a message for ron unz

i left this comment to ron unz’s latest on what to do about mass immigration to the united states over @the american conservative a few hours ago, but it hasn’t been approved (i can’t imagine why not) so i thought i’d post it here:

“from the description of this article on the front page: ‘Ron Unz asks whether mass immigration will destroy the GOP—and our middle-class society.’

“and, ron said: ‘Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become “good Americans” at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.’

“most hispanics are not ready to assimilate into american middle-class society simply because they do not possess the evolutionary history during which they might’ve developed the traits to enable them to do so.

“it took ca. 600 years of evolution for the anglos to develop the traits (nonviolence, literacy, long working hours and a willingness to save) which facilitate a middle-class society — and it took another ca. 600 years or so of outbreeding before that to change the tribal-natured anglo-saxons and bretons into something resembling individualistic medieval englishmen.

“latin americans have no such evolutionary history. they were tribal and had endogamous mating practices (which are absolute death to middle-class values) right up until first-contact with the spaniards. exogamous mating practices — a prerequisite for developing modern, western-like societies — have only been around in latin america for ca. 400-500 years.

“hispanics, on average, have a long way to go before they will have the capabilities needed to assimilate to our middle-class society — and, yes, the presence of too many of them in the united states is an existential threat to our society.”

but ron unz already knows that there is such a thing as human biodiversity and that our different evolutionary histories underlie that biodiversity.

previously: assimliation is a two-way street (or why endogamy means mexicans will find it hard to become middle-class anglos)

edit: see also dennis’ Social Engineering on an Unprecedented Scale. quite.

(note: comments do not require an email. wait. einstein was wrong?)

Advertisements

22 Comments

  1. I’m not sure if the endogamy/consanguinity argument is a good fit for Mexicans.
    Are they really that much more “tribal” than, say, Southern Europeans? 500 years isn’t anything to sneeze at, either.

    Reply

  2. @ihtg – “I’m not sure if the endogamy/consanguinity argument is a good fit for Mexicans.”

    sure it’s a good “fit” for mexicans. the whole endogamy/consanguinity (i.e. inclusive fitness) argument either applies to all or none. not just to some here and there. i happen to think the evidence points to hamilton’s theory being correct, so it must apply to mexicans also. (it applies to plants, after all!)

    @ihtg – “Are they really that much more ‘tribal’ than, say, Southern Europeans?”

    no, perhaps not. but in my previous post i compared mexicans to italians and greeks — all three groups have comparative levels of corruption and nepotism.

    Reply

  3. What? He hasn’t replied? Someone call one of his neighbors to peek through his windows – he’s obviously trapped under something heavy.

    Also, “Jorge” never replied to me in Dennis’s thread on the Lynn-Flynn effect after I proved mathematically that some IQ subtests could rise while others did not, without significantly reducing correlation (or even reducing it by a hundredth of a percent).

    Also, Gould died without apologizing for lying about Goddard in The Mismeasure of Man.

    On the other hand, sometimes leftists fall down the stairs and chip their front teeth.

    Reply

  4. Apparently The American Conservative is now not accepting any comments critical of Unz. I am on an email list and at least 10 people on it have not had their comments accepted.

    Go there and try to comment and see whether they accept it.

    It seems that TAC has become worse than the Weekly Standard.

    Originally, TAC was great. Pat Buchanan and Taki owned it. Sam Francis regularly wrote there.

    But then Buchanan and Taki left. And Ron Unz bought it. Slowly, it become more and more like National Review and the Weekly Standard.

    And now where are where we are today: they won’t even accept a comment critical of TAC’s resident John Podhoretz, Ron Unz.

    Reply

  5. I really don’t see what’s wrong with some inbreeding. Depending how and among whom it’s done, the effects can be good. Ashkanazis, for instance, raised their IQs through endogamy.

    Also, the other extreme, inter-racial exogamy, is worse. Do you want a world of Barack Obamas?

    Besides, endogamy promotes relatedness which overall improves one’s genetic fitness and increases altruism: there more closely one is related to someone else the more genes he will share with him and thus will shore more altruism.

    Perhaps both extreme endogamy and extreme exogamy are bad, but, in general, we should error on the side of favoring endogamy.

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/629/

    It is in our genetic interest to do so.

    Reply

  6. @olave – “…that some IQ subtests could rise while others did not, without significantly reducing correlation….”

    well, that makes sense to me. and, even tho i s*ck at all-things-mathematical (except for euclidean geometry), i think i have enough calculatory powers to understand you must be correct.

    Reply

  7. @nigel – I really don’t see what’s wrong with some inbreeding…. Besides, endogamy promotes relatedness which overall improves one’s genetic fitness and increases altruism: there more closely one is related to someone else the more genes he will share with him and thus will shore more altruism.”

    oh, absolutely. i’ve got no arguments with what you say there, nigel. in fact, in a couple of previous posts, i’ve fretted that perhaps we westerners are too outbred.

    no, i’m all for more endogamy, esp. if we want to hang on to western civilization. it just has to be done in the right way. too much inbreeding and you get clannishness or tribal sentiments dominating a society. i’m not sure what the best degree of relatedness within a population to aim for is — for my tastes, whatever they had in nineteenth century england seems pretty good.

    Reply

  8. Boas lied to try to disprove racial differences.

    Lewontin distorted numbers to try to disprove racial differences.

    Gould lied to try to disprove racial differences.

    And Unz distorted numbers to try to disprove mestizo crime.

    Anyone see a pattern here?

    Reply

  9. @thomas – “Go there and try to comment and see whether they accept it.”

    well, i did leave the comment in my post @the american conservative this morning and … just checked again and … nope. comment was not approved.

    i’m all for the freedom of everyone online to run their own website/blog they way they see fit, so i won’t complain about my comment not getting posted there. if they don’t like biological-based arguments about human behavior and societies — well, ok. i got my own blog where i can spout off my ideas. (^_^)

    but, i do think it’s kinda funny that unz was apparently into sociobiological thinking once-upon-a-time, but i guess not anymore. or at least not in public anyway.

    Reply

  10. Commenter T,
    The JQ, unfortunately, is certainly outside the bounds of acceptable discourse at The American Conservative.

    Reply

  11. Ari Fleischer was on TV saying the people who booed the gay serviceman at the debate don’t belong in the Republican Party. Different hands of the same beast. Jews are 20+ percent of Harvard undergrads, more than Whites.

    They know what they are doing. Cut off the genetic head and the native stock is dead. Then replace the body. Death is total.

    Reply

  12. @oldatlantic – “Ari Fleischer was on TV saying the people who booed the gay serviceman at the debate don’t belong in the Republican Party.”

    i don’t know what the gay guy was saying, but i don’t like booing (that doesn’t mean that i think that these particular boo-ers don’t belong in the republican party, tho). i don’t like bad manners in general.

    everyone should get a chance to say what they want to say. if you don’t like it, don’t listen. walk out. don’t boo. and don’t vote for the people supporting whatever policy it is you’re booing. (not you, of course, old atlantic — people out there.)

    needless to say, i think the alinskyite tactics of the left are completely barbaric. they have NO place in a civilized society. when i become dictator of the world, i’ll be banning those behaviors immediately (along with pole-dancing for six-year-olds and reality shows (~_^) ).

    Reply

  13. I agree with you on the booing, I did not approve of it. Ari Fleischer though is the Alinskyite in charge to cull the ranks of the GOP of bigots and those who speak up.

    Normally, those who act inappropriately are not said to not belong in a political party, as if they had never belonged because of who they were before they booed, except by those trying to control thought.

    Reply

  14. Dear hbd* chick,

    Let me preface this comment by saying that I know you have been inspired by Steve Sailer. Haven’t we all? He is a journalist’s journalist, the Orwell of our generation, at least in my book. Still, you have taken that initial insight of his regarding cousin marriage and run with it, teasing our genetic and cultural implications far beyond what he has written about. So give yourself a little more credit, you modest thing you.

    Ok, now for an idea you’ve just caused me to have, maybe not a good one, I’m not sowure. Here’s the question: Take as your starting point a fairly large interbreeding population of unrelated individuals, say a few thousands. Since this is America we will suppose they are representative of the various racial and ethnic groups that currently compose our nation: 12% African Americans, 15% Latin Americans, 3% Ashkenazi, 3% East Asians, a scattering of South Asians, and so on, with the balance a cross-section of our Euro-American population, I’m not sure exactly what percentage (it keeps changing). My question is what’s the minimum number of generations of second cousin marriage required to establish a degree of relatedness near the “golden mean” you have alluded to, which, for the sake of the argument, we will take to be equivalent to a community of 3rd cousins?

    This is a complicated question I know — otherwise I would try to tackle it myself (except that it is fun having having help, I imagine). In any case I wouldn’t know where even to begin. But you would I think, despite all your self-deprecating remarks regarding your math skills. Please give it a try.
    l
    To what end “disturbing the dust on a bowl full of rose leaves?” to quote my favorite poet from Missouri :)

    Well, as you probably know by now I’m a hopeless gone dreamer who’s probably wasted pretty much his whole life in a quest to imagine a social ideal for this country which, while it might not exist now, could exist in the reasonably near future. What I’ve come up with is an America composed of self-governing small-town communities — based on this simple idea — that would essentially be competing with each other in a market economy. We would want these communities to have a genuine sense of community — of feeling that they belong together, using Max Weber’s definition — but at the same time we would not want them to be so ethnocentric they would not hesitate to engage in illegal activities — industrial sabotage for instance (though stealing your competitors’ trade secrets would be ok by me). Neither would we want these towns to go to war with their neighbors apart from Friday night football.

    I think you can see where I’m trying to take your ideas. Help me out would you?. I know you can do it. (While you’re at it you might pay attention to the possibilities of gene interjection. How many generations would it take before we have an East Asian engineer who can dance? A white man who can jump? A Jewish running back? etc., etc. etc. But maybe these are questions only Greg Cochran can solve.)

    thanks in advance.

    Reply

  15. @luke – ah! social engineering using the (admittedly little bit of) knowledge that we currently have about inbreeding, outbreeding and inclusive fitness. this sounds like fun! (^_^)

    first of all, i should say that i haven’t figured out, even to my own satisfaction, let alone based on the facts on the ground, what the “golden mean” of inbreeding/outbreeding is if you want to produce a really nice western-type society. the only groups for which i know the actual degree of genetic relatedness are the various jewish groups: ashkenazi, sephardic and oriental. the members of each of those groups, within those groups, are related to one another on average as though they were all fourth or fifth cousins.

    is that the golden mean? i dunno. jews certainly look out for one another — and i mean that that’s a healthy thing for a group. are they not altruistic enough towards non-members? should they be more so? less so? are the types/degrees of altruism/non-altruism that jews display what you’re looking for? if an entire nation looked after one another the way jews appear to me to look after each other, i’d say that was not too bad. (of course, you’ll always have the exceptions to these rules, like the bernie madoff’s of the world who don’t look after anybody but number 1!)

    (ok, everybody. please don’t turn this thread into a hate-fest on jews. i picked them as an example ’cause there’s actually data for them. let’s leave it at that, shall we? thnx.)

    having said that, if you’re working with a mixed-race/ethnic population and you want to get everyone to be related as, say, fifth cousins, then first you’re gonna have to work out how distantly related the different groups are. t alluded to this in the “assimilation is a two-way street” comment thread. he said (my emphasis):

    “Part of the success of assimilation depends on genetic distance. Given that the genetic distance between the Irish and English is almost non-existent, the differences between the two were largely religious. People can change religion, but not their genes. But when you consider that blacks are 140X more distant from the English than the Danish are from the English, you can see how and why it would be much easier for a Dane to assimilate to English society.”

    t here is talking about frank salter’s work on how closely or distantly different ethnies are. if you haven’t already, you can check out his work here and here.

    basically, it’ll probably be easier to take a bunch of italians only and get them to breed in such a way as to get everyone as related as fourth or fifth cousins than if you started with, say, a group composed of half esikimos and half australian aborigines. the genetic distance between those two groups that you’re starting off with makes the project more complicated.

    how much more complicated, i can’t be sure. my math skills really are atrocious! honestly. at least for these sorts of things. i have a plan (i always have a plan…) to improve my math skills over the winter. somebody hold me to that, would ya? (~_^)

    clearly, you don’t want your New Towns to become too inbred. that would be a disaster! you definitely want people to marry between the towns. in many traditional societies, there was regular swapping of marriage partners between different clans (china’s a good example), and so you did get some nice, broad ranging alliances between clans and villages (unlike in the arab world). but my thinking on it is if you regularly swap marriage partners between the same three or four clans, that’s going to be too inbred again if your desired outcome is something like western civilization. i think you really want some broad marriage patterns to get western civilization.

    i wish i had a better answer for you right now, but i don’t. this is all a work in progress! (^_^)

    Reply

  16. @luke – you know your homesteads with nuclear family in one house and grandparents in another? i don’t know if you based it on this or not, but that is exactly how traditional german, and i think scandinavian, farms were structured. read about it in “The Explanation of Ideology” — it’s how todd’s “authoritarian families” arranged themselves. (^_^)

    former gardener, eh? you know, i just spent the first part of my day harvesting a bunch of my turnips. (^_^) harvested, cooked, and deep frozen. squirreling away for the winter ahead. (^_^)

    Reply

  17. thank you, bhd* chick, the part about towns would need to swap mates, that’s something I didn’t know (the towns I am proposing would be abour 25,000, so pretty big but still small. It sounds like it would take quite a while to get, say, the people in my immediate family I mentioned previously to the 5th cousin stage. I wonder how it would work out if each neighborhood were settled independently by a group of “friends” who, sort of like East European Zionists in the early days, decide to colonize together. Presumably they would be genetically more simple — but what about community integration. Are we always going to have Negroes on their own side of town? Will it take centuries for the color line to blur? Got me. keep these questions in mind. thanks again,

    Reply

  18. @luke – “but what about community integration. Are we always going to have Negroes on their own side of town? Will it take centuries for the color line to blur? Got me.”

    i dunno, either.

    that whites and blacks don’t marry more is often assumed to be something waaaaycist on the side of whites, but plenty of blacks want to marry (and/or just mate) with fellow blacks** — again because they’re more similar genetically to other blacks and if, as it seems to be, the goal in the Great Game of Life is to spread as many of your genes as possible down into the next generation, well then it makes sense to mate with individuals similar to yourself since they will share some of your genes. it’s kind-of like a two-for-the-price-of-one deal.

    **someone i know used to work in a pretty much all-white, suburban workplace, but there was one middle-class black lady working there. one day at lunch they were all talking about the difficulties of “finding” nice boys for their daughters to marry (or hoping that their daughters would find nice boys) — and, apparently, the black lady chimed in with how it was doubly hard for her and her daughter ’cause they were, of course, looking for a nice, middle-class black boy. the conversation was a big revelation for all the white ladies at the lunch table (which is why it was recounted to me — it was quite the topic of conversation from some weeks for the suburban white ladies).

    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