The real racial divide

A reader directed me to a NY Times article about the “real racial divide.”

The assumption has always been that a black candidate should perform worse among white voters in states with less racial diversity because those voters are supposedly less enlightened. In fact, the reverse has been true for Obama: in the overwhelmingly white states of Wisconsin and Vermont, for instance, he carried 54 and 60 percent of the white voters respectively, according to exit polls, while in New Jersey he won 31 percent and in Tennessee he won 26 percent. As some bloggers have shrewdly pointed out, Obama does best in areas that have either a large concentration of African-American voters or hardly any at all, but he struggles in places where the population is decidedly mixed.

What this suggests, perhaps, is that living in close proximity to other races — sharing industries and schools and sports arenas — actually makes Americans less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so.

Steve Sailer was the first shrewd blogger that I know of to point this out.

White people who live in white areas believe what they have been told by the media, that all black people are like The Huxtables (the oreo-like upper-middle-class black family from The Cosby Show). But white people who live next to black people know what the typical black person is really like.

This has been a good week for the NY Times. They hit a real home run with the Ashley Alexandra Dupré outing, and now they picked up on this.

Comments

[dearieme]

Does the NYTimes ever publish anyone who is as routinely interesting as Mr iSteve?

[John Smith]

I think you should also give them credit for the letters that they printed in response to this column

[David in Exile]

What this suggests, perhaps, is that living in close proximity to other races — sharing industries and schools and sports arenas — actually makes Americans less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so.

In contrast, for years, I've always presumed the opposite, since whites in states with actual black populations would meet hard working, middle class blacks, while those in states with small black populations would only learn about blacks from BET, crime reports on the news, and KKK newsletters.

Interestingly, this seems to serve as another piece of evidence to support emigrating to Canada, especially if I have children.

[Joshua Holmes]

White people who live in white areas believe what they have been told by the media, that all black people are like The Huxtables (the oreo-like upper-middle-class black family from The Cosby Show).

You are insane. The Cosby Show is an outlier in the portrayal of black people in the media. Most of the portrayals of blacks in the media are connected to the hip-hop/thug lifestyle, despite the fact that few actual blacks live like that.

[John Smith]

Most of the portrayals of blacks in the media are connected to the hip-hop/thug lifestyle, despite the fact that few actual blacks live like that.

So the statistics on the number of black men in prison are fabricated?

[Nick Wade Fan]

Does the NYTimes ever publish anyone who is as routinely interesting as Mr iSteve?

Nick Wade

[Peter]

Most of the portrayals of blacks in the media are connected to the hip-hop/thug lifestyle, despite the fact that few actual blacks live like that.

It doesn't seem that way to me. Could you elaborate?

[Vim]

Bashing Silda flopped so now we are back to race are we? It's pretty funny that the local 'race realists' only notice how flimsy the arguments are when it's Silda or Ron Paul. Although, it's pretty sad that some of them actually support these lines of thought like they make sense or something.

Attacking a woman who has just been publicly humiliated, definitely disproves my claim that most 'race realists' are just a bunch of angry white/asian guys on the bottom end part of the pile of white/asian guys.

Anyways, none of the commentors on this political race have any idea what's going on.

First Obama couldn't win white states because a black guy can't do well in Iowa. Then he wins Iowa. Then it's he's not black enough. Then the black people start voting for him. Now it's something else.

Any, we all know you have to try to pull him down because god forbid somebody do better in life than you.

[anonymous 1]

Vim:
"First Obama couldn't win white states because a black guy can't do well in Iowa. Then he wins Iowa. Then it's he's not black enough. Then the black people start voting for him. Now it's something else."

Please stop assuming people like Steve Sailer and other race realists flip flopped on how Obama would fare. The same people who assumed he would do poorly in Iowa prolly assumed he would do poorly everywhere but states with heavy black populations.

"Any, we all know you have to try to pull him down because god forbid somebody do better in life than you."

What people like Sailer and, now, Half Sigma and the NYT are saying makes perfect sense. Of course, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the last recourse you have now. Your logic is fascinating.

BTW, I think all three candidates left suck and don't really care about Silda Wall, Eliot Spitzer or the hooker.

[Miv in Exile]

If your friend was raped, mugged, beaten, or killed by a black man you are unlikely to be able to eliminate that stereotype, even with the best of wishes, if you are not black (or even if you are).

There is a good reason such a high proportion of black men are in prison relative to their numbers. You know that, if you live in proximity. If you don't then you don't.

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

I think you forgot to advocate voluntary eugenics at the end of your post.

"Of course, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the last recourse you have now."

That's just silly. My claim is based on his many bitter posts illogically attacking people like Silda. Just because you don't care about the hooker thing, didn't mean he didn't write the posts. And given that he wrote the posts, they are out there as public record to be judged.

But it isn't even close to always true.

Blacks are 12% of the population nationally

Virginia: Blacks are 20% of population

Rule prediction: Obama does poorly with white voters

Actual vote: Obama gets 56% of white male vote and 45% of white female vote. Prediction is wrong

Maryland: Blacks are 30% of population

Prediction: Obama does poorly with white voters

Actual vote: Obama gets 48% of white male vote (HRC gets 45%) and 38% of white female vote. Prediction is wrong with respect to white male voters.

Oklahoma: Blacks 8% of the vote

Prediction: Obama does well with whites

Actual vote: No exit polls but Obama only gets 31% of the vote overall; obviously he does poorly with whites. Prediction wrong.

New Hampshire: Blacks are 1% of the population

Prediction: Obama romp

Result: Obama loses to Hillary overall 39% to 36% (no polling on race but almost all voters are white given the demography of the state)

Connecticut: Blacks are 11% of population

Prediction: Not entirely sure where 11% fits in on the spectrum. Is it a low percentage in which case the rule says Obama does well among whites or is it average in which case HRC does well?

Actual vote: Obama gets 56% of white male vote and 42% of white female vote.

Result: Does competitively. Prediction not specific enough to tell whether or not it is wrong.

Massachusetts: 7% black population

Prediction: Obama does well among whites

Actual: Obama gets 40% of overall white vote to Clinton's 58%

Result: Prediction wrong

Georgia: 28% black population

Prediction: Obama does poorly with whites

Actual: Obama gets 46% of white male vote and 36% of white female vote

Result: Prediction right with respect to white female vote and wrong with respect to white male vote.

Missouri: Blacks 12% of population

Prediction: Obama does similarly to Conn.

Actual: Clinton beats Obama 49 to 39 among white men and 57 to 38 among white women

Result: Nothing like Connecticut.

Wisconsin: 6% of population

Prediction: Obama romp

Actual: Obama gets 59% of white male vote but loses white female vote 51 to 49

Result: Right on white males and wrong on white females.

These are a third of the total primaries completed to date. I suspect that a better rule accounts for the role of gender. When men are close to half of the vote, Obama does well with whites. When men are closer to 40% (as in Tennessee), Obama does poorly.

[David in Exile]

If your friend was raped, mugged, beaten, or killed by a black man you are unlikely to be able to eliminate that stereotype, even with the best of wishes, if you are not black (or even if you are).

So in other words, my options are to move Africa, thus proving my black nationalist cousin right who believes that all blacks should return and live in Africa "in peace", become a hermit and isolate myself from the rest of society to escape the stereotyping and less than amicable feelings towards people who share my skin tone, or to commit hara-kiri to escape the world and it's misery?

[David in Exile]

This is highly interesting when you compare the topic being discussed, the comments following the original post, and the advertisement featured at the left...

[Joe]

What racist bullshit.

[Gil]

Perhaps the reason where any smart talker can clean up in 'all-white' audiences and 'all black' audiences is because he can resort to sleight-of-hand stereotyping relevent to each group. A similar analogy is where union leader types might clean up better in a business where there's little to no informal interaction between management and workers such that the workers are more likely to fall for a stereotyping of management being 'anti-worker'.

[Nathan]

This post is sad but true. Living next to blacks tends to "kill" any sort of good feelings about them. The reason the South had such harsh laws with respect to blacks in the days of segregation was because they were surrounded by them (much the same way South Africans had harsh laws since they too were surrounded by blacks).

[tommy]

White people who live in white areas believe what they have been told by the media, that all black people are like The Huxtables (the oreo-like upper-middle-class black family from The Cosby Show).

Actually, I would say the education system is worse than the media. According to standard propaganda, if blacks aren't the Huxtables (or a slightly more hip-hop flavor of the Huxtables), then most earnestly wish to be but are held back by the terrible "legacy of slavery." Obviously, they just need a helping hand from compassionate, paternalistic white liberals to overcome such difficulties. If the self-esteems of blacks weren't crushed for life by such events as being passed over for a cab ride by mean old crime-wary taxi drivers (who must all be racist whites -- probably from the South -- rather than the Pakistanis, Ethiopians, and other ethnics more typically seen behind the wheel in large cities), then blacks would blossom into the Oprahs, and Obamas, and Montels they see on television shows and the George Washington Carvers and Colin Powells they read about in school or, at the very least, all those nice, respectable, harmless blacks they see in commercials. Then blacks and whites could sit down and savor safe hip-hop music like Arrested Development together.

[Gannon]

Living in Tennessee as a teenager turned me into a racerealist. My HS was mostly white, but the 20% of blacks it had were loud, violent and rather stupid.I also remember that a white girl was raped by a gang of blacks in a nearby forest. I came from West Germany where I had been told blacks are the same as whites. It just isn't so.

[Vim]

David in Exile:

"So in other words, my options are to move Africa, thus proving my black nationalist cousin ..."

I don't think moving to Africa is a happy option for any of the black Diaspora:

1. You are a descendent of a slave which is somewhat shameful

2. From their perspective you are interracial (pan-African-Caucasian mutt?) and you have no tribe or affiliation

3. They will resent you for thinking you are better than them which judging from your past comments will probably be true. But most likely many will just assume it because you will be rich and a foreigner.

The idea that all black people would get along, should get a long and even if they don't, they all belong together in the same place is not good reasoning.

Nathan:

If you live next to any people then the majority of people that will wrong you will be those people. Most of the people that have wronged me in the last year are white because my workplace is majority white. Deciding white people are all bad because of my experiences would be the wrong take home lesson.

tommy:

Well if white liberals really think that, they are obviously wrong. Most whites aren't as successful as Oprah, Obama, Montel, Colin Powell or George Washington Carver either. As a percentage more whites are but most aren't.

Have none of these poor unsuspecting white people seen any hip-hop of the 'kill you and your whole family' variety? Or maybe caught an episode of The Wire?

[Vim]

Gannon:

Millions of German women were gangraped by Russian soldiers at the end of WWII. You bring this up as if a gang of whites has NEVER gangraped anyone. If you googled, you could probably find dozens of incidents where a group of white kids gangraped somebody. To me all these anecdotes prove is that you generalized to the wrong thing from your specific experiences.

I am black and so is David. What exactly about us is so different? Am I typing with my response with claws after hard night of robbing white people?

[Poor Postdoc]

With HS strong statistics skills, I look forward to a proper analysis where Obama/Clinton preference is correlated with race and gender proportions is various states. I had hoped that we (unlike say Kenya) had moved beyond voting based on "he is a middle-aged male from the B Clan, just like me, so I will vote for him" rather than on the actual political ideas. I suppose the problem here is that the policy differences between the candidates are neglibible - to the extent they are even known.

[tommy]

Have none of these poor unsuspecting white people seen any hip-hop of the 'kill you and your whole family' variety? Or maybe caught an episode of The Wire?

But those are just underprivileged blacks telling it how it is. If not for the "legacy of slavery" they would be all right. Those non-toothless blacks of whom you speak simply need additional help and guidance from white liberals and perhaps more midnight basketball. I'm sure many more young black men actually aspire to be like those nice fellows from A Tribe Called Quest than the likes of Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Tupac or Puff Daddy, right? ;-)

[Gannon]

Raping of women in war is still a standard practice. The Russians considered the rape of girls as young as ten as part of their legitimate bounty (just as they loved watches and clocks), but they also acted out of revenge and retribution. But whites and specially Asians don't tend to rape in peace times. Take any crime statistic, and see for yourself that something like 70% of all rapes are perpetrated by 13% of the population (blacks). That's not strange, considering that blacks have lower IQ's,and hence higher sex drives, less restraint and less future time orientation. You and DA are simply pretty much on the right of the Bell curve and are not representative of the average black, DA is even somewhat mulato if I remember. What makes a person a racist is not if he believes that blacks have lower IQ's, a scientifical fact, but what consequences he draws from that fact.
Although I believe that blacks have lower IQ's, I don't draw legal consequences out of it and grant them full person status and full rights. But if I were in charge of inmigation policy in my country (Argentina), I would restrict massive inmigration to people from Europe (including Russia) and a few select Latinamerican countries (Chile, Uruguay).

[Peter]

But if I were in charge of inmigation policy in my country (Argentina), I would restrict massive inmigration to people from Europe (including Russia) and a few select Latinamerican countries (Chile, Uruguay).

Hey Gannon, I bet you'd make special efforts to encourage the immigration of nubile 13- and 14-year-old girls, right?

[Gannon]

My favourite age for women is around 16-20 years old. However, as I said earlier, I believe that women at around 14 can give valid consent.

What makes a person a racist is not if he believes that blacks have lower IQ's, a scientifical fact, but what consequences he draws from that fact.

Can you please explain what you mean by "what consequences he draws from the fact." I think I understand what you mean, but I just wanted to be sure.

[Gannon]

A true racist believes that there should be legal differences between the races. This can range from declaring blacks as "minors" and denying them some rights (to vote, to own property) to simply don't consider the persons anymore. A true racist objectives can range from apartheid (separate but equal) to expulsion and genocide.

[Peter]

However, as I said earlier, I believe that women at around 14 can give valid consent.

You can keep telling yourself that on your first night in prison, to get your mind off the pain in your rectum.

[Vim]

Gannon:

I have been thinking that there are many people in general and whites in particular who are quite happy to say and believe the most racist things but quite afraid of being called racist. HS's policy on racism seems to place him in this category.

I do not think it is racist to believe that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites, I believe this is a fact myself. Just like I believe that more than 99% of all people probably have a lower IQ than me.

However, the belief that this is genetic is racist. Racism (and I might as well get my Merriam-Webster for this) is "1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differents produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2. racial prejudice or discrimination"

If I ask you two questions:

1. Do you think populations inherently different in traits and capacities due to race?

2. Do you think some of those traits such as tedency to commit crime, intelligence, creativity, etc make one human being more desireable as a friend, lover, co-worker, colleague or citizen than another?

I think the answers to these questions pretty much finalize the issue on the first and primary meaning of racism.

I also habitually see behavior concerning the second more subsidiary meaning being justified by beliefs consistent with the first meaning. Well if more blacks rob, steal, rape, get affirmative action that whites then I am justified in not offering cab rides to, moving away from, arresting at higher rates or attacking without evidence the qualifications of other blacks some 'race realists' will say.

[Gannon]

If you keep bothering me, I'll send you some pictures of shaved vulvas. seriously speaking Peter, I already told you that where I live age of consent for heterosexuals is 14, unless you are in a position of authority and abuse that authority (teacher, stepfather). Criminal law only applies in the territory you are in, although US criminal law does folllow sometimes their citizens. If I were to have sex with a 14 year old female, it wouldn't be a crime where I live. What part of this explanation don't you understand? In fact, I could even make love to a US girl if she were in my country. Different countries are ruled by different laws. Prostitution of females over 18 is legal in my country also.

[Gannon]

Vim, I'll think about your question.

[trumwill]

In contrast, for years, I've always presumed the opposite, since whites in states with actual black populations would meet hard working, middle class blacks, while those in states with small black populations would only learn about blacks from BET, crime reports on the news, and KKK newsletters.

I'd back of the KKK (which is not a substantial source of white opinion even in the more racist parts of the country), but that's my presumption as well. Living in heavily white parts of the country you get more media exposure to black rappers than you do the WB. If you see them on the news, it's usually not something good.

This election doesn't necessarily change my perception in that regard. Obama is doing well in a lot of very white states among Democrats. Democrats as a whole want to believe that blacks are every bit like them save skin color. They like to think that if they have a black neighbor that they will get along with them just as closely as they would with a white neighbor. That they'd never be nervous about them if they ran into them on the street. Those that live in places with a lot of blacks know that this isn't true because there are a lot of culture differences and even if you want to make friends with them they don't necessarily want to make friends with you. Further, you are statistically more likely to live in a part of the country with more crime and perceptions of crime have certain racial elements.

I suspect that if Obama wins the nomination, among the public at large and not just Democrats, he will do very poorly in states with few minorities. Partially because he's a Democrat and Democrats don't typically do as well in dominantly white states, but also because whites will generally be less comfortable with him.

[Peter]

Gannon,
Don't let Peter upset you. He is a self-hating individual who keeps denying his own homosexual tendencies(see the prison comment above) and has a hidden love of the NFL. The guy has 2 cats for Chrissakes! No doubt named "Fluffy" and "Tiddles" or a close approximation thereof.

Two cats? Try eight. Though none of the names are anything like "Fluffy" or "Tiddles," sorry.

And let's not even get into my collection of Maria Callas CD's ...

--

If you keep bothering me, I'll send you some pictures of shaved vulvas.

Don't bother, I can see enough of those to last me a lifetime with five minutes on Voyeurweb :(((

[loki on the run]

Vim asks:

I am black and so is David. What exactly about us is so different? Am I typing with my response with claws after hard night of robbing white people?

It's the gene pool you come from, silly. The caucasian gene pool has had such a workover due to living in the sort of cultures we have had for thousands of years that there are vastly fewer opportunities for genes for violence to express themselves (since they are now at lower levels in the pool) and the average IQ of the pool is higher.

[Mark]

If Obama wins the general election and the economy really tanks, there will be a good chance for civil war, left v. right and black v. white and brown. And I fully intend to take part. Blacks and leftists have got to go.

[Peter]

I suspect that if Obama wins the nomination, among the public at large and not just Democrats, he will do very poorly in states with few minorities. Partially because he's a Democrat and Democrats don't typically do as well in dominantly white states, but also because whites will generally be less comfortable with him.

Query: will Obama's mixed racial background reduce white discomfort with him?

[John Smith]

David,

No one said that "race realism" is fair or that it will do justice to the huge minority of African Americans who assimilate perfectly and totally don't fit the stereotype.

But race realism is necessary to understand the failures of some social policies and why complete harmony is very difficult. I suppose people like you will be harmed by this. Right now I don't see a way around it while remaining pragmatic.

Mark,
The left talks big, but if the race war that is currently simmering away flares up big time, they'll be screaming and begging for the pigs to come save them and their fancy shit because they are all a bunch of pussies and cowards.
If they have to deal with what regular white people(who they look down upon as rednecks and low class) who don't live in "nice" areas deal with on a regular basis when it comes to minorities, maybe they'll learn their lesson. But I doubt it. Their pleading for mercy and cries for help will be music to my ears.

[Mark]

I agree, John Smith. I feel no solidarity whatsoever with all the politically-correct whites, which may be a majority of them.
They are my enemy almost or as much as blacks.

[Dan Morgan]

HS should not write sentences like "But white people who live next to black people know what the typical black person is really like." This is demeaning to black individuals because it sounds like HS is talking about all black people. "Typical" suggests some defects that all black people have in common. Of course, that is not true.

[David in Exile]

The idea that all black people would get along, should get a long and even if they don't, they all belong together in the same place is not good reasoning.

In effect, I can never have any long-term contentment or happiness in my life without any real fears because of the colour of my racial and ethnic origins. That leaves only two options, suicide and self-isolation, and I suspect the latter may be worse than the former...

That's not strange, considering that blacks have lower IQ's,and hence higher sex drives, less restraint and less future time orientation. You and DA are simply pretty much on the right of the Bell curve and are not representative of the average black, DA is even somewhat mulato if I remember.

So we're flukes or freaks of nature? BTW, my white ancestry is via the great-grandparents on both sides.

My favourite age for women is around 16-20 years old. However, as I said earlier, I believe that women at around 14 can give valid consent.

Gannon, it may be legal in your nation, but it doesn't make it morally right to engage in sexual relations with an immature child who doesn't know better. IMHO, that's simply taking advantage of a youth regardless of the sex involved as the predator and prey.

I do not think it is racist to believe that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites, I believe this is a fact myself. Just like I believe that more than 99% of all people probably have a lower IQ than me.

I don't see how one can believe that blacks have lower IQ on average, and yet not view blacks as inferior and incapable. It's nearly impossible to separate the ideas from each other.

No one said that "race realism" is fair or that it will do justice to the huge minority of African Americans who assimilate perfectly and totally don't fit the stereotype.

So race realism is your way of gloating about the genetic inferiority and failure of 12% of the US population? Hell, guys like HS and Steve Sailor paint it as the magical solution to our problems. I guess I know better now.

They are my enemy almost or as much as blacks.

What did I do to you? If you have a problem with black people, blame the greedy slave traders who imported them, slave owners who used them, and the Republicans who freed them and gave them citizenship. Oops.

[Vim]

John Smith:

"No one said that "race realism" is fair or that it will do justice to the huge minority of African Americans who assimilate perfectly and totally don't fit the stereotype."

See, this is the thing I don't get about this kind of talk. If I understand 'race realism' correctly it concerns GENETIC differences and yet you are talking about assimilation which is a CULTURAL issue. For instance, it's completely possible for Chinese to come to America, do well and NEVER assimilate into WASP society.

blank:

Have you read any books on genocide? I recommend "A Problem from Hell: America and the age of genocide" by Samantha Power. Having read quite a few, I disagree that things are going the way you suggest.

[Vim]

Mark:

"They are my enemy almost or as much as blacks."

You have a mental problem.

[tommy]

There is definitely a difference between the blacks I met living in Texas and Missouri (in towns with fairly high black populations) and the blacks I meet in Washington or Oregon (in towns with small black populations). My best friend in my late elementary and early junior high years in the Northwest was black. (Actually, he was 3/4 black: he had a white grandfather from Jamaica where his parents were originally from.) Both parents were well educated and middle class. His father was a private sector dentist and his mother was some sort of government bureaucrat.

Admittedly, there are rough spots like parts of Tacoma and Seattle, but the blacks I've known in the Northwest are a lot more tolerable than those I had encountered further south. Unsurprisingly and unfortunately, the more blacks that have moved into the area, the more I see the same sort of behaviors I associate with blacks down in Texas and Missouri. That is even though many of the blacks moving here are from New York/New Jersey or California. The kind of kid I knew in junior high school would probably be denounced by other blacks as "acting too white" if he were in junior high today.

[Jim Beam]

I can't speak for everyone but I think when people say the "typical black" or just simply saying a "black person" they're refering to the blacks that display ghetto behavior.

It does make sense though. The less interaction you have with blacks, the higher of an opinion you would have of them.

Send a 6th generation Vermonter or a French Canadian from Quebec to a Philadelphia public school (on Parent/Teacher Conference day of course) and let's see what his opinion of black people in America would be after spending a whole week with those folks.

Also, a lot of young black men and women in America display ghetto behavior and the "traditional white establishment" (if you wanna call it that) admantly rejects it.

I personally can't stand those types of blacks or any other skin color that mimics that behavior. And yes, I encounter these types of people almost on a daily basis at my job and while growing up.

Does that make me a racist? Is society racist for rejecting that behavior?

[trumwill]

So race realism is your way of gloating about the genetic inferiority and failure of 12% of the US population? Hell, guys like HS and Steve Sailor paint it as the magical solution to our problems. I guess I know better now.

I get the sense that some "race realists" really do see it as a solution to some of our problems. Sailer has come up with all sorts of ways that we could deal with IQ differences in a productive manner (even if it leaves guys like you in the lurch). Unfortunately, for a lot of people it represents that the problem isn't attempting to equalize aspirations among differing IQs, it's that low IQs are a symptom of the larger problem, which is black people as a whole, and a justification for feeling that black people are the problem. If more people approached it like Sailer did, I might think that there'd be something to be gained by investigating all of this further. Unfortunately, there are too many Marks out there and John Smiths who are all to willing to accept that the results will be wildly unfair for someone else.

[trumwill]

I can't speak for everyone but I think when people say the "typical black" or just simply saying a "black person" they're refering to the blacks that display ghetto behavior.

Conflating the behavior of a subset of a population with the population as a whole is a problem within itself. Deciding that the variance of behavior within that racial population is not worth acknowledging is part of the problem. Why bother trying being different if everyone is going to view you the same regardless? It provides the same incentives that blacks accusing one another of "acting white" does. The message: No matter who you work to become, you will be judged by the people you look like.

[Vim]

David:

"In effect, I can never have any long-term contentment or happiness in my life without any real fears because of the colour of my racial and ethnic origins."

I think you are off base here. I don't have any of your issues. Do many people in your family have these issues? I suspect not. I don't know much about Haitians in particular but Caribbean people are a proud people in general.

I wouldn't say that there aren't social handicaps but it can be overcome which is what is important. Obama is a good example of somebody who is able to find a way to turn what would otherwise be a minus into a plus.

I will say that the Bell Curve type ideas are depressing but its not like the people that write it are particularly neutral and much of the research goes both ways. For instance, Flynn of the 'Flynn Effect' does not believe the IQ gap between blacks and whites is in any way genetic.

"I don't see how one can believe that blacks have lower IQ on average, and yet not view blacks as inferior and incapable. It's nearly impossible to separate the ideas from each other."

*Let us assume the worst case scenario, that black and white IQ differences are genetic.*

I think it's a matter of distribution. Some whites are below the black mean and some blacks are above the white mean. However, one might be more likely in America to encounter a white person with an IQ of 100 than a black person of same IQ. There is nothing particularly fixed about this from a mechanistic standpoint, it's just how things turned out.

If people wanted to change this, they could change who they had children with and it could be changed in a single generation.

Let me repeat: there is nothing innate about the frequency of particular genes. The mean IQ would not be a property of black people who could have any mix of genes and IQs, it's a property of a particular black population in a particular time and place.

It's not that there aren't blacks above the white mean, it's just that there are not as many in proportion to the white population. These blacks are still black people. If there were more of these people, we would still have black people, just that the mean IQ would be higher and we'd be having a different conversation.

Of course, I doubt it's genetic.

[Nathan]

Trumwill:

Ghetto type behavior is somewhat common amoung young blacks (even among blacks with parents who have middle-class jobs). The real "subset" is the well behaved ones.

Instead of being mad at "race realists", be mad at the segment of the black population which gives the rest a bad name.

[Half Sigma]

"Racism" seems to have many definitions, one definition is "the most evil type of person."

There are no evil people around here.

[trumwill]

Ghetto type behavior is somewhat common amoung young blacks (even among blacks with parents who have middle-class jobs). The real "subset" is the well behaved ones.

"somewhat common"!="synonymous with"

Just like I believe that more than 99% of all people probably have a lower IQ than me.

Don't kid yourself. If that was the case, you wouldn't have to remind everyone all the time. I rate you as average at best based on the substance of your comments, especially the one at 4:01pm. If it isn't genetic, what is it? What is skin color then? Please be clear if you can.

[Chaos]

Race relations in the West are frequently approached backwards. The assumption is that white people are uniquely evil and winning and non-whites are more or less innocent victims and losing. But if whites are so evil and create such losing environments for non-whites why is there such a flow of non-whites via migration towards white places of habitat? What is about the places that whites live that is so attractive? And why is that non-whites live longer, healthier, and generally have more opportunity on average than in non-white countries? Where is the system of oppression and evil?

Or... think about it - are we merely describing a strategy of how non-whites approach multi-ethnic conflict within white societies? How do blacks fare in China, India, or the Arab countries for example? Let's compare average life span, average life-style, average influence, average civil rights, etc. But what kind of realities are whites taught in their own countries? Why?

Britain is projected to be 20% British and 80% non-British in 2150. Just about every western country, including USA is on the same track. Are those the type of stats that show whites being uniquely evil? How do the non-white races lose in these demographic scenarios? How will the future non-white majorities treat their white minorities? What are non-whites taught in schools and on TV today that will determine how they treat white minorities in the future?

Whites have given up more than any other group, up to and including their own demographic majorities(certain) / existance (maybe), in order to prove to the rest of the world that they are not racist. Some people would call this the 'natural order'. Others would call it 'payback'. I call something else - weakness.

[Mark]

I think the US will sooner or later make Yugoslavia look like amateur hour. Fun times coming.

[Vim]

blank:

"Don't kid yourself. If that was the case, you wouldn't have to remind everyone all the time."

I say it to remind people that not all blacks are on the far left of the white bell curve; some of us are on the far right.

"If it isn't genetic, what is it? What is skin color then? Please be clear if you can."

Well Flynn of the 'Flynn effect' doesn't think it's genetic, isn't that good enough for you?

It's pretty basic that race isn't a genetic, right? No? OK, race is a social construct in the sense that in terms of genetics alone we would probably break up what we call races into parts that did not look like race. This is not to say that if we looked for markers that marked descent, we couldn't force a 'race' concept in the genes, it's just that we would have to jerrimander the results to look like the races we have.

What do I mean? Well lets take something basic like men are taller than women, if we did a sort based on height where if a person is closer to the male mean, he is a male and if someone is closer to the female mean, she is a woman then we would get a very large number of incorrect classifications. We could probably then go back to the data and keep adding body proportion measurements (wrist width, distance between eyes, ratio of length of fingers ...) and refining the data and eventually we would get to something that figured out that males were males and females were females. However, the whole procedure was designed around our stereotypical view of what a woman should look like which invalidates it in terms of telling us whether there is actually a natural notion known as 'gender'.

So mapping this back to race, if we just did some basic rule like 'black people are dark skinned' then we would end up including the darker subcontinental asians and arabs who otherwise look Caucasian, the asian negritos and Afro-hispanics (who might actually have a larger number of white ancestors than black ancestors) in the same category as blacks (who have twice the genetic diversity of the world population to begin with anyway). Again, we would go back, refine and add more categories but again we would come up with a procedure for deciding race that came from our stereotypes and not naturally from the data. This is why biologists shy away from the notion of race because there is a methodological circularity here and so left the idea to the sociologists.

As Ernest Mayr(he's a big deal in evolutionary biology so look him up) once wrote:

"The major reason for the existence of a race problem is that so many people have a faulty understanding of race. These people are typologists, and for them every member of a race have all the actual and imaginary characteristics of that race ... [By] rejecting the typological approach, which considers the members of reach race as a type, and replacing it by the populational approach in which each individual is a considered on the basis of his or her particular abilities, a truer understanding of reality can be achieved"

This could all be followed up by a discussion such as 'there is no average black person' or maybe we could be less controversial and just say 'there is no average American'. It would be based on the argument that each population has average traits, but it would be a rare population where any one individual had all the traits close to average and if that individual existed he would be a very, very atypical member. But the post is long enough.

[Vim]

Chaos:

"Whites have given up more than any other group, up to and including their own demographic majorities(certain) / existance (maybe), in order to prove to the rest of the world that they are not racist."

Do you travel much/read any history? If one was going to take a race based view of responsibility then almost any country you can think of was screwed over by white occupation at some point. It's not really a concidence that most of the world has a European form of government and speaks at least one European language among the people and in the government. Whites have definitely not been on the negative end of global interactions. It is my belief that quite often when a person is immigrating to the US from another country, it is usually stemming from some Western intervention into their country.

It's odd that Westerners seem to be completely unaware that they advertise in these countries and people see the advertisements and that's a large part of why they want to come. America in particular is very guilty of selling the American dream all over the place. Can you really blame poor people for buying into it and actually coming to America?

Now personally, I don't believe in collective responsiblity and definitely not collective racial responsibility but I see your reasoning as: Gee whiz, whites have given a lot, it must be more than everbody else has given which is a narcissistic line of reasoning and not an uncommon way for insular whites to look at the world. I advise you to go look at the costs to everybody else.

[Miv in Exile]

Black youth are raised to feel put-upon, and entitled. Raised to hate like Palestinian youth raised to hate. The ever-present theme.

You see it particularly in the Michelle Obama's of the world.But you also see it in the black youths who killed both the UNC student body president, and the Indian student at Duke. Entitled to be violent. Entitled to be elected.

Soon, entitled to get reparations for their great-great-great grandparent's slavery.

[Rtother]

Man, some of these comments sound like they're coming from the same people who made Steve Sailer's comment section awful circa 2006. His comment section is a lot better now and not filled with lunatics. Bunch of crazy haters.

[Nathan]

Rtother:

Ahh...Sailer's comment section around that time was amazing. Uncensored and no holds barred! I agree that some of the posts back then were a little over the top (especially the anti-Jew posts), but freedom of speech is a great thing to behold.

[ogunsiron]

Hi Vim ,

I'm of haitian background ( I sometimes post as moisemetellus ) but i
don't share David's lacrimous outlook . My outlook is one of concern .

I've always gotten the impression from Flynn that , while he doesn't
lean towards the genetic explanation, he certainly doesn't consider it
beyond the pale. He doesn't cast stones at people like Jensen , Watson or Murray.

My own perspective on people like Rushton is somewhat like this :
Those guys are without a doubt racists and ennemies of blacks , but racist
and loathsome people can in fact be right sometimes. It's of course
unfortunate but that's the way it is. What I'd like to see is more
intelligent blacks and "friends of blacks" ( if there is such a thing) taking
HBD seriously and tackling head on the problem of black low IQ .
Basically, I think a lot of this HBD stuff is true , that low black IQ is
partly genetic in origin and that those black people who are at the right
end of the curve should take it seriously .
Also, i don't think Murray is like Rushton .
___

"I don't see how one can believe that blacks have lower IQ on average,
and yet not view blacks as inferior and incapable. It's nearly
impossible to separate the ideas from each other."
___
Well ,
black populations as we are *right now* are certainly less capable. Black
countries are a mess, in general . Other races , as aggregates , resent
our presence because we are less capable. Some races are resented
because they're too capable ( jews ) . That's not the case with us.Let's suppose that we can all agree on what a
"capable" individual is . Then , we can say that a less capable race is
one in which the proportion of "capable" individuals is far lower
than in another "more capable" race .
This is not essentialism . This is about proportions , ratios ,
probabilities , tendencies , etc and proportions and probabilities matter .

This doesn't imply self hate. When i look at my family, i see people
who are for the most part not suffering from the "curse" of low IQ. I'm
lucky that way and i'm not the only black person like that.
Unfortunately , there aren't enough of us and this has had, has and will have
serious consequences when it comes to our aggregate characteristics and our
relationship with other races .

[David in Exile]

I think you are off base here. I don't have any of your issues. Do many people in your family have these issues? I suspect not. I don't know much about Haitians in particular but Caribbean people are a proud people in general.

If anybody in my family is having issues about this topic, then it's obviously not an open secret. The blanchist members of my family aren't admitting nor are the noirist members either. The latter may espouse back to Africa concepts, but out of a sense of pride, and less out of fear and low self-esteem.

One can argue that reading about race realism has destroyed what was left of my dreams and idealism and feeds my nightmares. I went from high school figuring that "acting white", doing well in school, and avoiding a ghetto lifestyle would be my ticket to social acceptance, and that if other black people just simply followed that path, all would be well, and there would no longer be any poor black people. I presumed that I'd manage to find a decent looking white woman to marry, and we'd have lovely mixed race children together in our middle class suburban home, and everything would just work out, and our kids would become the high-achieving next-generation that would change the world.

Yet, those dreams started slowly fading away as started doing miserably in school, but I always held faith in finding friendly whites once I finished and returned to "the real world" with a college degree. The problem is that race realists destroyed that and painted this gloomy world where that won't happen, and leaves me as an isolated freak of nature with potential broken children with low IQ. It was almost as if the "white world" didn't want me anymore, and I slowly learned that I am not an American, but some black guy who lives in the country for as long as the whites put up with us. So, there will be no nice home with a beautiful wife and mixed race kids in a safe middle class neighbourhood. Instead it will be misery and solitude, lest I decide to bring black children into a world that doesn't want them and has no need for them.

Unfortunately , there aren't enough of us and this has had, has and will have
serious consequences when it comes to our aggregate characteristics and our
relationship with other races .

I don't understand how this doesn't bother you. It frustrates me to know that wherever I go in the world, I will always be seen as the undesirable. It's also scary to think that some genetic defect could have left me average black IQ, and unable to exist in the black world. I look at my nephew and niece and question there IQ and wonder if it would have been better if they just didn't exist than to live the life of somebody with low IQ? Are these kids doomed to become ghetto dwellers who are spat upon by the smarter people? I never entertained these thoughts before race realism, optimism has been replaced with the dark clouds of pessimism.

[anonymous 1]

DA:
"I don't understand how this doesn't bother you. It frustrates me to know that wherever I go in the world, I will always be seen as the undesirable."

The voluntary eugenic movement that will come at some time in this century will render congenital inequities a thing of the past. As I told you before, races won't be bred out, ugly phenotypes, regardless of race, will simply be greatly diminished. Granted, it is not going to immediately occur, but it will ultimately transform the human race into homo sapiens superior. Your pessimism has no place if you consider the long range scheme of things. Within 1-200 years, there won't be anymore ugly phenotypes or stupid phenotypes out there.

For example, these are outstanding, beautiful examples of what the black race is probably going to look like:
Blair Underwood:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005516/
Tyra banks:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004723/
or Iman:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0408081/

Your melancholic type of sentiment is absurd and simply the result of a lack of understanding of the superlative implications of science.

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

We are talking about social problems and you post pictures of models and actors from your acceptable negro list. This is as good a reason as any not to take you seriously.

[DAJ]

Anonymous1,

I thought the topic was about genetic-induced mental and social deficiencies, not appearances. Are you implying that the black race suffers from phenotypic ugliness? Does low IQ confer ugliness on a person? Do you believe that Indian Brahmin ladies are more beautiful than the relatively less intelligent Swedish ladies? Are you stating that voluntary eugenics will increase the frequency of beautiful people in all races? Why did you switch topics from unintelligence to unattractiveness? What are you really saying?

[DAJ]

This is a somwewhat unfair but perhaps apt assertion.

Blacks must be a pretty important group of people as topics on both halfsigma.com and isteve.com seem often to devolve into discussions about the black race. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to assume that a topic about shrinking honey bee colonies in North America would likely become another thread about blacks.

[anonymous 1]

DAJ:
"Are you stating that voluntary eugenics will increase the frequency of beautiful people in all races? Why did you switch topics from unintelligence to unattractiveness?"

You presume too much. I have always maintained that voluntary eugenics will be able to ameliorate ALL human traits, from the behavioral to the physical. On a previous site, DA seemed to suggest that I was asserting that certain races would be bred out because of this and he (possibly deliberately) chooses to misinterpret what I'm saying on the matter (i.e. constantly conflating voluntary for involuntary, for example). So, I have to go to great pains to remind him whenever I address him on this issue that not only will the races not breed themselves out, the future parents of those respective races will simply choose to have their designer babies have the best attributes for physical and behavior. In effect, they'll have the kids look like 'model' versions of those races with Einstein IQs. Beautiful!

The examples of Black models I cited was just my guess as to what type of phenotype Black people might choose. I might be wrong. I don't really care either way because I'm all about giving people the choice to decide for themselves.

"What are you really saying?"

Ohh, you so scare me with all your presumptions about my 'ulterior motives!' If you really want to know, what I really think is that it doesn't matter what the f&*k you or Vim or anyone else in the Anglosphere thinks of voluntary eugenics. The intellectual and financial hegemony the Anglosphere enjoys is already eroding, especially with the ascendancy of China and India. Look at how the dollar is already dropping vs the Yen and the Euro, for example.

The pathetic enemies of Darwin on the Right and the Left will be greatly enervated in this millennium by (ironically) non-whites who will have the capability to affect beneficial change on the species. If even one country on the planet allows voluntary eugenics to create more perfect humans, it will force everyone else to do the same. What is the response of a weakened Anglosphere to that- Bomb China because they are making more Gong Li's & bomb India because they are making more Ash Rai's?!! Really, how stupid would that be? The designer babies idea is nothing to be feared. It never was.

[anonymous 1]

DAJ:
"Blacks must be a pretty important group of people as topics on both halfsigma.com and isteve.com seem often to devolve into discussions about the black race."

The people who frequent these sites love talking about race, perhaps because a free discussion about racial issues is currently proscribed by liberals in the Anglosphere (i.e. the affair with Watson, for a recent example). This cause a great deal of pent up frustration and sites like iSteve and Half Sigma capitalize on that shrewdly. The internet and specialty sites like this are one of the few bastions for (almost) unrestrained free speech on important topics that are otherwise taboo. We literally can't go to the mainstream media so we go here. We also think differently than most so we offer a lot of topics for discussion that the mainstream media would think are disconnected (genetics and IQ and immigration, for example).

Vim just asked me why I brought up pics of Black models and (by extension) voluntary eugenics on a thread seemingly about 'social issues.' Because, in my mind, voluntary eugenics and those pics of the models are intimately connected with the issues DA raises. Vim doesn't think that way, of course. I think over the decades we've had trillions spent to try to rectify a lot of social ills in this country but still many of those problems remain. Science offers the best, most viable solutions (even if they are in the long term) to a lot of the problems DA is facing and gets depressed by. As I said, this is a solution that won't happen immediately but will ultimately and conclusively deal with those 'social' issues.

There are literally a myriad of internet sites that are more politically correct than this and will pander to more sensitive tastes in conversation.

Perhaps an even more important question is: If you or anyone doesn't like the way things are done on this site, why are you here?

[DAJ]

Anonymous,

Your response is thorough and the points made are duly noted.

I frequent such sites as halfsigma.com and isteve.com because I too am interested in the politically incorrect points of view that are expressed regarding racial situations. The degree of analysis and rationality that is demonstrated by Half Sigma, Steve Sailer, et al by far trumps what I find in mainstream media. I seek objective explanations of social/demographic phenomena and regard mainstream verbiage as sheepish prattle.

I can appreciate and understand the pent-up anger that some may hold as a result of intense political correction and near censorship. Being constantly blamed--explicitly or implicitly--for the under-performance of others may indeed lead to such anger and the desire to vent on sites that allow it.

[Vim]

I think we all know what the anonymous 1 is saying so I will just move on.

ogunsiron:

I have read what you have written and basically I think the problem is one of perspective. If low IQ is a concern, all races have people of low IQ and I would expect all of these people would be of concern. To the extent one concentrates on the lower IQ people of a particular race versus another this is racism and not astitute public policy at work.

To the extent that we focus on the white general poulation norm of 100 and ignore the Jewish or Asian norms which are clearly better, this is racism at work.

In general, what I see when I look at much of this line of thinking is white supremacist thinking which seeks to orient whites as the norm and to pathologize other human beings.

There is a reason that all these HBD crackpots have to skulk around at the academic periphery like coachroaches. Is it more likely that the whole academic establishment (which is against everything the race realist stands for) is deluded or that the race realists are?

[Vim]

DAJ:

"The degree of analysis and rationality that is demonstrated by Half Sigma ..."

You seem like a man/woman who has clearly read his posts on Silda Spitzer and Ron Paul.

[DAJ]

Vim,

That is funny. I was comparing the general degree of analysis and rationality of HS and SS with respect to mainstream media. This does not mean that HS and SS never miss. By the way, I am a man.

[anonymous 1]

Vim:
"To the extent that we focus on the white general poulation norm of 100 and ignore the Jewish or Asian norms which are clearly better, this is racism at work...In general, what I see when I look at much of this line of thinking is white supremacist thinking which seeks to orient whites as the norm and to pathologize other human beings."

I don't know of one commenter here who doesn't acknowledge that Askenazi Jews and Asians don't have demonstrably higher than WASPs. But, I think WASPs are often measured against on this site because America is one of the few places that still has a market dominant majority- due largely to WASPs. This may change with changing demographics, however. If this were Israel or Singapore I suspect that the discussions here would largely be measured against Asians and Jews.

"There is a reason that all these HBD crackpots have to skulk around at the academic periphery like coachroaches."

Really, I thought it was because liberals like you would have them fired and without a means of income to support themselves or their families (like has been tried against Jensen and Gottfredson (sic?)).

[anonymous 1]

I don't know of one commenter here who doesn't acknowledge that Askenazi Jews and Asians don't have demonstrably higher than WASPs.

should read:

I don't know of one commenter here who doesn't acknowledge that Askenazi Jews and Asians don't have demonstrably higher IQs than WASPs.

[anonymous 1]

"If low IQ is a concern, all races have people of low IQ and I would expect all of these people would be of concern. To the extent one concentrates on the lower IQ people of a particular race versus another this is racism and not astitute public policy at work."

One would want to concentrate on low IQ of certain groups if they are significantly lower than the norm and one believes that part of the reason is of genetic etiology. If either belief is true then there are enormous public policy implications, such as with respect to immigration and the entire blank slate ideology (i.e. as it relates to AA and No Child Left Behind, for example). If you are arguing this is racist, I would disagree, but I think it is obvious we have different ideas of what constitutes racism.

[Vim]

"I don't know of one commenter here who doesn't acknowledge that Askenazi Jews and Asians don't have demonstrably higher IQs than WASPs."

They say it is a true fact when asked. However, they continue to talk as if America wouldn't be better if whites were at the Asian or Jewish norms. Of course, there seems to be something preferable about being Jewish (Nobel prizes, Fields medals, Law, Medicine and so on) to being Asian.

"One would want to concentrate on low IQ of certain groups if they are significantly lower than the norm and one believes that part of the reason is of genetic etiology."

I think I am wasting my time, I don't think you will ever get this. Probably it is because you don't want to get it. A great example is sickle-cell which most people will recognize as a 'black disease'. However, it is common where ever malaria was historically common. It's a pretty serious genetic ailment and one we should want to fix. Your sort of approach would have us 'treating' all black people healthy or sick leaving out the many thousands of other people of Mediterranean, Indian and Middle Eastern descent who also suffer from this problem. It would also include treating millions of dark skinned people who are neither homozygous nor heterozygous in this trait. It's just wasteful. Now in addition if we said that this sort of blanket treatment did grevious harm to the quality of life of these people, then I think the conclusion is clear in terms of the ethics involved.

"If either belief is true then there are enormous public policy implications, such as with respect to immigration ..."

I wish you would stop talking about the immigration system and this isn't the first time I am point this out either. You don't seem to know anything about it. It's pretty basic knowledge that they have access to fairly detailed life history of each applicant. Basing decisions on race, after you've had that level of detail about a person is plain stupid.

[Vim]

"... I think it is obvious we have different ideas of what constitutes racism."

My belief on what racism means is in accordance with what Merriam-Webster thinks it is ie. what an educated speaker of the English language thinks it means.

[anonymous 1]

"A great example is sickle-cell which most people will recognize as a 'black disease'. However, it is common where ever malaria was historically common. It's a pretty serious genetic ailment and one we should want to fix. Your sort of approach would have us 'treating' all black people healthy or sick leaving out the many thousands of other people of Mediterranean, Indian and Middle Eastern descent who also suffer from this problem. It would also include treating millions of dark skinned people who are neither homozygous nor heterozygous in this trait. It's just wasteful. Now in addition if we said that this sort of blanket treatment did grevious harm to the quality of life of these people, then I think the conclusion is clear in terms of the ethics involved."

I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. Voluntary eugenics will be able to prevent any race, low IQ phenotypes from occurring in the first place, btw.

"I wish you would stop talking about the immigration system and this isn't the first time I am point this out either. You don't seem to know anything about it."

Is this tone really necessary?

The immigration system in America is broken because it does not effectively deal with illegal immigration. I've spoken with an immigration attorney about a matter for over two hours recently so I'm a lot more familiar with this subject now. We seem to prevent a lot of beneficial legal immigration, btw.

My working definition of racism is irrational discrimination against another group. If you accept this as a valid definition then I suspect we will occasionally disagree with what is necessarily 'irrational.'

[Chaos]

Vim,
"If one was going to take a race based view of responsibility then almost any country you can think of was screwed over by white occupation at some point."

This is the type of reasoning that will make a future for soon to be minority whites impossible. People like Vim will find whites guily irregardless of what whites do in the present. They will always go back to history and find something to justify their hate. Violence and collective punishments will be excused. This is not in any way progressive, but instead it is what humans have always done. So maybe I have read some history Vim because I see your type of ethnic psychological warfare all over it. And it is how ethnic warfare is waged in the west today.

So let see... the reason non-whites migrate to white countries is because of white evil. The reason non-whites fail is because of white evil. The reason non-whites comit violence is because of white evil. But aside from that sort of a twisted moral base Vim is a 'fair' and 'liberal' guy.

And yes I have travelled Vim. I have been to third world countries and seen how many of those countries 'function'. So what - I find it more or less depressing. Oh, I forgot, the corruption, the poverty, the violence, the uncontrolled growth rates, the crime, lack of empathy, the lack of organization, the lack of skill - it's all white people' fault. Of course!

How long do you think whites will listen to people like you? How long will they be fooled? How long will they be deluded by your lies? There is more and more of us every day that call your BS for what it is. But keep trying there are still a few more suckers out there.

Just do me a favour and stop pretending you are some sort of a progressive voice...

[Vim]

Chaos:

I said IF you take a race based view of responsibility. I don't advocate doing that! I have said several times all over this blog that I don't advocate it even in my last post. You missed the entire point. You seem to be responding to some generic strawman.

"And yes I have travelled Vim. I have been to third world countries and seen how many of those countries 'function'."

Did you then go back and see how the infrastructure and economy was originally poorly set up by Europeans who were not interested in serving the people but in enriching Europe and themselves as much as possible? (This is not the story of all countries but is the story of most of the worst performing countries.)

"How long will they be deluded by your lies?"

This is white/European history written mostly by white/European people.

[SFG]

DA: 'race realism' isn't that important because most people don't believe in it. If you do finish college, etc., I don't think you personally should have a problem.

As for Vim's comments about colonialism, I'm not convinced it's the whole problem anymore. No question the British Empire was more interested in exploitation than any 'civilizing mission' they may have invented, but countries such as China seem to be well on their way to being superpowers after tossing the Brits out. It's hard to think of a non-Western country that was never conquered by Europeans, but the Japanese I don't think were ever dominated, and did manage to build an industrial society. So it might be a regional thing: maybe Asia's long history of civilization empowered Asian countries to industrialize, whereas the Indians, whatever the achievements of individual Indians (their huge software industry currently destroying the livelihoods of American nerds shows they do not lack for talent), still have a lot of poverty because they never had the large-scale social organization of a place like China until recently. (The Mughals never ruled as long as the various Chinese emperors, from what I remember.)

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

"Is this tone really necessary?"

The 'tone' was absent the first time I corrected you on this.

"The immigration system in America is broken"

I agree it does seem bizarre. However, I question the wisdom of trying to deport the low skilled workers that the market clearly wants and bringing in high-skilled workers instead. It's the sort of thing that doesn't usually work out.

"My working definition of racism is irrational discrimination against another group."

We discussed the meaning of racism earlier. There is no qualification of 'rationality' which is being used here as a normative term anyway.

Am I correct in assuming you do not have any interest in the sorts of protections afforded an individual by things like the Magna Carta, the UN charter or the US Bill of Rights?

I do not know how else to interpret your habitual advocacy of policies that violate or seem to show ignorance of basic human rights conventions.

We do not punish the family of a murderer for his actions. This seems pretty basic and self evident to me.

For me, once you accept that the point of these guidelines is to get us to live together regardless of our differences, thoughts about breeding the people who disagree out of existence seem anachronistic. Whatever you do, there will always be people with different cultures and perspectives.

[Vim]

SFG:

"As for Vim's comments about colonialism, I'm not convinced it's the whole problem anymore."

Well I think colonialism set up the dominoes which are currently still falling. Obviously everything a guy like Saddam was doing is all on him but I worry about the events that put them in power in the first place.

I think the other half of the story is the state of the people when they were conquered. We could read 'race realism' implications into this. So we could say, if the Africans are so smart how come they didn't have a writing system for instance? This is a typical thing your race realist might ask. I would answer in the following way:

1. Some Africans did have writing systems (so we tend to have a white wash in terms of knowing about these things and we assume too much.)

2. There is nothing special about the time of European contact so it's not as if they might not have developed something 10,000 years later. Things like Writing seem to be one of those spontaneous things that pops up here and there. (Eurocentrism has us thinking that the time the Europeans decided to explore the world is a sort of 'end of history'. If the Chinese had decided to conquer the world when they were first ready, they would have found most Europeans in their huts.)

3. Many of the indigenous people of Europe didn't develop their own writing system but were given a writing system by outsiders. English spelling (orthography) in particular suffers a great deal from a bad adaptation to Latin script. (So we sort of think well, if one white guy did something that reflects on all white people which again helps us propagate the racial myth.)

Anyway, so I think the point of advancement at contact had a big difference on:

1. What was possible from the perspective of colonial organization (remember they were there to make short-term, high-paying investments and something like mass education of millions of illiterate people was not in the cards.)

2. How much the colonials identified with the people and thus their general sympathy for the people they were ruling and how much they were willing to invest making a home in these countries.

3. How easily the conquered people could fit culturally into the new system. Many cultures collapsed on contact with Europeans with catastrophic results.

[anonymous 1]

"We discussed the meaning of racism earlier. There is no qualification of 'rationality' which is being used here as a normative term anyway."

Gimme a break. Any definition is subject to qualitative interpretations. This definition is no different. Different interpretations of freely available religious text has led to some of greatest acts of barbarism humanity has ever seen. What is absolute depends on the point of view of the person being asked, in this thread or in the entirety of human history.

"Am I correct in assuming you do not have any interest in the sorts of protections afforded an individual by things like the Magna Carta, the UN charter or the US Bill of Rights?"

Again, we have a fundamental disagreement over what if anything is a violation of human rights as it pertains to voluntary eugenics. You seem to be advocating that merely offering individuals the right to choose (or not choose) what and how their progeny can be via genetic engineering is a violation. I disagree and would suggest that merely offering this choice will violate none of the established political doctrines. If in some way it does, then it is clear that such doctrines (sometimes written before we had electricity) will clearly need to change to fit the times and the scientific advancements of those times.

"Whatever you do, there will always be people with different cultures and perspectives."

I am precisely counting on different cultures and perspectives (i.e. from the Pacific Rim and India, for example) to take a different point of view to genetic engineering than liberals in the West, like yourself, and allow for the supreme advancement of our human species.

"thoughts about breeding the people who disagree out of existence seem anachronistic."

Again, this seems to imply something involuntary at work. Voluntary eugenics will be based on science and free choice. If people want their kids to look ugly or be stupid or be short, so be it. I would have to accept that. I would also accept some people not being interested in participating in voluntary eugenics in their own lives- only liberals (and some Biblical conservatives) want to force their views on others in this issue and actually prevent those people from doing eugenics.

I strongly suspect that humans who engage in this type of practice will want their kids to look like models (of whatever race), be tall and be extremely smart. If the choices are truly voluntary, then how can anyone force anyone else to be breed anything in or out?

Or at least breeding anything out more than what is already happening with respect to traits like appearance or height? Are you going out with a heinous, stupid chick? If you aren't then aren't you trying to 'breed out' the ugly and stupid in your own life? What about other guys/ women who have done this throughout human history? Did the undesirable traits get bred out? All voluntary eugenics offers is an expedited & painless way of allowing humans to do what they've been doing since we descended from the primates and got to our present evolved state (and likely caused the extinction of the Neanderthals in the process). If anything, these methods will be far, far less murderous than the actual 'breeding out' processes of the past.

It's not my logic that is at fault here, and you'd see that if you answer these questions honestly.

[DAJ]

Vim: "Did you then go back and see how the infrastructure and economy was originally poorly set up by Europeans who were not interested in serving the people but in enriching Europe and themselves as much as possible"

Were not the modern infrastructure and economy set up by Europeans often vastly better and more efficient than the more primitive analogues that had previously existed in those imperialized countries? Imperialism often results in the transfer of superior knowledge from an advanced culture to a more primitive culture. Roman-controlled ancient Britain comes to mind. Modern sub-Saharan Africa also comes to the fore. Notice that relative civilizational progression occurred during the advent of the colonization and regression followed the departure of the colonizers in both of the aforementioned examples.

[anonymous 1]

"Were not the modern infrastructure and economy set up by Europeans often vastly better and more efficient than the more primitive analogues that had previously existed in those imperialized countries?"

Unless everyone involved has read 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by J. Diamond or has some other specialized knowledge of this subject, this entire discussion is pointless and will continue to be based on conjecture and partial truths/falsehoods. Vim claims to have read it, btw.

[Vim]

"Were not the modern infrastructure and economy set up by Europeans often vastly better ... "

Well, I suspect it's what whites who are feeling guilty would like to believe but lets look at the results honestly. For a guy like me, yeah I think it worked out pretty good. For some other people, I don't know about that.

It's not that I think colonialization was bad. I actually want the process to be completed. In most places it's been half done and the results are ugly.

Europe only seems to have managed to civilize themselves in the last 50 year or so and still there are outliers like Ireland, Russia and the Balkans. So it's not surprising that a place like Africa might need a little more time and effort.

"Notice that relative civilizational progression occurred during the advent of the colonization"

I do not believe this is true. What is your reason for saying that? As far as I know, there are larger more developed cities now than there were in the colonial era. Even the wars, of which there are many, are fought on larger more complicated scales. In fact many of the African countries have GDP growth that is currently higher than the USA.

http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN432470.html

[Miv in Exile]

The third world lives as a parasite off the superior organization of the advanced world. The persistence of poverty and ignorance in the third world is almost certainly due to low mean intelligence combined with primitive traditions.

The wheel was invented in Ancient Mesopotamia and quickly migrated to India, Egypt, China, Europe.

The wheel was unknown in the New World before Columbus, Aboriginal Australians, Subsaharan Africa.

[DAJ]

Vim,

Thomas Sowell et al have written on the rise of civilization in Britain during Roman imperialism. Roads, aqueducts, walls (Hadrian's Wall?), and other infrastructure were built during the period when the Roman Empire controlled Britain. After the departure of the Romans, Britain entered a civilizational dark age (roads were not maintained, for instance).

Rhodesia was once the "breadbasket of Africa" when the nation was under white rule. I need not go through the unnecessary task of explaining the well known decline of what is presently called Zimbabwe now that the nation is under black rule. The future of South Africa, also once colonized and/or controlled by whites, sadly appears bleak now that the country is under black rule. Do you not think that the Australian Island is more technologically and politically advanced since control of the island went from Aborigine to white rule?

Vim: "Europe only seems to have managed to civilize themselves in the last 50 year..."

I'm pretty sure the European Renaissance, Age of Exploration, Age of Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution occurred well before fifty years ago.

By the way, Ireland is no longer some backwards nation. Ireland ranks as high as fourth in the world in GDP per capita with respect to purchasing power parity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

[Vim]

DAJ:

The benefits are mixed like I said. For every Australia, you have more Zimbabwes. After the colonisers left, you claim things consistently got worse. Well if so, is this not the fault of the colonisers? This is the sort of reasoning that is going to have Americans blaming Iraqis for the mess caused by America destablizing their country after (Hillary or Obama is elected and) America retreats ... It's depressing.

"I'm pretty sure the European Renaissance, Age of Exploration, Age of Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution occurred well before fifty years ago."

It was politically unstable with many of the same types of war and faminine we see in Africa or South America today until after WWII. During that whole period they were frequently involved in genocides. Unless you are willing to call the Holocaust, slavery, WWI and WWII and the genocides in the Americas the work of a civilized people ...

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

"Unless everyone involved has read 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by J. Diamond or has some other specialized knowledge of this subject, this entire discussion is pointless and will continue to be based on conjecture and partial truths/falsehoods."

This is basically my problem with you and immigration. Go read up!

"...Vim claims to have read it, btw."

You seem to think a person should agree with everything they read ... which might explain a lot with you ...

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

It's odd you keep bringing up Chua and Diamond as they both focus on environmental differences. In fact, Chua's recommendations are the opposite of yours. And I know Diamond specifically wrote his book to refute the kinds of genetic difference theories you seem to support.

[anonymous 1]

"This is basically my problem with you and immigration. Go read up!"

I've already been lectured to by an immigration attorney for two hours. My problem with the immigration system in America is basically that it doesn't deal with illegal immigration well. I didn't realize you didn't understand that was my major complaint with it all along.

"It's odd you keep bringing up Chua and Diamond as they both focus on environmental differences. In fact, Chua's recommendations are the opposite of yours. And I know Diamond specifically wrote his book to refute the kinds of genetic difference theories you seem to support."

Chua and Diamond have brilliantly laid out the facts. It's their conclusions based on those facts and other related facts that people can disagree with.

[Vim]

anonymous 1:

Well, if you want to change your tune now that's fine. Yeah, I agree with your current position that the system is not handling illegal immigration well and needs fixing but everybody thinks that even the illegal immigrants. They would like to be legal and others would like to see them deported but either way, few are happy with the current situation.

[DAJ]

Vim: "[Europe] was politically unstable with many of the same types of war and faminine we see in Africa or South America today until after WWII."

Indeed. Wars and famines have been age-old human experiences. Europeans are humans as well.

Nonetheless, the degree of technology, philosophy, and science developed by Europeans before the 1950s far bested that of Africa and South America today. Thus, it is disingenuous to equate the pre-1950 West with today's Third World with respect to civilizational achievement. I suggest "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray.

[DAJ]

Vim: "After the colonisers left, you claim things consistently got worse. Well if so, is this not the fault of the colonisers?"

After the British colonizers left the American colonies, the country that resulted--the United States--eventually became the world superpower and then hyperpower. Since the British colonizers left Singapore, the nation has experienced amazingly impressive economic and technological growth. Have Hong Kong, Canada, or Ireland shown signs of teetering on the brink of Third World descension?

[Vim]

DAJ:

"Have Hong Kong, Canada, or Ireland shown signs of teetering on the brink of Third World descension?"

I don't even know what "third word descension" is supposed to be. However, have you ever heard of the potato famine? How about the black death? But forget about Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, lets talk about Europe proper. The aftermath of WWII left Europe in a state that was definitely third world.

"Nonetheless, the degree of technology, philosophy, and science developed by Europeans before the 1950s far bested that of Africa and South America today."

I don't think the Africans and South Americans were aware they were in a competition for the best scientific achievements, do you?

Science as a philosophy basically only developed once as far as we know. I wouldn't read too much into the fact that it's found mostly on the continent where it developed.

"Thus, it is disingenuous to equate the pre-1950 West with today's Third World with respect to civilizational achievement."

Apart from a minority of people at any given time, most Westerners are ignorant and have always been ignorant of most science or math. It's disingenous to think an achievement due to Einstein has anything to do with your typical office typist, legal clerk, brick layer, cleaning woman or advertising executive or anybody like that.

Anyway, I can see where this is going. The story is whites and asians are genetically predetermined to excel and every example in the world proves this (except the ones that don't), right?

So for instance the Phillipines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia or the rural Chinese aren't real examples. The Balkans isn't a real example. On the flip side, the British Caribbean isn't a real example either. And the only part of India that's a real example is the part where the tech companies are and the other parts are exceptions. I can definitely see where this is going.

[DAJ]

Vim,

You know good and well that the Asians that are referred to on sites like this one are Northeast Asians (Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans). Filipinos, the Hmong, and Malays are not Northeast Asians. You are comparing apples to oranges. They are different races.

China has been a communist country since 1949. Everyone who has studied the events of the 20th century knows that Marxist communism absolutely militates against the establishment of an economically prosperous polity. Name a communist country that is not relatively poor. China did not begin to exhibit high economic growth rates until the late 1970s, when the leadership gradually and surely began to abandon Marxism. The process is still underway. Notice how enormously successful Chinese are in places geographically and/or politically outside of China proper: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, the U.S., and Canada. Also note that such places do not suffer from the debilitating system of communism.

I mentioned Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the U.S. because they ascended to economic heights after casting off the yoke of British imperialism. In short, despite being victims of colonization, these countries prospered mightily. Zimbabwe has thus far not shown that it will follow suit. Hopefully, it will.

India is not an ethnically homogenous society. The age-old, endogamous caste system has probably resulted in numerous, different tribes. Everyone in Indian is not a Brahmin or Parsi, for instance.

Ireland did not become completely free of British rule until the 20th century, long after the end of the potato famine. What does the potato famine have to do with recognizing the impressive economic ascension of Ireland following British rule? Again, I provided you a link evincing that the Ireland of today has become a most considerable economic entity.

The Black Death occurred before the European Renaissance, Age of Exploration, Age of Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution. Europeans are not immune to bad events.

Wars tend to leave areas in states of disrepair. Nevertheless, the poor state of Europe after WWII did not last long. Germany, the UK, France, etc readily rose again to world economic powers. The Euro currency is presently soaring. Again, wars are part of the human experience. In spite of numerous wars, the aforementioned intellectual ages still occurred in Europe. You have to give credit to whom credit is due.

You made good points about the British Caribbean and the Balkans. However, exceptions tend to prove the rule. No?

Please do not think for one minute that I am not hoping that non-Western/non-Northeast Asian nations rise and prosper. Few things would make me happier. I am just looking at the spate of present evidence and drawing conclusions.

[Chaos]

Vim,
you state the following:
"I said IF you take a race based view of responsibility. I don't advocate doing that! I have said several times all over this blog that I don't advocate it even in my last post. You missed the entire point. You seem to be responding to some generic strawman."

and yet you are fond of statements like this:
"If one was going to take a race based view of responsibility then almost any country you can think of was screwed over by white occupation at some point."

Oh yes - but you did add the word 'if'. That makes it so much better and makes my argument a generic strawman argument.

The whole mentality and the resulting rhetoric that whites are uniquely evil is not something I imagine. And it is certainly something that is often implied in your writings - if it is not stated outright. Go back to your writings and see in how many instances you point the finger at some benaviour of whites you don't like. How are you different from any other person who posts here or on isteve or wherever that does the same thing about non-whites?

The differnce is that white bashing is mainstream in our societies and routinely taught to young people of all races. And I am talking about today, not 100 years ago, when things were clearly different. And this needs to change. Whites are facing an imminent demographic collapse. They are about to become small minorities in many of their countries. Small minorities in socities that consistently teach their young that those minorities are uniquely evil is not a good formula for a stable future for us.

I personally don't believe in any race being superior and think it's silly when other whites advocate such views. Yet at the same time I believe whites have the right to survive as a visible group in their own countries without being demographically overwhelmed by other races. This is a very difficult view to explain in our society. People seem to like extremes of one sort or another and always slide into either racial supremacy or demographic death arguments.

Maybe there is no middle way... but some of us have to try.

[Vim]

Chaos:

"Oh yes - but you did add the word 'if'."

Well I've said what I've had to say on the topic.

"Yet at the same time I believe whites have the right to survive as a visible group in their own countries"

No race 'owns' any country. I don't know about rights of races either. That sounds bizarre to me. Individuals have rights not races. If you mean a white person should have the right to marry another white person and have white children if they want then I would consider that self-evident.

"...without being demographically overwhelmed by other races."

As far as I know most of the people in charge of the immigration system are white. Do you know something I don't? Or are you one of those folks that thinks it is secretly the Jews tricking the poor, simple, white man?

" They are about to become small minorities in many of their countries."

No African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American has EVER known a day when they weren't a minority in their OWN country that many of them have fought and DIED for.

It comes off as weak to me if you are saying whites can't handle being a minority.