hbd fallout

here’s a very thoughtful comment from jayman from the other day that you may or may not have seen (thanks, jayman!) [highlights added by me]:

“One might imagine that Europeans and Americans might realize the danger of immigration, especially from unstable parts of the world after events like these. But they, by in large, won’t. Certain forces will see to that. Why? Here’s something to consider: what would having a conversation about this topic entail? Even to make a justified argument against immigration from certain violent corners of the world mean acknowledging group differences. And if some groups can be more violent, less intelligent, less altruistic than others on average, etc, etc… The whole topic will come out. We’d like to think that this would happen in an organized manner, spearheaded by more cool-headed rational folks, but look at the record of how public commenters handle easily bungled truths.

“Back when groups differences weren’t so taboo in Western society, and one could talk about them openly, society was *also* more racist (this was pre-Civil Rights here in America). It is possible that in order for society to be aware of the reality of HBD, it must be actually be *racist*.

“Think of all the simmering resentment in Whites that are the victims of these crimes (as a Black man, I wouldn’t talk to this soldier’s family about now). And on top of that, imagine all the Whites that are not necessarily so politically correct about race. How would they react? (Here’s an example: Far-right extremists in eastern Germany quietly building a town for neo-Nazis.) And to be sure, folks like those here who simply view HBD as just another set of facts of nature don’t seem to be the majority of the people who do believe this stuff (judging from posters and commenters on the matter in the blogosphere). Sane, moderate thinkers seem to avoid this stuff like the plague. (Of course, this could just be the disaffected voices speaking loudest, but that is the appearance anyway.)

It could be that open knowledge of HBD will lead to racial violence – two-sided racial violence. (Indeed, oddly that might be predicted by Peter Turchin’s cliodynamics). It was remarked to me that certain elites might be well aware (or aware enough) of group biological differences but keep a lid on it because they fear what the result of open knowledge would be.

“Whether or not that’s a wise strategy, or whether or not you feel the truth being out there is more important – as I do – that is the probable mentality behind such things. I suspect that that is why the elite voices are quick to put the kibosh on any discussion of group realities when events like these occur, as they are sure to do. And perhaps it is with ‘justification’.

“Tribalism – even for Westerners – is big. Can you have a multiracial society in one that is honest about group differences? Europe kinda has a choice on that, but we here in America don’t. Will people *really* run with the understanding that differences *on average* don’t apply to every last individual, or will group solidarity rule the day? How will intelligent and completely inoffensive Blacks, for example, be treated by Whites then? The example of Chechens challenges the notion of treating people as individuals, because arguably they are so tribal and violent on average that even a modest number of them can cause problems (there are only 200 in America). But if they pose a problem in that way, what about other groups?

In the end, it might not matter because the pressure of immigration and problems like these might bring the issue to forefront anyway. But what if there is no way of avoiding that? What if releasing knowledge of HBD will just hasten this reckoning?

“These are important questions to consider. I can’t say I have answers for them.”

i agree — these are important questions. and i don’t have any answers either.

i am pretty sure about two things though:

1) hbd knowledge is coming down the pipeline … fast! … whether anyone likes it or not, and we’d better get prepared for it — maybe that responsibility should fall especially on the shoulders of those of us who, for whatever reasons, happen to be aware of hbd before most of the crowd; and…

2) humans s*ck.

we really do. just read a little history!

and, so, yes — it might very well get ugly and more tribal once all this hbd knowledge gets out there, but given that i’m pretty sure that’s inevitable, we’d better brace ourselves as best we can.

most ordinary mortals can’t handle the truth, but i’m actually a little (a very little) optimistic that a lot of people actually can grasp a basic understanding of “average,” and that they already apply that understanding in their daily lives wrt other people(s). i said it before, there is a sort-of “folk statistics” out there — most people “get” why yao ming is so interesting (’cause he’s an exception that proves the rule) — they even find the fact that a chinese guy is so tall kinda funny. and that’s an indication that they understand he doesn’t fit into the usual pattern that most chinese people on average are fairly short. it’s the contradiction that makes them giggle (no one laughs ’cause michael jordan is tall).

i think most people even manage this when they’re racist or bigoted against some group. i grew up amongst working class whites, and let me tell you something you’d never have guessed — PLENTY of racism/bigotry there! and not just about blacks or hispanics — italians don’t like the irish who don’t like the poles who don’t like the germans, etc., etc. BUT, there’s always “joe” down at work who’s ok. he’s not violent or lazy or corrupt or a drunk or stupid or dour. joe’s alright!

THIS is what should be drilled into kids in school — work with (what i think is) their natural aptitude for “folk statistics,” and get them to understand that, while there are averages when it comes to groups, they have to take each individual as they come. it should be possible to teach this (the truth! — which most people instinctively get) — i mean, they’ve managed to teach an untruth (that everyone is just the same) for the past … how many decades?

they also need to teach evolution more in school — a LOT more. evolution by natural selection. ’cause then everyone would understand that, yeah, while the chechens on average might be, comparatively speaking, a bit crazy violent, that’s just ’cause of their evolutionary history which they can’t be blamed for.

as for the rest? dunno. one thing’s for sure — continued mass immigration of unlike groups to the u.s. and europe is NOT going to make it all work out better in the future! =/

(note: comments do not require an email. keep calm and…)

Advertisements

176 Comments

  1. “It was remarked to me that certain elites might be well aware (or aware enough) of group biological differences but keep a lid on it because they fear what the result of open knowledge would be.”

    The problem with that theory is if they knew the truth *and* were benign they wouldn’t add to the problem with insane levels of immigration. They’d try to keep it quiet as now but at the same time they’d be instigating policies based on that knowledge which would ameliorate the problem not make it worse. So it seems to me either they don’t know or believe the truth or they’re not benign or a mixture of the two i.e. some don’t know or believe and some do but don’t care about the consequences as long they get the cheap labor or cheap votes they want.

    Reply

  2. HBD knowledge may or may not be coming down the pipeline. I predict these two things will happen in the next 30 years (probably concurrently):

    I. Proof of HBD becomes more and more decisive. Watsonings become routine; even congressmen. Consequently, much of Europe formally bans HBD research. In America, HBDers’ punishment is “limited” to ostracism and harassment.

    II. Dysgenics (and consequent high tribalism), and multiracial immigration, raise support for violent nationalist groups. These groups “utilize” HBD to support their actions (further stigmatizing legitimate HBDers).

    Consequently, HBDers (actually, high-IQ whites in general) will relocate to East Asia and Israel.

    Reply

  3. This occurred to me as well as I read an account of a “racist” anti-immigration rally in the London. It’s unfortunate that voicing any dissent to unaccountable, elite-driven immigration policy automatically elicits accusations of being “racist thugs”, but we also have to acknowledge that there are, in fact, racist thugs out there. (On some definition of “racist” that I think we’d agree is legitimately badbadbad.)

    The upshot, for me:
    It’s critical that moderate, scientifically inclined people make themselves the voices of HBD. The ostracism and harassment we face works against this goal, since the “thugs”, in addition to being dumb and violent, are brave and have nothing to lose. But eventually we’re going to have to assert ourselves if this knowledge is going to (1) get out and stay out and (2) get out in a socially beneficial way.

    And I’m optimistic about these ends being possible. Probably the most significant normative implication I’ve drawn from HBD is that you ought to judge people’s capacities by their individual ability, not by their race or ethnicity—that’s hardly radical. There are plenty of white people of good will in the US who already do this and just wish the reigning ideology provided a safer space in which to continue doing so.

    Reply

  4. “How will intelligent and completely inoffensive Blacks, for example, be treated by Whites then?”

    Genesis 18:23-33

    Reply

  5. Let me just paste a comment I made on Joel Kotkin’s website. The topic was why the Southern California Economy Not Keeping Up

    I notice you don’t mention the elephant in the room: mass immigration from south of the border.

    I think Richwine was wrong in advocating that we discriminate against low IQ and in favor of high IQ individuals or groups. Such an approach is incompatible with the assumption that various population groups do not differ in their cognitive abilities — that, for example, East Asians are not generally smarter or more academically gifted than immigrants from Mexico.

    That’s why I support a temporary across-the-board moratorium on all immigration from all countries until we can assimilate and integrate the forty-to-fifty million foreign born minorities (including 11 million undocumented) who are already living in this country. Unless you believe the American people are lacking in the skills and intelligence required to be an economically and politically successful society, it’s hard to see on what grounds anyone could possibly object.

    I would make one exception however. Unthinkable as it may be, should Israel cease to be viable as a Jewish state in the middle of the Muslim world we should make it clear now that we will allow its citizens to seek refuge in America. Having done so much to encourage that society I think we have incurred a moral responsibility to its Jewish population.

    Reply

  6. @ Luke –

    That last bit is going to earn you some hate from the Sailer commentariat (and of course the more forthright WN’s at other sites) if they see it.

    Reply

  7. Razib proposes a study design that would provide almost irrefutable proof of a black-white genetic IQ gap. He is completely wrong that it will resolve anything.

    Right now there is plenty of evidence for HBD. Some of it is pretty bad (like maps showing national IQ) but much of it is really good (twin studies). We have more than enough evidence to prove the truth to anyone who is interest in the truth. Additional evidence, no matter how perfect, will not change minds.

    Reply

  8. If you are against instability, you need to decide what you want kept stable.

    The present international regime of white countries (and by the regime I mean the ruling class including academia and the mass media, not just elected politicians), supports constant mass non-white immigration and forced integration. This means white genocide.

    So if what you want is political stability above all, you need to suppress white resistance to genocide. What happens after that is you’ll have states like post-white-genocide Haiti. Expect stability, but in the way that Haiti and Zimbabwe are stable.

    Or if what you want is a stable white population, not declining, being displaced, crumbling in “white flight” and so on, you should be hoping for a change in the ruling regime. That’s “political instability”.

    In morality, the top priority is the prevention of genocide. If that means regime change, so be it.

    But it seems most people worried about stability are really concerned with medium term political stability, and at least passively supportive of white genocide.

    Therefore their main concern about HBD knowledge is that it not be used in any way that would help disgruntled whites to foster political instability. If they start to use it, “nice” people should jump in and take control of how that knowledge is interpreted and used.

    That’s really not a nice agenda at all.

    Reply

  9. @jayman “they also need to teach evolution more in school ” Yes. Failing to do so is a major dumbing down move. I’m sure there are those who want that in good conscience, but it sure smells like oppression to me – dumb em down and hold em up. What’s more, speciation needs to be on the agenda. Alfred Russel Wallace, who lived at the time of Darwin, recognized that evolution could hardly progress without it. Yet I doubt one person in a thousand understands as much.
    I’ve pointed out before that migration is a biological catastrophe for both immigrants and host country: in the long run it costs babies big time.
    Also I know it’s popular to say that even moderate inbreeding is evil, but when they look at mental disease it’s more common in cities than in the country and, tellingly, people who move from country to city have lower rates than those who live in cities. Don’t expect anybody to take an interest, though. They have just re-written the book on how to diagnose insanity and trashed it; Asberger’s won’t exist after this June for instance. That means any comparative statistics will be impossible to collect. You’ll never know whether immigration is making us insane or not.
    But there is one thing I think is clear enough for people to understand. If you were to offer American citizenship on the open market at some endurable level I suspect the market would clear at about a million bucks. That means every immigrant is getting a million bucks worth of value from the American people, particularly the people who can least afford it. With millions of immigrants that is trillions of dollars. I don’t think we should be asked to make that sacrifice.

    Reply

  10. @Greying Wanderer,

    “The problem with that theory is if they knew the truth *and* were benign they wouldn’t add to the problem with insane levels of immigration. They’d try to keep it quiet as now but at the same time they’d be instigating policies based on that knowledge which would ameliorate the problem not make it worse. So it seems to me either they don’t know or believe the truth or they’re not benign or a mixture of the two i.e. some don’t know or believe and some do but don’t care about the consequences as long they get the cheap labor or cheap votes they want.”

    I think the elite of the political left are so full of Marx they actually don’t understand what’s going on, while the political right understand and use immigration as a way of divide and conquer. Immigration lowers wages and undermines solidarity among the working class.

    Reply

  11. Race realism will only be solved when Gattaca happens.

    The problem with hbd is that we have too much data to know that multiculturalism is stupid,
    but we have too little data to make good policies based on that knowledge.
    What do you do with welfare and public schooling after knowing how IQ is distributed? How does regression to the mean really work? How does paternal/maternal age affect it? What about other personality traits? etc.

    Some people in power think that going public with hbd will awake Hitler from his grave and we’ll have Yugoslavia on a global scale. Which isn’t that far-fetched when you think of it.

    Of course the alternative, denying hbd and destroying the livelihood of all who dare to say the truth is even worse, and is leading the world into very ugly scenarios. Somebody is going to have to tell the Egyptians or Nigerians to stop breeding.

    Reply

  12. T is right; Razib is drunk. Frankly the case for the blank slate was not good in 1969 and four decades of research have only weakened it. But that doesn’t make a difference when they can endlessly profess skepticism and move the goal posts indefinitely. I think a ban on HBD research is more likely than general acceptance.

    Reply

  13. @ JayMan
    05/28/2013 at 1:31 PM

    And just in time, this post by Razib Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!:

    How the race, intelligence, and genetics question will semi-resolve within the next 10 years : Gene Expression.

    Last sentence in razib’s post:

    Addendum: I want to be clear: with the widespread availability of data sets and crappy security of said data sets this analysis is probably a few SQL joins away in 10 years.

    Can someone interpret that?

    Reply

  14. @ Janon
    05/28/2013 at 10:16 PM

    @ Luke –

    That last bit is going to earn you some hate from the Sailer commentariat (and of course the more forthright WN’s at other sites) if they see it.

    Oh, I don’t know. I’m trying to push the issue forward. Here is a follow-up comment I made to one who took exception to my exception:

    Without this compromise I doubt the heads of the major Jewish organizations in America can ever be persuaded to support an immigration pause or time-out at this point in time. The fate of world Jewry has got to be a consideration in the back of their minds and putting myself in their shoes and thinking about history, I can’t say I blame them.

    The key point is to make sure that concerns about the possible future welfare of world Jewry not be at odds with concerns about welfare of American society as a whole, which could turn out tragically for everyone involved. You would have to be politically naive not to think this is an important consideration. Realism being the first requirement for moral responsibility in this world.

    I would also add that a temporary moratorium on immigration could help secure broad American popular support for the state of Israel over the long-term, which may easily unravel in an unraveling middle-class society. We need to align our interests.

    Luke Lea

    Reply

  15. @Luke Lea:

    “That’s why I support a temporary across-the-board moratorium on all immigration from all countries until we can assimilate and integrate the forty-to-fifty million foreign born minorities (including 11 million undocumented) who are already living in this country. Unless you believe the American people are lacking in the skills and intelligence required to be an economically and politically successful society, it’s hard to see on what grounds anyone could possibly object.”

    As Staffan so cleverly observes, it may be impossible to truly “assimilate and integrate” these immigrants. Staffan hints that it’s not that the earlier waves of Catholic and Eastern European immigrants were “integrated” – rather they changed the country. Pouring different paint into a paint mixture eventually settles, but it changes the mixture of paint.

    Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, and it was once hinted here that that was the case. (And of course, I am hardly in a position to complain about that).

    But indeed, if we are to have any hope, we must stem the flow of migrants into the country. But we can’t even realistically have that conversation without first having a conversation on other things, hence, my remark above.

    Reply

  16. @Luke Lea:

    “The key point is to make sure that concerns about the possible future welfare of world Jewry not be at odds with concerns about welfare of American society as a whole, which could turn out tragically for everyone involved. You would have to be politically naive not to think this is an important consideration. Realism being the first requirement for moral responsibility in this world.

    I would also add that a temporary moratorium on immigration could help secure broad American popular support for the state of Israel over the long-term, which may easily unravel in an unraveling middle-class society. We need to align our interests.”

    HBO recently aired a documentary which asserts that the restrictive immigration policy of the US during the Nazi era was in good part responsible for the failure of many Jews to escape the holocaust. So I would say yes, there are elements in the Jewish community that are well aware of how acceptance of HBD and/or immigration restriction could turn out badly for them.

    For the record, I don’t think you can convince them otherwise on this, because as per my original comment, HBD acceptance is likely to entail voicing of (now simmering) anti-Jewish sentiment.

    Reply

  17. @JoseCuervo:

    “This occurred to me as well as I read an account of a “racist” anti-immigration rally in the London. It’s unfortunate that voicing any dissent to unaccountable, elite-driven immigration policy automatically elicits accusations of being “racist thugs”, but we also have to acknowledge that there are, in fact, racist thugs out there. (On some definition of “racist” that I think we’d agree is legitimately badbadbad.)

    The upshot, for me:
    It’s critical that moderate, scientifically inclined people make themselves the voices of HBD. The ostracism and harassment we face works against this goal, since the “thugs”, in addition to being dumb and violent, are brave and have nothing to lose. But eventually we’re going to have to assert ourselves if this knowledge is going to (1) get out and stay out and (2) get out in a socially beneficial way.”

    Indeed. Very well said!

    “And I’m optimistic about these ends being possible. Probably the most significant normative implication I’ve drawn from HBD is that you ought to judge people’s capacities by their individual ability, not by their race or ethnicity—that’s hardly radical. There are plenty of white people of good will in the US who already do this and just wish the reigning ideology provided a safer space in which to continue doing so.”

    Indeed. Unfortunately, there are additional complications here. For one, as the section “Ethnic Genetic Interests” on the most recent post over at Occam’s Razor indicates, the issue of HBD goes beyond IQ and individual performance. There is also the issue of group-wide interest. As we see, even high-IQ immigrants can import corrupt, nepotistic practices, as we see from clannish immigrants like those from India. Even if we stop the flood of immigrants coming over, what do we do about the ones here? My answer is not all that much different from what we’re doing now, but is everyone going to see it that way?

    Reply

  18. @Daybreaker:

    “The present international regime of white countries (and by the regime I mean the ruling class including academia and the mass media, not just elected politicians), supports constant mass non-white immigration and forced integration. This means white genocide.”

    Come on now. Claims of “White genocide” often uttered by White Nationalists are total hyperbole. Whites aren’t going anywhere any time soon. Is the current situation sub-optimal? Yes. But that’s far and away from saying that there some sort of extermination of the White race that’s going on, and that sort of stuff fuels that the mentality that I’m concerned with.

    “Or if what you want is a stable white population, not declining, being displaced, crumbling in “white flight” and so on, you should be hoping for a change in the ruling regime. That’s “political instability”.”

    Such are never neat. And not all changes are good. Should “political instability” occur, it may not go the way you want it to go…

    “Therefore their main concern about HBD knowledge is that it not be used in any way that would help disgruntled whites to foster political instability. If they start to use it, “nice” people should jump in and take control of how that knowledge is interpreted and used.”

    Exactly. And you kinda speak to why I say that’s important.

    Reply

  19. @ Jayman As Staffan so cleverly observes, it may be impossible to truly “assimilate and integrate” these immigrants.

    Until means until whatever the case. What’s not to like?

    Reply

  20. Pragmatism, thy name is truth. The most likely way to win immigration reform is not to assume human differences unnecessarily (the Richwine approach) but to meet or neutralize your opponents’ principal objections — for instance the issues of amnesty and non-discrimination. A moratorium couched in these terms is designed to do just that. It’s the best we can hope for and infinitely better than the status quo.

    Reply

  21. “T is right; Razib is drunk.”

    I think he’s right. Part of the blank slate coalition are people who genuinely want a fair and egalitarian society and they simply can’t get that with the blank slate because the blank slate is wrong. They can only get it through genetics. Those kind of people will be easily bullied into silence on the grounds of consequences however that kind of bullying will be hardest to do in regard to medicine as in that area the consequences of pretending ancestral genetics don’t matter will be lots of unneccessary deaths. So i think there will be a breakthrough in the states but most likely related to medicine and neck down only.

    However the other thing of course is breakthrough where. I think he’s right it will be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and become fully accepted in Russia, India, China etc pretty much everywhere except the US and Western Europe. You might even see some African countries running selective breeding programs while US universities are still denying the possibility.

    .
    @Luke Lea
    “Addendum: I want to be clear: with the widespread availability of data sets and crappy security of said data sets this analysis is probably a few SQL joins away in 10 years.”

    SQL is a database language. He’s saying given lots of data, low security, lots of talented Russian and Chinese hackers and a database language it will be proved soon enough.

    Reply

  22. @ Jayman “It is possible that in order for society to be aware of the reality of HBD, it must be actually be *racist*.” I suppose I am not alone in hoping that this is not true. My own perspective is human biodiversity as manifested in short term epigenetic effects, not long term genetic effects. But it’s still biodiversity. And the epigenetic process seems, on the face of it, to be destroying us too fast for any genetic effects to become important. We appear not to have time to wait for any change in our attitude toward race (I keep saying “whatever that is” because it’s not epigentic and doesn’t come across my desk so to speak), ethnicity or whatever. In fact I have yet to hear anybody say, “Genetic diversity is good. Let’s respect it so we can keep it.” Until that is at least mooted I don’t see the debate as even having started. A debate, I suppose, generally takes about thirty years. I am pleased to say I do not expect to live that long and see how what the epigenetic process is doing to us plays out.

    Reply

  23. JayMan: “Come on now. Claims of “White genocide” often uttered by White Nationalists are total hyperbole.”

    I am a white internationalist not a white nationalist, and white genocide is a fact, not hyperbole.

    A set of policies that renders impossible the continuation a people (such as a race) and means that it will cease to exist in whole or in part is genocide.

    (The “in part” is crucial, otherwise the Holocaust, for instance would not be a genocide, as two thirds of Jews were not in Europe and the Jewish people as a whole were sure to have a future whatever happened.)

    In this case the anti-whites are doing their best to blend out whites everywhere in the world, but promoting mass immigration and forced integration in all white countries. That is genocide.

    Reply

  24. JayMan: “Such are never neat. And not all changes are good. Should “political instability” occur, it may not go the way you want it to go…”

    Of course not, but it’s obligatory to oppose genocide, even though success is not guaranteed.

    Reply

  25. @ Elijah Armstrong
    Consequently, HBDers (actually, high-IQ whites in general) will relocate to East Asia and Israel.

    Jews can move to Israel but East Asia isn’t going to let a bunch of white people move im. Immigration is mostly a one way street for East Asians.

    Reply

  26. @Daybreaker: Why don’t you continuously donate your sperm to multiple sperm banks in various European countries? To up your chances of your sperm being chosen, make sure you have a PhD; if you don’t have one, hurry up and earn one ASAP. Also: take and retake the Mensa International exam until you become a member.

    Women also prefer tall sperm donors, so if you’re tall, you’re in luck. If not, wear shoe lifts and fudge the numbers on the application forms. Women also prefer handsome donors, so if you’re unattractive, undergo the necessary amounts of plastic surgery you need to to become as handsome as possible. If you’re a ginger, dye your hair, as women don’t really prefer ginger donors. And the easiest part? Being fit. Get to 10% body fat and try to gain an athletic build.

    If you’re more of a fatherly type, why not marry a young white woman and have one child every year? When she’s infertile in ~20 years, divorce her and marry a second young white woman. To increase your chances of this happening, move to Utah and convert to Mormonism.

    You gotta do your part to stop white genocide by pumping out those pure white babies to beat us non-whites. Good luck, and…Godspeed.

    Reply

  27. Stefan nails it. It’s not just the cultural Marxists.

    The Wall Street Journal is highly pro-immigration because of it’s wage-lowering effects. They are not thinking long term, you must remember, just for their lifetime.

    And the left really believes “diversity makes us stronger”. It’s a class thing, marks you as an “elite”.

    Fighting this combination of left and right is impossible. I am pessimistic and discouraged.

    Reply

  28. The trouble is, as the truth about HBD gets more and more undeniable, the repression will get stronger. The liars will not want to admit that they’ve been lying and the dupes will not want to admit that they’ve been duped. The intensity of the repression will be directly proportional to the weakness of the cause. But it’s a very unstable situation: more and more straws are dropping onto the camel’s back.

    Whether and why the liars are drawn disproportionately from one group and the dupes from another is, of course, a very naughty thing to ask.

    Reply

  29. Anne Bennett: “Fighting this combination of left and right is impossible. I am pessimistic and discouraged.”

    We have an instinct to quit in the face of overwhelming odds. We have this instinct because often enough it was quitting and accepting the conquerors’ terms that enabled our ancestors to have babies and a future. But continuous mass non-white immigration and forced integration is genocide. Giving into it means no future. The instinct telling us to give up is wrong. You just have to see this situation as though it was an optical illusion, where the lines seem to bend (“time to give up”) but really they stay straight (“keep fighting because there is no long term reward for any other course”).

    Reply

  30. Bijou Bloguette: “But it’s a very unstable situation: more and more straws are dropping onto the camel’s back.”

    Good.

    Bijou Bloguette: “Whether and why the liars are drawn disproportionately from one group and the dupes from another is, of course, a very naughty thing to ask.”

    Shh! ;)

    Reply

  31. Andrew Selvarasa, your comment is really quite trite and misdirected. You enjoy a cosmopolitan lifestyle and you think that people like Daybreaker are the threat to this life style. In reality multiculturalism is its own worst enemy. Only a tiny fraction of the population wants to live a cosmopolitan lifestyle. If you force it on other people society will break down, and the people in the cosmopolitian cities will be the first to suffer. The biggest threat to your lifestyle is immigration.

    Anne Bennett, Daybreaker: Don’t worry too much about the elite. They have very low fertility, and the farther left they are the lower it is. They will fade away soon enough. The problem is surviving in the world that they have left us. Have more children.

    Reply

  32. @ T “In reality multiculturalism is its own worst enemy.”

    Or as someone once remarked, they are standing on the limb they are sawing off.

    Reply

  33. As a general observation, even if the battle over immigration is won we are going to have to construct a new civilization within the bowels of the old. Apart from the US Constitutional framework, which is timeless, the decadence of our academic and cultural institutions is beyond repair, as is the state of our cities, whose only useful future function will be to serve as permanent sinks of extinction. The sheep and goats must be sorted and separated. It will be a self-selecting process.

    Reply

  34. I should have said that one of the future functions of the city will be as sinks of extinction. Our capital elites will always live there.

    Reply

  35. @daybreaker – “You just have to see this situation as though it was an optical illusion, where the lines seem to bend (‘time to give up’) but really they stay straight (‘keep fighting because there is no long term reward for any other course’).”

    that’s very good. i like that a LOT. thank you!

    Reply

  36. @elijah – “Consequently, much of Europe formally bans HBD research. In America, HBDers’ punishment is ‘limited’ to ostracism and harassment.”

    @bleach – ” I think a ban on HBD research is more likely than general acceptance.”

    @Bijou Bloguette – “The trouble is, as the truth about HBD gets more and more undeniable, the repression will get stronger….”

    you guys are depressing me. =/

    i really do think that the facts of hbd will inevitably come out, sooner rather than later, and in many ways be accepted, because:

    1) the chinese (and other groups who aren’t squeamish about hbd-related research, like greying wanderer mentioned above);

    2) medical genetics — people are going to want more tailored, bidil-like medicines and treatments once they realize that this is an important and possible option;

    3) designer babies — people are gonna want them, and once they realize they can have that, they’re gonna rethink (or think about in the first-place! — ’cause right now it’s just a knee-jerk, moralistic reaction) how they feel about hbd.

    Reply

  37. @jose cuervo – “Probably the most significant normative implication I’ve drawn from HBD is that you ought to judge people’s capacities by their individual ability, not by their race or ethnicity—that’s hardly radical.”

    probably the most important lesson from thinking about human biodiversity that i’ve drawn for my everyday life is that you can’t blame people — or a people — for what they are. they’re just a product of their evolution. c’est la vie.

    Reply

  38. @spandrell – “Of course the alternative, denying hbd and destroying the livelihood of all who dare to say the truth is even worse, and is leading the world into very ugly scenarios.”

    well, exactly. and not just destroying the lives of people like jason richwine, but destroying everyone’s lives given the sort of understanding of how well multiculturalism “works” (not!) from researchers like putnam. =/

    Reply

  39. @jayman – “As Staffan so cleverly observes, it may be impossible to truly ‘assimilate and integrate’ these immigrants. Staffan hints that it’s not that the earlier waves of Catholic and Eastern European immigrants were ‘integrated’ – rather they changed the country. Pouring different paint into a paint mixture eventually settles, but it changes the mixture of paint.”

    exactly! nice metaphor. (^_^)

    i keep meaning to do a post on assimilation (it’s on my backlog list of thirty-three posts i want to write… (~_^) ), ’cause assmiliation is NOT what everyone imagines it to be … or pretends it to be … or whatever it is they’re doing.

    Reply

  40. @jayman – “As we see, even high-IQ immigrants can import corrupt, nepotistic practices, as we see from clannish immigrants like those from India.”

    yup. =/

    @jayman – “Even if we stop the flood of immigrants coming over, what do we do about the ones here?”

    to me, it’s a question of numbers. a few thousands of immigrants from africa? whatever. TENS of MILLIONS of mexicans/central americans?! we need to ask them (the most recent ones) to, please, go home.

    Reply

  41. @luke – “The most likely way to win immigration reform is not to assume human differences unnecessarily….”

    what do you mean, “assume human differences unnecessarily”? the human (probably hbd) differences are there! that’s the whole point. and the ones that richwine discussed are definitely there.

    Reply

  42. @linton – “My own perspective is human biodiversity as manifested in short term epigenetic effects, not long term genetic effects.”

    human biodiversity is definitely partly genetic:

    – lactose tolerance
    – sickle-cell anemia
    – skin color, hair color, eye color
    – how many and what sorts of sweat glands different populations have
    cold adaptation

    etc., etc.

    Reply

  43. @anne – “The Wall Street Journal is highly pro-immigration because of it’s wage-lowering effects. They are not thinking long term, you must remember, just for their lifetime.”

    that’s the part i never get — it’s all so short-sighted! =/ i guess i just have to learn to accept that most humans are short-sighted.

    Reply

  44. “It is possible that in order for society to be aware of the reality of HBD, it must be actually be *racist*.”

    There is a problem with people not getting averages but the biggest impact of HBD isn’t racial differences but *individual* differences.

    .

    3) designer babies — people are gonna want them, and once they realize they can have that, they’re gonna rethink (or think about in the first-place! — ’cause right now it’s just a knee-jerk, moralistic reaction) how they feel about hbd.”

    Yes, missed that one. Even if the Western world puts up an electronic iron curtain to prevent knowledge seeping in from Russia, China etc the elite themselves are going to want to use it for their kids.

    Reply

  45. Also these discussions always focus on the dangers of white racism only. In the urban blight if you tell a group of people with a lower average IQ that everyone is the same and yet the outcomes they see with their eyes doesn’t fit then they come to see crime as revenge.

    Reply

  46. @jayman – “This was not *that* long ago people, and is precisely what I’d very much like to avoid.”

    yeah. me, too. =( (i’m not even going to look at those pictures.)

    the thing is, there are also other sorts of atrocities to be avoided, too — the ones you get from mixing people up in a multicultural way. think the balkans — or just sicily or northern ireland. ignoring hbd can lead to that sort of stuff, too. =/

    Reply

  47. @spandrell – “What do you do with welfare and public schooling after knowing how IQ is distributed?”

    those are easy(-ish). welfare: NO welfare money for more than one (maybe two) kids. that’s IT. free birth-control. (and that goes for men as well as women.) maybe you even get extra welfare if you’re married (to encourage that).

    public schooling: clearly, low iq students need all sorts of remedial help. it would be much, MUCH better for everyone involved if we just got low iq students to graduate high school being able to read and do basic arithmetic. forget all this eighth-grade algebra for everybody cr*p. that is just NUTS.

    most importantly, to help out low iq folks, we need to STOP IMPORTING MILLIONS OF MORE LOW IQ IMMIGRANTS — the ones who will directly compete for jobs with our low iq citizens. i’m telling you, this is one of the things about our country’s immigration policy that makes me the angriest: that we’re screwing over the black community! (and what is WITH the so-called african-american leaders?! talk about a bunch of traitors to their own!)

    /rant

    (~_^)

    Reply

  48. @jayman: the issue of HBD goes beyond IQ and individual performance. There is also the issue of group-wide interest.

    This is the issue where I end up feeling most racist – it doesn’t bother me that blacks, on average, aren’t as smart as whites, or that Asians, on average, are smarter than whites – that’s far easier to come to terms with realizing that there are individuals who are smarter than me. (Accepting that there were lots of people about as smart as me wasn’t nearly as bad.) But realizing that most black people will place their interests above societal interests, and that in small-group interactions, will favor their own even when they’re in the wrong, is maddening.

    Reply

  49. @T: This is where you’re wrong. I actually don’t care about multiculturalism OR tradition. I’m not a nationalist and I’m not a liberal hippie. I don’t care about preserving genetic legacies, and I don’t care about promoting miscegenation. I only care about promoting non-violence and diplomatically-gotten peace.

    My comment to Daybreaker was actually a semi-serious solution to his dilemma — if you care about your race and your genetic legacy, then shouldn’t you have as much progeny as you can?

    I couldn’t care less about the genetic legacy of brown people.

    Reply

  50. what do you mean, “assume human differences unnecessarily”

    I mean it is possible to frame an immigration policy you like — a general moratorium — without reference to that divisive issue. Maybe it’s because I’m a generation or two older than the average commenter, but I’m less interested in “understanding the truth” (which is old hat for me) nowadays than in improving the situation as a practical, political proposition. There are other policy areas — affirmative action for instance, or disparate impact issues — where the realities of human biodiversity cannot be avoided perhaps, but this is not one of them.

    Reply

  51. @Daybreaker:

    “A set of policies that renders impossible the continuation a people (such as a race) and means that it will cease to exist in whole or in part is genocide.

    In this case the anti-whites are doing their best to blend out whites everywhere in the world, but promoting mass immigration and forced integration in all white countries. That is genocide.”

    Except that Whites aren’t “ceasing to exist”, even in part, with the exception of certain parts of the world (such as perhaps in Africa – and then we go on to the issue of whether Whites “belonged” there in the first place – but that’s another discussion). And in the parts of the world where that is actually most true, in Southern and especially Eastern Europe (ignoring that this is a trend which is unlikely to continue indefinitely anyway), it is not, by in large, because of mass immigration of Third Worlders. So try again.

    “JayMan: ‘Such are never neat. And not all changes are good. Should “political instability” occur, it may not go the way you want it to go…’

    Of course not, but it’s obligatory to oppose genocide, even though success is not guaranteed.”

    Look, I’m not saying that denial of HBD is a good thing, nor am I saying that the situation that exists now is ideal (it is not), and I’m not saying the West isn’t in trouble (it is), nor am I saying that the status quo should continue (it shouldn’t), but we should realize that widespread acceptance of will likely lead to certain serious problems.

    Worse still, the mentality that you’re demonstrating here (with that “White genocide” nonsense) is precisely the mindset that I’m concerned with. It’s actually not hard for that to run away, and for certain Whites who (to a good extent correctly) feel disenfranchised by the current state of affairs and feel the need to protect their own. And that won’t be necessarily passive, reasonable, or orderly, as it should be…

    Indeed, a recent conversation with a friend of mine demonstrated a very interesting chain of thought that illustrated how this can quickly go to bad places. I will have more on that later…

    Reply

  52. @HBD Chick:

    “probably the most important lesson from thinking about human biodiversity that i’ve drawn for my everyday life is that you can’t blame people — or a people — for what they are. they’re just a product of their evolution. c’est la vie.”

    Indeed, that if any. As one Jean-Luc Picard once said, “we are what we are.”

    Serenity.

    Reply

  53. Yeah, the “genocide” rhetoric is overblown (not to mention that the term is usually used to refer to large-scale massacres). Check out these numbers:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans#Demographic_information
    1790 3,172,006 80.7 1910 81,731,957 88.9
    1800 4,306,446 81.1 1920 94,820,915 89.7
    1810 5,862,073 81.0 1930 110,286,740 89.8 (highest)
    1820 7,866,797 81.6 1940 118,214,870 89.8 (highest)
    1830 10,532,060 81.9 1950 134,942,028 89.5
    1840 14,189,705 83.2 1960 158,831,732 88.6
    1850 19,553,068 84.3 1970 177,748,975 87.5
    1860 26,922,537 85.6 1980 188,371,622 83.1
    1870 33,589,377 87.1 1990 199,686,070 80.3
    1880 43,402,970 86.5 2000 211,460,626 75.1[28]
    1890 55,101,258 87.5 2010 223,553,265 72.4[29] (lowest)

    Obviously, this is going to to decline due to a slightly below replacement rate, and of course, one could bicker regarding which ethnicities included are “reallly white” or not. Regardless, even 200k or even just 150k towers over the pithy 3.2 million white people present in the colonies shortly after the War of Independence, which is less than that of modern-day Norway.

    The white *percentage* is way down, but the raw numbers are way up.

    At any rate, to throw my speculations into the hat regarding this topic, I suspect that widespread recognition of HBD would probably lead to de facto forms of ethnopluralism forming under the same government. In an increasingly low trust environment, people will have a diminishing inclination to contribute to the “common wheel”, and will form communities with like-minded people that allows them to legally discriminate. My SWPL city is an excellent example of this. Although everybody is avowedly anti-racist and anti-classist, they keep out the proles by running business establishments that cater almost exclusively to SWPL tastes. There are black, Hispanic and Asian SWPLs who enter, but they aren’t particularly representative of their ethnicity. Proles are nowhere to be seen. I once overheard two white trash juggalos discussing how they would never set foot into Trader Joes because it doesn’t sell soda pop or cigarettes. Solve the problem by refusing to sell certain products!

    If HBD receives greater recognition, we’ll feel less guilty about doing this sort of thing, and we might start to be more open about it. Perhaps that might lead to a push for greater legal tolerance for discrimination as practiced by private persons. That said, we’ll be stuck with the population that we have. We’ll have various forms of segregation and quasi-segregation with various degrees of homogeneity or cosmopolitanism than others. I think a much segregation will be more class-based than race-based, although each socio-economic class will have different percentages of each racial group. The upper-middle class, for example, will be composed primarily of people of European and East Asian heritage, combined with a few successful South Asian and Middle-Eastern sub-groups. They’ll probably intermarry with each other, because they’ll subscribe to the same upper-middle class culture, despite being ethnically different.

    We might also have ethnic tensions flare up in certain circumstances, and perhaps some level of tension. However, we’ll probably just live with it — no race war, no apocalypse, no ethnic cleansing (at least not beyond the neighborhood level, in the form of either gentrification or its opposite). Most Latin American countries have been multi-ethnic for centuries, although they do have an informal ethnic hierarchy. We’ll be similar, except somewhat better off, namely because we’ll have more whites and more Asians, and will benefit from a founder effect of universities and cities that will still attract smart people. Our most prosperous metropolitan areas will still contain a lot of smart people and will thus attract more smart people, thereby causing the culture of R&D and entrepreneurialism. However, large swaths of the country will be considered uninhabitable. Perhaps the political and economic elites will be far less willing to throw money at the underclass in the future, instead adopting a more unapologetic policy of avoidance and neglect than our current one — unless, of course, they see that there’s money to be made in any given patch of ghetto (perhaps because the original architecture is nice), in which case they’ll buy it up and evict the tenants.

    One last thing: I have recently done a little bit of reading on the Chinese concept of “guangxi”, which is essentially a method of building a lifelong network of trust in a low trust society. I suspect that people in the U.S. might adapt to a lower trust future society by adopting a similar means of establishing a network, perhaps with the aid of internet technology. (Obviously, Facebook is insufficient for that sort of thing.) The development of activity-based subcultures and clubs is another possible method — social advancement through participation in disk golf or road cycling.

    Reply

  54. Get realistic you stupid WN’s. Whites, Jews, and Asians are smart. They can destroy brown people any day if shit got tough. Near mode survival will overcome Far mode diversity bs. The brown people are too stupid to use weapons.

    Reply

  55. Andrew Selvarasa: “My comment to Daybreaker was actually a semi-serious solution to his dilemma — if you care about your race and your genetic legacy, then shouldn’t you have as much progeny as you can?”

    As I pointed out, you’re just cribbing lines from Anti-Racist Hitler. And the answer, for those too lazy to click, is: that’s irrelevant. Mass immigration still mean we’ll be outnumbered in our own countries. Comparatively small numbers of white women cannot be fertile enough to match the baby-making of vastly more numerous non-whites, and if the non-whites can flood into white countries, that’s the end for the whites, who will run out of space for “white flight” and will be forced to “integrate” and will cease to exist as an identifiable population.

    Reply

  56. JayMan: “Except that Whites aren’t “ceasing to exist”, even in part, with the exception of certain parts of the world (such as perhaps in Africa – and then we go on to the issue of whether Whites “belonged” there in the first place – but that’s another discussion).”

    No, that’s the same discussion. You’re justifying genocide now, by suggesting that white people don’t have a right to exist anyway in the places where the genocidal process has advanced far enough that we can see the endgame. And where the process is at an earlier stage, you say white people aren’t ceasing to exist, because it hasn’t reached the endgame yet.

    But it obviously, inevitably will. And then people like you – justifiers of white genocide – will say, it’s arguable that white people don’t belong in Australia anyway. And New Zealand. And North America. And so on.

    What happens if you move millions of European dogs into all dingo habitat, and prevent any segregation of the dingoes, and favor the dogs in every way you can? What is the future of the dingoes in that case? It’s obvious there isn’t one; you are driving them into extinction. Ecologically conscious anti-whites get upset about things like that, but when it comes to whites, a population they are actually part of, they will pretend not to see the problem.

    What happens if an Indian tribe is living on its reservation, and you imports a million blacks from Africa, and settle them in the reservation and require the Indians to “integrate” and “assimilate”? What is the future of the tribe in that case? It’s obvious there isn’t one; you are genociding them. Anti-whites concerned with the rights of indigenous peoples and social justice will get upset about things like that (as they should), but when it comes to whites, a population they are actually part of, they will pretend not to see the problem. Are the Welsh, for instance, the native inhabitants of Wales? No, no, the anti-whites can’t see a problem.

    There is no difficulty in understanding the logic of white genocide. The problem is with anti-whites justifying genocide. And that might not hold up forever.

    Reply

  57. anon666: “Yeah, the “genocide” rhetoric is overblown (not to mention that the term is usually used to refer to large-scale massacres).”

    Genocide is defined not to be limited to large scale massacres, and it is routinely used to characterize things like the “stolen generation in Australia. That is, it is is used legally, and culturally, against whites, in the non-massacre sense.

    And when anti-white governments set out to do anti-white things that legally amount to genocide, they specifically exempt themselves from the law, sometimes. For example, in 2009 over 120 members of parliament signed a declaration that there was no such thing as an indigenous people in Britain. Why? Because they were proposing to do a lot of things that would violate laws calling for the preservation of indigenous peoples and preventing even non-violent genocidal policies against them. Therefore these anti-whites needed to declare that there was no such thing as a native people to protect, though the great majority of the British population has been in continuous residence there since the retreat of the glaciers.

    What the anti-whites are doing is hugely illegal and contrary to aims of laws prohibiting the early stages of genocide – and all they do is say that whites and only whites. are not to get the protection of these laws.

    Reply

  58. anon666, the rest of your speculations about the future in America ignores the two big realities: continuous non-white mass immigration (legal and illegal) and forced integration. Segregation by white flight is not sustainable. Segregation by pricing does not hold up forever for whites, particularly working class whites, which is why whites have started to move out of the South-West.

    You can describe the minutiae of ethnic arrangements in a way that makes them sound stable when they are no such thing, and you can describe water in a ship in a way that diverts attention from the continuing influx, but the Titanic goes down anyway. The South African whites convinced themselves they had ways of keeping everything stable, but it was all nonsense: blacks were flooding into the country and out-breeding the whites, and the unopposed continuation of those trends meant that white South Africa was doomed.

    Either mass immigration and forced integration are stopped, and that will require decent whites stopping them against the opposition of anti-whites trying to continue them, or the end is just a matter of time.

    Reply

  59. The really important HBD idea is not heritable differences in IQ plus different group averages. It is ethnic genetic interests. People of the same race have a real interest in the survival of that race.

    The collective survival interests of racially aware whites are being massively violated.

    And the anti-whites, to harm whites and with no sense of moral responsibility, are setting up a situation of conflict, where non-whites are indoctrinated and encouraged in anti-white grievances and where they expect to get everything. Whites cannot agree to that without being wiped away, or at least diminished in numbers, power, influence and cultural health, while being pushed along a line that leads to South Africa, Zimbabwe and Haiti, the last stop.

    One race, and one race only, is the target of “anti-racism”: the white race. The anti-whites don’t complain that countries and smaller collectives are too brown, too black or too yellow, only that they are too white.

    What’s happening is not “globalization” in the sense of the global blending of all races. Blacks get to keep their black countries. The future of their race is secure. Asians get to keep their countries Asian. The future of their race is secure. Whites are losing their countries. (Anti-whites brag about things like “the browning of America”.) The future of the white race is very much not secure.

    And it’s because of ultimately genocidal policies pushed by anti-whites, policies that are obviously, inevitably genocidal in their implications.

    We are coming up for fifty years of non-white mass immigration since the Hart-Celler act of 1965, and far from releasing the pressure on the windpipe of white America, the anti-whites are pushing for more mass immigration and amnesties to incentivize more of it.

    There is ultimately no compromise available unless the whites just succumb to genocide.

    What happens if you continually pour hot, back tar into a glass or warm milk? At first, if there is a bit of space at the top, you may say that the amount of milk in the glass is not in absolute decline, only in relative decline. Then you say that it’s only a small decline. Then you say it’s only a small (further) decline, and so on. But in the end there will only be tar in the glass, and no milk.

    This is about whether we white people will be finished off or whether we will survive.

    When white people realize that they have a dog in this fight, that everybody else is out for their race and that by not showing equal mutual loyalty whites are losing everything, that will change things. White genocide will be averted, if this does not happen too late.

    Reply

  60. IQ is not fundamental because the anti-whites also use Asian mass immigration to get the same effect.

    “Dear white people, we’ve taken your HBD-based IQ criticisms into account, and we’re still going ahead with white genocide through mass immigration and forced integration, but instead of being replaced by dumber blacks and Amerindians you’ll be replaced by smarter Asians. Happy now?”

    Reply

  61. The politically correct of both right and left lie about all groups being equally talented (except for whites who are stale, non-vibrant and evil) and then blame whites for all the instances where whites show more smarts than black or brown people, but they don’t need that trick. When Asians are manifestly doing better than whites, commercially, in education and every way, the politically correct just claim unjust white privilege and go through the rest of their routine, the same as usual regardless. And it works!

    With overwhelming advantages in ethnic international networking and solidarity, finance, political sponsorship and kinship, academia and the super-weapon, the mass media, you don’t need a plausible story. You just say that the non-white group of your choice is being oppressed, totally contrary to obvious facts, and then you go ahead and punish the non-elite whites, and there’s nothing they can do about it because all their elites are yours.

    You just say, “diversity is our greatest strength!” and nobody with a job worth keeping will talk back to you, because if they do they’ll be fired, shamed, hounded and prevented from getting another good job.

    Another thing: when you own the cameras, and the anti-whites do, you focus them on what you want, and that is also sufficient. Everyone knows how this works with photogenic, individual identifiable victims of white privilege versus anonymous trailer trash nobodies: one lynching victim outweighs many thousands of whites robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered with the anti-white mass media never setting them up as the victims of anti-white action, even though they are.

    But it’s also true in global framing. Are Asians under-privileged? They own everything in Asian countries, but that’s out of scope, because Asia for the Asians. However, white countries are for everyone, so whenever white people own something that is an issue of racial justice. (Never mind that essentially all of those wealthy Asians are looking out for Asians and none of those wealthy whites are looking out for whites – working class whites and Asians both looking out for their race do not not get equal support from wealthy elites of their own race.)

    So: whites flooding into a white country, crowding out the whites who are having smaller families and losing ground means more whites are older and have accumulated wealth, while young Asians who have surged ahead of the whites in universities and commercially do not have all the wealth that they will later have and use to favor their own = obviously an issue of racial justice, the whites own too much and the Asians ought to be favored more. On the other hand: an Asian country, Asians rule, Asians own, and the door is shut = there is no issue. Diversity is complete, it’s all Asian!

    By manipulating framing, by pumping out sneaky messages in the products of the mass media, by witch hunts and the whip of state punishment, by social shaming and simply by fiat (by which I mean buying politicians and by judges doing what they want), anti-whites can simply ignore the facts about IQ and who is doing better. They can go ahead with punishing and collectively eliminating whites regardless, and they do,

    It’s going to take a great change of heart to change this, and not just details about IQ scores.

    And even a change of heart won’t do without the doctrine so people can organize their sentiments usefully and act on them.

    I think “ethnic genetic interests” may be that necessary new doctrine. With that idea, if white people care enough, they can put numbers and disciplined thoughts next to their feelings and start to act on them.

    If white people start to act collectively for our survival, and if we do it soon enough, we live. If not “white” will become a matter of genetic markers, like an admixture of Neanderthal genes.

    Reply

  62. @Daybreaker:

    You’re contending a slippery slope, and that what I am saying represents one. All the while, it is your own logic that represents the slippery slope, and precisely the logic which I voiced concern over. And indeed, as much as I hate to go all Kevin Mitchell on you, your view does have historical precedent of being a bad slippery slope. And indeed, if ethnic genetic interest exists, then Whites, you view goes, should look out for their own. First, by stemming the tide of immigration. But why stop there? What about the non-Whites we already have in the country? If some of them are prone to criminality, then why should they not be isolated from Whites? Next thing you know, you have Jim Crow. The problem with a slippery slope is that it isn’t always a fallacy. That thinking can, and has led to even darker places…

    Even if you personally don’t have this idea in mind right now, I believe someone will.

    I anticipate that, should knowledge of HBD become widespread, we may serious rifting here in America, and the country may split along its ethnonational fault lines And by that, I don’t mean between races. The reason? This is because the different “nations” of the country will, I suspect, have different ideas on what to do with their non-White populations. And and as we see with this map, the problem is more acute in the more in-group conscious parts of the country:

    Map of US, showing percentage of population self-reporting as “White,” by census tract, 2000

    I think that should knowledge of HBD become widespread – which, make no mistake, I believe it should – it’s imperative that there are responsible forces guiding the matter. There are plenty of decent scientists that can offer reasonable descriptions of the facts (e.g., Greg Cochran & Henry Harpending, Steve Hsu, Geoffrey Miller), but they have no power. I simply don’t trust the powers that be to handle things responsibly. Doubly so for the powers that be in Woodard’s “Dixie coalition” (The U.S. Deep South and Appalachia).

    Ideally, responsible policies can be put into place: restricting immigration, scaling back affirmative action, eliminating nonsense like NCLB and its offspring “Race to the Top”. Criminal foreign nationals can be deported. It can be stressed that people need to be judged as individuals and widespread discrimination based on race can be avoided. But, responsible reactions like that aren’t necessarily what people will consider when you have people screaming about the non-existent “White genocide”.

    This is a serious problem that we need to be mindful about the truth of HBD. We need people and ideas “in place” to handle the “fallout”, so-to-speak, I think.

    Reply

  63. @Andrew Selvarasa

    “HBD will always be discussed on blogs by a small group of nerds. I doubt it will ever be accepted by the mainstream. The majority will just get more and more P.C. as time goes on.”

    Not forever. Sooner or later the damn will break. The flood of evidence piling behind it will overtop the damn at some point, see Razib Khan’s post at the beginning.

    Reply

  64. Andrew Selvarasa, I don’t think I’ll take advice form you on what I need to do to spread ideas you want defeated, and you are not entitled to replies on what I do in real life.

    Reply

  65. On the popular future of HBD, I don’t think it is predestined to remain fringe.

    I just think that the parts of if that HBDers think will be important if they ever filter out are likely to be different from the parts that actually have a big effect.

    Also, if we are getting dumber as fast as reaction time suggests, Idiocracy beckons and so HBD ideas that hit the mainstream will be considerably simplified, like everything else.

    Reply

  66. JayMan, previously you justified white genocide on the ground that in the parts of the world where it is advanced enough for the endgame to be seen, maybe whites shouldn’t exist there anyway; now you are justifying genocide because if whites acted to save themselves in doing so they might go too far. Obviously actual, ongoing genocide is not going too far in your eyes if it is happening to whites, but a fantasized genocide of non-whites, or even just Jim Crow, is going too far.

    You have not got a reasonable argument that continual mass immigration – which America has had since 1965 – plus forced integration is not white genocide; what you have is a determination to justify genocide, provided it happens to whites.

    Reply

  67. If anyone genuinely doesn’t understand, in simple terms, why this is genocide specifically in England and why the rights of indigenous peoples – which whites, and only whites are denied – are relevant, this explains why. (YouTube; it’s 20 minutes, which is long, but it’s worth it because white genocide is the one topic that trumps all others. If you’re white, global warming and all these other alleged issues won’t count for us if we’re not going to be around to see the future and have a say in it.)

    Reply

  68. Calm down, Madison Grant. Whites enjoy a healthy demographic majority in every single European country on record, and a fair majority in quite a few members of the UK commonwealth, as well. Absolutely nobody is pointing a gun to your tinfoil-encrusted head and forcing you to miscegenate with every single Shaneequa, Xi Ming Ming, or Amina Abdulrasheed down the street. No. If people of two different races happen to fall in love with each other, that is entirely their business, not yours.

    If the contamination of your tribe by allochthonous blood is such a pressing concern to you, recall that yourself do not spare the same pity for the Polynesians, Amerindians, Australians, or any number of populations today who have been thoroughly “mongrelized” by your ancestors. No. What’s done is done. The floodgates are open, and your people have exceeded the point of no return.

    If there happen to be obscene numbers of non-white immigrants in your particular corner of the globe, well, has it ever occurred to you that white people routinely, and knowingly vote for the same politicians who are responsible for the mass transfer of hostile, non-indigenous people into the Western world? White “genocide” my ass. The fact that you have the chutzpah to compare an act of government, however ill-conceived, by a representative body that has been elected by a democratic populace, to the genocide of the Armenians or the massacre of Serbs by the Ustashe betrays a worrying lack of critical thinking skills on your end. Legal immigration is not genocide, and neither is government amnesty for migrants who have illegally entered your country — although both are likely to result in negative, and perhaps irremediable consequences.

    At this juncture, your absolute priority should be convincing your fellow whites of the reality of racial differences, not spending pages spliting hairs with people whose views are already consonant with your own. I doubt you’ll ever succeed, but good luck with that! You’ll sure need it, and lots of it — because if anything, the white race is not being genocided, but is rather committing suicide with wild abandon. No. You are hardly being decimated by a vicious and unrelenting enemy, for the true enemy lies within.

    Reply

  69. By the way, I am not white, but I do feel concern for any people who happily despoil the legacy of their ancestors, with nary a concern for their posterity, or for the future of their descendants.

    Yet in the end, there might be absolutely no need for mass deportations, Jim Crow, draconian speech codes, or anti-miscegenation laws. No. If you’re going to meddle with such intimate human affairs to begin with, you might as well start from the blastocyst stage. By then you’ll have other social problems to worry about! And plenty of ’em.

    The future sure is going to look hilarious.

    Reply

  70. misdreavus: “If the contamination of your tribe by allochthonous blood is such a pressing concern to you, recall that yourself do not spare the same pity for the Polynesians, Amerindians, Australians, or any number of populations today who have been thoroughly “mongrelized” by your ancestors. No. What’s done is done. The floodgates are open, and your people have exceeded the point of no return.”

    You are justifying genocide.

    Reply

  71. @misdreavus – ““If the contamination of your tribe by allochthonous blood is such a pressing concern to you, recall that yourself do not spare the same pity for the Polynesians, Amerindians, Australians, or any number of populations today who have been thoroughly ‘mongrelized by your ancestors.”

    please, do not assume to know what another commenter thinks. i have no idea what daybreaker’s opinions on that matter are, since he has not said what they are here … and neither do you. frankly, it’s sloppy thinking on your part.

    Reply

  72. Off topic I suppose but I was just thinking how out-front aristocrats have traditionally been about hbd even before (especially before) Darwin. They go on-and-on about breeding and the importance blood in the make-up of the nobility while viewing the common, vulgar rabble as little more than a species of domestic animal that knows how to take directions by speech.

    Reply

  73. hbd chick, thanks.

    I thought Andrew Selvarasa and myself both made it clear enough where we stand on that.

    Me: “What happens if an Indian tribe is living on its reservation, and you imports a million blacks from Africa, and settle them in the reservation and require the Indians to “integrate” and “assimilate”? What is the future of the tribe in that case? It’s obvious there isn’t one; you are genociding them. Anti-whites concerned with the rights of indigenous peoples and social justice will get upset about things like that (as they should)…”

    Andrew Selvarasa: “I couldn’t care less about the genetic legacy of brown people.”

    Why was misdreavus condemning me but not Andrew Selvarasa for a view that Andrew Selvarasa expressed and that I did not support? Andrew Selvarasa is entirely comfortable with non-violent white genocide and he mocks any objection to it, and so does misdreavus.

    Reply

  74. @Daybreaker – “Blacks get to keep their black countries. The future of their race is secure. Asians get to keep their countries Asian. The future of their race is secure. Whites are losing their countries.”

    Well, if by the same token you were to consider Europe “the home of Europeans” [or ‘white people’], the statistics, even after 50+ years of relatively high non-European immigration into (western) Europe, don’t really point to ‘a genocide’ taking place against white people in their ‘homeland’:-

    “Populations of non-European origin in Europe (approx. 22 – 29+ million, or approx. 3% to 4%+ [depending on definition of non-European origin], out of a total population of approx. 728 million)..”

    [From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe#Ethnic_minorities_of_non-European_origin ].

    So 96% of Europe’s current population is of European origin, or white. Moreover, the statistics which I have seen indicate that the existing populations of non-European origin living in Europe already, especially 2nd and beyond, tend to have total fertility rates quite similar to the native populations. [See: “Fertility of Turkish and Moroccan women in the Netherlands: Adjustment to native level within one generation” – (Garssen & Nicolaas, 2008). http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/33/19-33.pdf ]. This would suggest that the existing non-European communities won’t grow very substantially provided further immigration is limited. And in addition to this, in many western European countries, anti-immigration parties have greatly increased their share of the vote or their policies are being adopted by the more mainstream parties, even some on the left. And of course eastern European countries generally attract very little immigration from outside Europe anyway due to weaker job markets and language barriers. And Australia’s population is 92% of European origin currently, with immigration from Asia being fairly tightly controlled with a strict points-based system, and many of the Asian immigrants who do arrive have low birth rates. I respect Daybreaker’s right to his own beliefs and opinions however, and his right to voice them. But I think that talk of a ‘white genocide’ is a bit wide of the mark to say the least. Controlling or limiting immigration into western countries from non-western countries may in the longer term be in both parties’ best interests, but if it has to be done I’d rather we recruit small numbers of well-educated immigrants with certain skills which are in short supply in the recruiting country. Whether the surgeon, doctor or scientist happens to be black, white or Asian is of limited importance to me. But large numbers of uneducated migrants arriving from lesser developed countries to perform low-paid, unskilled manual work should be avoided in my view.

    Reply

  75. chrisdavies09, your argument is strange to me. You pick Europe only as your case, and you say that after high non-European immigration into Western Europe, the non-white population of all Europe is still small – seemingly indicating that mass immigration doesn’t do what mass immigration actually does, that is fill up the target territories with non-natives. It’s hard to see how this can be persuasive, except to people who are inclined to see the ultimate consequences of continuous mass immigration and forced assimilation as acceptable, and who therefore find the early steps along the way un-threatening.

    We know where this process goes, and that it doesn’t stop unless it is stopped by a stronger popular mobilization than white Americans have mustered. On the contrary, the more immigrants there are, the more they organize and their leaders support more mass immigration, and the more reluctant are the white politicians – who show no loyalty to their own populations in the first place – to suggest turning off the tap, let along subsidizing the return home of bustling alien populations. We see that in the younger age cohorts, white Americans are already outnumbered – and that the anti-white mass immigration supporters are not reversing course, they are pushing for more incentives for mass immigration and additional amnesties, arguing: it’s too late to stop it now.

    When would be the right time to stop it then? Now, if ever. But you can’t.

    Mass immigration supporters such as Tony Blair have displayed an awesome ability to force and sneak though huge draughts of immigrants despite public non-support and disapproval. Their persistence is also impressive; any reassurance that things wouldn’t be too bad if the tap was turned off now and permanently is not applicable.

    Merely putting some people in parliaments stops nothing; it seems you have to overturn not just a party or two but the party array, and that is a tremendously hard task for ordinary people, in the face of a hostile media and bipartisan anti-white establishments entrenched in institutions and with great wealth.

    Prospects are grimmer because centers of power, big cities, are being overwhelmed. When you are merely the residual people of the heath and the countryside (the “heathen” and “pagan” holdouts), and the people of the cities have established a hostile culture against you, your prospects are grim, judging by history. Countryside people have very little access to the levers of power. And it’s reasonable to ask: if white Europeans could not defend their vital interests when they were the sole occupants of their own great cities, can we assume that, for instance the English will do better now that London is “Londonistan”?

    I linked this before, but I’ll link it again. I think that’s quite a good statement on where this is going for England, why it’s genocide, why it’s a massive violation of the rights of white indigenous peoples, and why it’s necessary to stop it no matter what the odds.

    By the way, I take it that you do accept the Wright Island Model? That is, continuous mass immigration eliminates the native genes. And that this goes ahead unless the tap is turned off. And that we can see from half a century of experience that the anti-whites have no intention of turning the tap off.

    If we agree on that, the real question is not whether this is a genocide in progress. It is. The question is whether the anti-whites can be beaten in time or not, and whether the genocide can be stopped in time or not.

    Reply

  76. @Daybreaker – “You pick Europe only as your case..”

    Well, you said: “Blacks get to keep their black countries. The future of their race is secure. Asians get to keep their countries Asian. The future of their race is secure. Whites are losing their countries.”

    It depends what you consider as ‘their countries’ I suppose. I cited Europe as my example firstly, because in my opinion if we are going to define ‘white people’s countries’ then the countries found within the continent of Europe spring to mind first and foremost since the bulk of the world’s white people still live there, and those that don’t live there still originate from there. So if there is a ‘white genocide’ taking place and white people are not getting to keep ‘their countries’, then surely the first place to look for evidence should be in Europe, since that is where most of the world’s white people live, and where most of the world’s alleged ‘white countries’ would be located. But 96% of Europe’s population is still of European origin or white.

    Reply

  77. @bob charles – “Get realistic you stupid WN’s.”

    no calling people stupid (or any other derogatory terms) around here. don’t do it again.

    Reply

  78. @jayman – “Come on now. Claims of ‘White genocide’ often uttered by White Nationalists are total hyperbole. Whites aren’t going anywhere any time soon.”

    @anon666 – “Yeah, the ‘genocide’ rhetoric is overblown (not to mention that the term is usually used to refer to large-scale massacres).”

    @misdreavus – “Whites enjoy a healthy demographic majority in every single European country on record, and a fair majority in quite a few members of the UK commonwealth, as well.”

    @chris davies – “Well, if by the same token you were to consider Europe ‘the home of Europeans’ [or ‘white people’], the statistics, even after 50+ years of relatively high non-European immigration into (western) Europe, don’t really point to ‘a genocide’ taking place against white people in their ‘homeland.’”

    you guys are taking a very short-term view of all this, which i always think is strange in people who know something of evolution and history. you need to take the long view.

    clearly population replacement happens. there aren’t very many paleolithic genes in europe anymore, because the paleolithic populations of europe were replaced by neolithic populations (migrating in from the middle east, btw). nor are there any neanderthals anymore (except for that one russian boxer guy (~_^) ).

    and i’m sure that modern humans didn’t come into europe and exterminate the neanderthals all at once, en masse, or that the neolithic migrants got rid of the paleolithic hunter-gatherers overnight. no. these things were gradual processes. probably so gradual that the neanderthals and paleolithic guys didn’t even notice (except for the handful of contrarians who kept pointing it out to the others, but kept being ignored).

    maybe the ongoing replacement of whites in their countries (yes, it’s the percentages that matter, too, especially in democracies!) can’t strictly speaking be called genocide, but it could wind up — in the very long term — being a sort-of involuntary genocide in that most of the participants (i.e. immigrants who just wanted a better life for themselves and their families) didn’t really mean it, but — oops! — whites just disappeared (or largely so). (that’s not to say that i don’t think that some individuals out there — from a whole range of ethnicities and races — don’t have it out for white folks. they do. and too many of them, unfortunately, are in positions of power and/or influence.)

    peoples — including white people — ought to think about their long-term future. it always amazes me that they don’t.

    Reply

  79. @anon666 – “The white *percentage* is way down, but the raw numbers are way up.”

    the percentage is actually pretty crucial in democratic societies. if, as lee kuan yew suggested and as, i think, modern electoral results actually show, different ethnic groups vote in their own interests, then going forward the smaller the white percentage is in any given country, the less control they’re (we’re!) going to have over their (our) lives … and their (our) future.

    Reply

  80. @misdreavus – “If there happen to be obscene numbers of non-white immigrants in your particular corner of the globe, well, has it ever occurred to you that white people routinely, and knowingly vote for the same politicians who are responsible for the mass transfer of hostile, non-indigenous people into the Western world?”

    the “why” of this is partly what i’ve been addressing on this blog, albeit kinda indirectly (or not so obviously maybe). i think that white people — in particular northwest europeans — evolved to have a very universalistic type of altruism and view of other people in the world — and this is their achilles’ heel (not mine!).

    and several forces have worked together over the last — i dunno — half a century anyway (at least!) to exploit that weakness including (but not limited to) some of their (our) fellow whites who only think short-term and want to make a fortune for themselves (think: bill gates) to non-whites (the leaders of la raza and the naacp and whomever). and, yes, a very vocal percentage of Those Who Must Not Be Named.

    it’s a problem i think, and i’m not sure how to deal with it.

    Reply

  81. chrisdavies09, fair enough, I did say that. So in your opinion, countries outside Europe are not to count? Those white nations can be wiped away and it’s not genocide?

    Would that also apply to Haiti? Could you wipe way its black population the way it wiped away its white population, and provided you did not wipe away all the other blacks in the world at the same time, would that not be genocide, in your opinion? (In law, that would definitely be genocide.)

    chrisdavies09: “the countries found within the continent of Europe spring to mind first and foremost since the bulk of the world’s white people still live there, and those that don’t live there still originate from there.”

    I agree, but I’m a little confused. All white people originate from Europe. Is that what you mean?

    chrisdavies09: “So if there is a ‘white genocide’ taking place and white people are not getting to keep ‘their countries’, then surely the first place to look for evidence should be in Europe, since that is where most of the world’s white people live, and where most of the world’s alleged ‘white countries’ would be located.”

    Not really. I would expect the white heartland to be the last place to enter the endgame of genocide by mass immigration and forced integration, because it’s such a big population sink that you can pour huge quantities of non-whites into there for a long time – which you agree is already happening and which you did not dispute is not stopping – and it will still take time before they get to the point there that the Americans have gotten to, where the younger generation is mostly non-white and a major argument for the anti-whites is: [i]It’s too late; it’s a fait accompli; if this isn’t what you wanted you should have acted long before; you have to give in and accept it now; kiss white America goodbye[/i].

    However, Europe is relevant to my second claim, not that there is white genocide going on, which doesn’t seem to be seriously contested, but also that this is a global genocide. (Unlike, say, the Holocaust, which only ever affected the minority of Jews living in Europe.) If the ultimate aim of various drives for non-white mass immigration and forced integration was merely to reduce whites to their minor status before the age of Exploration, that would still be still be genocidal as far as specific white ethnicities was concerned, but it would not be globally genocidal as long as nobody was pushing this in Europe. Clearly in that case the maximum would still be a world with lots of whites. That is not the case. There is nowhere that the anti-whites think a place is white and [i]shouldn’t[/i] be more “diverse”, the only question is whether Eastern European states are “ready” yet. Well, that’s global. All, all, all must go: every man and every maid, every girl and every boy, the whole white world is to go. And about a twentieth of the heartland is already non-white.

    You are not not-chopping-down-a-tree because it is a big tree and hard as you chop it is taking you time to bring it down.

    chrisdavies09, “But 96% of Europe’s population is still of European origin or white.”

    Sorry, you’re losing me again. What do you mean “of European origin or white”? The white race is of European origin. The European race is white. Where is the distinction?

    Reply

  82. @daybreaker – “The really important HBD idea is not heritable differences in IQ plus different group averages. It is ethnic genetic interests. People of the same race have a real interest in the survival of that race.”

    they do, of course — i’d say even more so that people have an important genetic interest in their particular ethnicity — but the problem is that altruistic feelings and sentiments don’t seem to automatically stretch out that far — especially not for northwest europeans (i think) who have this notion of universalism**.

    race identity seems to come more easily when a people is confronted with a difficult situation, e.g. it must’ve been awfully easy for african-americans to identify with one another as members of “the black race” (or whatever you want to call it) in the face of slavery, jim crow, etc., etc. meanwhile, back in africa, it’s blacks vs. blacks.

    i think that race identity is really a sort-of alliance between lots of smaller sub-groups (i.e. ethnicities) when times are tough. it’s not a “natural” sentiment, i don’t think.
    _____

    (**speaking of universalistic sentiments, btw — i think they may have popped up elsewhere on the planet, too — like in buddhism in northern india. need to look more into that!)

    Reply

  83. Re: the scrambling of the genes of small peoples, and their vanishing from the world, as for example the Parsis are vanishing: for the record, I am against it.

    I wound up being more alienated from Aborigines because of that. I had an unpleasant conversation with an old black guy who totally blamed me for the decline of his race, I suppose because I was available, white and sympathetic, and saying “no, this is horrible, I’m totally against it”, but from his viewpoint my white flesh made me guilty. Anything out of my mouth was irrelevant, and the idea that I might be an individual with my own ideas rather than just part-of-the-enemy-collective was not “wrong” but just incomprehensible.

    On the one hand I totally get that he in no way identified with part-white, non-initiated “black” guys as anything to do with him, and his world was shrinking (I have no idea what he was even doing in town – must have been on some business) and I’m as white as it gets, and whiteness was the adulterating element, so … yeah.

    On the other hand, that brought home to me how hopeless the situation of whites is going to be after we have lost power. (Like whites in Zimbabwe.) Anything out of your mouth is irrelevant, your white genes condemn you, you are hateful and if opportunity permits it safely, action will follow, end of story.

    Future generations of whites, without power and at the mercy of non-whites who have intense biases, historical grievances and no white-man universalistic tendencies, are hosed beyond the comprehension of politically correct people whose emotional default assumption is that you can talk your way out of anything. That is not going to happen.

    We can struggle for enough power and self-will to guarantee our future without anyone else’s permission, or we can be expunged. Sooner or later, that’s guaranteed. Too much bias. Anyone who tells you different is a liar, a sucker, an idiot or all of the above.

    I can’t prove that. No-one will have proof till it’s too later for all of us. But I was and am sufficiently convinced. We do not want to be helpless minorities with the people who want a world without whites (that is to say, who want ever more “diversity” and “multiculturalism” in all and only formerly white countries) still in charge. That won’t work out well for us.

    Reply

  84. HBD Chick: “clearly population replacement happens. there aren’t very many paleolithic genes in europe anymore, because the paleolithic populations of europe were replaced by neolithic populations (migrating in from the middle east, btw).”

    This is off-topic, but I disagree that the palaeolithic populations of Europe were replaced by neolithic populations migrating in from the Middle East. The palaeolithic Europeans hunkered down in Ice Age refugia in Franco-Cantabria, Italian Peninsula, East European plain, and probably the Balkans, then expanded out at the end of the Last Glacial Period. Looking at HLA I also see evidence of immigration from North Africa into the southern European refugia at around this time. But many of the HLA haplotypes in today’s Europeans still appear to pre-date the Neolithic immigrants. However,there definitely appears to have been significant geneflow into Europe from the Middle East during the Neolithic, and also further geneflow from North Africa (probably alongside the introduction of pastoralism into SW Europe).

    Reply

  85. hbd chick: “they do, of course — i’d say even more so that people have an important genetic interest in their particular ethnicity — but the problem is that altruistic feelings and sentiments don’t seem to automatically stretch out that far — especially not for northwest europeans (i think) who have this notion of universalism**.”

    What I’m hoping is that the instinct of mutual support is there underneath, but that it has never been effective because white people mostly go on explicit processing, and there has never been a doctrine to validate that weak but pervasive “brother’s keeper” feeling.

    If that’s right, then “ethnic genetic interests” could be a race-saver.

    Reply

  86. @chris – “This is off-topic, but I disagree that the palaeolithic populations of Europe were replaced by neolithic populations migrating in from the Middle East.”

    yeah, i should’ve said that that’s according to the current thinking, which could of course be wrong. (^_^)

    Reply

  87. @daybreaker – “What I’m hoping is that the instinct of mutual support is there underneath….”

    it could be — there’s probably something — but, if i’m right at all (and i could be wrong!), then there’s a strong “universalistic” streak in northwest europeans (the english, the northern french, some of the dutch, the germans, maybe some of the scandinavians, some of the swiss, and some of the northern italians — not the ones in the alps) which resulted in cool things like liberal democracy and the enlightenment [sic] and a belief in “natural rights” for all…

    …which is a strength if you’re left alone in your own country … but is a BIG weakness (i think) when you meet with peoples who are not so universalistic — or not universalistic at all.

    i have a bad feeling that things are going to have to get really, really bad before nw europeans wake up … and i worry that that might be too late.

    Reply

  88. HBD Chick – “i think that race identity is really a sort-of alliance between lots of smaller sub-groups (i.e. ethnicities) when times are tough. it’s not a “natural” sentiment, i don’t think.”

    I agree with this comment.

    Also, I think that New World populations are more inclined to think in terms of ‘race’ sooner than Old World populations, purely because they are usually mixes of several different nationalities. However, a Nigerian Yoruba probably usually identifies himself firstly by his extended family or ancestral village that he is from, then by his clan, then as a Yoruba, then as a Christian or Muslim, then as a Nigerian, then as an African, and lastly as a ‘black person’. An Italian person from Florence probably usually identifies themselves firstly as a Fiorentini, then a Tuscan, then an Italian, then a European, and lastly as ‘a white person’. Whereas it seems to me that white or black Americans are more inclined to think of themselves primarily in terms of their race.

    Reply

  89. hbd chick: “race identity seems to come more easily when a people is confronted with a difficult situation, e.g. it must’ve been awfully easy for african-americans to identify with one another as members of “the black race” (or whatever you want to call it) in the face of slavery, jim crow, etc., etc. meanwhile, back in africa, it’s blacks vs. blacks.”

    Blacks versus blacks, but all against the white man, in practice. They are not calling in mass non-black immigration to get advantages over each other. I also don’t see Japanese or Taiwanese competing with each other to import more white guys and displace the natives.

    There is a low but adequate level of tacit loyalty there that I envy, because the anti-white establishment we have is not showing it at all.

    Maybe it’s that we’re good at doing civilization, and it’s easy for us to create steep social pyramids where those at the top don’t feel the pain of their ethnic kin as they’re displaced and destroyed? But the Asians do civilization very well too, and Korean elites are not doing to Koreans what the America anti-white establishment is doing to whites in that country.

    hbd chick: “i think that race identity is really a sort-of alliance between lots of smaller sub-groups (i.e. ethnicities) when times are tough. it’s not a “natural” sentiment, i don’t think.”

    I’m not sure. The people who built White Australia were very emphatic about it – and very firm in holding the politicians to it.

    It’s just that the masses only have power over the establishment and the wealthy when the masses are intense – and they can’t stay that way, and then wealth and privilege have their say, and nowadays the universities and mass media too.

    You can see this with the drives for amnesty in America. People have to get very riled up in huge numbers to have any effect – but the establishment is like an ever-ticking clock, always introducing things that suit it, and the people, without real representation, can’t do that, and get tired of shouting “No!” time after time.

    Plus, the establishment has gotten good at setting up cartels, where there is nobody to vote for because both parties agree on something, and they won’t try to grab an advantage on each other by pandering to the large majority demand for an end to “multiculturalism” or mass immigration. In Australia, the politicians openly said that – and the mass media applauded them for it.

    It is really tough for common people to do anything in the face of an all court press of the institutions. So popular sentiment goes for nothing. But I think it’s there. (Of course it gets less every year, as the governments import more and more people who feel the opposite.)

    Reply

  90. @chris – “However, a Nigerian Yoruba probably usually identifies himself firstly by his extended family or ancestral village that he is from, then by his clan, then as a Yoruba, then as a Christian or Muslim, then as a Nigerian, then as an African, and lastly as a ‘black person’.”

    that sounds like it ought to be true to me! i should check in the world values survey because…

    @chris – “An Italian person from Florence probably usually identifies themselves firstly as a Fiorentini, then a Tuscan, then an Italian, then a European, and lastly as ‘a white person’.”

    …i actually posted some results about that before — basically, younger italians feel less “local” than older italians. but still they identified more locally than americans do! (another post here.)

    Reply

  91. “You are justifying genocide.”

    Nope. I am mearly pointing out that you are hardly the victim of a genocide. No, rather, you are committing demographic suicide, so let’s get those facts out of the way first.

    In order to reverse the demographic replacement of whites in their own countries (I will grant you North America and Australia by right of conquest), you must first identify who your own enemies are. And frankly, they’re not the family of Guatemalans next door. In the aggregate, you have historically been superior to these people in technology, brainpower, and sheer numbers — so if they cause you any grief in this day and age, your complacency is entirely to blame. The Assyrians of the Fertile Crescent were hunted down and exterminated by a powerful imperial enemy — you are not. Now THAT is what you call a genocide.

    @HBD-Chick

    We will soon have the technology to tinker with the human genome at our fingertips. White genocide or not, that is why I am more sanguine about long-term possibilities than you are.

    Of course, by then, you’ll have far more interesting problems to worry about ^_^

    Reply

  92. Also, daybreak, you’re wrong about Koreans.

    Roughly 20% of the latest cohort of children in South Korea is of mixed ethnicity. Wow.

    Reply

  93. hbd chick: “i have a bad feeling that things are going to have to get really, really bad before nw europeans wake up … and i worry that that might be too late.”

    Me too. And I’m afraid I agree with that whole comment. We are insanely universalistic and out-bred, and this is not looking good.

    But the instinct that tells us to worry unhappily about the odds is built on a history of it often being a good path to the future to accept the conquerors’ terms. That doesn’t apply to us. Think of it as an optical illusion. ;) Your genes are telling you to worry, but ignore them.

    Reply

  94. misdreavus: “Roughly 20% of the latest cohort of children in South Korea is of mixed ethnicity. Wow.”

    I’m surprised. Mixed with non-Asians?

    Reply

  95. In Australia, whiteness was fundamental in building the nation, and which states would be in or out was rather an afterthought – even while they were writing the Constitution it was up in the air whether New Zealand might be in and Western Australia out or vice versa. In other words, loyalty and identity were not flowing up smooth local-to-general steps. It was race first.

    Reply

  96. @daybreaker – “There is a low but adequate level of tacit loyalty there that I envy, because the anti-white establishment we have is not showing it at all.”

    well, all of those different groups that you mentioned (i think) have quite different histories of mating patterns compared to the nw europeans that i named — the chinese, the japanese, (not sure about the koreans), the west africans (i believe) — all had long histories of close breeding which, if i am correct, leads to the selection for more particularistic altruistic behavioral patterns than universalistic altruism which characterizes nw europeans — or can lead to anyway. (see my “mating patterns in europe series” below in left-hand column for more about the various histories of european mating patterns.)

    @daybreaker – “It is really tough for common people to do anything in the face of an all court press of the institutions. So popular sentiment goes for nothing. But I think it’s there.”

    i hope so. going by some of the people i know — too many of the people i know — i fear there’s not so much. everybody really seems to have bought nearly EVERYthing that The Cathedral has told them (except for some of those waaaaycists that i grew up with…) — and it all makes sense to them (even though most of it is untrue) because that’s how they feel about the world and other people(s). the genius of all the propaganda out there is that it plays on the sentiments that the population already had — tptb didn’t have to start from scratch.

    Reply

  97. misdreavus: “Nope. I am nearly pointing out that you are hardly the victim of a genocide. No, rather, you are committing demographic suicide, so let’s get those facts out of the way first.”

    That’s not “facts”. That’s an interpretation. And one that rests heavily on all of us politely not discussing certain ethnicities. White “suicide” rests on that, rather like “white privilege” rests on non-discussions of black IQ. I’m happy to leave both topics alone, mostly. Less so for that to be used to damn whites and make it OK for whites to suffer policies that are steadily obliterating us.

    Also, general mockery of white plight and concern about white plight, pushing the “white suicide” meme, discussions of which continents whites really have no right to be on anyway and mainly remarks on the theme of “you’ve got it coming you rascals you” do contribute to justifying genocide, and there’s been a fair amount of that in this thread, including some from you. A lot of what you said might as well have been cribbed from AntiRacist Hitler.

    Reply

  98. misdreavus: “… your complacency is entirely to blame. The Assyrians of the Fertile Crescent were hunted down and exterminated by a powerful imperial enemy — you are not. Now THAT is what you call a genocide.”

    That is certainly not what the law calls a genocide. The term has a far more general application.

    And logic should suggest that the term doesn’t suddenly take on a narrow meaning when it’s time to put all the blame on the whites and say then that there is no call for lamenting as they are shoved into the ash-heap of history.

    Reply

  99. @misdreavus
    Im betting that is not due to the goverment, or the elites, importing foreigners rather than Korean men getting mail-order brides from SEA and China.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#Ethnic_groups
    ” The number of marriages between Koreans and foreigners has risen steadily in the past few years. In 2005, 14% of all marriages in South Korea were marriages to foreigners (about 26,000 marriages); most were Korean men marrying other Asians. However most of the foreign brides were Chinese citizens of Korean descent. Korean men in age brackets up to their 40s outnumber slightly younger Korean women by usually about 10-15%, both due to a high sex ratio and the drop in the birth rate since the 1960s, leading to a demand for foreign wives. Many Korean agencies encourage ‘international’ marriages to ethnic Koreans living in China, Han Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Thai women, adding a new degree of complexity to the issue of ethnicity.[12] However that percentage has fallen steadily since 2005, with “international marriages” making up 10% of marriages in South Korea. However these marriages are usually short-term as the divorce rate has skyrocketed between Koreans and Southeast Asian women. Divorces between such pairings make up more than 40% of South Korea’s total divorce rate.”

    Reply

  100. hbd chick, unfortunately you’re fully correct and the propaganda does build on feelings that are already there.

    People that are really easy to stampede into taking the side of animals against human beings (because sympathy must be universal not species-ist) are suckers for this.

    Reply

  101. @HBD Chick:

    “you guys are taking a very short-term view of all this, which i always think is strange in people who know something of evolution and history. you need to take the long view.

    clearly population replacement happens. there aren’t very many paleolithic genes in europe anymore, because the paleolithic populations of europe were replaced by neolithic populations (migrating in from the middle east, btw)….

    maybe the ongoing replacement of whites in their countries (yes, it’s the percentages that matter, too, especially in democracies!) can’t strictly speaking be called genocide, but it could wind up — in the very long term — being a sort-of involuntary genocide in that most of the participants (i.e. immigrants who just wanted a better life for themselves and their families) didn’t really mean it, but — oops! — whites just disappeared (or largely so).”

    Population replacement certainly happens. And yes, percentages matter as much as the absolute number of people in the country. And for the record, I am all for seriously curtailing immigration from all parts of the world.

    Left unchecked, population replacement may eventually be where current trends lead. However, I don’t think we can assume things will necessarily continue unchanged, because we don’t know if they will. Though I will admit that current signs aren’t pointing in right direction.

    But, remember the idea behind my initial comment. I’m considering the reaction to awareness of these issues. Going on about a “White genocide” that only exists in a possible future based on extrapolating from current trends may not be the best way to go about it. It may lead to overcorrection of the problem, so to speak. There are certain White elements that are rearin’ to go in that direction.

    Am I saying that nothing should be done? No. But there are some serious questions that are coming to bear here. One, will HBD be accepted in the West? If so, when? What will be the thing that brings it out? How will people react? Is it possible that a multi-racial society, particularly in the West, cannot be realistic about race without being racist? Will Westerners realize the problems posed by their immigration policies in time? Is acceptance of HBD necessary for this? What is the best course of action to get Western countries to do something about their demographic problems in time (right as of this moment, we have plenty of time, but will we address immigration and reproductive issues in the time we have)?

    Additionally, as misdreavus noted, there are other things that may be on the horizon that might change the equation entirely.

    I think the spirit of my initial comment was to imagine what a race-realistic Western society would look like. Unfortunately, we have some real examples, many not all too good (e.g., pre-Civil Rights U.S., Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany). Some of the attitudes here and elsewhere on this topic don’t give me too much encouragement. Is the a way that works for the best for the most people?

    Reply

  102. For comparability with white countries becoming non-white, I want the portion of Korea becoming non-Asian.

    Reply

  103. It seems that all of us here agree far more than we disagree. Only our priors are different.

    Reply

  104. Comment in reply to both…

    hbd chick: “that’s the part i never get — it’s all so short-sighted! =/ i guess i just have to learn to accept that most humans are short-sighted.

    Luke Lea: “Off topic I suppose but I was just thinking how out-front aristocrats have traditionally been about hbd even before (especially before) Darwin.”

    Egyptian Warfare and Weapons by Ian Shaw, pages 10 and 11:

    The official view of the Nubians is exemplified by a Middle Kingdom boundary stele of Sesostris III from Semna (Berlin, Agyptisches Museum) which denounces them as follows:

    “They are not people one respects; they are wretches, craven-hearted. My majesty has seen it, it is not an untruth. I have captured their women, I have carried off their dependents …”

    Take a look at some of the pictures of early pharaohs; at least the ruling class of Egypt looked very different from a Michael Jackson video clip of African Ancient Egypt. They were a different people from the Nubians and more capable. They had opportunities over the millennia to carry off innumerable nubile women from “craven-hearted wretches whom one does not respect”.

    But hey, tits and ass! (Sorry, but that’s what it boils down to.)

    Using your super-advanced knowledge of HDB principles, forecast where this is going.

    If you can spot the “hidden” problem here, you are wiser than the ancients, and also wiser than the entire commercial and political white ruling class of the 21st Century.

    Reply

  105. @jayman – “I think the spirit of my initial comment was to imagine what a race-realistic Western society would look like. Unfortunately, we have some real examples, many not all too good (e.g., pre-Civil Rights U.S., Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany).”

    yes. well, like i said in my post, humans s*ck. i know you’re just talking about western societies, but there are all sorts of “race-realistic” — or race-centric or ethnocentric — societies out there that are cr*p, too, in the way that different groups treat each other. ALL humans are “racists” (some more than others) and EVERYbody treats “the other” like cr*p if they get the chance, not just white folks.

    and multicultural societies seem to be some of the worst — think almost any african country, almost all of the -stans, the arab countries…. THIS is what i don’t want the u.s. to become … or to become MORE of anyway. we’ve already GOT diversity. we don’t need more of it, by the tens of millions, because, sadly, it’s NOT going to work. i DON’T want the u.s. to become like latin america like anon666 says above that it might.

    Reply

  106. @ Jayman – Am I saying that nothing should be done? No. But there are some serious questions that are coming to bear here. One, will HBD be accepted in the West? If so, when? What will be the thing that brings it out? How will people react? Is it possible that a multi-racial society, particularly in the West, cannot be realistic about race without being racist? Will Westerners realize the problems posed by their immigration policies in time? Is acceptance of HBD necessary for this? What is the best course of action to get Western countries to do something about their demographic problems in time (right as of this moment, we have plenty of time, but will we address immigration and reproductive issues in the time we have).

    Off the top of my head I’m thinking these truths can be tacitly accepted — as they are in the field of professional athletics for instance — and public policies adjusted appropriately without making such a big to-do of it all.

    Just to give an idea — a good liberal one — if a truly good life* were available to the bottom three-quarters of the income distribution (exclusive of the very bottom five percent or so, perhaps, who are very likely dysfunctional to the point of being unemployable) then I think a lot of the racial tensions in our society would evaporate. For instance parents would not be made so uneasy if their children married into a lower performing economic group, and the scramble to get their offspring into the top twenty or top five percent (by overspending on college, etc.) would not be nearly so frantic. Right now of course it is not like that at all.

    *As to what it might look like: http://facingzionwards.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  107. JayMan: “population replacement may eventually be where current trends lead.”

    And where they have led already, as far as some cities are concerned, with no sign of letting up.

    JayMan: “However, I don’t think we can assume things will necessarily continue unchanged, because we don’t know if they will. Though I will admit that current signs aren’t pointing in right direction.”

    I agree that the signs aren’t looking good. Of course the anti-white establishment thinks the signs are looking wonderful, with Bill Clinton’s attitude toward whites going into a minority as one example.

    JayMan: “But, remember the idea behind my initial comment. I’m considering the reaction to awareness of these issues.”

    Your concerns in that direction have been single minded: in terms of what white people will find out and think, and how eeevil the will then act, with references to the more demonized parts of white history.

    No thought that non-whites might be doing-to rather than being done to. No concern with what they might think. No concern about any scenario where whites might figure as targets and not immune monsters.

    And based on that, a desire to stifle any white mobilization for survival, because who knows it won’t go too far.

    Suspicion and hostility seem to point single-mindedly in one direction. That’s a problem from my point of view.

    If you’re seeing an ongoing white genocide, and whites needing to mobilize to survive, and time being tight because overturning the anti-white establishment and implementing new policies is a huge task that must be done with tiny means, then all this does not look terribly friendly.

    Reply

  108. JayMan: “Going on about a “White genocide” that only exists in a possible future based on extrapolating from current trends may not be the best way to go about it.”

    I don’t agree that’s a good description of the problem. We see mass immigration, forced integration, continual propaganda, and massive arrays of anti-white laws. We can see an endgame in Southern Africa. We can see a middlegame in America. We can see the opening going extremely well for the anti-whites in Europe. We see they are playing for keeps and nothing is too much for them, no final fate for the whites shocks them. That’s not some possible future.

    JayMan: “It may lead to overcorrection of the problem, so to speak. There are certain White elements that are rearin’ to go in that direction.”

    What, all five of them? And their pit bull?

    In terms of “over-correction”, the Americans (by which I mean white Americans) have not managed to simply correct in the half-century since the Hart-Celler act. On the contrary, things get worse and worse and worse.

    But you are weighing white evil so heavily, and non-white evil not at all that I can see, so that you think whites should not get un-spun information that might mobilize them to survive, in case they then over-correct, and that would be evil. I find that amazing, and not in a happy way.

    JayMan: “Am I saying that nothing should be done? No. But there are some serious questions that are coming to bear here. One, will HBD be accepted in the West? If so, when? What will be the thing that brings it out? How will people react? Is it possible that a multi-racial society, particularly in the West, cannot be realistic about race without being racist? Will Westerners realize the problems posed by their immigration policies in time? Is acceptance of HBD necessary for this? What is the best course of action to get Western countries to do something about their demographic problems in time (right as of this moment, we have plenty of time, but will we address immigration and reproductive issues in the time we have)?”

    The race of the potential villains in your scenarios seems to be snowy monochrome, and what matters most is always to suppress those potential villains. Well heck, at that rate there is already a project booming ahead that leads to maximum permanent suppression of all potential for whites being evil.

    JayMan: “I think the spirit of my initial comment was to imagine what a race-realistic Western society would look like. Unfortunately, we have some real examples, many not all too good (e.g., pre-Civil Rights U.S., Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany). Some of the attitudes here and elsewhere on this topic don’t give me too much encouragement. Is the a way that works for the best for the most people?”

    Pre-civil right USA counts, sort of. (There was custom but no real theory.) Apartheid was purely insane, with the theory that you could let unlimited numbers of blacks flood into the state and breed at a superior rate to whites and the whites would not lose everything. (Can you imagine people being crazy enough not to see that as a genocide in the making?) Hitler and his war on the subhuman Slavs, and his firm belief that racially superior Japs would inevitably beat whites – is that your idea of a race-realist society? And again, all scenarios seem to be about evil whites. Whites are not a race of evil, invulnerable sadists, but you focus your concern as though they were.

    Reply

  109. Apartheid was purely insane, with the theory that you could let unlimited numbers of blacks flood into the state and breed at a superior rate to whites and the whites would not lose everything.

    The fact that your #1 objection to apartheid is that it would inevitably lead to the replacement of whites in South Africa speaks volumes about your morality. “Unlimited numbers” of blacks “breeding” at a superior rate? (Something tells me that you don’t consider them to be quite human.) Well, that’s exactly what happens when you stream into a country full of “kaffirs”, wage war on the indigenous population, and then continue to exploit them for cheap labor. D’oh.

    (By the way, I am aware that Bantus were relative latecomers to Africa’s temperate zone — but if they were intruders upon native Khoi territory, so were the Boers and Anglo-Saxons.)

    By the way, you should also take the time to actually consider your detractors’ opinions, rather than spinning everything into a pastische about anti-white hatred. And it’s true, I’ve also made a number of (tacit) assumptions about your unspoken beliefs, but every single time so far, I have been vindicated. You are about as predictable as they come.

    Reply

  110. Whites are not a race of evil, invulnerable sadists, but you focus your concern as though they were.

    Jayman made it very clear that he expected the violence to occur in both directions. Historically speaking, state violence against minorities in Western nations has been largely unidirectional. That does not justify any acts of retribution against whites, who should not be held responsible for any misdeeds by their ancestors, real or imagined — but is a fact.

    In the event of a worst case scenario, whites will most certainly not have a monopoly over violence; in fact, they may be frequently on the receiving end of said mistreatment.

    What part of this is controversial?

    Reply

  111. @misdreavus – “Something tells me that you don’t consider them to be quite *human*.”

    that’s the second time you presume to know what another commenter thinks/feels about a matter — and tried to put words in their mouth.

    don’t do it again. third time’s a charm … and will put you into moderation.

    Reply

  112. @misdreavus – “Jayman made it very clear that he expected the violence to occur in both directions.”

    no, he hasn’t actually. not in this thread, anyway — not as far as i can see. please, correct me if i’m wrong.

    Reply

  113. Sorry about that. Won’t happen again.

    But it is very strange to complain about people “breeding” too often in a land which was theirs before Europeans discovered it, and then spinning that into the context of a white genocide! (By the way, who uses that term to refer to human beings? Not I.)

    That being said, the treatment of white farmers in South Africa is deplorable, and quite idiotic, as well. Yet none of this changes any of the facts on the table.

    Lastly, I have to say, daybreaker, you really do sound like the white version of Abe Foxman at the ADL — where he sees anti-semites lurking behind every bush, you have somehow come to the conclusion that jayman is anti-white, when even a cursory glance at his blog, as well as his comments on this thread reveal the exact opposite. I mean you just can’t please some people.

    Just think of all those idiots who have gotten people fired for using words like “niggardly” around black Americans. Do you really want to sound like them?

    Reply

  114. You quoted him:

    “It could be that open knowledge of HBD will lead to racial violence – two-sided racial violence. (Indeed, oddly that might be predicted by Peter Turchin’s cliodynamics). It was remarked to me that certain elites might be well aware (or aware enough) of group biological differences but keep a lid on it because they fear what the result of open knowledge would be.

    Reply

  115. In any racial war, you might expect the faction with superior numbers, wealth, and intelligence to have the upper hand.

    I would hardly lose any sleep over this, by the way — white Americans are pretty deracinated, as they are, and in event of any worst case scenario, self-preservation comes first in the wake of any chaos. You care first about your immediate relations, then your extended family (which might include more than a few “non-whites”), tribe, ethnicity, race, etc. in order of decreasing relatedness.

    But there is a wild card. Why settle for old fashioned scores of vengeance, natural selection, and the introgression of outsider genes, when you have nature’s very own toolkit at your disposal?

    You could turn the entire world into a race of purple-skinned aliens, if you wanted to. Now wouldn’t that be interesting?

    Reply

  116. @misdreavus – “You quoted him.”

    yes, you are right. i was wrong. sorry.

    however, along with daybreaker, i have to admit that i have found it a little disconcerting that throughout this discussion here, jayman has only been focused on what might happen to blacks or other minorities in a white-run hbd-world. i have to admit to being surprised at that — and a little saddened, actually. edit: thus my kinda weird comment above.

    Reply

  117. breeding? i use it all the time. see above in this thread.

    It sounds right in that context. Not in the other.

    I’m splitting hairs here, but my only objection here is that there is no “genocide” occurring at all, properly speaking. A genocide implies that some nefarious forces are at work, lurking behind the shadows, victimizing a people who have no choice whatsoever in their demographic replacement. (I’ll leave aside the “Tribe That Must Not Be Named” for a moment. No. They alone don’t have the necessary votes to achieve anything.)

    As far as I see, this simply isn’t happening. The greatest enemies of whites on the planet today have names like O’Sullivan, Smith, and Carpenter. In fact they seem to be the most vigilant enforcers of political correctness that ever existed. I’m sorry this is happening, but they’re the ones who hold the keys to your own survival.

    On everything else, I think I am largely in accord with daybreaker’s opinions. There is absolutely no need for further immigration to the West, legal or otherwise. That would be best for everybody in the world, not just whites.

    Reply

  118. @misdreavus – “In any racial war, you might expect the faction with superior numbers, wealth, and intelligence to have the upper hand.”

    but i don’t WANT a racial war! i want to use hbd to STOP racial/ethnic wars, e.g. stop further mass immigration because we know from biology (and history) that the mixing of populations (in large numbers) only leads to grief.

    Reply

  119. I predict that genetic enhancement of the human species will turn out to be a magnificent game changer. No, it most certainly won’t level the playing field, and neither will it fix every single inequality that exists in the world. But it will overturn the tables that exist already, to say the least.

    Just think of all the crazy scenarios that might ensue in the future. We could have the Eloi vs. the Morlocks in England. An oil-rich country of the coast of central Africa (can you think of any?) might breed itself a ruling class of super-humans, colonizing a large chunk of the subcontinent within the blink of an eye. The Rothschilds might gain a monopoly over the Europe’s banking sector — not just for centuries on end, but forever. The Chinese might colonize the planet Venus, and eventually reproduce themselves asexually through a series of mechanical chambers. Skynet could achieve sentience, and by then we all will be in deep trouble. Etc.

    Reply

  120. @misdreavus – “I’m splitting hairs here, but my only objection here is that there is no ‘genocide’ occurring at all, properly speaking.”

    i think it’s a bit of both: both “genocide” and “suicide” — but not exactly in the literal sense of either word (although there might be a few individuals out there who really have it in for white folks — just like there are some people out there who have it in for blacks or hispanics or jews or whomever).

    it’s “genocide” in the sense that some people want to improve their own lot at the expense of whites, sometimes consciously, most often not (like most immigrants — they just want a better life). it’s “suicide” in the sense that whites — especially northwest europeans — have, for whatever reasons (i have my own ideas), this weird universalistic attitude, so they welcome every tom, dick, and harry into their countries. PLUS some whites, i think, could be put in the “genocide” camp, too.

    see also my earlier comment.

    Reply

  121. @hbd chick

    I don’t, either. But we might have to worry about some other, far more interesting wars in the future.

    Oh boy.

    Reply

  122. Hmmm, allow me to clear up a few things here. My concern is for all people. I would most certainly want to avoid racial violence of any kind (to the extent that’s possible).

    The key problem however in an overt racial conflict is that, at the end of the day, in the West, Whites hold the power (for now, and probably for the foreseeable future). Whites literally have the nuclear option. The on-going problems and transgressions White suffer at the hands of non-Whites, as we have seen with recent events, and as Peter Frost so well describes, are real and in many cases quite deplorable. As well, it is not good that Whites need to retreat to ever more distant suburbs to escape criminal and violent non-Whites (and as a native of the South Bronx, I am all too familiar with this). On going immigration serves to compound the problem, and that is not good. This serves to sow the seeds of resentment among Whites.

    As well, the blogosphere is replete with statistics and stories of White victims of non-White crime. The situation is indeed quite bad in some spots.

    Now, that said, all this happens only as long as Whites will tolerate it. It theoretically could all stop tomorrow if Whites were decide to do something about the problems caused by other racial groups in their lands, and we’ve seen some of the solutions previously employed. As I said, the only thing worse than a one-sided race is a two-sided one. Any Western nation could implement an Apartheid/Jim Crow-style racial caste system or mass deportations at any time, and the non-Whites in their midst would essentially be at their mercy. Of course, I wouldn’t expect these minorities to go down quietly, and what I expect would ensue would be quite ugly. But the what results from this would be completely in the hands of Whites. This is because of the superior organization, technology, and (at for now) numbers that Whites have.

    Far more immediately, however, I think is the prospect of racial violence, including that against Whites. It is entirely possible, and indeed a very good one, that we may be worked up over nothing and if and when HBD comes out to the mainstream, it goes off without completely without incident, even becoming ho-hum in time. It would indeed be my preference is there was no conflict, and rational policies were implemented. Whites shouldn’t be replaced in the countries they now call home (indeed, that would be bad for the rest of the World because Whites essentially take care of the rest of the world). At the same time, the non-Whites that inevitably will continue to live in predominantly White countries should be able to do so as dignified and free citizens (although, in Europe, I think it’s perfectly fine if the Europeans wanted to pay non-Europeans to return to their homelands).

    Hopefully I’ve cleared up my position. I think (and would hope?) this is line with what we all want.

    Reply

  123. @HBD Chick:

    “yes. well, like i said in my post, humans s*ck. i know you’re just talking about western societies, but there are all sorts of “race-realistic” — or race-centric or ethnocentric — societies out there that are cr*p, too, in the way that different groups treat each other. ALL humans are “racists” (some more than others) and EVERYbody treats “the other” like cr*p if they get the chance, not just white folks.”

    Oh no doubt. I wasn’t trying to imply otherwise. :) Indeed, M.G. has pointed out – quite accurately – that in general, non-NW Euros act and speak fairly openly about racial differences, as the Cleveland hero Charles Ramsey demonstrated.

    These societies are generally quite awful and none are really places I’d like to live.

    “and multicultural societies seem to be some of the worst — think almost any african country, almost all of the -stans, the arab countries…. THIS is what i don’t want the u.s. to become … or to become MORE of anyway. we’ve already GOT diversity. we don’t need more of it, by the tens of millions, because, sadly, it’s NOT going to work. i DON’T want the u.s. to become like latin america like anon666 says above that it might.”

    Absolutely. New York City is a mini version of this today (and now I live in Maine). I would certainly like to avoid this getting worse in America.

    In a way, however, the U.S. doesn’t have much of a choice, since it is a multiracial country. Does multiracial + race realism lead to societies that are on par with the actual, non-Western multiracial societies in their suckiness? Another interesting question (though I suppose there is only one way to know).

    Reply

  124. misdreavus: “In any racial war, you might expect the faction with superior numbers, wealth, and intelligence to have the upper hand.”

    misdreavus: “I would hardly lose any sleep over this, by the way — white Americans are pretty deracinated, as they are, and in event of any worst case scenario, self-preservation comes first in the wake of any chaos.”

    In a race war, the losers are the deracinated of course. In war, when one side’s will to struggle is broken, that side is utterly beaten.

    And when a people loses not only its will to struggle but its sense of itself, it can no longer defend itself but can still be attacked, and that’s really bad.

    In addition, the whites are the losers in this case because it’s their nations that would be racial war zones.

    You can make whites the bullies by changing your scope so that when they are on top in some way that is in scope, and when they are not that is out of scope. But that ignores all the areas where whites are not in charge, and that the zone of white domination is shrinking and becoming less white and more contested, and that whites are losing or have lost vital institutions. Being the “winner” in some local wars still makes you the loser if the multi-racial war zones you are fighting over used to be your sweet neighborhoods.

    Even more fundamentally continuous non-white mass immigration into white countries and forced integration is white genocide. It can’t not be. That’s a process that eliminates the whites.

    The side that this is happening to is already, bit by bit, suffering the worst outcome of a war, that outcome being elimination.

    Reply

  125. misdreavus: “Lastly, I have to say, daybreaker, you really do sound like the white version of Abe Foxman at the ADL…”

    misdreavus: “Just think of all those idiots who have gotten people fired for using words like “niggardly” around black Americans. Do you really want to sound like them?”

    It’s not people who disapprove of white genocide creating the climate of witch hunts and fear. It’s the anti-whites who get people (like Jason Richewine) fired in effect that do that.

    Pointing out that the anti-white establishment represented by the likes of Abe Foxman at the ADL is gradually genociding whites is the reverse of being one of the silencers.

    Pointing to the genocide that is taking place is talking back, and restoring truth where it has been covered over because “you can’t say that.”

    Reply

  126. That’s a heap of comments, and I’m arriving late.

    Just want to register an observation. I lived through the time when the bio-reality of sex differences was hotly contested — which is to say, denied — in the halls of academe, and I remember when a spate of popular magazine stories, to no one’s surprise, more or less put the matter to rest. Nature won. There are still folks who get their panties in a bind over the subject, but most people, when the hear about natural experiments with gender re-assignment, or when they see the footage of infants displaying sex-typical behaviors in labs, quickly grasp the implications and don’t seem overly disturbed. Knowledge of sex differences hasn’t led to revaunchist calls to re-order civilization or to repeal suffrage. It’s just a fact that people have managed to assimilate. And anyone with a family knows that exceptions count.

    I don’t think the business with racial diversity needs to play out differently, and I doubt that it will. Popular discussion of some issues — affirmative action, immigration policy — will proceed on a slightly different track, but the core understanding of aggregate versus individual merit is now part of a common ethos that’s savvy and resilient enough to deal with presently uncomfortable facts. The information will be assimilated and accepted as background scenery. Because it already is.

    Reply

  127. I’m with Jayman here (as I understand him): all this talk of genocide and future violence is a misplaced over-reaction. A “big sort” is a much more likely (as well as desirable) response to the extent that integration fails to occur. You can’t force people to live together who don’t want to. And in the US at least people can move to wherever they choose.

    Reply

  128. You can force people to live together. Communism did so. If you tried to flee, they would shoot you. The anti-white establishment has a different wall: there’s nowhere to run. If something is too white, they force “diversity” on it. This means destruction for the whites.

    Reply

  129. @luke – “And in the US at least people can move to wherever they choose.”

    @daybreaker – “The anti-white establishment has a different wall: there’s nowhere to run. If something is too white, they force ‘diversity’ on it. This means destruction for the whites.”

    even if you move to a non-vibrant neighborhood and keep diversity out, they’re fixin’ it so that we’ll all be paying for the vibrancy anyway. see stanley kurtz. (<< this is actually really important. see stanley’s book, too.)

    Reply

  130. @hbd chick — “probably the most important lesson from thinking about human biodiversity that i’ve drawn for my everyday life is that you can’t blame people — or a people — for what they are. they’re just a product of their evolution. c’est la vie.”

    I agree with that…but I also think it’s inescapable that we collectively have to make tragic choices about what traits we want to endow with value (and hence select for) and, by extension, what people we want to select for. No matter which direction we move as a society, our choices reflect what we value and what we consider our ultimate ends.

    For example: Some people are more innately predisposed to violence. To a certain extent, we can acculturate people to nonviolent social norms and/or channel those violent impulses to constructive ends (unless we’ve decided that everyone should just be who they ‘authentically’ are with no obligation to restrain their impulses), but there will conceivably be some whose genetic predisposition to violence is so strong that no amount of conditioning will bring them into the range of socially acceptable behavior. What is left to do but imprison those people? Or perhaps, in some dystopian(?) future, ensure they aren’t born?

    That said, I think we can greatly improve on the status quo by (1) determining in a more democratic way what those ultimate ends will be (I’m channeling Michael Sandel here), and (2) selecting on the basis of individual rather than group characteristics.

    Reply

  131. @jose cuervo – “That said, I think we can greatly improve on the status quo by (1) determining in a more democratic way what those ultimate ends will be … and (2) selecting on the basis of individual rather than group characteristics.”

    can’t say as i disagree with any of that. (^_^)

    Reply

  132. @jayman – “Any Western nation could implement an Apartheid/Jim Crow-style racial caste system or mass deportations at any time, and the non-Whites in their midst would essentially be at their mercy.”

    i’m not entirely convinced about that when it comes to the u.s. i mean, the non-hispanic white population at the moment is just 63.7%. that’s an advantage numerically speaking, but not that much of an advantage. and what do the age pyramids look like for these different subpopulations? aren’t there a lot more older white folks?

    i don’t think such policies could be implemented easily and, like you said, the whole process would be very, very ugly — and super violent.

    and, obviously, i would NOT want anything like that to happen at all! (i mean implementing apartheid or whatever.)

    for the record, the only people i think that ought to be deported are illegal immigrants and as many recent mexican/central americans as can be encouraged to leave. there are just too many to assimilate (fwiw). tens of millions is too many. and, again for the record, i don’t think anybody (except for illegal immigrants) should be rounded up and deported — recent arrivals should be gently encouraged to leave by cutting off all welfare and other benefits, they should be given some repatriation money, comfortable transport home. stuff like that. (anybody with kids over the age of say, 12 — kids that have grown up here — can stay. that’s too hard on people to deport grown kids who have lived in the u.s. their whole lives.)

    also, all immigration should be stopped right now. high iq, low iq, european, asian — don’t care. we don’t need anymore immigrants! or refugees.

    Reply

  133. @jayman – “I think the spirit of my initial comment was to imagine what a race-realistic Western society would look like. Unfortunately, we have some real examples, many not all too good (e.g., pre-Civil Rights U.S., Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany).”

    upon further reflection, i don’t think (or i hope!) that these examples are not quite right when trying to imagine an hbd-informed society. i mean, yeah those were cr*ppy societies (for some of their members), but like you say, they were just race-realistic societies — like pretty much ALL human societies on the planet — and not hbd-informed societies in which (hopefully) most people would GET that the differences are partly due to biological reasons which are a result of evolution. these are not differences created by, for example, some god or gods which in turn gives some group or groups some sort-of heavenly mandate to dominate or kill off rival groups. no, this is just life.

    or, what chip said above:

    “I lived through the time when the bio-reality of sex differences was hotly contested — which is to say, denied — in the halls of academe, and I remember when a spate of popular magazine stories, to no one’s surprise, more or less put the matter to rest. Nature won. There are still folks who get their panties in a bind over the subject, but most people, when the hear about natural experiments with gender re-assignment, or when they see the footage of infants displaying sex-typical behaviors in labs, quickly grasp the implications and don’t seem overly disturbed. Knowledge of sex differences hasn’t led to revaunchist calls to re-order civilization or to repeal suffrage. It’s just a fact that people have managed to assimilate. And anyone with a family knows that exceptions count.”

    unfortunately, we could’ve been past all this by now and be living in a world where people understood human biodiversity/sociobiology if some IDIOTS hadn’t literally doused the first flickers of that understanding (in our modern times). =/

    Reply

  134. @ hbd – “even if you move to a non-vibrant neighborhood and keep diversity out, they’re fixin’ it so that we’ll all be paying for the vibrancy anyway. see stanley kurtz. (<< this is actually really important. see stanley’s book, too.)"

    I read the Kurtz piece and was unimpressed. I can't imagine such policies could gain much political support, even assuming they could pass constitutional muster.

    Reply

  135. misdreavus: “The fact that your #1 objection to apartheid is that it would inevitably lead to the replacement of whites in South Africa speaks volumes about your morality.”

    The old demonization trick.

    The idea I took exception to was, whites should not get un-spun information on HBD, because they would likely abuse it, and Nazi Germany (of course!), South Africa and pre-Brown America were given as examples of race-realist societies, with of course whites being traditional villains in every case. My reply didn’t focus on the morality of the two systems that actually had a theory and a system (as opposed to mere residual custom, as in the USA); it focused on their staggering lack of realism regarding race. Yes, both the Nazis and the South Africans took race for something real and were thus technically “race-realist”, but the sheer unrealism of Hitler declaring war on America after Pearl Harbor on the ground that Japan’s racial superiority made it the inevitable winner, and the totally cracked attitude of South Africa’s leadership on demographics means that they are not good examples of what whites will do with a realistic, science-based understanding of race, and thus they are not a good reason to deny whites un-spun HBD information, especially if the implication of their not getting that information is their gradual obliteration by policies that force race-replacement.

    Reply

  136. JayMan: “As I said, the only thing worse than a one-sided race is a two-sided one.”

    This is the essence of our disagreement. I think the continued, un-resisted triumph of eliminationist anti-white-ism is the worst case.

    Reply

  137. @Daybreaker

    You are right about the functional utility of apartheid, although it was a deeply immoral and exploitative system, which in the end backfired terribly on white South Africans.

    Apartheid worked for the time being — but as you mentioned, even minor investments in education, health care, and sanitation on behalf of the Bantu tribes would have enabled the endogenous growth of the black population to a prodigious degree. The end of white supremacy in South Africa was inevitable, because sheer demographics dictated it so.

    (And it couldn’t have happened either way — think of how herd immunity works. You cannot possibly sustain a sizable population of Bantu farmhands, domestic workers, and menial laborers if they are constantly spreading infectious diseases to the white population. Basic investments in public health such as vaccinations were mandatory for everybody, black or white, and they, in part, were what enabled a demographic explosion among the Bantu tribes.)

    Last, I don’t like the way you argue, but you and I agree on most of the important details. For the umpteenth time, I am not anti-white! Would I even be commenting here if I were?

    Reply

  138. Come on now. Claims of “White genocide” often uttered by White Nationalists are total hyperbole.

    I hate to jump in so late, but the genocide of Whites is a fact.

    The governments of the US, UK, France, Canada, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Italy, etc. have adopted policies of forced integration (including “immigration”) that are certain to cause the erasure of Whites within their territory. See Wright’s “island model” championed by Old Atlantic.

    Each of these governments has made it clear that these policies are intended to be permanent. In fact, many go so far as to imprison citizens who seek to change these policies.

    The crime has not been completed, but the crime is genocide, and it is in progress

    Reply

  139. Misdreavus, you might just as well say that Those Who Must Not Be Named can’t possibly be 25% of Nobel winners in physics because “thre are just too few”. TWMNBN are obscenely over represented, in excess of their IQ, in everything (and particularly in the enetertainment industry and economics nobelists).

    Reply

  140. The US already does screen and select highly for functional, high IQ immigrants. Immigrating here, and becoming a naturalized citizen is a very expensive, time consuming and long drawn out process. For many even getting a tourist visa for few weeks is hard. The US Embassy requires you to have a bank account of a certain amount, property in your name, a job of some status in your country, and sponsors here in the US – just for a tourist visa!

    So they countries that they require all this from are the countries that they are screening against.

    The knowledge of HBD will just make more people date, marry and mate outside of their race because they will want to increase genetic diversity in their offspring.

    Having travelled the world and lived amongst many different peoples I have a keen eye and appreciation for unique traits so this has widened my dating pool considerably.

    Reply

  141. @Hindu Bio Diversity [aka karen aka Beemala Thakur aka America’s New Hinduism] – “The US already does screen and select highly for functional, high IQ immigrants. Immigrating here, and becoming a naturalized citizen is a very expensive, time consuming and long drawn out process.”

    you’re kidding, right? have you never heard of all of our mexican/central american immigrants literally strolling across the border [sic]?

    besides, don’t forget, there’s more to human biodiversity than just iq. there are many other behavioral traits in different human populations that ought to be considered wrt immigration policies.

    @Hindu Bio Diversity [aka karen aka Beemala Thakur aka America’s New Hinduism] – “The knowledge of HBD will just make more people date, marry and mate outside of their race because they will want to increase genetic diversity in their offspring.”

    well, i hope you’re right that greater hbd knowledge will just result in us all “getting along.” that would be a happy outcome, indeed. unfortunately, judging by history, and the indisputable fact that humans are jerks (see: history), i’m not as optimistic as you. =/ i hope i’m wrong!

    Reply

  142. @Hindu Bio Diversity [aka karen aka Beemala Thakur aka America’s New Hinduism] – “Having travelled the world and lived amongst many different peoples….”

    oh, btw … so have i! i’ve lived in five different countries and visited a lot more besides.

    Reply

  143. “you’re kidding, right? have you never heard of all of our mexican/central american immigrants literally strolling across the border [sic]?”

    Right but they’re immigrants who didn’t go through all the legal procedures because they are right next door and can “literally stroll across”.

    I’m talking about immigrants from countries across the seas who DO go through the process. Its long, hard, expensive and frustrating.

    Heck! Getting a tourist visa long, hard, expensive and frustrating if you are not coming from certain countries.

    “well, i hope you’re right that greater hbd knowledge will just result in us all “getting along.” that would be a happy outcome, indeed. unfortunately, judging by history, and the indisputable fact that humans are jerks (see: history), i’m not as optimistic as you. =/ i hope i’m wrong!”

    Actually I’m very optimistic. People are sick of wars and fighting and borders and separation. I really see a shift in consciousness taking place across the planet.

    The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius was not the 60s. It is now!

    Be Here Now!

    Wherever You Go, There You Are!

    :)

    Reply

  144. Case in point I just found this comment on another blog;

    colombian guy

    excuse my ignorance. but can somebody explain to me, why is it that difficult to get a simple tourist visa to the u.s for educated south americans , who fulfill every single requirement, financial, legal,e.t.c.? and once you get there , you see all the scum you just cant figure out how the hell did they got in.

    I used to live near the the u.s embassy in bogota Colombia. its a common view to see phds/high executives/entrepreneurs , who want to spend their hard earned bonus in Disneyland with their kids, they seem quite sad when they get their passport thrown at their faces, while the embassy tells them NO.

    when I applied for my visa renewal I got it denied, seems ,having no criminal record, having enough funds in the bank account to pay for a 6 month stay , being a home owner ,and showing a contract with my current employer is not enough.

    all I need was a week so I could go to Coachella.

    let the good ones in…

    kick the bad ones out.

    Reply

  145. Greeneyes

    Given that HBD knowledge is coming it seems incumbent on the few reasonable people who understand it to get ahead of the curve and honestly shape the narrative.

    It might lead to reduction of non western immigration, but if your a black person or mexican living in America that is probably good for you. But even this isn’t necessarily true as it might lead simply to making sure we have filtered immigration. Also if people understand that it applies within all racial communities, even the white community, it might give them a wider breath of opinion on the nature of simply brushing aside individuals.

    The fact is , I am a white male who learned about this stuff and instead of becoming angry it made me think about how this knowledge might be what is needed to break the taboo on genetic engineering, which I believe is probably humanities best hope for a massive increase in life quality, barring some black swan invention like super advanced general AI. Or someone(s) finally making political solutions like basic income viably work sustainably.

    The fact of the matter is that there are probably ways this knowledge could be delivered to the public that would reduce the backlash, and the incredible danger of this knowledge being suppressed is that it will make the racists seem reasonable when it finally comes out anyway. We are shooting ourselves in the foot in the long run.

    As always interesting stuff jayman and hbd chick.

    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