pew, pew, pew!

pew tells me i’m a libertarian:

libertarianism would be great! if the country was filled with mostly white folks.

(i am definitely not more moderate re. immigration than other gop groups!)

take the quiz: 2011 Pew Research Political Typology Quiz

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Advertisements

83 Comments

  1. Based on your responses, YOU are a…
    Post-Modern

    Interesting. I felt that I had to hold my nose when choosing between a good section of those statements. I feel that my views transcend Pew’s socially constructed categories…huh…maybe I really am post-modern.

    Seriously, though, I felt that many of the choices fit were dichotomies based on Democratic vs. Republican talking points. For instance:

    Using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism around the world

    vs.

    Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism

    Yeah, um, don’t really like either answer there. I would like smaller-footprint, more targeted attacks on terrorist targets, less grand invasion, less nation-building, and a deëmphasis of terrorism as a problem. That is terrorism is a problem, but after 9/11, it was put much higher on the priority list than it should have been. I think I picked the second one even though I don’t really think that its a good causal explanation or a good rationale for policy decisions.

    Another one:

    This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment

    vs

    This country has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment

    I think I picked the first one even though “whatever it takes” thinking sets me on edge. I like scrubbers on coal plants. I think that there should be environmental standards, as the environment is a commons and its convenient to dump waste there and there really isn’t much of a price signal for that. That said, environmental protection needs to be within reason and should not be the primary concern. Though I don’t think that this is what the question implied, to take a completely maximalist view, the best way to “protect the environment” would be to eradicate humans, who have a fairly transformative impact on the environment. One of the most vibrant wildlife refuges in Europe is the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. Has our government gone too far in some areas of environmental protection? I’m sure, but there are other areas that aren’t covered well enough. I wonder if switching that one would have made me a libertarian…checking now…

    Well, I flipped a few that I thought were questionable and I came out libertarian.

    Reply

  2. Couldn’t you have a libertarian country made up of non-white folks? Thomas Sowell is a good libertarian. It’s amazing that so many otherwise very reasonable people get all twisted around the immigration issue – why hate me, I ask, if my only demerit is having been born on the wrong side of the river? Couldn’t we just sort ourselves by IQ test and earnings, rather than blind geographic chance?

    Reply

  3. @raphael – “Couldn’t you have a libertarian country made up of non-white folks?”

    maybe. a libertarian country of all africans or all asians or all mexicans might work, but i’m not so sure.

    i think the whole libertarian ideology appeals to folks who are very individualistic. most of the world’s populations are, however, not individualistic — it’s mostly only westerners — and then it’s mostly only americans.

    how did we get to be such individualists? i think that has to do with my pet theory regarding inbreeding (yes, i know, i’m bringing it up again!).

    if you inbreed (marry cousins or whatever) you get nepostism and tribalism. the corollary must be that if you outbreed (which is what europeans have been doing for a very long time) then you get the opposite of nepotism and tribalism, i.e. sentiments such as meritocracy and individualism.

    since a large portion of the world is inbreeding, i don’t really think libertarianism would work in those socieities, nepotism and tribalism being just about the opposite of libertarianism. in fact, i don’t even think they’d be interested in it.

    Reply

  4. @raphael – “Couldn’t we just sort ourselves by IQ test and earnings, rather than blind geographic chance?”

    no, i don’t think so. relatedness matters — even in plants! organisms favor their own and do the opposite to those unrelated to them. when you start to mix up lots of unrelated peoples you get balkanization — like in, well, the balkans!

    @raphael – “why hate me, I ask, if my only demerit is having been born on the wrong side of the river?”

    because you are unrelated to me. not just a little unrelated, like my sixth cousin, but really unrelated if, for instance, we are talking about europeans versus native americans.

    this is just basic biology. really basic biology.

    i wish it were otherwise, i really do. i wish everybody could just all get along and live in peace and harmony, but it will never happen — not unless mana starts dropping endlessly from heaven (i.e. if there were unlimited, free resources for all, competition would slow down or cease altogether — only then would people stop hating each other — i think).

    Reply

  5. hbd, are you adducing the differing degrees of relatedness for normative or explanatory reasons? If it’s the former, I can’t argue, different strokes for different folks, etc but if it’s the latter, I couldn’t disagree more – however you slice it, cladistic degree of relatedness alone cannot explain the amount of inter-group violence or the differentials in economic efficiency. If relatedness was paramount in determining these outcomes, there would be a smooth inverse relationship between relatedness of neighboring groups and the likelihood of being at war – but this is not the case. Closely related groups that differ in religion are much more likely to be at each other’s throats, for example, than more distant cousins united by a religion. Accidents of history overrule biology all the time. My PhD is in human genetics (molecular, not population, but still) so I am all into believing that genetics matters, nurture is just the icing, inter-racial differences are real, etc. don’t get me wrong – but, our kin-cooperation mechanisms have evolved in tiny tribes with high levels of inbreeding. The immigration controversies operate over genetic distances that are orders of magnitude different from what you see in a small tribe – and the cultural differences completely swamp any minuscule differentials in biology. There is just no way you could have an evolved cognitive routine that somehow measures your genetic relatedness to a Pashtun vs. a Korean, and makes you differentially respond to each individual (smell? no, most anti-immigrant attitudes develop beyond sniff range). Instead, you have built-in cognitive routines that make rule-of-thumb determinations of likely cooperativeness – and this is where cultural issues (religion, language), and individual characteristics (conscientiousness, IQ) completely swamp population biology. You are seriously more likely to be treated well by the affable and smart foreigner (like me) than by a nit-with 6th cousin.

    So, yeah, I know that we libertarians are a minority, most normals will hate others instinctively, physical appearance differences matter – but the reasons for anti-immigrant attitudes are not “basic biology” but rather the complex outcome of archaic evolutionary adaptations fitfully playing out in a technological society to which they are not calibrated.

    Rafal

    BTW, libertarianism is mostly an inherited condition, found in many racial groups, not just a western cultural construct. Being razor-smart but a bit funny socially (as in being a poor liar) puts you at a great risk of expressing this phenotype. Welcome to the club.

    Reply

  6. @rafal – the way i see it — and i may be totally wrong, of course — it’s both the amount of inbreeding as well as the type of inbreeding in a population that influences how hostile that population is to outsiders.

    my favorite example is of the arabs and other populations that practice father’s brother’s daughter marriage at high rates (see the link above), i.e. the arab world, the maghreb (to a lesser extent), iraqis, afghanis. they are hostile. compare them with europeans and other westerners who have been outbreeding since the middle ages. europeans and americans are, relatively speaking, hardly hostile at all! everyone’s welcome — all ideologies are just as good as each other. everything goes! ’cause, why not, when you’re a bunch of rather unique individuals whose genomes don’t excessively overlap everyone else in the population.

    @rafal – “Closely related groups that differ in religion are much more likely to be at each other’s throats, for example, than more distant cousins united by a religion.”

    some of this prolly has to do with location, no? closely related groups are often just plain close to each other physically, competing more directly with each other over resources. can you give me an example of each so i get an idea of what you’re thinking about?

    yeah, i understand (kinda|sorta!) about the evolutionary origins of disliking “the other” and small groups and all that. but how did our ancestors in the distant past recognize unrelated individuals? sure, prolly ’cause they never saw them before! — but also, individuals from another group must’ve looked different. and who looks more different than someone from another race, let alone another ethnic group? there must just be an instinctive reaction there, especially if you’ve never actually seen people from a given “other” race|ethnicity before.

    (btw, i ain’t lookin’ to give any normative advice, i’m just trying to understand how things work.)

    Reply

  7. hbd, Xenophobia doesn’t work on the level of genes because people can’t tell how genetically related someone is by looking at them. It works on consilience of theory of mind.

    Maybe people can consciously decide that they will hate everyone proportionately to their degree of unrelatedness. But then they need gene scans before they can tell how much they hate someone.

    What about the parents who find out their child is gay and then start to hate them? How does the selfish gene fit with that?

    Rafal makes an excellent point. In Northern Ireland, the Protestants and Catholics are virtually identically genetically. They also both consider themselves Christian. In the Middle East the Muslim Palestinians and the Jewish Palestinians are the virtually the same genetically too. Sunni and Shia Muslims are not just genetically related, they are also both Muslim!

    Xenophobia is not triggered by genetic differences, it is triggered by theory of mind stuff. Charismatic leaders can trigger xenophobia if their victims let them.

    Reply

  8. Most of the xenophobia stuff has to be from deep evolutionary time, from long before humans left Africa. The physiology to support xenophobia had to work with closely related individuals because those were the only individuals that interacted before humans expanded world-wide and then developed rapid transportation.

    The development of xenophobia had to be local and it couldn’t be gene based. If it was gene based, then who do multi-racial individuals hate?

    Reply

  9. “Xenophobia is not triggered by genetic differences”

    Xenophobia doesn’t need to be triggered if it’s the default state (where “xeno” is anything beyond extended family).

    The basic human blueprint is F**k. Eat. Kill. constrained initially solely by fear. Extra layers of restraint got added on over time. The first layers come from genetic distance. The later layers come from social identity.

    That’s why South Africa has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world. As well as all the different South African tribes there’s immigrants from all over the rest of Africa all jumbled together in high density unrelated groups. Africans have low impulse control anyway and when there’s no restraint from relatedness and there’s no restraint from social identity mechanisms then you get Soweto or Detroit.

    .
    “Closely related groups that differ in religion are much more likely to be at each other’s throats”

    Closely related groups are generally close geographically. Proximity causes competition over resources. Competition selects for strong social identity mechanisms to reinforce relatedness e.g religion. In some cases a closely related but differing group might CHOOSE a differentiating social identity like religion e.g Persian Shias and Arab Sunnis, purely to reinforce ethnic difference. Social identity mechanisms follow relatedness and magnify it. Protestants in Ulster are MORE Protestant than elsewhere in the UK. Catholics in Ulster are MORE Catholic than elsewhere in the UK.

    .
    “Accidents of history overrule biology all the time.”

    Or follow and magnify it.

    .
    “our kin-cooperation mechanisms have evolved in tiny tribes with high levels of inbreeding”

    I think this is true however that’s precisely why social identity mechanisms follow along ethnic lines. It’s so they can reinforce the kin-cooperation mechanisms which are too weak past a certain distance. Social identity mechanisms are effectively relatedness mechanisms by a different route.

    Also in particularly clannish populations i.e hbdchick’s cousin marriers the stronger kin-cooperation mechanisms act in competition with and as a brake on social identity mechanisms.

    .
    “you have built-in cognitive routines that make rule-of-thumb determinations of likely cooperativeness – and this is where cultural issues (religion, language), and individual characteristics (conscientiousness, IQ) completely swamp population biology.”

    Ethno-centricity has two levels. The clan level of extended family has kin-cooperation mechanisms based on genetic distance which break down quite rapidly past first cousins or so. The second level is wherever a much larger population was isolated enough to develop their own look. The average White person might not be able to tell a Korean, Japanese of Chinese apart but they can. At this higher level of group competition social identity mechanisms were constructed to REINFORCE cohesion along ethnic lines. They are not a replacement for relatedness they are an artificial reinforcement of it.

    .
    “You are seriously more likely to be treated well by the affable and smart foreigner (like me) than by a nit-with 6th cousin”

    No you’re not. Well technically you are if the foreigner is particularly smart and affable as an individual but not in the general case because in the general case your cousin grew up under the same social identity mechanisms as you so you have two levels of restraint, relatedness and social identity. With non-affable foreigners the options are:

    Option 1) They’ll be clannish and non-conforming to social identity mechanisms in which case their loyalty and non-fear restraint stops around first cousins (which by definition overlaps with ethnicity).

    Option 2) They’ll be clannish and conforming to THEIR OWN social identity mechanisms like Islam or La Raza or Turkish nationalism in which case their loyalty and non-fear restraint stops at the edge of their social identity group (which will mostly overlap with ethnicity).

    Option 3) They’ll be clannish but so conforming to social identity that they might switch to yours as long as your social identity is completely dominant.

    Option 4) They’ll be non-clannish and variably conforming to your social identity depending on individual characteristics and how close the two identities are.

    Immigration from 1) and 2) is always bad apart from individuals who are for some reason genetically different from their group. 3) may be okay as long as the host remains the vast majority and asserts their social identity as dominant. 4) may be okay but the numbers allowed should be inversely proportional to difference in relatedness and social identity to allow time for assimilation.

    .
    Ulster Protestants and Catholics in the New Orleans football stadium during Katrina would have stuck together.

    .
    French and English, say 1 unit of difference over 1000 years equals 1000 units of hostility. Hurons and Mohicans, say 1 unit of difference over 1000 years equals 1000 units of hostility. French and English set up rival colonies in America. French and English, say 20 units of difference with Hurons and Mohicans, over zero years equals zero units of hostility. Result, French ally with Hurons, English ally with Mohicans. Sixty years and 1200 units of hostility later the once French colonists are allied to the once English colonists and the Hurons are allied to the Mohicans.

    The same would have happened when the Romans invaded Gaul or Britain.

    The same is starting to happen in Ulster now because of the sudden onset of mass non-white immigration over the last ten years or so.

    Visible relatedness > social identity over time (but it takes a while).
    .

    Reply

  10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20974715

    Genetic evidence for multiple biological mechanisms underlying in-group favoritism.

    Abstract:
    “In-group favoritism is ubiquitous and associated with intergroup conflict, yet is little understood from a biological perspective. A fundamental question regarding the structure of favoritism is whether it is inflexibly directed toward distinct, “essentialist” categories, such as ethnicity and race, or is deployed in a context-sensitive manner. In this article, we report the first study (to our knowledge) of the genetic and environmental structure of in-group favoritism in the religious, ethnic, and racial domains. We contrasted a model of favoritism based on a single domain-general central affiliation mechanism (CAM) with a model in which each domain was influenced by specific mechanisms. In a series of multivariate analyses, utilizing a large, representative sample of twins, models containing only the CAM or essentialist domains fit the data poorly. The best-fitting model revealed that a biological mechanism facilitates affiliation with arbitrary groups and exists alongside essentialist systems that evolved to process salient cues, such as shared beliefs and ancestry.”

    ………………………………………………………………………………………

    What this study suggests is that people assess the ‘out-group’ and ‘in-group’ not just based on social constructions such as language, culture or sports-team, but also on genetic relatedness.

    Reply

  11. http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2806%2900094-8/abstract

    Genetic relatedness and sibling relationship characteristics in a modern society

    Abstract

    “Evolutionary theory predicts that relatedness will affect family relationships. Previous studies on siblings have mainly focused on sibling differentiation, sibling rivalry, and incest avoidance, and very few have examined the impact of genetic relatedness on the sibling relationship. Using a large data set from the Netherlands (Netherlands Kinship Panel Study), I show that relatedness (full vs. half-sibling) independently influences social investments between siblings. Maternal half-siblings, who are raised together like full siblings (FS), were found to show significantly lower levels of investment than FS. This suggests that a psychological mechanism besides childhood proximity regulates investment in the sibling relationship. Yet, levels of investment were overall higher for maternal than paternal half-siblings, suggesting an important role for childhood co-residence. Results are discussed with reference to kin selection theory.”

    …………………………………………………………………………………….

    This study suggests that there very well maybe a psychological mechanism for assessing genetic relatedness among phenotypically similar individuals.

    Reply

  12. @d2u – “Rafal makes an excellent point. In Northern Ireland, the Protestants and Catholics are virtually identically genetically.”

    no they’re not. the protestants of northern ireland largely came from lowland scotland and they had a good influx of anglo-saxons. the catholics of ireland (i.e. the ones who didn’t settle from scotland) did not experience the same anglo-saxon settlement.

    @d2u – “In the Middle East the Muslim Palestinians and the Jewish Palestinians are the virtually the same genetically too.”

    no, they’re not, because they do not interbreed at very great rates.

    @d2u – “Sunni and Shia Muslims are not just genetically related, they are also both Muslim!”

    sunni and shia are very broad categories. are you talking about sunni libyans versus shia persian, for instance?

    Reply

  13. @d2u – “What about the parents who find out their child is gay and then start to hate them? How does the selfish gene fit with that?”

    well, i’m talking about groups, not individuals. but i can see a selfish gene explanation here, perhpas. of course parents don’t usually hate their kids ’cause they’re very related to them. but what if your kid tells you (after all your investment into them) that they’re likely going to reduce the likelihood of themselves having kids (i.e. pass on your genes further) — in other words, that they’re not going to mate (at least not regularly) with the opposite sex. that s*cks! some people might be annoyed.

    Reply

  14. @d2u – “Most of the xenophobia stuff has to be from deep evolutionary time, from long before humans left Africa.”

    no. read “The 10,000 Year Explosion.” evolution still happens.

    @d2u – “who do multi-racial individuals hate?”

    again, i am talking about groups, not individuals.

    Reply

  15. hbd, “groups” don’t do anything, only individuals do things. “Groups” can’t hate, only individuals can hate.

    An individual may want to be part of a group, and identify with the group and then hate those that others in the group hate, but that is still one individual hating another individual.

    Evolution is still happening, but most aspects of physiology are from much longer than 10k years ago, 10M, 100M, even 1B or 2B years ago.

    Reply

  16. hbd I am having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. Do you have children? My guess from what you have written is that you don’t. If you feel that a selfish gene imperative is what is driving your compulsion to “compete”, why isn’t that selfish gene imperative driving you to reproduce?

    I am not saying you have to, just that it seems incongruous. I appreciate that in a zero-sum competition, one can succeed either by getting more yourself or by compelling your opponents to have less, even by simply destroying what they have.

    Reply

  17. @wanderer:
    (I wrote) “You are seriously more likely to be treated well by the affable and smart foreigner (like me) than by a nit-with 6th cousin”

    No you’re not. Well technically you are if the foreigner is particularly smart and affable as an individual but not in the general case because in the general case your cousin grew up under the same social identity mechanisms as you so you have two levels of restraint, relatedness and social identity.

    ### I don’t think so. Individual differences in IQ and personality traits are more important for association than the degree of ethnic relatedness. In a neutral social background smart people associate preferentially with other smart folks, and not with co-ethnics. High IQ is associated with trait openness which explains in part this observation. Low-IQ folks tend to be more clannish but at the same time they are uncomfortable with or hostile to their high IQ distant relatives. Really, the nit-wit cousin isn’t going to be nicer to you than the highly rational intelligent foreigner.

    Reply

  18. Raphael

    “Really, the nit-wit cousin isn’t going to be nicer to you than the highly rational intelligent foreigner.”

    That’s not the point. The point is if there’s a 100 foreigners from the same lower average IQ, clannish place with alien social identity what percentage of them would be nicer to you than your dimwit cousin?

    I’m not denying there are individual exceptions. There are always individual exceptions prove the rule.

    Reply

  19. Sephardic Jews and Palestinians are almost indistinguishable on the genetic level. Croats and Serbs are indistinguishable. Moslems in Bosnia are essentially the same as Christians. These groups are examples of close relatives at war. On the other hand, Christian American Koreans are not at war with Christian American whites. Basques are not at war with the French. Hungarians are friendly with Austrians.

    Now, I will readily concede that heritable differences in appearance contribute to anti-immigrant attitudes – but this is not a simple measure of genetic relatedness. As daedalus wrote, xenophobia is theory of mind stuff. Differing appearance is a small part of the heuristic that your mind is using to assess likelihood of cooperation. Cultural perceptions of cooperativeness are quite important – religion, or the general opinion about the home country of an immigrant can determine your welcome. Immigrants from Japan have it easier now than 100 years ago, but immigrants from Senegal are still rejected (this general perception acts in addition to the effects of IQ differences between the Japanese vs. Senegalese newcomers).

    Just to summarize my opinion about the genesis of anti-immigrant attitudes: They are due to a certain inborn propensities, modulated heavily by culture, individual IQ, perhaps in part influenced by the degree of inbreeding, definitely influenced by the IQ differences between native and immigrant population, somewhat influenced by physical appearance differences. This is consistent with chris’ references, and broadly agrees with what other posters mentioned here, albeit with quibbles about relative weights.

    Atavistic, reflexive xenophobia, uncommon among libertarians (who prefer to rationally build in-groups) but almost universal among normal people, interferes with achievement of economic goals. There is absolutely no doubt to any person familiar with the literature on international trade or immigration that these forms of exchange are economically more efficient than the alternatives. So, aside from splitting hairs about the Irish, the more interesting question is, under what circumstances is it possible to stably override the xenophobic thought-patterns in the general population, in order to achieve higher economic efficiency?

    Any takers?

    Reply

  20. @d2u – “‘groups’ don’t do anything, only individuals do things.”

    but the point is that we study groups — we study individuals as well, of course, but i am talking about groups here. we talk about the average iqs of different GROUPS, we talk about the gdps of NATIONS (i.e. a group of people), we talk about the health of the ELDERLY (another group of people). the study of history is FULL of groups — the ancient greeks, the romans, the ancient egyptians, the assyrians. groups, groups, GROUPS!

    besides. GROUPS go to war — don’t tell me they don’t. individuals don’t go to war — not unless we’re talking about sudden jihad syndrome or something.

    Reply

  21. @raphael – “Sephardic Jews and Palestinians are almost indistinguishable on the genetic level. Croats and Serbs are indistinguishable. Moslems in Bosnia are essentially the same as Christians. These groups are examples of close relatives at war.”

    almost indistinguishable, that’s the key. but still distinguishable. good heavens, genetics can now spot the village of origin of different europeans! why? because different populations are different. sephardic jews and palestinians might look awfully similar genetically — more similar than, say, sephardic jews and pakistanis (i dunno, i’m just guessing now), but that doesn’t make them the same. they are different enough that they wind up fighting each other.

    they key here is also resources. you cannot leave resources out of the equation. if there were enough resources (food, fuel, etc., whatever people felt was necessary for their survival and comfort and that of their kids) there’d be very little fighting. thus christian korean americans are not fighting with christian white americans. (they do compete, tho, i’m sure you understand that.)

    i saw a documentary years ago about dingoes and one comment from a park ranger stuck with me. he said that the dingoes actually didn’t fight very much with one another as a rule. fighting can be expensive, of course, and you might lose. but, when there was a spike in the population, i.e. too many dingoes around for the resources to sustain, then they fought.

    Reply

  22. hbd, what about “honor killings”? That occurs in regions that are pretty highly inbred by your criteria.

    How does killing your daughter or your sister relate to selfish genes?

    Genetic tests may be able to distinguish village of origin, but individuals can’t read phenotype that well without doing gene tests. If an individual can’t tell what the genotype is, then they can’t use the genotype to make decisions.

    There are reliable ways to overcome xenophobia, but they have to start early and with children. If you expose children to “the other”, and don’t allow “the other” to be maltreated or made to be the object of bigotry, children will grow up without experiencing that individual as “the other”.

    Of course you can induce xenophobia in anyone by blocking that type of acclimatization. That is how fathers and brothers can be xenophobic against their daughters and sisters. Xenophobic enough to kill them.

    My experience is not that Libertarians are the least xenophobic.

    Reply

  23. @d2u – “hbd, what about ‘honor killings’?”

    well, i’m glad you asked that question, d. see here.

    that’s it for me today, fellas. more tomorrow! behave. (^_^)

    Reply

  24. @chris

    Why is the achievement of higher economic efficiency an ultimate (normative) good?

    ### Take the following premise:

    First premise: The ultimate good is the achievement of what is desired, a certain state of the world, or a sequence of states (which may be infinite but that’s a whole different story). This has the corollary that there is no state of the world that would be the uniform ultimate good pertaining to all desires, since desires exist in many fundamentally conflicting ways and places.

    Second premise: An ethical system is a set of computational rules that allows the transformation of desires into behaviors leading to their achievement. The primary characteristic of a valid ethical system is that it must be computable by the entities (whom we may can an in-group) whose desires (the pertinent desires) are to be achieved, directly or by proxy. The system must be able to take available data and descriptions of desires and output prescriptions for behaviors. Further definition: a rational ethical system is one that actually produces behaviors that achieve desires. Also, since desires can be achieved to different degrees, a superior ethical system is one that leads to a more complete or robust achievement than an inferior system.

    It follows that there can be a number of different rational ethical systems, depending on the scope of desires (and in-groups) that are to be achieved. It might be possible to generate the description of an ethical system that attempts to achieve all desires that exist, or even could conceivably exist. However, most ethical systems develop from egoism, the system that tries to achieve the desires of one particular individual. The physical constraints of our existence are such that most of desires inherent in humans can be better achieved by cooperation among individuals. This leads to a transformation of rational egoism into systems of broader scope, which attempt to direct actions of multiple individuals (i.e. in-groups) interacting to achieve their desires. Thus, the development of ethical systems is ultimately driven by desires of various physical agents comprising an in-group (the pertinent desires), and by the physical and computational constraints under which such agents exist.

    Now, economics is the science of behavior under conditions of scarcity – how agents, given desires and resources, use resources to achieve desires. The methodology of economics is quantitative, attempting to describe the degree of achievement of goals in mathematical terms, wherever possible. Economic efficiency describes the amount of resources used to produce goods and services. Insofar as goods and services fulfill desires, efficiency then quantifies the relationship between desires and resources, and can be used to rank alternative behaviors in terms of their ability to fulfill desires (the exact analysis of ranking methods is beyond the scope of this brief outline). A more efficient behavior achieves more goals with the same resources.

    From the definition of the superior ethical system and from the definition of economic efficiency it follows that, insofar as the metric used to quantify achievement of desires is accurate, highest economic efficiency is the measure that distinguishes the superior ethical system from its competitors. The superior ethical systems thus inputs a description of available resources, and pertinent desires, and outputs specific behaviors that achieve desires to a greater degree than other systems.

    One critique leveled against this account is that material goods and services do not accurately quantify the fulfillment of desires. It is however important to note that “goods” are not limited to what you find at Walmart – goods are anything that can be priced and in some way traded for other goods, and this includes pretty views, beautiful art, a feeling of freedom and just about anything that can be coherently described. A sufficiently sophisticated measure of economic efficiency does take into account essentially everything of value.

    So, this is why economic efficiency is the closest we can get to the ultimate good. There are additional interesting questions in the construction of ethical systems, such as self-reference (which may lead to modifications in the scope of pertinent desires, i.e. modifications of the in-group definition) but I don’t think they would invalidate this basic contention.

    Reply

  25. > children will grow up without experiencing that individual as “the other”

    As a preservationist that’s, not my goal at all. I want self group and other group – but not to any extreme, since my preservationism’s all not about expansion and strife.

    Have you considered that extreme de-othering in Europe has helped create a situation there which, regardless of whether one cares about preserving European peoples or not, is still likely to involve significant bloodshed over the next 100 years?

    How about human diversity? What is its value? Obviously biological diversity is actually destroyed through ‘diversity’ politik, not maintained or increased. Eg, we can amend all Europids with Chinese admixture, to a final concentration of 30%. Obviously the loss of diversity there is quite large.

    I admit, I haven’t gotten very far with the Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads. Can’t seem to catch into it. But I’ve been very much attached to KJV Song of Songs and Job, and the Taoist and Zen classics, for 15 years. I’ve read most of that stuff 10 times, and Job in particular is kinda hard to get through. I’m heavily into Hafiz too. The fact that these works are highly divergent in nature is not a coincidence. If we could ‘translate’ this little collection of E-Asian, Hebrew, and Persian works, plus Celine’s Voyage or Tarkovskij’s Zerkalo, into a single racial-biological nature — instead of letting them have four divergent racial natures as they do in reality — why then the collection would be made far more repetitive and less valuable. The idea that Chinese could have written the Ghazels of the Hafiz Divan, or Persians the Chuangtzu, is totally insane, as is the notion that the differences are small. No – Nordish European poetry gets repetitive and the Hebrew genius is wildly refreshing (and vice versa); French things repeat themselves and I long for Germany or Russia – then I turn from Persepolis to the best Mayan reliefs, whose relationship to and distinctness from NE Asian things are both evident to the eye. As for Africa, naturally I’ve spent a million hours listening to rock and blues.

    I won’t lie, I think some of these groups are more accomplished than others in their artistic expression. But that can change in 200 years with eugenics. That’s almost overnight compared to the age of some things. Mop up deleterious mutations when new generations are created, make more really smart people, more very sensitive and creative people, and you can start producing art that will put all previous stuff in the shade. Whole cities that are art, far moreso than the best ancient ones (as for modern cities, they’re hideous). At this time human diversity will be far more valuable than it already is: breeding supreme artists, scientists out of any stock is not so hard, but breeding a Chinese sensibility and eye, such as a Chinese artist, from Europeans — that will never happen. European uniqueness has been brewing for 10,000 to 40,000 years (depending on whether there was complete neolithic replacement) — we can make comparable statements regarding other peoples. This stuff probably ain’t coming back if it is lost. The information is on record, but as with the proposed creation of live Neanderthals from information, there’s a good chance of hitting insurmountable obstacles in practice.

    Reply

  26. > they are different enough that they wind up fighting each other.

    I don’t know… even if you mix up Serb and Croat genes completely, they might still fight. Other possible root causes are worth a look.

    Assign Serbs and Croats randomly to either Oregon or Washington. So Oregon and Washinton have pops which are (practically) 100% identical, and each will be ruled by a king. Give them 100 years to mix and arrive at a single language each (French for Oregon, Spanish for Washington). I say Oregon and Washington can still have a terrible war. The root cause is that one group might conquer and/or exploit the other, and vice versa. Simply because they live in two polities, under two governments, they are equipped to push around or exploit one another.

    Or divy acneint Athenians at random into A2 and A3, one 20 miles north of the old city and one 20 miles south. We in A2 are pretty cool with the mindet and genes of A3, so that’s certainly favoring amity. Still, all of a sudden they have the option of concluding alliances without us. Maybe even secret alliances. There’s 1,000 poleis out there who might be striking an arms-trading bargain with them this instant… etc etc. I think the potential for conflict is pretty high.

    Or, suppose Ireland was totally evacuated, and repopulated with one million identical twins of some peacenik – say John Lennon. A million Lennons, or daedalus2’s, or RS’s — all identical. What would they do but form gangs and states quite soon? I’m afraid they are going to disagree about who gets what and may do what. And the result will be cooperative groups that can project power. A Graecia composed solely of sweet and slender Greek girls would also have phalanx battles damn soon, assuming they got remotely close to the malthusian line — or some kind of battles. Only they would be milder than the ones Greek men would have, because it would take less blood to get to someone’s surrendering.

    Reply

  27. HBDChick, you’re sometimes too much of a genetic determinist.
    How does pure HBD explain the Mormons, a group of WASPs who suddenly decided to go off and found their own ethnic group – becoming the mortal enemies of their genetic relatives for many years?

    Reply

  28. > Just to summarize my opinion about the genesis of anti-immigrant attitudes: They are due to a certain inborn propensities, modulated heavily by culture, individual IQ, perhaps in part influenced by the degree of inbreeding, definitely influenced by the IQ differences between native and immigrant population, somewhat influenced by physical appearance differences.

    All true. But personally I have no (primary) anti-immigrant or anti-immigration attitudes. I just have them secondary to my Euro preservationism. As for the immigrants, I don’t hold them all that responsible; I blame powerful people, most especially the professors who are strongest in polemics, who are responsible for creating the academic consensus. Next I blame mass media.

    And why love Europa, even unto distraction and maybe heartbreak? Or why love race in general, normatively speaking?

    Basically, for partial immortality, and more broadly, for transpersonal meaning, and a profound context for the individual life (what I’m saying there naturally has a lot to do with biological human nature — we, by nature, want those things). Love of the race itself overlaps with, and is like, the love of racial posessions (a people’s great works, their character, great moments in their history). And it is analogous to the love of man’s patrimony and future in general, only on a different level.

    Immortality? “The same…: living and dead, the waking and the sleeping, and young and old. For these transposed are those, and those transposed again are these”. That’s true in general for a conscious species and genus like ours, that can endure long and address much — but there is further truth and eudaimonia in that in the case of a people that can last, can lift a character and particular nature up out of its generations, and hold it aloft.

    A people gets a face and a guise; a style of idealizing itself in art, and an irreplacabley unique disposition toward everything that is unknowable, intractable, or gratuitously beautiful — toward God. “The flakes of its flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved”.

    Reply

  29. RS, what are you talking about? How are you measuring “diversity”? Which society is more genetically “diverse”, the one that practices inbreeding for some members, such that it has multiple isolated inbred populations, or the society that does not, so no one is a member of an inbred population?

    What you are advocating is maintaining genetic isolation between populations to maintain their relative genetic isolation and inbred status. How does that maintain diversity? It doesn’t. By trying to maintain old population gene pools and prevent their “contamination”, you are preventing new combinations of genes from happening which might produce superior results.

    What would happen if Chinese sensibilities were combined with German sensibilities? I certainly can’t predict, and no one can. If you want to preserve Chinese sensibilities or German sensibilities separate from each other, go right ahead. The only way they can be preserved is in a museum, not in a population which must be dynamic and able to change. Don’t tell people of Chinese and German origin that they can’t meet, fall in love, marry and have children because you want to keep Chinese and German sensibilities separate.

    I believe absolutely 100% in eugenics. If you feel that someone should not have children, then you have absolutely every right to choose to not have children with that person. Other than that, you have no right to regulate the reproduction of another person. If you have a different idea of eugenics, then you are not a libertarian.

    I think the roots of your anti-immigrant ideas are not in your love of things European, but rather in your narcissistic love of things that are like you and things that you imagine are like you. It is a narcissistic love of things the way they were and a desire to prevent any change to the things that you love.

    You can’t love things that you don’t know and don’t understand. That is the essence of xenophobia, the hating of “the other” because “the other” is not understood and so can’t be “like me”, and so can’t trigger the narcissistic love that familiar things can trigger.

    A state with a million John Lennons or a million d2us would not form gangs and fight with each other. I can’t speak about what the John Lennons would do, but the d2us would start importing females from every part of the world, to come and live in the fabulous state that the d2us and their descendants would make. Other males would be welcome too, but they would have to work pretty hard to match the d2us in attractiveness ;).

    Reply

  30. > RS, what are you talking about? How are you measuring “diversity”? Which society is more genetically “diverse”, the one that practices inbreeding for some members, such that it has multiple isolated inbred populations, or the society that does not, so no one is a member of an inbred population?

    I wouldn’t really give attention to a particular society, but rather the whole world. By and large, the value of diversity is in art and culture, and these are easily exchanged across the world; also you travel to visit other societies. That’s why the world, not one given society, is the unit or scope for my interest in maintaining human diversity.

    The world population is a ‘ramified (branching) asterisk’ of peoples who have progressively diverged from one type. (To the extent that they are sapiens-derived, humans today were 100,000 years ago probably a small, and probably not too far from panmictic, population of a few ten-thousands in a limited zone in NE Africa.) Their psyches have ‘ventured out’ in psyche-space. If we eliminate one type, then of course we reduce world diversity. If we cross peoples, so that all Euros are 30% Chinese, or all Chinese are 30% Euro, then we reduce diversity. We make the total set of humans more ‘normal’ – closer to the human average. A Chinese-Euro hybrid population is less ‘diverse’ than a Chinese or Euro pop, because the hybrids are more like the human average, in most traits, and the Euro and Chinese pops are less like the human average. More precisely, a world where only the hybrid types exist, and have large populations, is less diverse than the one we have now.

    To put it formally, there exists a very-high-dimensional space, genome sequence space. This space has a dimension for every allelic possibility – every SNP, every deletion. (These dimensions have values like A, G, T, and C… or deletion-present and deletion-absent.) The set of all human bio-types, HUMAN, occupies many regions in this high-dimensional space, a race, a nation, has a cluster or region in this space which is somewhat separated from other clusters. ‘Genetic globalization’, ie, racial cross-breeding, tends to move all humans toward the centroid of HUMAN. A group moves away from the centroid when tending to have value n at allelic site x correlates with tending to have value m at site y. These correlations are the cause of racial distinctness, of moving away from the centroid. If we mix all humans together, with zero assortive mating, then this worldwide pop is in a region closer-in to the centroid, than the diverse human population of today is.

    It’s almost trivially true that moving away from the centroid of the space – to the extent that one moves by functional genetic differences, not neutral or extremely-nearly-neutral ones – entails moving away from the pscyhological centroid, the centroid of human appearances, the centroid of ‘human art space’, etc. This is diversity. NE Asian minds and S Asian minds are very different. My close Korean and S Asian friends born here are really no different psychologically – that you can tell – though this assimilation is partly a function of their very high IQ. This despite their parents’ birth abroad. The one exception is filial piety in assimilated E Asians – that tendency (generally a noble and decorous one) will probably never entirely leave E-Asian-American pops. However, when you get out to psychological extremes such as producing fine culture and art, they would probably have different possibilities than I have adn than each other have. They also have a latent tendency to elaborate a culture very different from this one – I have met lots of Asians in Asia, their culture and way of thought is very different from those of Americans in enlightening ways, and I think that kind of thing is the primary sort of value that biodiversity creates.

    Reply

  31. > Don’t tell people of Chinese and German origin that they can’t meet, fall in love, marry and have children because you want to keep Chinese and German sensibilities separate.

    But, I am! ‘Here I stand, I can do no other’. I don’t really say the hybrids are less valuable than the two pops. Creating a large Sino-Deutschmeister pop would be highly intriguing. What would they do, what would they think, what culture would they elaborate if they all lived together in a polity? However, it would tend to come at the expense of the population size of the Chinese and German pops, which are both farther from the human average than the hybrid pop. The mixed pop also tends to act in a way that might well eventually result in admixture in all Euros, or most. That’s what I don’t want. This is especially true when this pop doesn’t have its own land, is under political authority of people who aren’t diversity preservationists, and so on.

    I confess, I’m not wholly universalistic, or super-close to so being — thus I do especailly care about preserving my own type. However, I haven’t lied by claiming to highly value diversity.

    Reply

  32. > I believe absolutely 100% in eugenics. If you feel that someone should not have children, then you have absolutely every right to choose to not have children with that person. Other than that, you have no right to regulate the reproduction of another person.

    How can that lack of a right, trump the ongoing degradation of populations, almost worldwide? It can’t possibly do so. How degraded would we let pops become, exactly? This degradation is terrible in itself – it is good to be, as much as feasible, loyal, conscientious, truthful, intelligent, sensible, amusing, kind, considerate, hale, creative, strong, brave against the temptation to do bad acts, generous, tasteful, handsome, capable of love, and at least somewhat economically capable. These virtues, along with pleasure, are intrinsically good and are the whole point of life – the whole ‘theory of The Good’ rests on the intrinsic goodness or value of these goods.

    However, in addition to the terribleness of degradation, per se, there is also the fact that sapping these virtues means a significantly higher risk of seeing fanatical regimes, aggressive war, instability, atrocities, use of nukes. (Partly because there will be economic degradation.) Every race, empirically, is capable of total insanity and wild evil. How far away are we from it? A couple of generations! These threats are not so far under the surface.

    I touched on various aspects of this, a little, in the course of voluminous comments here.

    In any case, I would try hard to minimize abridgement of rights – hopefully not at all. I would offer incentives for birth control or, as appropriate, increased births.

    Reply

  33. Oh, by the way, I definitely don’t claim to be libertarian. I do have some singificant libertarian impulses and aspects, but that’s all.

    Reply

  34. “So, this is why economic efficiency is the closest we can get to the ultimate good.”

    A convoluted way of advocating the genocide of White people.

    .
    daedalus
    “What you are advocating is maintaining genetic isolation between populations to maintain their relative genetic isolation and inbred status. How does that maintain diversity?”

    A convoluted way of advocating the genocide of White people.

    .
    RS
    “Assign Serbs and Croats randomly to either Oregon or Washington. So Oregon and Washinton have pops which are (practically) 100% identical, and each will be ruled by a king.”

    If it’s true that human’s natural restraint is limited to close kin and the purpose of social identity mechanisms is to extend moral restraint and kin cohesion to a larger group then what those mechanisms automatically do is trade a reduced propensity for internal conflict for an increased propensity for external conflict.

    Increasing the sense of the “us” to gain the benefits of social identity automatically increases the sense of “them.”

    So yes if you take two identical populations and put them on either side of a river and call them “blues” and “reds” then with the genetic element neutralized they’ll probably fight eventually just from the social identity. In fact it happens all the time with football hooligans.

    .
    “How does pure HBD explain the Mormons, a group of WASPs who suddenly decided to go off and found their own ethnic group”

    If White people developed less ethno-centricity as result of some specific aspect of NW European evolution then more or less automatically they’d make themselves relatively more prone to ideal-centric modes of group cohesion.

    White people go on crusade all the time whether it’s liberating the Holy Land or saving the whale. It’s a natural side-effect of losing the clannish trait everyone else has.

    .

    Reply

  35. @hbd

    Let’s analyze the Jews again: There are 3 major groups in Israel, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazim, and Arabs. Sephardim and Arabs are almost identical genetically, including where it counts the most, in the genetics of IQ. Ashkenazim are partially divergent from Sephardim, with admixtures of other ancestries, and also much more intelligent. Yet, the dumb Sephardim and the smart Ashkenazim cooperate, across a biological boundary but united by religion. The Sephardim don’t cooperate with the Arabs to whom they are closer genetically and behaviorally than to Ashkenazim. You will agree that this is a clear example where enculturation trumps biological differences, in this case even the most important one, that is IQ? You realize that the specific alignment of friends and foes in this conflict cannot be explained by resource scarcity, which predicts only the likelihood of conflict, not its exact form?

    Or, have you heard about the Janissaries? Again, enculturation directs agression, even if the primary driver is biological.

    @gw – Gee, a one-liner racialist dismissal of a first-principle ethical derivation? Not smart enough to do a critique, eh?

    Reply

  36. RS, do you appreciate that the most difficult part of creativity is not in coming up with the new idea, it is with getting the broader community of non-creative individuals to accept that the idea has any value?

    There are only 4 codices of Mayan writing remaining. All the others were destroyed. We have no idea what was in the vast bulk of Mayan writings that were destroyed unread. A thousand years of Mayan writings up in smoke.

    Why were they destroyed? Because the people doing the destroying were unable to appreciate that they had any value. Sort of like how you are unable to appreciate the value of

    “de-othering in Europe”

    Because you are unable to understand “the other”, you are unable to appreciate that “the other” has any value, or that anything that “the other” produces has any value.

    You are unable to even appreciate the intellectual poverty of your mindset.

    “ I blame powerful people, most especially the professors who are strongest in polemics, who are responsible for creating the academic consensus. Next I blame mass media.”

    You blame people who are able to appreciate the value of “the other”? You blame people who can learn from “the other”, people who want to learn from “the other”? Learning from “the other” doesn’t detract anything from anyone. It only adds to the total of human knowledge and experience.

    You seek to destroy that which you are incapable of understanding. That is the mindset that leads to violence. Fortunately Europe is trying and is being successful at eliminating that mindset.

    Reply

  37. Rafal
    “@gw – Gee, a one-liner racialist dismissal of a first-principle ethical derivation? Not smart enough to do a critique, eh?”

    A first-principle ethical derivation of the “ultimate good” that doesn’t preclude genocide?

    Reply

  38. “The Sephardim don’t cooperate with the Arabs to whom they are closer genetically and behaviorally than to Ashkenazim.”

    The Arabs are hostile to both. If you put Sephardim and Ashkenazi on a remote island somewhere without any mutual enemies and left them they’d fight.

    Reply

  39. @daedulus
    “de-othering in Europe”

    Short-hand for the genocide of white people. You should “de-other” yourself first.

    Reply

  40. @gw

    The Arabs are hostile to both. If you put Sephardim and Ashkenazi on a remote island somewhere without any mutual enemies and left them they’d fight.

    ### I am assuming that you are trying to make a point of sorts but I am not really getting it.

    ———–

    A first-principle ethical derivation of the “ultimate good” that doesn’t preclude genocide?

    ### Even more baffled. Genocide is extremely inefficient economically, so relying on economic efficiency as an ethical principle strongly militates against using it, or allowing it to happen to you. Shouldn’t this be quite clear?

    Reply

  41. > RS, do you appreciate that the most difficult part of creativity is not in coming up with the new idea, it is with getting the broader community of non-creative individuals to accept that the idea has any value?

    No. Regarding art and science that’s more than 20 years old, the canons do in fact contain the great bulk of what they ought to contain. Especially in science. But even in art, the canons are remarkably accurate in what they select. While the exceptions to this certainly merit attention, and hardly are super-rare, people get fixated on exceptions to the point of missing the fact that the canons are highly effective. Yeats and Hafiz really did write good poems. ‘Prufrock’ really is great, and so are ‘Starry Night’ and ‘Lovers with Cat’. The better 1/2 of the canonized English poets, are better than 99% of non-canonized ones. That’s what I call accuracy in a canon. The canon is not perfect, but it is extremely non-random.

    The set of all peer-reviewed biology papers probably consists of over 50% false papers. But no one mistakes that set for a canon.

    Marshall and Warren doubtless did have some trouble with helicobacter, and so did others who brushed up against this fact. That was pretty exceptional, though. Most revelations that were ‘notably’ resisted were resisted much less than that one – and while the total resistance to multiple helicobacter near-revalations during 100 years was large, I’m not sure how egregiously Marshall and Warren themselves were resisted.

    Some degree of resistance is inevitable, because at least 95% of new medial ideas are totally wrong.

    > Because you are unable to understand “the other”, you are unable to appreciate that “the other” has any value, or that anything that “the other” produces has any value.

    Har har, right. I told you that I read Job, Song of Songs, the Taoist classics, the classic Zen anecdotes and poems, etc, about ten times each, over the course of the last fifteen years. And that I also love Hafiz.

    You boldly claim that I said the exact opposite, so how can we debate or converse? You have inverted the statements of the Other, namely me… whereas while I might have been a little pushy at moments – mildly – I did not invert your statements.

    Reply

  42. > So yes if you take two identical populations and put them on either side of a river and call them “blues” and “reds” then with the genetic element neutralized they’ll probably fight eventually just from the social identity. In fact it happens all the time with football hooligans.

    Well, they don’t fight all that terribly just for social identity. Few are killed compared to a conventional war. But definitely, they fight.

    However my point was not about people fighting about constructed identities… rather, I think the mere existence of states can be a cause of conflict even when two identities don’t contrast very much at all. (Not that I think one can do away with states.) Looking at history, states have been strong actors. They have usually been fairly amoral actors, by necessity. There’s a powerful ‘race to the bottom’ on that, against other states: robustly moral states saddle themselves with a disadvantage. Thus most states are and have been only modestly moral, at most.

    So… one state cannot but be something of a threat to another, and the other to the one. I think there’s a very strong possibility for war in that alone. A state is a giant powerful machine that can be used for both self-defense and and for attacking, and tends to be used pretty amorally. It is inhernently a threat to others.

    Reply

  43. Unlimited mass immigration into White countries leads to the genocide of White people.

    Those who either,
    1) Promote unlimited mass immigration,
    2) Try and prevent resistance to unlimited mass immigration,

    are actively engaging in the attempted genocide of the White population of the planet.

    Quite simple.

    Reply

  44. > It is however important to note that “goods” are not limited to what you find at Walmart – goods are anything that can be priced and in some way traded for other goods, and this includes pretty views, beautiful art, a feeling of freedom and just about anything that can be coherently described.

    But not everything that can be coherently described can be priced and in some way traded. So you have a contradiction. In particular, how about the claim of Robert Putnam that diversity in a locale much reduces the flourishing of civil society, which most consider ‘a good’? Note, Putnam is a typical diversity-valorizing Harvard cracker, who considered his finding repugnant, considered keeping it to himself, and did not reduce his valorization.

    Interesting post, though; I appreciate that you rehearse a view form first principles, and maybe I’ll respond some more.

    In addition to civil society or ‘community’ in a locale, the stuff I’ve described – the fate and glory of a nation over centuries, blah blah – is also not an economic good. By nation I mean a ‘true-breeding’ nation where traits are the same over 10 centuries, where the child is the same biotype as both parents. You have to admit, it’s at least somewhat valuable for Persians to visit Persepolis, or Greeks the ancient temples of Zeusism, made by peoples who were biologically not much different than themselves. When a Greek kisses a Greek babe, he kisses Helen, Penelope, Sappho. For me to put my arms around a Germanic or Celtic dame is to embrace – um (…)… racking my brains here… well, whoever those illiterate ancestors were. But more recently, during the extremely brief Nordish literate period: Jean d’Arc, Mary Wollstonecraft, Ms Bennet from Pride & Prejudice, Elizabeth Bishop (another lesbo – I’m throwing them in pretty liberally here… but she might have kissed a man at least once, while totally wasted).

    You can see where I’m going, I’m going to end up valuing non-economic goods much more than economic (priceable-tradable) ones.

    You have to admit, leaving out girls/guys was a glaring oversight! I will also take this claim on:

    > Further definition: a rational ethical system is one that actually produces behaviors that achieve desires.

    Adhere to it if you will, the thing is, it really can’t be uncontroversial. I admit, I did the same thing as you, sort of – I acted like (mixed) virtue ethics was the only theory of ethical fundamentals that’s in wide circulation; it isn’t.

    You’ve got deontology in addtion to consequentialism and virtue ethics.

    Even if all goods were priceable-saleable… I wouldn’t accept market-based desire-satisfaction as the Great Theory, without major limitations and modifications – quite a lot of them in fact. For instance I think 50 year olds are wise about many things 20 year olds are foolish about, and I believe the 50 year olds should bend them to their will by force. Many, many people believe this. I would go so far as to say most people. I think people with good taste should force good taste on others to the extent possible, they should make our cities beautiful to the extent possibly by hook or crook, including appealing to the powerful for regulations. I believe the Academie Francaise should debar foreign terms and fine those who use them on signage, as the Academie sees fit. Which I believe is approximately what they do. You see, I am rather ‘nationalist’ or tribalist – I recognize France, French land, French people/race, the French tongue, French culture, etc, as high values. If intelligent and refined people such as the Academie can get the power to force people not to creolize French with hundreds of English words, by my lights they should do so, against the desires of the majority by force, or of 90%. Including with fines backed by jail for nonpayment. More power to them. To me the French language is valuable objectively – or pretty objectively.

    In general, I believe the wiser, braver, and more refined in a nation should, by and large, but certainly within very sane and entirely traditional limits, govern the less wise, brave, and tasteful, against their will, by propaganda and by force. Quite a few people believe this and have believed this. For instance, probably a majoirty of Muslims in Egypt or Iran want those who are Islamically learned and virtuous to take over totally, and govern everyone with propaganda and force. I am quite sympathetic to them. As a group, men should govern women and force them (most of them, at least; a few might be OK) not to marry outside the group and not to leave the country. I would say that men in most of the world’s nations would agree with this.

    Not saying I can convince you of our views, but lots of do have views like this. So, to convert one another we do have to take explicit heed of the opposite views and attack them in one way or another, show that our views are better.

    Reply

  45. > In general, I believe the wiser, braver, and more refined in a nation should, by and large, but certainly within very sane and entirely traditional limits, govern the less wise, brave, and tasteful, against their will, by propaganda and by force.

    This of course is basically what we have now, only it’s purely propaganda, not force. Well, there is the force of job loss and near-unemployability, and social penalties, but not physical force. The American people could get what they want peacefully – but what they want is pretty successfully controlled, or their ability to fully and openly want it is, by propaganda and non-physical force.

    The aristocracy doing it, is an aristocracy of shit. Not all aristocracies or aristocratic governments are good. This one is deeply evil, setting up (likely) a war in Europe (agreed to be really bad), destroying races (bad by my lights), etc.

    England’s basically good aristo-royal regime evolved into a semi-democratic regime with George III as king. This was a kinda-good regime, which Jefferson, Washington, etc, replaced with a fundamentally bad regime. It /worked/ pretty well for a while, that’s not what’s bad about it. What is bad about it and was latently very bad about it from the beginning is that it can easily be made bad. So Jefferson, Madison, etc are responsible, along with those who fulfilled the latent weakness for going very wrong that was created by Madison etc.

    How to conserve aristo-royal or aristocratic government or other mixed governments? The Best simply have to recognize each other. And they choose one another for power, real power and the only real fundamental power, from among those not yet chosen. By the way, I’m not very tough and brave at all, so they wouldn’t elevate me as a fundamental powerholder – my talents aren’t enough, without also having a good deal more mettle and resilience. They would impose all sorts of tests, which I would not pass. Nor would I want them to elevate me anyway – but they wouldn’t care what I want. They might employ me though as an official philosopher or writer, or some kind of official or decisionmaker. However, I would have no fundamental power over decisions because they would reverse my decisions and fire me, at will.

    Reply

  46. @rs – “Assign Serbs and Croats randomly to either Oregon or Washington. So Oregon and Washinton have pops which are (practically) 100% identical, and each will be ruled by a king. Give them 100 years to mix and arrive at a single language each (French for Oregon, Spanish for Washington). I say Oregon and Washington can still have a terrible war.”

    i say they can still have a terrible war, too, but that’s because in 100 years there will be time for genetic variations to occur in each of the populations (assuming we started off with absolutely equivalent populations to begin with — genetically speaking). 100 years is 3 or 4 generations. lots of time for mutations to arise, some genetic drift, etc., etc. your two populations will prolly not turn out to be exactly the same just because you started off with an equivalent mix. (remember, you’ve put them in two slightly different environments.)

    @rs – “Or, suppose Ireland was totally evacuated, and repopulated with one million identical twins of some peacenik – say John Lennon. A million Lennons, or daedalus2′s, or RS’s — all identical. What would they do but form gangs and states quite soon? I’m afraid they are going to disagree about who gets what and may do what.”

    if they were truly identical — absolute clones — then, no, they shouldn’t fight. it shouldn’t matter to any of them which one survives because they are all the same. whichever one(s) survive will be able to pass on the genes of all the others, which is all that matters in the end. (again, if we move forward a few generations, the situation will be different.)

    Reply

  47. @ihtg – HBDChick, you’re sometimes too much of a genetic determinist.

    heh. i’m not. really i’m not! (~_^) genes are, i think, very important. (and, actually, it’s dna that’s very important, not just “genes”, but you know what i mean.) but environment is also very important. it really is nature + nuture, i do understand that.

    if anything, i’m a reductionist in that i think that everything is biology (or, really, chemistry … or, really, physics … but i don’t know much about those disciplines). i mean, how does the environment|nuture affect us? they affect gene expression, epigenetics, and so on and so forth. that’s still biology, afaics. nature + nuture = biology.

    @ihtg – How does pure HBD explain the Mormons, a group of WASPs who suddenly decided to go off and found their own ethnic group – becoming the mortal enemies of their genetic relatives for many years?

    well, i don’t actually know all that much about the founding years of mormonism, but i would point out that the earliest mormons came from three towns in western new york state, then ohio, then illinois and missouri. that is pretty much precisely one of the four folkways mentioned in albion’s seed, i.e. the settlement of the puritans in massachusetts who then spread almost directly westwards.

    i would say, then, that the mormons were a self-sorted sub-group of the “puritans” of massachusetts (notice how religion is also important to this new sub-group, like it was to their ancestors that came over from england). they then wound up fighting: 1) other americans to whom they were relatively unrelated, i.e. the peoples in the other three folkways; and 2) presumably (altho i don’t know for sure) some of their closer relatives, i.e. fellow puritan decendants who did not convert to mormonism. while the new mormons were more closely related to this second group, they were obviously not exactly genetically the same since the mormons were religious in their own, particular way.

    since then, mormons have, of course, become a quite separate group. there have been many generations of mormons with some amount of inbreeding and polygamy which has prolly narrowed their gene pool a bit, altho since they actively seek converts, they can’t be that inbred (not like the amish, for instance).

    btw, sub-groups of ethnics groups quite regularly break off from main groups. how else do you think we got all those scottish clans or arab tribes?

    Reply

  48. @rs – “As for the immigrants, I don’t hold them all that responsible; I blame powerful people, most especially the professors who are strongest in polemics, who are responsible for creating the academic consensus. Next I blame mass media.”

    ditto.

    oh, and don’t forget the politicians.

    Reply

  49. @rafal – “Sephardim and Arabs are almost identical genetically….”

    no, they’re not. sephardic jews are more closely related to ashkenazi jews than to arabs … and they’re both more related to groups in the northern fertile crescent than to arabs.

    Reply

  50. @gw – “If you put Sephardim and Ashkenazi on a remote island somewhere without any mutual enemies and left them they’d fight.”

    exactly!

    Reply

  51. @GW

    Aside from the silly claim of “genocide” (it’s not genocide if white women prefer not to have children and are replaced by those who do, the proper term is demic suicide), how do you derive “unlimited mass immigration” from maximizing economic efficiency?

    Do you think I am some sort of a liberal, or something?

    Reply

  52. RS, interesting, you think that 95% of current science is wrong, so you feel free to reject any data that goes against your sensibilities, including your wacky ideas of how genetics and intelligence are related.

    I was thinking more of Dr Barbara McClintock

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mcclintock

    She discovered gene transposition in the 1940’s. Her work was not appreciated for 30 years and she didn’t get the Nobel Prize for it until 1983.

    You want to treat women as chattel and tell them who they can and cannot marry?

    Reply

  53. “Aside from the silly claim of “genocide”

    So silly and yet in the very same sentence…

    .
    “it’s not genocide if white women prefer not to have children and are replaced by those who do”

    Yes it is. It’s precisely the REPLACEMENT that makes it genocide. If women in a particular nation choose on average not to have REPLACEMENT LEVELS of children (you missed out “replacement levels of”) then the population in that nation would shrink. Shrinking isn’t suicide.

    Maybe once the population shrank and the reduced population density made housing more affordable the birth rate would go up to replacement levels again. Given the HUNDREDS of conversations i’ve had over the years that precisely describe this dynamic of lowered birth rates being directly related to the cost of housing i’d say that was extremely likely.

    A country like Korea with below replacement level birth rates will find out in a few decades if the birth rate goes up as the population drops. A country where the population are being REPLACED won’t because replacement is self-evidently genocide.

    The process of replacement (aka genocide) is promoted through an ideological pincer movement. One pincer promotes unlimited mass migration through ideologies which contain no limits explicitly based on racial or national preservation e.g economic efficiency. The second pincer attempts to pathologize any defense based on racial or national preservation.

    Reply

  54. dr barbara mcclintock was another one of those exceptions that prove the rule. (note: a much bigger and more significant exception than moi, needless to say, but i said it anyway.)

    Reply

  55. > RS, interesting, you think that 95% of current science is wrong, so you feel free to reject any data that goes against your sensibilities, including your wacky ideas of how genetics and intelligence are related.

    I think you mean that I consider it 95% correct, not 95% wrong.

    I already knew the McClintock transposon story, the Semmelweis story, Judith Rich Harris story, the Robert Koch vs ‘King’ Virchow story, the physostigmine story in myasthenia gravis (if I remember the word correctly), the ‘eclipse’ of darwinism, the ‘eclipse’ of Mendel’s most important findings – and further tales in the same vein.

    I even admit that their being a women might’ve been a partial factor in the ‘rubbishing’ of McClintock. Partly because of prejudicial judgement of women’s discoveries, and partly because they were not as inclined, perhaps, to become ‘bellicose’, ie polemical. However, I think it is far from being the sole factor.

    You know, as for polemical bellicosity, Dr Warren has publically copped a plea to being a pallid geek, who often hung out in the lab doing unfunded experiments in place of other recreations. He himself confessed that he probably wouldn’t have ‘hung tough’ long enough to overcome vested gastroenterological interests (including ‘mere’ pride), and he explicitly credits the more charismatic, more dominating – and dare I say rather flamboyant, arguably quasi drama queenish – Dr Barry Marshall for gitting ‘er done (in fucking high style, too). That’s /not/ to say that the resistance overcome by Marshall necessarily was approximately as great as Marshall claims – but, there /was/ resistance and there /was/ a certain amount of rather prejudicial doctrinizing about whether bacteria can /possibly/ hack it at pH’s like 1.0 to 2.0. Well, they can.

    But all that, plus more, doesn’t add up to 5% of the biology canon. All I am maintaining is that the canon is mostly right. That said, you won’t see me attacking any novel ideas for no reason. I certainly don’t attack them just on the basis that 95% of them are mistaken; that would be folly itself.

    There exists in our culture an excessive idealization of science as totally objective and above human vanities and temptations, whose roots are centuries old – on the other hand, among a few people, there is an exaggerated disillusionment about this ideal. The latter is an overreaction. Reality is in between. Science tends to arrive at the truth, but it does suffer gratuitious failures.

    HBD denial is not one of those (intrinsic) failures of science per se. It is a special case, where falsehood is imposed from outside, by ‘kings and counselors, powers and principalities’.

    Reply

  56. > I even admit that their being a women might’ve been a partial factor in the ‘rubbishing’ of McClintock.

    Her /and/ the physostigmine babe, i mean, and maybe others.

    Reply

  57. You know, Koch himself was pretty stolid, low-N(eurotocism), and ballsy — and he rather committed a palace coup against Virchow by bringing some 20-30 scopes to his Berlin lecture and letting the boys prep their own slides. Statistically, a male scientist is probably at least say 33% more apt to go ‘balls out’ like that. For example, suppose Virchow was to throw some kind of psychosocially dominating tantrum before the scopes came out? Or even before the lecture started? Koch wasnt the king of Berlin, nor was he any sort of a potentate of even medical Berlin. What he was, was hick sawbones. He didn’t control the lecture hall, and he had to get the scopes in there, and get guys to use them in spite of the affront this represented to the bitchy, vain, and all-powerful Virchow.

    Reply

  58. Speaking of male-female differences, let me point out that I am not some doctrinaire antifeminist. I support ‘evolutionary feminism’ which studies the biology of rape, in order to protect women. I support special privileges for women, interfering in markets and freedom, so they can cut the gordian knot of career vs children.

    In general, I simply don’t deny reality. The results of doing so are, on average, not pleasant. Heraklitos wrote, how will one hide from that which never sets? Meaning, the sun sets at night, resting the squinting and tired eyes of Greek men, dogs, and kine, and every other denizen of an arid country — but the earth never sets; the earth and its nomos (law) never rest for so much as an hour. The goal of the nomos is not to f you up. And its goal is not to not f you up. New and perilous combinations of factors are ever forming under this nomos. You have to put your hand to your forehead, squint, and check things out for yourself, and it’s pretty dicey for the whole world to start denying what you see. By the way, I believe (pretty-likely-to-be-significant, anthropogenic) global warming is probably true, and I don’t try to hide my estimation. It’s not that I know much about it, just that science is generally true, and even more generally true when it gets a lot of attention focused on it.

    Reply

  59. > You want to treat women as chattel and tell them who they can and cannot marry?

    Yes. Also men, exactly likewise. If men, or women, want to abandon and destroy a nation or race by outmarriange en masse, it’s OK for the body politic to stop them by law and by force. (Not by illegal vigilantism, I mean – not at all – but under proper law and judicial auspices.) If it’s only a few people who want to outmarry, then a body politic may or may not want to bother about it.

    By the way, most people in the world agree with me. That don’t make it right… but it’s possible that pointing it out might ‘liberate’ you just a little bit from the postmodern-Western millieu. Of course, it is (in the end) a normative statement and I can’t ‘prove’ it true, I realize that.

    In general, I recognize substantial collective rights, such as the abovementioned case of the Academie Francaise. There’s a balance, or should be, between individual and collective rights.

    Reply

  60. > Aside from the silly claim of “genocide” (it’s not genocide if white women prefer not to have children and are replaced by those who do, the proper term is demic suicide)

    No one denies of course that this ‘genocide’ is different than others in many ways… if you personally don’t really like that usage, it’s cool with me – (I’m not too into debating that one, myself).

    Frankly, most people have no idea what’s best for them, or good in general. They need to get the right propaganda, also often called a ‘culture’, from those who are very smart, very sensible (which is a very different thing), at least kinda hardy, have sought out many new, strange, difficult experiences.

    The existence of mere individuals, growing up under very little in the way of good and benevolent culture/propaganda of self-development and self-cultivation, is a confused and hideous morass of endless fart jokes, lousy behavior, increases in undignified treatment of family and friends, mass obesity, ignored and unchecked dysgenic processes, etc, is it not? How would you compare all this to, say, classical Greece? We have some great artists and such — but then, we have 100x the population of classical Greece.

    Maybe you disagree with all that, but can you disagree with this? I can convince people of X, if elites agree to broadcast X. I can convince them of the opposite. Of everything. All with little or no use of force to suppress the countervailing expression of opinion. It’s true. I can’t convince them of anything, just of very many things.

    So, I don’t recognize the decisions of most people about miscegenation, as some sort of self-contained, autonomous capsule of decision. How can it be, when so much of the cause of the decision is extrinsic? Note: this is not a normative statement, it’s descriptive.

    For example, the kind of dissent I am expressing right now has to be anonymous, doesn’t it? Would it not be more effective if I were loud and proud about my identity? But I would have a hard time with employment. That’s propaganda, backed by mild force. If I become regent over America, I’ll use my own propaganda backed by mild force – even if the force I’d use might be 50% less. (I bet my use of force would be very little, or even none. Opening my own Universities, and official broadcasts, might be more than enough, and I could just tell people to be nice to the dissidents, really nice. But I definitely assure you that top quality pro-RSism materials would be abundantly and omnipresently available, gratis.)

    So – their propaganda/culture, pretty effective. My propaganda/culture – doubtless would be pretty effective, doubtless. So where is this effective and autonomous ‘decision’ happening? I’ll tell you who is pretty damned autonomous in their heart and mind, and who only. The likes of you; the likes of me. To a lesser extent, maybe 5% of people are. You and me can check out people’s claims, in fine. Not every claim, of course, but we select several important ones, methodically, and dive in.

    Reply

  61. > How would you compare all this to, say, classical Greece? We have some great artists and such — but then, we have 100x the population of classical Greece.

    The normal Greek man — the normal man anywhere but here and now – was /basted/ in unequalism, basted in the example of superior individuals. He learned how to try to culture himself, rather than attacking others.

    He was basted in purpose, and in meaningful context for his efforts at excellence — namely his people, propagating his own kind and own ways. Through having his own children, and/or through other contributions to the nation, which reproduces the same kind. A tendency toward that source of meaning is in man’s nature. It’s unkind to deny him it. And a multiracial-multicultural entity cannot create the same level of significance for the individual’s life, or the same level of enticement for developing himself. The postmodern USA may be better than me trying to defend myself alone – but seriously, who wants to go on out there and bleed all over the goddamn place for it? Not very many talented or halfway-talented men do.

    Excellence, or the most excellence possible for oneself, given one’s limitations, is — when added overtop of a reasonable degree of pleasure) — the sine qua non of the deepest happiness and meaning. Or so I maintain (virtue ethics). But why be excellent, when it means suffering, suffering much, in some cases as much as possible, in exchange for virtv (‘strength’)? That really requires an ultimate meaning to be devoted to! Why be disciplined during one’s whole life, and seek excellence, except in devotion to something beyond one’s life? Virtv, namely the greatest happiness, goes along with this transpersonal meaning, the two belong together — and a transpersonal meaning has to be deeply related to one’s self. A nation or people isn’t just a partial copy of oneself — it’s a partial copy of oneself that one hopes will wind up being more /fulfilled/ than oneself. “Well, here’s my second to last breath — but maybe the Hebrews’ captivity in the East will be turned, in perhaps five more generatons. Just maybe.” Maybe my people will give birth to a great civilization 200 years from now, by hook or by crook; great art, a palpable contribution to mankind at large.

    When a people exists autonmously as a people, with only its own interests to reckon with along with those of the world in general, /then/ it’s “propaganda”/culture coming from its most talented members is almost entirely benevolent, and calls the people to supplement /henodia/ with something higher and crisper, as much as they can. That’s /not/ what we have here. When ethnicities and races clash together within a society for power — or when other equally matched factions clash, arising occasionally arise for other reasons — all of this downward projection of high culture and high taste breaks down, ’twas ever thus.

    Reply

  62. Did I mention that amorosity is on average in a somewhat degraded condition, in this culture? That’s too self-evident to argue in support of.

    What I show above — that most people’s decisions are not primarily autonomous, in that a wide range of biases can be strongly imposed on them — is a general vindication of the rights of a collective, a society, to do certain things beyond what is necessary to protect life and property.

    What I’ve explained is why a society, a polity, is in part a unit. Because noblesse oblige is entirely real; the culturally powerful are the guardians of virtue and benevolence in a system of culture/propaganda.

    The autonomous thinkers in a society have a natural duty to the body politic, and normal people have a natural obligation not to pretend all individuals are equally capable; they are obliged to be somewhat receptive to benevolent advice, if they can find it.

    This is what is best, which is not unrelated to the fact that it is natural. And accordingly, human biology has provided for it. However, we are ‘adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers’. Our instincts provide for the creation of a good society promoting the good life, under environmental circumstances that no longer obtain, which existed everywhere and almost always until 1750. Therefore, a ‘darwinian’ or ‘biologized’ or ‘de-blank-slateized’ political philosophy can point the way to re-generating most of that which was really important in the life we are adapted for and designed to flourish in.

    Reply

  63. You don’t seem to appreciate that there is a possibility that you might be wrong.

    It wasn’t stupid people who didn’t recognize McClintock’s work. It was essentially everyone. Being able to recognize your own weaknesses and faults and errors is extremely difficult for most, and impossible for some.

    Instead they adopt the delusion that they are right.

    Reply

  64. RS, you might want to look at this blog post on the dangers of inbreeding, and the dangers of breeding for “show.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/a_lesson_in_basic_genetics_for.php#comments

    What you want human populations to be based on is “show”; superficial cosmetic phenotype characteristics that you associate with the flawed concept of “race”. You do that, and those human populations will end up like those dogs.

    Of course the myopic humans with those superficial cosmetic phenotype characteristics will declare them to be the “ideal” and they will be unable to see the flaws they don’t have the ability to understand.

    Reply

  65. @gw

    The meaning of the word “genocide” is completely different from the way you use it, and I won’t bother arguing against this silliness.

    As to the claim that low birth rates are due to poor housing, it’s also self-evidently silly, given that per capita housing footage kept increasing just as per capita fertility kept decreasing. The claims of insufficient funds or space to have children are just rationalizations offered to cover up one’s hostility to children or self-centeredness.

    Reply

  66. > The claims of insufficient funds or space to have children are just rationalizations offered to cover up one’s hostility to children or self-centeredness.

    No one would deny that something like self-centeredness is a huge factor, but there are other factors.

    Reply

  67. By the way, it’s not really about insufficient funds or space per se. The thing is really about whether you can keep your kids away from unacceptably hostile types, both in their residential life and their schooling. As well as keep them away from those who might interfere with their classroom, or acculturate them into bad things.

    Reply

  68. @RS

    “The thing is really about whether you can keep your kids away from unacceptably hostile types, both in their residential life and their schooling. ”

    ### Laughing out loud! “I can’t have a baby because the big bad Mexican could say some nasty wetback shit to her, and maybe even knock her up”

    Jesus wept.

    Reply

  69. Kindly retain the good savior unto yourself. It’s all about Wotan here at Castle RS. I suspect Latinos are more apt to be rough than Whites, or present intimidation on the street actively or passively – but not that much more apt. (Around here, not at all.) Obviously Blacks are a different story. I was thinking partly of them, above. Maybe we are supposed to be talking strictly about immigrants, not Blacks… Though ending segregation can also be seen as part of the same attack on Whites.

    I’ve worked with many non-elite Mexicans, Salvadorans (I think), etc. I like them, but their kids wouldn’t be up to speed on average with Euros living nearby: and present ideology often tends to put all kids of the same age group in the same classes, as opposed to ‘tracking’ them severally by strength. Moreover, a lot of them aren’t native speakers. Latinos may be somewhat more threatening in places like LA or NYC. I haven’t been there to speak of. Around here I’ve not really had one beef about them whatsoever, of any kind, except miscegnation. But I don’t have kids to send to public school.

    NE Asians are of course less menacing on the street and present less problems at schools than Whites. But there aren’t very many of them. They do get into friction with Whites, though… mostly due to their higher work drive.

    Reply

  70. daedalus2u I think you don’t understand what that word [genocide] means.

    ““The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.

    It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.

    More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.” ”

    Raphael Lemkin in Genocide – A modern Crime, 1945

    Reply

  71. “As to the claim that low birth rates are due to poor housing, it’s also self-evidently silly, given that per capita housing footage kept increasing just as per capita fertility kept decreasing.”

    Post-war the high average IQ industrial populations want more space per kid. This is the underlying initial cause of below-replacement birth rates in the white and n/asian countries imo. The exception to the general below-replacement rule being wide-open places like the American mid-west with lots of land where housing is relatively cheap.

    Mass immigration makes the problem worse.

    So like i said…

    A country like Korea with below replacement level birth rates will find out in a few decades if the birth rate goes up to replacement levels once the population drops to a new equilibrium where they feel they have enough space per family. White people in a country where the population are being REPLACED by mass immigration won’t reach a new equilibrium because the population is being REPLACED. Replacing a population is self-evidently GENOCIDE.

    .
    “By the way, it’s not really about insufficient funds or space per se. The thing is really about whether you can keep your kids away from unacceptably hostile types”

    Well i think that may depend on how well-heeled you are. Semi-skilled and unskilled blue collar can put up with a bit of hostility but not with high prices. Some immigrant groups are hyper-violent and housing is dirt-cheap around them but they increase the costs elsewhere as everyone else tries to get away. Other groups aren’t that physically hostile but they simply put housing costs up by weight of numbers and supply and demand.

    The same effect applies to the previous generation of immigrants. Further immigration soaks up empty housing for them too and makes it harder for young couples to set up a new home together which delays family formation.
    .

    Reply

  72. @gw

    Man, if the only tool you have is a hammer the whole world looks like a nail, no? Some bad shit happens to the white man, must be the gooks. White woman wants no kids, it’s GENOCIDE by spiks. What dumb racist bullshit, and in caps, too. You spend a page trying to refute the obvious, meandering about the bad immigrants fucking things up. Well, whatever, I give up. As a parting shot – in Japan there is no immigration but the birthrate has fallen with rising incomes. Now riddle me that. Got your hammer ready?

    Reply

  73. “As a parting shot – in Japan there is no immigration but the birthrate has fallen with rising incomes. Now riddle me that. Got your hammer ready?”

    For the third time…

    Post-war the high average IQ industrial populations want more space per kid. This is the underlying initial cause of below-replacement birth rates in the white and n/asian countries imo. The exception to the general below-replacement rule being wide-open places like the American mid-west with lots of land where housing is relatively cheap.

    Mass immigration makes the problem WORSE by increasing the housing pressure.

    A country like Korea (or Japan) with below replacement level birth rates will find out in a few decades if the birth rate goes up to replacement levels once the population drops to a new equilibrium where they feel they have enough space per family. White people in a country where the population are being REPLACED by mass immigration won’t reach a new equilibrium because the population is being REPLACED and REPLACING a population is self-evidently GENOCIDE.

    Reply

  74. I think that honour killings or banishing a family member make a certain amount of sense in a clan based society. It would function as a form of triage. Since the clan is likely to rise or fall together any member who threatens the clan by anti-social behaviour becomes a threat to the clan. The clan would be willing to sacrifice one of its members for the good of the clan. Sort of removing a cancerous organ or body part in order to live.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s