jews and white Americans have become so anti-’racist’, why has America, even Liberal America, been so much more pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian
A fair point.

When Israel was bombing Gaza into rubble not long ago, all 100 Senators voted to support Israel. So much for anti-’racism’. And most Americans didn’t care.
Why are the white right wingers, who are against radical antiracists, etc among the staunchest supporters of Israel?

.
And if Americans today are so appalled by movies like BIRTH OF A NATION and THE SEARCHERS for their ‘racism’, how come they are hardly fazed by movies like RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, TAKEN(swarthy Muslims kidnap pure white daughter to be made into sex slave), RED DAWN remake, and others of their kind that play on racial fears?
Rules of Engagement is an obscure movie no one heard about, and having little cultural significance, compared to Birth of A Nation, which was a cultural touchstone. Birth of the Nation was made such by white right wingers- they celebrated it, and made it THEIR rallying cry and instrument of mobilization. Who says white America was “appalled” by it? To the contrary, white America embraced it. It was so popular that it was among the first movies screened at the White House by a white president.

.
how come Jews like Victoria Nuland are mum about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine who are making things tough for Russia? She calls them ‘freedom fighters’.
If she is “mum” about the Neo Nazis- how can she at the same time be calling them “freedom fighters”?

.
How come Jews are totally okay with the notion of the SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND ISRAEL, even though it means US racially and ethnically favors one nation/people over all others?
Who says the US favors Israel over all other nations?. Why are there still thousands of American troops in whiteGermany, and have been for over 50 years? And how come billions of US dollars were spent on the Marshall Plan to reconstruct white Europe if only “those durn Jews” were giting’ all the cash?

.
As the article above noted, blacks became prominent in music and other cool stuff like sports. Whites may have had ambivalent and even hostile feelings toward black achievements in such areas, but they were also dazzled and impressed. As blacks gained more ‘cool’ factor, their plight and problems gained greater attention and sympathy over the problems of other races. Blacks got more sympathy for ‘equality’ due to perceptions of their ‘superiority’, especially in music and sports.

rather dubious. Blacks first became “prominent” in the Western Hemisphere because as slaves they made money for white people. And was not their “cool” factor in sports and entertainment that moved some whites to want to abolish slavery but a vicious system that not only killed thousands in transport, both externally and internally, but that destroyed families, inflicted numerous cruelties and held people in bondage for multiple generations.

Fast forward to the Civil Rights movement and it was not “cool” black sports and entertainment that created progress, but the need to (a) fix the huge inefficiency of the Jim Crow system, (b) reap the profits being blockaded and lost by that inefficiency, (c) meet the legitimate demands of people white and black who fought for democracy in WWII but did not see it at home, (d) ease the embarrassment of white America in the Cold War as both friends and opponents pointed out the absurdities of America’s position and claims, (e) rein in white violence and greed that was an embarrassment even internally and (e) simple justice and decency under the very same US constitution white people kept quoting. “Cool” black singing and dancing had little to do with it.

Jesse Owens may have been a great athlete that increased American prestige with his victories overseas, but at home in numerous venues, he still went to the back of the bus, or would have his head beat in, if he attempted to vote. When a tired President Harry Truman said enough is enough, and referred to a black veteran just home from the front after fighting for America, who had his eyes gouged and blinded by white racists, he was not thinking of any “cool” singing and dancing.

.
And of course, Jews gained immense prestige in science, medicine, arts, music, comedy, business, law, academics, and etc. Though Jews officially went on and on about ‘racial equality’, they themselves proved that they are superior to other groups due to higher intelligence and creativity. Thus, Jews gained immense power, and it was in awe of that power that white Americans became so admiringly and fearfully slavish to Jewish demands.

That Jews have prospered and have taken many leading positions is without doubt. But they are not necessarily “superior” to the others. As background info from Ron Unz shows Jewish performance has lagged behind Asians on some counts, yet Jews continue to be over-represented at elite educational institutions. And it may be that as you say ” white Americans became so admiringly and fearfully slavish to Jewish demands” but the question arises- why are white ring wingers among those doing the most bowing and scraping to the putative “Jewish menace”?

.
Same is true of homo power. Officially, it’s all about ‘equality’, but it’s really about homo power and privilege since Homos are so prominent in elite institutions and industries–and favored by Jewish elites. After all, ‘marriage equality’ only applies to homos, not to incest-sexuals or religious polygamists(who don’t have the power that homos have). So, look not to change in ideology but in the change of who has the power.

OK point taken, but how to explain pure white Nordic Sweden which has been a leader in pushing for such things as “gay” marriage, since the 1970s? Long before the issue gained triumph in the US. Why would these white “role models” be pushing this?

.
———- You keep blaming the Jews for everything, but consider the recent TIME magazine story below on a camp for “transgendered” kids. These mostly white kids are between 6 and 12 and they have them cross-dressing. Look at young white lads below being “gendered” or “getting in touch” with themselves as girls.

The organizer Lindsay Morris does not seem to be a Jew. How do you explain white “role models” pushing such corruption? Jews are not forcing white people into this.

http://time.com/3743987/gender-creative-kids/

White kid being “gendered” or “sensitized” into his female side:
http://millana.tumblr.com/image/55612822737

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5106d439e4b01d5a75f35d79/t/5553c088e4b05be4fb5036c9/1431552139664/?format=1000w

^^Where are the Jewish “elders” behind this? Isn’t this a product of some white people but you are trying to blame the Jews for it? Aren’t you and others trying to deflect internal white corruption on to the Jews? Many who seem quick to blame the Jews for everything negative, run away from the INTERNAL factor of white corruption and decadence.

I meant indulgences in the paternalistic sense of government granting fundamental rights, that democratic theorists hold instead reside in and derive from the people, as if they were merely indulging the peasants at whim.

Gallo -Roman sez:
You deny that any such thing is being promoted, and then immediately proceed to promote it yourself.
Not at all. In fact specific examples of textbooks and their Civil War treatment were given above which debunk your claim. It is amusing, and telling, that you duck those examples.

.
you pretend to believe that people are using “white” in some eternal essentialist sense based on skin color, rather than as shorthand for an identifiable genetic and cultural grouping.
But you yourself subscribe to essentialist thinking. If indeed as you claim, whites are an identifiable genetic grouping by what parameters do you define them? And let’s take culture since you mention it. By what parameters do you define “white culture” if it is part of that identifiable grouping? When Glenn Beck was asked about this some years ago by Katie Couric, he ran away from the question multiple times.

.
anti-whites have a habit of playing dumb and throwing around the straw man of skin color when they get called on their nonsense.
But how can skin color be a mere “strawman” when you yourself intimate that it is an integral part of whites as an “idenitifable” genetic and cultural grouping? You are contradicting yourself. If skin color is a “strawman” on what basis then do “whites” become your “identifiable” grouping? Explain the contradiction in your claim. It seems you are in over your head.

.
Their contributions form part of the genome of indigenous Europeans, who do, as a matter of fact, exist. We know who they are, and we can identify them and distinguish them from people who are not Europeans. We can do this with other groups of humans, too, all over the world..
OK, then you should be able to explain why skin color is a “strawman” as regards your “indigenous” Europeans. And if white is “shorthand for an identifable cultural and genetic grouping,” why are you running away from your own shorthand, by calling it a strawman?

.
Now, French museums, at least those of my experience, tend to be less dumbed-down and lacquered with social-engineering propaganda, than American ones. But in this case some busy little apparatchik had managed to debase standards and inject some ham-handed “no such thing as a native European” propaganda into a corner of an otherwise decent Neandertal exhibit.

Your vigenette is questionable for no credible French museum would advance the claim that- as you say: “Neandertals were the only real Europeans , so no real Europeans existed anymore, and all modern populations in Europe are descended from immigrants from the Middle East.” The very text on the exhibits would contradict what you claim the man said. He would have no incentive or grounds to say such when the very Exhibits he points to say something else, right there in front of everybody. If he were pushing this “sledgehammer” propaganda line as you claim, then he would be a very dumb Frenchman. Maybe in your haste to build YOUR own “HBD correct” strawman, you lost something in the translation.

Harold says:
Embarrassed in front of who? White people.
Yes, and not only white people but others as well. You see white people asserted certain moral and ethical claims, as the foundation of their various cultures, and as justification for certain actions. Well these claims were measured against actual white behavior, and the results embarrassed white Americans. US claims to be a democratic leader for example were measured against its denial of 10% of the population the vote, depending on the state, and era. The results were embarrassing for a country that billed itself as the top democracy of all. So were white Amricans embarrassed in front of other white people, both at home and abroad? Sure.

.
Why would they need to cover their biases? Because they have convinced themselves and others that it is sinful for them to be biased in favour of whites.
It was more a matter of the contradictions and hypocrisy exposed, when various claims were measured against actual white behavior. For example certain guarantees of the US Constitution were found to be meaningless when actual white compliance with them was examined. Certain bold statements regarding “free markets” were found rather thin gruel, again, when measured against actual white behavior. And some of that behavior was quite sinful, which is/was why it had/has to be covered. Consider the murder of black railroad employees by white union thugs so whites could take over their jobs, for example, as discussed by US President Harry Truman below. Truman sought no “altruism” – but to do the right thing- quite different concepts. And he was prepared to pay the price to do the right thing.

.
If whites wanted to promote white hegemony they would just promote white hegemony overtly. There is nothing to stop them, except their own hijacked sense of altruism.
Actually there is plenty of reason to do it covertly, as the Truman example shows above, and many other examples. And World War II exposed the contradictions and hypocrises of white racism as never before. Even the Nazis tried somewhat to cover their tracks and conceal the full extent of their racist actions- from writing up bogus reports to justify the mass murder of Jewish children as “anti-partisan operations”, to the ultimate in cover schemes-the crematoriums and mass graves of the Shoah, designed to make “the Jewish problem” “disappear.”

And you seem to think simply doing what is right is a form of “altruism” and thus something for weaklings. This type of reasoning was integral to Nazi thinking- common decency, and right moral sensibilities were dismissed as something for weaklings, for “soft” people. Time and time again people were persuaded to ignore common moral foundations of decency in the name of “racial purity.” This they did quite overtly. The outcome was systematic mass murder on a scale unseen in human history. Ordinary accounts, cooks, butchers, etc killed and killed zealously and willingly, even when given the chance to opt out- – thus proving they were not “altruistic weaklings.”

And you seem to equate exercising one’s constitutional rights with “altruism.” But such rights are not a favor granted by the government- they are rights that derive FROM the people. Government is no “altruistic” giver of rights- like some king in England handing down indulgences to the peasants. That’s now how the US constitution works. Fair-minded whites who sought to ensure that blacks got a fair chance to exercise their Constitutional rights were not engaging in any “altruistic” exercise. They were helping to remove unjust barriers erected by other whites to hinder or destroy the exercise of those rights. That is no “altruistic giveaway” at all. That is exercising what people are already guaranteed under the Constitution. The only “hijacking” going on is by those who unjustly sandbagged, blockaded and even murdered people to bar them from their rights.

Kat grey says:

I would like to see the features of my offspring in the faces of my future grandchildren not those of an alien race.
Sure, and no one is grudging you that. Be all you can be- and if you want more white kids- more power to you. Assorted Muslims or “immigrants” aren’t roaming the suburbs preventing white people from reproducing. The ball is entirely in the white court. What is preventing more white babies are things like : (a)white disparagement or downgrading of the traditional family- seen in such things as the embrace of homosexuality and “gay” marriage, (b)failure of white women to marry and reproduce enough in early adult years, and (c) huge white rates of abortion that are killing off the millions of cute white babies of the next generation White Russia for example kills 2 white babies for each one born. Why aren’t white “role models” getting their house in order, given the fact of declining white demographics?

.
The media and schools have been poisoning the minds and souls of white youth by making them feel guilty for historical events that happened long before they were born and as such out of the realm of their control and responsibility.

Not really. Actually the media has in many ways made white youth feel very good about themselves. In fact historical events ARE PRECISELY portrayed as SO LONG, LONG AGO, said white youth need not worry about them. This is a primary complaint by many white antiracists. See Edward Bonilla-Silva for example- on the “dismissal tactic” so often employed. Far from cringing in guilt, many of today’s white youth feel absolutely none at all, or dismiss the past as just so much distant, dusty history. White antiracists are constantly lamenting the LACK of so-called “white guilt.” Vast waves of reputed “white guilt” allegedly “crippling” white people, would be startling news to most black people. Wherefore are these weeping legions of white penitents?

.
the sheer magnitude of European contribution to world civilisation and culture has been slowly but surely whittled away in favour of liberal creations such as Black History month, not to mention the plethora of books, films and documentaries which are deliberately falsifying history.

Not so. If anything the situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. If anything publishers go out of their way to protect white sensibilities. Let’s take the US Civil War for example. Until well into the 1970s it has been presented in a distorted version via numerous standard textbooks and curricula- such as the claim that the Civil War had little to do with slavery, and indeed certain powerful right wing ideologues, such as the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) inflicted their own version of “conservatively correct” history on the curriculum for generations. As one article notes elsewhere as to this distortion:

“..for decades, publishers of school textbooks went out of their way not to offend delicate Southern sensibilities in their treatment of the Civil War. One longtime publishing executive told me that when he got into the business in the 1960s, it was common to see two different versions of school history textbooks—one for in the Deep South and one for everywhere else, “and the difference was how you treated the Civil War.” By the mid-twentieth century, even textbooks that did not repeat the UDC party line still tiptoed carefully through the minefield. Take this passage, for example, from a widely used 1943 high school history textbook, which depicts a slave-holding South of stately mansions and benevolent slave owners:

“The confederates . . . believed they were fighting for the democratic principle of freedom to manage their own affairs, just as the thirteen colonies had fought in the Revolutionary War.” The same textbook describes the Ku Klux Klan as a group that “sometimes” resorted to violence in its effort to retake local governments from the hands of incompetent former slaves. A 1965 textbook used in Alabama public schools taught another key point of the lost cause creed—that slavery was a benign institution..

Publishers don’t offer a special “Southern” version of history anymore; these days, they cater to individual state educational standards, though some states—like California and Texas—have a disproportionate national influence on what those standards are. The problem today, the former publishing executive told me, is that “with so many state standards, the books have become in the last ten years longer, blander, more visual, certainly—and more inclusive. There’s so much to cover.” The result is like light beer: better tasting, less filling. With no space to truth-squad a 150-year-old public relations campaign, today’s texts simply strive not to offend; they don’t perpetrate the lost cause myth, but they don’t do much to correct it, either..”

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

.
Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!!

Dubious. Can you cite any SPECIFIC examples in schools where this is so? If anything the reality is quite different. And in what sense are whites “indigenous” to Europe? Are you counting Neanderthals? Are you counting the modern humans that migrated out of Africa and settled in Europe? What? Who? Here’s what some looked like for example:

Are you counting the people who also came from the Middle East to help form the ancient European gene pool in certain eras? At what point is “white” a “true” European category? Why are people in Europe thousands of years before “whites” appeared, NOT indigenous? Where are your specifics? Do you have anything credible to put on the table besides your own shaky personal opinion?

.
This all comes on the back of persistant demands by goverments to disarm all white people around the globe making us vulnerable and helpless in the face of racist attacks such as those which are carried out in Zimbawe and South Africa.

Really now? Last I seen millions of white Americans proudly own and tote around their guns. Why, some even shoot up white elementary schools and movie theaters. And in Europe white gunmen like Anders Breivik shoot up summer camps filled with white youth (body count about 60) in their spare time. White South Africans are among the best armed people per capita in the world. Where exactly are these vast hordes of white people being denied their guns?

UNit742 says:
“Rosa Parks” seamstress? If you believe that you know nothing. She was a trained political agitator sent to a radical academy by her white sponsors and, if you believe her story ( I don’t) her motivation was a personal dislike for the bus driver over an incident from years before but the Montgomery, Alabama ordinance on passenger seating was ridiculous as it was vague and more a matter of a bus drivers discretion than anything else. Remove ‘race’ from the ordinance and replace it with ‘elderly or handicapped’ and it would be entirely legal today as long as it was enforced uniformly

LOL well keep in mind that Rosa Parks WAS a seamstress. Whether she worked for the NAACP or not she still was a seamstress. And most everyone knows Rosa Parks was an NAACP member. It is no secret. It just happened, on that particular day, she decided to make her move. Sure. And the Montgomery matter was more than a simple matter of bus driver discretion. It was a law on the books that was enforced. Most bus drivers did in fact enforce it.

And you are wrong when you say simply remove race and substitute handicapped and it would be OK For one thing, the ordinance required black passengers to give up their seats for white passengers, and that includes the “colored” section when the buses were full. It was all geared towards white convenience and privilege. What law today remotely requires anything similar? Your example doesn’t add up.

.
The real economic disaster for blacks was not segregation it was the end of it. If you had lived in a segregated city in the United States you would have known that blacks were not forced to do without restaurants, hotels or stores because they were denied access to white owned businesses, they simply had their own.

The point was not that blacks had no restaurants, hotels or stores. It was (a) laws that forced them to locate those establishments wherever white people dictated, which was in a constricted range of areas, usually, but not always, less profitable, with the worse facilities and services. However no similar laws forbid white people from entering “colored” areas, or mixed areas with a lot of blacks to reap the profits. See the difference? Which is one reason there was often conflict over service. In some areas there were no similar negro facilities, made so by deliberate white design, to enhance white profit. Even when there was no explicit legal rule, the rigged game of subtler “under the table” restrictions, or atmosphere disadvantaged blacks for generations.

White restaurants and stores were often allowed to operate freely, while black ones were hedged about with a variety of restrictions. Same pattern with white unions. They forbid colored tradesmen from working all but the most menial jobs in certain areas, but then greedily hogged the most lucrative work in the black areas as well. Again, everything was geared for white privilege and profit. That is the harsh reality of American history which many seem intent on denying. But no amount of denial will change the truth, which by the way is very well documented in everything from books to court cases.

But even aside from white manipulation, simple fairness and decency, particularly to the hundreds of thousands of black veterans who fought in WW2 should have affected white consciences. Fortunately it did for SOME, which is one reason a man from Missouri, by no means a flaming liberal, did the right thing in some ways for blacks. He was oft criticized for “moving too slowly” or “moving too fast”, but to his credit, to America’s credit, he did the right thing. Unfortunately the right thing was not in the minds of millions of white Americans. And as a result they paid the price in decades of upheaval , turmoil and embarrassment, with negative fallout even today.

^^The man from Missouri…

As a note aside, in the summer of 1962, during a visit to my mothers hometown, she gave me some money to go the movie theatre. I remember the movie was “How The West Was Won” and I decided I would go and sit in the balcony. The usher stopped me and informed me the balcony was reserved for negro customers! So much for my ‘white privilege’.

Well the thing is, the balcony was the most distant place from the screen, hence they stuck the blacks back there- again the worse spot, while reserving the best for white people, even though the same money was paid in many of these cases. So you did get your white privilege as a youth. On more serious matters, in some towns with similar theaters, if you were black and were not out of town by sunset you risked a beating not by local racists but by white officers of the law. And in most of those Jim Crow towns, if you were black, you could not own a movie theater in certain “reserved” areas, as dictated by white people, for their own benefit. That’s just some of the differences. As a white youth, you had it made in dozens of different ways. Read biographies of black youth who grew up in the Jim Crow south, guys like author Richard Wright and so on. The reality is a lot grimmer.

.
That said, there is now an effort in many Southern cities to preserve what remains of the historical black business districts because they did exist. The bars, nightclubs, hotels, restaurants and even banks! They, like many small white owned businesses, went out of business when segregation ended and the great homogenization of America began. When the Walmarts , McDonalds and other national chains destroyed downtowns all across America.
Sure, and that was the downside, not only for the segregated places, but in general as the Wal-Mart’s and big chains destroyed the old line community facilities. The upside was the removal of long standing and unjust barriers, that had they not been in place, would have given blacks a much fairer, better chance of getting an economic foothold. The fact that it took until 1964 for even minimal basics to be implemented, and years of subsequent litigation and combat after that, just shows what white America was, and in some cases, still is. The removal of segregation barriers was a boon for blacks at all levels, and the continued rise in managerial and technical occupations, numerous other jobs, the opening up of more decent housing etc, the ability to actual open a business in a better area without being sandbagged, etc- all these things were positives. Interestingly, many right wingers rail against the civil rights laws that opened u such things, and would roll back America to where it was circa 1957. Convicted felon and adulterer Dinesh D’souza for example calls for a roll back of the Civil rights Act of 1964, as do an assortment of white libertarians. Beneath the veneer, much of the old racism still lurks. In fact some right wingers do not even bother to hide it anymore.

.
. You just wait and this issue will re-emerge in some community when Muslims attempt to impose segregated seating by sex!
Hopefully this will not happen. The book Peter references above shows how antiracism is being used not to deal with “race” per se, but to further other agendas. Antiracism is simply the cover story. Hence “gay” marriage activists have hijacked solid civil rights arguments to push their agenda. The fanatical/radical Muslims I believe will eventually be brought to heel, but in the meantime, they, and others, will collaborate with both the white left, and the white right to bash and destroy Jews, but also perhaps Christians.

It is sometimes assumed that only the white left abhors Christianity, but the white right has long had a distinct anti-Christian strain. Oh there are “Aryan churches” and such but their message is antithetical to the fundamental Christian message. Christianity is viewed as a weak point, something for weaklings, because it speaks of peace between peoples, all men as sinners needing the redemption, and brotherhood in one faith, etc. All this is anathema to racial purists and agitators, who continually sneer at and rail against such faith. During the civil rights era segregationists were driven to fury at how King gained traction by so often appealing not in the usual political terms, but based on the common faith. King and a white southern preacher named Billy Graham could find common ground even in those tumultuous times. And it was Christian abolitionists who while by no means perfect, played a great part in making the moral case against slavery and they were roundly mocked and attacked by what would be “conservative” elements back in that day. It should not be automatically assumed that Muslims will be the PRIMARY threat in years to come. In the days of upheaval to come, the Right will be well represented contributors.

Joe Webb says:
Our usual answer for why Liberalism is so strong is White Altruism. That is certainly there. Maybe we should consider another genetically driven psychological operation. That would be juvenile dependence on peers, the earlier juvenile dependence on parents having been outgrown.

Actually the reason liberalism is so strong is not so much white altruism, but mostly white SELF-INTEREST. Liberalism would not be in business unless it add value for white people. Liberalism has helped white elf-interest in the following ways:

.
1) Liberalism helped ease white American embarrassment during the Cold War. As credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) calls for less raacism and greater tolerance 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.

.
2) Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen. White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. 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 really 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 plenty of old hatreds remain. This does not mean that positive change has not happened- it has.

.
3) Liberalism helps whites maintain white hegemony and cover their biases using “soft” means, that pacify the cullluds and white dissenters. White America, has become very good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and still pursues self-serving outcomes using what appears 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). If you make things costly enough, minorities who tend on average to be less able to afford these costs decrease- meaning less culluds in certain whiter neighborhoods and schools. All of these are seemingly neutral things, but their end result is to boost white hegemony. If liberalism had failed to produce this outcome, it would be out of business a long time ago.

.
4) Liberalism helps certain segments of white people more than others- but in any event, its still white people overall gaining. Support for black civil rights for example helps white Jews. When restrictive covenants locking certain “undesirable groups” out of certain neighborhoods were struck down or voided for example, Jews benefited because such covenants ALSO locked out Jews, regardless of their affluence. In cases such as US versus Lake Lucerne for example, the covenants in questions banned BOTH Jews and blacks. Naturally more affluent Jews would be able to take advantage of the housing opened up, and the nice thing is, nobody can tell at a glance if you are Jewish or not. You appear white, so that’s all right. Blacks never had that luxury. While many things are presented as if they are geared towards “helping the culluds” – the primary gainers are white.

.
6) Liberalism helps pacify, fob off or co-opt the culluds with token gestures, while the real resources remain in white hands. Hence a few Black History Month activities where Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver and other hoary staples are celebrated, or kids in elementary school make pinatas in celebration of “diversity” are relatively harmless things that keep the culluds relatively quiet and happy- “beads for the natives.” Liberals can say- see we are all not sneering racists or bigots – we are including y’all in the great rainbow or smelting pot or whatever. Its a lot more efficient “management strategy” and less stressful for white people than a continual campaign of black or brown bashing, which provokes fierce push-back and counter-reaction. The “tokenism” strategy has also worked in discrimination conflicts – where court cases can be settled with via small concessions, tokenism and muted consent agreements, that prevents larger scrutiny of the white edifice of cronyism and favoritism.

.
5. Liberalism helps White people get paid. Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have long pointed out such patterns and their works are studded with examples. How do liberals help white people get paid? Integration in the 1960s and 1970s provides some examples. Liberals ensured that white people:

(a) got huge amounts of federal money to ease along better facilities for blacks,
(b) the money could be and was diverted to improve white facilities as well -more so when the old black ones were destroyed,
(c) white people got more jobs as the black teachers and administrators were displaced,
(d) white people gained even more jobs as white bureaucrats- soaking up the fed money being put into social programs,
(e) whites profited from social policy like “affirmative action” that actually made whites its biggest beneficiaries (white women, in particular),
(f) the end of legalized Jim Crow opened up numerous profitable transactions for whites with blacks
(g) whites gained in profitable real estate transactions as older housing stock in formerly “reserved” white communities could be unloaded on “the coloreds”.
(h) white politicians gained politically by freeing up the black vote

.
6) Liberals help white people by saying things are to help the culluds, when in reality, the primary beneficiaries are other white people. While many rail against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they conveniently skip over the fact that it covers white women as well, who numerically have been the biggest beneficiaries. The suppression of discrimination based on gender was a huge boon for whites- helping in everything from equal pay for the same work and hours, more opportunities at all levels of the workforce, to more consistent application of laws. To a smaller extent later things such as AA quotas also have benefited white women particularly in government jobs or jobs covered by government contracts. The primary beneficiaries, are again, white. This strategy has another bonus- it makes white people look extra good. See we have a few things in place to help the culluds, and um, by the way, we are the main beneficiaries. Smile…

PETER SAYS:
“And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century” (Caldwell, 2000)

Quite possibly. I more see antiracism as a proxy cover for other struggles between white elites or white groups. Caldwell has highlighted certain abuses going under the umbrella of “antiracism” but many of those have little to do with “race” per se and more to do with other agendas fought out between white people. For example white supporters of “gay” marriage have hijacked the anti-racism theme to forward their own agenda of disparaging or weakening the traditional family.

And Caldwell himself notes that other agendas such as ANTI-SEMITISM has also used anti-racism to get a propaganda handle for Jew and Israel bashing. Again, this has little to do with any blacks supposedly “swamping” the beaches of the Europe. In addition Caldwell does note serious influences of RACISM present in Europe- epitomized most dramatically in the riots and violent attacks against non-whites by assorted sports hooligans. By in large, Europe has not cast open the gates to allow in a flood of sub-Saharan blacks in the name of racism. To the contrary, said black numbers have been DECLINING for years in the front line Europeans states like Italy. The central problem is Muslims which raise a bunch of stability problems, sharia law conflicts etc. Some of these may be African but the bulk flooding in are Caucasoid types from Syria etc.

I would agree that anti-racism memes have been abused in some cases, more so along the lines of providing cover for other agendas, as white liberals and conservatives battle among themselves. Blacks are oft stalking horses, scapegoats, and strawmen in such battles.

Peter says:
There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally.

Good points in part, but it remains an open question whether antiracism has triumphed as effectively as you suggest. Other strands of data suggest that antiracism may be a veneer, a trendy thing to espouse, like celebrities jetting to Africa to do photo ops for their wildlife project, while people continue business as usual. If its a trendy statement, this could of course be seen as a triumph of sorts, but is it fundamentally where most people are concerned?

.
A world without antiracism could have still brought in laws against discrimination, particularly for the basics of life like housing and employment. But such efforts would have been driven not by ideology but by a pragmatic wish to create a livable society, like modern-day Singapore. In this alternate world, rational people would act rationally.
Not necessarily. It is a fact that even minimal civil rights measures were vigorously opposed by many whites, and prior to the 1950s, many whites had little regard for black sensibilities. Black troops in the 1940s for example sometimes marveled at the treatment of German prisoners of war being transported- the same Germans that had killed, and were killing Americans in North Africa, Italy and France, The Germans were ushered into restaurants to eat and drink alongside white Americans, restaurants that the black troops would have been ejected from had they attempted to get a meal. It took until 1957 for even such trivial things as riding on the bus to be settled- when a seamstress named Rosa Parks finally decided she had had enough. And even then, what ended that episode was a court order- the bus boycotters had been walking a full year.

And ironically such discrimination did yield rational results to your profit, if you were white. Forbidding blacks from working in certain occupations, opening businesses in certain areas, buying homes etc etc was not as irrational as it seemed. It meant, in many cases, more profits for whites. Forbidding black tradesmen from working in all but the most menial jobs for example meant higher wages for whites. Some white railroad unions even went on strike so companies could not hire the best labor- which happened to be black. Inferior schooling meant less competition for whites not only in the present generation, but the next as well.

Forbidding or sidetracking “colored” businesses by various means meant that blacks were hindered or slowed down n developing alternative institutions. White trade unions for example not only locked blacks out of certain areas, but also greedily hogged work in the “colored” areas as well, reducing up and coming black contractors to low scale, lower level work. As scholar Daria ROthmayr notes in her 2013 book about racial cartels, (Reproducing Racism) – discrimination could and did pay white people very well.

.
They would not, for instance, be blindly sticking to antiracist principles—and insisting that everyone else do likewise—in the face of the demographic tsunami now sweeping out of Africa.

Again, it is an open question whether such is the case. An antiracist principle like first-come first-seated on the bus is quite reasonable. Its sad that it took until 1957 for such things to be settled by white America. And there is no real demographic tsunami sweeping out of Africa. The bulk of recent Mediterranean “boat people” are ‘Caucasoids” from the “Middle East” – a product of unrest in Syria and to a lesser extent, the “Arab Spring” fallout, and finally Africa bringing up the rear. In fact credible reports of the issue show that far from any blind antiracist capitulation, Europe has been long pursuing a policy of “benign neglect” towards sub-Saharan refugees, discouraging their arrival, by hoping that sea voyages in rickety, unsafe boats whittle down the numbers that make it. See recent Economist mag article – 2015 on the issue.

The 2014-15 UNHCR UN agency for refugees notes that :

Syri big contributor
“the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), in particular, has increased demand for asylum throughout the region. Germany and Sweden were the most affected, with the two countries receiving more than 50 per cent of Syrian applications. Germany was the recipient of the largest number of asylum applications overall in the region in 2013, followed by France and Sweden. While Syrians now form the second-largest group of applicants, the biggest and still increasing group comprises people from the Russian Federation. Afghans and Serbian asylum-seekers are the third- and fourth-largest groups, respectively. Also among those seeking asylum each year are stateless people. There are currently an estimated 436,000 stateless people in the region..”
–UNHCR GLobal Trends 2014 and UNCHR 2013 Facts and Figures

And then there are those Caucasoid Afghans- gee whatever happened to the American Operation “Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan?:
“In 2013, the country hosting the largest number of refugees remained Pakistan, with 1.6 million refugees. Afghanistan retained the position as the biggest source country, a position it has held for 33 years however, with 2.47 million refugees, Syria is now a close second. On average, one out of every four refugees worldwide is Afghan, with 95% located in Pakistan or Iran.”

Jump to high Caucasoid numbers from Syria and Columbia:
“Escalating conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic displaced an estimated 4.5 million persons in 2013, bringing the total number of IDPs in the country to 6.5 million by year end. With close to 5.4 million internally displaced persons registered by the Government by the end of 2013, Colombia too continued to face a large displacement situation.”

Let’s look at England. The main countries of asylum seekers are again, “Caucasoids,” and the first African country in the list is virtually matched neck and neck by Caucasoid Albania in the number of asylum seekers. Of the top ten countries, only 2 are African. Per UNHCR data:

Pakistan (3,343), Iran (2,417), Sri Lanka (1,808), Syria (1,669), Eritrea (1,377), Albania (1,326), Bangladesh (1,123), Afghanistan (1,040), India (965), Nigeria (915)”
–UNHCR 2014- “The UK and Asylum”

In short, Europe has not been under any antiracist thrall as far as sub-Saharan Africans, and has been doing quite well in turning back non-Caucasoids. For instance, Italy is one of the frontline states, and was able to reduce the number of illegal border crossings between the West African coast and the Canary Islands from almost 32,000 in 2006, to only 250 in 2013. In sum, in terms of refugees, asylum seekers, and even people caught at key sea borders, Europe has hardly seen massive numbers of “sub Saharan blacks” allegedly “swamping” the fatherland.

Like that black fellow said, when you’re walking down the street, you know it when you see it. No need to try so hard to pin it down.

But white people have been trying for centuries to pin it down, and mere “eyeball anthropology” is fundamentally a social construct, not a biological one. Anyone can “see” something and “label” it- sure- that’s a social category construct. Which is why people are still talking about the “Hamitic” race, or “Jewish” races, and some identify dozens of “races.” With a social category dependent on your eyeballs and feelings at the moment, you can have however many “races” your heart desires.

.
If so, there’s probably no need to try to define biological categories in angels-on-a-pinhead fashion. Just forget about biological categories and just use race. Everyone will usually be able to follow what you are talking about.

Actually your suggestion is precisely where many people become confused. If everyone is free to decide on his/her desired categories based on “eyeballin’”, then the standard is pretty subjective. It all depends on what ideological bias you have to make, or if having power- to impose. If you want to liquidate the “Jewish race” for example, then you can make shifting definitions to achieve the desired “racial” result- which is why there was a special SS unit for “racial investigations”. Orphanages were trolled for “potentially Nordic children.” Those unfortunates not deemed to be among “the chosen pure”, where shipped off for extermination or hard labor- a 90% reject rate was the norm. There were even teams of Nazi women that helped do this important “racial screening” work- one ironically named, the “Brown Sisters.” (Douglas 2012) If too much “impure” Polish blood was detected by the Aryan sisterhood, you might be on the next train out.

Note also above where I said how human claimed “races” often don’t meet the standards we use elsewhere for classifying animal sub-species. Modern humans for example easily and frequently interbreed with each other- they are not isolated “sub-species” nor are they artificially isolated like dogs being bred in a kennel. That’s not how the complexity of nature and human populations work. And that’s just one example.

The second point is that ideological bias itself helps make up claimed “race” categories- whether it be the “Hamitic” or “Jewish” races, or the 12-36 races at one time assorted European scholars came up with to explain away African bio-diversity. Some even claimed the mysterious presence of American Indians in Africa to try to explain why narrow noses appear in many peoples. Likewise the “three races” so often invoked are inconsistently defined, with shifting definitions to meet various race ideological purposes. Thus people with dark skin speaking the same language are “black Africans” in one area, but become “dark skinned Caucasoids” a few score kilometers away. A stereotypical type someplace south is claimed to be the only “true negro” but curiously, no “true white” is similarly defined to stand in for all white people, because that would undermine certain other agendas. Such hypocrisy and bogus reasoning is rife, and is part of the reason claimed “racial” categories are rejected by many scientists.

Once the above is exposed, people are quite able to follow, and no longer look to naive “eyeball anthropology” as a scientific standard.

Excellent piece, but what would the author recommend as alternatives to the policies he questions?

Just consider how much time Sailer spent this past week in discussing the idiocies of Chetty–there was no debate or attempt to clarify or distinguish–it was a simple matter of Chetty’s analysis ignoring that the different races have different starting points (means) in RTM.

Somewhat dubious. What would be be the starting point of white Europeans for example? The Paleolithic? Mesolithic? Neolithic? Where and when? Which white people? And what constitutes “the white race” given data like that of Cavalli-Sforza (Genes Peoples Languages 1997) showing Europeans as not a race at all, but if anything, hybrids or intermediate types between African and Asian ranges? And how is a “starting point” defined? You criticize Chetty, but yourself have nothing credible to put on the table as regards your own claims.

.
Everything that’s befuddled the great and beautiful now for decades in this country can be easily explained and rationally considered once biological race differences are accepted as true.
Simplistic pablum. But let’s go with it for a moment. The Civil War certainly befuddled “the great and beautiful.” How come “the great and beautiful” instituted slavery in the first place, and fought so hard to preserve it, to the point of sacrificing hudreds of thousands of lives? During the Cold War American statesman- both Republican and Democrat, lamented that Jim Crow hurt the “great and beautiful” image of the US overseas, including the crucial need to gain Third World allies, economic concessions and military basing rights. Why did the “great and beautiful” inflict such upheaval and embarrassment on itself merely to block a black man from eating his hamburger in peace someplace?

.
If there’s no agreement that (i) race is a biological fact, with (ii) serious, if not insurmountable, policy implications, what’s the point of a debate?
Um, positions in debates are usually (ideally) decided by facts and evidence. There is plenty of both pointing to the conclusion that race is NOT a biological category in the rigorous sense in which we separate sub-species or “races” of higher order mammals. There s plenty pointing to the fact that arbitrary ideological biases inform assorted claims of biological “races”- more than 2 centuries of material documentation actually demonstrating such biases, in fact, in this field. You seem to assume that merely because you desire a particular debating position to be true, that it “has” to be so, and if not, then, you quit saying “there is no point in debating.” Sorry, that’s not how the real world works. You don’t get to announce your desired conclusions in advance and close the books.

.
You’re firmly in the grips of being confronted by a fanatic at this point
Actually no “fanaticism” guides the thousands of scientists who reject simplistic claims about “biological race” in human beings. They are among some of the smartest most competent people on the planet- people like Sarah Tishkoff for example. Why would she be a “fanatic” because she doesn’t follow your desired party line?

* Declare that since American blacks now have their own country, that no further affirmative action, “diversity,” set-asides, double standards, or welfare payments will be available for any blacks who remain within the United States. Hold them to the same legal, social, and academic standards as all other racial groups (yes, including Asians). Declare that the United States and its people will brook no more complaints about slavery or “white privilege.”

This is a great plan, even greater if it were ALSO applied to WHITE people. To wit:
.
“no further affirmative action, “diversity,” set-asides, double standards, or welfare payments will be available for any whites. Hold them to the same legal, social, and academic standards as all other racial groups (yes, including Asians). Declare that the United States and its people will brook no more complaints about white slavery or “reverse discrimination.”
—————————————————————

^^Only problem with this plan above being applied to white America is that its 300 plus years of “WHITE Affirmative action” would be put in jeopardy. Imagine an America where there were no white set-asides, no white double standards, no white welfare payments. Imagine an America from its founding ,where whites were held to the same standard as other groups, under just laws, applied to everyone regardless of race.. Horrors! We all know what such a plan would result in. The end of White America as we know it.. 🙂 No need for a separate black state. The white one would cease to exist.

Kerwick says:
American blacks will never receive the justice that they demand until they cease being American. In other words, justice for blacks in America requires nothing less than the establishment of a sovereign nation-state or country that they can call their own.
Oh to be sure I agree that so say SOME black nationalists and radicals, but most Black Americans have already rejected such notions as impractical. The Black Muslims never got much traction with it, nor did groups such as the New Republic of Afrika. And as for justice in Baltimore, nothing so dramatic as your “modest proposal” of a black state is needed.

.
From the bloodiest war in American history that ended slavery to the passage of Constitutional amendments granting equal rights to freed blacks;
Actually numerous “southern heritage” types never tire of telling people that the Civil War was not about slavery. And numerous civil rights laws were OPPOSED by white people.

.
from sweeping federal legislation forbidding discrimination against blacks to equally robust legislation compelling discrimination in favor of blacks;
There is no “robust” legislation compelling discrimination in favor of blacks. If not can you list this legislation and how it does compel such discrimination?

.
from the explosion of blacks into the upper echelons of professional sports, entertainment, and elsewhere, to the decades-long War on Poverty with its trillions of tax payers’ dollars invested in improving the plight of blacks

Actually the explosion of blacks in the upper echelons in sports came about not by white goodwill, but mostly a desire by white people to make money as they saw massive numbers of talented people, people that could make profits for them, locked out of the game. And the War on Poverty was not set up to benefit black people. To the contrary. Credible histories such as the book “Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society” by John Andrews, show that Johnson specifically crafted the legislation so there would be plenty of white buy-in, and white benefit. Whites received the same health, welfare and educational benefits that blacks got. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not just cover blacks, but white women as well, its biggest numerical beneficiaries.

.
-(white) America’s efforts to right past wrongs and level the playing field for blacks have been at once relentless and comprehensive.
Mayhaps in a distant galaxy far, far away, but who says white America’s efforts have been relentless and comprehensive? To the contrary. They have often been grudging, halting and fragmented. And as for laws passed, white people often OPPOSED them. Most white southern Democrats for example voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

.
In fact, (white) America has even elected a black man—and a black man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, to boot!—to the office of the presidency! Twice! And this black president’s Department of Justice has been run by black Attorneys General.
Good point, and most of white America did not elect the black man because he was black, or as part of any sort of “relentless” compensation. They primarily did so because (a) they wanted a change from Bush and his Iraq war, (b) they did not want the Clintons back, (c) the Republican opposition anchored by such incredible wits as Sarah Palin was weak. Obama did not receive any premium of white votes. he got around the same amount of whites votes as Clinton and other recent white Dem contenders. So much for insinuated “affirmative action” voting.

.
Still, to hear many blacks—and whites too—tell it last week in Baltimore, this social upheaval, this campaign to slay the beast of white racism for which (white) America has been mobilizing for 50 plus years, never really happened. Or if it did happen, it failed.
OK, but a similar argument is made by assorted white “HBD” types. Jared Taylor for example in his book “White Identity” asserts that the 1960s was a failure, and that all the integration gains of the 1960s were failures.

.

If the tireless and immensely ambitious efforts made by (white) America—to say nothing of the sacrifices made by legions of individual white Americans—have failed to relieve blacks of the oppressive burdens that they feel have been imposed upon them, then nothing will.
You keep talking about this immense sacrifice made by white America, but history shows no such sacrifice for black people. After all southern heritage types truly tell us the CW was not about slavery. You also say this sacrifice was to relieve “oppressive burdens they feel has been opposed on them”- but lol, the “oppressive burdens” were those placed precisely on the blacks by white America. As Malcolm X once scornfully said- why pat yourself on the back for finally removing your foot off my neck? And is not simply a matter of “they feel” – the burdens were real, and damaging not just to blacks but to the credibility of white American democracy.

.
This, at any rate, is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from such sights as those that unfolded in Baltimore.
Not at all. “The reasonable conclusions” are merely another restatement of old “HBD” tropes.

.

If America is so much as remotely as exploitative of its black citizens as we’re told, blacks shouldn’t be made to continue to call it home. If America is in effect no different in character than the slave plantation of yesteryear writ large, then this generation of black Americans face the same choice faced by their ancestors: Either remain on the master’s plantation as a slave, or abandon it for the promised land of freedom.
Actually aside from a minority of people spouting such rhetoric, most Black Americans don’t subscribe to the views above. They know America is not the Old South circa 1832. To assert that this is in any way a credible belief of Black Americans is to merely set up a strawman.

.
Justice, then, appears to require that (white) America deploy its awesome resources to erect a country ruled and populated by blacks. Only something on this order is just compensation for the ruthless racist subjugation and exploitation to which (white) America has been subjecting blacks for centuries and up to the present moment. So, why hasn’t anyone called for this?
Actually they have. After the Civil War, black publisher one EP McCabe made a modest proposal that the state of Oklahoma be set aside for the putative black majority state. McCabe’s state was not to be segregated. There was to be no reverse Jim Crow. But blacks were to be the majority of the voters. McCabe in fact signed up several hundred people for the project. White America firmly rejected his call. The Black Muslims made a similar argument as far back as the 1940. White America rejected their call. In the 1960s some black radical groups that made that call were “Cointel-PROed” out of existence for their trouble by white America.

ANd even before all this, in the early 1800s, white America could have set up an independent territory in Florida where the Black Seminoles, ex-slaves who had allied with the Seminole Indians, could have lived free forever. In fact such propositions were floated at the time. White America not only rejected the opportunity, but actually invaded the Black Seminole and Seminole territory to grab its land and resources, re-impose slavery on its black inhabitants, and dispossess its Native American inhabitants.

You ask why hasn’t anyone called for this? There have been plenty of calls. In every instance, white America firmly rejected the opportunity.

.
Why do the most outraged of the enemies of white racism, whether white or black, continue to demand more of the same measures and policies that, to their own admission, fail miserably to deliver the goods? Why do these same folks, black and white, continue to make their peace with a racist society rather than insist upon seceding from it?
You have the case wrong. The outraged folks are not demanding the SAME measures, they are demanding DIFFEENT measures. And in fact some of those measures historically, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, did make peace with a racist American society, the 14th Amendment and much more- a peace that is a credit to American democracy, but one which by the way, was OPPOSED by numerous white people.

.
And we know that for all of the demands that black activists and their followers among the masses are inclined to make, the demand for the founding of an independent black-ruled country is not one that we will ever hear spring from their lips.
SOME of these activists were making similar demands multiple decades ago. In every instance, White America firmly rejected such- not only rhetorically, but with armed force.

Correction- John Darnell- not Richard. And its not Phoenician speakers, but Semitic speakers (who may or may not have been Phoenician). Anyway, he shows how Semitic speakers in Egyptian working with native scribes, simplified formal pictographic Egyptian writing and modified the symbols into an early alphabet using a semi-cursive form commonly used in the Middle Kingdom. See book “Language Visible,” by David Sacks. These Semitic speakers had been drawn into the larger orbit of the Egyptians state which had links and influence from Mesopotamia to the Sudan. Once there, they made modifications based on what they learned, adjusted, tweaked and kept going. Centuries later what they developed would in turn be used by others. The Scots were not as advanced as the British hegemons when the two peoples first met significantly, but they likewise took what they learned and used it to effect throughout the larger orbit of the British empire. Obviously the comparison is not exact, but that’s the basic idea- a smaller group drawn into a larger orbit, can prosper there.

The Scots prospered as part of their connection with a larger world, a bigger framework- and that bigger framework was England, and its empire. If the Scots had kept to themselves, speaking mostly Scottish, and rejecting any significant intercourse or engagement with England, they would not have had the wide influence they do today. Not all the engagement was voluntary of course. The English overlords wreaked havoc in some places and created many injustices. But overall, on the balance, the Scots gained most from the exchange, one-sided as it has been at times, and they even surpassed their supposed English betters on some counts.

This is not an unusual historical situation. Isolated tribal peoples, or different peoples involved in trade exchanges, drawn into the orbit of a greater hegemon, can prosper, or gain new ideas and techniques that cause them to progress. In Ancient Egypt according to Yale Egyptologist RIchard Darnell, Phoenician speaking people learned how the Egyptians did they writing, and over time adapted the idea of having symbols stand for language sounds into their own languages, and simplified the process. The result was the alphabet used by most of today’s Europeans.

Interesting link. The fact that an environmental factor (hookworm eradication) had such positive effects, is a good example of a broad-based social private/public partnership policy that can help people. But heaven forbid that government should be involved in anything so positive- anathema to certain “no government needed” purists. As your link and others show, hookworm was predominantly a poor white illness. Various medical doctors as well as culture commentators considered it a marker of backward white degeneracy in the south, including the atrocious sanitation practices of many white southerners. Eventually growing alarm at the degeneracy helped spark the Rockefeller Foundations eradication project. Interesting that a “liberal” entity would be at the forefront in this, as opposed to some would-be defenders of tradition and non-intervention, who actually opposed measures to help poor white people.

SFG says:
t’s possible Germans may have been subjected to selective pressure during the formation of the country. And genetics isn’t *everything*. It could be Germans are genetically average or above-average Europeans who developed a culture that predisposed them to success.

here’s where you have to be careful of these catch-all, all purpose “genetic” speculations put forward by people. “Selection” in what sense and how would the selection translate into genetic changes relevant to German economic and cultural patterns versus those of the Irish or Celtic peoples? What specific haplogroups or gene variants for example make Germans more efficient mass killers compared to the more unfocused, individualistic Irish killing patterns? When pressed for specifics, like what specific genetic elements or gene variants are keyed to this and that specific European people in comparison with this other set of Europeans, many claimants quickly melt away, or offer mere personal opinion and ad hoc speculation. What specific genes made Italian city states more advanced in commerce for centuries than German or English cities? What haplogroups? What gene markers- is there a “German gene” or “Aryan” variant? Too often, assorted proponents rarely have anything credible to put on the table.

.
Hibernian says:
You yourself have alluded to studies (by Dr. Sowell and unnamed others), but you haven’t posted any. I don’t have any studies to post, and I don’t have the time or inclination to find them. There’s a middle ground between being “unusually abstemious, pacifistic, and entrepreneurial” and being a bunch of drunken violent lazy hooligans. Some people are teetotalers, others drink a little, and others drink a lot. Some people are pacifists, some defend themselves but don’t look for trouble, and others continually look for trouble.

Agreed. there is a middle ground, but unfortunately, a number of ideologues can’t gasp such subtleties, when it comes to the complex phenomena that is human culture and history. For them, only simplistic answers will do.. Hence back in earlier US history assorted nativists railed indiscriminately against all Irish as bringers of violence, disease and corruption to the cities, and called for a ban on their immigration.

Sowell’s point is to demonstrate that the actual record of history- hard data- as opposed to sweeping speculation and simplistic explanations, offers the best guide to the complexity of human groups, and debunks many notions about them. So for example, sweeping claims about virtuous free-market people who have meritoriously made it on their own without any help from dastardly government spending fall flat when actually data is examined as opposed to merely trading in feel-good propaganda. As regards the Irish for example, fully one third of all first, second and third generation Irish were on government payrolls well into various decades of the 20th century. Irish income did not reach average American levels until about the 1950s.

.
As for entrepreneurship, I gave some examples. Also the Kennedys began in the liquor trade in the late 19th century. Google “Auction Lunch Room” or “Auction Lunch Rooms,” I forget which. This was a saloon in San Francisco where one of the (Irish Catholic) silver kings overheard boasting from drunken prospectors (Surely they were drunken IRISH prospectors!) and bought into certain mines on this basis.

Sure, and Sowell means no ill when he notes, as others do, including Irish politician and scholar Daniel Monyihan, that the Irish were not as entrepreneurial as say the Germans or Italians. Interestingly enough though, Sowell shows that the businesses in which the Irish most advanced parlayed various cultural attributes – such as “human touch” businesses- of which saloons and drinking establishments like you mention above would be one example. Another would be the Irish genius for political organization, epitomized in the many political machines that dominated the urban landscape of large American cities, where the Irish settled.

Manipulation of religious organization is another area and Sowell notes that German and Irish Catholics clashed frequently, with the Germans resenting the Irish for being what they perceived as backward and uneducated.

“German Catholics often found themselves in conflict with Irish Catholics who increasingly dominated the American hierarchy. …The Germans however consider themselves more educated than the Irish and resented having their parish is this run by ‘Irish ignoramuses.’ Ultimately the Pope himself had to intervene to restore peace.”
–Sowell , Ethnic America, 62

Does the Great American Intellectual, Thomas Sowell (PBOH) have an explanation?

Sowell does not address today’s Ireland, but he does show the phenomenon of people improving their lot over time, and he specifically shows how, over time, with better economic conditions, including public sector opportunities and expansions, the Irish did improve. That general principle applies today, and it can be seen that the “Irish miracle” is something of relatively recent provenance. As Steve notes Ireland has been the beneficiary of large amounts of outside investment. But that is only private investment. Also of note is are the massive subsidies and transfer payments that came with Irish membership in the EU, a phenomenon numerous studies note. The two work together for the private investment was also heavily boosted by EU membership. As one study says:

“.. Ireland has not only benefited from EU membership in terms of trade and FDI, but has also received considerable subsidies since joining in 1973, particularly after 1988 in preparation for the single market (se figure 3,3). The funds have been spent on infrastructure (including roads, railways, airports and telecommunications), on human capital (particularly training programmes) and on encouraging local initiatives… In particular the timing of the funds was particularly beneficial; indeed, for Sweeney, they were comparable to a Keynesian boost. The EU subsidies helped shield Ireland from the effects of the world recession in the early 1990s and also came during a period od fiscal retrenchment, Without them, Ireland might not have been able to invest in infrastructure, industry and education at this time, in turn, placing int in a less favourable position to attract foreign investment… Hence Ireland’s economic growth in the 1990s can in part be attributed to a number of exogenous processes: most notably the rise n international trade, incresed flows of FDI and increasing European integration.”
–Nicola Jo-Anne Smith. 2005. Showcasing Globalisation?: The Political Economy of the Irish Republic

.
It should be noted by the way, that not only Sowell but other scholars show a high level of Irish dependence on government. For example, in the United States fully one third of all Irish first, second and third generation Irish Americans in various eras have been on the public payroll, (Bayor and Meagher 1996) and on a national scale, Ireland has historically had high levels of government spending- in fact economists in the 1980s considered it to be out of control.

The recency of the improvement pattern for Ireland can be seen by looking back a few decades. Ireland is now considered one of the world’s open economies, whereas it was one of the more protected and isolated in Europe prior to the 1960s, complete with high tariffs and other protectionist policies. The gradual loosening of this protectionism, pursued through the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement of 1965 and subsequent EEC openings, slowly took hold. But even then the Irish economy remained miserable into the 1980s. As another study notes:

“The economic and social environment in 1980s Ireland was miserable. Unemploymentt peaked above 17% in 1985 and many foreign mumtinationals were leaving Ireland. Joe Lee’s assessment of the country in the late 1980s makes for depressingreading: ‘no other European country.. has recorded so slow a rate of growth of national income in the twentieth century.’ Some of the resons Lee puts forward for how ‘Ireland achieved and sustained this level of relative retardation’… compared to other small European statess, Ireland had few entrepreneurs and skilled managers and was poorly equipped to think its way out of under-development..”
—-Michael Joseph O’Sullivan, 2006. Ireland and the Global Question

O’Sullivan also notes several weak spots still remain.:

“A recent ECD survey examined a sample of over 250,000 students in 41 countries placed Irish students.. in 17th place in terms of maths ability and 13th in the science rankings, though Ireland did rank 6th in terms of reading ability. In maths rankings, Ireland fell behind the likes of Finland South Korea, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Denmark and Austria. The poor showing at secondary level will have implications for the number of students applying for science, medicine and maths-based third-level courses…”

Despite these lags, improvements in Irish education have attracted the essential outside investment that Steve notes – again Sowell’s model of improvements over time that take advantage of help from wherever it comes, keyed to those slow improvements:

“If for most of the twentieth century the Irish population was reasonably well educated, then it was also under-employed. Unemployment was persistently high and the notion of ‘brain drain’ was an accepted part of Irish life. In fact, it was only the arrival of foreign investment capital in Ireland that permitted the harnessing if human capital in a wide scale… the drive to attract foreign investment into Ireland came as a result of a failure to foster domestic industry and the country’s inherent weakness following decades of protectionism.”
–O’Sullivan 2006

jhobelman says:
Southern whites are somewhat below Northern whites in average IQ but your statement that they are one standard deviation below is complete total and utter nonsense.
Some studies (Bond 1958, et al) report southern whites at least that much below northern whites, depending on the state measured. Keep in mind that this data was prior to the 1950s, before the extensive regional mixing and “sunbelt migration” brought about by the postwar era. Trying to tease out what would be a reasonably “authentic” southern white these days is an a lot harder given white American postwar mobility. It was in the 1950s when white migration TO the South began to exceed for the first time white migration from the South. About 2.6 million whites moved to the South from 1975 to 1978, far dwarfing those who were leaving. This new, outside white blood most likely caused southern white IQs to rise. See Bond 1958, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The Journal of Negro Education, 27.

.

Kat Grey says:
That statement falls flat on its arse when one peruses the lengthy list of Scottish inventors and Ulster Scots industry. In the 19th century Belfast was a powerhouse of manufactory and production. The legendary Titanic was built at Harland & Wolff shipyard
Sowell was not referring to Scottish inventors in Scotland, or Ulster Scots in Belfast. These are actually among the progressive peoples and parts of the UK. He was referring to the whites from the more backward English borderlands who settled the American south. Quote: “Touchy pride, vanity, and boastful self-dramatization were also part of this redneck culture among people from regions of Britain where the civilization was the least developed.”

.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne says:
Amazing how the Scots-Irish could hold on to those bad habits for generations, yet blacks brought no bad habits with them to the Americas. Sorry, got to call bullshit on that one!
Actually if you read Sowell’s book he notes that cultural traits can be good or bad depending on the environment and time in which they are deployed. He specifically notes that the Scotch -Irish pattern of brawling violence, and hard fighting against all comers, while fine for the hardscrabble rough and tumble English borderlands, or even rough and tumble US frontier venues frequented by the Scotch-Irish pioneers and mountain-men, was counterproductive in the modern capitalist regime of commerce and industry that tamed both frontiers. Hence more efficient, orderly, acculturated Germans surpassed them on several measures. Same with blacks. The hard-bitten stone-walling or deceptive resistance that was a survival mechanism under slavery was counterproductive in the modern capitalist regime after slavery.

Groups that start out the same can diverge over time due to selective pressures. Do you think Scandinavians have the same propensity for violence they had during Viking times?

Sure groups can change over time, and the Scandinavians have shown good patterns, but it may nothing to do with any “genetics” at all as so much simplistic reasoning in some places asserts. There is nothing “genetic” about a small sub-section of raiders and pirates like the Vikes, changing from a raiding way of life, to a less violent, more settled pattern when (a) victim peoples developed stronger defenses and rulers, (b) adverse changing climates contributed to withdrawal of significant Vike settlements in other places like Greenland and Iceland, (c) some raiders realized that it would be more profitable to settle down and extract or co-opt resources from cowed populations, rather than to raid continually. Aside from these examples there are also other factors too that contributed to the outcomes.

The “Viking Age” is held by most scholars to be around 300-400 years and simplistic claims of sweeping “genetic changes” that either caused the Vikes to emerge in the first place, or that caused their decline afterward, are dubious. What DNA haplogroups changed in 300-400 years example that make for a “kinder, gentler” Scandinavian? And why didn’t this reputed “kinder, gentler “gene selection” make for less aggressive Swedes and Danes during their great period of European war-fighting and hegemonic conquest? Or their colonization and hegemony over other peoples in places like England? What specifically are these mysterious genes being “selected” for that would cause this- either the high aggression or the lower aggression? Proponents are long on sweeping assertions, but short on specific, concrete data.

Maybe Tacitus was exaggerating to shame some Romans, but as noted above he had a lot of negatives to say about the Germans as well, such as their violence and lack of farming productivity. How this changed as the centuries went on Sowell notes, and the people themselves underwent no “genetic selection” for better, less violent farmers. Tacitus rightly lauds them on the point of married morality, which I think is a plus, but does not mention the other side of the coin. Numerous modern writers for example have shown that women held relatively high monetary value via the bride price, and thus were carefully protected. A virgin bride brought a much higher price or dowry than a “fallen woman” so there was a property interest in apparent virginity, and the laws permitted male relatives to exact physical retribution on “midnight poppers”of the Rhine-maiden booty.

However the laws are conspicuously silent on homosexual relationships, and these were common in ancient Germania. Says one scholar of the subject:

“Like other people in the ancient world, the Germanic tribes were known for their homosexual customs which were documented in accounts of Roman writers. The first-century AD Roman rhetorician and teacher Quintilian cited the Germans’ high regard for homosexual love in one of his oratorical works. In the late 4th century, Ammiannus Marcellinus wrote of homosexual customs among the Taifali, a Germanic tribe related to the Goths, which involved formal homosexual relationships between warriors and young men undergoing initiating and military training. Clovis, king of the Salian branch of the Franks in the late 5th century, acknowledged his own homosexual relationships in his earlier life at the time of his baptism. The sixth-century historian Procopius described homosexual relationships very similar to the homosexual initiation of the Taifali among warriors and young initiates of one of the Frankish tribes, the Heruli…

An incident related by Procopius that occurred during the time of the Vandals’ capture of Rome is also highly revealing of the Germanic attitude to male homosexuality.. the Vandals sent 300 of their sexually attractive young men as homosexual bait, offering them as ‘house slaves; for Roman patricians who falling for the trick, took them into their houses, after which the young men murdered their hosts..

..among early Scandinavian warriors sexual relationships between warrior peers called blood brothers, ere formalized with a “blood brothers” ritual, and such blood brother relationships were a significant enough element of early Norse society that they wee enshrined in one of the Sagas. Archeological evidence indicates that such peer relationships may have dated back as far as 2000 B.C., to the time of the arrival of the first Indo-Europeans in Northern Europe.”

“Because of the high monetary value attached to a woman [under Germanic law] the most prominent sexual crime was adultery- adultery of the wife, not the husband… In common with Roman attitudes, the men were free to engage in whatever sexual activity they wished before or outside marriage as long as they didn’t violate another man’s wife or virgin daughters. Conspicuous by their absence in the German tribal laws are laws of any kind punishing homosexual acts.”

–James Neill, 2008. The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies

Interesting video links, and no doubt the Germans deserve credit for some good things. The link too also show a commonalities among all peoples that cut across stereotyped claims. And indeed the Germans would be a mixed bag- just like other people, though among many right wingers, other people aren’t allowed much agency, complexity, or human commonality- they are a stereotyped enemy or alien “Other” to be despised. Something like this has emerged in today’s neo-Nordicism, epitomized in those who make a fetish of the so-called “Hajnal line” where people like Italians, or Slavs, or even the more distant Celts, are lesser sub-species of humanity, compared to allegedly “mo betta stocks” within the confines of the “line.” Using Charles Murray’s labeling for the stereotyped “racial model”: the “better people” would be a Germanic type “Belmont,” and the rest like those duskier Italians- denizens of “Fishtown.”

Claims about the Germanic or “Teutonic character” have been floating round for a while. Ancient Roman writer Tacitus lauded some points, but also paints a picture of Germans as excessively lazy and violent, and unproductive:

” When not engaged in warfare, they spend some little time in hunting, but more in idling, abandoned to sleep and gluttony. All the heroes and grim warriors dawdle their time away, while the care of house, hearth and fields is left to the women, old men and weaklings of the family. The warriors themselves lose their edge. They are so strangely inconsistent. They love indolence, but they hate peace.

.. As soon as they rise from their sleep, which is often protracted well into the day, they wash in water that is usually warm; can one wonder, where winter holds such sway? After washing, they breakfast; each has his special place and his special table. Then they sally forth in arms to business or, as often as not, to banquets. Drinking bouts, lasting a day and night, are not considered in any way disgraceful. Such quarrels as inevitably arise over the cups are seldom settled by mere hard words, more often by blows and wounds.

..The practice of usury and compound interest is simply unknown. Ignorance here is a surer defence than any ban.. They change their plough-lands yearly, and still there is ground to spare. The fact is that their soil is fertile and plentiful, but they refuse to give it the labour it deserves. They plant no orchards, fence off no meadows, water no gardens; the only levy on the earth is the corn crop.

^Thomas Sowell in his books notes that Britons were oft described in similar terms by the Romans, and that over time, peoples change. Yesterday’s violent, lazy slackers, are today’s efficient, productive, submissive citizens, and the “barbarians” scoffed at by the Romans as “nauseating stink”, humbled the “grandeur that was Rome. He dismisses simplistic “genetic” explanations, noting southern Europeans like Romans and northerners like Germans are very much related, and cites other things much more relevant- from conquest, to geography.

Modern German writers take up the “Teutonic character” theme with its reputed need for orderliness, territoriality, conformism and so on a little more light-heartedly. Germans are “gnome lovers” says one book on today’s modern Germans, from a German writer:

“We – Everything One Should Know About Germans, by Antje Steinhäuser.

“The book confirms a yearning for coziness, a petit-bourgeois attitude, a focus on reliability and a need for rules,” Mrs Steinhäuser said in an interview. “And while there are some very funny people here, I wouldn’t say humour is the prime characteristic of the Germans…

They epitomise a narrow-minded, comfort-orientated and apolitical vein of the middle class. “There is no denying that we’re a nation of gnome lovers. It is part of our mentality and this parochialism still exists,” Mrs Steinhäuser said. “The garden gnome stands for coziness but also for a desire to segregate oneself and mark one’s territory in this densely populated country. Psychologically, the gnome is like a little sentry.

Schadenfreude, for example, succinctly conveys the pleasure one derives from the misfortune of others. “Many people say ‘trust the nasty Germans to come up with that word’,” Mrs Steinhäuser said.”

“Books published since 2006 include We Germans – Why Others Can Like Us and The Best About Germany – 250 Reasons to Love Our Country. “Germans feel increasingly free to think about what it means to be German without being seen as too nationalistic or too in love with themselves, and without other nations having to be alarmed,” Mrs Steinhäuser said. “We have spent a lot of time coming to terms with the historical burden our ancestors left us.”
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/germanys-character-now-an-open-book

Well these things are relative. Belgium is supposed to have its hands clean in comparison to those awful Germans. But Leopold according to credible historians did rack up an impressive body count and that’s according to the statistics kept by his own bureaucrats. As the best known popular study says:

“An official Belgian government commission in 1919 estimated that from the time Stanley began laying the foundation of Leopold’s state, the population of the territory had “been reduced by half.” Major Charles C. Libbrechts, a top executive of the Congo state administration for most of its existence, arrived at the same estimate in 1920. The most authoritative judgment comes from Jan Vansina, professor emeritus of history and anthropology at the University of Wisconsin and perhaps the greatest living ethnographer at the University of Wisconsin and perhaps the greatest living ethnographer of the Congo basin peoples. He bases his calculation on ‘innumerable local sources from different areas: priests noticing their flocks shrinking, oral traditions, genealogies, and much more.; Hi estimate is the same: between 1880 and 1920, the population of the Congo was cit “by at least a half.”..

In 1924 the population was reckoned at ten million, a figure confirmed by later counts. This would mean, according to the estimates, that during the Leopold period and its immediate aftermath, the population of the territory dropped by approximately ten million people.

Burned villages, starved hostages, terrified refuges, dying in swamps, orders for ‘extermination’ – even in crass, purely monetary terms, aren’t these inefficient means of doing business? massacring huge numbers of people my frighten the survivors into gathering rubber, but doesn’t it destroy the labor force? Indeed it does. Belgian administrators ordered the census in 1924 because they were deeply concerned about a shortage of available workers. ‘We run the risk of someday seeing our native population collapse and disappear,’ fretfully declared the permanent committee of the National Colonial Congress of Belgium that year. ‘So that we will find ourselves confronted with a kind of desert.’

–Adam Hochschild (1999) King Leopold’s Ghost pg. 233

This is the same argument Sowell makes in his Black rednecks, White liberals and in earlier books. The white south is more backward than the white north. Indeed some IQ tests show white Southerners almost one standard deviation below the northerners, with some blacks from various northern states, outperforming southern whites from certain states. (Sowell 1981, 1978 1983, Montagu 1972)

As Sowell notes re white Southern culture:

” What the [white] rednecks or crackers brought with them across the ocean was a whole constellation of attitudes, values, and behavior patterns that might have made sense in the world in which they had lived for centuries, but which would prove to be counterproductive in the world to which they were going — and counterproductive to the blacks who would live in their midst for centuries before emerging into freedom and migrating to the great urban centers of the United States, taking with them similar values.

The cultural values and social patterns prevalent among Southern whites included an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, reckless searches for excitement, a lively music and dance, and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery… Touchy pride, vanity, and boastful self-dramatization were also part of this redneck culture among people from regions of Britain where the civilization was the least developed.”

BLS says:

So, here are the observations I noticed over the years. The earliest Scotch-Irish and British (Anglo) settlers had a run of finding land and starting farms in the hill country. Of course that land to this day isn’t much for farming but better for livestock and remains relatively economically challenged. When the Germans came they found some of the best land, even though they were beaten to it by two decades.

Not necessarily. The actual case may be the opposite. As scholar Thomas Sowell shows (1981, 1983) the Germans actually came along after the Scotch-Irish had the pick of the BEST land. The Germans typically took over less than prime land and worked harder and more thoroughly- laboriously pulling up stumps for example, left behind by the Scotch Irish, and building more barns for livestock rather leave them to the elements- more so than the Scotch-Irish who were sloppier farmers. Germans did not find the best land. They put in greater effort on “second string” land and made it more productive.

And curiously, the Germans in the US, tended to be more tolerant people- not flaming liberals of their era- far from it- but generally willing to live and let live other people in peace, unlike the white Irish who were always picking fights among themselves and with others. And though German individuals and communities had some diversity of opinion, German Americans overall, on average, were more supportive of the abolition of slavery than the Irish.

.
Essentially what I noticed and what is a long murmured joke is that Germans were successful wherever they went and made the area more successful based on the percentage of German majority. Anglo areas struggled and continue to, and both groups are just miles apart.

Fair enough but then how does genetics explain this? Both groups are white Europeans related closely genetically.

.
My hypothesis has been that Germanness matters.
Sure, a fair minded observer would say you have a point. They can be contrasted against the Scotch-Irish, originating in the more volatile, more violent and disruptive England-Scot-Wales border lands were a large proportion of settlers in the American South, and transplanted that disreputable, lower-end “redneck” culture there and elsewhere, with dire results at certain times and places. They can also be contrasted also against the equally if not more violent and poverty-culture Catholic white Irish. (Sowell 2005- Black Rednecks, White Liberals).

.
Ultimately, I suggest that rural development and economic development dollars spent are many times wasted simply because of the ethnic background of the people.. All over Indiana places where German ancestry is a higher percentage of the population the better the money is spent.

Maybe true in part if as to a specific farming project, but keep in mind that rural and economic development assistance dollars ALSO benefited Germans as well. Rural electrification for example, a great boon, benefited German farmers as well as non German. Econ development dollars are often dollars spent on public goods benefiting large areas, and economies of scale become a necessity. A road running from Germantown into Irish town benefits both areas, and it would be inefficient to stop the road after 6 miles because you were on the outskirts of Germantown.

Likewise electrification- sometimes it can only pay for itself by scale, millions of subscribers over a large area sharing the costs. Rerouting all power lines around the Italian part of town for example fails to take advantage of economies of scale. With something like electricity even the poor will pay the price for it, using a larger portion of their income- but they will pay the price. In fact dense urban areas where there are more people per square mile, even if poorer, can yield more profits that mo betta, more sparsely settled Germanic areas. A hard-nosed utility manager doing the math may well be seeing more profits where there were LESS Germans, compared to say more densely packed in Irish, for a given area. In such a case those idyllic German neighborhoods may not be so hot after all.

.
Dubois continues success with very few move ins but with people cultivated from long family ties. Kids go to college but many come back unlike other dying rural areas where the smart kids move to Indianapolis or out of state.

Dubois sounds like a nice place and all, but doesn’t seen particularly profitable. Packed tenements filled with poor Jews, or Poles in NYC might actually not only be more profitable per square foot or square mile of area, but would eventually post higher incomes and education levels than bucolic Dubois. Nice blond haired kids might be moving back in and all, and that makes for a nice, slower paced suburban/rural “Leave It To Beaver” feel and such, but you notice the place ain’t pace-setting Silicon Valley by any means, or bustling, hustling New York where a lot more money is to be made, and a lot more diverse cultural amenities and selections are at hand.

There is also another side to “Germanness” that you don’t mention- which some German writers themselves have criticized. The much commented upon “Teutonic character” with its supposed conformity, robotism, and penchant for the systematic cruelty. Unfair some say. But why should Germans get a pure halo and be exempt from scrutiny when other people are so casually stereotyped? If other groups are to be stereotyped for their supposed “proclivities” then the Germans too, as northern European “role models”, must take their place in the dock for their “proclivities” . Christopher Browning’s detailed study “Ordinary Men” shows the conformist side and the banal cruelty of the “Teuton” as ordinary cooks, bakers and accountants in the SS police battalions, killed tens of thousands willingly, even zealously, even when they could opt out without penalty. Some even invited their wives and girlfriends to witness the good cleansing work.

Some might argue that the rebellious, flashy, wild, fiercely independent “Irish model” that settled the south (Scotch-Irish version), and the northern cities (Catholic version) is preferable to conformist, “European Teuton” Germanic types. The identification of the Scotch-Irish with the rugged frontiersman has struck a chord in popular white culture over and above the “Teuton.” Re “German character” see Delbruck et al below…

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/browse?type=lcsubc&key=National%20characteristics%2C%20German&c=x