The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Caplan Contra Citizenism, Again
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Media darling Bryan Caplan denounces pariah Steve Sailer again:

The Universal Citizenist

Bryan Caplan

In the past, I’ve argued that Steve Sailer’s citizenism is a moral travesty. Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups. But recently, he presented what sounds like a universal argument for citizenism:

“We live in a world of about 200 countries, a world that for all its flaws, is relatively peaceful and prosperous. And the basis of that order has been a set of assumptions about what the purpose of government is that both Caplan and myself call citizenism… The difference between Caplan and me is merely that he wants to take this order based on citizenism and blow it up, while I don’t.”

Charitably interpreted, Sailer’s saying something like: “Citizenism isn’t just great for us; it’s great for mankind. Vigorous pursuit of national self-interest leads to great global outcomes.” An interesting claim, but is there any reason to believe it? Steve’s only argument seems to be that (a) most countries on earth rest on citizenist principles, and (b) the modern world is, by historical standards, awesome.

This argument is painfully weak. Citizenism is hardly a recent ideological development. Appeals to the moral ideal of national self-interest have been around for as long as the nation-state itself. Recall Cicero’s maxim, “Let the good of the people be the supreme law” (“Salus populi suprema lex esto”). What’s novel about the modern world is precisely that aggressive pursuit of national self-interest is finally widely recognized as a vice, not virtue. Putin’s policies are bad for Russians, but we condemn them primarily because they’re bad for Ukrainians.

You could object, “Due to comparative advantage and blowback, bellicose nationalism is actually contrary to national self-interest. The best way for countries to help their own people is the path of trade and peace.” A fair point, but not one that citizenists have ever emphasized.

Uh, you know, I coined the critique that the Grand Strategy of the Bush Administration was: “Invade the world, invite the world.” It’s not a coincidence that in the 21st Century, a bellicose foreign policy and a pro-mass immigration domestic policy are so highly correlated. Over the years, I put immensely more effort than Caplan did into critiquing the Bush Administration’s Iraq Attaq. (Caplan, as befits his lazy extremist intellectual tendencies, claims to be a pacifist.)

Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition.

Read the whole thing there. Bryan’s links to previous posts of his are particularly (unintentionally) funny.

 
Hide 113 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Not anything that I haven’t stated before, but might I once again offer up a middle of the road philosophy in contrast to the philosophical worldview of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan, one which I refer to as cognitive elitism.

    I’ve always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group’s bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    @Yan Shen: "Your middle of the road. . . philosophical worldview . . . cognitive elitism . . ." will veer off the cliff. From your name, I will assume you are an Asian (sometimes people adopt names that don't match their racial groups). You argue that smart people have more in common with one another than with the bottom half of their respective group's bell curve. Wrong. As a white, I would not want my children to marry an Asian or a black no matter how smart. People form 3 racial groups in the world. White, Asian, black. The European/Caucasian race has formed the present day world we live in. Blacks have the lowest iqs so they can be excluded from this conversation. Asians do not fare much better. The only Asian nation that modernized and Westernized itself through intelligence and hard work was Japan. But this was only after Capt. M. Perry overthrew the shogunate. Concepts like free markets, industrialization would never have occurred to them. Present day China is a totalitarian nation building its economy on slave labor (and by stealing technological ideas it could never think of). Even in the worst days of the Industrial Revolution in Europe , Europeans did not go through any of this, and the white race consistently came up with new technological ideas. According to the Bell curve Koreans, Chinese and Japanese have iqs of about 105, with Europeans coming in at about 100. Asians (except for the Japanese) are notorious cheaters when it comes to exams. But, let's look at this so-called 105 iq and at countries like China, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia and see what these iqs have produced. Where is the Asian equivalent of the ancient Greeks, Sir Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell. The list is huge. Also, no one flocks to these countries in the hope of becoming like them. Asians are having plastic surgery to look like whites (adding flaps to their eyelids, dying their hair lighter shades, bleaching their skin). Asians have black hair and dark eyes. They do not come in the many varieties of whiteness like blue, green, hazel, brown, black eyes in whites; many shades of blond, red, brown and black hair. Plus the facial features and physiques are unique and winsome. I don't see this among Asians. You write "optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool." Yes, by first excluding Asians and blacks. Then whites can be test for their iqs. Those with an iq of 90 or over can reproduce. DON'T START SCREAMING HITLER STUFF!!!. The ones with lower iqs will be taken care of with kindness and allow them to enjoy their life on earth to its natural end. I am not saying that we will create a perfect human being. That can never happen. But at least it will lead to lower rates of retardation and problems. White societies will be more clean, pleasant, so that we can enjoy our glorious past and it can be passed on to our future children and grandchildren.
    , @Priss Factor
    "I’ve always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group’s bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool."

    Hey dumbass, your chop sueology sucks.

    THAT IS PRECISELY THE AGENDA OF THE GLOBO-ELITES. What's the point of proposing something that is already being implemented(and to horrible effect)?
    It's globo-neo-aristocratism.

    There's diversification of the elites happening in cities around the world and diversification of the masses happening around the world, especially in the West.
    True, in some ways, the smart people all over the world have more in common with one another than with the dummies of their own kind. I'm sure a smart white professor would rather spend time with smart Hindu, Chinese, Negro, Muslim, and etc intellectuals than with dumb white 'trash'.

    But no matter how cosmopolitan diversity may operate in elite spheres, diversity works different among the masses. Look at UK. I'm sure there are many intelligent and sophisticated Pakistani elites in UK, and they get along just dandy with the white elites. But among the lower orders, we have grubby Pakistani scum raping white girls. And the white elites, being so busy rubbing shoulders with non-whites elites(and being ever so careful not to offend their elite brown friends) created a social, political, and legal atmosphere where even low-level authorities who knew all about the reality dared not blow the whistle out of fear of being charged of 'racism' and being fired(and even prosecuted). (Or take racial integration. Rich smart whites will integrate with smarter nicer Negroes while poor whites have integrate with the likes of Mike Tyson. Elite diversity is kind of fun, but mass diversity sucks, esp. if it's with Negroes.)

    I got nothing against cosmopolitanism among the smart set. If such people wanna travel around the world, visit various colleges around the world, do interviews with different people in other nations, that's all fine by me. Smart people around the world should exchange ideas and discuss all sorts of things. That's good for cultural and intellectual progress.

    But at the political level, the elites of any community should lead and guide their own people. It's like Israeli intellectuals rub shoulders with intellectuals in other parts of the world, but they have a profound sense of connection to all Jews in Israel. I'm sure Japanese elites feel the same way. Life isn't just about intelligence and ideas. It is about blood, heritage, identity, and community. While all human communities are artificially constructed in some ways, some are rooted in human nature(feelings of familism, clannism, tribalism, race-ism, territory-ism) whereas others are erected on shaky abstract principles.
    It's like all that communist ideology stuff failed to create a borderless brotherhood from Warsaw to Hanoi. But then, who the hell wants to belong to some generic borderless brotherhood world order based on abstract ideas? Ideas should always be secondary to reality.

    Just look at the dire condition of British white masses ever since the white elites gave up on them.
    Look at the 'Coming Apart' happening in America? To be sure, Charles Murray himself is a piece of turd because he betrayed the white masses by bending over to the elite-favored 'gay marriage'. He says one thing but does another. Typical of his kind. When push comes to shove, he's a whore just like Walter Russell Mead.
    If the Russian elites will not lead the Russians, who will? If the Chinese elites won't lead the Chinese masses, who will? Should the main priority of elites all over the world be to shmooze with elites of other nations while ignoring their own people?
    You see, Jews have the right idea. They juggle cosmopolitanism with community-ism. While smart Jews do dillydally with other smart people all over the world, they still have a profound sense of Jewish community and a sense of Jewish commitment to all Jews. To be sure, this may be easier for Jews since the average IQ among them is higher than among other groups. So, the difference between a smart Jew and a dumb Jew isn't so wide as the difference between a smart Hindu and a dumb Hindu. Also, even though Jewish blood is mixed, it wasn't mixed histori-hostilely. Some Jews came to Europe, married some white women, and produced Ashkenazi Jews. Since it happened more naturally and gradually, there was no poison feeling within the Jewish community.
    But it's different in Latin America. Take Bolivia. What is a Bolivian? He could be a Conquistador white Hispanic, a mestizo, or an Indian. Also, the mixing happened as the result of conquest, 'genocide', 'mass rape', and etc. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, some nice Jewish fellas met some nice white girls, and they got married and had kids. In the case of Latin America, one race of people conquered and subjugated another people. So, Latin-American identity is more troubled. Same goes for India too as the history of India is one of invasions.

    A smart person doesn't have to hang with the dumb of his own kind socially. But if he lacks a profound sense of identity and unity with his own people on the cultural, racial, and national level, he's a self-centered piece of turd. He's just an Obama who doesn't really give a crap about blacks as he's too busy kissing the ass of the globo-elites and homos. He's just like David Cameron who turns a blind eye to the plight of white British masses but goes out of his way to serve his rich and smart globo-elites controllers.

    Another thing. The world isn't as simple as dumb vs smart. Even among the smart, there is smart, very smart, and super smart. There is also nice guy smart, naive guy smart, cunning smart, ruthless smart, nasty smart. And the kinds of smart guys who gain elite power tend to be dirty, nasty, lowdown, ruthless, and vile in so many ways. They are real a**holes. Such jerks have no scruples. Just look how they worked Wall Street to make huge profits but then supported a 'socialist' like Obama to get huge bailouts. Look how the smart a**holes around the world all conspired to bring down Russia by triggering the mess in Ukraine. Most smart people may gain some degree of affluence, but they will never have real power that belongs to the supermart, the super-nasty, the super-connected, etc.

    Also, some groups have many more smart people than other groups. Since you is Chinese and since there are many smart Chinese, maybe you likey the idea of the rule of smart people. It so much like Confucian stuff about how scholar class should rule.
    And of course, Jews have very high IQ, so they will dominate much of the smart community. But look at Mexicans and other groups. They got smart people but in smaller numbers. So, they won't be represented much in the global smart set. Smartology will never be fair racially or culturally.
    Just look at Southeast Asia. If the native elites took up smartology, they'll just dillydally with smart Chinese elites and ignore their own peoples. That would be some lowdown shit.
    Furthermore, even the politics of the smart set cannot be divorced from the politics of the entire populace, including dumb people. Consider the Holocaust. It gives smart Jews a huge moral and political--and even economic--advantage over other smart groups. But then, was the Holocaust only about the Nazis targeting smart Jews? No, Germans targeted all Jews, smart and dumb alike. So, even as smart Jews hang with smart non-Jews, they remind themselves and others that they, as Jews, think in terms of 'Never Again', and that means working for the interests of all Jews, not just smart ones.

    Do you, Yan Shen turd boy, look at the Rape of Nanking and say, 'Ok, I feel sorry for smart Chinese victims, but if Japanese raped and killed dumb Chinese, I no care because I so smart and only identify with smart people, Chinese or not'. Following your logic, you should side with smart Japanese soldiers and feel nothing for dumb Chinese who got killed or raped.
    Only a dirtbag thinks and feels like that.
    , @DWB
    Yan - on its face, there is an enormous and obvious appeal in your idea. And I also agree with your conjecture that "smart people" are more similar to each other, irresepective of origin, religous affiliation than with their co-religionisits, ethnic brothers, etc.

    But the question I have is, "would it work?" Indeed, could it in the US? In any country that is already pluralistic with a highly entrenched welfare state? What do we do with those already here? What becomes of the billions of people who are not cognitive elites? Who are well below average?

    I live in France, and it's not much of a stretch to say that our news almost daily has some horrific story or another about a boat laden with desperate migrants cap-sizing in the Mediterranean Sea, or of teeming camps in Pas-de-Calais or Lampedusa.

    Le Camp des Saints is a work of fiction, but is it a possible future? Is it the likely one?

    The world you envisage is very likely going to need to be one with high walls. And men with guns standing on them. As others have said, this is going to require a warrior class.

    The world is, bluntly, not a completely rational one, so the "optimal global outcome" (for whom?) is probably not going to be very convincing to those in the lower half of the IQ pool. And as Caplan suggests, it's a "moral travesty," n'est-ce pas, to consider the needs of the "ins" anywhere than behind the needs of the "outs?"

    In the end, a nation is more than a hotel. It needs to be somewhat coherent. You (elsewhere) hold up Lee Kuan Yew as a role model for America's future leadership. I have an enormous respect for Lee. But did Mr Lee not, himself, say something in an interview a decade ago to the effect that in a pluralistic society, you vote based not on class or social interest, but in the end, on racial and religious ones? I believe he did.

    , @NOTA
    For those with family, though, regression to the mean will always create links from the smartest people to less brilliant (and sometimes not terribly bright) kids, siblings, cousins, friends, in-laws, etc.
  2. I think this is related to my church’s principle of subsidiarity. Other countries should be able to do a better job of looking after their own, local, inhabitants than we can do. At least is should work that way. It sounds like Caplan et al are just capitulating, admitting that the third world sucks and can’t take care of their own without white westerners’ help.

  3. As I regularly tell libertarians (in real life) and HBD-extremists (on the internet), atheists don’t get to talk about morality.

  4. Caplan will always claim that it’s a ‘moral travesty’ to disagree with Caplan.

  5. I’m thinking Bryan does not know the definition of “travesty” but he likes the sound of it. Putting that aside, “Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups” is nothing more than a demand that his moral code prevail. Why must everyone always put the right of strangers over the wellbeing of their children, for example?

    As is always the case with these guys, they like to dress up their in-group preferences in the trappings of morality in order to dismiss alternatives. Everywhere else, Caplan rejects the very idea of a binding transcendent morality. Otherwise, his transactional libertarianism is a dead letter.

    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    'Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups'

    A more apt articulation given Caplan's purported libertarian leanings would've been that globalization is not necessarily a zero-sum game. Bryan does allude to this kind of utilitarian sentiment from time to time, i.e. his later comment about trade and peace. But these relatively rare moments are often overshadowed by his appeals for a global morality based upon helping out those less fortunate than oneself. Sometimes Bryan's idealism makes him seem more liberal than libertarian.

    The fatal flaw of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan is that their ideologies are rooted more in satisfying an underlying emotional need, i.e. in the case of Steve the desire for tribal solidarity and in the case of Bryan the liberal desire for perpetuating kindness and generosity, rather than in utilitarian rationality.

    Meanwhile on planet Vulcan...
  6. I didn’t know Steve was articulating the interests of the military industrial complex. That must be why he gets truckloads of cash from Blackwater and Halliburton. There must be someone that is willing to fund Caplan in his lonely battle for moral rectitude.

    The ethical stratosphere where only eagles like Caplan dare to soar is obviously a bit enervating, which is why he seems to have insufficient intellectual resources to spare for wondering how those left behind in the poor countries (the poorest of the poor) will fare. Paul Collier thinks it will be a disaster for the bottom billion, but obviously Caplan understands the morality better.

  7. Deep down, he knows you’re right.

    • Replies: @Poetry N Motion
    Yes! Of course he does, but the egghead academic with no real world experience, must feather the nest with stupid theories....it's just what these academic eggheads do.
  8. It seems that Caplan is against Democracy. Politicians win votes by saying they will give voters what the voters want. So politicians must either lie, or tell the voters to let the politician redistribute their tax money to non-citizens.

    Those who want to send US citizen money to non-citizens should instead organize voluntary charities to do so; starting with Wall Street billionaires. Of course the US poor might want some of that charity. So perhaps the billionaires could become Liberian or Venezualan citizens.

  9. In the event my comment doesn’t make it past the EconLog Border Patrol:

    Sailer, writing for the ‘American Conservative’ is advocating massive government power and implies that politicians have a fundamental ownership right over access to the U.S.

    The borders belong to private property owners, and otherwise to the taxpayers. This is the real world, not a libertarian thought experiment. I submit that the US government is far more permissive about who has access to American soil than if immigration was purely a matter of contract. In a private property regime, there would be no immigrants; there would only be owners, tenants and trespassers. No due process, public roads, civil rights or welfare to grease the skids for your cheap labor/cellphone customer base either.

    Bryan is making a strawman argument. We can favor our own interests and those of our in-group without diminishing other’s rights. Bryan surely doesn’t lose any sleep over the fact that he spends more money on his own family’s welfare than mine, for example.

    The libertarians’ complaint is really not about rights of the Other so much as they just do not consider other, less cosmopolitan Americans as part of their in-group. Immigrants lower wages and living standards for people outside Bryan’s Bubble, over the wishes of consistent majorities in opinion polls. But people in Bryan’s Bubble are his in-group, so he doesn’t share outsiders’ concerns, even though it’s their loyalty to the American charter that make his Bubble possible.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The libertarians’ complaint is really not about rights of the Other so much as they just do not consider other, less cosmopolitan Americans as part of their in-group. Immigrants lower wages and living standards for people outside Bryan’s Bubble, over the wishes of consistent majorities in opinion polls. But people in Bryan’s Bubble are his in-group, so he doesn’t share outsiders’ concerns, even though it’s their loyalty to the American charter that make his Bubble possible.

    Bingo.
  10. Steve’s pathetic hurt tone reminds me of the Christian Conservatives. Desperate and angry mocking of atheist libertarians seen everywhere on the internet. Why not respond to Caplan’s autistic jousts with a simple rebuttal? For someone who criticizes blacks so much, this makes you look quite “niggardly”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Different Razib Khan.
    , @bomag
    Steve’s pathetic hurt tone...

    I don't get that.

    It is more of an internet edginess.
    , @Anonymous
    Correction, it wouldn't be "niggardly" (your version of 'black-like'), unless Steve's response ran something like, "Try sayin' that to me in person bitch!"
  11. Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups

    Complete inversion of morality/decency/common sense. Caplan is moral leper, a wretch. He’s just upset because you’ve got his number, Steve. Keep nailing him.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Nobody's 'rights', however they are determined, have any practical effect outside a collectivity maintaining order. Political institutions are artifacts which nestle in particular societies. He does not stop to think what character those societies need to have so that those institutions work passably for the maintenance of justice and not systematized exploitation. That might suggest that societies have an organic life and are not mere random collections of individuals.
  12. Caplan and his ilk are intellectual misfits and nothing else. Anyone arguing for complete, unrestricted open borders is beyond stupid, they’re simply idiotic!

    Why anyone would give this numbskull the time of day is a big question mark in my book. He needs to come out of that academic ivory tower that he’s been living in and get out on main street; you know the main street that these eggheads are obliterating with their stupid theories.

  13. “Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that…”

    Given how absurd and totally uninfluential Caplan is, it’s funny that he gets under Steve’s skin so much. The danger of Caplan becoming an influential thinker is roughly on par with the danger of a restaurant becoming popular which serves only barbequed eel, plays only Wagner by way of music, and requires its customers to pay their checks through public speaking.

    : the problem with “cognitive elitism” is that a stable society needs a warrior caste. If you don’t include those people in your society and do them some good here and there you will be in trouble. This explains why nationalism, racism etc. have more traction than “cognitive elitism.” Nations and races generally contain people with a wider range of talents than do I.Q. groups.

    : In theory, a libertarian or HBDer could believe in god. Admittedly, it is uncommon.

    • Replies: @anon
    "@anon: In theory, a libertarian or HBDer could believe in god. Admittedly, it is uncommon."

    Indeed. Although I don't want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves.
  14. attilathehen [AKA "Rose"] says:
    @Yan Shen
    Not anything that I haven't stated before, but might I once again offer up a middle of the road philosophy in contrast to the philosophical worldview of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan, one which I refer to as cognitive elitism.

    I've always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group's bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.

    : “Your middle of the road. . . philosophical worldview . . . cognitive elitism . . .” will veer off the cliff. From your name, I will assume you are an Asian (sometimes people adopt names that don’t match their racial groups). You argue that smart people have more in common with one another than with the bottom half of their respective group’s bell curve. Wrong. As a white, I would not want my children to marry an Asian or a black no matter how smart. People form 3 racial groups in the world. White, Asian, black. The European/Caucasian race has formed the present day world we live in. Blacks have the lowest iqs so they can be excluded from this conversation. Asians do not fare much better. The only Asian nation that modernized and Westernized itself through intelligence and hard work was Japan. But this was only after Capt. M. Perry overthrew the shogunate. Concepts like free markets, industrialization would never have occurred to them. Present day China is a totalitarian nation building its economy on slave labor (and by stealing technological ideas it could never think of). Even in the worst days of the Industrial Revolution in Europe , Europeans did not go through any of this, and the white race consistently came up with new technological ideas. According to the Bell curve Koreans, Chinese and Japanese have iqs of about 105, with Europeans coming in at about 100. Asians (except for the Japanese) are notorious cheaters when it comes to exams. But, let’s look at this so-called 105 iq and at countries like China, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia and see what these iqs have produced. Where is the Asian equivalent of the ancient Greeks, Sir Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell. The list is huge. Also, no one flocks to these countries in the hope of becoming like them. Asians are having plastic surgery to look like whites (adding flaps to their eyelids, dying their hair lighter shades, bleaching their skin). Asians have black hair and dark eyes. They do not come in the many varieties of whiteness like blue, green, hazel, brown, black eyes in whites; many shades of blond, red, brown and black hair. Plus the facial features and physiques are unique and winsome. I don’t see this among Asians. You write “optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.” Yes, by first excluding Asians and blacks. Then whites can be test for their iqs. Those with an iq of 90 or over can reproduce. DON’T START SCREAMING HITLER STUFF!!!. The ones with lower iqs will be taken care of with kindness and allow them to enjoy their life on earth to its natural end. I am not saying that we will create a perfect human being. That can never happen. But at least it will lead to lower rates of retardation and problems. White societies will be more clean, pleasant, so that we can enjoy our glorious past and it can be passed on to our future children and grandchildren.

  15. “Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition.”

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic “citizenism”, these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family’s house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you’re suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don’t make fun of Caplan’s intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don’t brag much about being smarter than others.

    • Replies: @bomag
    nationalism

    The immigrants coming to the US are pretty strong nationalists for their home countries. They pretty much get on track to re-creating the home of their fathers.

    The usual pan-Hispanic boosterism you usually give us is a form of nationalism.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    He didn't, you did, he said Caplan's brain wasn't supple, not that it was the brain of a fool, like yourself, and BTW, he is smarter than you and Caplan both. But I know I shouldn't expect much from your ordinary and not supple brain because in the past you have accused Steve of being a Christian fundamentalist, who wants to burn scientists at the stake for questioning the Bible (!) You are aware that Steve has been promoting the use of evolutionary biology in the social sciences for at least 15 years straight on the Web. I guess that inflexible brain of yours couldn't be bothered to notice such an unsubtle and very obvious detail. Steve has the highest esteem for Charles Darwin ( Father of modern biology ) and Francis Galton ( Father of modern social statistics ) as well as modern day evolutionary biologists like George C. Williams, John M. Smith, William D. Hamilton, and Edward O. Wilson, all of them eminently superior in intellect to yourself, but then they never made up an imaginary position that their opponents didn't hold and then attacked that either, so you've got the advantage over them in stupid, straw man attacks. Now go away and troll your leftist creationist friends who think they stand up for "Science" when they do not want science ever applied to human beings, yes, very SCIENTIFIC.
    , @Stealth
    Don't insult Steve's intellect, because he is smarter than you. If Steve were as "middle-brow" (whatever the hell that even means) as you claim, he would resist taking Caplan's bait and just state the obvious, which is that Caplan is either really crazy or really full of shit, one or the other. There's really nothing more to say.

    My admittedly low-brow common sense leads me to choose the latter. I think Caplan is an academic shock rocker. It's pretty obvious that everything he writes is intended to be provocative. He's just trying to get attention by saying stupid things in a deadpan manner. Marilyn Manson wasn't exactly a musical genius, but all of us know who he is because he was intentionally offensive in an effort to get recognition, and I strongly feel that Caplan is pulling the same routine. Smart people are just people, and some of them, despite their intelligence, are really transparent.
    , @e
    Nick Diaz: "Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don’t brag much about being smarter than others."

    Okay,

    1.) The noun "news" is singular in usage, thus the verb that it agrees with is "is," not "are."

    2.) You don't believe for a minute that Steve is a "fairly middle-brow guy." You believe he's bright and he's persuasive, and that's why you can't stop coming here to read him and argue with him.
    , @Anonymous
    Tricky Nick Diaz said: "Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead. "

    WW2 killed far more than 100mm people Nick. Various forms of aggressive socialism/Bolshevism (Jewish Messianism more accurately) and subsequent reactions to it were responsible for far more deaths than "nationalism". In 2nd place I suppose I'd put imperialism (Japanese, and US imperial reactions to it). Adding in all wars in the 20th century -- you'd have to include WW1, the countless African wars of Independence (actually tribal power struggles in a post-colonial vacuum), the post WW2 wars in SE Asia (you've heard of Vietnam haven't you?) and the bloodshed that followed that (Cambodia? Hard to blame that on 'nationalism'" ) and then of course the late 90's struggles in the former Soviet Union (I suppose you could call some of that 'nationalism').

    It would be hard to be more spectacularly wrong than you Nick. Read Paul Johnson's "Modern Times" and report back. Until then, learn your place. Mow my lawn.
    , @gu
    "Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead."

    It's "nationalist" not "nationalistic" you third rate prosaist.

    Also, communism probably cost people much more.

    Bottom line: you are a noxious troll, an unintelligent creature that seeks to rile people up with his 4th rate shitposting.

    Nationalism is an absolutely necessary and unpreventable thing. You might as well blame people driving cars for the war in Iraq.

    WW2 happened because the French were butthurt scum that sought to humiliate Germany. They got what they had coming later on.
  16. @Simon in London
    Deep down, he knows you're right.

    Yes! Of course he does, but the egghead academic with no real world experience, must feather the nest with stupid theories….it’s just what these academic eggheads do.

  17. The pacifism is indicative of his unseriousness. There are about three sorts of pacifists: the radically otherworldly who are not afraid to die, poseurs who tend to admire rough trade (so long as such admiration distinguishes them from the tastes and prejudices of ordinary people), and nitwits who excuse themselves from thinking about how people tend to behave as individuals and in collectivites (and live in a world where others they do not notice maintain order on their behalf). The first sort you see among the Amish, perhaps. The second is characteristic of Chris Hedges and others of the sort who write for The Nation. The third is characteristic of suburbanized peace churches. That’s Caplan, too. Joseph Sobran’s turn toward anarchism in his later years had some similar well springs. There’s a police department in Fairfax County, Va. that’s part and parcel of what makes life agreeable in those loci. Cops are not pacifists. Do not expect acknowledgement of their efforts from the likes of Caplan. That’s just the help the faculty do not notice. As for Sobran, he seemed to think public officials were completely unneeded and just operating a protection racket.

  18. @The Z Blog
    I'm thinking Bryan does not know the definition of "travesty" but he likes the sound of it. Putting that aside, "Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups" is nothing more than a demand that his moral code prevail. Why must everyone always put the right of strangers over the wellbeing of their children, for example?

    As is always the case with these guys, they like to dress up their in-group preferences in the trappings of morality in order to dismiss alternatives. Everywhere else, Caplan rejects the very idea of a binding transcendent morality. Otherwise, his transactional libertarianism is a dead letter.

    ‘Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups’

    A more apt articulation given Caplan’s purported libertarian leanings would’ve been that globalization is not necessarily a zero-sum game. Bryan does allude to this kind of utilitarian sentiment from time to time, i.e. his later comment about trade and peace. But these relatively rare moments are often overshadowed by his appeals for a global morality based upon helping out those less fortunate than oneself. Sometimes Bryan’s idealism makes him seem more liberal than libertarian.

    The fatal flaw of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan is that their ideologies are rooted more in satisfying an underlying emotional need, i.e. in the case of Steve the desire for tribal solidarity and in the case of Bryan the liberal desire for perpetuating kindness and generosity, rather than in utilitarian rationality.

    Meanwhile on planet Vulcan…

  19. I say this all over the internet and I’ll say it here: Profressor Caplan probably has a form of autism.

    I don’t say that out of disrespect, just a general observation. His popularity is the result of timing and humorously extreme views. It’s unwarranted.

    He’s the libertarian Uncle Tom of academia.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Profressor Caplan probably has a form of autism.

    Heck, who knows. He was a chess nerd growing up. He married at an ordinary age (28 or thereabouts) to a lawyer he'd met as an undergraduate. His wife appears to be a Roumanian immigrant whose family arrived some time prior to 1990 and it's a wager she had other options. He has three children, what appears to be a set of twins and one younger. He seems to function passably in some social situations. But yes, you do get the impression that in contemplating the world around him he suffers from something very much like color-blindness.
  20. @Enderby
    Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups

    Complete inversion of morality/decency/common sense. Caplan is moral leper, a wretch. He's just upset because you've got his number, Steve. Keep nailing him.

    Nobody’s ‘rights’, however they are determined, have any practical effect outside a collectivity maintaining order. Political institutions are artifacts which nestle in particular societies. He does not stop to think what character those societies need to have so that those institutions work passably for the maintenance of justice and not systematized exploitation. That might suggest that societies have an organic life and are not mere random collections of individuals.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Nobody’s ‘rights’, however they are determined, have any practical effect outside a collectivity maintaining order. Political institutions are artifacts which nestle in particular societies. He does not stop to think what character those societies need to have so that those institutions work passably for the maintenance of justice and not systematized exploitation. That might suggest that societies have an organic life and are not mere random collections of individuals.
     
    *Very* well said Mr. Deco.

    That our "rights" in practical terms are a products of society--the culture and quality of the society--which is so painfully obvious, seems utterly beyond the comprehension of liberal multi-culturalists. (For the lefties sure--it's about bringing down the white man "by any means necessary", they don't really believe in any "rights".)

    But its a whole 'nother level, seeing these laughable "libertarians" spouting a "free market" ideology which has absolutely no traction anywhere but in the Anglosphere ... thinking "Open Borders ... peachy!" Jjust boggles the mind. What level of absolute idiocy about the world is required?
  21. @Razib Khan
    Steve's pathetic hurt tone reminds me of the Christian Conservatives. Desperate and angry mocking of atheist libertarians seen everywhere on the internet. Why not respond to Caplan's autistic jousts with a simple rebuttal? For someone who criticizes blacks so much, this makes you look quite "niggardly".

    Different Razib Khan.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Huh? Do you know this commenter and is he not the same guy who blogs here for Gene Expression?
  22. I’d also like to know where he gets a turn of phrase like “painfully weak” — It’s like we’re having a stoned 3AM conversation in the dorm room. Maybe Caplan never left that behind.

  23. @The Anti-Gnostic
    In the event my comment doesn't make it past the EconLog Border Patrol:

    Sailer, writing for the 'American Conservative' is advocating massive government power and implies that politicians have a fundamental ownership right over access to the U.S.

    The borders belong to private property owners, and otherwise to the taxpayers. This is the real world, not a libertarian thought experiment. I submit that the US government is far more permissive about who has access to American soil than if immigration was purely a matter of contract. In a private property regime, there would be no immigrants; there would only be owners, tenants and trespassers. No due process, public roads, civil rights or welfare to grease the skids for your cheap labor/cellphone customer base either.

    Bryan is making a strawman argument. We can favor our own interests and those of our in-group without diminishing other's rights. Bryan surely doesn't lose any sleep over the fact that he spends more money on his own family's welfare than mine, for example.

    The libertarians' complaint is really not about rights of the Other so much as they just do not consider other, less cosmopolitan Americans as part of their in-group. Immigrants lower wages and living standards for people outside Bryan's Bubble, over the wishes of consistent majorities in opinion polls. But people in Bryan's Bubble are his in-group, so he doesn't share outsiders' concerns, even though it's their loyalty to the American charter that make his Bubble possible.

    The libertarians’ complaint is really not about rights of the Other so much as they just do not consider other, less cosmopolitan Americans as part of their in-group. Immigrants lower wages and living standards for people outside Bryan’s Bubble, over the wishes of consistent majorities in opinion polls. But people in Bryan’s Bubble are his in-group, so he doesn’t share outsiders’ concerns, even though it’s their loyalty to the American charter that make his Bubble possible.

    Bingo.

  24. It is considered the ultimate political insult to compare anyone to Hitler, and I am not intending to do just that, but this is definitely a theme from Mein Kampf. Hitler did display in that book the nationalist tendency towards laziness when describing the limits of a specific nationalism. Nationalism has an inherent slippery slope. Hitler strikes a defensive posture in part of the book, but he also describes the purpose of eugenics as the pursuit of German world domination, and he supported territorial expansion as the bedrock of an economic policy. The American Renaissance claim that “whites create,” but Asians only “imitate” shows that some of modern white nationalism is based on Hitler’s ideas in Mein Kampf. There is no universalist nationalism that is inspired by racial realism. I think we can also see from Rand Paul’s latest contortions that isolationism is incompatible with American interests because we cannot choose our enemies. I just do not see a contradiction between realism and interventionism. We must intervene, but we shall not perfect X society. Citizenism would benefit from greater realism because, in reality, some kinds of immigration improve society, and some kinds worsen it. (Different kinds harm or help the nations of origin, too.) The science of diversity could lead the way to a nuanced racial realism, and it could resolve race by medically treating genetic tendencies. We can have it all.

    • Replies: @HandsomeWhiteDevil
    "The American Renaissance claim that “whites create,” but Asians only “imitate” shows that some of modern white nationalism is based on Hitler’s ideas in Mein Kampf."

    "The Chinese are deficient in invention, but remarkable for their skill in imitation, and their patient industry."
    p. 453 Woodbridge & Willard's Universal Geography, 1844

    The idea that whites create and Asians imitate existed long before Adolph Hitler did.
  25. Insulting Caplan’s brain is ad hominem. Sailer is completely right on his points, but he should argue his points respectfully. Caplan has been very respectful towards Sailer. He said that Sailer is a pariah of the media with sympathy for Sailer and he is completely right that the media _does_ treat Sailer like a pariah. Caplan is often intellectually lazy, his logic is full of holes, but it’s admirable that Caplan is linking and referencing a legitimate opponent like Sailer rather than just repeating his “elevator pitch”.

    • Replies: @Sean
    "Caplan has been very respectful towards Sailer. He said that Sailer is a pariah of the media with sympathy for Sailer and he is completely right that the media _does_ treat Sailer like a pariah. "

    But Caplan sounds surprised about that, which suggests he thinks Steve is articulating the view of a powerful coalition of rich and organised (white) people that epouse nationalism because that lets them rob everyone else. Caplan says "Putin’s policies are bad for Russians," . So why do the media not fawn over Steve if his is in line with the policies of a powerful minority that rules the country for its own benefit.

    Caplan does not accept nations as a reflection of the interests of the people in them. Everything he says follows from that.

    , @HA
    "Insulting Caplan’s brain is ad hominem."

    I agree that Caplan deserves kudos for at least taking Sailer seriously, as opposed to characterizing him as being "best known for his belief that black people are intellectually inferior to white people". Sailer's ideas would get far more traction if the rest of his opponents treated them with a comparable degree of honesty and respect (which is why they don't).
  26. @somebody
    I say this all over the internet and I'll say it here: Profressor Caplan probably has a form of autism.

    I don't say that out of disrespect, just a general observation. His popularity is the result of timing and humorously extreme views. It's unwarranted.

    He's the libertarian Uncle Tom of academia.

    Profressor Caplan probably has a form of autism.

    Heck, who knows. He was a chess nerd growing up. He married at an ordinary age (28 or thereabouts) to a lawyer he’d met as an undergraduate. His wife appears to be a Roumanian immigrant whose family arrived some time prior to 1990 and it’s a wager she had other options. He has three children, what appears to be a set of twins and one younger. He seems to function passably in some social situations. But yes, you do get the impression that in contemplating the world around him he suffers from something very much like color-blindness.

    • Replies: @josh
    When I met him, he was wearing sandals to a seminar. The weirdness seemed a put on. I think the folks who called him unserious and lazy were closer to the money than those who call him autistic.
  27. I’ll give Caplan credit for one thing: he sets out, explicitly and in great detail, exactly the policy position he wants the U.S. to take on immigration. Even if you disagree with him, there’s at least something to work with. Most mainstream commentators and p0litician just emit vaporous pieties.

  28. Caplan’s socialist internationalism has been tried and found wanting, but he never mentions that. In fact he tries to disguise it by calling his socialist internationalism “libertarianism”.

  29. Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.

    Yeah, that is correct. Just ask the Pakistani grooming gangs.

  30. I’ll give Caplan credit for one thing: he sets out, explicitly and in great detail, exactly the policy position he wants the U.S. to take on immigration. Even if you disagree with him, there’s at least something to work with. Most mainstream commentators and p0litician just emit vaporous pieties.

    You don’t think “The US should open its borders because that’s the morally correct thing to do for the poor children of Latin America” is a vaporous piety?

    • Replies: @NOTA
    No, that's really what I think Caplan believes. It's not a crazy idea, even though I don't think it would be smart policy.
  31. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Chess Fan
    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that..."

    Given how absurd and totally uninfluential Caplan is, it's funny that he gets under Steve's skin so much. The danger of Caplan becoming an influential thinker is roughly on par with the danger of a restaurant becoming popular which serves only barbequed eel, plays only Wagner by way of music, and requires its customers to pay their checks through public speaking.

    @Yan Shen: the problem with "cognitive elitism" is that a stable society needs a warrior caste. If you don't include those people in your society and do them some good here and there you will be in trouble. This explains why nationalism, racism etc. have more traction than "cognitive elitism." Nations and races generally contain people with a wider range of talents than do I.Q. groups.

    @anon: In theory, a libertarian or HBDer could believe in god. Admittedly, it is uncommon.

    “: In theory, a libertarian or HBDer could believe in god. Admittedly, it is uncommon.”

    Indeed. Although I don’t want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves.

    • Replies: @Muse
    @ anon

    "Indeed. Although I don’t want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves."


    That is interesting. As an atheist, I find that HBD and the science behind it has given me a new appreciation of religion's role in the success of western civilization to the point that I have asked my wife that we resume attending church regularly. I have found no equivalent secular social algorithm/institution that encourages social norms and behaviors in support of family formation.

    I do not believe that most Protestant churches are doing their job properly, and that is why they are sinking into decay irrelevance, but the Mormons get it, as well as the Amish and the Mennonites. You could argue the Jews get it too. The key it they provide guidance for their communities, and even short term support for families within reason, BUT individuals have to follow the rules or get shunned. Premarital sex, illegitimacy and what not unfairly burden the community and are unjust, dysgenic and cannot be tolerated.

    As long as state sponsored social supports come without strings, these programs will be disasters.

    If the price I have to pay is to pray to an imaginary God to force this morality and structure on the unwashed, the unthinking and the mystic, so be it.
    , @AnotherDad

    Indeed. Although I don’t want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.)
     
    HBD is obviously quite compatible with religious belief even traditional ones.

    Because HBD--that people differ, and different groups of people (races) differ even more--was what *every* human believed throughout human history, even pre-history. The Ancient Egyptians certainly believed it. Ditto the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Indians ... on up to any self-respecting 19th century British imperialist. Anyone sensible who came in contact with other people believed it up until 1900, or maybe even 1950 ... and then the denial *only* in the West. You can't sell this PC "everyone's the same" bs to the Chinese.

    HBD is the human *norm*. It's what people have always believed based on ordinary human experience. I've got three kids--trust me they were *born* different even before i could mess 'em up. No one who has more than one kid (identical twins aside) can seriously question it based on experience. No, the dominant narrative that's been imposed on the white man, is just that--an ideological imposition. HBD is the normal common sense position--way before Darwin. People differ. Just open your eyes and it's obvious.
  32. I’ve always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group’s bell curve.

    You’ve always been wrong. You go astray with your fallacious assumption that “cognitive elites” can be, and should be, distinguished by their IQ’s and nothing else.

  33. “Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.”

    A key insight of the Age of Enlightenment of the 17th & 18th Centuries was the realization that it was possible to have a viable society in which diversity of religious & political thought was respected, and that society need not constantly battle to crush dissenting viewpoints in the interests of stability and security.

    Thus, the principle of “minority rights, majority rule”. In other words, the majority would respect the minority’s rights to hold opinions and follow religions, within reasonable limits, not held by the majority, and the minority would respect the majority as the majority, and not seek to overthrow the established order to institute a system of minority rule.

    This was a cornerstone of liberalism as it evolved up to the 1960s.

    Caplan’s “second fiddle” theory of group rights, in actuality “minority rights, minority rule”, is merely contemporary liberalism, whereby all sorts of minorities, religious, political, cultural, racial, ethnic, sexual, etc. seek to not only crush and overturn the majority, but demand acceptance and approval of their minoritarian viewpoints by the majority.

    In other words, reversion to medieval standards of political and philosophical thought.

    Not for the first time, I’m struck by the sheer illiberalism of contemporary liberals.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Caplan’s “second fiddle” theory of group rights, in actuality “minority rights, minority rule”, is merely contemporary liberalism, whereby all sorts of minorities, religious, political, cultural, racial, ethnic, sexual, etc. seek to not only crush and overturn the majority, but demand acceptance and approval of their minoritarian viewpoints by the majority.
     
    Another excellent comment. What a terrific thread. Thanks Mr. HandsomeWhiteDevil.

    One thing i've come to clearly understand only in the last 10 or 15 years is leftism is totalitarianism. They are the same thing. This has been super-explicit recently around the gay\gay-marriage thing. But is basically the ideology of the left. You *must* agree with our view ... or else!

    You can psycho-analyze and point out that this is essentially the old, pre-Enlightenment, religious view. And these folks are folks who lacking traditional religious belief have a new religion PC-multiculturalism. All must swear allegiance to their creed or be cast out.
  34. @Razib Khan
    Steve's pathetic hurt tone reminds me of the Christian Conservatives. Desperate and angry mocking of atheist libertarians seen everywhere on the internet. Why not respond to Caplan's autistic jousts with a simple rebuttal? For someone who criticizes blacks so much, this makes you look quite "niggardly".

    Steve’s pathetic hurt tone…

    I don’t get that.

    It is more of an internet edginess.

  35. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    If Caplan loves open borders, why doesn’t he move himself and his family to Africa?

    If his ilk wanna open up the entire world, I say they should leave the ‘racist’ West and go to Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Latin America.

    Caplan sees US like Joseph saw Egypt. It was good for him and his family, so he invited all the Jews to Egypt and that caused problems as time went by as there were too many Hebrews in Egypt.

    Today, Jews don’t have lots of kids, but they seem to politically associate themselves with all non-whites. So, Jews like Caplan see all non-whites around the world as members of the anti-white Tribe, and he wants them all to come here and take over.

  36. @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition."

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic "citizenism", these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family's house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you're suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don't make fun of Caplan's intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don't brag much about being smarter than others.

    nationalism

    The immigrants coming to the US are pretty strong nationalists for their home countries. They pretty much get on track to re-creating the home of their fathers.

    The usual pan-Hispanic boosterism you usually give us is a form of nationalism.

  37. “It’s not a coincidence that in the 21st Century, a bellicose foreign policy and a pro-mass immigration domestic policy are so highly correlated.”

    Perhaps not a coincidence, but the correlation of these two factors can be found in a third. An aggressive foreign policy is not inconsistent with a strict anti-immigration policy (1930s Japan) nor does a lax immigration policy beget interventionism (21st century Sweden). Egalitarianism is the critical factor explaining American federal policy in these areas. In fact, both neo-conservative interventionists and pacifist Marxists appeal to it in defending their foreign policy philosophy.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But we do live in 21st Century America, where Invade the World, Invite the World is the Establishment's conventional wisdom.
  38. @GW
    "It’s not a coincidence that in the 21st Century, a bellicose foreign policy and a pro-mass immigration domestic policy are so highly correlated."

    Perhaps not a coincidence, but the correlation of these two factors can be found in a third. An aggressive foreign policy is not inconsistent with a strict anti-immigration policy (1930s Japan) nor does a lax immigration policy beget interventionism (21st century Sweden). Egalitarianism is the critical factor explaining American federal policy in these areas. In fact, both neo-conservative interventionists and pacifist Marxists appeal to it in defending their foreign policy philosophy.

    But we do live in 21st Century America, where Invade the World, Invite the World is the Establishment’s conventional wisdom.

  39. Salus populi suprema lex esto

    Missouri’s state motto

    My problem with citizenism is that I think it’s a cop-out, kiddie pool pretend nationalism for people who don’t want to touch real blood and soil ethnonationalism. Too, there is nothing inherent in citizenism that supports blood and soil nationalism or resists universalism. Just make everyone in the world a citizen, and you can have both globalism and citizenism at the same time.

    But don’t anyone tell Bryan Caplan about blood and soil nationalism; If citizenism gets him that riled up, then real nationalism will send him into a seizure.

  40. @Massimo Heitor
    Insulting Caplan's brain is ad hominem. Sailer is completely right on his points, but he should argue his points respectfully. Caplan has been very respectful towards Sailer. He said that Sailer is a pariah of the media with sympathy for Sailer and he is completely right that the media _does_ treat Sailer like a pariah. Caplan is often intellectually lazy, his logic is full of holes, but it's admirable that Caplan is linking and referencing a legitimate opponent like Sailer rather than just repeating his "elevator pitch".

    “Caplan has been very respectful towards Sailer. He said that Sailer is a pariah of the media with sympathy for Sailer and he is completely right that the media _does_ treat Sailer like a pariah. ”

    But Caplan sounds surprised about that, which suggests he thinks Steve is articulating the view of a powerful coalition of rich and organised (white) people that epouse nationalism because that lets them rob everyone else. Caplan says “Putin’s policies are bad for Russians,” . So why do the media not fawn over Steve if his is in line with the policies of a powerful minority that rules the country for its own benefit.

    Caplan does not accept nations as a reflection of the interests of the people in them. Everything he says follows from that.

  41. I was raised in a era when placing the interests of other countries ahead your own country’s national interests made you a traitor. It’s amazing how short a time it took for this new paradigm to replace this pragmatic and natural perspective.

  42. >>Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.

    The cluelessness is stunning. Caplan seems unaware of actually who he is. This statement is helpful, though. I am beginning to believe that for Caplan and his ilk it is not malevolence at all that motivates them, just a selected for, unacknowledged trait that has served them well for eons. It is impossible to reason with them, for reason plays no part in the matter, so I will not even deign to reason with them anymore, just [metaphorically] bludgeon them with the hard stone of reality. Loud and hard, loud and hard.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    The word "rights" is doing all the work in that sentence. I agree with his statement: we really shouldn't violate the rights of foreigners for our country's benefit. Thus, we shouldn't invade foreign countries to take their oil or force their people into slavery, for example, even if that would benefit us.

    But this only really applies to immigration if you also believe (as I think he does, but most of us here do not) that immigration to the country of your choice is a right. If it's not a right, then by managing our immigration policy to maximize the well being of our own country, we are behaving just as he says we must--respecting the rights of outsiders, and having that trump acting in our own interests, but not having outsiders' interests trump our own (nor even be given equal weight with our own).
    , @Anonymous
    First, prove the existence of group selection in a rigorous manner. Applying preconceived notions derived from reading Kmac, who is not an evolutionary biologist, isn't sufficient.
  43. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “In the past, I’ve argued that Steve Sailer’s citizenism is a moral travesty. Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.”

    Wait a minute. What ‘rights’ do out-groups have in your own community? Using such logic, all non-Americans around the world should be allowed to vote in US elections and apply for food stamps and other benefits. I mean why limit such benefits and rights to ‘in-group’ Americans? Shiite, that would be ‘racist’.

    Doesn’t this idiot understand that ‘rights’ don’t exist in nature? Rights only exist under a system of laws. This should be apparent especially to an atheist/secularist. A religious person might believe that God granted us certain rights, but if you don’t believe in God, then there’s only the legal meaning of rights. Laws are only as good as the system in which they operate. It’s like US laws mean nothing in Cuba, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Uzbekistan, and etc. US laws mean everything in the US because US legal system only has jurisdiction and enforcement rights in the US.

    So, no shit that US government should be primarily interested in the rights of Americans. Americans have to pay the taxes. Americans have no right to force other nations to do stuff, and other nations don’t have the right to make Americans do stuff.
    If we follow Caplan’s logic, US should be waging war on all nations it disagrees with on matters of ‘human rights’ and ‘moral issues’. Is it our duty to secure the ‘rights’ of people all over? What if other nations and cultures disagree with our values of ‘rights’? Then we should wage war and ensure that they have ‘rights’ too.

    As for out-groups who want to come to the US, they must first demonstrate they have respect for American laws. If they don’t, it means they disrespect our laws, so why the hell should we care about them?

    America doesn’t have the right to force Mexico to do as America wishes, so why does America have the obligation to take in all those illegals from Mexico who disrespect our laws? Mexicans have a ‘right’ to invade the US? This is Caplan’s idea of human rights? Stupidass punk.
    And how can rights of any kind exist without rule of law? Without rule of law, how can rights even be enforced?

    What the globoligarchs are enforcing on us isn’t rule of law or the principle of rights. It is the rule of power and the politics of self-interest. It is certainly not in the interest of most Americans to have open borders. It is in the INTEREST of global elites to push open borders. It’s not a rights issue.

    But if Caplan really loves the idea of respecting the ‘rights’ of out-groups, how about he preach to non-Americans around the world to respect the rights of Americans to guard their own border?
    And how about him telling his fellow Jews to respect the right of gentiles not to be used and exploited like cattle to serve the interests of global elites.

    Essentially, if we boil it all down, Caplan really means white gentiles shouldn’t serve their own identity and interests(their in-group)but serve the Jews(the out-group). Since to say so sounds selfish and tribal, Caplan poses as a universalist libertarian and yammers about global generosity. But the jerk doesn’t fool me.

    No, Caplan you jerk. My people and brethren and sistren don’t exist to serve an out-group like yours who’ve demonstrated amply through control of finance, media, academia, government, and high tech what they’re really about.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    No, Caplan you jerk. My people and brethren and sistren don’t exist to serve an out-group like yours who’ve demonstrated amply through control of finance, media, academia, government, and high tech what they’re really about.


    Every thread here seems to degenerate into this sort of grossness.

    (While we're at it, Caplan's mother's maiden name is 'McCarthy' and his wife's is 'Mateescu'. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship).
  44. @ Nick Diaz

    >>A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff….

    Yes, fairly obvious, but absolutely verboten to be noticed. Puzzling, that, isn’t it?

  45. “Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.” Well, advancing interests certainly sounds worse than respecting rights. So let’s work through some permutations of those rhetorical terms of art and see how Steve and Caplan sort out at the end.

    “Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to advancing the interests of out-groups.” Steve says no to this. Caplan presumably yes. I’m with Steve.

    “Respecting the rights of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.” Steve would say no to this. Again, Caplan would presumably say yes. Once again, I’m with Steve.

    But what’s the real issue here is direct inversion. “Respecting the rights of your in-group should always play second fiddle to advancing the interests of out-groups.” And that is the difference between Steve and Caplan. Steve shouts a thundering NO to this moral political and intellectual inversion of reason and moral sense. Caplan is an enthusiast for precisely this inversion in both senses.

    Needless to say, I am with Steve and oppose Caplan as not merely autistic but a purveyor of irrational and evil policy.

  46. @Priss Factor
    "In the past, I’ve argued that Steve Sailer’s citizenism is a moral travesty. Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups."

    Wait a minute. What 'rights' do out-groups have in your own community? Using such logic, all non-Americans around the world should be allowed to vote in US elections and apply for food stamps and other benefits. I mean why limit such benefits and rights to 'in-group' Americans? Shiite, that would be 'racist'.

    Doesn't this idiot understand that 'rights' don't exist in nature? Rights only exist under a system of laws. This should be apparent especially to an atheist/secularist. A religious person might believe that God granted us certain rights, but if you don't believe in God, then there's only the legal meaning of rights. Laws are only as good as the system in which they operate. It's like US laws mean nothing in Cuba, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Uzbekistan, and etc. US laws mean everything in the US because US legal system only has jurisdiction and enforcement rights in the US.

    So, no shit that US government should be primarily interested in the rights of Americans. Americans have to pay the taxes. Americans have no right to force other nations to do stuff, and other nations don't have the right to make Americans do stuff.
    If we follow Caplan's logic, US should be waging war on all nations it disagrees with on matters of 'human rights' and 'moral issues'. Is it our duty to secure the 'rights' of people all over? What if other nations and cultures disagree with our values of 'rights'? Then we should wage war and ensure that they have 'rights' too.

    As for out-groups who want to come to the US, they must first demonstrate they have respect for American laws. If they don't, it means they disrespect our laws, so why the hell should we care about them?

    America doesn't have the right to force Mexico to do as America wishes, so why does America have the obligation to take in all those illegals from Mexico who disrespect our laws? Mexicans have a 'right' to invade the US? This is Caplan's idea of human rights? Stupidass punk.
    And how can rights of any kind exist without rule of law? Without rule of law, how can rights even be enforced?

    What the globoligarchs are enforcing on us isn't rule of law or the principle of rights. It is the rule of power and the politics of self-interest. It is certainly not in the interest of most Americans to have open borders. It is in the INTEREST of global elites to push open borders. It's not a rights issue.

    But if Caplan really loves the idea of respecting the 'rights' of out-groups, how about he preach to non-Americans around the world to respect the rights of Americans to guard their own border?
    And how about him telling his fellow Jews to respect the right of gentiles not to be used and exploited like cattle to serve the interests of global elites.

    Essentially, if we boil it all down, Caplan really means white gentiles shouldn't serve their own identity and interests(their in-group)but serve the Jews(the out-group). Since to say so sounds selfish and tribal, Caplan poses as a universalist libertarian and yammers about global generosity. But the jerk doesn't fool me.

    No, Caplan you jerk. My people and brethren and sistren don't exist to serve an out-group like yours who've demonstrated amply through control of finance, media, academia, government, and high tech what they're really about.

    No, Caplan you jerk. My people and brethren and sistren don’t exist to serve an out-group like yours who’ve demonstrated amply through control of finance, media, academia, government, and high tech what they’re really about.

    Every thread here seems to degenerate into this sort of grossness.

    (While we’re at it, Caplan’s mother’s maiden name is ‘McCarthy’ and his wife’s is ‘Mateescu’. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship).

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "(While we’re at it, Caplan’s mother’s maiden name is ‘McCarthy’ and his wife’s is ‘Mateescu’. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship)."

    I don't care about Israel. If the likes of him get what they want, just about ANYONE can qualify for US citizenship.

    And another thing. Whatever his ancestry, he sure acts more like a Caplan than a McCarthy, especially the famous one named Joe.
  47. @nooffensebut
    It is considered the ultimate political insult to compare anyone to Hitler, and I am not intending to do just that, but this is definitely a theme from Mein Kampf. Hitler did display in that book the nationalist tendency towards laziness when describing the limits of a specific nationalism. Nationalism has an inherent slippery slope. Hitler strikes a defensive posture in part of the book, but he also describes the purpose of eugenics as the pursuit of German world domination, and he supported territorial expansion as the bedrock of an economic policy. The American Renaissance claim that "whites create," but Asians only "imitate" shows that some of modern white nationalism is based on Hitler's ideas in Mein Kampf. There is no universalist nationalism that is inspired by racial realism. I think we can also see from Rand Paul's latest contortions that isolationism is incompatible with American interests because we cannot choose our enemies. I just do not see a contradiction between realism and interventionism. We must intervene, but we shall not perfect X society. Citizenism would benefit from greater realism because, in reality, some kinds of immigration improve society, and some kinds worsen it. (Different kinds harm or help the nations of origin, too.) The science of diversity could lead the way to a nuanced racial realism, and it could resolve race by medically treating genetic tendencies. We can have it all.

    “The American Renaissance claim that “whites create,” but Asians only “imitate” shows that some of modern white nationalism is based on Hitler’s ideas in Mein Kampf.”

    “The Chinese are deficient in invention, but remarkable for their skill in imitation, and their patient industry.”
    p. 453 Woodbridge & Willard’s Universal Geography, 1844

    The idea that whites create and Asians imitate existed long before Adolph Hitler did.

  48. @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition."

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic "citizenism", these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family's house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you're suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don't make fun of Caplan's intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don't brag much about being smarter than others.

    He didn’t, you did, he said Caplan’s brain wasn’t supple, not that it was the brain of a fool, like yourself, and BTW, he is smarter than you and Caplan both. But I know I shouldn’t expect much from your ordinary and not supple brain because in the past you have accused Steve of being a Christian fundamentalist, who wants to burn scientists at the stake for questioning the Bible (!) You are aware that Steve has been promoting the use of evolutionary biology in the social sciences for at least 15 years straight on the Web. I guess that inflexible brain of yours couldn’t be bothered to notice such an unsubtle and very obvious detail. Steve has the highest esteem for Charles Darwin ( Father of modern biology ) and Francis Galton ( Father of modern social statistics ) as well as modern day evolutionary biologists like George C. Williams, John M. Smith, William D. Hamilton, and Edward O. Wilson, all of them eminently superior in intellect to yourself, but then they never made up an imaginary position that their opponents didn’t hold and then attacked that either, so you’ve got the advantage over them in stupid, straw man attacks. Now go away and troll your leftist creationist friends who think they stand up for “Science” when they do not want science ever applied to human beings, yes, very SCIENTIFIC.

  49. “Uh, you know, I coined the critique that the Grand Strategy of the Bush Administration was: “Invade the world, invite the world.”

    10 years ago I had a positive opinion of George W. Bush, today not so much. I wonder what percentage of people on the right who voted for him, now feel betrayed by him ?

  50. Take but degree away, untune that string, And, hark, what discord follows!

  51. @Art Deco
    Profressor Caplan probably has a form of autism.

    Heck, who knows. He was a chess nerd growing up. He married at an ordinary age (28 or thereabouts) to a lawyer he'd met as an undergraduate. His wife appears to be a Roumanian immigrant whose family arrived some time prior to 1990 and it's a wager she had other options. He has three children, what appears to be a set of twins and one younger. He seems to function passably in some social situations. But yes, you do get the impression that in contemplating the world around him he suffers from something very much like color-blindness.

    When I met him, he was wearing sandals to a seminar. The weirdness seemed a put on. I think the folks who called him unserious and lazy were closer to the money than those who call him autistic.

  52. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @Art Deco
    No, Caplan you jerk. My people and brethren and sistren don’t exist to serve an out-group like yours who’ve demonstrated amply through control of finance, media, academia, government, and high tech what they’re really about.


    Every thread here seems to degenerate into this sort of grossness.

    (While we're at it, Caplan's mother's maiden name is 'McCarthy' and his wife's is 'Mateescu'. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship).

    “(While we’re at it, Caplan’s mother’s maiden name is ‘McCarthy’ and his wife’s is ‘Mateescu’. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship).”

    I don’t care about Israel. If the likes of him get what they want, just about ANYONE can qualify for US citizenship.

    And another thing. Whatever his ancestry, he sure acts more like a Caplan than a McCarthy, especially the famous one named Joe.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    I think it likely that Caplan operates on the one drop rule - and I am not referring to his mother's ancestry.
  53. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    How many children are there in the world?

    I suggest Caplan stop taking special care of his own kids and use 99% of his wealth on taking care of kids around the world. Damn familist bigot.

  54. @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition."

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic "citizenism", these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family's house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you're suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don't make fun of Caplan's intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don't brag much about being smarter than others.

    Don’t insult Steve’s intellect, because he is smarter than you. If Steve were as “middle-brow” (whatever the hell that even means) as you claim, he would resist taking Caplan’s bait and just state the obvious, which is that Caplan is either really crazy or really full of shit, one or the other. There’s really nothing more to say.

    My admittedly low-brow common sense leads me to choose the latter. I think Caplan is an academic shock rocker. It’s pretty obvious that everything he writes is intended to be provocative. He’s just trying to get attention by saying stupid things in a deadpan manner. Marilyn Manson wasn’t exactly a musical genius, but all of us know who he is because he was intentionally offensive in an effort to get recognition, and I strongly feel that Caplan is pulling the same routine. Smart people are just people, and some of them, despite their intelligence, are really transparent.

  55. Isn’t it just the strangest coincidence that most groups’ “rights” tend to align very closely with their own interests?

  56. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “Putin’s policies are bad for Russians, but we condemn them primarily because they’re bad for Ukrainians.”

    Putin’s policies are GOOD for Russians. The reason why Russia is economically hurting is because American and EU policies are bad for Russia. And why are America and EU so hostile toward Russia? Because aggressive and imperialist globo-elites are pushing anti-Russian policies to bring down Putin and replace him with their toyim puppets.
    (Imagine if you obtained something good for your family, but someone came along and messed up what you did. He smashes it on the floor, but then he accuses you of the ‘bad thing’ that lies at your family’s feet. Caplan is the same page as the troublemakers who messed up Russia and Syria. Is he going to blame Assad for the Syrian War when the rebels were given support by US, Israel, and their stooge Arab allies?)

    Russia did NOT initiate the crisis in Ukraine. In fact, most of America didn’t either. Globo-elites with ancestry in the Pale of Settlement did that. Globo-elites, having taken over elite power in US and EU, now wanna undermine Russia. They see Russians as subhuman drunkards and feel that globo-elites, who constitute less than 1% of Russia, should be the ruling elites of vast Russia.
    It’s the globo-elites who are nasty globalist imperialist aggressors. Globo-elites want to do to white gentile Americans, white Europeans, and Russians what they did to the Palestinians. And notice how all those ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ loving Liberals in America are so silent about the oppression of Palestinians. Some commitment to human rights!

    Furthermore, US and EU are not democracies. Their democracies are shams because a small globalist elites dominate all their governments, media, academia, and finance. The people mean nothing. The great majorities of US and EU called for ending the massive flood of immigration, but shabbos goy elites of US and EU just take their orders from globalist-imperialist elites. In France, people are fined for the wrong kind of speech. In the UK, the police come and arrest you for making ‘offensive’ twitter posts. Yet, where’s the outrage from all those wonderful Liberals who profess to care about ‘human rights’?
    True, Russia isn’t a democracy either, but it’s no worse than US and EU. In some ways, Russia is better off because Russians are led by a proud Russian who loves his motherland whereas EU and American leaders are nothing but whores to take money and orders from globo-elites who regard us as cattle or prostitutes.

    Caplan may pretend to be some pacifist-libertarian, but his shtick is just globo-elite imperialism hiding behind principles of ‘human rights’. In this, he is no different from the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Victoria Nuland who invoke human rights to trigger wars and crises all over the world.

    Look at American politics. The likes of Ted Cruz and Chris Christie grovel for dog biscuits at the feet of the likes of Sheldon Adelson.
    The globo-elite-controlled media, government, and courts attack and destroy anyone who won’t bend over to the homo agenda.

  57. African immigrants in the Southern Chinese city of Guangzhou are often stereotyped as being thugs and thieves.

    I assume Bryan Caplan is against racial stereotyping, so if he wants to end racial stereotyping he should be against vibrant diversity. As long as people from vastly different cultures are living side by side, you will have racial stereotyping.

    People in Guangzhou would not have any negative opinion of Black people at all if that city did not have over 200,000 African immigrants.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Excellent point about diversity and racial stereotyping. Unfortunately, I think Caplan supports diversity because it favors the interests of his own group, not blacks.
  58. @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition."

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic "citizenism", these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family's house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you're suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don't make fun of Caplan's intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don't brag much about being smarter than others.

    Nick Diaz: “Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don’t brag much about being smarter than others.”

    Okay,

    1.) The noun “news” is singular in usage, thus the verb that it agrees with is “is,” not “are.”

    2.) You don’t believe for a minute that Steve is a “fairly middle-brow guy.” You believe he’s bright and he’s persuasive, and that’s why you can’t stop coming here to read him and argue with him.

  59. @Steve Sailer
    Different Razib Khan.

    Huh? Do you know this commenter and is he not the same guy who blogs here for Gene Expression?

  60. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @Yan Shen
    Not anything that I haven't stated before, but might I once again offer up a middle of the road philosophy in contrast to the philosophical worldview of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan, one which I refer to as cognitive elitism.

    I've always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group's bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.

    “I’ve always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group’s bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.”

    Hey dumbass, your chop sueology sucks.

    THAT IS PRECISELY THE AGENDA OF THE GLOBO-ELITES. What’s the point of proposing something that is already being implemented(and to horrible effect)?
    It’s globo-neo-aristocratism.

    There’s diversification of the elites happening in cities around the world and diversification of the masses happening around the world, especially in the West.
    True, in some ways, the smart people all over the world have more in common with one another than with the dummies of their own kind. I’m sure a smart white professor would rather spend time with smart Hindu, Chinese, Negro, Muslim, and etc intellectuals than with dumb white ‘trash’.

    But no matter how cosmopolitan diversity may operate in elite spheres, diversity works different among the masses. Look at UK. I’m sure there are many intelligent and sophisticated Pakistani elites in UK, and they get along just dandy with the white elites. But among the lower orders, we have grubby Pakistani scum raping white girls. And the white elites, being so busy rubbing shoulders with non-whites elites(and being ever so careful not to offend their elite brown friends) created a social, political, and legal atmosphere where even low-level authorities who knew all about the reality dared not blow the whistle out of fear of being charged of ‘racism’ and being fired(and even prosecuted). (Or take racial integration. Rich smart whites will integrate with smarter nicer Negroes while poor whites have integrate with the likes of Mike Tyson. Elite diversity is kind of fun, but mass diversity sucks, esp. if it’s with Negroes.)

    I got nothing against cosmopolitanism among the smart set. If such people wanna travel around the world, visit various colleges around the world, do interviews with different people in other nations, that’s all fine by me. Smart people around the world should exchange ideas and discuss all sorts of things. That’s good for cultural and intellectual progress.

    But at the political level, the elites of any community should lead and guide their own people. It’s like Israeli intellectuals rub shoulders with intellectuals in other parts of the world, but they have a profound sense of connection to all Jews in Israel. I’m sure Japanese elites feel the same way. Life isn’t just about intelligence and ideas. It is about blood, heritage, identity, and community. While all human communities are artificially constructed in some ways, some are rooted in human nature(feelings of familism, clannism, tribalism, race-ism, territory-ism) whereas others are erected on shaky abstract principles.
    It’s like all that communist ideology stuff failed to create a borderless brotherhood from Warsaw to Hanoi. But then, who the hell wants to belong to some generic borderless brotherhood world order based on abstract ideas? Ideas should always be secondary to reality.

    Just look at the dire condition of British white masses ever since the white elites gave up on them.
    Look at the ‘Coming Apart’ happening in America? To be sure, Charles Murray himself is a piece of turd because he betrayed the white masses by bending over to the elite-favored ‘gay marriage’. He says one thing but does another. Typical of his kind. When push comes to shove, he’s a whore just like Walter Russell Mead.
    If the Russian elites will not lead the Russians, who will? If the Chinese elites won’t lead the Chinese masses, who will? Should the main priority of elites all over the world be to shmooze with elites of other nations while ignoring their own people?
    You see, Jews have the right idea. They juggle cosmopolitanism with community-ism. While smart Jews do dillydally with other smart people all over the world, they still have a profound sense of Jewish community and a sense of Jewish commitment to all Jews. To be sure, this may be easier for Jews since the average IQ among them is higher than among other groups. So, the difference between a smart Jew and a dumb Jew isn’t so wide as the difference between a smart Hindu and a dumb Hindu. Also, even though Jewish blood is mixed, it wasn’t mixed histori-hostilely. Some Jews came to Europe, married some white women, and produced Ashkenazi Jews. Since it happened more naturally and gradually, there was no poison feeling within the Jewish community.
    But it’s different in Latin America. Take Bolivia. What is a Bolivian? He could be a Conquistador white Hispanic, a mestizo, or an Indian. Also, the mixing happened as the result of conquest, ‘genocide’, ‘mass rape’, and etc. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, some nice Jewish fellas met some nice white girls, and they got married and had kids. In the case of Latin America, one race of people conquered and subjugated another people. So, Latin-American identity is more troubled. Same goes for India too as the history of India is one of invasions.

    A smart person doesn’t have to hang with the dumb of his own kind socially. But if he lacks a profound sense of identity and unity with his own people on the cultural, racial, and national level, he’s a self-centered piece of turd. He’s just an Obama who doesn’t really give a crap about blacks as he’s too busy kissing the ass of the globo-elites and homos. He’s just like David Cameron who turns a blind eye to the plight of white British masses but goes out of his way to serve his rich and smart globo-elites controllers.

    Another thing. The world isn’t as simple as dumb vs smart. Even among the smart, there is smart, very smart, and super smart. There is also nice guy smart, naive guy smart, cunning smart, ruthless smart, nasty smart. And the kinds of smart guys who gain elite power tend to be dirty, nasty, lowdown, ruthless, and vile in so many ways. They are real a**holes. Such jerks have no scruples. Just look how they worked Wall Street to make huge profits but then supported a ‘socialist’ like Obama to get huge bailouts. Look how the smart a**holes around the world all conspired to bring down Russia by triggering the mess in Ukraine. Most smart people may gain some degree of affluence, but they will never have real power that belongs to the supermart, the super-nasty, the super-connected, etc.

    Also, some groups have many more smart people than other groups. Since you is Chinese and since there are many smart Chinese, maybe you likey the idea of the rule of smart people. It so much like Confucian stuff about how scholar class should rule.
    And of course, Jews have very high IQ, so they will dominate much of the smart community. But look at Mexicans and other groups. They got smart people but in smaller numbers. So, they won’t be represented much in the global smart set. Smartology will never be fair racially or culturally.
    Just look at Southeast Asia. If the native elites took up smartology, they’ll just dillydally with smart Chinese elites and ignore their own peoples. That would be some lowdown shit.
    Furthermore, even the politics of the smart set cannot be divorced from the politics of the entire populace, including dumb people. Consider the Holocaust. It gives smart Jews a huge moral and political–and even economic–advantage over other smart groups. But then, was the Holocaust only about the Nazis targeting smart Jews? No, Germans targeted all Jews, smart and dumb alike. So, even as smart Jews hang with smart non-Jews, they remind themselves and others that they, as Jews, think in terms of ‘Never Again’, and that means working for the interests of all Jews, not just smart ones.

    Do you, Yan Shen turd boy, look at the Rape of Nanking and say, ‘Ok, I feel sorry for smart Chinese victims, but if Japanese raped and killed dumb Chinese, I no care because I so smart and only identify with smart people, Chinese or not’. Following your logic, you should side with smart Japanese soldiers and feel nothing for dumb Chinese who got killed or raped.
    Only a dirtbag thinks and feels like that.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    @pizza with hot pepper: Thanks for an excellent response to Yan Shen. Please see my response (Rose No. 14) to Yan Shen. I don't why it took so long to post my answer. You bring out other points concerning Yan Shen's statements that I did not cover. Great!!!
  61. I see nothing wrong with respecting the rights of others taking precedence over benefiting yourself… as long as you’re reasonable about what rights you consider others to have.

    The traditional concept of ‘negative rights’ works very well with that model. It would work out to “be a good neighbor”, which is a very old and successful moral precept – shame it’s so rarely followed. The popular modern idea of ‘positive rights’ would be utterly disastrous.

  62. @Massimo Heitor
    Insulting Caplan's brain is ad hominem. Sailer is completely right on his points, but he should argue his points respectfully. Caplan has been very respectful towards Sailer. He said that Sailer is a pariah of the media with sympathy for Sailer and he is completely right that the media _does_ treat Sailer like a pariah. Caplan is often intellectually lazy, his logic is full of holes, but it's admirable that Caplan is linking and referencing a legitimate opponent like Sailer rather than just repeating his "elevator pitch".

    “Insulting Caplan’s brain is ad hominem.”

    I agree that Caplan deserves kudos for at least taking Sailer seriously, as opposed to characterizing him as being “best known for his belief that black people are intellectually inferior to white people”. Sailer’s ideas would get far more traction if the rest of his opponents treated them with a comparable degree of honesty and respect (which is why they don’t).

  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition."

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic "citizenism", these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family's house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you're suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don't make fun of Caplan's intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don't brag much about being smarter than others.

    Tricky Nick Diaz said: “Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead. ”

    WW2 killed far more than 100mm people Nick. Various forms of aggressive socialism/Bolshevism (Jewish Messianism more accurately) and subsequent reactions to it were responsible for far more deaths than “nationalism”. In 2nd place I suppose I’d put imperialism (Japanese, and US imperial reactions to it). Adding in all wars in the 20th century — you’d have to include WW1, the countless African wars of Independence (actually tribal power struggles in a post-colonial vacuum), the post WW2 wars in SE Asia (you’ve heard of Vietnam haven’t you?) and the bloodshed that followed that (Cambodia? Hard to blame that on ‘nationalism’” ) and then of course the late 90’s struggles in the former Soviet Union (I suppose you could call some of that ‘nationalism’).

    It would be hard to be more spectacularly wrong than you Nick. Read Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times” and report back. Until then, learn your place. Mow my lawn.

  64. The most simple test of Mr. Caplan’s devotion to his professed values is to show up at his doorstep and demand your right to crash at his place indefinitely.
    If he’s the type of guy who puts his money where his mouth is, he can’t very well say no.
    Has anyone tried this yet?

  65. Caplan, as befits his lazy extremist intellectual tendencies…

    “Lazy extremist” is an excellent term. It accurately characterizes the intellectual gestalt of the modern Social Justice Warrior in a way that denotes both their craven morals and their total lack of mental rigor.

    I can think offhand of a dozen lazy extremists that I know personally, not to mention hundreds more online.

  66. “nor does a lax immigration policy beget interventionism”

    Sweden barely has an army. Swedish public opinion is surprisingly hawkish in liberal-interventionist wars fought by others. At some point in time at least, polls in Sweden have shown majority support for the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq war (barely) and bombing Libya and Syria.

    • Replies: @GW
    This really doesn't rebut my point. Sweden feels quite content to invite in the swarthy hordes while keeping to itself in foreign affairs. Were I an open-borders, pacifist liberal I'd rightly point out we can have one without the other.

    The flip side is the bigger issue for me. The most influential and powerful immigration restrictionists in America (Kobach, Sessions, etc.) are quite hawkish as well. "Invade the world, invite the world" may be an excellent summary of GW Bush's neo-conservative mindset, but it hardly follows that we must have both or neither.
  67. @Guy Incognito
    "nor does a lax immigration policy beget interventionism"

    Sweden barely has an army. Swedish public opinion is surprisingly hawkish in liberal-interventionist wars fought by others. At some point in time at least, polls in Sweden have shown majority support for the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq war (barely) and bombing Libya and Syria.

    This really doesn’t rebut my point. Sweden feels quite content to invite in the swarthy hordes while keeping to itself in foreign affairs. Were I an open-borders, pacifist liberal I’d rightly point out we can have one without the other.

    The flip side is the bigger issue for me. The most influential and powerful immigration restrictionists in America (Kobach, Sessions, etc.) are quite hawkish as well. “Invade the world, invite the world” may be an excellent summary of GW Bush’s neo-conservative mindset, but it hardly follows that we must have both or neither.

  68. @anon
    "@anon: In theory, a libertarian or HBDer could believe in god. Admittedly, it is uncommon."

    Indeed. Although I don't want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves.

    @ anon

    “Indeed. Although I don’t want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves.”

    That is interesting. As an atheist, I find that HBD and the science behind it has given me a new appreciation of religion’s role in the success of western civilization to the point that I have asked my wife that we resume attending church regularly. I have found no equivalent secular social algorithm/institution that encourages social norms and behaviors in support of family formation.

    I do not believe that most Protestant churches are doing their job properly, and that is why they are sinking into decay irrelevance, but the Mormons get it, as well as the Amish and the Mennonites. You could argue the Jews get it too. The key it they provide guidance for their communities, and even short term support for families within reason, BUT individuals have to follow the rules or get shunned. Premarital sex, illegitimacy and what not unfairly burden the community and are unjust, dysgenic and cannot be tolerated.

    As long as state sponsored social supports come without strings, these programs will be disasters.

    If the price I have to pay is to pray to an imaginary God to force this morality and structure on the unwashed, the unthinking and the mystic, so be it.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Three guys who had made themselves unpopular with the Wall Street Washington axis came a cropper in sex scandals: Spitzer, DSK, and Assange.

    Probably just a coincidence.

  69. @Muse
    @ anon

    "Indeed. Although I don’t want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves."


    That is interesting. As an atheist, I find that HBD and the science behind it has given me a new appreciation of religion's role in the success of western civilization to the point that I have asked my wife that we resume attending church regularly. I have found no equivalent secular social algorithm/institution that encourages social norms and behaviors in support of family formation.

    I do not believe that most Protestant churches are doing their job properly, and that is why they are sinking into decay irrelevance, but the Mormons get it, as well as the Amish and the Mennonites. You could argue the Jews get it too. The key it they provide guidance for their communities, and even short term support for families within reason, BUT individuals have to follow the rules or get shunned. Premarital sex, illegitimacy and what not unfairly burden the community and are unjust, dysgenic and cannot be tolerated.

    As long as state sponsored social supports come without strings, these programs will be disasters.

    If the price I have to pay is to pray to an imaginary God to force this morality and structure on the unwashed, the unthinking and the mystic, so be it.

    Three guys who had made themselves unpopular with the Wall Street Washington axis came a cropper in sex scandals: Spitzer, DSK, and Assange.

    Probably just a coincidence.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Probably just a coincidence.

    One of them was vulgar and entitled enough to engage in sodomy with a hotel maid, another spent tens of thousands of dollars on high end prostitutes, and a third recognizes no restraints whatsoever. These three are easy meat for a set up if there ever was one. We do not need gross pigs in positions of influence, so no loss there. (While we are at it, see Megan McArdle's critique of Spitzer's treatment of the financial sector if you fancy he was acting in the public interest).
  70. favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members

    Only if your fellow citizens belong to the same ethnic and racial background that you do. Citizenism says that I should treat a black American as if they were more closely related to me than a white European which is plainly ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Citizenism says that I should treat a black American as if they were more closely related to me than a white European which is plainly ridiculous.

    There were over 70,000 blacks in my home town when I was growing up there. I've known them as family friends, as school mates, and as co-workers. I suppose there are some thousands of 'white, European' immigrants where I grew up. There were a pair of Russians I rode the school bus with ca. 1979. They chattered to each other in Russian and the girl was haphazard about brushing her teeth.
  71. @Jefferson
    African immigrants in the Southern Chinese city of Guangzhou are often stereotyped as being thugs and thieves.

    I assume Bryan Caplan is against racial stereotyping, so if he wants to end racial stereotyping he should be against vibrant diversity. As long as people from vastly different cultures are living side by side, you will have racial stereotyping.

    People in Guangzhou would not have any negative opinion of Black people at all if that city did not have over 200,000 African immigrants.

    Excellent point about diversity and racial stereotyping. Unfortunately, I think Caplan supports diversity because it favors the interests of his own group, not blacks.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    Caplan's an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    That doesn't sound like a lot of concern for ethnicity or culture.

    But your statement would be accurate in that he supports diversity because it favors his group: libertarians.

    ----
    *(Caplan's father was Jewish, and his mother wasn't.)

  72. @Priss Factor
    "(While we’re at it, Caplan’s mother’s maiden name is ‘McCarthy’ and his wife’s is ‘Mateescu’. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship)."

    I don't care about Israel. If the likes of him get what they want, just about ANYONE can qualify for US citizenship.

    And another thing. Whatever his ancestry, he sure acts more like a Caplan than a McCarthy, especially the famous one named Joe.

    I think it likely that Caplan operates on the one drop rule – and I am not referring to his mother’s ancestry.

  73. While we’re at it, Caplan’s mother’s maiden name is ‘McCarthy’ and his wife’s is ‘Mateescu’. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship.

    I don’t know anything about Caplan’s family tree, but as a matter of Israeli policy anyone with one Jewish parent or grandparent is eligible for Israeli citizenship. It’s not restricted to the maternal line.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    but as a matter of Israeli policy anyone with one Jewish parent or grandparent is eligible for Israeli citizenship. It’s not restricted to the maternal line.

    I've been told this before, but the text of the Law of Return says otherwise.

    "4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.""

    --
  74. @Joe Walker
    Excellent point about diversity and racial stereotyping. Unfortunately, I think Caplan supports diversity because it favors the interests of his own group, not blacks.

    Caplan’s an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    That doesn’t sound like a lot of concern for ethnicity or culture.

    But your statement would be accurate in that he supports diversity because it favors his group: libertarians.

    —-
    *(Caplan’s father was Jewish, and his mother wasn’t.)

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Caplan’s an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    Did you read his brief adolescent memoir? His account of himself gives display to some remarkable continuities of disposition over the decades. It just amazes me he got through high school without being stuffed so far into his locker that he'd never escape.

    --

    If I have not confounded them with some other couple, his parents were married on 25 April 1964, at time when endogamy was bog standard among Jews. His father was not that old (25) 'ere bagging that shiksa. I'll wager it's been the mode to be laconic about matters religious and ethnic for some time in that family.
  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Isn’t it ironic that Caplan spouts his nonsense on the very same day that millions of Scotsmen are taking the decision of whether to go for an independent Scotland – isn’t the very idea of national independence and self determination just soo passe’ according to Caplan, isn’t it just an outdated concept from the past?
    In the final analysis, all Scottish independence actually means is that Scots do not consider themselves ‘citizens’ of the United Kingdom. For whatever reason they reject British citizenship and reject English people as ‘fellow citizens’ – that’s what independence actually means. Any other explanation or pseudo explanation is just pure bullshit.

  76. So close! “Vigorous pursuit of national self-interest leads to great global outcomes”

    I thought for a moment he would have a light bulb click on and realize, “Adam Smith!”

  77. @Yan Shen
    Not anything that I haven't stated before, but might I once again offer up a middle of the road philosophy in contrast to the philosophical worldview of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan, one which I refer to as cognitive elitism.

    I've always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group's bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.

    Yan – on its face, there is an enormous and obvious appeal in your idea. And I also agree with your conjecture that “smart people” are more similar to each other, irresepective of origin, religous affiliation than with their co-religionisits, ethnic brothers, etc.

    But the question I have is, “would it work?” Indeed, could it in the US? In any country that is already pluralistic with a highly entrenched welfare state? What do we do with those already here? What becomes of the billions of people who are not cognitive elites? Who are well below average?

    I live in France, and it’s not much of a stretch to say that our news almost daily has some horrific story or another about a boat laden with desperate migrants cap-sizing in the Mediterranean Sea, or of teeming camps in Pas-de-Calais or Lampedusa.

    Le Camp des Saints is a work of fiction, but is it a possible future? Is it the likely one?

    The world you envisage is very likely going to need to be one with high walls. And men with guns standing on them. As others have said, this is going to require a warrior class.

    The world is, bluntly, not a completely rational one, so the “optimal global outcome” (for whom?) is probably not going to be very convincing to those in the lower half of the IQ pool. And as Caplan suggests, it’s a “moral travesty,” n’est-ce pas, to consider the needs of the “ins” anywhere than behind the needs of the “outs?”

    In the end, a nation is more than a hotel. It needs to be somewhat coherent. You (elsewhere) hold up Lee Kuan Yew as a role model for America’s future leadership. I have an enormous respect for Lee. But did Mr Lee not, himself, say something in an interview a decade ago to the effect that in a pluralistic society, you vote based not on class or social interest, but in the end, on racial and religious ones? I believe he did.

    • Replies: @Numinous

    But did Mr Lee not, himself, say something in an interview a decade ago to the effect that in a pluralistic society, you vote based not on class or social interest, but in the end, on racial and religious ones? I believe he did.
     
    Not exactly. He said that in a free-for-all electoral democracy, people would start to vote tribally. He used that argument to justify his soft dictatorship of Singapore. To him, a stable state with a unified purpose was the most important factor in the development of a country.
  78. Caplan’s an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    Possibly a relative on the mix:

    Recent US immigrants learning how to vote, 1936

  79. @Yan Shen
    Not anything that I haven't stated before, but might I once again offer up a middle of the road philosophy in contrast to the philosophical worldview of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan, one which I refer to as cognitive elitism.

    I've always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group's bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool.

    For those with family, though, regression to the mean will always create links from the smartest people to less brilliant (and sometimes not terribly bright) kids, siblings, cousins, friends, in-laws, etc.

  80. If we have no greater obligation to citizens than non-citizens, why isn’t Caplan arguing to make every person in the world living under the US poverty line eligble for Medicaid, foodstamps, aid to families with dependent children, federally guaranteed student loans and on and on? Isn’t it immoral to advantage the US citizens with these programs while not providing them to everyone in India and Africa?

  81. BobX [AKA "Bob"] says:

    Even without your confirmation I thought it safe to assume it was not that Razib as he doesn’t like to sully himself with us HBD riffraff types you draw.

    Yan Shen we already have way too much cognitive elitism case in point Bryan Caplan and his ilk. What we need is public policy that ties the interest of our cognitive & financial elite with our middle & lumpenproletariat classes. You & Bryan may not see my working class family members as part of “ourselves” I certainly do (secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity) . Optimal global outcome my ass, we owe a higher duty to my shiftless brother and the ne’er-do-well layabouts of Detroit & Ferguson than to optimal global outcome. I might go so far as a cognitive bias to our immigration policy but even from the right tail of the curve we do not need all that many. Enforce the border and tie the immigration quotas to the median income & the unemployment rate.

    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    'You & Bryan may not see my working class family members as part of “ourselves” I certainly do'

    The great thing about cognitive elitism is that you're at most bringing in limited numbers of the cognitively elite. They don't really compete directly with the lower portions of the native IQ distribution. Can adding more brainpower to a country actually make the middle and lower classes worse off than if that additional human capital wasn't present? I have a hard time seeing how this could be the case. The argument about how 'elites' such as Bryan Caplan push for less than ideal immigration policies isn't really an indictment of cognitive elitism so much as it is an indictment of liberalism. No one's really pushing for more left wing academics in the social sciences or humanities. Rather, cognitive elitism is defined as more or less as those individuals possessing strong technical aptitude who can create tangible value for society.

    Furthermore, the cognitive elite tend to be disproportionately concentrated in certain areas, i.e. tech in the Bay Area, etc. So as far as most people are concerned, the demographic makeup that they encounter on a daily basis isn't really affected by this kind of limited immigration. People in Iowa or Idaho are probably only marginally affected by cognitive elitism.

    But really, cognitive elitism as I've defined it isn't even really pushing for high quality immigration. My guess is that as China modernizes, the number of foreign students studying here in the US and the number of foreign workers will decline, i.e. there are very few ethnic Japanese in the US. See below.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/world/americas/chinese-applications-to-us-graduate-schools-decline.html?_r=0

    So the status quo could be fine. A decline from the status quo as alluded to above could be fine as well. It's more about recognizing that in today's highly interconnected global economy, the most effective countries seem to be those who understand the potential value of limited high quality immigration.

  82. @Steve Sailer
    Three guys who had made themselves unpopular with the Wall Street Washington axis came a cropper in sex scandals: Spitzer, DSK, and Assange.

    Probably just a coincidence.

    Probably just a coincidence.

    One of them was vulgar and entitled enough to engage in sodomy with a hotel maid, another spent tens of thousands of dollars on high end prostitutes, and a third recognizes no restraints whatsoever. These three are easy meat for a set up if there ever was one. We do not need gross pigs in positions of influence, so no loss there. (While we are at it, see Megan McArdle’s critique of Spitzer’s treatment of the financial sector if you fancy he was acting in the public interest).

  83. @Greenstalk
    While we’re at it, Caplan’s mother’s maiden name is ‘McCarthy’ and his wife’s is ‘Mateescu’. Neither he nor his children qualify for Israeli citizenship.


    I don't know anything about Caplan's family tree, but as a matter of Israeli policy anyone with one Jewish parent or grandparent is eligible for Israeli citizenship. It's not restricted to the maternal line.

    but as a matter of Israeli policy anyone with one Jewish parent or grandparent is eligible for Israeli citizenship. It’s not restricted to the maternal line.

    I’ve been told this before, but the text of the Law of Return says otherwise.

    “4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.””

  84. @Southfarthing
    Caplan's an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    That doesn't sound like a lot of concern for ethnicity or culture.

    But your statement would be accurate in that he supports diversity because it favors his group: libertarians.

    ----
    *(Caplan's father was Jewish, and his mother wasn't.)

    Caplan’s an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    Did you read his brief adolescent memoir? His account of himself gives display to some remarkable continuities of disposition over the decades. It just amazes me he got through high school without being stuffed so far into his locker that he’d never escape.

    If I have not confounded them with some other couple, his parents were married on 25 April 1964, at time when endogamy was bog standard among Jews. His father was not that old (25) ‘ere bagging that shiksa. I’ll wager it’s been the mode to be laconic about matters religious and ethnic for some time in that family.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    Caplan's certainly a nerd par excellence. His intellectual autobiography describes how he was exposed to Atlas Shrugged in highschool, and "raced through its thousand-plus pages in three largely sleepless days."

    My parent who had Jewish ancestry married a Christian out of a desire to assimilate into mainstream US society. For Caplan's father to marry a Christian that long ago when it was still discouraged, he probably had a similar desire.

  85. @Joe Walker
    favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members

    Only if your fellow citizens belong to the same ethnic and racial background that you do. Citizenism says that I should treat a black American as if they were more closely related to me than a white European which is plainly ridiculous.

    Citizenism says that I should treat a black American as if they were more closely related to me than a white European which is plainly ridiculous.

    There were over 70,000 blacks in my home town when I was growing up there. I’ve known them as family friends, as school mates, and as co-workers. I suppose there are some thousands of ‘white, European’ immigrants where I grew up. There were a pair of Russians I rode the school bus with ca. 1979. They chattered to each other in Russian and the girl was haphazard about brushing her teeth.

  86. @Art Deco
    Nobody's 'rights', however they are determined, have any practical effect outside a collectivity maintaining order. Political institutions are artifacts which nestle in particular societies. He does not stop to think what character those societies need to have so that those institutions work passably for the maintenance of justice and not systematized exploitation. That might suggest that societies have an organic life and are not mere random collections of individuals.

    Nobody’s ‘rights’, however they are determined, have any practical effect outside a collectivity maintaining order. Political institutions are artifacts which nestle in particular societies. He does not stop to think what character those societies need to have so that those institutions work passably for the maintenance of justice and not systematized exploitation. That might suggest that societies have an organic life and are not mere random collections of individuals.

    *Very* well said Mr. Deco.

    That our “rights” in practical terms are a products of society–the culture and quality of the society–which is so painfully obvious, seems utterly beyond the comprehension of liberal multi-culturalists. (For the lefties sure–it’s about bringing down the white man “by any means necessary”, they don’t really believe in any “rights”.)

    But its a whole ‘nother level, seeing these laughable “libertarians” spouting a “free market” ideology which has absolutely no traction anywhere but in the Anglosphere … thinking “Open Borders … peachy!” Jjust boggles the mind. What level of absolute idiocy about the world is required?

  87. @Greenstalk
    I’ll give Caplan credit for one thing: he sets out, explicitly and in great detail, exactly the policy position he wants the U.S. to take on immigration. Even if you disagree with him, there’s at least something to work with. Most mainstream commentators and p0litician just emit vaporous pieties.


    You don't think "The US should open its borders because that's the morally correct thing to do for the poor children of Latin America" is a vaporous piety?

    No, that’s really what I think Caplan believes. It’s not a crazy idea, even though I don’t think it would be smart policy.

  88. @HandsomeWhiteDevil
    "Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups."

    A key insight of the Age of Enlightenment of the 17th & 18th Centuries was the realization that it was possible to have a viable society in which diversity of religious & political thought was respected, and that society need not constantly battle to crush dissenting viewpoints in the interests of stability and security.

    Thus, the principle of "minority rights, majority rule". In other words, the majority would respect the minority's rights to hold opinions and follow religions, within reasonable limits, not held by the majority, and the minority would respect the majority as the majority, and not seek to overthrow the established order to institute a system of minority rule.

    This was a cornerstone of liberalism as it evolved up to the 1960s.

    Caplan's "second fiddle" theory of group rights, in actuality "minority rights, minority rule", is merely contemporary liberalism, whereby all sorts of minorities, religious, political, cultural, racial, ethnic, sexual, etc. seek to not only crush and overturn the majority, but demand acceptance and approval of their minoritarian viewpoints by the majority.

    In other words, reversion to medieval standards of political and philosophical thought.

    Not for the first time, I'm struck by the sheer illiberalism of contemporary liberals.

    Caplan’s “second fiddle” theory of group rights, in actuality “minority rights, minority rule”, is merely contemporary liberalism, whereby all sorts of minorities, religious, political, cultural, racial, ethnic, sexual, etc. seek to not only crush and overturn the majority, but demand acceptance and approval of their minoritarian viewpoints by the majority.

    Another excellent comment. What a terrific thread. Thanks Mr. HandsomeWhiteDevil.

    One thing i’ve come to clearly understand only in the last 10 or 15 years is leftism is totalitarianism. They are the same thing. This has been super-explicit recently around the gay\gay-marriage thing. But is basically the ideology of the left. You *must* agree with our view … or else!

    You can psycho-analyze and point out that this is essentially the old, pre-Enlightenment, religious view. And these folks are folks who lacking traditional religious belief have a new religion PC-multiculturalism. All must swear allegiance to their creed or be cast out.

  89. @Daniel H
    >>Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.

    The cluelessness is stunning. Caplan seems unaware of actually who he is. This statement is helpful, though. I am beginning to believe that for Caplan and his ilk it is not malevolence at all that motivates them, just a selected for, unacknowledged trait that has served them well for eons. It is impossible to reason with them, for reason plays no part in the matter, so I will not even deign to reason with them anymore, just [metaphorically] bludgeon them with the hard stone of reality. Loud and hard, loud and hard.

    The word “rights” is doing all the work in that sentence. I agree with his statement: we really shouldn’t violate the rights of foreigners for our country’s benefit. Thus, we shouldn’t invade foreign countries to take their oil or force their people into slavery, for example, even if that would benefit us.

    But this only really applies to immigration if you also believe (as I think he does, but most of us here do not) that immigration to the country of your choice is a right. If it’s not a right, then by managing our immigration policy to maximize the well being of our own country, we are behaving just as he says we must–respecting the rights of outsiders, and having that trump acting in our own interests, but not having outsiders’ interests trump our own (nor even be given equal weight with our own).

    • Replies: @random observer
    Exactly, and well put.

    I am always left slightly unnerved by these Caplan posts. I feel that he is reporting from Mars.

    Your post has clarified it for me. He appears to actually think the rights of all humans are worldwide and encompass global freedom of movement and settlement, since countries are their authorities and claimed "national" identities however defined are all fake concepts, and therefore their application is inherently totalitarian.

    He writes as though his opponents all recognize this obvious reality too and are simply being either obtuse or totalitarian in refusing to acknowledge it. He does not seem to consider the possibility that his opponents do not recognize the oneness of the world or the universal mobility of humans as among their rights. Curious.
  90. @anon
    "@anon: In theory, a libertarian or HBDer could believe in god. Admittedly, it is uncommon."

    Indeed. Although I don't want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.) But there is a loathsome subsection of HBDers (generally, not very bright people, or autistics) who decide that their discovery of HBD allows them to determine that all traditional guidelines of ethics and morality are naive and not applicable to ubermensch like themselves.

    Indeed. Although I don’t want to dump all HBDers into the militant atheist category. In my experience, most are, if not believers themselves, appreciative of the role and teachings of Christianity (and sometimes, more rarely, of Judaism.)

    HBD is obviously quite compatible with religious belief even traditional ones.

    Because HBD–that people differ, and different groups of people (races) differ even more–was what *every* human believed throughout human history, even pre-history. The Ancient Egyptians certainly believed it. Ditto the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Indians … on up to any self-respecting 19th century British imperialist. Anyone sensible who came in contact with other people believed it up until 1900, or maybe even 1950 … and then the denial *only* in the West. You can’t sell this PC “everyone’s the same” bs to the Chinese.

    HBD is the human *norm*. It’s what people have always believed based on ordinary human experience. I’ve got three kids–trust me they were *born* different even before i could mess ’em up. No one who has more than one kid (identical twins aside) can seriously question it based on experience. No, the dominant narrative that’s been imposed on the white man, is just that–an ideological imposition. HBD is the normal common sense position–way before Darwin. People differ. Just open your eyes and it’s obvious.

  91. “County Club”

    Seems to me those two words are all anyone needs to debunk Caplan on his own turf.

    Basically Caplan views a nation as nothing more than a town market. The more market participants … the market is more “efficient”, so “better”. QED. That’s all Caplan’s got. Even on the economics—ignoring all the critically important cultural and biological stuff—this “better” is nonsense. Better for whom? Some win, some lose. It’s not clear that immigration to the US is “better” economically for most folks. In fact it’s pretty clear it’s the reverse—for most people in the US it is way worse. The winners are immigrants and a few rich people (short term—longer term their descendents will live in the degraded nation too). In other words, in the case of 21st century America opening up Caplan’s town market to the world turns out to not be better for most of the town.

    I’ve got a much better analogy than Caplan’s town market—a country club. A nation is obviously more than a market. It’s also (usually), like a country club, a physical piece of real estate, run by a group of people for their benefit. They build it up over generations—building up its infrastructure, perhaps adding additional land and its institutions. And, of course, it has a specific “culture”, a specific set of traditions practices that make it more comfortable and pleasant for its members. There may occasionally be folks who would be a “good fit”, and make the club better, and they may be invited to buy in. But the key point: you, don’t flip open the doors of the country club and let anyone and everyone play. That makes it *worse* for the clubs members—harder (or impossible) to get a tee time, more crowded on the course, putting up with people with other (perhaps inferior and at least annoying) behavior. In simple economic terms, throwing open the doors is *throwing away* the *ownership* rights of the clubs members. Likewise with nations.

    Libertarians claim to be champions of private property rights. But open borders advocates like Caplan are advocating throwing a very valuable shared property right in the trash!

    If Caplan was really motivated by libertarian economic principles, then he’d advocate *selling* club playing time or club memberships (US labor market access rights or citizenship), and distributing the proceeds to the club owners (US citizens) with a program and price that maximizes the long-term value of the owners. Pretty darn sure that price is not zero! Rather a bit of simple analysis of *long term* value indicates the price would be set pretty high—hundreds of thousands of dollars would be my guess—allowing a modest profit in any one year, while still maintaining scarcity value to generate a profit in subsequent years.

    The reason Caplan doesn’t advocate this, but rather advocates giving away valuable property rights, is that Open Borders isn’t even aspergery rational economic analysis. Caplan does not approach this by asking “what immigration policy maximizes shareholder value?” Caplan believes in “Open Borders” *ideologically* and *axiomatically*. He holds a radical ideology of radical “egalitarianism”—quite leftist (note Caplan’s own verbiage about “discrimination”)—and radical anti-nationalism. Really quite radical and anti-human. This stuff makes no sense and no actual geographic nation has ever held or seriously entertained these notions. They are particular products of particular people with particular nation breaking hostilities.

    To finally win—I believe—citizenists must thoroughly confront and defeat Caplan’s hateful, noxious, anti-nationalist ideology. (Where it comes from, what it means, who it serves and why it is an enemy of peace, order and a decent life for folks descendents—the full “consciousness raising”.)

    But debunking his frontline argument, every time Caplan says “market”, we should answer “country club” and simply say “You’re throwing away the hard-won (in blood and toil) property rights of American citizens!”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yes, but the most important event in cultural history was when some current individuals' great-grandfathers had to build their own country clubs because they couldn't get into existing ones.
  92. @AnotherDad
    “County Club”

    Seems to me those two words are all anyone needs to debunk Caplan on his own turf.

    Basically Caplan views a nation as nothing more than a town market. The more market participants … the market is more “efficient”, so “better”. QED. That’s all Caplan’s got. Even on the economics—ignoring all the critically important cultural and biological stuff—this “better” is nonsense. Better for whom? Some win, some lose. It’s not clear that immigration to the US is “better” economically for most folks. In fact it’s pretty clear it’s the reverse—for most people in the US it is way worse. The winners are immigrants and a few rich people (short term—longer term their descendents will live in the degraded nation too). In other words, in the case of 21st century America opening up Caplan’s town market to the world turns out to not be better for most of the town.

    I’ve got a much better analogy than Caplan’s town market—a country club. A nation is obviously more than a market. It’s also (usually), like a country club, a physical piece of real estate, run by a group of people for their benefit. They build it up over generations—building up its infrastructure, perhaps adding additional land and its institutions. And, of course, it has a specific “culture”, a specific set of traditions practices that make it more comfortable and pleasant for its members. There may occasionally be folks who would be a “good fit”, and make the club better, and they may be invited to buy in. But the key point: you, don’t flip open the doors of the country club and let anyone and everyone play. That makes it *worse* for the clubs members—harder (or impossible) to get a tee time, more crowded on the course, putting up with people with other (perhaps inferior and at least annoying) behavior. In simple economic terms, throwing open the doors is *throwing away* the *ownership* rights of the clubs members. Likewise with nations.

    Libertarians claim to be champions of private property rights. But open borders advocates like Caplan are advocating throwing a very valuable shared property right in the trash!

    If Caplan was really motivated by libertarian economic principles, then he’d advocate *selling* club playing time or club memberships (US labor market access rights or citizenship), and distributing the proceeds to the club owners (US citizens) with a program and price that maximizes the long-term value of the owners. Pretty darn sure that price is not zero! Rather a bit of simple analysis of *long term* value indicates the price would be set pretty high—hundreds of thousands of dollars would be my guess—allowing a modest profit in any one year, while still maintaining scarcity value to generate a profit in subsequent years.

    The reason Caplan doesn’t advocate this, but rather advocates giving away valuable property rights, is that Open Borders isn’t even aspergery rational economic analysis. Caplan does not approach this by asking “what immigration policy maximizes shareholder value?” Caplan believes in “Open Borders” *ideologically* and *axiomatically*. He holds a radical ideology of radical “egalitarianism”—quite leftist (note Caplan’s own verbiage about “discrimination”)—and radical anti-nationalism. Really quite radical and anti-human. This stuff makes no sense and no actual geographic nation has ever held or seriously entertained these notions. They are particular products of particular people with particular nation breaking hostilities.

    To finally win—I believe—citizenists must thoroughly confront and defeat Caplan’s hateful, noxious, anti-nationalist ideology. (Where it comes from, what it means, who it serves and why it is an enemy of peace, order and a decent life for folks descendents—the full “consciousness raising”.)

    But debunking his frontline argument, every time Caplan says “market”, we should answer “country club” and simply say “You’re throwing away the hard-won (in blood and toil) property rights of American citizens!"

    Yes, but the most important event in cultural history was when some current individuals’ great-grandfathers had to build their own country clubs because they couldn’t get into existing ones.

  93. @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "Bryan’s not terribly supple brain doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that favoring your fellow citizens is like favoring your family members: it’s doesn’t imply that your family enjoys carte blanche to home-invade your neighbors, steal their silverware, and eat their pets; or that favoring the corporation in which you own stock doesn’t entitle you to burn down its competition."

    Citizenism IS related to nationalism, since one can only be a citizen of a national state with defined borders. Therefore, equating both is perfectly appropriate.

    Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.

    Also, your analogy between being citizen of a country and owning stock in a corporation does not hold because no one is entitled to owning stock in a corporation. The money you spend buying the stock represents VALUE. In other words, you ADDED something to the company in order to have a stake in it. Conversely, your citizenism is more aptly described as a free lunch. You are basically saying that American workers are entitled to earning far more than workers of other countries for doing the same job just for being American citizens. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the country truly functioned as a family and payed the salaries, but this is not the case. The salaries of American workers are by private corporations, which are in direct competition with companies from all over the World that do not have to deal with this handicap. If you practice economic "citizenism", these private companies will go bankrupt. It is very easy for you to claim that American workers are entitled to earn more for the same reason that a member of a family is more priviledged inside the family's house than someone who is not a member of the family, but then expect private companies to fit the bill. A closer analogy is that what you're suggesting is getting other people to pay for you and your family have a priviledged status in your house.

    And don't make fun of Caplan's intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don't brag much about being smarter than others.

    “Nationalism has resulted in the death of close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Just World War 2, which was essentially a war triggered by a highly nationalistic state, resulted in the death of 55 million people. Putting all wars fought in the 2oth century for nationalistic reasons, which means basically the vast majority of wars, you can add another 40+ million people dead.”

    It’s “nationalist” not “nationalistic” you third rate prosaist.

    Also, communism probably cost people much more.

    Bottom line: you are a noxious troll, an unintelligent creature that seeks to rile people up with his 4th rate shitposting.

    Nationalism is an absolutely necessary and unpreventable thing. You might as well blame people driving cars for the war in Iraq.

    WW2 happened because the French were butthurt scum that sought to humiliate Germany. They got what they had coming later on.

  94. @Art Deco
    Caplan’s an atheist, and his children will have 3 Christian grandparents and 1 Jewish grandparent.

    Did you read his brief adolescent memoir? His account of himself gives display to some remarkable continuities of disposition over the decades. It just amazes me he got through high school without being stuffed so far into his locker that he'd never escape.

    --

    If I have not confounded them with some other couple, his parents were married on 25 April 1964, at time when endogamy was bog standard among Jews. His father was not that old (25) 'ere bagging that shiksa. I'll wager it's been the mode to be laconic about matters religious and ethnic for some time in that family.

    Caplan’s certainly a nerd par excellence. His intellectual autobiography describes how he was exposed to Atlas Shrugged in highschool, and “raced through its thousand-plus pages in three largely sleepless days.”

    My parent who had Jewish ancestry married a Christian out of a desire to assimilate into mainstream US society. For Caplan’s father to marry a Christian that long ago when it was still discouraged, he probably had a similar desire.

  95. @BobX
    Even without your confirmation I thought it safe to assume it was not that Razib as he doesn’t like to sully himself with us HBD riffraff types you draw.

    Yan Shen we already have way too much cognitive elitism case in point Bryan Caplan and his ilk. What we need is public policy that ties the interest of our cognitive & financial elite with our middle & lumpenproletariat classes. You & Bryan may not see my working class family members as part of “ourselves” I certainly do (secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity) . Optimal global outcome my ass, we owe a higher duty to my shiftless brother and the ne’er-do-well layabouts of Detroit & Ferguson than to optimal global outcome. I might go so far as a cognitive bias to our immigration policy but even from the right tail of the curve we do not need all that many. Enforce the border and tie the immigration quotas to the median income & the unemployment rate.

    http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299

    http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America19602010/dp/030745343X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411053749&sr=1-2

    ‘You & Bryan may not see my working class family members as part of “ourselves” I certainly do’

    The great thing about cognitive elitism is that you’re at most bringing in limited numbers of the cognitively elite. They don’t really compete directly with the lower portions of the native IQ distribution. Can adding more brainpower to a country actually make the middle and lower classes worse off than if that additional human capital wasn’t present? I have a hard time seeing how this could be the case. The argument about how ‘elites’ such as Bryan Caplan push for less than ideal immigration policies isn’t really an indictment of cognitive elitism so much as it is an indictment of liberalism. No one’s really pushing for more left wing academics in the social sciences or humanities. Rather, cognitive elitism is defined as more or less as those individuals possessing strong technical aptitude who can create tangible value for society.

    Furthermore, the cognitive elite tend to be disproportionately concentrated in certain areas, i.e. tech in the Bay Area, etc. So as far as most people are concerned, the demographic makeup that they encounter on a daily basis isn’t really affected by this kind of limited immigration. People in Iowa or Idaho are probably only marginally affected by cognitive elitism.

    But really, cognitive elitism as I’ve defined it isn’t even really pushing for high quality immigration. My guess is that as China modernizes, the number of foreign students studying here in the US and the number of foreign workers will decline, i.e. there are very few ethnic Japanese in the US. See below.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/world/americas/chinese-applications-to-us-graduate-schools-decline.html?_r=0

    So the status quo could be fine. A decline from the status quo as alluded to above could be fine as well. It’s more about recognizing that in today’s highly interconnected global economy, the most effective countries seem to be those who understand the potential value of limited high quality immigration.

  96. I should add that cognitive elitism isn’t even really pushing for a specified level of immigration. My guess is that as China modernizes, the number of foreign students studying abroad here and also the number of foreign workers will decline, i.e. there are very few ethnic Japanese in the US for instance.

    See below.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/world/americas/chinese-applications-to-us-graduate-schools-decline.html?_r=0

    So the status quo could be fine. A decline from the status quo as alluded to above could also be fine. It’s more about understanding the fact that in today’s highly interconnected and global society, the most productive and prosperous nations are those which understand the potential value of limited high quality immigration.

    • Replies: @DWB
    Yan -

    this makes more sense when a bit more explicit. If one is able to couple high quality immigration with limited numbers, then personally I think you've got a winner. I am not sure it is politically workable, unfortunately. One gambit tried in the silly battle back in the US about immigration "reform" was to try to first pass simpler and easier rules for skilled immigrants. Note, this was not even 'cognitive elite' in the sense that I suspect you mean.

    It went down in flames.

    Point me in the right direction if I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that your view of 'cognitive elite' is a true set of high-calibre individuals. The top end of the distribution, rather than, say, a bunch of body shop programmers that Silicon Valley and Seattle want to churn out code cheaply. THAT is the real H1-B system, and I think, what is behind the platitudes about "stapling a green card to every diploma."

    Also, I suggest that comparing the US - a country of 300 odd million - with China - a country about four times its size - is a bit inapt. Denominators being a problem, it would be one thing if 5 percent of Americans wanted to move to China. It would be quite another if 5 per cent of Chinese wanted to come to the US.
  97. @Priss Factor
    "I’ve always argued that smart people have more in common with one another than they do with the bottom half of their particular group’s bell curve. The optimal global outcome can probably be arrived at through some precise arrangement/rearrangement of the global cognitive talent pool."

    Hey dumbass, your chop sueology sucks.

    THAT IS PRECISELY THE AGENDA OF THE GLOBO-ELITES. What's the point of proposing something that is already being implemented(and to horrible effect)?
    It's globo-neo-aristocratism.

    There's diversification of the elites happening in cities around the world and diversification of the masses happening around the world, especially in the West.
    True, in some ways, the smart people all over the world have more in common with one another than with the dummies of their own kind. I'm sure a smart white professor would rather spend time with smart Hindu, Chinese, Negro, Muslim, and etc intellectuals than with dumb white 'trash'.

    But no matter how cosmopolitan diversity may operate in elite spheres, diversity works different among the masses. Look at UK. I'm sure there are many intelligent and sophisticated Pakistani elites in UK, and they get along just dandy with the white elites. But among the lower orders, we have grubby Pakistani scum raping white girls. And the white elites, being so busy rubbing shoulders with non-whites elites(and being ever so careful not to offend their elite brown friends) created a social, political, and legal atmosphere where even low-level authorities who knew all about the reality dared not blow the whistle out of fear of being charged of 'racism' and being fired(and even prosecuted). (Or take racial integration. Rich smart whites will integrate with smarter nicer Negroes while poor whites have integrate with the likes of Mike Tyson. Elite diversity is kind of fun, but mass diversity sucks, esp. if it's with Negroes.)

    I got nothing against cosmopolitanism among the smart set. If such people wanna travel around the world, visit various colleges around the world, do interviews with different people in other nations, that's all fine by me. Smart people around the world should exchange ideas and discuss all sorts of things. That's good for cultural and intellectual progress.

    But at the political level, the elites of any community should lead and guide their own people. It's like Israeli intellectuals rub shoulders with intellectuals in other parts of the world, but they have a profound sense of connection to all Jews in Israel. I'm sure Japanese elites feel the same way. Life isn't just about intelligence and ideas. It is about blood, heritage, identity, and community. While all human communities are artificially constructed in some ways, some are rooted in human nature(feelings of familism, clannism, tribalism, race-ism, territory-ism) whereas others are erected on shaky abstract principles.
    It's like all that communist ideology stuff failed to create a borderless brotherhood from Warsaw to Hanoi. But then, who the hell wants to belong to some generic borderless brotherhood world order based on abstract ideas? Ideas should always be secondary to reality.

    Just look at the dire condition of British white masses ever since the white elites gave up on them.
    Look at the 'Coming Apart' happening in America? To be sure, Charles Murray himself is a piece of turd because he betrayed the white masses by bending over to the elite-favored 'gay marriage'. He says one thing but does another. Typical of his kind. When push comes to shove, he's a whore just like Walter Russell Mead.
    If the Russian elites will not lead the Russians, who will? If the Chinese elites won't lead the Chinese masses, who will? Should the main priority of elites all over the world be to shmooze with elites of other nations while ignoring their own people?
    You see, Jews have the right idea. They juggle cosmopolitanism with community-ism. While smart Jews do dillydally with other smart people all over the world, they still have a profound sense of Jewish community and a sense of Jewish commitment to all Jews. To be sure, this may be easier for Jews since the average IQ among them is higher than among other groups. So, the difference between a smart Jew and a dumb Jew isn't so wide as the difference between a smart Hindu and a dumb Hindu. Also, even though Jewish blood is mixed, it wasn't mixed histori-hostilely. Some Jews came to Europe, married some white women, and produced Ashkenazi Jews. Since it happened more naturally and gradually, there was no poison feeling within the Jewish community.
    But it's different in Latin America. Take Bolivia. What is a Bolivian? He could be a Conquistador white Hispanic, a mestizo, or an Indian. Also, the mixing happened as the result of conquest, 'genocide', 'mass rape', and etc. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, some nice Jewish fellas met some nice white girls, and they got married and had kids. In the case of Latin America, one race of people conquered and subjugated another people. So, Latin-American identity is more troubled. Same goes for India too as the history of India is one of invasions.

    A smart person doesn't have to hang with the dumb of his own kind socially. But if he lacks a profound sense of identity and unity with his own people on the cultural, racial, and national level, he's a self-centered piece of turd. He's just an Obama who doesn't really give a crap about blacks as he's too busy kissing the ass of the globo-elites and homos. He's just like David Cameron who turns a blind eye to the plight of white British masses but goes out of his way to serve his rich and smart globo-elites controllers.

    Another thing. The world isn't as simple as dumb vs smart. Even among the smart, there is smart, very smart, and super smart. There is also nice guy smart, naive guy smart, cunning smart, ruthless smart, nasty smart. And the kinds of smart guys who gain elite power tend to be dirty, nasty, lowdown, ruthless, and vile in so many ways. They are real a**holes. Such jerks have no scruples. Just look how they worked Wall Street to make huge profits but then supported a 'socialist' like Obama to get huge bailouts. Look how the smart a**holes around the world all conspired to bring down Russia by triggering the mess in Ukraine. Most smart people may gain some degree of affluence, but they will never have real power that belongs to the supermart, the super-nasty, the super-connected, etc.

    Also, some groups have many more smart people than other groups. Since you is Chinese and since there are many smart Chinese, maybe you likey the idea of the rule of smart people. It so much like Confucian stuff about how scholar class should rule.
    And of course, Jews have very high IQ, so they will dominate much of the smart community. But look at Mexicans and other groups. They got smart people but in smaller numbers. So, they won't be represented much in the global smart set. Smartology will never be fair racially or culturally.
    Just look at Southeast Asia. If the native elites took up smartology, they'll just dillydally with smart Chinese elites and ignore their own peoples. That would be some lowdown shit.
    Furthermore, even the politics of the smart set cannot be divorced from the politics of the entire populace, including dumb people. Consider the Holocaust. It gives smart Jews a huge moral and political--and even economic--advantage over other smart groups. But then, was the Holocaust only about the Nazis targeting smart Jews? No, Germans targeted all Jews, smart and dumb alike. So, even as smart Jews hang with smart non-Jews, they remind themselves and others that they, as Jews, think in terms of 'Never Again', and that means working for the interests of all Jews, not just smart ones.

    Do you, Yan Shen turd boy, look at the Rape of Nanking and say, 'Ok, I feel sorry for smart Chinese victims, but if Japanese raped and killed dumb Chinese, I no care because I so smart and only identify with smart people, Chinese or not'. Following your logic, you should side with smart Japanese soldiers and feel nothing for dumb Chinese who got killed or raped.
    Only a dirtbag thinks and feels like that.

    @pizza with hot pepper: Thanks for an excellent response to Yan Shen. Please see my response (Rose No. 14) to Yan Shen. I don’t why it took so long to post my answer. You bring out other points concerning Yan Shen’s statements that I did not cover. Great!!!

  98. @SS: “the most important event in cultural history was when some current individuals’ great-grandfathers had to build their own country clubs because they couldn’t get into existing ones.”

    Well, yeah.

    The longer I live, and the more I see, the more I become convinced that the single most powerful of all human feelings is anger & resentment over perceived slights.

    And this anger & resentment gets multiplied by about an order of magnitude whenever anybody senses, however inchoately, that said slights might have been based on…a bit of truth.

  99. A libertarian ought to understand that if there’s ever going to be serious political support for libertarianism in America, it’ll only happen as long as the Anglo-Saxon population remains dominant. Or maybe he’s delusional beyond delusion…

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My one foray into Facebook, I became "friends" with an enormous number of Ron Paul 2012 supporters. It was pretty obvious from their names and faces that mass market libertarianism is more or less an ethnic pride movement for Old Americans who are justly proud of their ancestors' concept of liberty.
  100. @International Jew
    A libertarian ought to understand that if there's ever going to be serious political support for libertarianism in America, it'll only happen as long as the Anglo-Saxon population remains dominant. Or maybe he's delusional beyond delusion...

    My one foray into Facebook, I became “friends” with an enormous number of Ron Paul 2012 supporters. It was pretty obvious from their names and faces that mass market libertarianism is more or less an ethnic pride movement for Old Americans who are justly proud of their ancestors’ concept of liberty.

  101. @Razib Khan
    Steve's pathetic hurt tone reminds me of the Christian Conservatives. Desperate and angry mocking of atheist libertarians seen everywhere on the internet. Why not respond to Caplan's autistic jousts with a simple rebuttal? For someone who criticizes blacks so much, this makes you look quite "niggardly".

    Correction, it wouldn’t be “niggardly” (your version of ‘black-like’), unless Steve’s response ran something like, “Try sayin’ that to me in person bitch!”

  102. I think we are placing too much emphasis on race, IQ, and collectivism in general. African-American underachievement might be due to IQ but also to bad social practices.

    84% of African-American children were born with two-parents before the 1960s. Today the illegitimacy rate for Asian-Americans is less than 20%, for whites it is 25%, Hispanics it is 30%, yet African-Americans have a rate that is approaching 70%. Somewhere American society went wrong for blacks, maybe it is the drug use, hip-hop culture, poverty, etc., but it definitely isn’t blacks themselves.

    Source of statistics: “The Conversation: How Black Men and Women Can Build Loving, Trusting Relationships” by Hill Harper

  103. Caplan doesn’t really seem angry, just puzzled, but this seemed appropriate:

    The only really angry people are the would-be totalitarians, mostly on the left. They beat their tiny fists against the walls of their editorial terrariums, proclaiming all the while the insignificance of that large swatch of their countrymen who disagree with them.

  104. @Yan Shen
    I should add that cognitive elitism isn't even really pushing for a specified level of immigration. My guess is that as China modernizes, the number of foreign students studying abroad here and also the number of foreign workers will decline, i.e. there are very few ethnic Japanese in the US for instance.

    See below.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/world/americas/chinese-applications-to-us-graduate-schools-decline.html?_r=0

    So the status quo could be fine. A decline from the status quo as alluded to above could also be fine. It's more about understanding the fact that in today's highly interconnected and global society, the most productive and prosperous nations are those which understand the potential value of limited high quality immigration.

    Yan –

    this makes more sense when a bit more explicit. If one is able to couple high quality immigration with limited numbers, then personally I think you’ve got a winner. I am not sure it is politically workable, unfortunately. One gambit tried in the silly battle back in the US about immigration “reform” was to try to first pass simpler and easier rules for skilled immigrants. Note, this was not even ‘cognitive elite’ in the sense that I suspect you mean.

    It went down in flames.

    Point me in the right direction if I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that your view of ‘cognitive elite’ is a true set of high-calibre individuals. The top end of the distribution, rather than, say, a bunch of body shop programmers that Silicon Valley and Seattle want to churn out code cheaply. THAT is the real H1-B system, and I think, what is behind the platitudes about “stapling a green card to every diploma.”

    Also, I suggest that comparing the US – a country of 300 odd million – with China – a country about four times its size – is a bit inapt. Denominators being a problem, it would be one thing if 5 percent of Americans wanted to move to China. It would be quite another if 5 per cent of Chinese wanted to come to the US.

    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    Somewhat self serving here perhaps, but I wanted to point out that the vast majority of H1-B visa holders are Indian. The link below is for 2005 data, but I believe the general picture even today is roughly similar, or at the very least India is still by far the single largest source of H1-B visas, even if the other countries below it have shifted around in rankings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H1b_demographics.jpg

    I don't really have a horse in the H1-B visa debate.

    As I've alluded to above, I'm not really pushing for more immigration of any kind. In fact, to the contrary, I've argued that as countries like China modernize, we're likely to see fewer foreigners here for both school and work, similar to the example of Japan. And more of the existing Chinese American population here will end up returning to the greater China mainland, as new opportunities open up back home and given the obvious greater cultural comfort and familiarity that recent immigrants have with their native homeland. So overall, I see this as a rational unfolding of civilizational development. In the late 1800s, students in the US often studied abroad in Europe.

    Ethnic and racial tribal affiliations obviously play an important role in maintaining a coherent sense of country and community and when too much diversity results, there's often subsequent conflict and strife. But I would argue that this is also a function of intelligence and not merely ethnicity. A really smart and multi-ethnic population is likely to function much more smoothly than a less intelligent and equally multi-ethnic population, as far as social harmony goes.

    So ultimately, I think people like Sailer underestimate/downplay the reality of forms of affiliation along lines other than racial or ethnic, be it gender, socioeconomic class, intelligence, personal interests, etc. As I've argued above, people in the far right tail of the cognitive distribution, i.e. guys like Yitang Zhang or Jacob Lurie, most likely feel more in common with one another, irrespective of race, than they do with the left half of the bell curve of their respective ethnic groups.

    Which is why advocating for some kind of transcendent morality based solely on ethnicity is most likely going to fail, because that sentiment appeals the least to the people most instrumental in sustaining the well-being of the underlying nation.
  105. @DWB
    Yan - on its face, there is an enormous and obvious appeal in your idea. And I also agree with your conjecture that "smart people" are more similar to each other, irresepective of origin, religous affiliation than with their co-religionisits, ethnic brothers, etc.

    But the question I have is, "would it work?" Indeed, could it in the US? In any country that is already pluralistic with a highly entrenched welfare state? What do we do with those already here? What becomes of the billions of people who are not cognitive elites? Who are well below average?

    I live in France, and it's not much of a stretch to say that our news almost daily has some horrific story or another about a boat laden with desperate migrants cap-sizing in the Mediterranean Sea, or of teeming camps in Pas-de-Calais or Lampedusa.

    Le Camp des Saints is a work of fiction, but is it a possible future? Is it the likely one?

    The world you envisage is very likely going to need to be one with high walls. And men with guns standing on them. As others have said, this is going to require a warrior class.

    The world is, bluntly, not a completely rational one, so the "optimal global outcome" (for whom?) is probably not going to be very convincing to those in the lower half of the IQ pool. And as Caplan suggests, it's a "moral travesty," n'est-ce pas, to consider the needs of the "ins" anywhere than behind the needs of the "outs?"

    In the end, a nation is more than a hotel. It needs to be somewhat coherent. You (elsewhere) hold up Lee Kuan Yew as a role model for America's future leadership. I have an enormous respect for Lee. But did Mr Lee not, himself, say something in an interview a decade ago to the effect that in a pluralistic society, you vote based not on class or social interest, but in the end, on racial and religious ones? I believe he did.

    But did Mr Lee not, himself, say something in an interview a decade ago to the effect that in a pluralistic society, you vote based not on class or social interest, but in the end, on racial and religious ones? I believe he did.

    Not exactly. He said that in a free-for-all electoral democracy, people would start to vote tribally. He used that argument to justify his soft dictatorship of Singapore. To him, a stable state with a unified purpose was the most important factor in the development of a country.

  106. “Yan Shen says:

    Not anything that I haven’t stated before, but might I once again offer up a middle of the road philosophy in contrast to the philosophical worldview of both Steve Sailer and Bryan Caplan, one which I refer to as cognitive elitism.”

    A philosophy which already consigns you to the ranks of the non-elite.

  107. “Nick Diaz says:

    And don’t make fun of Caplan’s intellect, because he is smarter than you. Here are some news for you, Steve: you are not a genius. Not even close. A lot of the stuff you write is fairly obvious stuff and the other is just basic statistics analysis. You are actually a fairly middle-brow guy, so don’t brag much about being smarter than others.”

    Caplan is not smarter than Steve. Neither are you. Many people are smarter than you; your stupidity approaches the bovine.

  108. “Art Deco says:

    One of them was vulgar and entitled enough to engage in sodomy with a hotel maid, another spent tens of thousands of dollars on high end prostitutes, and a third recognizes no restraints whatsoever. These three are easy meat for a set up if there ever was one. ”

    Yeah, while Bill Clinton was a choir-boy.

  109. >
    > Different Razib Khan

    Steve, you shouldn’t publish impersonators in the first place.

  110. @DWB
    Yan -

    this makes more sense when a bit more explicit. If one is able to couple high quality immigration with limited numbers, then personally I think you've got a winner. I am not sure it is politically workable, unfortunately. One gambit tried in the silly battle back in the US about immigration "reform" was to try to first pass simpler and easier rules for skilled immigrants. Note, this was not even 'cognitive elite' in the sense that I suspect you mean.

    It went down in flames.

    Point me in the right direction if I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that your view of 'cognitive elite' is a true set of high-calibre individuals. The top end of the distribution, rather than, say, a bunch of body shop programmers that Silicon Valley and Seattle want to churn out code cheaply. THAT is the real H1-B system, and I think, what is behind the platitudes about "stapling a green card to every diploma."

    Also, I suggest that comparing the US - a country of 300 odd million - with China - a country about four times its size - is a bit inapt. Denominators being a problem, it would be one thing if 5 percent of Americans wanted to move to China. It would be quite another if 5 per cent of Chinese wanted to come to the US.

    Somewhat self serving here perhaps, but I wanted to point out that the vast majority of H1-B visa holders are Indian. The link below is for 2005 data, but I believe the general picture even today is roughly similar, or at the very least India is still by far the single largest source of H1-B visas, even if the other countries below it have shifted around in rankings.

    I don’t really have a horse in the H1-B visa debate.

    As I’ve alluded to above, I’m not really pushing for more immigration of any kind. In fact, to the contrary, I’ve argued that as countries like China modernize, we’re likely to see fewer foreigners here for both school and work, similar to the example of Japan. And more of the existing Chinese American population here will end up returning to the greater China mainland, as new opportunities open up back home and given the obvious greater cultural comfort and familiarity that recent immigrants have with their native homeland. So overall, I see this as a rational unfolding of civilizational development. In the late 1800s, students in the US often studied abroad in Europe.

    Ethnic and racial tribal affiliations obviously play an important role in maintaining a coherent sense of country and community and when too much diversity results, there’s often subsequent conflict and strife. But I would argue that this is also a function of intelligence and not merely ethnicity. A really smart and multi-ethnic population is likely to function much more smoothly than a less intelligent and equally multi-ethnic population, as far as social harmony goes.

    So ultimately, I think people like Sailer underestimate/downplay the reality of forms of affiliation along lines other than racial or ethnic, be it gender, socioeconomic class, intelligence, personal interests, etc. As I’ve argued above, people in the far right tail of the cognitive distribution, i.e. guys like Yitang Zhang or Jacob Lurie, most likely feel more in common with one another, irrespective of race, than they do with the left half of the bell curve of their respective ethnic groups.

    Which is why advocating for some kind of transcendent morality based solely on ethnicity is most likely going to fail, because that sentiment appeals the least to the people most instrumental in sustaining the well-being of the underlying nation.

  111. @Daniel H
    >>Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.

    The cluelessness is stunning. Caplan seems unaware of actually who he is. This statement is helpful, though. I am beginning to believe that for Caplan and his ilk it is not malevolence at all that motivates them, just a selected for, unacknowledged trait that has served them well for eons. It is impossible to reason with them, for reason plays no part in the matter, so I will not even deign to reason with them anymore, just [metaphorically] bludgeon them with the hard stone of reality. Loud and hard, loud and hard.

    First, prove the existence of group selection in a rigorous manner. Applying preconceived notions derived from reading Kmac, who is not an evolutionary biologist, isn’t sufficient.

  112. Caplan actually says:

    “Advancing the interests of your in-group should always play second fiddle to respecting the rights of out-groups.”

    I have rarely seen such a clear-cut statement of Western self-hatred. However, I don’t think Caplan hates himself, on the contrary, I am sure he thinks he is a most tolerant and enlightened man.

    But: he wants people, call them Americans, to put the interests of aliens above those of their own people. He claims this attitude is morally superior, so far superior that it does not even need defending.

    Why on God’s green earth should anyone prefer the “rights of out-groups” to the interests of one’s in-group? Or, to speak English, one’s people?

    Many, many people apparently do so prefer. Starting with one Barack H. Obama.

  113. @NOTA
    The word "rights" is doing all the work in that sentence. I agree with his statement: we really shouldn't violate the rights of foreigners for our country's benefit. Thus, we shouldn't invade foreign countries to take their oil or force their people into slavery, for example, even if that would benefit us.

    But this only really applies to immigration if you also believe (as I think he does, but most of us here do not) that immigration to the country of your choice is a right. If it's not a right, then by managing our immigration policy to maximize the well being of our own country, we are behaving just as he says we must--respecting the rights of outsiders, and having that trump acting in our own interests, but not having outsiders' interests trump our own (nor even be given equal weight with our own).

    Exactly, and well put.

    I am always left slightly unnerved by these Caplan posts. I feel that he is reporting from Mars.

    Your post has clarified it for me. He appears to actually think the rights of all humans are worldwide and encompass global freedom of movement and settlement, since countries are their authorities and claimed “national” identities however defined are all fake concepts, and therefore their application is inherently totalitarian.

    He writes as though his opponents all recognize this obvious reality too and are simply being either obtuse or totalitarian in refusing to acknowledge it. He does not seem to consider the possibility that his opponents do not recognize the oneness of the world or the universal mobility of humans as among their rights. Curious.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2