The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Do the Merkel Youth Come from Inbred Countries?
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

Screenshot 2015-10-12 16.51.59

What with demand for Volkswagens soaring, German Chancellor Merkel’s decision to let in (literally) countless numbers of newcomers from the Muslim world is being hailed as an economic masterstroke that will counteract the deleterious wage-boosting effects of the number of working-age residents in Germany being otherwise expected to plunge from 49.2 million in 2013 all the way down to 48.8 million in 2020.

But, strange as it may seem from reading The Economist, the word “demographics” means more than just “age.” One of the more interesting aspect of demographics is the “consanguinity” rate, or percentage of all marriages that are between first or second cousins, a statistic which correlates strikingly with a lack of what Europeans consider civic virtues.

Professor Alan Bittles of the Centre for Comparative Genomics at Murdoch U. tracks those rates at his Consang.net website.

Interestingly, the Merkel Youth seem to come overwhelmingly from inbred cultures, which is probably not coincidental.

 
Hide 72 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. With the increasing levels of automation in manufacturing (or for that matter services) it makes no sense to worry about fake labor shortages. The Japanese apparently aren’t doing so except to the extent that they will need to push robotic technology to be able to handle complex tasks such as caring for aged humans.
    Judging by the now famous selfie of Angela and a refugee, I think she is more concerned with reducing the German population’s average number of eyebrows per person. (BTW, I wonder if that monobrow look is a symptom of inbreeding? You don’t see it so much even among European ethnic groups who are known for lots of face and body hair.)

    • Replies: @IBC
    @Alfa158

    Monobrows are considered beautiful in parts of Central Asia:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/tajikistan/101126/unibrow-central-asia-fashion

    Apparently they can also result from certain genetic disorders, but those usually cause other physical symptoms as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibrow#cite_note-1

    Perhaps Merkel's conspiring with the German tweezer industry?

    http://www.amazon.com/Wiha-44532-Tweezers-Tapered-Strong/dp/B002RL7YHM

  2. “Inbred cultures” == Muslim cultures of course (in this case).

    But also pretty much any pre-modern culture in the world today, Muslim or not.

    • Replies: @Unzerker
    @Joe Magarac


    [“Inbred cultures” =] pretty much any pre-modern culture in the world today, Muslim or not.
     
    Not at all. From wiki:

    Under Roman civil law, which early canon law of the Catholic Church followed, couples were forbidden to marry if they were within four degrees of consanguinity. In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made what they believed was a necessary change to canon law reducing the number of prohibited degrees of consanguinity from seven back to four.

    Most cultures define a degree of consanguinity within which sexual interrelationships are regarded as incestuous (the "prohibited degree of kinship")

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  3. About ten years ago I always use to tell my uninformed friends that Saddam Hussein was not understandable And irrational to the Western mind because he was his own first, second, and third cousin many times over. Keep it in the same gene pool that many times and for that long (thousands of years), and your undying loyalty will be to your tribe. And you may have some strong mental issues from a genetic standpoint of double and tripling down on the same crazy for that long.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Blah

    It certainly makes a better case for suicide bombing if you are advancing the cause of those who are that much more like you than say, an individual would be to the equivalent surrounding Euro population.

  4. @Alfa158
    With the increasing levels of automation in manufacturing (or for that matter services) it makes no sense to worry about fake labor shortages. The Japanese apparently aren't doing so except to the extent that they will need to push robotic technology to be able to handle complex tasks such as caring for aged humans.
    Judging by the now famous selfie of Angela and a refugee, I think she is more concerned with reducing the German population's average number of eyebrows per person. (BTW, I wonder if that monobrow look is a symptom of inbreeding? You don't see it so much even among European ethnic groups who are known for lots of face and body hair.)

    Replies: @IBC

    Monobrows are considered beautiful in parts of Central Asia:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/tajikistan/101126/unibrow-central-asia-fashion

    Apparently they can also result from certain genetic disorders, but those usually cause other physical symptoms as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibrow#cite_note-1

    Perhaps Merkel’s conspiring with the German tweezer industry?

  5. Japanese and Koreans are smart ; they would never let in such large number of non ethnic kinfolk and especially not Muslims. Germans are being sold up-river by the scheming Euro elites.

    Christian Syrians wouldn’t be a problem but Muslims will never integrate, instead they will work towards taking over Germany …gradually, and like Ghadaffi said: through the womb. As if all those Turks weren’t problem enough, Merkel wants Germans to expereince even more masochism.

  6. On a nepotism-related topic, the Imam of Dearborn, Michigan’s Islamic Center of America mosque has left, leveling a number of charges against the mosque’s board.

    In his remarks last month, Al-Qazwini blasted the board, saying it lacked term limits, promoted nepotism, had no female members, and failed to discipline those who acted improperly. Al-Qazwini, who is of Iraqi descent, and his supporters also say the board wanted to limit the mosque membership to Lebanese-Americans…

    But Al-Qazwini said his were not personal demands, but demands made by the community looking for reform. He criticized the center for having board members who serve for life and hiring employees who are board members.

    “Becoming a board member for life, no power on earth can remove him — Is this Islamic? Is this democratic? Is this American?” Al-Qazwini said.

    “It doesn’t make no sense to import the Saudi style of governance to the Islamic Center of America,” he added. “We establish another monarchy, where a board member became a board member for life. Before dying, he would bring his son to be his heir, to take his seat.”

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/06/05/imam-qazwini-resigns-dearborn-mosque/28581129/

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    @Anon7

    I don't get the fuss. The Jews have hereditary religious rulers who pass the crown down to their progeny. The Satmarrer, Belzer, Muncatcher, and Lubavitcher rebbes (among others) are/were all hereditary religious rulers. The Muslims just need to split up into smaller, more manageable groups and have each one pick their own ruler.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon7

    Michigan, eh? How is this different from labor union practice in America? Or is it just on the docks and behind the stage where they do this?

    , @greysquirrell
    @Anon7

    That article touches on an issue within immigrant Muslim communities that seldom if ever receives any press, namely the tribalism and discrimination between Muslims.

    The Ummah tries to claim it is a anti-racist faith but the reality is that Muslim countries are far more xenophobic and racist than the Anglo-sphere. I've heard South Asians saying they were discriminated against by Arabs at mosques and Black American Muslims (no, not the NOI types, but regular mainstream Islam) say they faced racism from Pakistanis.

  7. As little as a year ago, “open borders for everyone” was the war cry only of extreme-left NGOs like ATAC and radical libertarians.

    Now it is the official policy of the German government.

    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.

    From the blurb:

    In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states’ behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups, Greenhill argues, and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations.

    This “coercion by punishment” strategy can be effected in two ways: the first relies on straightforward threats to overwhelm a target’s capacity to accommodate a refugee or migrant influx; the second, on a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that exploits the existence of legal and normative commitments to those fleeing violence, persecution, or privation.

    As of now, there is only one customer review on the Amazon page, by a German who thinks this has all been orchestrated by “the Americans” to “destroy the economy and political stability of the new host country, and to sow the seeds of civil war” in order to “further cement their imperial control”.

    Well, I dunno. If nothing else, Germany and Europe are important trading partners for the U.S. Destroying their economies would severely impact U.S. businesses and jobs. Of course, one never knows what schemes are being hatched in the Obama White House, but I am skeptical.

    More likely, in my opinion, is that Turkish President Erdogan decided to utilize the weapon of mass migration for his own goals. Until this summer, he had diligently enforced the integrity of his country’s border by preventing Syrian (and transiting Afghan etc.) refugees from emigrating en masse. Opening the floodgates meant putting Europe in a world of hurt, with him holding the power to make it stop — if his demands were met.

    We know only some of his demands, such as billions in financial aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey and the abolition of visa requirements for Turkey’s 70+ million citizens. The EU has now announced that these demands will be met. At a minimum he will also want assurance of no interference as he ratchets up oppression of his country’s Kurdish population (whose birth rate is much higher than that of non-Kurdish Turks). It’s possible that after he closes the border to Syrians trying to get into Europe, he will launch an even bigger refugee tsunami by making the lives of Turkish Kurds unbearable. The extent of Erdogan’s regional superpower ambitions is not known, therefore we do not know the full extent of his demands either.

    In any case he has not yet shut down border crossings by Syrians (fake and real ones) into Europe. Whether this is due to EU bureaucratic bungling and slowness or because he is trying to drive a still harder bargain is not known. My guess is that he is surprised that it took the EU so long to cry uncle and acknowledge that Erdogan holds the keys to the gate.

    What is also unknown is the extent to which Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the two main financiers of Turkey’s economic expansion, are influencing Turkish policy in return for making funds available at below-market rate, and what their specific goals in this game of hardball are. One would think that, being major shareholders of European corporations, they do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs — but the lure of islamizing Europe may be a powerful temptation.

    P.S.: A crazy thought, maybe Merkel has known all along what Erdogan’s plan is and by holding off on giving in to his demands she is trying to demonstrate Germany’s resistance to blackmail? As in, “we can take whatever you throw at us and remain standing”? To be honest, I don’t believe it myself. Merkel is simply too stupid for Machiavellian statecraft.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    @Stubborn in Germany

    What is a "radical libertarian"?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Stubborn in Germany

    , @BillP
    @Stubborn in Germany

    The last thing Europe's elite want is for the Islamic tsunami to stop. Maybe Erdogan wasn't clever enough to realize he would be doing them a priceless favor?

    They've all been dreaming about this glorious day since their college years, which featured Lennon's Imagine as a permanent looping soundtrack. If they can achieve the end of Western Civilization for everyone but themselves and their comfortable, nearly-spent lives they can all die happily with permanent erections.

    , @Anonymous
    @Stubborn in Germany

    Britain *MUST* get out of the EU in the forthcoming referendum.

    Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started. I am severely pessimistic that the 'great British public' will have the brains or indeed balls to vote to get out.

    Replies: @Thomas Fuller, @Anonymous Nephew

    , @Stubborn in Germany
    @Stubborn in Germany


    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.
     
    Three reviews of the book plus author's response here: https://issforum.org/roundtables/5-3-weapons-mass-migration

    Regardless of weaknesses that the book may have, it is clear to me that this is the premier reference work on "coercive engineered migration". Strange that it has hardly been mentioned at all in the mainstream media. Erdogan's advisors, however, probably know it by heart.
  8. “…German Chancellor Merkel’s decision to let in (literally) countless numbers of newcomers from the Muslim world…”

    This is something obvious, yet easily ignored, yet extremely important. It’s common in any debate on immigration in any Western country:

    John: “What if 100 million people immigrate?”

    Matt: “That many people won’t immigrate.”

    John: “Then why don’t we place a limit on how many can come?”

    Matt: {Stone-cold silence}

    They never, never, ever want to talk about limits, just like they never want to talk about enforcement measures, even when pretending to be pro-enforcement:

    John: “Why don’t we deny illegals driver’s licenses and car registrations?”

    Matt: “That won’t work, they’ll still come and drive without them.”

    John: “Why don’t we deny them access to welfare?”

    Matt: “That won’t work – they’ll still come, and they don’t use much welfare?”

    John: “So, then why don’t we deny them welfare?”

    Matt: “That would be immoral.”

    John: “So why don’t we deny their kids public education, and fine businesses that employ them?”

    Matt: “Those won’t work, either; and denying education to their kids would also be immoral”

    John: “So what measures to fight illegal immigration would work?”

    Matt: {Stone-cold silence…again}

    They say that open borders won’t cause too many people to come, and yet they won’t allow even an insanely high number, like 5 million a year, as a limit.

    They say they’re for enforcement, yet can’t name a single damn enforcement measure they would find acceptable.

  9. They come from Moslem countries, the inbreeding being only incidental to that. Polygamy is not, and mass youth unemployment is not. A young man has limited prospects for marriage and employment, and if he has none he can’t be any worse off in Europe.

    • Replies: @Alastair Trumpington
    @Thrasymachus

    I read somewhere that Islamic laws regarding how property is inherited promoted inbreeding in muslim societies. According to the Koran, daughters are entitled to half as much property as sons, but this was a step up from previous customs in the middle east. Perversely, this encouraged families to promote consanguinity to keep the wealth in the family. I can't provide a reference, but here is a link describing islamic inheritance laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence

    , @Alastair Trumpington
    @Thrasymachus

    I read somewhere that Islamic laws regarding inheritance of property promote inbreeding in muslim societies. According to the Koran, daughters are entitled to half as much property as sons. Perversely, allowing women to inherit property encouraged inbreeding with the goal of "keeping the wealth in the family". I can't provide a reference, but here is a link describing islamic inheritance laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence

  10. I recently took Lufthansa on a return flight to the US. In the inflight magazine, the CEO boasted that the company had received 130,000 applications for 2000 internships, only 300 oif which were skilled ground positions as opposed to cabin crew.

    Hard to believe that Germany has a labor shortage.

    • Replies: @ivvenalis
    @M_Young

    There's no such thing as a "labor shortage" in an economy the size of Germany. This is one of the fairly basic insights of economics. A "shortage" in the real world just means that "prices are higher than I would like", in this case the price being wages.

  11. Alternatively why does NATO keep regime changing inbred nations? And why does it matter if Assad is or is not in charge if everyone is inbred anyway?

  12. @Anon7
    On a nepotism-related topic, the Imam of Dearborn, Michigan's Islamic Center of America mosque has left, leveling a number of charges against the mosque's board.

    In his remarks last month, Al-Qazwini blasted the board, saying it lacked term limits, promoted nepotism, had no female members, and failed to discipline those who acted improperly. Al-Qazwini, who is of Iraqi descent, and his supporters also say the board wanted to limit the mosque membership to Lebanese-Americans...

    But Al-Qazwini said his were not personal demands, but demands made by the community looking for reform. He criticized the center for having board members who serve for life and hiring employees who are board members.

    "Becoming a board member for life, no power on earth can remove him — Is this Islamic? Is this democratic? Is this American?" Al-Qazwini said.

    "It doesn't make no sense to import the Saudi style of governance to the Islamic Center of America," he added. "We establish another monarchy, where a board member became a board member for life. Before dying, he would bring his son to be his heir, to take his seat."

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/06/05/imam-qazwini-resigns-dearborn-mosque/28581129/

     

    Replies: @Big Bill, @Reg Cæsar, @greysquirrell

    I don’t get the fuss. The Jews have hereditary religious rulers who pass the crown down to their progeny. The Satmarrer, Belzer, Muncatcher, and Lubavitcher rebbes (among others) are/were all hereditary religious rulers. The Muslims just need to split up into smaller, more manageable groups and have each one pick their own ruler.

  13. There may be some significant correlations between consanguinity and civic-mindedness. But clearly there are other equally or more significant factors as well.

    Looking at East Asia, Korea has lower consanguinity than Japan does (which makes sense since in Korea it used to be illegal to marry someone with the same surname, even those related by 8 degrees or some such thing, while Japan has been considerably less eugenicist on this score). But my experience in both countries and peoples is that the Japanese are substantially more civic-minded (and polite) than Koreans are. The rough comparison would be that the Japanese are akin to the English while the Koreans are more like the Irish, that is, less mannered and communitarian than the Japanese, but more soulful and unruly.

  14. @Stubborn in Germany
    As little as a year ago, "open borders for everyone" was the war cry only of extreme-left NGOs like ATAC and radical libertarians.

    Now it is the official policy of the German government.

    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.

    From the blurb:


    In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states' behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups, Greenhill argues, and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations.

    This "coercion by punishment" strategy can be effected in two ways: the first relies on straightforward threats to overwhelm a target's capacity to accommodate a refugee or migrant influx; the second, on a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that exploits the existence of legal and normative commitments to those fleeing violence, persecution, or privation.
     

    As of now, there is only one customer review on the Amazon page, by a German who thinks this has all been orchestrated by "the Americans" to "destroy the economy and political stability of the new host country, and to sow the seeds of civil war" in order to "further cement their imperial control".

    Well, I dunno. If nothing else, Germany and Europe are important trading partners for the U.S. Destroying their economies would severely impact U.S. businesses and jobs. Of course, one never knows what schemes are being hatched in the Obama White House, but I am skeptical.

    More likely, in my opinion, is that Turkish President Erdogan decided to utilize the weapon of mass migration for his own goals. Until this summer, he had diligently enforced the integrity of his country's border by preventing Syrian (and transiting Afghan etc.) refugees from emigrating en masse. Opening the floodgates meant putting Europe in a world of hurt, with him holding the power to make it stop -- if his demands were met.

    We know only some of his demands, such as billions in financial aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey and the abolition of visa requirements for Turkey's 70+ million citizens. The EU has now announced that these demands will be met. At a minimum he will also want assurance of no interference as he ratchets up oppression of his country's Kurdish population (whose birth rate is much higher than that of non-Kurdish Turks). It's possible that after he closes the border to Syrians trying to get into Europe, he will launch an even bigger refugee tsunami by making the lives of Turkish Kurds unbearable. The extent of Erdogan's regional superpower ambitions is not known, therefore we do not know the full extent of his demands either.

    In any case he has not yet shut down border crossings by Syrians (fake and real ones) into Europe. Whether this is due to EU bureaucratic bungling and slowness or because he is trying to drive a still harder bargain is not known. My guess is that he is surprised that it took the EU so long to cry uncle and acknowledge that Erdogan holds the keys to the gate.

    What is also unknown is the extent to which Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the two main financiers of Turkey's economic expansion, are influencing Turkish policy in return for making funds available at below-market rate, and what their specific goals in this game of hardball are. One would think that, being major shareholders of European corporations, they do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- but the lure of islamizing Europe may be a powerful temptation.

    P.S.: A crazy thought, maybe Merkel has known all along what Erdogan's plan is and by holding off on giving in to his demands she is trying to demonstrate Germany's resistance to blackmail? As in, "we can take whatever you throw at us and remain standing"? To be honest, I don't believe it myself. Merkel is simply too stupid for Machiavellian statecraft.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @BillP, @Anonymous, @Stubborn in Germany

    What is a “radical libertarian”?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Drapetomaniac



    What is a “radical libertarian”?

     

    Whatever it is, it sure doesn't countenance free migration into a welfare state. That's not liberty, that's taking liberties. That's war.
    , @Stubborn in Germany
    @Drapetomaniac

    I was using the term as shorthand for the "open borders" economists writing in places like Marginal Revolution. If you can suggest something better, please go ahead.

  15. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    Why?

    Because another inbred people are ruling over the West and demand that the West open up.

    Who are these inbred people?

    PS. WOWS is overly over-the-top, but the fat guy(best thing in the movie and such an accurate portrayal of his kind) is hilarious, and this scene is a masterpiece.

    I love how the fat guy says ‘no’ but then describes the situation that sums up to a ‘yes’.
    He says ‘yeah.No’ to the question of whether he married his first cousin and then says her father is brother to his mother which indeed makes her a first cousin.

    It’s like a mini-version of how PC works at NYT. NYT will have Nicholas Wade mention and describe the facts that would indicate racial differences do exist, but then say NO, race is just a social construct.

    No, we have bananas(or its opposite, ‘yes, we have no bananas’.)

    Btw, when the fat guy says he would take a hypothetically retarded kid and let him out of the car, it’s just the funniest thing.

  16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/10/12/black-women-face-prejudice-every-day-i-dont-need-it-in-online-dating-too/?tid=trending_strip_1

    This is steve sailer bait! A dark skinned and short haired black woman bitches that online dating sites allow discrimination based upon race. Some of the responses are hilarious.

    It even includes some gays coming on to point out how they face more discrimination, thus proving the Sailer SJW hierarchy theory.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Neoconned


    A dark skinned and short haired black woman bitches that online dating sites allow discrimination based upon race
     
    Like that's any different from the personal ads in the progressive free weeklies that litter the entrances of hip restaurants all over North America
  17. @Anon7
    On a nepotism-related topic, the Imam of Dearborn, Michigan's Islamic Center of America mosque has left, leveling a number of charges against the mosque's board.

    In his remarks last month, Al-Qazwini blasted the board, saying it lacked term limits, promoted nepotism, had no female members, and failed to discipline those who acted improperly. Al-Qazwini, who is of Iraqi descent, and his supporters also say the board wanted to limit the mosque membership to Lebanese-Americans...

    But Al-Qazwini said his were not personal demands, but demands made by the community looking for reform. He criticized the center for having board members who serve for life and hiring employees who are board members.

    "Becoming a board member for life, no power on earth can remove him — Is this Islamic? Is this democratic? Is this American?" Al-Qazwini said.

    "It doesn't make no sense to import the Saudi style of governance to the Islamic Center of America," he added. "We establish another monarchy, where a board member became a board member for life. Before dying, he would bring his son to be his heir, to take his seat."

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/06/05/imam-qazwini-resigns-dearborn-mosque/28581129/

     

    Replies: @Big Bill, @Reg Cæsar, @greysquirrell

    Michigan, eh? How is this different from labor union practice in America? Or is it just on the docks and behind the stage where they do this?

  18. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT, but about genetics related to behavior:

    “Epigenetic algorithm accurately predicts male sexual orientation”, ScienceDaily, October 8, 2015:

    “Summary:

    An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy, according to new research. Beyond the genetic information contained in DNA, the researchers examined patterns of DNA methylation across the genome in pairs of identical male twins.”

    • Replies: @e
    @anonymous

    Not even the Atlantic buys it, for several reasons:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/no-scientists-have-not-found-the-gay-gene/410059/

    Replies: @Rifleman

  19. @Drapetomaniac
    @Stubborn in Germany

    What is a "radical libertarian"?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Stubborn in Germany

    What is a “radical libertarian”?

    Whatever it is, it sure doesn’t countenance free migration into a welfare state. That’s not liberty, that’s taking liberties. That’s war.

  20. @Neoconned
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/10/12/black-women-face-prejudice-every-day-i-dont-need-it-in-online-dating-too/?tid=trending_strip_1

    This is steve sailer bait! A dark skinned and short haired black woman bitches that online dating sites allow discrimination based upon race. Some of the responses are hilarious.

    It even includes some gays coming on to point out how they face more discrimination, thus proving the Sailer SJW hierarchy theory.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    A dark skinned and short haired black woman bitches that online dating sites allow discrimination based upon race

    Like that’s any different from the personal ads in the progressive free weeklies that litter the entrances of hip restaurants all over North America

  21. @Drapetomaniac
    @Stubborn in Germany

    What is a "radical libertarian"?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Stubborn in Germany

    I was using the term as shorthand for the “open borders” economists writing in places like Marginal Revolution. If you can suggest something better, please go ahead.

  22. Occams razor suggests Merkel has the tingles. One need not look further. Ugly eomen in power tend to punish their people for failing to make the ugly women beautiful. Imagine Hillarys tingles. Shudder.

    • Replies: @Rifleman
    @Whiskey


    Occams razor suggests Merkel has the tingles.
     
    Whiskey's Razor suggests that you will "Excuse the Jews and Blame the White women" because that's what you do.

    Merkel's corporate handlers can do the math = Germans WONT reproduce enough workers and consumers and tax payers so they must import them.

    You getting the tingles over the thought of an old ugly White woman being sexually aroused by dark muslim men has nothing to do with the economic - labor/consumer/tax payers - needs of a decrepit Germany.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @AnAnon

  23. @anonymous
    OT, but about genetics related to behavior:

    "Epigenetic algorithm accurately predicts male sexual orientation", ScienceDaily, October 8, 2015:


    "Summary:

    An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy, according to new research. Beyond the genetic information contained in DNA, the researchers examined patterns of DNA methylation across the genome in pairs of identical male twins."

     

    Replies: @e

    • Replies: @Rifleman
    @e

    We're going to need Greg Cochran's opinion or it didn't happen.

  24. @Blah
    About ten years ago I always use to tell my uninformed friends that Saddam Hussein was not understandable And irrational to the Western mind because he was his own first, second, and third cousin many times over. Keep it in the same gene pool that many times and for that long (thousands of years), and your undying loyalty will be to your tribe. And you may have some strong mental issues from a genetic standpoint of double and tripling down on the same crazy for that long.

    Replies: @Anonym

    It certainly makes a better case for suicide bombing if you are advancing the cause of those who are that much more like you than say, an individual would be to the equivalent surrounding Euro population.

  25. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve always thought that people who were pro-diversity tend to be rather inbred themselves, or rather, ‘lacking in genetic diversity,’ and their crazed insistence on how terrific outbreeding is, is merely their own genes shrieking for the introduction of more variation before their own offspring die out from sheer feebleness. Mental preciousness and neuroticism is a warning that your genetic lines lack robustness and are going downhill.

    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn’t have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.

    Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s. Their WASP descendants in America kept marrying each other for generation after generation unless they moved out of region, which is why Northeast liberals can be so remarkably alike in their mentality. It’s not just culture, it’s lack of genetic diversity. Much of this process took place from about 1620 to 1800, a period in which roads were terrible and people rarely traveled away from their local village. Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today’s culture, and you’ve got a New England liberal.

    According to this notion, those who are anti-diversity should have a more varied and wholesome collection of genes, and they wouldn’t see the need for such mass invasions by newcomers. Midwesterners, for example, by moving away from the east coast, met up with and married persons from a wider numbers of breeding enclaves, and they aren’t as keen on diversity as New Englanders are.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    @Anon

    Phenotypic data, or it didn't happen.

    , @n/a
    @Anon

    "so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn’t have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it."

    No.


    "Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s"

    No. Present-day inhabitants of New England are overwhelmingly descended from 19th-century and later immigrants.


    "Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today’s culture, and you’ve got a New England liberal."

    Which explains perfectly why Protestant New Englanders still vote to the right of the Catholics and Jews of New England.

    , @Studley
    @Anon

    I see your point, "Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today's culture."

    But are there rigid Puritan New Englanders (inbred, as said) across the US? Doubt. German farming families and other newcomers must have brought something genetically new to the Midwest.

    The Western political crisis du jour is due to Neo-cons not even knowing (not least recognising) Steve's article in the American Conservative.

    , @Romanian
    @Anon


    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn’t have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.
     
    Who ISN'T descended from a small number of tribes floating around somewhere that coalesced into something resembling a people who eventually developed a national consciousness?

    There are 7.5 billion of us already - there were 250 million of us 2 000 years ago. We're all inbred by those standards. A degree of inbreeding is necessary for the formation of an ethnicity. Go back far enough and there were 10.000 of us left in a bottleneck after a disaster. And the Africans, themselves, while having maintained a small population because of various issues, nevertheless have larger genetic diversity than any one of the peoples outside Africa.

    But, over time, genetic diversity fixes itself through mutations. Look at the lactose tolerant gene, hair colours, eye colours, skin pigmentation. Inbreeding is only a problem if it leads to higher levels of manifestation of deleterious genes and other defects. Other than that, homogeneity has served the Swedes, the Finns and others very well.

  26. Germany is allowing mass migration because Germany itself is not clannish. (That’s presumably why they are so inclined to “empathize” with folks outside their clan.) On the other hand, the Eastern European states, more clannish than Germany, are apt to resist migration – precisely because they’re clannish. (Is not universalism the ultimate in anticlannish?) Presumably (perhaps I have this wrong) conservatives generally tend to be more clannish than Western liberals: this explains why their loyalty (as you explain in a post on Haidt) is more to their immediate circle.

    Then, what about you hbds: do you tend to be innately clannish or not? If clannish, aren’t you to be distrusted? At least, you are suspect of hypocrisy in advocating for the unclannish. If unclannish (which I suspect), how did you manage to adopt a clannish (group-protective) ideology?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don't want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Stephen R. Diamond, @AnotherDad, @Twinkie

  27. @Thrasymachus
    They come from Moslem countries, the inbreeding being only incidental to that. Polygamy is not, and mass youth unemployment is not. A young man has limited prospects for marriage and employment, and if he has none he can't be any worse off in Europe.

    Replies: @Alastair Trumpington, @Alastair Trumpington

    I read somewhere that Islamic laws regarding how property is inherited promoted inbreeding in muslim societies. According to the Koran, daughters are entitled to half as much property as sons, but this was a step up from previous customs in the middle east. Perversely, this encouraged families to promote consanguinity to keep the wealth in the family. I can’t provide a reference, but here is a link describing islamic inheritance laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence

  28. @Thrasymachus
    They come from Moslem countries, the inbreeding being only incidental to that. Polygamy is not, and mass youth unemployment is not. A young man has limited prospects for marriage and employment, and if he has none he can't be any worse off in Europe.

    Replies: @Alastair Trumpington, @Alastair Trumpington

    I read somewhere that Islamic laws regarding inheritance of property promote inbreeding in muslim societies. According to the Koran, daughters are entitled to half as much property as sons. Perversely, allowing women to inherit property encouraged inbreeding with the goal of “keeping the wealth in the family”. I can’t provide a reference, but here is a link describing islamic inheritance laws.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence

  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, one long term effect of all this consanguinity is that once these ‘migrant’ populations are firmly esconced in Germany and the rest of Europe, they will invite in the entirety of their extended clans from ‘back home’ as spouses.
    Entire regions – and we talk about Pakistan we are talking of millions and millions – will completely depopulate and move, en masse, to Europe. Having a spouse in Germany is a marriage bargainer beyond compare. Eventually, bit by bit, little by little, whole villages, districts, counties, provinces, states etc will move to Europe one spouse at a time.

    Mark my words.

  30. @Anon
    I've always thought that people who were pro-diversity tend to be rather inbred themselves, or rather, 'lacking in genetic diversity,' and their crazed insistence on how terrific outbreeding is, is merely their own genes shrieking for the introduction of more variation before their own offspring die out from sheer feebleness. Mental preciousness and neuroticism is a warning that your genetic lines lack robustness and are going downhill.

    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn't have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.

    Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s. Their WASP descendants in America kept marrying each other for generation after generation unless they moved out of region, which is why Northeast liberals can be so remarkably alike in their mentality. It's not just culture, it's lack of genetic diversity. Much of this process took place from about 1620 to 1800, a period in which roads were terrible and people rarely traveled away from their local village. Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today's culture, and you've got a New England liberal.

    According to this notion, those who are anti-diversity should have a more varied and wholesome collection of genes, and they wouldn't see the need for such mass invasions by newcomers. Midwesterners, for example, by moving away from the east coast, met up with and married persons from a wider numbers of breeding enclaves, and they aren't as keen on diversity as New Englanders are.

    Replies: @Olorin, @n/a, @Studley, @Romanian

    Phenotypic data, or it didn’t happen.

  31. @Stubborn in Germany
    As little as a year ago, "open borders for everyone" was the war cry only of extreme-left NGOs like ATAC and radical libertarians.

    Now it is the official policy of the German government.

    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.

    From the blurb:


    In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states' behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups, Greenhill argues, and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations.

    This "coercion by punishment" strategy can be effected in two ways: the first relies on straightforward threats to overwhelm a target's capacity to accommodate a refugee or migrant influx; the second, on a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that exploits the existence of legal and normative commitments to those fleeing violence, persecution, or privation.
     

    As of now, there is only one customer review on the Amazon page, by a German who thinks this has all been orchestrated by "the Americans" to "destroy the economy and political stability of the new host country, and to sow the seeds of civil war" in order to "further cement their imperial control".

    Well, I dunno. If nothing else, Germany and Europe are important trading partners for the U.S. Destroying their economies would severely impact U.S. businesses and jobs. Of course, one never knows what schemes are being hatched in the Obama White House, but I am skeptical.

    More likely, in my opinion, is that Turkish President Erdogan decided to utilize the weapon of mass migration for his own goals. Until this summer, he had diligently enforced the integrity of his country's border by preventing Syrian (and transiting Afghan etc.) refugees from emigrating en masse. Opening the floodgates meant putting Europe in a world of hurt, with him holding the power to make it stop -- if his demands were met.

    We know only some of his demands, such as billions in financial aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey and the abolition of visa requirements for Turkey's 70+ million citizens. The EU has now announced that these demands will be met. At a minimum he will also want assurance of no interference as he ratchets up oppression of his country's Kurdish population (whose birth rate is much higher than that of non-Kurdish Turks). It's possible that after he closes the border to Syrians trying to get into Europe, he will launch an even bigger refugee tsunami by making the lives of Turkish Kurds unbearable. The extent of Erdogan's regional superpower ambitions is not known, therefore we do not know the full extent of his demands either.

    In any case he has not yet shut down border crossings by Syrians (fake and real ones) into Europe. Whether this is due to EU bureaucratic bungling and slowness or because he is trying to drive a still harder bargain is not known. My guess is that he is surprised that it took the EU so long to cry uncle and acknowledge that Erdogan holds the keys to the gate.

    What is also unknown is the extent to which Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the two main financiers of Turkey's economic expansion, are influencing Turkish policy in return for making funds available at below-market rate, and what their specific goals in this game of hardball are. One would think that, being major shareholders of European corporations, they do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- but the lure of islamizing Europe may be a powerful temptation.

    P.S.: A crazy thought, maybe Merkel has known all along what Erdogan's plan is and by holding off on giving in to his demands she is trying to demonstrate Germany's resistance to blackmail? As in, "we can take whatever you throw at us and remain standing"? To be honest, I don't believe it myself. Merkel is simply too stupid for Machiavellian statecraft.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @BillP, @Anonymous, @Stubborn in Germany

    The last thing Europe’s elite want is for the Islamic tsunami to stop. Maybe Erdogan wasn’t clever enough to realize he would be doing them a priceless favor?

    They’ve all been dreaming about this glorious day since their college years, which featured Lennon’s Imagine as a permanent looping soundtrack. If they can achieve the end of Western Civilization for everyone but themselves and their comfortable, nearly-spent lives they can all die happily with permanent erections.

  32. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Germany is allowing mass migration because Germany itself is not clannish. (That's presumably why they are so inclined to "empathize" with folks outside their clan.) On the other hand, the Eastern European states, more clannish than Germany, are apt to resist migration - precisely because they're clannish. (Is not universalism the ultimate in anticlannish?) Presumably (perhaps I have this wrong) conservatives generally tend to be more clannish than Western liberals: this explains why their loyalty (as you explain in a post on Haidt) is more to their immediate circle.

    Then, what about you hbds: do you tend to be innately clannish or not? If clannish, aren't you to be distrusted? At least, you are suspect of hypocrisy in advocating for the unclannish. If unclannish (which I suspect), how did you manage to adopt a clannish (group-protective) ideology?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don’t want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    I'm sure game theory and evo-bio have a great deal to say about this.
    Think of EO Wilson and wasp nests.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Steve Sailer

    Then you would recommend (to a society) a moderate degree of inbreeding?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @AnotherDad
    @Steve Sailer


    Then, what about you hbds: do you tend to be innately clannish or not? If clannish, aren’t you to be distrusted? At least, you are suspect of hypocrisy in advocating for the unclannish. If unclannish (which I suspect), how did you manage to adopt a clannish (group-protective) ideology?

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don’t want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.
     

     
    I'd tack on the simple concept of "reciprocity". Open unclannish societies, should *never* allow closed clannish\tribal people into their midst. (Basically any people whom will not play by the open society's rules. Even more so anyone people who are endogamous and will specifically maintain themselves as a separate people.)

    Avoiding people who don't offer reciprocity doesn't require any mental gymnastics. It's basic game theory--e.g. prisoner's dilemma. Not doing it sets you up to get screwed.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @Steve Sailer


    But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements
     
    I would also add that an "extremely unclannish" tendency is bad for family-formation, and encourages radical individualism that is inimical to community-building.
  33. @Stubborn in Germany
    As little as a year ago, "open borders for everyone" was the war cry only of extreme-left NGOs like ATAC and radical libertarians.

    Now it is the official policy of the German government.

    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.

    From the blurb:


    In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states' behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups, Greenhill argues, and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations.

    This "coercion by punishment" strategy can be effected in two ways: the first relies on straightforward threats to overwhelm a target's capacity to accommodate a refugee or migrant influx; the second, on a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that exploits the existence of legal and normative commitments to those fleeing violence, persecution, or privation.
     

    As of now, there is only one customer review on the Amazon page, by a German who thinks this has all been orchestrated by "the Americans" to "destroy the economy and political stability of the new host country, and to sow the seeds of civil war" in order to "further cement their imperial control".

    Well, I dunno. If nothing else, Germany and Europe are important trading partners for the U.S. Destroying their economies would severely impact U.S. businesses and jobs. Of course, one never knows what schemes are being hatched in the Obama White House, but I am skeptical.

    More likely, in my opinion, is that Turkish President Erdogan decided to utilize the weapon of mass migration for his own goals. Until this summer, he had diligently enforced the integrity of his country's border by preventing Syrian (and transiting Afghan etc.) refugees from emigrating en masse. Opening the floodgates meant putting Europe in a world of hurt, with him holding the power to make it stop -- if his demands were met.

    We know only some of his demands, such as billions in financial aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey and the abolition of visa requirements for Turkey's 70+ million citizens. The EU has now announced that these demands will be met. At a minimum he will also want assurance of no interference as he ratchets up oppression of his country's Kurdish population (whose birth rate is much higher than that of non-Kurdish Turks). It's possible that after he closes the border to Syrians trying to get into Europe, he will launch an even bigger refugee tsunami by making the lives of Turkish Kurds unbearable. The extent of Erdogan's regional superpower ambitions is not known, therefore we do not know the full extent of his demands either.

    In any case he has not yet shut down border crossings by Syrians (fake and real ones) into Europe. Whether this is due to EU bureaucratic bungling and slowness or because he is trying to drive a still harder bargain is not known. My guess is that he is surprised that it took the EU so long to cry uncle and acknowledge that Erdogan holds the keys to the gate.

    What is also unknown is the extent to which Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the two main financiers of Turkey's economic expansion, are influencing Turkish policy in return for making funds available at below-market rate, and what their specific goals in this game of hardball are. One would think that, being major shareholders of European corporations, they do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- but the lure of islamizing Europe may be a powerful temptation.

    P.S.: A crazy thought, maybe Merkel has known all along what Erdogan's plan is and by holding off on giving in to his demands she is trying to demonstrate Germany's resistance to blackmail? As in, "we can take whatever you throw at us and remain standing"? To be honest, I don't believe it myself. Merkel is simply too stupid for Machiavellian statecraft.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @BillP, @Anonymous, @Stubborn in Germany

    Britain *MUST* get out of the EU in the forthcoming referendum.

    Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started. I am severely pessimistic that the ‘great British public’ will have the brains or indeed balls to vote to get out.

    • Replies: @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    The In campaign has made a singularly inept start and is fronted by a bunch of deadbeats, such as Gordon Brown and John Major (former prime ministers whose administrations wrought chaos and who were kicked out by an angry electorate). Nonetheless I predict that the result of the referendum will be as follows: 51% In, 49% Out.

    As Stalin apparently never said, "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes".

    If Britain were ever allowed to leave the EU the whole thing would collapse. I'm surprised the referendum has even got this far.

    Replies: @5371, @Anonymous

    , @Anonymous Nephew
    @Anonymous

    "Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started."

    If the Scottish independence referendum is any guide, there'll be a tsunami of lies. Literally every day in the media, one or other company boss was saying things like "of course in the event of a Yes vote we would have to consider the position of our investments in Scotland - the continued existence of our (insert industrial plant name) facility would be thrown into doubt".

    It was like a continual drumbeat, getting louder and louder (and the firms larger and larger) as the referendum day approached. It was obviously co-ordinated and the BBC were happy to amplify.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  34. @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don't want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Stephen R. Diamond, @AnotherDad, @Twinkie

    I’m sure game theory and evo-bio have a great deal to say about this.
    Think of EO Wilson and wasp nests.

  35. @Anon
    I've always thought that people who were pro-diversity tend to be rather inbred themselves, or rather, 'lacking in genetic diversity,' and their crazed insistence on how terrific outbreeding is, is merely their own genes shrieking for the introduction of more variation before their own offspring die out from sheer feebleness. Mental preciousness and neuroticism is a warning that your genetic lines lack robustness and are going downhill.

    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn't have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.

    Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s. Their WASP descendants in America kept marrying each other for generation after generation unless they moved out of region, which is why Northeast liberals can be so remarkably alike in their mentality. It's not just culture, it's lack of genetic diversity. Much of this process took place from about 1620 to 1800, a period in which roads were terrible and people rarely traveled away from their local village. Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today's culture, and you've got a New England liberal.

    According to this notion, those who are anti-diversity should have a more varied and wholesome collection of genes, and they wouldn't see the need for such mass invasions by newcomers. Midwesterners, for example, by moving away from the east coast, met up with and married persons from a wider numbers of breeding enclaves, and they aren't as keen on diversity as New Englanders are.

    Replies: @Olorin, @n/a, @Studley, @Romanian

    “so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn’t have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.”

    No.

    “Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s”

    No. Present-day inhabitants of New England are overwhelmingly descended from 19th-century and later immigrants.

    “Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today’s culture, and you’ve got a New England liberal.”

    Which explains perfectly why Protestant New Englanders still vote to the right of the Catholics and Jews of New England.

  36. It’s a great mistake to make data on consanguinity your go-to source for all explanation of social variables, as even a cursory perusal of the map will tell you.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @5371

    But it's a bigger mistake to be oblivious to the existence of the data on cousin marriage, as have been 99.99999% of the articles published on the "migrant crisis."

  37. @Anon
    I've always thought that people who were pro-diversity tend to be rather inbred themselves, or rather, 'lacking in genetic diversity,' and their crazed insistence on how terrific outbreeding is, is merely their own genes shrieking for the introduction of more variation before their own offspring die out from sheer feebleness. Mental preciousness and neuroticism is a warning that your genetic lines lack robustness and are going downhill.

    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn't have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.

    Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s. Their WASP descendants in America kept marrying each other for generation after generation unless they moved out of region, which is why Northeast liberals can be so remarkably alike in their mentality. It's not just culture, it's lack of genetic diversity. Much of this process took place from about 1620 to 1800, a period in which roads were terrible and people rarely traveled away from their local village. Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today's culture, and you've got a New England liberal.

    According to this notion, those who are anti-diversity should have a more varied and wholesome collection of genes, and they wouldn't see the need for such mass invasions by newcomers. Midwesterners, for example, by moving away from the east coast, met up with and married persons from a wider numbers of breeding enclaves, and they aren't as keen on diversity as New Englanders are.

    Replies: @Olorin, @n/a, @Studley, @Romanian

    I see your point, “Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today’s culture.”

    But are there rigid Puritan New Englanders (inbred, as said) across the US? Doubt. German farming families and other newcomers must have brought something genetically new to the Midwest.

    The Western political crisis du jour is due to Neo-cons not even knowing (not least recognising) Steve’s article in the American Conservative.

  38. @5371
    It's a great mistake to make data on consanguinity your go-to source for all explanation of social variables, as even a cursory perusal of the map will tell you.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    But it’s a bigger mistake to be oblivious to the existence of the data on cousin marriage, as have been 99.99999% of the articles published on the “migrant crisis.”

  39. @Anonymous
    @Stubborn in Germany

    Britain *MUST* get out of the EU in the forthcoming referendum.

    Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started. I am severely pessimistic that the 'great British public' will have the brains or indeed balls to vote to get out.

    Replies: @Thomas Fuller, @Anonymous Nephew

    The In campaign has made a singularly inept start and is fronted by a bunch of deadbeats, such as Gordon Brown and John Major (former prime ministers whose administrations wrought chaos and who were kicked out by an angry electorate). Nonetheless I predict that the result of the referendum will be as follows: 51% In, 49% Out.

    As Stalin apparently never said, “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes”.

    If Britain were ever allowed to leave the EU the whole thing would collapse. I’m surprised the referendum has even got this far.

    • Replies: @5371
    @Thomas Fuller

    I don't understand the official name for the In campaign, Strongerin (yes, like that, all one word). What are they trying to get you to think of, Slytherin?

    , @Anonymous
    @Thomas Fuller

    Well, it's to one man and one man only you can give thanks for the referendum: Nigel Farage.
    We've all heard Tony Benn's old maxim 'it's all about policies and not personalities', but Farage's single handed determination changed the scene of UK politics.
    Witness Teresa May's speech last week. No Home Secretary in history has made such a strong anti-immigration speech. Compare and contrast to the official line of New Labour a decade ago.
    Speaking of Farage did you see the way his 'truth to power' needling of Francois Hollande, the other week, reduced Hollande to a red-faced ranting, raving, raging lunatic?
    I think it was Farage's line about the euro currency having 'diminished France' hitting a raw nerve.

    Replies: @Thomas Fuller

  40. I have to raise doubts about the data, at least the raw percentages based on the legend in the map. In the map, the state in India I’m from is colored reddish, either between 20-29 or 30-39%.

    This is thoroughly inconsistent with my anecdotal experience; of the several dozen married couples I know well enough to know if they’re cousins, I can’t think of more than one consanguineous couple, who’re second cousins.

    It may well be that cousin marriage is nonetheless more prevalent than in Europe, but I have a hard time accepting these figures; do they say what the source of the figures is?

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    @Tark Marg

    My guess would be you are one of the high castes. Would you really be that tuned into anecdotal data from down the social structure?

    As an aside... social structures and all these castes is pretty mystifying to westerners, unless they've made a study of this. In the old days the CW you could expect an American, at least, to say India had four castes:

    Brahmins - Religious/Brainy guys
    Kshatriyas - Warrior guys
    Some guys who weren't interesting enough to remember. They were some kind of merchant guys.
    Untouchable guys that handled corpses and cleaned sewers.

    But seeing the odd discussion by Indians (on this site mainly) it looks like it was a lot more complicated.

    Replies: @Tark Marg

  41. @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    The In campaign has made a singularly inept start and is fronted by a bunch of deadbeats, such as Gordon Brown and John Major (former prime ministers whose administrations wrought chaos and who were kicked out by an angry electorate). Nonetheless I predict that the result of the referendum will be as follows: 51% In, 49% Out.

    As Stalin apparently never said, "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes".

    If Britain were ever allowed to leave the EU the whole thing would collapse. I'm surprised the referendum has even got this far.

    Replies: @5371, @Anonymous

    I don’t understand the official name for the In campaign, Strongerin (yes, like that, all one word). What are they trying to get you to think of, Slytherin?

  42. @Tark Marg
    I have to raise doubts about the data, at least the raw percentages based on the legend in the map. In the map, the state in India I'm from is colored reddish, either between 20-29 or 30-39%.

    This is thoroughly inconsistent with my anecdotal experience; of the several dozen married couples I know well enough to know if they're cousins, I can't think of more than one consanguineous couple, who're second cousins.

    It may well be that cousin marriage is nonetheless more prevalent than in Europe, but I have a hard time accepting these figures; do they say what the source of the figures is?

    Replies: @Sunbeam

    My guess would be you are one of the high castes. Would you really be that tuned into anecdotal data from down the social structure?

    As an aside… social structures and all these castes is pretty mystifying to westerners, unless they’ve made a study of this. In the old days the CW you could expect an American, at least, to say India had four castes:

    Brahmins – Religious/Brainy guys
    Kshatriyas – Warrior guys
    Some guys who weren’t interesting enough to remember. They were some kind of merchant guys.
    Untouchable guys that handled corpses and cleaned sewers.

    But seeing the odd discussion by Indians (on this site mainly) it looks like it was a lot more complicated.

    • Replies: @Tark Marg
    @Sunbeam

    My social circle is probably not representative of wider society, but nonetheless, there is a major taboo (at least within my social circle) against marriage within the Gotra (patrilineal clan; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotra).

    Presumably this may not hold in wider society where I come from. The extent mentioned in the reference, if accurate seems shockingly high.

    As an aside, persistent inbreeding will eventually weed out the deleterious mutations. Many lab strains of mice are thoroughly inbred to enable easy genetic analysis. Icelanders also seem to have crossed this threshold.

    Not much good for continued evolution though.

  43. @Whiskey
    Occams razor suggests Merkel has the tingles. One need not look further. Ugly eomen in power tend to punish their people for failing to make the ugly women beautiful. Imagine Hillarys tingles. Shudder.

    Replies: @Rifleman

    Occams razor suggests Merkel has the tingles.

    Whiskey’s Razor suggests that you will “Excuse the Jews and Blame the White women” because that’s what you do.

    Merkel’s corporate handlers can do the math = Germans WONT reproduce enough workers and consumers and tax payers so they must import them.

    You getting the tingles over the thought of an old ugly White woman being sexually aroused by dark muslim men has nothing to do with the economic – labor/consumer/tax payers – needs of a decrepit Germany.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rifleman


    You getting the tingles over the thought of an old ugly White woman being sexually aroused by dark muslim men…
     
    Perhaps we could call her Studs Merkel.
    , @AnAnon
    @Rifleman

    Germany could always do to the US what the US did to Germany if they need labor that badly. but something tells me that isn't the case.

  44. @e
    @anonymous

    Not even the Atlantic buys it, for several reasons:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/no-scientists-have-not-found-the-gay-gene/410059/

    Replies: @Rifleman

    We’re going to need Greg Cochran’s opinion or it didn’t happen.

  45. The explanation needn’t run much deeper than that inbreeding is associated with high fertility. Having lots of youths in the first place makes it much easier to export lots of them to Germany.

  46. @Joe Magarac
    "Inbred cultures" == Muslim cultures of course (in this case).

    But also pretty much any pre-modern culture in the world today, Muslim or not.

    Replies: @Unzerker

    [“Inbred cultures” =] pretty much any pre-modern culture in the world today, Muslim or not.

    Not at all. From wiki:

    Under Roman civil law, which early canon law of the Catholic Church followed, couples were forbidden to marry if they were within four degrees of consanguinity. In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made what they believed was a necessary change to canon law reducing the number of prohibited degrees of consanguinity from seven back to four.

    Most cultures define a degree of consanguinity within which sexual interrelationships are regarded as incestuous (the “prohibited degree of kinship”)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Unzerker

    These consanguinity bans survive in the Church, but not in the state. Outside of about two dozen US states (thanks to the eugenics movement), first cousins can legally marry everywhere in the world.

    The Church is wiser than the state.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    The In campaign has made a singularly inept start and is fronted by a bunch of deadbeats, such as Gordon Brown and John Major (former prime ministers whose administrations wrought chaos and who were kicked out by an angry electorate). Nonetheless I predict that the result of the referendum will be as follows: 51% In, 49% Out.

    As Stalin apparently never said, "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes".

    If Britain were ever allowed to leave the EU the whole thing would collapse. I'm surprised the referendum has even got this far.

    Replies: @5371, @Anonymous

    Well, it’s to one man and one man only you can give thanks for the referendum: Nigel Farage.
    We’ve all heard Tony Benn’s old maxim ‘it’s all about policies and not personalities’, but Farage’s single handed determination changed the scene of UK politics.
    Witness Teresa May’s speech last week. No Home Secretary in history has made such a strong anti-immigration speech. Compare and contrast to the official line of New Labour a decade ago.
    Speaking of Farage did you see the way his ‘truth to power’ needling of Francois Hollande, the other week, reduced Hollande to a red-faced ranting, raving, raging lunatic?
    I think it was Farage’s line about the euro currency having ‘diminished France’ hitting a raw nerve.

    • Replies: @Thomas Fuller
    @Anonymous

    Yes, I often watch those videos of Nigel F. speaking truth unto evil, and did see that one. Thought it extremely funny; there is something about Hollande's specs that makes him look especially absurd. He could be the new Jacques Tati when he loses his current job. Merkel's face was a joy to behold as well, as though she were caught in some zillion-lumen headlights and knew she was about to get crushed ...

  48. @Sunbeam
    @Tark Marg

    My guess would be you are one of the high castes. Would you really be that tuned into anecdotal data from down the social structure?

    As an aside... social structures and all these castes is pretty mystifying to westerners, unless they've made a study of this. In the old days the CW you could expect an American, at least, to say India had four castes:

    Brahmins - Religious/Brainy guys
    Kshatriyas - Warrior guys
    Some guys who weren't interesting enough to remember. They were some kind of merchant guys.
    Untouchable guys that handled corpses and cleaned sewers.

    But seeing the odd discussion by Indians (on this site mainly) it looks like it was a lot more complicated.

    Replies: @Tark Marg

    My social circle is probably not representative of wider society, but nonetheless, there is a major taboo (at least within my social circle) against marriage within the Gotra (patrilineal clan; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotra).

    Presumably this may not hold in wider society where I come from. The extent mentioned in the reference, if accurate seems shockingly high.

    As an aside, persistent inbreeding will eventually weed out the deleterious mutations. Many lab strains of mice are thoroughly inbred to enable easy genetic analysis. Icelanders also seem to have crossed this threshold.

    Not much good for continued evolution though.

  49. @M_Young
    I recently took Lufthansa on a return flight to the US. In the inflight magazine, the CEO boasted that the company had received 130,000 applications for 2000 internships, only 300 oif which were skilled ground positions as opposed to cabin crew.

    Hard to believe that Germany has a labor shortage.

    Replies: @ivvenalis

    There’s no such thing as a “labor shortage” in an economy the size of Germany. This is one of the fairly basic insights of economics. A “shortage” in the real world just means that “prices are higher than I would like”, in this case the price being wages.

  50. Andrew Hammel has a new blog devoted to Merkel’s Boner.

    http://www.germanimmigration.eu/

    @anon – “No Home Secretary in history has made such a strong anti-immigration speech”

    If only I could believe a word she says.

  51. @Anonymous
    @Stubborn in Germany

    Britain *MUST* get out of the EU in the forthcoming referendum.

    Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started. I am severely pessimistic that the 'great British public' will have the brains or indeed balls to vote to get out.

    Replies: @Thomas Fuller, @Anonymous Nephew

    “Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started.”

    If the Scottish independence referendum is any guide, there’ll be a tsunami of lies. Literally every day in the media, one or other company boss was saying things like “of course in the event of a Yes vote we would have to consider the position of our investments in Scotland – the continued existence of our (insert industrial plant name) facility would be thrown into doubt“.

    It was like a continual drumbeat, getting louder and louder (and the firms larger and larger) as the referendum day approached. It was obviously co-ordinated and the BBC were happy to amplify.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous Nephew

    The other shitty tactic is for some big corporate executive to claim that in the event of the UK freeing itself of the EU, then it will 'cost' the 'average family' '2 or 3 or x number of thousands of pounds' per annum.
    From what methodology they plucked these random numbers from the air is never specified.
    By basic basic elementary Adam Smith free trade theory, if the EU penalizes British trade they will only hurt themselves as much as they hurt Britain, even the more so as they run huge, persistent trade surpluses with Britain.
    And there is the not inconsequential fact that British taxpayers per a nett £8 billion into EU coffers every year.

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous Nephew
    @Anonymous

    "Unfortunately, the big fat lies from big business have only just started."

    If the Scottish independence referendum is any guide, there'll be a tsunami of lies. Literally every day in the media, one or other company boss was saying things like "of course in the event of a Yes vote we would have to consider the position of our investments in Scotland - the continued existence of our (insert industrial plant name) facility would be thrown into doubt".

    It was like a continual drumbeat, getting louder and louder (and the firms larger and larger) as the referendum day approached. It was obviously co-ordinated and the BBC were happy to amplify.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The other shitty tactic is for some big corporate executive to claim that in the event of the UK freeing itself of the EU, then it will ‘cost’ the ‘average family’ ‘2 or 3 or x number of thousands of pounds’ per annum.
    From what methodology they plucked these random numbers from the air is never specified.
    By basic basic elementary Adam Smith free trade theory, if the EU penalizes British trade they will only hurt themselves as much as they hurt Britain, even the more so as they run huge, persistent trade surpluses with Britain.
    And there is the not inconsequential fact that British taxpayers per a nett £8 billion into EU coffers every year.

  53. @Anon7
    On a nepotism-related topic, the Imam of Dearborn, Michigan's Islamic Center of America mosque has left, leveling a number of charges against the mosque's board.

    In his remarks last month, Al-Qazwini blasted the board, saying it lacked term limits, promoted nepotism, had no female members, and failed to discipline those who acted improperly. Al-Qazwini, who is of Iraqi descent, and his supporters also say the board wanted to limit the mosque membership to Lebanese-Americans...

    But Al-Qazwini said his were not personal demands, but demands made by the community looking for reform. He criticized the center for having board members who serve for life and hiring employees who are board members.

    "Becoming a board member for life, no power on earth can remove him — Is this Islamic? Is this democratic? Is this American?" Al-Qazwini said.

    "It doesn't make no sense to import the Saudi style of governance to the Islamic Center of America," he added. "We establish another monarchy, where a board member became a board member for life. Before dying, he would bring his son to be his heir, to take his seat."

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/06/05/imam-qazwini-resigns-dearborn-mosque/28581129/

     

    Replies: @Big Bill, @Reg Cæsar, @greysquirrell

    That article touches on an issue within immigrant Muslim communities that seldom if ever receives any press, namely the tribalism and discrimination between Muslims.

    The Ummah tries to claim it is a anti-racist faith but the reality is that Muslim countries are far more xenophobic and racist than the Anglo-sphere. I’ve heard South Asians saying they were discriminated against by Arabs at mosques and Black American Muslims (no, not the NOI types, but regular mainstream Islam) say they faced racism from Pakistanis.

  54. @Stubborn in Germany
    As little as a year ago, "open borders for everyone" was the war cry only of extreme-left NGOs like ATAC and radical libertarians.

    Now it is the official policy of the German government.

    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.

    From the blurb:


    In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states' behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups, Greenhill argues, and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations.

    This "coercion by punishment" strategy can be effected in two ways: the first relies on straightforward threats to overwhelm a target's capacity to accommodate a refugee or migrant influx; the second, on a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that exploits the existence of legal and normative commitments to those fleeing violence, persecution, or privation.
     

    As of now, there is only one customer review on the Amazon page, by a German who thinks this has all been orchestrated by "the Americans" to "destroy the economy and political stability of the new host country, and to sow the seeds of civil war" in order to "further cement their imperial control".

    Well, I dunno. If nothing else, Germany and Europe are important trading partners for the U.S. Destroying their economies would severely impact U.S. businesses and jobs. Of course, one never knows what schemes are being hatched in the Obama White House, but I am skeptical.

    More likely, in my opinion, is that Turkish President Erdogan decided to utilize the weapon of mass migration for his own goals. Until this summer, he had diligently enforced the integrity of his country's border by preventing Syrian (and transiting Afghan etc.) refugees from emigrating en masse. Opening the floodgates meant putting Europe in a world of hurt, with him holding the power to make it stop -- if his demands were met.

    We know only some of his demands, such as billions in financial aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey and the abolition of visa requirements for Turkey's 70+ million citizens. The EU has now announced that these demands will be met. At a minimum he will also want assurance of no interference as he ratchets up oppression of his country's Kurdish population (whose birth rate is much higher than that of non-Kurdish Turks). It's possible that after he closes the border to Syrians trying to get into Europe, he will launch an even bigger refugee tsunami by making the lives of Turkish Kurds unbearable. The extent of Erdogan's regional superpower ambitions is not known, therefore we do not know the full extent of his demands either.

    In any case he has not yet shut down border crossings by Syrians (fake and real ones) into Europe. Whether this is due to EU bureaucratic bungling and slowness or because he is trying to drive a still harder bargain is not known. My guess is that he is surprised that it took the EU so long to cry uncle and acknowledge that Erdogan holds the keys to the gate.

    What is also unknown is the extent to which Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the two main financiers of Turkey's economic expansion, are influencing Turkish policy in return for making funds available at below-market rate, and what their specific goals in this game of hardball are. One would think that, being major shareholders of European corporations, they do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- but the lure of islamizing Europe may be a powerful temptation.

    P.S.: A crazy thought, maybe Merkel has known all along what Erdogan's plan is and by holding off on giving in to his demands she is trying to demonstrate Germany's resistance to blackmail? As in, "we can take whatever you throw at us and remain standing"? To be honest, I don't believe it myself. Merkel is simply too stupid for Machiavellian statecraft.

    Replies: @Drapetomaniac, @BillP, @Anonymous, @Stubborn in Germany

    By the way, I just learned there is a scholarly treatment of mass migration as a means of coercion:

    Weapons of Mass Migration (2010) by Kelly Greenhill.

    Three reviews of the book plus author’s response here: https://issforum.org/roundtables/5-3-weapons-mass-migration

    Regardless of weaknesses that the book may have, it is clear to me that this is the premier reference work on “coercive engineered migration”. Strange that it has hardly been mentioned at all in the mainstream media. Erdogan’s advisors, however, probably know it by heart.

  55. @Rifleman
    @Whiskey


    Occams razor suggests Merkel has the tingles.
     
    Whiskey's Razor suggests that you will "Excuse the Jews and Blame the White women" because that's what you do.

    Merkel's corporate handlers can do the math = Germans WONT reproduce enough workers and consumers and tax payers so they must import them.

    You getting the tingles over the thought of an old ugly White woman being sexually aroused by dark muslim men has nothing to do with the economic - labor/consumer/tax payers - needs of a decrepit Germany.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @AnAnon

    You getting the tingles over the thought of an old ugly White woman being sexually aroused by dark muslim men…

    Perhaps we could call her Studs Merkel.

  56. @Unzerker
    @Joe Magarac


    [“Inbred cultures” =] pretty much any pre-modern culture in the world today, Muslim or not.
     
    Not at all. From wiki:

    Under Roman civil law, which early canon law of the Catholic Church followed, couples were forbidden to marry if they were within four degrees of consanguinity. In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council made what they believed was a necessary change to canon law reducing the number of prohibited degrees of consanguinity from seven back to four.

    Most cultures define a degree of consanguinity within which sexual interrelationships are regarded as incestuous (the "prohibited degree of kinship")

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    These consanguinity bans survive in the Church, but not in the state. Outside of about two dozen US states (thanks to the eugenics movement), first cousins can legally marry everywhere in the world.

    The Church is wiser than the state.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Outside of about two dozen US states (thanks to the eugenics movement), first cousins can legally marry everywhere in the world.
     
    Not true. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Far_East

    In the Far East, South Korea is especially restrictive with bans on marriage out to third cousins, with all couples having the same surname and region of origin having been prohibited from marrying until 1997.[95] Taiwan, North Korea, and the Philippines also prohibit first-cousin marriage.[1][96] It is allowed in Japan, though the incidence has declined in recent years.[16] China has banned it since passing its 1981 Marriage Law although cross-cousin marriage was commonly practiced in China in the past in rural areas.[16][97] An article in China Daily from the 1990s reported on the ban's implementation in the northeastern province of Liaoning, along with a ban on marriage of the physically and mentally handicapped, all justified on "eugenic" grounds.[97]
     
    And see the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg
  57. @Anonymous
    @Thomas Fuller

    Well, it's to one man and one man only you can give thanks for the referendum: Nigel Farage.
    We've all heard Tony Benn's old maxim 'it's all about policies and not personalities', but Farage's single handed determination changed the scene of UK politics.
    Witness Teresa May's speech last week. No Home Secretary in history has made such a strong anti-immigration speech. Compare and contrast to the official line of New Labour a decade ago.
    Speaking of Farage did you see the way his 'truth to power' needling of Francois Hollande, the other week, reduced Hollande to a red-faced ranting, raving, raging lunatic?
    I think it was Farage's line about the euro currency having 'diminished France' hitting a raw nerve.

    Replies: @Thomas Fuller

    Yes, I often watch those videos of Nigel F. speaking truth unto evil, and did see that one. Thought it extremely funny; there is something about Hollande’s specs that makes him look especially absurd. He could be the new Jacques Tati when he loses his current job. Merkel’s face was a joy to behold as well, as though she were caught in some zillion-lumen headlights and knew she was about to get crushed …

  58. Pathological altruism, Swedish style:

    Per capita, Sweden has taken in more migrants than any other European country, much more than Germany even. Crime has shot up and most migrants are on welfare. Even so, a plurality of Swedes are asking for more of the same:

    http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/kraftig-forandring-fler-vill-se-okat-flyktingmottagande/

    Refugee-friendly public opinion has strengthened significantly in only six months, according to DN / Ipsos.

    44 percent of respondents believe that Sweden should take more refugees – an increase of 18 percentage points since February.

    Close to one in three Swedes are willing to accept a refugee in their home.

    During 2015, migration and integration issues have become increasingly important in public debate in Sweden. The civil war in Syria and IS terror in the region have displaced millions of people and the number of asylum seekers who have come to Sweden has increased for four consecutive years.

    In February, Ipsos conducted a survey on DN’s behalf on attitudes to immigration and integration. Then, 36 percent said that Sweden should receive fewer refugees than currently. Only 26 percent wanted to receive more refugees at the time.

    Now the situation is reversed.

    When Ipsos repeated the question in September, 44 percent said Sweden should take in more refugees. That is an increase of 18 percentage points.

    – It is not so common to see very strong public opinion changes, this is a big increase, says Nicklas Källebring, analyst at Ipsos.

    At the same time, the number of Swedes who want their country to accept fewer refugees declined from 36 percent to 30 percent.

    On the other hand, I have seen opinion polls that indicate that the number of people planning to vote for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats is on the rise.

    It’s obvious, isn’t it, that this is a (non-bloody, for now) civil war between goodthinkers and badthinkers and that immigrants are merely the preferred weapon in this war.

    Keeping in mind differences between Sweden and Germany, nonetheless the Swedish poll numbers do not augur well for a quick turnaround in Germany’s immigration policy.

  59. Strong borders are something that evolves naturally in any place inhabited by humans. The present “migrant crisis” can have two possible outcomes. Europe can close its borders and shut off the flow. Or – in the very long term – it will fill with aliens who will eventually create their own borders to safeguard the countries Europeans handed over to them. Absence of borders is never a permanent state of affairs, but an interlude before which territorial integrity is reasserted.

  60. That map is basically: “% of Muslims”. Although the Russian Muslims I guess are not very inbred, which is a good sign.

  61. The US and UK media insist it is mandated by economic reality. But Merkel says otherwise and there are very good reasons to think economic reality has nothing to do with it. Germany was formerly led by a man who never reproduced but had racial theories which required war. Now Germany is led by a woman who never reproduced, but has racial theories about how to avoid war. Merkel has specifically said that the EU is all that prevents war.

    A fear of WW3 was certainly the explanation for opposition to nuclear power generation in Germany, which culminated in Merkel’s 2011 declaration that Germany would be nuclear free by 2022. Of course that was when Germany was expected to have a rapidly shrinking population. Now that Merkel has decided to import over a million people a year , Germany will certainly not be able to meet its own needs in the future, and will have to import nuclear generated electricity from Czech republic or somewhere. Financial Times: The growing absurdity of German energy policy.

    What is motivating both the anti nuclear and immigration policy is a dread of war. It lies very deep in the German psyche and now they are safely cocooned within friendly states (including Poland now in EC and Nato) they are free to dump any kind of policy with nationalist connotations, leading to them taking mirror image positions to Hitler. Nothing to do with economic /demographic considerations.

    http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/oct/12/bake-off-winner-nadiya-hussain-muslims-britain
    Above is about winner of a competition on Britain’s biggest TV show. Lots about how she and her husband look, but nothing about how they look like siblings of course.

  62. @Anon
    I've always thought that people who were pro-diversity tend to be rather inbred themselves, or rather, 'lacking in genetic diversity,' and their crazed insistence on how terrific outbreeding is, is merely their own genes shrieking for the introduction of more variation before their own offspring die out from sheer feebleness. Mental preciousness and neuroticism is a warning that your genetic lines lack robustness and are going downhill.

    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn't have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.

    Many people who live in New England happen to have ancestry from a smaller genetic pool than you would think, namely the Puritan families who emigrated from the same areas in England in the 1600s. Their WASP descendants in America kept marrying each other for generation after generation unless they moved out of region, which is why Northeast liberals can be so remarkably alike in their mentality. It's not just culture, it's lack of genetic diversity. Much of this process took place from about 1620 to 1800, a period in which roads were terrible and people rarely traveled away from their local village. Take a rigid Puritan and raise him with today's culture, and you've got a New England liberal.

    According to this notion, those who are anti-diversity should have a more varied and wholesome collection of genes, and they wouldn't see the need for such mass invasions by newcomers. Midwesterners, for example, by moving away from the east coast, met up with and married persons from a wider numbers of breeding enclaves, and they aren't as keen on diversity as New Englanders are.

    Replies: @Olorin, @n/a, @Studley, @Romanian

    Germans descend from a small number of tribes that were floating around in the Roman days, so the present multi-million population of the German state doesn’t have that much of a particularly wide genetic base to it.

    Who ISN’T descended from a small number of tribes floating around somewhere that coalesced into something resembling a people who eventually developed a national consciousness?

    There are 7.5 billion of us already – there were 250 million of us 2 000 years ago. We’re all inbred by those standards. A degree of inbreeding is necessary for the formation of an ethnicity. Go back far enough and there were 10.000 of us left in a bottleneck after a disaster. And the Africans, themselves, while having maintained a small population because of various issues, nevertheless have larger genetic diversity than any one of the peoples outside Africa.

    But, over time, genetic diversity fixes itself through mutations. Look at the lactose tolerant gene, hair colours, eye colours, skin pigmentation. Inbreeding is only a problem if it leads to higher levels of manifestation of deleterious genes and other defects. Other than that, homogeneity has served the Swedes, the Finns and others very well.

  63. @Rifleman
    @Whiskey


    Occams razor suggests Merkel has the tingles.
     
    Whiskey's Razor suggests that you will "Excuse the Jews and Blame the White women" because that's what you do.

    Merkel's corporate handlers can do the math = Germans WONT reproduce enough workers and consumers and tax payers so they must import them.

    You getting the tingles over the thought of an old ugly White woman being sexually aroused by dark muslim men has nothing to do with the economic - labor/consumer/tax payers - needs of a decrepit Germany.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @AnAnon

    Germany could always do to the US what the US did to Germany if they need labor that badly. but something tells me that isn’t the case.

  64. @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don't want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Stephen R. Diamond, @AnotherDad, @Twinkie

    Then you would recommend (to a society) a moderate degree of inbreeding?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Geographic reality means that everybody is going to be somewhat inbred.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

  65. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Steve Sailer

    Then you would recommend (to a society) a moderate degree of inbreeding?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Geographic reality means that everybody is going to be somewhat inbred.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Steve Sailer

    But it seems that the degree of inbreeding in much of Western Europe and the U.S. is inadequate to generate enough clannishness to avoid exploitation (and even replacement) by the more inbred. It would seem, wouldn't it, that our degree of inbreeding is immoderately low?

  66. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Is Merkel really one of those communist politicians, who, after decades of communism, didn’t give a damn about ideology or national loyalty but was really good at re-inventing themselves in whatever way was necessary for others to see whatever they needed to see to let Merkel be their leader? Or maybe Merkel really is a lesbian who sees herself as a citizen of the world?

    Because Merkel seems to epitomize the “let’s just resettle them all here” school, there’s probably a book to be written here…

  67. @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Geographic reality means that everybody is going to be somewhat inbred.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    But it seems that the degree of inbreeding in much of Western Europe and the U.S. is inadequate to generate enough clannishness to avoid exploitation (and even replacement) by the more inbred. It would seem, wouldn’t it, that our degree of inbreeding is immoderately low?

  68. @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don't want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Stephen R. Diamond, @AnotherDad, @Twinkie

    Then, what about you hbds: do you tend to be innately clannish or not? If clannish, aren’t you to be distrusted? At least, you are suspect of hypocrisy in advocating for the unclannish. If unclannish (which I suspect), how did you manage to adopt a clannish (group-protective) ideology?

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don’t want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    I’d tack on the simple concept of “reciprocity”. Open unclannish societies, should *never* allow closed clannish\tribal people into their midst. (Basically any people whom will not play by the open society’s rules. Even more so anyone people who are endogamous and will specifically maintain themselves as a separate people.)

    Avoiding people who don’t offer reciprocity doesn’t require any mental gymnastics. It’s basic game theory–e.g. prisoner’s dilemma. Not doing it sets you up to get screwed.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @AnotherDad


    Even more so anyone people who are endogamous and will specifically maintain themselves as a separate people...

    Avoiding people who don’t offer reciprocity doesn’t require any mental gymnastics. It’s basic game theory–e.g. prisoner’s dilemma. Not doing it sets you up to get screwed.
     
    Sharing a common religion helps a great deal in curbing the free rider problem and encouraging positive reciprocity, as does shared military service. And as you allude above, intermarriage helps too. But, the usual caveats apply, specifically, the religion and intermarriages have to be assimilative. In other words, outsiders who join the society have to follow the host religion and assimilate into the native spouse's norms and culture. The other way around would be colonization by the said outsiders.
  69. @AnotherDad
    @Steve Sailer


    Then, what about you hbds: do you tend to be innately clannish or not? If clannish, aren’t you to be distrusted? At least, you are suspect of hypocrisy in advocating for the unclannish. If unclannish (which I suspect), how did you manage to adopt a clannish (group-protective) ideology?

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don’t want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.
     

     
    I'd tack on the simple concept of "reciprocity". Open unclannish societies, should *never* allow closed clannish\tribal people into their midst. (Basically any people whom will not play by the open society's rules. Even more so anyone people who are endogamous and will specifically maintain themselves as a separate people.)

    Avoiding people who don't offer reciprocity doesn't require any mental gymnastics. It's basic game theory--e.g. prisoner's dilemma. Not doing it sets you up to get screwed.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Even more so anyone people who are endogamous and will specifically maintain themselves as a separate people…

    Avoiding people who don’t offer reciprocity doesn’t require any mental gymnastics. It’s basic game theory–e.g. prisoner’s dilemma. Not doing it sets you up to get screwed.

    Sharing a common religion helps a great deal in curbing the free rider problem and encouraging positive reciprocity, as does shared military service. And as you allude above, intermarriage helps too. But, the usual caveats apply, specifically, the religion and intermarriages have to be assimilative. In other words, outsiders who join the society have to follow the host religion and assimilate into the native spouse’s norms and culture. The other way around would be colonization by the said outsiders.

  70. @Steve Sailer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The solution is, of course, moderation in the tradition of Aristotle and Franklin. You don't want to live in an extremely clannish society. But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements, such as the Bush Dynasty, families of billionaires, and foreigners from more clannish cultures.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Stephen R. Diamond, @AnotherDad, @Twinkie

    But an extremely unclannish country is likely to be exploited by more clannish elements

    I would also add that an “extremely unclannish” tendency is bad for family-formation, and encourages radical individualism that is inimical to community-building.

  71. @Reg Cæsar
    @Unzerker

    These consanguinity bans survive in the Church, but not in the state. Outside of about two dozen US states (thanks to the eugenics movement), first cousins can legally marry everywhere in the world.

    The Church is wiser than the state.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Outside of about two dozen US states (thanks to the eugenics movement), first cousins can legally marry everywhere in the world.

    Not true. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Far_East

    In the Far East, South Korea is especially restrictive with bans on marriage out to third cousins, with all couples having the same surname and region of origin having been prohibited from marrying until 1997.[95] Taiwan, North Korea, and the Philippines also prohibit first-cousin marriage.[1][96] It is allowed in Japan, though the incidence has declined in recent years.[16] China has banned it since passing its 1981 Marriage Law although cross-cousin marriage was commonly practiced in China in the past in rural areas.[16][97] An article in China Daily from the 1990s reported on the ban’s implementation in the northeastern province of Liaoning, along with a ban on marriage of the physically and mentally handicapped, all justified on “eugenic” grounds.[97]

    And see the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS