“the diversity illusion”

if you don’t follow me on twitter, you will have missed my flurry of quotes yesterday from telegraph journalist ed west‘s excellent new book, The Diversity Illusion: What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set it Right. (john derbyshire likes it, too, btw!)

the book is about the situation in britain, but an awful lot of what west has to say can be applied to the u.s. and elsewhere as well. i’m about halfway through it, so i still haven’t gotten to the “setting it right” part yet, but i’m gonna share some of my favorite bits so far with you right now (some of these might be a repeat from yesterday — sorry!). ok, here we go:

“In over sixty years of enormous change such debate [about immigration] had been restricted by taboo, fear and mockery. Immigration is the most thought about and least talked about subject in British history. [kindle locations 173-175]

Never in modern history has a free population simply suppressed discussion of a major issue. As Kevin Myers noted, the people of Britain and Ireland ‘have taken a secret, Self-Denying Ordinance not to discuss immigration or race in any meaningful way’. In living memory barely a newspaper article, radio or television show has seriously questioned the diversity orthodoxy, and even in the intelligent Right-wing press scepticism has had to be couched in such a cryptic way that the paper’s horoscopes are more candid.” [kindle locations 202-205]

“Labour’s attempts at creating a truly multicultural society have unquestionably succeeded. But why did the Government do this? What drove them towards imposing such an enormous change on England, one that will have profound, long-lasting and irreversible effects? And why did the entire political class go along with it? What, indeed, are the benefits of diversity? …

“[E]veryone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Britain truly diverse would enrich it and bring ‘significant cultural contributions’, reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion. [kindle locations 344-346 and 386-389]

A belief in the benefits of a multicultural, multi-racial society is an article of faith in today’s largely atheist society; to not believe is to not be in communion. [kindle locations 411-412]

Liberalism on race (and many other subjects) is a status signifier…. If ‘Pygmalion’ were performed on the stage today Eliza Doolittle would not blurt out ‘not bloody likely’ but ‘bloody immigrants’.” [kindle locations 731 & 737-738]

[R]acism, or what anti-racists understand as racism, is a universal part of human nature, ‘as human as love’ as novelist Thomas Keneally put it. Racial *hatred*, however, is different, a pathological variation of that human preference for sameness and kinship. One might regret that, just as one might regret that greed, lust and violence are part of human nature, but building a society based on the assumption that they can be driven out through re-education is an optimistic idea.” [kindle locations 1009-1012]

“Writing about Tibet, liberal blogger Dave Osler once stated that China ‘has resettled Han Chinese colonists there to the point where Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland’. On his own country he declared that ‘further mass immigration obviously has the potential to rejuvenate the population of this island once the politicians can get their head round the idea’. Tibetans becoming a minority in their country are a threatened species; the English are being ‘rejuvenated. Of course the Tibetans have no choice in becoming a minority, yet when the British express their opposition to ‘rejuvenation’ they are condemned as racists.” [kindle locations 1145-1150]


“Globalism has many benefits, but mixed with universalism it can become an ideological dogma that ignores the human consequences. Phillippe Legrain asks: ‘Why can computers be imported from China duty-free but Chinese people not freely come to make computer here? Why is it a good thing for workers to move within a country to where the jobs are, but a bad thing for people to move between countries for the same reason?’ That is because human beings are not computers. Goods can be freely moved about only because they can be discarded when they are no longer useful; humans cannot. Immigration is long-term and has permanent effects for everyone involved. [kindle locations 1279-1284]

“The universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive…. No universal altruism has evolved because a sense of universal altruism would have no evolutionary advantage. Garrett Hardin argued in a 1982 essay, ‘Discriminating Altruisms’, that a world without borders or distinctions is impossible, because groups that practise unlimited altruism will be eliminated in favour of those that limit altruistic behaviour to smaller groups, from whom they receive benefits.

“An extreme example of this is the white liberal environmentalist who decides, for the good of the planet, that he or she should remain childless – the result being that future generations will contain fewer white liberals (some might argue that that’s not a terrible thing).” [kindle locations 1660-1669]


The latest projections suggest that white Britons will become a minority sometime around 2066, in a population of 80 million, which means that within little over a century Britain will have gone from an almost entirely homogenous society to one where the native ethnic group is a minority. That is, historically, an astonishing transformation. No people in history have become a minority of the citizenry in their own country except through conquest, yet the English, always known for their reticence, may actually achieve this through embarrassment.” [kindle locations 142-146]

great stuff!

i’ll stop there because i can’t (or shouldn’t) reproduce the entire book here. (~_^) read it yourselves! i highly recommend it.

(note: comments do not require an email. diversity FAIL!)

linkfest – 11/18/12

When the going gets tough, the tough get… more relief from a placebo?“[T]he new findings link specific, established personality traits with an individual’s susceptibility to the placebo effect…. The researchers showed a significant link between certain personality traits and how much relief people said they felt when given the placebo – as well as the level of a specific chemical that their brains released…. The findings show that about one-quarter of placebo response was explained by the personality traits of resiliency, straightforwardness, altruism or anger/hostility, as measured on standardized tests.”

Oxytocin Keeps Flirting Folks at Arm’s Length“[M]en who were in a committed relationship even maintained a greater distance from an attractive woman when under the influence of oxytocin than their control group.”

Gene distinguishes early birds from night owls and helps predict time of death“Common gene variant helps determine the time you will wake up each day — and the time of day you are likely to die.”

Link between creativity and mental illness confirmed“People in creative professions are treated more often for mental illness than the general population, there being a particularly salient connection between writing and schizophrenia.” – via parapundit.

Identical Twins Are Genetically Different, Research Suggests – copy errors.

The mysterious Ainu“[I]s the physical similarity [of the Ainu] to Europeans just a matter of chance? Convergent evolution? No, it may be that the Ainu have just not changed as much physically as other East Asians. – from peter frost.

Pre-Neolithic Mediterranean Island settlement“‘[T]he first inhabitants of many of the Mediterranean islands may not have been modern humans at all. Instead, he says evidence has been found that shows that they might have been Neanderthals, or Homo Erectus.'” – from dienekes.

Evidence for Early Hafted Hunting Technology“[E]arly humans were manufacturing hafted multicomponent tools ~200,000 years earlier than previously thought.”

The Golden Age“If people were always getting dumber, why on Earth would the scientific revolution be recent?” – greg cochran’s latest, most excellent rant. (^_^)

Einstein’s Brain“Uncommon features of Einstein’s brain might explain his remarkable cognitive abilities” – @the breviary (with appropriate and enjoyable sarcasm from mangan… (~_^) ).

Brain scans of rappers shed light on creativity“Functional magnetic resonance imaging shows what happens in the brain during improvisation.”

Why “Multicultural Society” is a Logical Impossibility

In Defense of Favoritism“Affective neuroscience research on early-childhood bonding suggests that, as mammals, we probably start out as emotionally glued microcommunities (family and tribe) before we become autonomous ego-driven creatures. Favoritism, not egoism, is probably the primal value system. In short, favoritism or bias toward your group is not intrinsically racist, sexist, or closed-minded. Privileging your tribe does not render you negative or bigoted toward those outside your tribe.”

bonus: Study Tracks Brain Gene Response to Territorial Aggression“Researchers are mapping the genetic underpinnings of the stickleback’s aggressive behavior.”

bonus bonus: Bonobos Catch Yawns from Friends

bonus bonus bonus: ‘Rogue planet’ spotted 100 light-years away“Astronomers have spotted a ‘rogue planet’ – wandering the cosmos without a star to orbit – 100 light-years away.”

(note: comments do not require an email. aggressive stickleback lurking in the foliage….)

linkfest – 08/14/11

Intelligence tests highlight importance of genetic differences“DNA study links variations in intelligence to large numbers of genes, each with a small effect on individual brainpower” – via steve sailer.

You can count on this: Math ability is inborn“Do some of us just arrive in the world with better math skills than others? It seems we do….”

Psychology and its national styles

“What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism“Overall, results show that the purportedly ‘inclusive’ ideology of multiculturalism is not perceived as such by Whites.” – via the inductivist.

World survey links religion and happiness — for some“[I]n societies under stress, those who are religious outnumber – and are happier than – their nonreligious counterparts. Where peace and plenty are the norm, however, religious participation is lower and people are happier whether or not they are religious….”

Why one waist-size guide doesn’t fit all ethnic backgrounds

Why the rich ‘are such a selfish, less empathetic and less altruistic lot’

bonus: It’s the Economy, Dummkopf! by michael lewis.

bonus bonus: Building Blocks of DNA Found in Meteorites from Space

(note: comments do not require an email. sith penguin.)

(upper) middle class morality

steve sailer says:

“And there’s a lot to be said for unspoken norms. But if nobody is ever crass enough to explain in writing what’s actually going on, nobody ever learns any lessons that they can apply to anything else.

“For instance, talking honestly about soccer reveals that much of what nice upper middle class people say out loud about diversity and immigration isn’t true. There isn’t a lot of talent coming from Mexico, even in soccer. There especially isn’t much female talent from south of the border. Massive Latino immigration doesn’t make America more sophisticated; it makes the population more backward and knuckleheadedly macho. Privileged whites don’t actually want their children exposed to diversity; they will spend a lot of money to keep them, especially their daughters, in a cocoon as white as (say) the U.S. Women’s World Cup team.

“These are not, when it comes down to it, ignoble desires. In fact, they’re quite reasonable.

What is unreasonable is how the same people who spend huge sums to protect their own children from diversity will, at the same time, demonize their less privileged fellow citizens as racists for asking for some help from their government in guarding America’s borders.

yes, that is unreasonable, but not at all surprising. afaics, this is exactly how (upper) middle class morality works. the (upper) middle class is in competition with two groups: all sorts of non-whites who are, mostly, no competition (except for the growing numbers of east asians in the country), and other whites. as steve has pointed out many times, the white moral status game is what (upper) middle class morality is all about. preach multi-culti diversity while living in a gated-community and sending your kids to private schools. better yet, just live in portland.

but (upper) middle class hypocricy morality also serves to keep down the nams: yes, we’re all equal! therefore, we don’t have to spend any extra money on proper, special education for poor (i.e. low iq) black folks. we’re all the same — they just haven’t pulled themselves up by their boot-straps, see?

and the ridiculous part is, we wind up spending too much on stupid education policies that don’t work anyway! if we just all admitted that not every kid can be above average like little wobegonians, then we could spend the tax dollars on a useful education for low-iq americans. get them trained as much as they are able to do something practical and useful with their lives. (of course, at the same time, we’d have to stop all the immigration from mexico ’cause a h*ckuva lot of those people are in direct competition with our low-iq populace. but, of course, that is part of the “moral system” — supporting all that immigration just boosts one’s moral status AND keeps down the native nams. win-win.)

this side of modern political correctness/middle class morality goes back a long way in european society. it’s the “god helps those who help themselves” attitude. i was gonna say that this sentiment prolly goes back to the middle ages, but h*ck! — it apparently started with the greeks.

i can’t imagine that such a sentiment would arise in a tribal society. sure, it would apply to those who were not members of your own tribe (think nepotism, or reverse-nepotism i guess), but you would almost always help out the members of your extended family if you could. you just wouldn’t leave it up to god and the individual himself.

there are hints that extreme outbreeding in europe may have started in ancient greece (the greeks today are a different story, of course). maybe (upper) middle class morals got started there, too?

(am i cynical? yes. yes, i am.)

(note: comments do not require an email. cynicism optional.)

this would be funny…

…if they weren’t so d*mned serious.

in looking for the u.n. report where these consanguinity numbers came from, i came across this report propaganda piece:

human development report 2009 – overcoming barriers: human mobility and development

yes. it’s every bit as bad as you imagine it to be. have a look at it if you want to be rofl and|or give yourself an aneurysm. (don’t say i didn’t warn you!)

just so you know where they’re coming from (as if we couldn’t guess), the authors helpfully spell out their intentions at the beginning of the report (cue the violins):

“When people move they embark on a journey of hope and uncertainty whether within or across international borders. Most people move in search of better opportunities, hoping to combine their own talents with resources in the destination country so as to benefit themselves and their immediate family, who often accompany or follow them. If they succeed, their initiative and efforts can also benefit those left behind and the society in which they make their new home. But not all do succeed. Migrants who leave friends and family may face loneliness, may feel unwelcome among people who fear or resent newcomers, may lose their jobs or fall ill and thus be unable to access the support services they need in order to prosper.

“The 2009 HDR explores how better policies towards human mobility can enhance human development. It lays out the case for governments to reduce restrictions on movement within and across their borders, so as to expand human choices and freedoms. It argues for practical measures that can improve prospects on arrival, which in turn will have large benefits both for destination communities and for places of origin.”

and look at this gem:

that’s a map of our southern border showing the differences in the “human development index” [hdi] scores on either side — the lighter the color, the lower a place rates on the hdi. here’s what the authors have to say about those differences [pgs. 9-10]:

“1.1 Mobility matters

“Witness for example the way in which human development outcomes are distributed near national boundaries. Map 1.1 compares human development on either side of the United States–Mexico border. For this illustration, we use the Human Development Index (HDI)—a summary measure of development used throughout this report to rank and compare countries. A pattern that jumps out is the strong correlation between the side of the border that a place is on and its HDI. The lowest HDI in a United States border county (Starr County, Texas) is above even the highest on the Mexican side (Mexicali Municipality, Baja California). This pattern suggests that moving across national borders can greatly expand the opportunities available for improved well-being.”

well, no sh*t, sherlock! for heavens sake. we all know why immigrants from the third world are migrating to the first. it’s not rocket science! we don’t need charts and maps to figure it out! sheesh.

the question they never raise, of course, is whyyyyy is there such a marked difference on either side of the border? can’t be something in the air ’cause surely that can just waft back and forth over the border. hmmmmmm. something about the climate! global warming, perahps?! no. can’t be that either. the climate can’t be that different on either side of the border. i know! there’s something in the water! after all, they DO always say not to drink the water in mexico! (~_^)

as ya’ll can guess, they don’t ever consider the possibility that the diffs might — just maybe — have to do with the “human capital” on either side of the border — and that moving that capital from one side to t’other just might, you know, bring about some of that glorious change we’ve all be waiting for….

exasperated *sigh*

see also (if u haven’t already) sailer’s vdare column this week: Population Paradoxes—A Post-Anglo America Might Vote For Big Government, But Couldn’t Afford It. What then?

previously: mexicans think mexicans should be mexican

(note: comments do not require an email.)