RSS
The crony isn’t just in the capitalism. It’s in the alleged meritocracy, too. As nebulafox explains:
What we have is a sort of crony meritocracy, not too dissimilar from the crony capitalism that is our economic system. There’s enough of a sheen of merit and hard work so that people who make it feel no sort of obligation to people who don’t, hence the American political class’ attitude toward the rest of the country, but the system is riddled with inconsistencies, rigging mechanisms, and a reliance on heavy doses of luck that nobody dares acknowledge because it would invalidate the “moral” legitimacy of the mandarinate.
After legacy admissions and affirmative action, what place for genuine merit remains? The former is an intractable problem so long as the process retains any semblance of discretion. Explicit race-norming with a Woke spin–ie, systemic oppression favors whites and since they have an unfair advantage they don’t get to compete directly against blacks and Hispanics–could make the process more palatable. Backing legacy admissions out, that is effectively what happens now anyway.
Nebula again, on Wokeness as the 21st century’s will to power:
In the classical world, the strong openly based their morality on being strong. There’s enough of the worst aspects of Christianity in the Western consciousness-without any of the good stuff-left that the current powers-that-be instead legitimize themselves on public weakness and victimhood. While underneath the hood, there’s a reinstitution a blithe lack of concern for those being crushed by the machine, because they deserve it. Learn To Code is just the 21st Century version of scorning a slave on the grounds that if he were a moral, correct person, he wouldn’t be a slave. And all this leads to is a more neurotic populace because of the insistent denial of reality coexisting with a Saved vs. Damned situation in which the former are precarious and the latter have nagging fears that it’ll all blow up in their face due to forces beyond their control, actively acting against their autonomy, dragging them down.
Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it’s not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.
And then they wonder why so many people regard them as dangerously unhinged.
In fairness, they’re probably not all happy about white abortions–some presumably view it as an acceptable cost to abort non-whites. On the other hand, some bring the horseshoe theory to life by celebrating abortion as a way of ridding the world of undesirables. It is simultaneously Sangerian and monstrous.
I find it difficult to comment clinically on the subject. The idea of snuffing out human life in its most precious, vulnerable form–whatever the color or sex–is deeply saddening to me. I confess to being led entirely by the heart when it comes to the question of abortion. Having cradled a newborn, I suspect I’ll go to the grave led thusly. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I know I’m not the only one.
Wency shakes the heart in an appeal to the head:
The political Schelling Point around abortion is based on the location of the child (inside the mother or not) and not the child’s cognitive capabilities, which increase continuously from conception to adulthood. There is no step change when a child leaves the womb, which is an arbitrary and flexible moment in time.
But I hadn’t thought much about the question of an abortion slippery slope, so I’ll speculate on it a moment. Again, I think the political matter is bound up in location of the child, so I doubt it could “slip” to infants and beyond (which is not to say our enemies would never start murdering our children, only that they’d justify it in other terms). The most probable direction of a slippery slope, then, is leading towards mandatory abortion of undesirables. Something like this may already exist in the PRC, or so they say, so it’s not so great a stretch.
If Down’s Syndrome is a genetic malformation that must be cured by culling, then how much more important is eliminating the genetic disease known as “whiteness”, the cause of all humanity’s troubles? Though really, I don’t see them saying such things entirely out loud. More likely fetuses receive a social credit score partly inherited from the parents but affected by features of the child’s genome (calculated by an algorithm that is less than fully transparent), and those below a certain score face mandatory abortion. Which, as we know, is morally equivalent to removing a tumor, so what are the grounds to really object?
Peter Singer argues–or at any rate argued–infanticide up to the age of one or so should be permissible on the grounds of total dependency, whether the dependent be inside or outside the womb. Wency’s is a good riposte to that macabre argument.
Regarding mandatory abortions for the socially pathologized–that’s many of us, folks–it still feels like a stretch. Then again, so did the idea that color blindness would go from being the liberal ideal to a reactionary position in the span of a few years, yet here we are. If my body, my choice fends off mandatory Covid shots, forced abortions are still a long way over the horizon. If they make the poke a must though, look out.
Jay Fink on diversity and shortism:
I am short (5’7) and it’s one reason I enjoy living in a Hispanic majority city. Most Hispanics are short and even the taller ones don’t seem to be obsessed with height the way white people are. Whites will make comments on me being short but Hispanics never do.
What is the ‘ideal’ height for a man? When it comes to normative traits with roughly normal distributions, my sense is two standard deviations above the average tends to be the sweet spot socially. That’s about 6’4″. Past that threshold, it becomes the first thing people notice and in the process transforms from being a nice attribute to being a defining characteristic.
Ask a new acquaintance about his religion, income, or ethnicity? That’s considered to be in poor taste. If he’s on the tail of the height distribution, however, it’s socially acceptable to ask if he plays basketball–even though you’re the fourteenth person who has asked him that today!
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
>Past that threshold, it becomes the first thing people notice and in the process transforms from being a nice attribute to being a defining characteristic.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2001%2F04%2F16%2Fjoey%2F&psig=AOvVaw09k8kQpZjNa_JXLZlcE3Iv&ust=1623126217512000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCNiJosbWhPECFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
Here is the headline of a woman’s dating profile I saw today. “If you aren’t at least 6″2 you can f*** off”. The woman who wrote this is 5″3.
Even if I met her height requirement I wouldn’t be interested in someone with a personality like that.
If you are saddened by abortion you are an infirm male and likely suffering from clinically low testosterone levels. Newborns get eaten alive all the time in nature and have for billions of years – no God ever showed up to stop it. Man up and you might even find yourself enjoying the killing.
There’s not even an aesthetical argument against abortion. A freshly born baby is about the most disgusting thing on Earth. A natural live birth is every bit as disgusting, horrifying, gory, ugly, and repulsive as abortion, if not more. It’s also deadlier.
The deleterious effect of hundreds of millions more drug addicts, homeless, etc in America are far more depressing than abortion. If you want these people born get ready for a 95% tax rate on everything because your ass is paying to lock these people up.
You are not a dreamer. You simply have a moral conscience. Notwithstanding all the “rough men build civilization” talk popular here and elsewhere, it’s people with such a conscience who build a civilization, not the barbaric or the morally apathetic.
Nah. 6’2″ is the the perfect height for a man.
And, yes, I am 6’2″. 😉
Hmmm, I wonder what kind of people become admissions officers at elite universities…
If you look at western Europe as it emerged from the Dark Ages and slowly began to rebuild civilisation, that rebuilding of civilisation coincided with the declining influence of "rough men" - it was "rough men" who had been responsible for the destruction of classical civilisation. And, to give credit where it's due, it was the "soft men" of the Catholic Church (men with a moral conscience) who were to a very large extent responsible for rebuilding civilisation.Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen
Singer talks about dependents which means he thinks infanticide should be a parental right. Wency argues that abortion (or infanticide) as a parental right would slippery-slope into forced abortions or forced infanticide.
That may be true. But the fault for that lies with those who love nothing better than meddle with other people’s parenting. That includes most traditional anti-abortion folks (and not just on abortion).
There’s a third way that the meritorious are pushed aside: the narrow definition of merit. If you can sit still in school and respectfully parrot the ideas approved by the teacher, then you have merit; if you can’t, you have no merit, and possibly ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Maybe even incipient fascism!
A shorter way to say the nebulafox thesis is that we have forsaken Christian morality to return to pre-Christian morals, except inverted: now weakness is strength. And if you disagree you will be punished as a heretic.
——
Not being privy to anyone’s internal reasoning, I can’t say whether Dfordoom‘s diagnosis of rightwing abortionism is correct, I can only note that whatever the merits or demerits of the theory that abortion would reduce the black population, in reality it hasn’t worked out that way: for whatever reason, the mass abortion era has seen a huge surge in the black population, not only in absolute numbers, but also as a portion of the population.
The issue is similar to Steve Sailer’s argument with Steven Levitt about whether abortion reduced crime. Sailer doesn’t say that Levitt’s thesis is immoral, just that it is not true.
When your theory doesn’t actually occur in the real world, arguing about its morality is moot.
At the moment, as I understand it, the fertility rate of the US black population is below replacement level.Replies: @Almost Missouri
I told this story here before, but I got a firsthand answer to that question when I ended up on a blind date with one. She herself wasn’t a graduate of the elite university she was an admission officer for; she graduated from a second-tier institution. No idea why the elite university thought she should be their gatekeeper. She dressed well, I suppose, so there’s that. She was also proud that she actively promoted candidates who inserted references to homosexuality or other fashionable minority status into their applications. And speaking of inserting, after our failed blind date, I learned from a mutual acquaintance that after continued dating disappointment, she got herself artificially inseminated with some freezer sperm. Then while pregnant with the cryo-baby, she finally met the man she wanted to marry. And somehow she persuaded him to take her.
So “what kind of people become admissions officers at elite universities”? People who promote sexual deviancy over merit, and who are excellent self-promoters, apparently.
That’s a very neat summing up.
Is that actually true?
At the moment, as I understand it, the fertility rate of the US black population is below replacement level.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/black-share-of-known-murder-offenders-1980-2019/#comment-4662906
https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/bumbling-towards-the-biosingularity/#comment-4596940Replies: @Twinkie, @Stealth
I totally agree.
If you look at western Europe as it emerged from the Dark Ages and slowly began to rebuild civilisation, that rebuilding of civilisation coincided with the declining influence of “rough men” – it was “rough men” who had been responsible for the destruction of classical civilisation. And, to give credit where it’s due, it was the “soft men” of the Catholic Church (men with a moral conscience) who were to a very large extent responsible for rebuilding civilisation.
Tip of the hat to Redd Foxx
No, it’s being against white abortions and for black abortions.
It was a rhetorical question. I worked as a student-worker at the admissions office of my Ivy undergrad in the late 80’s. An admissions officer there (who was a male homosexual Jew) said loudly in a conversation with another Jewish admissions officer that “Jews get in, because we care about the world, but Asians don’t, because they only think about themselves.”
He didn’t even care that I was right there in the office. Talk about hubris of his own importance and invincibility.
On another occasion, an older alum of my high school (Stuyvesant HS in NYC) who was also Jewish told me – face to face – that Stuyvesant had changed – that when the school was more Jewish, the students cared about the society at large, but that now it was filled with those (presumably Asians) who only cared about money.
On both occasions, I couldn’t believe my ears and I thought I heard them wrong.
I didn’t.
Of course, setting aside the fact that we live in a cronyist system where wealth is often gained at expense of others, I admire the Asian drive to earn wealth over Jewish virtue signaling about justice. The whole point of a market system is you can only earn wealth by providing what consumers are willing to pay for, so personal profit necessarily leads to social benefit.Replies: @res, @V. K. Ovelund, @MarkinLA
If you look at western Europe as it emerged from the Dark Ages and slowly began to rebuild civilisation, that rebuilding of civilisation coincided with the declining influence of "rough men" - it was "rough men" who had been responsible for the destruction of classical civilisation. And, to give credit where it's due, it was the "soft men" of the Catholic Church (men with a moral conscience) who were to a very large extent responsible for rebuilding civilisation.Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen
Notwithstanding the generous spirit with which that statement was made, I should point out that the Catholics weren’t always a soft bunch. Have you ever heard of the Albigensian Crusade during which the abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amaury, is attributed to have said the following? “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”
At the moment, as I understand it, the fertility rate of the US black population is below replacement level.Replies: @Almost Missouri
Black fertility is above replacement. Even more so when you consider that racial fertility counts miss all the mulatto (will identify as “black”) children born to non-black mothers, and that black generations are more closely spaced so the “interest” compounds faster.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/black-share-of-known-murder-offenders-1980-2019/#comment-4662906
https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/bumbling-towards-the-biosingularity/#comment-4596940
Fertility Rates In The United States By Ethnicity (2018)Rank Ethnic group Births per 1000 women
1 All 1729.5
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2106.5
3 Hispanic 1959
4 Black (non-Hispanic) 1792
5 American Indian/Alaska Native 1650.5
6 White (non-Hispanic) 1640
7 Asian 15252019https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity.jpgReplies: @Almost Missouri, @Blinky Bill, @Return of Shawn
Jeez.
A wandering piece of crap. Is “Audacious” intended to mean, “Even I am embarrassed by the crap I write”?
I won’t make the mistake of EVER reading anything Audacious again.
If you look at western Europe as it emerged from the Dark Ages and slowly began to rebuild civilisation, that rebuilding of civilisation coincided with the declining influence of "rough men" - it was "rough men" who had been responsible for the destruction of classical civilisation. And, to give credit where it's due, it was the "soft men" of the Catholic Church (men with a moral conscience) who were to a very large extent responsible for rebuilding civilisation.Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen
This is the big one! You hear that, Elizabeth? I’m coming to join ya, honey!
Tip of the hat to Redd Foxx
“I find it difficult to comment clinically on the subject. The idea of snuffing out human life in its most precious, vulnerable form–whatever the color or sex–is deeply saddening to me. ”
Are you saddened about being forced to subsidize, at the point of a gun, [in polite society its called “taxation”], the pre-birth murder of 10’s of 1,000’s of prospective children, [“deformed” or otherwise]?
Do you believe in tax funded abortions ? If so , why?
Regards, onebornfree
Thought experiment: If we do have “crony meritocracy,” and I think that we do, then hard quotas are “fair.” The only questions would be about categories and whether said categories are additive.
There has never been a real meritocracy, not even in East Asia, and it is as illusory as an AnCap dream world. There have only been systems that strive to these ideals and fallen back over time.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/black-share-of-known-murder-offenders-1980-2019/#comment-4662906
https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/bumbling-towards-the-biosingularity/#comment-4596940Replies: @Twinkie, @Stealth
I don’t think so.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/fertility-rates-in-the-united-states-by-ethnicity.html
Fertility Rates In The United States By Ethnicity (2018)
Rank Ethnic group Births per 1000 women
1 All 1729.5
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2106.5
3 Hispanic 1959
4 Black (non-Hispanic) 1792
5 American Indian/Alaska Native 1650.5
6 White (non-Hispanic) 1640
7 Asian 1525
2019
Part of the reason for the mismatch between projections and reality is that they fail to account for the imbalance of trade in inter-racial breeding (described previously), and part of it may be that whatever assumptions and estimates they use are not race-normed for blacks.
And even if they finally get it right for once and black fertility really does fall below replacement, that doesn't actually mean anything for society at large if everyone else's fertility falls even further (as has been happening), since the black portion of the population will still continue to grow at everyone else's expense.Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Twinkie
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2306
3 Black (non-Hispanic) 2014
4 Hispanic 1877
5 White (non-Hispanic) 1715
6 American Indian/Alaska Native 1408
7 Asian 968Islander and Black men do well with all races of women. White men do better than White women and Hispanic men with other races. While Asian and Native men do really poorly with all races, including their own.If anyone can find the real numbers it would be much appreciated!Replies: @Twinkie, @SFG
I’d call it a “selective meritocracy.”
Sure, you get promoted depending on your contribution – but only if you belong to a chosen group.
At her height, every man is 6’2.
To use the term Meritocracy in a description of our current Idiocracy is an insult to intelligent thought.
Fertility Rates In The United States By Ethnicity (2018)Rank Ethnic group Births per 1000 women
1 All 1729.5
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2106.5
3 Hispanic 1959
4 Black (non-Hispanic) 1792
5 American Indian/Alaska Native 1650.5
6 White (non-Hispanic) 1640
7 Asian 15252019https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity.jpgReplies: @Almost Missouri, @Blinky Bill, @Return of Shawn
Note that these “black fertility below replacement” projections—based on various assumptions and estimates—have been happening for some time, but when the actual census numbers come in, blacks always turn out to be increasing. Yes, some of that is Afro-Caribbean immigration, but so far, native blacks have always turned out to be fertility-positive.
Part of the reason for the mismatch between projections and reality is that they fail to account for the imbalance of trade in inter-racial breeding (described previously), and part of it may be that whatever assumptions and estimates they use are not race-normed for blacks.
And even if they finally get it right for once and black fertility really does fall below replacement, that doesn’t actually mean anything for society at large if everyone else’s fertility falls even further (as has been happening), since the black portion of the population will still continue to grow at everyone else’s expense.
A Sort of Crony Meritocracy
I say:
The best political way of describing what we got here is this:
ANTI-WHITE TOTALITARIANISM.
Anti-White Totalitarianism(AWT) is on the march and the the European Christian ancestral core of the United States of America ought not to tolerate it one more minute.
Remember…remember…remember that the only thing holding the American Empire together is monetary policy extremism from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.
Central banker phuckers couldn’t get the federal funds rate to 3 percent last time the Ruling Class of the American Empire tried to taper the monetary extremism of the Federal Reserve Bank and the politician whores in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are just fine with the asset bubbles in real estate and bonds and stocks and everything else created by ZERO INTEREST RATE POLICY and all the other monetary policy machinations.
This is the third frigging asset bubble, starting in the 1990s, that the plutocrat- and privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank has inflated using monetary extremism — low or zero or negative interest rates, asset purchases, quantitative easing, dollar swaps, direct central bank purchases of sovereign and corporate debt, balance sheet ballooning, bailouts…etc. — and enough is enough, DAMMIT!
Yellen was pushing out the propaganda about 4 percent as the new normal federal funds rate years ago but I guess ONE PERCENT is the new normal now. Used to be 6 percent was the normal fed funds rate but those days are long long gone like a Willie Mays home run.
Remember:
If a politician or writer or commenter is not talking about monetary extremism and asset bubbles that means that the person is in on the monetary policy scam or benefiting from the monetary policy scam or is being paid by a donor to not talk about the monetary policy scam.
Folksy doctor from Pennslvania and Texas was the most radical candidate for president in a long while and this Ron Paul guy was taking on the Central Banker Phuckers and the Israel First Faction of both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues but the guy has some frigging balls.
Anti-White Totalitarianism will be defeated by the new political party and faction called WHITE CORE AMERICA(WCA) and WCA will displace the donor-controlled coward scum politicians in the dead political party walking called the Republican Party.
The evil and treasonous Republican Party donors are attacking the proud and brave Republican Party voters and those damn donors got to go politically dodo pronto!
WHITE CORE AMERICA WILL DEFEAT ANTI-WHITE TOTALITARIANISM
Thing is I can believe it. As AE has shown, “justice and equality” is more important to American Jews than Israel or religious observance.
Of course, setting aside the fact that we live in a cronyist system where wealth is often gained at expense of others, I admire the Asian drive to earn wealth over Jewish virtue signaling about justice. The whole point of a market system is you can only earn wealth by providing what consumers are willing to pay for, so personal profit necessarily leads to social benefit.
Both being important caveats in The Current Year.Replies: @Jtgw
I do not credit the Nation of Islam and do not recommend that you do, either, but the slave trade is a special interest of theirs and I suppose that, despite their general lack of lucidity, they might know more about that particular topic than most of us do. Their report on the subject (with numerous citations of what appear to be white sources contemporaneous with the events reported) finds that Jews in the American South were at least twice as likely to own slaves as other whites were. This question would hardly interest me except that, once denied the dubious benefit of slave ownership by the 13th Amendment, Jews seem to have reversed position to the opposite extreme, scapegoating their own deeds upon the rest of us.The report is more persuasive on some points than on others but I have never read a credible refutation of its main findings.The report's assertion that Jews played a heavy role in the negro slave trade is less well documented than the finding regarding slave ownership, but of course the assertion is plausible on its face. I do not really even have a firm opinion regarding the justice of negro slavery (except that I would neither like to own a slave nor to be one), but one dislikes being accused of something actually done by the accuser's ancestors rather than one's own.In short, the putative Jewish concern for justice and equality is a crock. It has no bearing on justice and equality as the two words are understood in ordinary speech. Decent Jews (of whom there are many yet all too few) thus usually know better than to talk of such things in gentile company.Replies: @Jtgw, @Liberty Mike
The problem is defining what "justice and equality" is to a Jew.Replies: @A123
Part of the reason for the mismatch between projections and reality is that they fail to account for the imbalance of trade in inter-racial breeding (described previously), and part of it may be that whatever assumptions and estimates they use are not race-normed for blacks.
And even if they finally get it right for once and black fertility really does fall below replacement, that doesn't actually mean anything for society at large if everyone else's fertility falls even further (as has been happening), since the black portion of the population will still continue to grow at everyone else's expense.Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Twinkie
Stated alternatively, the projections omit the mud-shark factor.
What about when she is in heels?
US black fertility is indeed below replacement as others have corrected you, though of course there is also migration from Africa, which has barely even begun and has the potential to demographically transform the world.
But I do agree with the general point, which I was arguing about last thread. Which is to say, it would be one thing to argue that the abortion status quo was beneficial if our society wasn’t manifestly in a state of rapid deterioration. But the argument that things would be even worse if not for abortion strikes me as the equivalent of chiding a man who was buried alive in a casket for using up his oxygen as he exerts himself in an effort to escape. The status quo currently looks on track to ruin us, but suddenly all manner of reactionary radicals become defenders of that status quo when this topic comes up.
Surely one reason why white TFR is plummeting is that children are increasingly viewed as inconveniences or even as tumors, rather than as blessings. Abortion doesn’t directly affect white TFR all that much, when we look at measurable abortion statistics, but I do think the increasingly death-worshipping messaging of the pro-abortion left does play into the inclination of white women (and indeed, educated women of all races) to refrain from placing much value on motherhood in the first place.
We don't have control of our laws.
We are at war.
With no signs of anything improving, abortion will remain a useful weapon, perhaps our only weapon.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Anyhow, whether or not blacks are above or below replacement is not actually the relevant question. The relevant question is whether blacks are above or below other racial groups. And the clear and undisputed answer is that blacks are above everyone except Hispanics.
Demography is a game of comparative success. You don't have to outrun the bear. You just have to outrun the other runners. Blacks are doing that. All of the "blacks are below replacement" and "abortion will save the white race" talk is false solace: whistling past the graveyard. The reality is blacks are outbreeding almost everyone, the lowest class of blacks are breeding the fastest, and abortion has signally failed to deliver on the claims that Margaret Sanger et al. made for it. These are the facts. What we choose to do with that information is up to us.
Of course, setting aside the fact that we live in a cronyist system where wealth is often gained at expense of others, I admire the Asian drive to earn wealth over Jewish virtue signaling about justice. The whole point of a market system is you can only earn wealth by providing what consumers are willing to pay for, so personal profit necessarily leads to social benefit.Replies: @res, @V. K. Ovelund, @MarkinLA
Modulo both explicit cheating and the popular pastime of (legally) privatizing profits and socializing costs.
Both being important caveats in The Current Year.
Both being important caveats in The Current Year.Replies: @Jtgw
Indeed there have to be guards against fraud. When there are so many legal barriers to entry, however, it’s easier for fraudsters to get away with it and not lost customers to competitors.
It's not a simple problem. Social norms are one way to deal with it (ideally combined with a relatively high trust population). That seems to be gone. I'm not sure the regulatory regime is proving to be an adequate replacement. Too easy to game given the amount of money at stake.Replies: @Jtgw
That may be true. But the fault for that lies with those who love nothing better than meddle with other people's parenting. That includes most traditional anti-abortion folks (and not just on abortion).Replies: @Wency
Quoth Singer:
But, to be clear, I was merely speculating on the possibility. I’ll say that of the slippery slope possibilities that we can see in front of us, systematic forced abortions strike me as the likeliest, but I don’t want to pretend that it looks like a >50% probability any time soon.
I’m sympathetic to part of your argument though, which V.K. and I were discussing on the previous thread. He used the word “subsidiarity”, and my argument is that I would be happy to accept a grand bargain on subsidiarity, to live in a society where it is held as an inviolable principle. But alas, we don’t live in such a society, and I don’t see the moral value in holding to it as an absolute principle when no one else does. I’m also not sure and don’t really care who precisely broke the truce, only that it’s too far gone for there to be much value in pointing fingers now, and in any event the leftists are the chief violators and it has been so for my entire lifetime.
As they say, “Globohomo is *very* interested in your kids.”
Interesting thesis, and a plausible reason.
I would separate “defining characteristic” into external (other people’s minds) and internal (your own experiences and actions). There is probably a feedback loop between the two.
Anyone have any further thoughts on the validity of AE’s statement and possible reasons? Have there been any studies that would cast light on this?
The countervailing point is low barriers to entry combined with a focus on price competition gives an edge to anyone with an antisocial advantage which translates to lower prices.
It’s not a simple problem. Social norms are one way to deal with it (ideally combined with a relatively high trust population). That seems to be gone. I’m not sure the regulatory regime is proving to be an adequate replacement. Too easy to game given the amount of money at stake.
It's not a simple problem. Social norms are one way to deal with it (ideally combined with a relatively high trust population). That seems to be gone. I'm not sure the regulatory regime is proving to be an adequate replacement. Too easy to game given the amount of money at stake.Replies: @Jtgw
You can’t guarantee good behavior, that’s for sure. The classical liberal approach relies primarily on reputation and secondarily on litigation. The latter requires plaintiffs to prove harm so the former is the most effective solution. It isn’t perfect because it can sometimes take time to lose reputation, but I don’t really see a better alternative. Preemptive regulation introduces the problem of substituting bureaucratic for consumer preferences, as if bureaucrats generally know what’s better for consumers than they do themselves.
An additional complication is that the process of losing reputation can be hindered legally. For example, by bad actors being able to impede criticism by suing under anti-discrimination laws.Replies: @Jtgw
Good assessment overall. Regarding
Agreed. And you certainly can’t legislate it.
An additional complication is that the process of losing reputation can be hindered legally. For example, by bad actors being able to impede criticism by suing under anti-discrimination laws.
An additional complication is that the process of losing reputation can be hindered legally. For example, by bad actors being able to impede criticism by suing under anti-discrimination laws.Replies: @Jtgw
Right anti discrimination suits are a problem (and wouldn’t be permitted in a classically liberal system)
Of course, setting aside the fact that we live in a cronyist system where wealth is often gained at expense of others, I admire the Asian drive to earn wealth over Jewish virtue signaling about justice. The whole point of a market system is you can only earn wealth by providing what consumers are willing to pay for, so personal profit necessarily leads to social benefit.Replies: @res, @V. K. Ovelund, @MarkinLA
An extraordinary number of Jews process questions like this fundamentally differently than you and I do. They instantaneously give an answer designed to mislead and confound you. They give it with the agility of the cat that somehow always lands on its feet. They process the question with the uncanny speed and ease with which a bat processes echoes in the dark.
So, when such Jews say, “justice and equality,” they mean only that they have identified an instance in which a white gentile’s sacrifice for justice and equality will harm white gentiles. They literally do not mean anything else.
I do not credit the Nation of Islam and do not recommend that you do, either, but the slave trade is a special interest of theirs and I suppose that, despite their general lack of lucidity, they might know more about that particular topic than most of us do. Their report on the subject (with numerous citations of what appear to be white sources contemporaneous with the events reported) finds that Jews in the American South were at least twice as likely to own slaves as other whites were. This question would hardly interest me except that, once denied the dubious benefit of slave ownership by the 13th Amendment, Jews seem to have reversed position to the opposite extreme, scapegoating their own deeds upon the rest of us.
The report is more persuasive on some points than on others but I have never read a credible refutation of its main findings.
The report’s assertion that Jews played a heavy role in the negro slave trade is less well documented than the finding regarding slave ownership, but of course the assertion is plausible on its face. I do not really even have a firm opinion regarding the justice of negro slavery (except that I would neither like to own a slave nor to be one), but one dislikes being accused of something actually done by the accuser’s ancestors rather than one’s own.
In short, the putative Jewish concern for justice and equality is a crock. It has no bearing on justice and equality as the two words are understood in ordinary speech. Decent Jews (of whom there are many yet all too few) thus usually know better than to talk of such things in gentile company.
Indeed they would be. Without abortion legalized in the early 70s, another 40 million or more blacks would be running around just the USA. Even if these theoretical blacks had been held all along to the same academic and legal standards as Whites, the additional affican multitude wouldn’t improve anything, because racial differences are real.
In our reality, there are fewer blacks compared to the theoretical abortion-still-banned West, but the (((underminers))) have seen to it that Afficans be permitted to run amok while Whites are third class citizens in their own countries.
We don’t have control of our borders.
We don’t have control of our laws.
We are at war.
With no signs of anything improving, abortion will remain a useful weapon, perhaps our only weapon.
If she’s worth it you rent stilts, but as the other commenter pointed out this particular wench’s attitude is rather sour. Hard pass.
I find it difficult to comment clinically on the subject. The idea of snuffing out human life in its most precious, vulnerable form–whatever the color or sex–is deeply saddening to me. I confess to being led entirely by the heart when it comes to the question of abortion. Having cradled a newborn, I suspect I’ll go to the grave led thusly. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I know I’m not the only one.
I say:
I don’t delve too much into abortion or the 2nd Amendment, but when you want to defeat a Republican Party stooge boy whore in a Republican Party primary for US Senate, you have to pander like a bastard on those issues. The politician guy who out-pandered George Wallace on the segregation question just croaked according to the NY Times, and after Wallace lost to the guy who out-pandered him, he never got out-pandered again.
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu is fine with abortion and endless foreign wars for Israel and Chris Sununu will destroy the Second Amendment.
Sununu Boy Supports Abortion And He Puts Israel First and Chris Sununu is a clear and present threat to the Second Amendment.
The Republican Party politician whore from the Sununu Organized Crime Syndicate — Chris Sununu — who is currently governor of New Hampshire, describes himself as pro-choice on abortion and there is no doubt that Chris Sununu puts the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA and Chris Sununu will bring on gun-grabbing like you’ve never seen before.
Sununu must be defeated in his quest to crush the pro-life people in the Republican Party.
Sununu pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and recent immigrants and their spawn do not support the Second Amendment as strongly as White Core Americans do.
Sununu is pro-choice on abortion like the Bush women.
The New Hampshire hills are unpleasantly alive with the sound of Sununus.
You fucking idiot people are utter fucking idiots when it comes to abortion.
Your brains turn into childish little mush.
Let me what intelligent, unbiased, objective people know to be the absolute facts of the matter.
Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion. At all. At all.
Get it through your sick whiney-moany little sissy baby heads.
Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion.
At-all. In the least. Period.
Get it straight. Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion.
I do not credit the Nation of Islam and do not recommend that you do, either, but the slave trade is a special interest of theirs and I suppose that, despite their general lack of lucidity, they might know more about that particular topic than most of us do. Their report on the subject (with numerous citations of what appear to be white sources contemporaneous with the events reported) finds that Jews in the American South were at least twice as likely to own slaves as other whites were. This question would hardly interest me except that, once denied the dubious benefit of slave ownership by the 13th Amendment, Jews seem to have reversed position to the opposite extreme, scapegoating their own deeds upon the rest of us.The report is more persuasive on some points than on others but I have never read a credible refutation of its main findings.The report's assertion that Jews played a heavy role in the negro slave trade is less well documented than the finding regarding slave ownership, but of course the assertion is plausible on its face. I do not really even have a firm opinion regarding the justice of negro slavery (except that I would neither like to own a slave nor to be one), but one dislikes being accused of something actually done by the accuser's ancestors rather than one's own.In short, the putative Jewish concern for justice and equality is a crock. It has no bearing on justice and equality as the two words are understood in ordinary speech. Decent Jews (of whom there are many yet all too few) thus usually know better than to talk of such things in gentile company.Replies: @Jtgw, @Liberty Mike
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying. There is an antiSemitic trope that Jews apply different moral standards to themselves than to others. That might be true in some places but I’ve also seen plenty of the same ethnomasochistic tendencies among liberal Jews as among other liberal whites.
• Terry McAuliffe, Gov. // St. Luke Catholic Church
• Ralph Northam, Lt. Gov. (And current Governor) // First Baptist Capeville
• Mark Herring, Attorney General // Leesburg Presbyterian Church
Anyone serious about fixing the SJW Islamic Globalism problem in the U.S. has to take on Woke Christians and the Islamists that control them. Woke Jews should not receive a free pass, but focusing on expendable "useful idiots" deployed by Muslim SJW Jihadi invaders & manipulators will never work as a strategy.
PEACE 😇
How many? I would say a vocal minority. The bulk of opposition to abortion comes from social conservatives. They are opposed on relgious grounds.
Anyway. Whether you are for or against abortion there will always be abortion. The question is should abortion be criminalized.
Abortion, Mass Immigration, Gun-Grabbing And Endless War For Israel
The 2024 New Hampshire Republican Party presidential primary has been under way for a while now and this young puppy guy currently serving as governor of NH named Chris Sununu, with the nice smile and the sunny disposition, has gone down to Swamp City DC to do horribly shady things with US Senator Mitch McConnell and US Senator Rick “Bagman For Plutocrats” Scott and it is all very appalling and unseemly, and Trump — the former president and now New Jersey golf pro — is lurking in the undergrowth and the wild, wooded golf course areas of the presidential primary.
CHRIS SUNUNU has been crawling around in bed with Mitch McConnell and Rick Scott and there should be no doubt that Gov. Chris Sununu has been getting blueberry pie crumbs in that unholy bed of bribery and donations and secret deals.
Mitch McConnell and Rick Scott are treasonous rodentine Republican Party whores who do the bidding of evil and nasty donor scum.
McConnell and Rick Scott push mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.
Mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration increases traffic congestion, spreads urban and suburban sprawl, increases housing costs, lowers wages, swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals, harms the environment and destroys cultural cohesion.
Chris Sununu Is All Smile And No Integrity
Drink Plenty Of Water And Lemonade And Ale During New England Heat Wave!
If Down’s Syndrome is a genetic malformation that must be cured by culling, then how much more important is eliminating the psychological disorder known as psychopathy, one of the largest causes of humanity’s troubles?
☮
There has been no correction. Anyone can make any projection they like, based on whatever assumptions and estimates they choose, but so far, the hard facts—delivered every ten years at each census—have been that blacks are above replacement. Maybe the 2020 census will change that, buy so far no one has shown that.
Anyhow, whether or not blacks are above or below replacement is not actually the relevant question. The relevant question is whether blacks are above or below other racial groups. And the clear and undisputed answer is that blacks are above everyone except Hispanics.
Demography is a game of comparative success. You don’t have to outrun the bear. You just have to outrun the other runners. Blacks are doing that. All of the “blacks are below replacement” and “abortion will save the white race” talk is false solace: whistling past the graveyard. The reality is blacks are outbreeding almost everyone, the lowest class of blacks are breeding the fastest, and abortion has signally failed to deliver on the claims that Margaret Sanger et al. made for it. These are the facts. What we choose to do with that information is up to us.
>A shorter way to say the nebulafox thesis is that we have forsaken Christian morality to return to pre-Christian morals, except inverted: now weakness is strength. And if you disagree you will be punished as a heretic.
I don’t wholly disagree, but I believe it is more subtle than that. Mandarinate dynamics are as cut-throat as they ever have been, the demand for the most impressive resume more intense than ever. What’s different, apart from elite self-perception, is what is pushed as “good” for the populace at large. This can show up in surprisingly subtle ways: for example, zero tolerance policies for fights at school, which will punish the attacker and attacked equally.
Certain facets of elite culture, like a complete aversion to open conflict and an acceptance of casual 180 reversals in the face of new consensus, are increasingly showing up in policy. And non-elites are increasingly realizing how bizarre it is.
Part of the reason for the mismatch between projections and reality is that they fail to account for the imbalance of trade in inter-racial breeding (described previously), and part of it may be that whatever assumptions and estimates they use are not race-normed for blacks.
And even if they finally get it right for once and black fertility really does fall below replacement, that doesn't actually mean anything for society at large if everyone else's fertility falls even further (as has been happening), since the black portion of the population will still continue to grow at everyone else's expense.Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Twinkie
These aren’t “projections” – they are actual lifetime births per 1,000 women. Note:
This can happen due to demographic “momentum” from earlier high fertility, e.g. South Korean population grew despite below replacement fertility for some time (but will now shrink very fast in the next decades).
Per the comparative fertility, the population will comprise more and more of Hawaiians, Hispanics, and blacks. But the monkey in the wrench is immigration.
Given the stated black TFR my guess is that blacks born around 1990 will have above replacement fertility. South Korea's actual lifetime fertility will probably be closer 1.4, although in that case the high number of mail order brides messes the statistics up further.Replies: @Black-woman
For an example of how out of whack TFRs can get, have a gander at HailToYou's meticulous look into recent US reproduction statistics, which Steve cited in a recent Takimag article:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/
Hail thought that the black TFR had been about 1.9 in the early part of the decade, but if you look closely at his chart, you’ll notice that the black fertility dip “below replacement” is only very tiny and only after the years for which there were actual census figures. Hail notes that actual births to black mothers were 14.8% of all births in the final year of his chart and the “lowest” year of black fertility. But the black portion of the population that year was about 12.9%, so on that figure alone blacks are clearly breeding above their portion of the population, irrespective of whatever the fertility estimates say. And that is before getting into the mother's-race/balance-of-mate-trade problem discussed earlier.
The more general problem with TFR is that most of the time when laypeople—such as internet commenters—talk about "TFR", the real subject is population growth or decline, and they are just using "TFR" as a shorthand. But besides its other problems, TFR leaves out generation duration, so it does not map onto population growth as well as everyone assumes. Then the conversation gets bogged down in a bunch of TFR minutiae when the real subject is population change, which is a less abstruse and more important number.Replies: @Twinkie
Well, homos are fluffy-duff neo-aristocratic by nature and love to schmooze and serve people of riches and privilege. No wonder Big Capital loves homo vanity. So, it’s not so much that ‘gay pride’ shields the oligarchy but that it fields it.
Whether you like or dislike Trump, you have to give him credit for one great service. He openly routed the US Chamber of Commerce out of the MAGA GOP. The unholy trinity of IslamoGloboHomo now solely resides in the SJW DNC where it can be trounced.
PEACE 😇
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1z-nBYXv48Replies: @A123
IslamoGloboHomo is the Muslim offensive aimed at traditional Judeo-Christian values.
Whether you like or dislike Trump, you have to give him credit for one great service. He openly routed the US Chamber of Commerce out of the MAGA GOP. The unholy trinity of IslamoGloboHomo now solely resides in the SJW DNC where it can be trounced.
PEACE 😇
Woke Churches and Synagogues are a serious problem. The Charlottesville Five are in prison because of three Woke Christians.
• Terry McAuliffe, Gov. // St. Luke Catholic Church
• Ralph Northam, Lt. Gov. (And current Governor) // First Baptist Capeville
• Mark Herring, Attorney General // Leesburg Presbyterian Church
Anyone serious about fixing the SJW Islamic Globalism problem in the U.S. has to take on Woke Christians and the Islamists that control them. Woke Jews should not receive a free pass, but focusing on expendable “useful idiots” deployed by Muslim SJW Jihadi invaders & manipulators will never work as a strategy.
PEACE 😇
An airline pilot performs the exact task he is paid to do. For example, he is paid to take-off in Los Angeles, and land in Chicago, and lo, behold, that’s exactly what he does, with no kickbacks or cross-referrals or corner-cutting or slacking-off or compromises along the way. I can’t think of another occupation or institution that is like that, uniformly.
That’s not an antiSemitic trope. It’s a tropish antiSemitic canard. Get it right, or I will report you to Jonathan Greenblatt.
“shortism”?
Don’t you mean, “apart-height”?
Of course, setting aside the fact that we live in a cronyist system where wealth is often gained at expense of others, I admire the Asian drive to earn wealth over Jewish virtue signaling about justice. The whole point of a market system is you can only earn wealth by providing what consumers are willing to pay for, so personal profit necessarily leads to social benefit.Replies: @res, @V. K. Ovelund, @MarkinLA
Thing is I can believe it. As AE has shown, “justice and equality” is more important to American Jews than Israel or religious observance.
The problem is defining what “justice and equality” is to a Jew.
-1- Those who believe in traditional values -- Traditional Jews & Traditional Christians
-2- Those who believe in Woke, SJW, and/or other corrupted values -- Apostates, Muslims, Woke Christians, & Woke Jews
Those two categories cover 95% of the population for Christian Heritage nations in Europe plus the U.S. There is obviously nuance and degrees within those top line categories.
PEACE 😇
The problem is defining what "justice and equality" is to a Jew.Replies: @A123
There are two obvious groupings:
-1- Those who believe in traditional values — Traditional Jews & Traditional Christians
-2- Those who believe in Woke, SJW, and/or other corrupted values — Apostates, Muslims, Woke Christians, & Woke Jews
Those two categories cover 95% of the population for Christian Heritage nations in Europe plus the U.S. There is obviously nuance and degrees within those top line categories.
PEACE 😇
https://www.unz.com/isteve/black-share-of-known-murder-offenders-1980-2019/#comment-4662906
https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/bumbling-towards-the-biosingularity/#comment-4596940Replies: @Twinkie, @Stealth
Rust belt cities with substantial black populations will be primarily mixed-race in the coming three decades. Bm/wf couples aren’t merely “common” anymore; most young couples I see now consist of a middle class, presentable white girl and some young black guy who wears his pants below his ass. Long gone are the days when white girls who dated black men were fat, unattractive and dysfunctional. And although there isn’t much potential for procreation, a lot of middle aged white women date them now, too. About half of the children you see around are mixed.
For reasons that are fairly complex to explain TFR underestimates total lifetime fertility during times when the maternal age is increasing. This article gives a brief explanation: https://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/data/demographic-data-sheets/european-demographic-data-sheet-2010/tempo-effect-and-adjusted-tfr
Given the stated black TFR my guess is that blacks born around 1990 will have above replacement fertility. South Korea’s actual lifetime fertility will probably be closer 1.4, although in that case the high number of mail order brides messes the statistics up further.
Anyway. Whether you are for or against abortion there will always be abortion. The question is should abortion be criminalized.Replies: @dfordoom
Whether you are for or against bank robbery there will always be bank robbery. The question is should bank robbery be criminalised. Obviously the sane answer is to make bank robbery safe and legal. The same applies to murder and rape. Making murder illegal just drives the problem underground. Murder should be safe and legal and carried out by properly qualified personnel.
You have concluded that abortion should be criminalized. That’s fine with me. What do you say the penalty should be for having an abortion?
Fertility Rates In The United States By Ethnicity (2018)Rank Ethnic group Births per 1000 women
1 All 1729.5
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2106.5
3 Hispanic 1959
4 Black (non-Hispanic) 1792
5 American Indian/Alaska Native 1650.5
6 White (non-Hispanic) 1640
7 Asian 15252019https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity.jpgReplies: @Almost Missouri, @Blinky Bill, @Return of Shawn
Total fertility rate in the United States in 2019, by ethnicity of father (per 1,000 men)
My best estimate:
1 All 1706
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2306
3 Black (non-Hispanic) 2014
4 Hispanic 1877
5 White (non-Hispanic) 1715
6 American Indian/Alaska Native 1408
7 Asian 968
Islander and Black men do well with all races of women. White men do better than White women and Hispanic men with other races. While Asian and Native men do really poorly with all races, including their own.
If anyone can find the real numbers it would be much appreciated!
2. Asian men have the highest marriage rate among men in America.*
3. Don’t make up fake numbers.
*They also have the highest income, best credit rating, longest lifespan, highest education attainment, etc. Yeah, they have it real rough. The fact of the matter is that this country has been wonderful for Asian men (and women). Don’t whine about small stuff and be grateful and patriotic is what I’d say.
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2306
3 Black (non-Hispanic) 2014
4 Hispanic 1877
5 White (non-Hispanic) 1715
6 American Indian/Alaska Native 1408
7 Asian 968Islander and Black men do well with all races of women. White men do better than White women and Hispanic men with other races. While Asian and Native men do really poorly with all races, including their own.If anyone can find the real numbers it would be much appreciated!Replies: @Twinkie, @SFG
1. Asian women have the lowest fertility among women in America. Are they doing poorly with men?
2. Asian men have the highest marriage rate among men in America.*
3. Don’t make up fake numbers.
*They also have the highest income, best credit rating, longest lifespan, highest education attainment, etc. Yeah, they have it real rough. The fact of the matter is that this country has been wonderful for Asian men (and women). Don’t whine about small stuff and be grateful and patriotic is what I’d say.
The Asian numbers are different when you separate foreign-born vs American-born. From the same source (Pew):
For me, what’s really noteworthy is the last sentence. In 1980, nearly half of both Asian men and women born in the US intermarried. Today, however, the rate for women has risen slightly, but that for men has fallen by a greater margin. There seems to be an increased preference for marrying within-race for Asian men among the most recent cohorts.
Let me revise that last sentence as Pew further notes:
It appears both Asian men and women in the younger cohorts prefer within-race marriage, but the decline in intermarriage is greater among women (even if still higher than Asian men).
And this is also interesting:
In general, the age patterns differ among races:
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2306
3 Black (non-Hispanic) 2014
4 Hispanic 1877
5 White (non-Hispanic) 1715
6 American Indian/Alaska Native 1408
7 Asian 968Islander and Black men do well with all races of women. White men do better than White women and Hispanic men with other races. While Asian and Native men do really poorly with all races, including their own.If anyone can find the real numbers it would be much appreciated!Replies: @Twinkie, @SFG
Apart from the native Hawaiian thing, that sounds almost exactly like a financial-success ordering. I wonder if we’re really seeing class differences?
I have the vague impression as Asians assimilate the guys (on average, of course) start to lose the nerd image. That might be accounting for at least some of the decline in Asian female intermarriage.
So assimilation of Asian men is likely not what's causing with the decline of exogamy among Asian women.
I used to think that a big part of the reason was that the composition of Asians has changed drastically (the "Asian" category in America is now substantially South Asian, with Indians being close to 25% of the total) and because that rising segment was highly endogamous. That's still true, but the recent data seems to show that some East Asians (e.g. Koreans) are becoming less exogamous.
I suspect three reasons. One is the dramatic increase in the overall Asian population. It's been a truism that, ceteris paribus, the larger the minority population, the lower the exogamy. In other words, Asian women now have a much greater pool of Asian men to choose as marriage partners.
The second reason I think is a strong contributor is cultural, specifically that of the host society. There is now a much weaker social pressure for assimilation and greater encouragement for cultural affinity-seeking. A major national newspaper covered this phenomenon some years ago and interviewed female Asian newlyweds who partnered up with Asian men, and their replies were pretty similar, "I dated non-Asian guys before, but he [the Asian husband] gets it. He grew up the way I did, with similar parents, similar values, upbringing. It's easier with someone who understands your experience from the beginning, no explanation necessary" or something to that effect. Put another way, it's another part of the rise of assortative marriage in the U.S.
Personally, as an assimilationist, I think this is an unhealthy trend. My view is that Asians (or minorities in general) should intermarry with the majority population and "blend in" to the majority culture and ethos. So I don't look favorably upon these new trends.
And then there is a third possible causal factor. In the past, it was common for East Asian women to say that they didn't want to marry someone like their father, an old school husband who was seen to be "oppressive" and that they'd rather marry, say, white men who treated them as equals. Today, younger East Asian husbands (certainly Japanese and Korean husbands) aren't seen to be tyrannical or oppressive. Feminism has thoroughly permeated the source countries (again, esp. Japan and Korea), many women have their own careers, and so forth. In other words, the reputations (and actual characteristics) of East Asian husbands as marriage partners have changed.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Perhaps Asian men are more likely to import a spouse from their ethnic homeland?
I imagine that would be partly by preference and partly by necessity.
Societal pressure probably did-or used to-play a role in this. My impression was that East Asian sons were under more pressure to marry within their own ethnic groups/race than their sisters, whereas for South Asians, it’s the other way around, with the daughters facing that expectation and their brothers being relatively more free to marry outside their race if they so desire and can.
(It’s probably nowhere near as strong as it once was for the former. South Asia-Muslim and Hindu alike-is still comparatively conservative to the developed world.)
Also, I have noticed that Southeast Asians tend to be the truly prolific mixers, compared to either East or South Asians. Just compare the Philippines, where genetic flow is personified, or Thailand, where the royal family has part Chinese origins.
Even in the Islamic cultures, where the religious issue prevents any wide scale assimilation one way or the other, it’s still not terribly uncommon for a bumi Malay kid to have a Chinese, Indian or Arab great-great-grandparent back there. Sometimes all three. Creates very interesting situations for a Malay girl not wearing a hijab: depending on the genetic background and resulting complexion, she could be mistaken as Chinese, Tamil, or anything in between without anybody guessing the right answer.
I'll be honest, the one that puzzles me the most is Colombians. In most cases, these are Mestizas that look to be at least 75% European, maybe even more, but never 100% European. Colombia is one of the most populous countries in South America, and it's one of the whiter countries, but yet it seems to export women at a far, far higher rate than, say, Argentina or Venezuela (Brazil also exports a fair number of women, but then it's the largest country on the continent and doesn't seem disproportionate).Replies: @Blinky Bill
See the very detailed data here: https://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml
Interestingly, more recently, Korean-American exogamy seems to be declining while that of Vietnamese and Indians in the States is increasing.
A Sort of Crony Meritocracy
CENTRAL BANKER SHYSTERISM
https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1402261377369182215?s=20
https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1402211375573876744?s=20
https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1401924852181839879?s=20
I think this is Sam Francis from 1993 in this Tweet:
https://twitter.com/njhochman/status/1401921876616646660?s=20
Tweet from 2014:
I do not credit the Nation of Islam and do not recommend that you do, either, but the slave trade is a special interest of theirs and I suppose that, despite their general lack of lucidity, they might know more about that particular topic than most of us do. Their report on the subject (with numerous citations of what appear to be white sources contemporaneous with the events reported) finds that Jews in the American South were at least twice as likely to own slaves as other whites were. This question would hardly interest me except that, once denied the dubious benefit of slave ownership by the 13th Amendment, Jews seem to have reversed position to the opposite extreme, scapegoating their own deeds upon the rest of us.The report is more persuasive on some points than on others but I have never read a credible refutation of its main findings.The report's assertion that Jews played a heavy role in the negro slave trade is less well documented than the finding regarding slave ownership, but of course the assertion is plausible on its face. I do not really even have a firm opinion regarding the justice of negro slavery (except that I would neither like to own a slave nor to be one), but one dislikes being accused of something actually done by the accuser's ancestors rather than one's own.In short, the putative Jewish concern for justice and equality is a crock. It has no bearing on justice and equality as the two words are understood in ordinary speech. Decent Jews (of whom there are many yet all too few) thus usually know better than to talk of such things in gentile company.Replies: @Jtgw, @Liberty Mike
The NOI should be credited with their research and writing anent the slave trade. The average Rhode Islander knows squat about his state’s involvement in the slave trade. He can tell you, with pride, that the first jewish synagogue in America is Touro synagogue in Newport.
Aligning with your observations, from what I’ve seen personally, three groups of women that have among the strongest tendency to end up with white American men (as “mail order brides” etc.) are Filipinas, Thais, Colombians.
I’ll be honest, the one that puzzles me the most is Colombians. In most cases, these are Mestizas that look to be at least 75% European, maybe even more, but never 100% European. Colombia is one of the most populous countries in South America, and it’s one of the whiter countries, but yet it seems to export women at a far, far higher rate than, say, Argentina or Venezuela (Brazil also exports a fair number of women, but then it’s the largest country on the continent and doesn’t seem disproportionate).
https://youtu.be/ZYaOWUu_KVo
https://youtu.be/6OoIwHAdUNMReplies: @Twinkie
if we’re excluding sports ability, then ideal height is around 6-2, give or take an inch. at 6-4 people are already noticing your height more than the rest of you. for high achievement in various sports, you’ll want to be taller than that. this is normed to europeans and, possibly, west africans. the other humans are shorter and a 6-2 man would be very tall and already into the part of life where that’s his defining characteristic.
it is correct that europeans subconsciously organize themselves and the rest of society by height. other things matter too but simple height is a big factor in life.
i’m gonna go kind of contrarian here and assert that yeah, it matters. i don’t trust a really short guy in general, and would never accept a really short guy as my leader unless he was a hell of a person in all other regards. it is reflexively offensive to me that all these women and short third world men are becoming the elected leaders of various cities, states, and congress. i instinctively don’t trust them or recognize their authority. probably for good reason. it’s not a coincidence that the President is usually tall, and that the taller guy usually wins the election. it’s even possible, though i haven’t checked, that short Presidents make worse Presidents, other things being mostly equal.
i can’t see a population of european men EVER accepting the authority of somebody like the mayor of Chicago, this ugly, Yoda looking brown woman who might be 5 feet tall at best. they might have recognized Queen Victoria, a strong ruler who deserved to be there by pedigree, but not this lesbian.
These percentages are meaningless for making race-wide assumptions, as there has been a huge decline in marriage in general in younger cohorts. These figures are only for the people who actually got married. A huge number of young Asians (men in particular) are not married.
The Ruling Class of the American Empire And Globalized Plutocrats Own And Control the Federal Reserve Bank And The Scheme To Pauperize the Regular People While Rewarding the Top Ten Percent Wealth Holders Is The Fed’s Secret Plot. Not much of a secret!
There is no capitalism; there is no free market; there is no free enterprise; there is only monetary policy extremism from the Federal Reserve Bank.
https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1402340262781886468?s=20
https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1402336416516935684?s=20
If someone can run faster or do better math than me, they have superior skill and I can respect that definition of meritocracy. “Honors to the strong,” as the Romans said.
But no one should have superior rights to mine or claim that their life has more moral value than mine or anyone else’s. Our elites like to hold up their Ivy League degrees as proof they should rule over the rest of us. Nonsense. My rulers should be people I choose, who represent my interests, and are accountable to me.
Meritocracy as the Meritocrats understand it is their divine right to rule. It is an excuse for oligarchy. Meritocrats hold republican and/or democratic government in contempt.
I kinda like Singer, but he’s ultimately an academic and with that comes an inability to conceive of a way of raising children that isn’t collectivized. That is the context behind that quote, he compares having too many children to the “tragedy of the commons,” the solution of simply dividing up the commons doesn’t occur to him. [EDIT: as far as what people will actually do in the far future, it’ll be listening to Peter Singer. But his whole shtick is telling people uncomfortable truths, and he ought to do that here.]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/peter-singer-womens-right-to-have-children-might-have-to-be-sacrificed-for
Here’s a novel pro-abortion argument: I’m not joining the anti-abortion crusade for the same reason I don’t want to join many other kinds of bleeding-heart campaigns: I don’t think the “saved,” when grown up, would be likely to thank me. If they did have an opinion on the subject, they’d be several times more likely to condemn me as evil for getting abortion prohibited then praise me for it. This’d be the case whether the saved are white, black, yellow or polka dotted.
He wrote some good songs, but his performances are forgettable.
He stayed with the commie line much too long.
I kinda like Singer
He wrote some good songs, but his performances are forgettable.
He stayed with the commie line much too long.
It’s not quite that stark in the U.S. In general, Filipinos and Koreans tend to intermarry highly while Vietnamese and Indians tend to be very endogamous.
See the very detailed data here: https://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml
Interestingly, more recently, Korean-American exogamy seems to be declining while that of Vietnamese and Indians in the States is increasing.
Assimilation plays a role, but not in the direction you think. The data is rather clear that the Asian men who are assimilated intermarry at much higher rates (thus American-born or -raised Asian men marry out at substantially higher rates than those who are foreign-born, those with better English skills are more exogamous, etc.).
So assimilation of Asian men is likely not what’s causing with the decline of exogamy among Asian women.
I used to think that a big part of the reason was that the composition of Asians has changed drastically (the “Asian” category in America is now substantially South Asian, with Indians being close to 25% of the total) and because that rising segment was highly endogamous. That’s still true, but the recent data seems to show that some East Asians (e.g. Koreans) are becoming less exogamous.
I suspect three reasons. One is the dramatic increase in the overall Asian population. It’s been a truism that, ceteris paribus, the larger the minority population, the lower the exogamy. In other words, Asian women now have a much greater pool of Asian men to choose as marriage partners.
The second reason I think is a strong contributor is cultural, specifically that of the host society. There is now a much weaker social pressure for assimilation and greater encouragement for cultural affinity-seeking. A major national newspaper covered this phenomenon some years ago and interviewed female Asian newlyweds who partnered up with Asian men, and their replies were pretty similar, “I dated non-Asian guys before, but he [the Asian husband] gets it. He grew up the way I did, with similar parents, similar values, upbringing. It’s easier with someone who understands your experience from the beginning, no explanation necessary” or something to that effect. Put another way, it’s another part of the rise of assortative marriage in the U.S.
Personally, as an assimilationist, I think this is an unhealthy trend. My view is that Asians (or minorities in general) should intermarry with the majority population and “blend in” to the majority culture and ethos. So I don’t look favorably upon these new trends.
And then there is a third possible causal factor. In the past, it was common for East Asian women to say that they didn’t want to marry someone like their father, an old school husband who was seen to be “oppressive” and that they’d rather marry, say, white men who treated them as equals. Today, younger East Asian husbands (certainly Japanese and Korean husbands) aren’t seen to be tyrannical or oppressive. Feminism has thoroughly permeated the source countries (again, esp. Japan and Korea), many women have their own careers, and so forth. In other words, the reputations (and actual characteristics) of East Asian husbands as marriage partners have changed.
So assimilation of Asian men is likely not what's causing with the decline of exogamy among Asian women.
I used to think that a big part of the reason was that the composition of Asians has changed drastically (the "Asian" category in America is now substantially South Asian, with Indians being close to 25% of the total) and because that rising segment was highly endogamous. That's still true, but the recent data seems to show that some East Asians (e.g. Koreans) are becoming less exogamous.
I suspect three reasons. One is the dramatic increase in the overall Asian population. It's been a truism that, ceteris paribus, the larger the minority population, the lower the exogamy. In other words, Asian women now have a much greater pool of Asian men to choose as marriage partners.
The second reason I think is a strong contributor is cultural, specifically that of the host society. There is now a much weaker social pressure for assimilation and greater encouragement for cultural affinity-seeking. A major national newspaper covered this phenomenon some years ago and interviewed female Asian newlyweds who partnered up with Asian men, and their replies were pretty similar, "I dated non-Asian guys before, but he [the Asian husband] gets it. He grew up the way I did, with similar parents, similar values, upbringing. It's easier with someone who understands your experience from the beginning, no explanation necessary" or something to that effect. Put another way, it's another part of the rise of assortative marriage in the U.S.
Personally, as an assimilationist, I think this is an unhealthy trend. My view is that Asians (or minorities in general) should intermarry with the majority population and "blend in" to the majority culture and ethos. So I don't look favorably upon these new trends.
And then there is a third possible causal factor. In the past, it was common for East Asian women to say that they didn't want to marry someone like their father, an old school husband who was seen to be "oppressive" and that they'd rather marry, say, white men who treated them as equals. Today, younger East Asian husbands (certainly Japanese and Korean husbands) aren't seen to be tyrannical or oppressive. Feminism has thoroughly permeated the source countries (again, esp. Japan and Korea), many women have their own careers, and so forth. In other words, the reputations (and actual characteristics) of East Asian husbands as marriage partners have changed.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
A fourth reason, perhaps: Western man has during the past 30 years made a preposterous fool of himself. At the moment, his civilization is badly losing the race against East Asia, which in relative terms has risen so rapidly that it already in several respects surpasses the West and reasonably expects to eclipse the west in several additional respects soon.
Marrying a white today, as opposed to 50 years ago, is a different proposition.
Outmarriage among whites is no goal of mine, nor am I Asian (thus, I may have no idea what I am talking about); but as speculation, I suspect that my fourth reason might survive scrutiny.
European civilization having been a conspicuously high achiever for most of the past 2700 years, I doubt that her story is over. She’ll be back, though I’ll probably not live to see it; but that does little for an East Asian marrying a white right now as far as I know.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/PST_2017.05.15.intermarriage-01-05.png
Note that the intermarry has increased for those with "some college" or "college" education among Asians in America, but there has been a steep decline in those without any college education.
We can’t know the “lifetime” births of women alive today without projecting. You can say “estimating” if you prefer.
For an example of how out of whack TFRs can get, have a gander at HailToYou‘s meticulous look into recent US reproduction statistics, which Steve cited in a recent Takimag article:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/
Hail thought that the black TFR had been about 1.9 in the early part of the decade, but if you look closely at his chart, you’ll notice that the black fertility dip “below replacement” is only very tiny and only after the years for which there were actual census figures. Hail notes that actual births to black mothers were 14.8% of all births in the final year of his chart and the “lowest” year of black fertility. But the black portion of the population that year was about 12.9%, so on that figure alone blacks are clearly breeding above their portion of the population, irrespective of whatever the fertility estimates say. And that is before getting into the mother’s-race/balance-of-mate-trade problem discussed earlier.
The more general problem with TFR is that most of the time when laypeople—such as internet commenters—talk about “TFR”, the real subject is population growth or decline, and they are just using “TFR” as a shorthand. But besides its other problems, TFR leaves out generation duration, so it does not map onto population growth as well as everyone assumes. Then the conversation gets bogged down in a bunch of TFR minutiae when the real subject is population change, which is a less abstruse and more important number.
I’ll admit I haven’t studied Singer all that closely, but his ideas always struck me as the reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism, except now I read on Scott Alexander that there exists an Insect Welfare Project. Which Scott doesn’t care for, but he at least feels the need to examine the idea seriously.
I’ve always thought utilitarianism is one of the worst ideas that smart people take seriously. I think it’s because many smart people are uncomfortable with intuition as a guide — they much prefer to use logic and numbers to bust intuition, and utilitarianism seems best suited to the task. Except atheistic morality is nothing *but* primate intuitions, trying to systematize that tangle to seek out counterintuitive moral truths is spergy and basically either outputs the same thing as intuition, or nonsense like, well, the Insect Welfare Project. When it does the latter, the utilitarian is left with a choice: do I go with the finding that Insect Lives Matter, or do I add yet another addendum to utilitarianism to keep it from straying too far from intuition? The latter is always unsatisfying — a whole lot of mental masturbation to arrive back at intuition. But the former makes you weird and unpopular.
Trying to come up with a formula, for how many insects, it is morally worth, to kill, to save a cow, from being made into a burger, is inane.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
That is a much too grandiose explanation. I think the a possibly related causation is more mundane – the decline in status and earning power of the non-college graduating segment of the white male population.
Note that the intermarry has increased for those with “some college” or “college” education among Asians in America, but there has been a steep decline in those without any college education.
For an example of how out of whack TFRs can get, have a gander at HailToYou's meticulous look into recent US reproduction statistics, which Steve cited in a recent Takimag article:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/
Hail thought that the black TFR had been about 1.9 in the early part of the decade, but if you look closely at his chart, you’ll notice that the black fertility dip “below replacement” is only very tiny and only after the years for which there were actual census figures. Hail notes that actual births to black mothers were 14.8% of all births in the final year of his chart and the “lowest” year of black fertility. But the black portion of the population that year was about 12.9%, so on that figure alone blacks are clearly breeding above their portion of the population, irrespective of whatever the fertility estimates say. And that is before getting into the mother's-race/balance-of-mate-trade problem discussed earlier.
The more general problem with TFR is that most of the time when laypeople—such as internet commenters—talk about "TFR", the real subject is population growth or decline, and they are just using "TFR" as a shorthand. But besides its other problems, TFR leaves out generation duration, so it does not map onto population growth as well as everyone assumes. Then the conversation gets bogged down in a bunch of TFR minutiae when the real subject is population change, which is a less abstruse and more important number.Replies: @Twinkie
Keep in mind that, unlike, say, lifespan, lifetime births are relatively easy to measure, because most women are done giving birth by early- to mid-forties. In other words, the only cohorts you have to project are those in the late teens to late thirties.
Yes, because black fertility was as high as 2.5 or so in the early 1990’s. As a I mentioned previously, there is momentum to population growth that doesn’t coincide with fertility. Population growth is a lagging indicator in respect to fertility (or put another way, fertility is a leading indicator in respect to population growth). The fertility trend line is pretty clear for blacks (as it is for others) in America. It is falling fast. And black fertility as of today (not in 1990) IS below replacement.
I agree with you on the issue of relative fertility. Although both black and Hispanic fertility has cratered, it is still higher than white and Asian fertility, so the population will increasingly become more black and Hispanic, absent immigration. But, as I put before, immigration is the monkey in the wrench.
But white nationalists will still cling to their paranoid fantasy that blacks are breeding like rabbits.
It's not just a US thing. Fertility rates for all ethnic/racial groups globally are likely to stabilise at a point well below replacement level. The rapidity of the fertility decline in many sub-Saharan African countries is startling.Yes, immigration is the wild card. But as fertility rates plummet globally that pressure may ease a little.Replies: @Twinkie
But while fertility is declining for everybody the process of fertility decline started at different times for different ethnic groups. It is almost certain that eventually the fertility of all ethnic/racial groups will stabilise at the same equally low level. So the current relatively higher fertility for blacks and Hispanics is almost certainly just a temporary thing.
But white nationalists will still cling to their paranoid fantasy that blacks are breeding like rabbits.
It’s not just a US thing. Fertility rates for all ethnic/racial groups globally are likely to stabilise at a point well below replacement level. The rapidity of the fertility decline in many sub-Saharan African countries is startling.
Yes, immigration is the wild card. But as fertility rates plummet globally that pressure may ease a little.
But white nationalists will still cling to their paranoid fantasy that blacks are breeding like rabbits.
It's not just a US thing. Fertility rates for all ethnic/racial groups globally are likely to stabilise at a point well below replacement level. The rapidity of the fertility decline in many sub-Saharan African countries is startling.Yes, immigration is the wild card. But as fertility rates plummet globally that pressure may ease a little.Replies: @Twinkie
It is not “almost certain.” It is, on the contrary, a near certainty that black fertility will stabilize at a different point than that for whites or Asians.
And how do you know that black fertility won't stabilise at a lower level than white fertility?
I'm assuming that since declining fertility is global and is happening among all races/ethnicities then it's probably driven by the same forces everywhere. It seems reasonable enough to assume that the end point will be much the same for all races/ethnicities.
I could be wrong, and you could be wrong.Replies: @Twinkie, @notanon, @Paperback Writer
Agreed.
Trying to come up with a formula, for how many insects, it is morally worth, to kill, to save a cow, from being made into a burger, is inane.
Notwithstanding:This sentence takes the prize for best epigram of the week. (What prize, you ask? Well, ...)Replies: @Wency
I wonder how relative fertility rates by ethnicity would vary, if we moved from an opt-in system of contraception, to an opt-out one?
I'll be honest, the one that puzzles me the most is Colombians. In most cases, these are Mestizas that look to be at least 75% European, maybe even more, but never 100% European. Colombia is one of the most populous countries in South America, and it's one of the whiter countries, but yet it seems to export women at a far, far higher rate than, say, Argentina or Venezuela (Brazil also exports a fair number of women, but then it's the largest country on the continent and doesn't seem disproportionate).Replies: @Blinky Bill
So how exactly do you know this?
And how do you know that black fertility won’t stabilise at a lower level than white fertility?
I’m assuming that since declining fertility is global and is happening among all races/ethnicities then it’s probably driven by the same forces everywhere. It seems reasonable enough to assume that the end point will be much the same for all races/ethnicities.
I could be wrong, and you could be wrong.
if high IQ populations lead the way then it won't matter if low IQ populations *eventually* reach the same point
it will be too late.
Black women having more children increases the odds of their hitting the lawsuit lottery. I don’t know if this fact is appreciated and influences behavior.
Trying to come up with a formula, for how many insects, it is morally worth, to kill, to save a cow, from being made into a burger, is inane.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Promoters of animal-rights seem to be the most sincere among the leftists, the least malicious, the least virtue-signaling, the least manipulative, and the least likely to attach themselves to the entire litany of postmodern leftist causes. I still do not particularly enjoy their company on average, unfortunately, but there is a difference.
Notwithstanding:
This sentence takes the prize for best epigram of the week. (What prize, you ask? Well, …)
And how do you know that black fertility won't stabilise at a lower level than white fertility?
I'm assuming that since declining fertility is global and is happening among all races/ethnicities then it's probably driven by the same forces everywhere. It seems reasonable enough to assume that the end point will be much the same for all races/ethnicities.
I could be wrong, and you could be wrong.Replies: @Twinkie, @notanon, @Paperback Writer
Sure, but the chance of you being wrong is much higher.
Can you tell me anywhere in the world where black fertility is lower than white fertility?
Yes, but those same forces do not impact all groups with equal force. And the groups being impacted also have very different demographic traits, even if the said force were equal.
Notwithstanding:This sentence takes the prize for best epigram of the week. (What prize, you ask? Well, ...)Replies: @Wency
I used to think the animal rights fanatics were some of the worst, but it would seem the difference is they have stayed the same and everyone else has gotten worse. Also, their argument against dog ownership doesn’t sound as bad as it once did, now that I see what has become of dog ownership — millions of single white women living alone with their yappy little neurotic “fur babies”. Though to be sure, I still love dogs and enjoy raising children with the backdrop of a big, friendly, well-adjusted family dog.
As for Triteleia’s point, I agree with it, but just so we’re clear it’s not hyperbole: Scott Alexander (whom I normally do enjoy reading) very literally discussed some of that math on his Substack earlier this week, though he’s much more interested in the matter of cow lives vs. chicken lives.
I have an extreme contempt for vegans. They're all totally bonkers.
The decline in black fertility started later than the decline in white fertility. So you wouldn’t expect it to have reached the same low levels yet.
LOL. Yes, there’s something to that. The animal rights fanatics were totally nuts right from the get-go. I still think they’re pretty close to being the most self-righteous.
I have an extreme contempt for vegans. They’re all totally bonkers.
Given the stated black TFR my guess is that blacks born around 1990 will have above replacement fertility. South Korea's actual lifetime fertility will probably be closer 1.4, although in that case the high number of mail order brides messes the statistics up further.Replies: @Black-woman
That’s a pretty obvious way to let people know you don’t know any actual black millennials.
And why do you think that is?
If consumerism is one of the chief suspects then consumerism possibly started to have an impact on blacks later than whites.
I don't see any particular reason to think that demographic collapse is stoppable or that it won't end up affecting everybody equally, especially since we're heading towards a global monoculture. But fertility might end up stabilising at different levels in different places. Nobody knows.
I think it's paranoid to just assume (as some white nationalists seem to assume) that black fertility will always be higher than white fertility. That belief is based on nothing more than hatred and fear of blacks. It's possible that black fertility will stabilise at a higher level than white fertility. It's the automatic assumption that this will necessarily be the case that I take issue with.Replies: @Twinkie
the worst possible people to have in charge are high IQ sociopaths and the problem with our current system of meritocracy is it doesn’t filter those people out
if they’re not actively filtered out then when they get into positions of influence they’ll rig the existing “merit” based selection system in favor of people like themselves (and their dumber relatives)
and your society ends up ruled by the worst possible people.
And how do you know that black fertility won't stabilise at a lower level than white fertility?
I'm assuming that since declining fertility is global and is happening among all races/ethnicities then it's probably driven by the same forces everywhere. It seems reasonable enough to assume that the end point will be much the same for all races/ethnicities.
I could be wrong, and you could be wrong.Replies: @Twinkie, @notanon, @Paperback Writer
“I’m assuming that since declining fertility is global and is happening among all races/ethnicities…”
if high IQ populations lead the way then it won’t matter if low IQ populations *eventually* reach the same point
it will be too late.
No, 6’4″ is too tall. I’ve read that the power height sweet spot for a man is 5’11” to 6’2″. Shorter than that you’re a shrimp, taller, you’re a goon.
British YouGov agrees with me:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/07/11/ideal-height-56-woman-511-man
And how do you know that black fertility won't stabilise at a lower level than white fertility?
I'm assuming that since declining fertility is global and is happening among all races/ethnicities then it's probably driven by the same forces everywhere. It seems reasonable enough to assume that the end point will be much the same for all races/ethnicities.
I could be wrong, and you could be wrong.Replies: @Twinkie, @notanon, @Paperback Writer
I’m not interested in finding that out, for the US. But the facts are that black American fertility is below replacement level. I’ve put links to this here repeatedly, to no avail so I won’t bother to do so again. The problem in the US is that we’re importing more black via legal immigration than we imported blacks in slavery days.
ok...
The problem in the US is that we’re importing more black via legal immigration than we imported blacks in slavery days.
This sentence might just contradict the first sentence, depending on your definition of "black American".
Then there's guys like Kaperdink...
"Black American fertility is below replacement" looks increasingly like a cope.
But the facts are that black American fertility is below replacement level.
ok…
The problem in the US is that we’re importing more black via legal immigration than we imported blacks in slavery days.
This sentence might just contradict the first sentence, depending on your definition of “black American”.
Then there’s guys like Kaperdink…
“Black American fertility is below replacement” looks increasingly like a cope.
I think fertility decline is very poorly understood. There are lots of suspects (almost too many) but no smoking gun. Why did fertility decline apparently begin earlier in France than elsewhere? Or did the French just notice it earlier? We don’t have a demographic Hercule Poirot to give us the explanation in the last chapter.
If consumerism is one of the chief suspects then consumerism possibly started to have an impact on blacks later than whites.
I don’t see any particular reason to think that demographic collapse is stoppable or that it won’t end up affecting everybody equally, especially since we’re heading towards a global monoculture. But fertility might end up stabilising at different levels in different places. Nobody knows.
I think it’s paranoid to just assume (as some white nationalists seem to assume) that black fertility will always be higher than white fertility. That belief is based on nothing more than hatred and fear of blacks. It’s possible that black fertility will stabilise at a higher level than white fertility. It’s the automatic assumption that this will necessarily be the case that I take issue with.
Look at Japan and Korea, neighboring countries with related gene pools and similar cultures. Yet they are affected very differently by post-modernity. One is running head first into "globalism" while the other seems to be retreating into greater nationalism and localism. Though they may superficially have similar levels of fertility, one appears determined to maintain some semblance of ethnic purity while the pop culture of the other celebrates "international marriages" and their progeny.
If consumerism is one of the chief suspects then consumerism possibly started to have an impact on blacks later than whites.
I don't see any particular reason to think that demographic collapse is stoppable or that it won't end up affecting everybody equally, especially since we're heading towards a global monoculture. But fertility might end up stabilising at different levels in different places. Nobody knows.
I think it's paranoid to just assume (as some white nationalists seem to assume) that black fertility will always be higher than white fertility. That belief is based on nothing more than hatred and fear of blacks. It's possible that black fertility will stabilise at a higher level than white fertility. It's the automatic assumption that this will necessarily be the case that I take issue with.Replies: @Twinkie
That assumption is unwarranted by close to 100% of historical facts. Nothing ever affects everybody equally.
The idea of a global monoculture is overplayed. Yes, there is much greater international cultural transmission and exchange these days and that trend will probably increase. Nonetheless, peoples of different nations still have different histories, demographics, and a whole host of different conditions.
Look at Japan and Korea, neighboring countries with related gene pools and similar cultures. Yet they are affected very differently by post-modernity. One is running head first into “globalism” while the other seems to be retreating into greater nationalism and localism. Though they may superficially have similar levels of fertility, one appears determined to maintain some semblance of ethnic purity while the pop culture of the other celebrates “international marriages” and their progeny.
https://youtu.be/ZYaOWUu_KVo
https://youtu.be/6OoIwHAdUNMReplies: @Twinkie
I thought it was going to be a story about how this Asian guy met his wife at Columbia University. 😉
Are you saddened about being forced to subsidize, at the point of a gun, [in polite society its called "taxation"], the pre-birth murder of 10's of 1,000's of prospective children, ["deformed" or otherwise]?
Do you believe in tax funded abortions ? If so , why?
Regards, onebornfreeReplies: @Audacious Epigone
No, I don’t believe in that and yes, it’s horrible that we’re forced to subsidize that along with everything else we’re forced to subsidize.
We don't have control of our laws.
We are at war.
With no signs of anything improving, abortion will remain a useful weapon, perhaps our only weapon.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Jews are among the most pro-choice people around. If Jews (or any other group allegedly hostile to white Americans) wanted to punish them with blacks and blacks abort the most, how does this make sense?
*An example:https://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/HTW-Session-1-Transcription.pdfhttps://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/why-no-government-funding-for-abortion-actually-means-no-choice-for-low-income-women/hydegraphic/
Your brains turn into childish little mush.
Let me what intelligent, unbiased, objective people know to be the absolute facts of the matter.
Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion. At all. At all.
Get it through your sick whiney-moany little sissy baby heads.
Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion.
At-all. In the least. Period.
Get it straight. Making abortion illegal does not stop abortion.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Does it reduce abortion, though?
Many things the Kosher Nostra does make little sense. They do them anyway, with malice.
Many things white American gentiles do make little sense, after all. Many things Chinese do make little sense, as well. This does not stop the Chinese from being formidable adversaries.
The Jews have no special powers of rationality, but rather a special ability and unusual propensity to make their irrationality particularly painful for the rest of us.
When you see an individual or group doing something that could be explained by malice you always have to ask yourself if those actions could just as easily be explained by stupidity, incompetence, irrational delusions, craziness, short-sightedness or misguided idealism.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
A lot of the things they do could just as easily be explained as misguided idealism. Even, in some cases, pathological altruism.
When you see an individual or group doing something that could be explained by malice you always have to ask yourself if those actions could just as easily be explained by stupidity, incompetence, irrational delusions, craziness, short-sightedness or misguided idealism.
When you see an individual or group doing something that could be explained by malice you always have to ask yourself if those actions could just as easily be explained by stupidity, incompetence, irrational delusions, craziness, short-sightedness or misguided idealism.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Sure, correction accepted, that is possible, even likely; but whatever the reason, élite Jewish actions are bad for my people.
True. And in the long run élite actions will be bad for most Jews as well – élite actions will be good for the élites (Jewish and gentile) and bad for everyone else (Jewish and gentile).
Maybe not, though. Maybe I am nearly done with the whole of the salami as it were. I have no comprehensive theory as to why and how those certain Levantines are bad for us. In the United States, one meets far too many unpleasant coïncidences where those people are involved, and I do not believe that one can just waive the matter away with adjectives like “élite.”
However, ultimately, The Unz Review is a place where most readers are comfortable with the notion that the Subsaharan negro race evinces certain troublesome attributes. If these same readers, who by nature are willing to entertain unconventional thoughts, are unprepared to take a similar step where Jews are concerned, then I hope that the Jews never give them cause to change their minds. If Jews didn't, then that would make matters easier for everyone concerned, including me.
I find the topic unpleasant and would like to talk about it less. The point has been made and, anyway, there are Jews I like and respect both here and in my real life. (This is not true for negroes, by contrast. Like most Americans I have known plenty. Not all are offensive but I do not especially like any of them.) David Irving, Germar Rudolf, James Alex Fields, Jr., and others have been badly treated on Jews' behalf. My nation's Congress can seemingly agree on nothing except to stand unanimously to applaud the damned Israeli prime minister, and the doubly damned Jewish U.S. Homeland Security secretary wears that permanent surprised look on his execrable face while he, as far as I can tell, is practically abolishing the southern border of the United States.
Something is wrong. I don't know how to fix it, but I also don't want it to be my responsibility to call attention to it all the time in this blog.
It is hard to comment sensibly on American affairs however without mentioning the Jewish angle. If you skip the Jew, you miss the plot, so to speak. I have no power to change this.
Maybe I just need to comment less.Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund
Darn it. While I was not looking, my salami just got sliced.
Maybe I want my missing slice back.
Maybe not, though. Maybe I am nearly done with the whole of the salami as it were. I have no comprehensive theory as to why and how those certain Levantines are bad for us. In the United States, one meets far too many unpleasant coïncidences where those people are involved, and I do not believe that one can just waive the matter away with adjectives like “élite.”
However, ultimately, The Unz Review is a place where most readers are comfortable with the notion that the Subsaharan negro race evinces certain troublesome attributes. If these same readers, who by nature are willing to entertain unconventional thoughts, are unprepared to take a similar step where Jews are concerned, then I hope that the Jews never give them cause to change their minds. If Jews didn’t, then that would make matters easier for everyone concerned, including me.
I find the topic unpleasant and would like to talk about it less. The point has been made and, anyway, there are Jews I like and respect both here and in my real life. (This is not true for negroes, by contrast. Like most Americans I have known plenty. Not all are offensive but I do not especially like any of them.) David Irving, Germar Rudolf, James Alex Fields, Jr., and others have been badly treated on Jews’ behalf. My nation’s Congress can seemingly agree on nothing except to stand unanimously to applaud the damned Israeli prime minister, and the doubly damned Jewish U.S. Homeland Security secretary wears that permanent surprised look on his execrable face while he, as far as I can tell, is practically abolishing the southern border of the United States.
Something is wrong. I don’t know how to fix it, but I also don’t want it to be my responsibility to call attention to it all the time in this blog.
It is hard to comment sensibly on American affairs however without mentioning the Jewish angle. If you skip the Jew, you miss the plot, so to speak. I have no power to change this.
Maybe I just need to comment less.
I still cling to a belief in compromise and moderation. That's my problem. Even if things get to the stage where you have a civil war the time still comes when you have to sit down and make compromises and find workable solutions which don't result in too many people getting shafted. I'd prefer to do the compromising before it gets to the stage of society being reduced to a smouldering ruin.
In the long run I think you will always end up with some sort of mix between capitalism and socialism, some sort of compromise between social conservatism and social liberalism, some sort of compromise between nationalism and globalism. And probably some kind of compromise between cultural unity and cultural diversity. I don't think any kind of extremism can win in the long run because history seems to show that extremism leads to instability. But in the short run extremism can reduce society to a smouldering ruin.
So you have to figure that you're not going to get everything you want. You have to decide which compromises you can live with.
That's how negotiations between unions and employers used to work. The union would demand a pay increase of a dollar an hour but in reality they were prepared to accept fifty cents. The employers would say that anything more than twenty-five cents an hour would ruin them, but in reality they were prepared to pay fifty cents. In the end both sides would agree on fifty cents an hour because both sides understood that realistically that was what they were most likely going to end up with. Both sides ended up with something they could live with.
I'd like to see politics work that way.
I’m not sure I understand this objection.
Here is a proposal for a sort of experiment. Find a few of the most outspokenly anti-white people you can –those who talk about “toxic whiteness”, for instance– and then check their views on abortion, Planned Parenthood, etc. where those are publicly stated*.
I would be very surprised if the results showed that there is any contradiction in practice between expressing hostility to white Americans and expressing support for abortion, whether there ought or ought not to be such a contradiction in theory.
*An example:
https://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/HTW-Session-1-Transcription.pdf
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/why-no-government-funding-for-abortion-actually-means-no-choice-for-low-income-women/hydegraphic/
Maybe not, though. Maybe I am nearly done with the whole of the salami as it were. I have no comprehensive theory as to why and how those certain Levantines are bad for us. In the United States, one meets far too many unpleasant coïncidences where those people are involved, and I do not believe that one can just waive the matter away with adjectives like “élite.”
However, ultimately, The Unz Review is a place where most readers are comfortable with the notion that the Subsaharan negro race evinces certain troublesome attributes. If these same readers, who by nature are willing to entertain unconventional thoughts, are unprepared to take a similar step where Jews are concerned, then I hope that the Jews never give them cause to change their minds. If Jews didn't, then that would make matters easier for everyone concerned, including me.
I find the topic unpleasant and would like to talk about it less. The point has been made and, anyway, there are Jews I like and respect both here and in my real life. (This is not true for negroes, by contrast. Like most Americans I have known plenty. Not all are offensive but I do not especially like any of them.) David Irving, Germar Rudolf, James Alex Fields, Jr., and others have been badly treated on Jews' behalf. My nation's Congress can seemingly agree on nothing except to stand unanimously to applaud the damned Israeli prime minister, and the doubly damned Jewish U.S. Homeland Security secretary wears that permanent surprised look on his execrable face while he, as far as I can tell, is practically abolishing the southern border of the United States.
Something is wrong. I don't know how to fix it, but I also don't want it to be my responsibility to call attention to it all the time in this blog.
It is hard to comment sensibly on American affairs however without mentioning the Jewish angle. If you skip the Jew, you miss the plot, so to speak. I have no power to change this.
Maybe I just need to comment less.Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund
I agree that things have gone bad and I don’t know how to fix things either.
I still cling to a belief in compromise and moderation. That’s my problem. Even if things get to the stage where you have a civil war the time still comes when you have to sit down and make compromises and find workable solutions which don’t result in too many people getting shafted. I’d prefer to do the compromising before it gets to the stage of society being reduced to a smouldering ruin.
In the long run I think you will always end up with some sort of mix between capitalism and socialism, some sort of compromise between social conservatism and social liberalism, some sort of compromise between nationalism and globalism. And probably some kind of compromise between cultural unity and cultural diversity. I don’t think any kind of extremism can win in the long run because history seems to show that extremism leads to instability. But in the short run extremism can reduce society to a smouldering ruin.
So you have to figure that you’re not going to get everything you want. You have to decide which compromises you can live with.
That’s how negotiations between unions and employers used to work. The union would demand a pay increase of a dollar an hour but in reality they were prepared to accept fifty cents. The employers would say that anything more than twenty-five cents an hour would ruin them, but in reality they were prepared to pay fifty cents. In the end both sides would agree on fifty cents an hour because both sides understood that realistically that was what they were most likely going to end up with. Both sides ended up with something they could live with.
I’d like to see politics work that way.
Maybe not, though. Maybe I am nearly done with the whole of the salami as it were. I have no comprehensive theory as to why and how those certain Levantines are bad for us. In the United States, one meets far too many unpleasant coïncidences where those people are involved, and I do not believe that one can just waive the matter away with adjectives like “élite.”
However, ultimately, The Unz Review is a place where most readers are comfortable with the notion that the Subsaharan negro race evinces certain troublesome attributes. If these same readers, who by nature are willing to entertain unconventional thoughts, are unprepared to take a similar step where Jews are concerned, then I hope that the Jews never give them cause to change their minds. If Jews didn't, then that would make matters easier for everyone concerned, including me.
I find the topic unpleasant and would like to talk about it less. The point has been made and, anyway, there are Jews I like and respect both here and in my real life. (This is not true for negroes, by contrast. Like most Americans I have known plenty. Not all are offensive but I do not especially like any of them.) David Irving, Germar Rudolf, James Alex Fields, Jr., and others have been badly treated on Jews' behalf. My nation's Congress can seemingly agree on nothing except to stand unanimously to applaud the damned Israeli prime minister, and the doubly damned Jewish U.S. Homeland Security secretary wears that permanent surprised look on his execrable face while he, as far as I can tell, is practically abolishing the southern border of the United States.
Something is wrong. I don't know how to fix it, but I also don't want it to be my responsibility to call attention to it all the time in this blog.
It is hard to comment sensibly on American affairs however without mentioning the Jewish angle. If you skip the Jew, you miss the plot, so to speak. I have no power to change this.
Maybe I just need to comment less.Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund
(I forgot one. If I described him it would doxx me, but there happens to be one negro I know in real life that I like. Out of the hundreds of my acquaintance over the years, there is only one, so I think that I can farily be qualified on the whole as a person who dislikes blacks; but one is admittedly more than zero. He and I have never, ever discussed politics, so that probably helps.)
Fertility Rates In The United States By Ethnicity (2018)Rank Ethnic group Births per 1000 women
1 All 1729.5
2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2106.5
3 Hispanic 1959
4 Black (non-Hispanic) 1792
5 American Indian/Alaska Native 1650.5
6 White (non-Hispanic) 1640
7 Asian 15252019https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity.jpgReplies: @Almost Missouri, @Blinky Bill, @Return of Shawn
The chart shows the ethnicity of the mother. Black fertility is higher than shown because when a black man has a child with a non-black woman, the offspring is black.