« A painting of a tree trunk | Main | The g-loading of chess and painting »

January 19, 2009

Comments

It's interesting to see that only three of the ten states with the highest credit scores were Red in the last election.

Come on, diversity isn't so bad, if it's mostly Asians; then you have good restaurants and exotic produce.

Looks like another mystery that will never be solved...

Here's another:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-dont-they-call-them-venereal.html

"Later on the good doctor notes, without specifying any facts, "the very different case rates between ethnic groups."

We'll just never know!

Can you explain why you live in Manhattan if you doubt the benefits of diversity?

Russ wrote: "Can you explain why you live in Manhattan if you doubt the benefits of diversity?"

Russ, I'm not HS, but I work in Manhattan, so I can shed some light on this.

If you take out the extreme north of the island (Harlem and Washington Heights), the Lower East Side projects and Chinatown, Manhattan is pretty White. And it's gotten noticeably Whiter over the last 25 years. The "diverse" parts of NYC are mostly in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The three largely non-White neighborhoods I mentioned, combined, constitute a small and declining share of Manhattan's population.

I looked up demographic data for a few typical Manhattan zip codes on zipskinny.com. These statistics are from the 2000 census:

10021 (Upper East Side): 85.9% non-Hispanic White, 1.4% Black, 6.4% Asian, 4.7% Hispanic, 0.3% other, 1.3% multiracial.

10023 (Upper West Side): 77.4% non-Hispanic White, 5% Black, 7.1% Asian, 8.3% Hispanic, 0.3% other, 1.7% multiracial

10003 (Greenwich Village): 73.3% non-Hispanic White, 4.1% Black, 12% Asian, 7.6% Hispanic, 0.4% other, 2.3% multiracial.

10022 (West Midtown): 85.9% non-Hispanic White, 1.2% Black, 6.6% Asian, 4.8% Hispanic, 0.3% other, 1.2% multiracial.

10014 (West Village): 84.1% non-Hispanic White, 2.6% Black, 4.8% Asian, 6.1 Hispanic, 0.3% other, 1.9% multiracial.

While looking at those numbers you've got to keep in mind that, anecdotally at least, since they were compiled (in 2000), the city's Black population has fallen, while the Asian and White populations have gone up. This old statistical trend usually goes by the name of gentrification. Harlem is being aggressively gentrified as we speak. Parts of downtown Manhattan and huge parts of Brooklyn were gentrified back in the 1990s. I live in the region and I see no end of the gentrifying trend in sight.

I live in NYC and I wish there was a lot less "diversity". However, NYC has many good attributes and happens to be the large city with the lowest crime rate. South Dakota is probably a very nice place to raise a family, but I doubt it's great for a young single person. The only major cities on that top ten list are Minneapolis and Boston, both highly educated and nice cities, from what I hear, as long as you like cold. (I've lived in Mass and the cold isn't that bad, but Minnesota is much worse.) The main problems with Massachusetts are bad drivers and some people that are wary of outsiders. Otherwise, it's a great place to live. Unfortunately, New Hampshire and Maine have become almost as liberal as Massachusetts (Vermont even more so).

"South Dakota places well on all lists I’ve ever seen, perhaps making it the best state in the United States to live?"

Unless you dislike below-zero temperatures on a regular basis in the winter.

I grew up in Dorchester in Boston in 50s and 60s. It was then a working class neighbor of Catholic whites of various ethnicity and Jews, most of Russian extraction and pre WWI, and a few token white protestants. De Lahane's "Gone, Baby, Gone" catches the atmosphere nicely as does his "Mystic River" and someone's "Good Will Hunting."

These are not very diverse neighborhoods in terms of race or class, and frankly they were unpleasant places to live. When the black slum in Roxbury washed over parts of Dorchester, it became a hell-hole, and the blacks aggressively drove out almost all the white population.

Boston, like every large city, has a number of very pleasant upper class neighborhoods and many cultural and commercial attractions, but to enjoy them and live well requires incomes on the order of several hundred thousand dollars per year; $100,000 doesn't cut it.

Just one question to all anti-diversity:

If all blacks magically disappeared and were replaced by whites, does anyone think that the country would be significantly better off?

I think that the indices would be better, but only a little better.
Remember, in many countries, the poor and the rich are from the same race and the problem is not better. See Latin America (all mixed races), Africa (all blacks) or East Europe (all whites)

I thought Canada was the best place to live in the United States.

"I thought Canada was the best place to live in the United States."

Yeah, especially the food.

Its more of a consequence of climate and other external factors that have excluded diversity in these places.

For one thing, most of these places have very low temperatures. I remember reading in the wealth and poverty of nations ( I believe it was called) that harsh weather conditions make for more disciplined communities, and though it didn't elude anything related to race, you can't help but think there aren't many blacks that excel at winter type sports(hockey, skying, skating), even though most blacks are considered natural athletes. Cold communities tend to be inhabited by whites.

In contrast, look at the ten worst states according to this post, they're all balmy weather states nearly year round: Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oklahoma.

Though this book didn't make the politically incorrect observation, I did come away with the idea that cold communities are wealthier because they are inhabited by higher IQs needed to simply survive.

It doesn't get any more primal than that, but I guess this list somehow confirms it.(Red/Blue state, credit scores and all the other benchmarks aside)

"If all blacks magically disappeared and were replaced by whites, does anyone think that the country would be significantly better off?"

Yes.

All levels of social dysfunction would fall considerably in such a scenario. The drop in crime alone would be amazing.

Of course, HBDers generally don't want forced expulsion or worse against blacks even though we HBDers know the blacks wouldn't hesitate to do the same thing to us if they had the ability to do so. Expulsion of blacks isn't palatable to the bulk of white HBDers because whites are very likely genetically more altruistic than any other race.

My preference is for welfare for sterilization. It would cause the NAM birth rate to fall well below the white birth rate. The NAM fertility rate would fall so low that the ratio of white taxtaker to NAM taxtaker would stablize at an economically and socially sustainable level.

I would suggest Brazil should embrace welfare for sterilization now, but the US State Department and the EU diplomatic corps would go nuts and force Brazil to abandon such a scheme. Brazil will have to wait until such policies are implemented in the US.

Bruno:

"I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations"

also

"The Bell Curve"

Your comment shows a lack of education about psychometrics and what intelligence means to every day life as well as how different sub-Saharans are compared to Europeans.

The Bell Curve is not dry at all, but I promise that it is so fascinating that you'll have a hard time putting it down.

There was a memorable scenario illustrated in the book where they posit that, on an individual basis, a three point I.Q. difference is not noticeable, but it would be extremely noticeable if a society magically lost those same three I.Q. points. They then tell how much the population would expand for those living below the povery line, the increase in welfare, the increase in crimes and severity, etc.

dude...crime happens...in lots of areas in the world...just practice basic self-preservation tactics and use common-sense, which means racially profile if you have too.

as for subprime, i still refuse to attach primary blame to the minorities, because the minorities did not change the leverage ratio from 12:1 to 30:1, the minorities did not practice all sorts of derivative trading (Extending far beyond that of mortgage securities) that will be the real killer of the economy. Sure the minorities were greedy, but so were the white-union workers who fought and won so many outrageous pension plans that will cripple companies AND cities. The minority ARM part is not the whole, although that, like Blacks blaming "the Man", is a useful crutch.

what are the demographics like in vancouver?

plenty of asians but do they have any NAM?

"If all blacks magically disappeared and were replaced by whites, does anyone think that the country would be significantly better off?"

Better off how? Reduced crime, reduced litter, reduced drug dealing, reduced prostitution, reduced STDs, greater social cohesion, the ability to once again live in metropolitan downtowns, elimination of diversity programs, superior hiring practices, an end to the EEOC, superior k-12 education?

"Come on, diversity isn't so bad, if it's mostly Asians; then you have good restaurants"

Chinese food is not too good, at least from my perspective.

Indian food is much better. I like Indian almost as much as Italian. Although Indian food is pricier than Chinese food, you do get what you pay for.

Undiscovered Jew, I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I would not want to live in a country where you had to *earn* the right to reproduce. That sounds to me like a much greater evil than what you're trying to get rid of. Even China allows its unfavored groups to have at least *one* child per family.

Besides, it wouldn't work: we'll still have unemployment, and therefore welfare, and we'll still have low-IQ people with large families, because such families exist even in countries with no welfare system in place. In fact they might even have MORE children than they do here in America (or Brazil if that's where you live). I imagine the total fertility rate will also drop to an unsubstainable level, which will mean either the end of Social Security and Medicare or gigantic taxes on those people who are young enough to be in the workforce.

There is a field of study called “happiness research,” which tries to analyze what makes people happy. Prof. Michael Hagerty of the University of California at Davis surveyed decades of international happiness research and found that “for the most part, the top-rated countries are small and homogeneous.” The happiest people are the Danes. “People there have a similar world view and a similar religion, so that it’s easier for them to communicate and to understand each other’s motives,” he explains. “They don’t have race problems, they don’t have crime problems, and they have political freedom.”

Even in the workplace, the benefits of diversity are hard to establish.

Professor Thomas A. Kochan MIT’s Sloan School of Management, commented “The diversity industry is built on sand.” He looked at 20 major companies that have publicly committed themselves to diversity, and found none had done a serious study of how diversity increased profits. He learned that managers are afraid that race-related research could bring on lawsuits, but that another reason they do not look for results is “because people simply want to believe that diversity works.”

Kochan noted “the negative consequences of diversity, such as higher turnover and greater conflict in the workplace,” and concluded that even if the best managers were able to overcome these problems there was no evidence diversity leads to greater profits. “The business case rhetoric for diversity is simply naive and overdone,” noting that the estimated $8 billion a year spent on diversity training does not even protect businesses from discrimination suits, much less boost profits.

"Remember, in many countries, the poor and the rich are from the same race and the problem is not better. See Latin America (all mixed races), Africa (all blacks) or East Europe (all whites)"

So in homogeneous countries, the rich and poor are of the same race. DUH?

I wonder why you didn't write: see East Asia and Western Europe. Or see white states.

It seems as if any time there's a mention of race or ethnicity in a blog, the comment thread turns into Stormfront Lite.

"Undiscovered Jew, I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I would not want to live in a country where you had to *earn* the right to reproduce. That sounds to me like a much greater evil than what you're trying to get rid of. Even China allows its unfavored groups to have at least *one* child per family."

It is not a question of earning a right to reproduce.

Welfare for sterilization involves waving the right to reproduce in exchancge for long term welfare. If people don't like it then they don't have to go on benefits. Ordinary people not interested in welfare would not be affected.

Howis this idea evil?

The taxpayers have a legitimate social interest in making sure the proportion of tax-takers does not exceed what the taxpaying class can afford. If you put too much tax pressure on the productive class then living standards start to fall (California's per capita GDP will fall by 10% by the 2020's because not enough Hispanics are graduating High School to replace the highly educate white baby boomer workforce).

It seems as if any time there's a mention of race or ethnicity in a blog, the comment thread turns into Stormfront Lite.

It seems that anytime there's mention of inconvenient facts or statistics about race, someone in the comment thread has to accuse everyone of being a neo-nazi.

Ben,

There is research being done into diversity training.

eg
http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/18459.html

"Just one question to all anti-diversity:

If all blacks magically disappeared and were replaced by whites, does anyone think that the country would be significantly better off?

I think that the indices would be better, but only a little better.
Remember, in many countries, the poor and the rich are from the same race and the problem is not better. See Latin America (all mixed races), Africa (all blacks) or East Europe (all whites)"

How can you compare Eastern Europe and US to Brazil and Africa?

For one, people in Eastern Europe are very educated, much more than Americans on average. In terms of crimes and STDs, Brazil is way way on top then US and then Eastern Europe. In Brazil, while driving you don't even stop at the red light, because you get mugged. (in fact if you're white in Sao Paulo you better hire bodyguards) In US, you can get mugged in a bad area. In Eastern Europe bad areas are harder to find. Also, in Brazil there are more than half a million of people with HIV, something that's hard to find in Eastern Europe where it used to be considered a disease of the west. In Brazil, people eat out of the trash.

If you don't travel, don't speak up about things you don't know.

Yeah, I prefer Indian food (obviously I'm Indian), and also like Thai (it's practically a cross between Indian and Chinese food). Also, the Asian/Indian parts of Queens are not terrible places. If you wanted a cheap place in the city that's liveable, move there.

Bob Sykes - was Dorchester unpleasant before the blacks spilled in? My Mom grew up in similar circumstances in the mill towns in the suburbs of Boston.

Latin America has the poor of either Indian ancestry (Central America, Mexico, the Andean Nations such as Bolivia) or Black (Brazil). Brazil's problem stems from the huge divide between the largely White Elite and the largely Black poor, who are poor in ways American poor can't even conceive. Poor to the point of starving to death, not lacking a DVD player.

Would America be "better off" with Blacks just magically gone? I would answer no. First, while Blacks are certainly (in the urban core) characterized by extremely high rates of social dysfunction, including crimes of violence, STD rates, drug use, illegitimacy, etc. the White population is catching up, and the White Underclass in Britain is indistinguishable from the Black underclass in America in terms of behaviors and statistics.

Blacks in America are the canary in the coal mine, culture is obviously broken here in the US and most of the West. Getting rid of the canaries won't solve the problem, which runs far deeper.

Second, America's culture is Anglo-Celtic-African. Without Blacks a huge part of our cultural heritage would cease to exist.

All this discussion is politically unaceeptable in normal debate because today sterilization would be legally considered genocide to many human rights conventions, starting from the Rome statute.

Genocide is any action to reduce or give different conditions to a given group in a society. It doesn´t make a difference if it is by mass murder or sterilization or whatever.

First, I am not calling no one here a nazi.

But what makes these ideas undebatable in the public arena is the memory of the Holocaust and the western guilt about such tragedy. No one here is proposing that.

However, the logical corolary of stating "the social problems are concentrated in a given ethnic group" means that the best way to solve social problems is a mass murder.

As the idea of correlation of a race with social problems can be easily associated with ethnic killing and it is done in many countries (example: Milosevic´s Serbia), the west wouldn´t accept that or it would lose its discourse as a defender of civilization.

First, Brazil has one of the world´s best anti-HIV policies.

One of the causes of Siggys´s ideas is that in the US, the socially problematic people are very concentrated in a minority group. But this assumption doesn´t travel outside the US.

It doesn´t make sense in a worldwide perspective, because of either three things: first, that there is a white underclass in many places, like eastern europe, Argentina and even western europe before the 80´s, when there were less muslim immigrants.

Second, in many places outside the US, the society´s top and bottom are from the same race.

Third, that in many places the social problems are far more widespread in the nation, like Brazil. You can be mugged by either a white, a mulatto (most likely) or a black.

"For one, people in Eastern Europe are very educated, much more than Americans on average"

So, probably you gave a possible better solution to the social problems of NAM´s: have an education in the US as good as in Eastern Europe. If it worked to the white underclass there, it can be used to other countries underclass.

People, I have no doubt that living in black neighborhoods in America is bad and american schools with blacks are bad. But taking out the black class won´t do any good, as there are many countries without blacks with the same problems. Solve the black problem would need other solutions than eliminating the NAM´s.

A large percentage of our population are born with no marketable skills in areas with high unemployment. For them, going through life without ever needing welfare benefits is a very difficult thing to do. Your message to them is essentially "Tough luck! Your life is just going to be one long drag here in America. You can't even have children!" Unless they want to starve, that is. Either way your idea reduces the lower class to a subhuman state of being by removing the basic right to have a family.

And even as a purely economic argument, this idea doesn't work. As I've said before, even with no welfare benefits, the lower class will keep on having children. They'll just be diseased and under-fed children who go out in the streets to beg for money so they can feed themselves. We might see a resurgence in off-the-clock odd jobs paying subminimum wages since families will be desperate for anything they can get.

Really, if you just want to save money, we could do far better by reducing Social Security retirement benefits by 20% or so, since *everyone* is entitled to them, even if they're rich, and unlike welfare there is no ceiling on how much retirement money one can "earn".

Also, since you've been talking about welfare as a means of preventing children being born, I should mention the fact that in America it's extremely difficult to get welfare benefits unless you already *have* children. Anyone who is able-bodied and childless will automatically be refused welfare benefits in all fifty states. However, in common parlance, programs such as food stamps, home heating assistance, and Section 8 housing are often called "welfare", and are available to anyone not currently earning money. So I assume this is what you were referring to.

Brazil's problem stems from the huge divide between the largely White Elite and the largely Black poor

You cannot create such a big divide white/black because there is an excessive race mixture here in Brazil.
Probably we could divide in a small pure black, a majority mixed and a small pure white. In this mixed group, there are rich and poor people. The very top elite is white.

In Eastern Europe bad areas are harder to find

Only in communist times. That was effect of a massive police state. In Stalin times, people were tried as adults at 12 years old and were to the gulag for small felonies. Lots of times people were shot, for crime or political reasons If the west accepted such a justice system, no one would be mugged.

That was the only advantage of living in a communist country: little crime.

Today there are very bad areas in Vilnius or Moscow.


Looking at those numbers, it occurs to me the low FICO states are more correlated with hispanics than blacks. I suspect a fairly sizable minority of blacks don't even have a credit score, and they are not pulling down the average. Therefore Mississippi and Louisiana are better than Texas and Oklahoma.

"It seems as if any time there's a mention of race or ethnicity in a blog, the comment thread turns into Stormfront Lite."

Coming from a guy who lives in a whitebread town on LI.

You should take a look and see that the cause of crime is not necessarily race, but other more complex causes:

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050410_ruin.htm

"In Eastern Europe bad areas are harder to find."

You don't say! I couldn't imagine why...

To Bruno Brazil
Brazil has an european upper class. Maybe a quarter of the population can claim 90% of european ancestry. In the upper class there almost no african ascendency, but a there is indian ancestry. This is why Brazil is much better then the new South Africa, or Peru, or Bolivia. We have much more whites. And maybe a third of the population has predominantly european ancestry. Just google "baile funk" and notice the pictures of the underclass, it is almost purely african. Last but nt least, the brazilian police has the habit of considering mestizos "white". the 75% with less then 90% of european ancestry them become almost all white.

to undiscovered jew


WOuld you suggest the same policy towards the chosen people? AShkenazim represent less then 40% of Israel's population and it is pretty obvious that as the low IQ arabs and medium IQ sephardim become more and more dominant, israel will become less western and more "arab", if you undestand me. I just want to hear a jew proposing sterilization of the sephardim.

"Brazil's problem stems from the huge divide between the largely White Elite and the largely Black poor"

whenever read such puerile comments from otherwise sensible people like whiskey I just pray that the mexicans burn the US.

I sincerely believe that paleocons in the US hate Latin American whites with the same fervor that neocons hate the eastern slavs, Russians in special. How can someone who reads so many blogs about HBD ignore the IQ differentials between the descendents of italians, spaniards an portuguese in one side and the descendents of angolas, ghanaians and congolese on the other side??

Somehow people like Whiskey believe that italians with IQ of 98 and angolans with 72 became somehow equals with IQ s of 85 at the moment their ships landed in Brazil. And so nothing but racism prevents afro-brazilians from becoming traders in the stock exchange, neuro-surgeons and senators

The worst places to live in the world include Haiti and African countries such as Zimbabwe. The worst cities in the US to live include Detroit and similar cities governed in the manner of Haiti and Zimbabwe -- strong man thugocracies.

The low IQ of Africans and American blacks is just one factor leading to low quality of life where blacks are overwhelmingly in control of a jurisdiction. Low Executive Function of the frontal lobes of the brain is far more relevant to low achievement of blacks than is low IQ.

Executive Function can be trained between the ages of 4 and 6. So there is hope for improvement if society learns to train its young. Otherwise, fuggedabowdit!

"'for the most part, the top-rated countries are small and homogeneous.'”

In my humble opinion, "homogeneous" is typically a code word for "very few NAMS." For example, the town I live in is 2/3 white and 1/3 Korean-American. It's a nice place to live. The Koreans generally don't bother anyone. If there were a country which were half white and half Korean, it would probably be about as nice as Denmark. Even though it would not be very homogenous.


"WOuld you suggest the same policy towards the chosen people? AShkenazim represent less then 40% of Israel's population and it is pretty obvious that as the low IQ arabs and medium IQ sephardim become more and more dominant, israel will become less western and more "arab", if you undestand me. I just want to hear a jew proposing sterilization of the sephardim."

I'm of the opinion that we should just stop wasting our energy with the never ending peace process and cycle of violence, buy a strip of land somewhere in, maybe, Latin America and move the Jews there.

As for the Sephardim and sterilization, I don't know enough about them to comment except that their IQs seem to be in line with the European average and their crime rate is low. I don't think sterilization is needed.

"For example, the town I live in is 2/3 white and 1/3 Korean-American."

Palisades Park, New Jersey?

A brave politician ventures into these treacherous waters:

"Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

"We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out, " LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. "And nobody wants to talk about it."

If you read Seymour Itzkoff's book on Declining Intelligence, or John Glad's book (http://www.whatwemaybe.org/), you'd see La Bruzzo has a point.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html

"Tough luck! Your life is just going to be one long drag here in America. You can't even have children!"

Not true, you're not talking about coercing people.

Most educated people abstain from having children, at least until they can afford to. Some simply don't have them. Why should people who are already dependent on the state extend their burden?

Also, if you read Freakanomics, you'll see that reducing the birth rates of those on long term welfare will probably reduce future crime rates (along with future welfare dependency given the significant hereditability of behavioural traits like intelligence).

I suggest keeping welfare but eliminating the increases in payments with the number of children. SO NAM single women would lose the incentive to bear children, since every extra child would diminish the welfare per capita in the household. And keep abortion

About Israel's problems, http://www.vdare.com/seiyo/081120_israel.htm
it seems that the non-ashkenazim component is slowly turning Israel into a non western country.

"I sincerely believe that paleocons in the US hate Latin American whites with the same fervor that neocons hate the eastern slavs, Russians in special."

Whiskey is no Paleocon. He has gone by Evil Neocon in the past and as Testing99. I classify him as more of a concern troll of the HBD community such as it is.


"How can someone who reads so many blogs about HBD ignore the IQ differentials between the descendents of italians, spaniards an portuguese in one side and the descendents of angolas, ghanaians and congolese on the other side??"

Easy, because Whiskey bears an animus towards Euros in general. This and the need to engage the "Islamic threat" are the only constants in his world view that I have been able to perceive. Stripping away the hyperbolic from his posts leaves a distinct impression that Whiskey loves to play the game of "let's you and him fight". Read some of his comments archived here and at Steve Sailer's site if you want to see for yourself.

To neocons like him open immigration and "proposition nations" are desirable as these policies advance a more fractured and thus more tractable polity. The Big Man monomania he currently spouts is just part and parcel of his tired routine of misdirection and obfuscation.

"AShkenazim represent less then 40% of Israel's population and it is pretty obvious that as the low IQ arabs and medium IQ sephardim become more and more dominant, israel will become less western and more "arab."

Most ultra-Orthodox Jews are Ashkenazi, and it's the ultra-Orthodox who are having 6, 8 and 10 kids per family. I don't think the Ashkenazi in Israel have too much to worry about demographics-wise.

"I don't think the Ashkenazi in Israel have too much to worry about demographics-wise."

This guy seems to disagree!

"In the old days, Israeli Ashkenazim used to refer to their co-citizens of Arab-Jewish origins as schwartze, which is the same German/Yiddish word for “black” that the older Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in New York used in reference to American blacks. It stood in both places as a code word for lower cultural attainment and unseemly behavior. Now the term is gone there, as it is here, and anyone who uses it is likely subjected to public censure.

But when words and perceptions that discriminate between qualities are gone, quality is gone.

Israel no longer feels like an outpost of Old Europe in the Middle East."


http://www.vdare.com/seiyo/081120_israel.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.