April 24, 2008

The Economics of Eldorado

A couple of weeks ago, following a hoax phone call from (apparently) an Obama delegate in Colorado, the state of Texas seized 437 children from a community recently built outside of Eldorado, TX by the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (which, for some reason, is known as FLDS rather than FCLDS).

I've been trying to understand the economics of Eldorado.

If you ask most guys, they'll tell you that having one wife is expensive. So, how do you have a community based on having a bunch of wives?

In tropical farming communities, the usual solution is to send the wives out to work hoeing the fields. That's how you come across stories now and then of some handsome, prosperous fellow in Kenya with 100 wives -- he owns the land, but the work is being put in, overwhelmingly, by the wives.

The downsides to this tropical model (frequently found in Africa and the New Guinea area) normally include that childcare winds up catch as catch can and the husbands have a hard time keeping their wives in the fields away from local bachelors trying to lure them into the bushes. But then, does the husband care all that much if he winds up with a few cuckoo's eggs? He's not busting his hump for the kids, anyway, so it's not a big deal.

FLDS seems to be midway between the lackadaisical African model of paternal uncertainty and the Middle Eastern Muslim model of paternal paranoia with wives locked up in harems and only allowed out wearing tents. The FLDS women don't seem to be allowed out much to work in the wider world, and have to wear modest clothes at all times, but at least the FLDS doesn't have eunuch harem guards. (But they also throw out scores of young men each year to reduce the bachelors in the bushes threat.)

So, where do they get their money? Models that might be helpful to think about include:

1. Welfare fraud: Since the states don't recognize subsequent marriages, all the wives after the first are legally unwed mothers, eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, and so forth. Apparently, it's called "bleeding the beast."

2. Organized crime / politics: The main FLDS community of Colorado City, AZ / Hilldale, UT (it's on the border for purposes of legal confusion) is its own town in two different states, and lots of money comes down from Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Washington D.C. for things like public schools, the local airport (used primarily by the Prophet), street paving and so forth. Supposedly, the place gets back $8 in state services for every $1 it pays in state taxes. Not surprisingly, the FLDS puts lots of its members on the state-supported payroll and appears to skim off a sizable fraction of the budget for its own purposes. In 2005, the state of Arizona put the local school district into receivership for mismanagement. So, it's kind of a racket.

Of course, the same thing could be said of a lot of municipalities, like, oh, Chicago. On the other hand, the Mayors Daley never quite had government employees as hypnotized into not rolling over for prosecutors as the Prophets Jeffs.

3. Pyramid scheme / slavery -- The male members of the FLDS appear to be, in general, industrious and competent at blue collar trades, especially construction work. But their earnings are "taxed" at very high rates by the handful of leaders at the top of the church. All property is owned by the church.

Why do these hard-working guys put up with it? The Prophet gets to decide who marries whom. If he likes how much money you've brought in, maybe he gives you a wife. If he really likes you, maybe he gives you a second, prettier one. The sky's the limit. But, if the Prophet doesn't like you, no wife for you. In fact, he may expel you from the only community you've ever known. After all, there are about an equal number of boys and girls born to the sect, so a lot of the more unruly and/or less productive males get tossed out.

4. Puppy mill -- Not surprisingly, not that many people want to convert to FLDS, so to keep the supply of young wives for elders as bountiful as possible, they have to grow their own. This leads to inbreeding problems. The Deseret Morning News reported:

Until a few years ago, scientists knew of only 13 cases of Fumarase Deficiency in the entire world. Tarby said he's now aware of 20 more victims, all within a few blocks of each other on the Utah-Arizona border.

The children live in the polygamist community once known as Short Creek that is now incorporated as the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. Tarby believes the recessive gene for Fumarase Deficiency was introduced to the community by one of its early polygamist founders.

According to community historian Ben Bistline, most of the community's 8,000 residents are in two major families descended from a handful of founders who settled there in the 1930s to live a polygamist lifestyle.

"Ninety percent of the community is related to one side or the other," Bistline said.

So, does this mean the state of Texas should have taken 437 children? Arizona tried it 55 years ago and it proved to be a nightmare.

So, I don't know what Texas should do now, but here's the first lesson for other states: Do not let these people infest your state.

When Texas first got wind of the FLDS plan to set up a compound a few years ago, they should have come down on them with a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit, hostile building inspectors, environmental impact study demands, everything in the ample arsenal of the modern state to get them to go away.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

56 comments:

Lawful Neutral said...

Oh man, Snowcrash may be a parody or satire, but it's looking more and more prescient each year.

Anonymous said...

So, I don't know what Texas should do now, but here's the first lesson for other states: Do not let these people infest your state.

"Infest" is the proper term. It's a term which could be applied to other issues, like the slavetrade in the 1600s, or non-European immigration in the 1900s. Once it takes hold it's hard to reverse.

We of the modern era, brainwashed with the idea of tolerance, really don't understand how many political and cultural decisions are about OR instead of AND.

William said...

the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (which, for some reason, is known as FLDS rather than FCLDS).

For the same reason the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known as the LDS Church: if you referred to it as the CLDS Church it would be redundant.

FLDS seems to be midway between the lackadaisical African model of paternal uncertainty and the Middle Eastern Muslim model of paternal paranoia with wives locked up in harems and only allowed out wearing tents.

Well, they are wearing tents, of a sort - and really bad hairdos. I live in Salt lake and the first time I spotted polygamous women and their daughters nobody needed to point them out to me. They keep them out of public schools and keep them on what are usually pretty large estates. The kids are thoroughly brainwashed. Apparently the so-called "lost boys" will not testify against their family or leaders. The only ones who do testify are the girls who feel they've been sexually violated.

Apparently, it's called "bleeding the beast."

What it's called is putting a polite spin on what they refuse to admit - the fact that their chosen lifestyle is economically entirely unsustainable. To the extent that they're actually religious (the women) it surely grates. To the extent that its about harems and bearing prodigious spawn (men) its a convenient fiction.

It's one more very good argument for requiring identification of the father (and DNA testing, if necessary) in order to get any state welfare at all - and then only after mandatory child support.

The interesting thing about the number of children - 437 - seized by the state is that it's not far off from the low estimate on the number of boys that have been driven out for committing any of the various deadly sins, like watching a movie or listening to rock music or, presumably, leaving the toilet seat up. The high estimates are close to 1400. It shows what a high percentage of the male teenage population is being driven out in order to keep the alpha males well-stocked with women.

I think the whole story is rather fascinating. One, because these people are white and Christian we're allowed to criticize their behavior at will. It provides an opening to criticize other behaviors which threaten Wetsern mores.

Second, because so much of what these polygamist men do makes sense if you only assume the worst about their motives: the desire for large numbers of women, preferably young, and an endlessly large number of children.

They are parasites on society and nothing less. Their money comes from the taxpayers. The only reason the mothers are willing to let the men kick out the boys is because they know the outside world won't let them starve.

More than anything else it all reminds me of that Biosphere 2 experiment so many years ago.


Why do these hard-working guys put up with it? The Prophet gets to decide who marries whom.

You know, there are easier ways. Go to school and get a degree in law. Set aside some of your earnings for a personal trainer to keep yourself fit for the extra nookie on the side. The upside is that the 19-year-old receptionist your banging has a better hairdo and isn't your cousin/niece.

flyingbird said...

cant help but laugh when reading this. You've got a great sense of humour.

I like it.

Anonymous said...

For me, the parallels here with the Iraq Attaq are interesting. We have a government coiled up like a spring ready to strike given the appropriate trigger. Apparently faulty intelligence (a fake phone call for help) results in an invasion of the compound and incarceration of the residents. After the fact, the government is sorting through the mess looking for justification for the raid, and so far coming up with nothing that makes the trouble worthwhile(WMD anyone?). Oh yes, and their big target, a child molester in Arizona, hasn't left the state according to his parole officer, so apparently wasn't a threat to anyone in Texas. As a result, hundreds of lawyers are assembling to come to the defense of the polygamists. I'm just waiting for the legal insurgency to begin.

Markku said...

When Texas first got wind of the FLDS plan to set up a compound a few years ago, they should have come down on them with a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit, hostile building inspectors, environmental impact study demands, everything in the ample arsenal of the modern state to get them to go away.

Agreed. Such a digusting parasitic community needs to be met with the full arsenal of the state.

William said...

The Salt Lake NBC affiliate, which is owned by the Mormon Church, reported last year that Hildale/Colorado City have 6000 residents and received $2.4 million annually in food stamps and $6.6 million in medicaid.

The medicaid rate of 51% was significantly higher than the 6% overall Utah rate. The food stamp rate of 44% compares to Utah's overall rate of 4.8%.

But what I find hilarious is the last line of the story: "Whether the aid is legitimate or not, it's clear that taxpayers are subsidizing a lifestyle many disagree with." Isn't that the case true with most people on food stamps?

The boldness of Texas officials is in sharp contrast to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who has made the occasional prosecution to appease activists but has otherwise done nothing. Shurtleff, who's been AG since 2000, wants to run for governor when Huntsman leaves office in 2012. If Texas succeeds in doing what Shurtleff has refused to do it would be rather embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

In Britain, we are, as usual leaving you Yanks far behind when it comes to embracing diversity ideas such as polygamy.
A month or so back husbands living in a "harem" with multiple wives have been cleared to claim state benefits for all their different partners.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512043&in_page_id=1770

Andy said...

Wow Steve, you are pretty pathetic in your passive-aggressive Obama-trashing. In a post about a completely unrelated, yet off-putting topic you feel the need to toss in a dig about a supporter being a supposed hoaxster, implications about "the lackadaisical African model" (Kenyan! - hint, hint) and Chicago (hint, hint!) corruption. Get a grip man.

William McNellis said...

Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" is a good read and has some interesting insight into the fundamentalist Mormon groups.

Anonymous said...

On another blog I raised the point that George Bernard Shaw made about a hundred years ago: that polygamous societies fail not because the women rebel against it, but because of the rebellion of the men who are condemned to celibacy by it. In Shaw's view, any right-minded woman with no other option on the table would rather have a 25% or 33% share of a first-rate man than a 100% of a third-rate loser.

But the FLDS compound is way too small a sample group to make such sweeping generalizations. The place we should be looking is China. Not only has the female abortion/infanticide spike produced by the one-child policy created a huge M/F imbalance in the rising age cohort there, but the new rich men of coastal China have reverted to Qing Dynasty mores in measuring status by accumulating harems of concubines. Some, like billionaire Stanley Ho of Macao, don't even bother limiting it to concubinage, they openly practice polygamy--and there will be more of those as questions of inheritance increase.

The consequences of this will be enormous. Some historians have estimated that in 18th c. Qing China, some 80% of the male population never married. And we tend to forget that that era saw huge civil wars that slaughtered people by the millions, because the rebel conspiracies, like the White Lotus Society and the Taipings, found a ready supply of volunteers in the vast numbers of frustrated bachelors throughout the country.

Anonymous said...

According to "Under the Banner of Heaven", a good resource about FLDS, the "Arizona Strip" area, which is home to a number of closeted polygamists, has maybe the highest percentage of welfare recipients of any white population group.

AMac said...

At GNXP, Razib mused about the limits of mainstream America's tolerance of the FLDS and other outliers in When the weirdos are white. Good essay, and a number of his links are relevant to points raised here.

Dutch Boy said...

Texas should have some fun and send the whole kit-and-kaboodle across the border (in the spirit of turn-about-is-fair-play). Seriously - perhaps long prison sentences for the "Elders" of these colonies will shatter the dynamic of these groups and lead to their breakup.

Anonymous said...

I thought that you were going to mention this.

rob said...

I'm not clear how they're committing welfare fraud. Aren't unmarried women withh children eligible for welfare? Polygamy is not legal, so most of the women aren't married, and have kids.

Plus, didn't people on the left spend alot of time saying that welfare fraud was pretty much pretend anyway?

rightsaidfred said...

>>>>If he likes how much money you've brought in, maybe he gives you a wife.

I plan on donating to this site. I will expect my trophy wife post haste. We must keep up with the Jones.

Justin Halter said...

Nice analysis, Steve. Unfortunately, the state of Texas is undermining the effort to defeat the polygamist way of life by their own heavy-handed tactics. Forcibly removing toddlers and infants from mothers and siblings is only serving to highlight how tyrannical the Child Protective Services agencies have become, and increasing sympathy for the religious group that is being persecuted. About the only thing that would have made sense would be to remove the teenage girls, but the hubris and megalomania of the "child-welfare" types knows no bounds.

Imagine if your kids were seized because some 16 year old at your church said she was abused by her husband. It doesn't even make sense. Not to mention the accusation was a total hoax.

I trust that at some point, the Texas authorities will be whipped back in line, no doubt resulting in a huge payout to the polygamist group, further enriching their coffers with public money.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer: So, I don't know what Texas should do now, but here's the first lesson for other states: Do not let these people infest your state. When Texas first got wind of the FLDS plan to set up a compound a few years ago, they should have come down on them with a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) lawsuit, hostile building inspectors, environmental impact study demands, everything in the ample arsenal of the modern state to get them to go away.

In your magnum opus, Explaining Red and Blue, you noted [tacitly] that only three [count 'em - THREE!!!] states in the Union have Caucasian TFR at or above replacement level:

Utah 2.45
Alaska 2.28
Idaho 2.20

If we outlaw religious kooks, then who's going to make Caucasian babies anymore?

Answer: Nobody.

PS: If you're so gung ho about levelling the RICO statutes at welfare cheats, organized crime, pyramid schemes, and puppy mills, then why don't you show some balls and take on the New Square Four?

PPS: Or maybe the "civil libertarian" in you would be interested in learning that the original charges against the FLDS were manufactured out of thin air?

American Goy said...

Good job on this one!

You get kudos, two pats on the back and an atta' boy!

Anonymous said...

I don't know if you'd need to go to so much trouble to keep them out. It might well be enough to cut them off from all welfare benefits. Here in Europe, that would certainly lessen the problem with our polygamous M-people.

Anonymous said...

Rob is right. There's no obvious legal formula to keep paying welfare benefits to unmarried blacks and hispanics while witholding them from unmarried whites.

I would guess at least half the public's ire at the FLDS is that they are welfare chiselers as well as polygamists. People think it unseemly for white married (socially if not legally) people to draw welfare.

White men have every right to be especially annoyed: why should they pay taxes to support another man's multiple wives? Out of pity and propaganda-induced racial guilt, white men will support the girlfriends and bastards of black men, but they are reluctant to feed a pack of wives and rug-rats for another white man.

testing99 said...

Great post Steve! As usual when writing about this stuff, no one else can touch you! Thanks again for the insights.

One thing I'd push further -- Western Civ's comparative advantage over others is the monogamy and resource mobilization of the average guy. Who has a shot at a wife and family all his own. Less genetic defects, more chances for continual improvement in technology. As the poster above notes, China had huge problems with polygamy and male singletons throughout history, and despite high IQs never did anything with technology: gunpowder, printing, clocks etc. Leaving it to Europeans who were monogamous and nuclear family oriented. Harrison and the Longitude Problem vs. China's failure to address it speak volumes.

Which brings another point -- polygamy has men selected for social/physical dominance, at the expense of intelligence. Particularly abstract intelligence. We see here two competing Darwinian strategies of reproduction: the polygamous one with parasitic tendencies, and the monogamous ones with dynamism.

Forget the West African model. [To the poster detecting an anti-Obama bias -- West Africa != Kenya. Kenyans are polygamous, but more on the Arabian model than the West African one.] Look at the Arabian model. Societies there are (before oil discovery) tribal, patrilineal, nomadic, and primitive. Reproductive success is based on social dominance not the ability to abstractly improve technology. That society is "stable" in that it never changes, but constantly raids it's neighbors and has the Wade (Before the Dawn) and Keeley (War Before Civilization) models of constant attrition warfare not limited to adult males. There are no non-combatants and war is constant if low-level.

On the other hand, monogamous Western-style societies exhibit tremendous and constant social change and upheavals. Not limited to the constant improvement of women (you might only have a daughter as a father, so your interest here is obvious), social mobility, selection (until recently) on stability and character and intelligence, often to abstractly improve technology.

Western Societies are filled with social turmoil, but can produce long periods of peace (punctuated by appalling technology-led bloodletting) and incredible wealth.

What's interesting is that we are trending, with the use of the pill and condom, towards West African "spread your seed" reproduction, and it's driven largely by women who want this sort of thing.

Lesson: without social controls, women will select on social/physical dominance and not much else. It was probably not wise to dump Christianity for a post-Modern West.

William said...

From that GNXP pice: But they also manifested hostility toward outgroups and an exclusionary tendency which ill-suited them in their interaction with other Americans, "gentiles" as they would call them.

So use of the term "gentile" is prime facie evidence of an "exclusionary tendency"? Gee, can't think of any other group that exhibits an "exclusionary tendency" by referring to outgroup members as gentiles...

What, I do recall one. What's their name again?

Rob is right. There's no obvious legal formula to keep paying welfare benefits to unmarried blacks and hispanics while witholding them from unmarried whites.

Oh, but they'll find a way. They always do.

My friends were proud & patriotic Americans, but I was surprised that on a deep level they seem to have never forgotten the persecution which Mormons experienced from the American government and the people which it claimed to represent.

In large part Mormons can continue to believe this because they never learned the history of other American religious groups who were perfectly well tolerated. If they knew, then they might draw the conclusion that the persecution was about behavior, not belief. The Hildale & Eldorado communities are sort of like COlonial Williamsburg - living examples of what life living next to polygamous Mormons was like.

If we outlaw religious kooks, then who's going to make Caucasian babies anymore?

I don't know if you're referring to all Mormons as religious kooks or just the polygamous groups, but if the latter I can assure you that Utah has no problem maintining its birthrates without the polygamists.

Happy Talk said...

Wow, this just in: Western Christians by and large reject polygamy and welfare cheats. Wasn't this the kind of thing (with the exception of welfare natch) that lead to lynch mobs sacking the local Mormon settlement back in the bad old days? Why did the early church decamp to Utah again?

This kind of thing does indeed rub white folks the wrong way. It would be good to remember that in the past they enforced community standards without mercy and race had little or nothing to do with it. The fact that people have found a target they feel comfortable unloading on when this crap is endemic in every bad part of town and they accept it with silence is more than a little sad.

David said...

Pat Buchanan says our government has given 40 trillion dollars to blacks over the years. Their numbers are expanding, and many people who want the state to "crush" the FLDS are just fine with that.

Putin is giving government cash to native Russians to breed. This makes some people nervous, but no one is up in arms about it.

Some Whites start a breeding community, though, and watch out! - they're eeeevvvill "welfare chiselers." "The state must crush this infestation," intones Steve in the manner of a commissar.

I would feel good about paying taxes for welfare, if the welfare went to my people. Welfare is supposed to support a community, not destroy it by building up another people.

It's like the folks who say Israel's iniquities should be low on the s*** list of human rights activists, since so many other nations are worse. FDLS "chiselers" are the least of the villains facing America - illegal aliens invading and draining multiple states dry, an exploding (and fully subsidized) black underclass are two bigger problems that should be worried about first, unless, as the anti-Zionists are said to be antisemites, you wish to be seen as anti-White.

Whites are 9% of the world's population, and getting smaller every year. What are you doing about preserving this slice of Human Biodiversity, Steve? The FDLS may not be hard-charging neocon Republican individualists going to law school and having 1.2 children (several posters' idea of a model White), but it seems they are HBD heroes.

Anonymous said...

David, I wouldn't call a bunch of inbred religious freaks who think that a man who isn't a member of their church with 3 wives is going to hell "my people," even if they are white. I'd rather live in a barrio than an FLDS town like Colorado City - and I say this as a reader with views on politics and immigration similar to Steve's.

David said...

The wider issue here may be: Is the nuclear family, operating under global "capitalism" ("compete with 10 cent per day'ers or else be damned as a welfare chiseler"), good for White birthrates?

In my opinion, affordable family formation is not an abundant commodity under that model.

There is a reason why it's called a nuclear family. Its members are atomized, and it tends to blow up. Cf. other races' approach.

(By the way, I would rather live under FDLS than in a barrio. FDLS people are bright, well-groomed, modest in comportment, and dress very well; they are not drunks, drug addicts, and knife-fighters. As to religious weirdness, whose beliefs are true? Ideally we would all live in a community of atheists, but, factually speaking, atheists tend on average to have relatively few children.)

Sleep said...

Anonymous, the Mormons practicing polygamy and living in communes are a tiny tiny percentage of all Mormons nationwide, and are not the ones responsible for the high fertility rate of Utah and Idaho. It is the everyday monogamous Mormons who are doing it. (Though non-Mormon whites in the interior West still have higher fertility rates than those in the East and along the Pacific coast.) And Alaska is an example of what very generous child tax credits can do to raise the fertility rate among all races.

Isn't that the case true with most people on food stamps? I'm not sure what you mean here. Single mothers with children? I assure you not everyone on food stamps is of this type, and if I was in control I wouldnt attempt to cut back on food stamps at all. I live in a town with per capita income 1/2 of the US average, 40% of the population under 18, and a shamefully low graduation rate. I know many people who are on food stamps and I wouldn't think of taking them away. Especially since I was receiving them myself at one point.

Truth said...

"Out of pity and propaganda-induced racial guilt, white men will support the girlfriends and bastards of black men, but they are reluctant to feed a pack of wives and rug-rats for another white man."

Wow! How do people this stupid generate enough brainpower to perform normal bodily functions?

rob said...

So truth,

Why do we give black women welfare instead of letting them and their children starve?

Anonymous said...

Yeah right. Take babies away from mothers. That should encourage them to go elsewhere.

William said...

(By the way, I would rather live under FDLS than in a barrio. FDLS people are bright, well-groomed, modest in comportment, and dress very well...

Don't know about them dressing very well, but there seems to be no shortage of men in these communities who know how to run a successful enterprise - even in an honest setting.

Is the nuclear family, operating under global "capitalism"...good for White birthrates?

Some aspects of American culture are going to have to change. When I graduated college, moving out and getting your own place was the hip thing to do. All my friends did it (most had moved out while in college). I lived with my parents for 3 years after and saved enough to put up a hefty down payment on a house.

Those economic choices are going to become more common inthe US. Frugality will get hip again. That will have positive effects on birth rates.

I think what's bad for white birthrates isn't the nuclear family, per se, but white mobility in general. People move around the country just to move around. It's a lot easier to raise more kids when you have a support structure in place - siblings or parents or fellow churchgoers who can help you look after the kids. I think it's the support structure as much as the religion itself that explains why religious people have larger families - they do so not only because they want to, but because they can.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Single mothers with children? I assure you not everyone on food stamps is of this type, and if I was in control I wouldnt attempt to cut back on food stamps at all.

I must've missed the story where asexual reproduction became possible in the human species. There aren't really any single mothers - there are just cases where the father has fled the coop. We need to find ways to avoid subsidizing this sort of behavior. We do it in a slanted way when we jail them for other crimes, and thus keep them from breeding.

If you yank away the food stamps, or put a time limit on them, as with AFDC, then you'll force these women to actually work for a living, and that'll leave them with less time to reproduce.

YES, I do find it offensive that we unquestionably subsidize bad behavior by blacks and Hispanics, but not that of whites.

Truth said...

"Why do we give black women welfare instead of letting them and their children starve?"

Uh, I don't know, for the same reason we do it for Poor White Trash (no offense) in Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky and Utah?

"We" don't give anyone welfare. "We" pay taxes of which "your" elected lawmakers divide amongst a lot of bad programs. A military budget that excedes that of every other nation in the world combined. Billion dollar a day wars that make the president and his family wealthy beyond all recognition, A social security system for people who retire 20 years before they die, corporate buyouts for stupid Wall Street millionaires, etc.

The question "why" can be answered quite simply:

Because "you" allow it. And why do "you" allow it? Because, with all possible respect, you have had your cherry-sized brain turned inside out by so many years of propaganda that you can't see who your real enemy is!

I hope that answers your question.

jmr said...

Long term, the problem is that these flds people are multiplying like rabbits while mainstream whites have a birthrate that is below replacement. Which means that eventually the mainstream will disappear and flds will be the majority. But then who will support flds? Something will crash before that point is reached.

Anonymous said...

Ideally we would all live in a community of atheists...

Speak for yourself.

Sleep said...

If you yank away the food stamps, or put a time limit on them, as with AFDC, then you'll force these women to actually work for a living, and that'll leave them with less time to reproduce. I take issue with this statement. I would not support any policy that would take away welfare payments from single mothers with young children. Case in point: I knew a woman whose husband walked out on her several years after she had her second child. She lost her main source of income and had to take a job paying $8 per hour. Mostly, her job coincided with school hours, but this left the kids alone for most of the day during summer and school vacations. So she relied on various relatives and babysitters, including me, but not, of course, including her ex-husband. And sometimes there was nobody available, so she just had to leave a 10 year old to take care of a 5 year old all day long in a tiny $250 apartment while other kids their age were out having fun. She was very defensive of her decision to work, and got mad at me once when I naively expressed that I bet she wished she could stay home with her kids all the time. But while it's true she was able to bring home a few bucks each week that she wouldn't have had if she had relied on child support alone, I strongly feel that it was the wrong decision for her children and that the change in her kids' behavior was making her have second thoughts herself.

I also knew a single mother of six. This woman simply had no choice but to stay home. Her family was much poorer than the other family, but at least the kids had a parent to come home to each day. Would you tell her to get a job? You may think I'm bringing up extreme cases, but single motherhood is quite common and so are large families. I'm a conservative who puts children's interests before economics, and for that reason I believe that we should enable single mothers to stay home and raise their children without having to beg friends for money or take a job and leave their kids to get along by themselves.

Now, even though at first you talk about deadbeat dads (there are just cases where the father has fled the coop), your statement in the next paragraph is phrased as if the woman is to blame (that'll leave [these women] with less time to reproduce.). Are you now addressing women who choose to have children while single, rather than women who get divorced (willingly or otherwise) after they have kids? I haven't met many women who desire children but don't want a husband, but I am young and may be wrong. But even if you show me a woman who has kids and then walks out and refuses to marry the father, I don't believe that the morality of her actions should come into play when it's her children whose interests are at stake.

to jmr: The FLDS is a tiny minority of Mormons, having at most about 20000 members worldwide. I dont think they're ever going to get to as much as 1% of the Mormon population, let alone the US population as a whole.

headache said...

" jmr said...
But then who will support flds? Something will crash before that point is reached."

Look at South Africa. Only 4 mio. whites left to feed and fund the 40 million blacks. And the black regime just keeps screwing up the tax, trying to bleed the whites dry. As long as the whites are allowed to own their own businesses, they are willing to put up with this nonsense and even accept the sloth, corruption, crime and incompetence of their fellow blacks and the government. They really have no choice short of emigration since the regime and its goons will simply crush any resistance to this model of parasitic taxing.

This thing only collapses when the blacks' greed outstrips even the most basic logic and they confiscate the means of production, like they did in Zimbabwe. Then the economy finally collapses and the whites are forced to emigrate. So that is your turning point.

Anonymous said...

I think anyone looking at the
FLDS groups reasonable can
take away the conclusion that these
people can be quite productive.

As for scheming and scamming, plenty
of ethnic groups do that. The
difference with the FLDS groups
is that they build real things
with real world skills.

Also, they are propogating a gene
pool that is familiar to the
majority of Americans (rather than
Alien).

Only smoke and mirrors and brainwashing can make a reasonable
white man believe otherwise.

Anonymous said...

truth: Because "you" allow it. And why do "you" allow it? Because, with all possible respect, you have had your cherry-sized brain turned inside out by so many years of propaganda that you can't see who your real enemy is!

Okay, I'll bite: Who is our real enemy?

Svigor said...

Uh, I don't know, for the same reason we do it for Poor White Trash (no offense) in Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky and Utah?

I don't want to rain on your parade, but welfare is a massive wealth transfer from whites to negros (no offense). Same goes for "affirmative action."

This is without discussing the obvious Ethnic Genetic Interest motives involved, which are a hell of a lot stronger for white-white transfers than for white-negro (no offense) transfers.

Anonymous said...

jmr: Long term, the problem is that these flds people are multiplying like rabbits while mainstream whites have a birthrate that is below replacement. Which means that eventually the mainstream will disappear and flds will be the majority. But then who will support flds? Something will crash before that point is reached.

In terms of the epic, unsustainable Ponzi scheme of our impending demographic doom, the FLDS don't even amount to small fish in a big pond [frankly, they're not even minnows in an ocean].

Circa 2020, the United States will have either become a Stalinist/Maoist command economy, or the nation will have been rendered asunder by some sort of a [sucessful] secessionist movement.

I've been trying to imagine other scenarios - for instance, there could be a failed secessionist movement which is quashed by the Stalinists - but, in purely mathematical terms, the thing cannot be resolved peaceably, and will necessarily require the society [to include both its economy and its politics] to evolve [or, what is probably more likely, to devolve] into something radically different from what it is now.

On the one hand, young, productive Caucasians will have to support a massive demographic tidal wave of old, unproductive Baby Boomer Caucasians, who, in a demographic blink of an eye, will be transformed from massive tax-producers [to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars per tax-producer per year] into massive tax-consumers [to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars per tax-consumer per year], and, on the other hand, young, productive Caucasians will also have to come up with the funds to subsidize the massive demographic tidal wave of third-world dead weight which is inherently incapable of ever being a tax-producing citizenry in the first place.

Either of these trends - dysgenic fertility on the one hand, or the subsidization of the retirements of the Caucasian Baby Boomers on the other - would be disastrous in and of themselves.

But, in tandem, they amount to socio-political armageddon:

Senior benefit costs rise 24% since 2000
usatoday.com

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis...

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
heritage.org

...When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)...

Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities
washingtonpost.com

...Forty-five percent of U.S. children younger than 5 are minorities...

Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
[see especially Table 8 & Table 9, pages 11-13]
PDF FILE: pop.pdf
JPEG IMAGE: Table 8, page 11


PS: I wish that the Blogspot software package allowed me to post images - if you click on that last JPEG, then you'll see how the absolute numbers of Caucasians in this country has collapsed, from about 16 million in the 45-49 age group [at the tail end of the Baby Boom, right before the introduction & decriminalization of chemical abortifacients & surgical abortion, in the early 1960's], to a mere 11 million in both the 0-4 age group and the 5-9 age group [born during late Clinton & early Bush II].

PPS: If you think the housing market is in dire straights right now, then wait until you see what happens when those 16 million Caucasian Boomers get into their late sixties and early seventies, and try to cash out of their palatial mansions and into cozy little condos in the retirement communities of Florida/Arizona/SoCal.

They're going to be in for a very rude introduction to the fact that a fraction with a numerator of 16 and a denominator of 11 is what the mathematicians call "A Buyer's Market".

Of course, by that time, President Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama will long since have outlawed the possession [hell, probably the very idea] of private property, so it will all be a moot point.

testing99 said...

David asks what about the nuclear family caused it to disintegrate.

Funny, it lasted from around 1000 AD to around 1965 or so. What oh what happened to change everything?

The Pill. The Condom. Better economic conditions for women. IRAN has a fertility rate of 1.7 and last time I checked their welfare state is nothing like the US (though they do have one) and it frowns on single motherhood ala South Central or the British White underclass.

You can eliminate the Welfare System as much as you want, as long as women have good economic opportunities They will choose the men they choose. Three different kids by three different fathers, all various degrees of thugs.

Only when social norms discourage this (upper-middle class, educated, disapproval by friends and family of that sort of behavior, marking one as "stupid" and so on) will you see it pushed down. Even there, hip-single-motherhood is celebrated. Just read the NYT.

What matters is the culture. We got rid of Christian social norms disapproving of single motherhood and women, mostly hard-wired for the most dominant social man, choose just those sort of guys, who don't stick around. Our future generations will have plenty of thugs, very few engineers or scientists. Because guys like that don't reproduce much.

"truth" if you added up the real not "reported" fantasy budget of China or India or Russia, the US would spend about as much as they do in fiscal terms. We spend fairly little (around 4% of GDP) compared to historic norms (around 7-8% of GDP in the 1980's). If anything we spend too little on the Military, which tends to be anti-recessionary and keeps engineers and skilled labor around and employed, and too much on fairly useless social spending. Most of the block grants for welfare for example goes into building mansions for guys like Wright.

Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, heavy airlift capacity, air tankers, Special Forces, new weapons systems like connected UAVs, MRAPs, etc. cost money. You can't just go and buy them when you need them, and they are very useful when you need to change someone's behavior. For a lotta people it's the only proven way to get their attention.

David said...

jmr said

eventually the mainstream will disappear and flds will be the majority. But then who will support flds?

I wouldn't worry about FLDS taking over the planet.

Besides, as William thoughtfully pointed out, there seems to be no shortage of men in these communities who know how to run a successful enterprise. Contrast with the new farmers of Zimbabwe.

The point is to breed. We can fiddle with the choreography after we have assembled the cast.

Truth said...

"don't want to rain on your parade, but welfare is a massive wealth transfer from whites to Negroes."

Apparently not if you read the corresponding article to this thread.

"Same goes for "affirmative action."

40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"

And Anonymous, our real enemy are American descendants of European royal families who consider themselves a separate class and use the media, the American industrial complex and the lawmakers to "encourage" you to look down upon other people who are as broke as you are. They also encourage you to be materialistic, force confirming education down your throat, get you hooked upon all kinds of legal and illegal drugs, deflate the value of your money, cause dissension and encourage prison growth year after year, after year.

The same people who have pushed the industry out of the United States, allowed rampant immigration, as well as very shortly coming US food shortages, a %200 increase in the price of gas (as well as natural gas) by the end of the year, fluoridated your water and and distracted you from all of this with Monday Night Football, American Idol and big angry 7'0 negros with guns.

You people had better wake up!

William said...

Now, even though at first you talk about deadbeat dads (there are just cases where the father has fled the coop), your statement in the next paragraph is phrased as if the woman is to blame (that'll leave [these women] with less time to reproduce.).

Usually both are responsible. Yes, the man has fled the coop, but the women often knew what type of men they were getting to begin with. My statements are by know means contradictory.

I'm for some limited amount of welfare for those families that need it. But at the same time we need to avoid becomign an enabler of bad behavior. We better be extracting blood from delliquent fathers before we're distracting it from law-abiding taxpayers.

Look at South Africa. Only 4 mio. whites left to feed and fund the 40 million blacks.

40 million blacks now? Really??? Good god, you're right. It's scary because I can still remember an old Robin Williams joke from just 20 years ago: "Look, there are 4 million white people in this country and 17 million black people. Does the name Custer mean anything to you?"

From 17 million to 40 million in just 20 years. And people think we're all just paranoid.

The point is to breed. We can fiddle with the choreography after we have assembled the cast.

Indeed. We pay a lot of attention to politics, but as Stephen Covey pointed out, what really matters is what's inside your circle of control. Politics, fr the most part, for most of us, lies outside of it. Our time spent watching TV or surfing the Net would be better spent raising an extra child or two. Our families are within our circle of control (unless they're teenagers). Adopting a positive culture is within our circle of control. Worrying about whether McCain or Obama wins is almost completely outside of it.

Even if I could much affect the outcome, I wouldn't know which outcome to affect. I sometimes think an Obama presidency would be better for conservatism than a McCain one would.

Anonymous said...

Hey "Truth", those are some pretty big claims. Can you give us some references? Tell us who your sources are.

Svigor said...

Apparently not if you read the corresponding article to this thread.

What, the link titled "Welfare Fraud"? I just glanced at the headlines but it looks parochial.

The Recipient Class

(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a white-to-black wealth transfer going on via welfare when blacks generate almost as many recipients as whites with roughly 1/6th the population)

40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"

I reject the premise of your question. I don't know that blacks experienced negative action, in real terms. Would the blacks bought by Europeans have been better off not being bought by Europeans? I honestly don't know. I think it's likely their descendants were far better off in 1870 than their counterparts back in sub-Saharan Africa. I think it's galactically obvious their descendants are far better off here today than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa.

700,000 black slaves begat 30+ million black Americans (how many would exist today had their ancestors never been brought here?), for whom the narrative is now to whine about their "misfortune." Don't expect me to find this anything but odd from a strictly honest, logical standpoint. You couldn't drag more than one in a hundred thousand back to the motherland, what with all the kicking and screaming. Broaching the subject of equitable compensation (cost of repatriation) for the injury (bringing them here) is a great way to induce cries of racism.

Maybe we should do some math:

x= wealth of the average American black today.
y= wealth of the average sub-Saharan black today.

x-y=z

If Z is a negative number, then it represents what America owes American blacks.
If Z is a positive number, then it represents what American blacks owe America.

This of course is all in the spirit of indulging the idea that guilt is inhereted and whites today deserve to pay for the sins of their ancestors (in addition to suffering what the more honest, if still misguided social scientist types call "black pathology"); that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves.

Svigor said...

Collective guilt is obviously a double-edged sword; if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?

Of course liberals are holding the sword (confirmation #139913 of "who? whom?") and they obviously aren't worried about anyone taking it from them, but that doesn't help when you get down here in the pit and try the same nonsense that works in the echo chamber with a captive audience.

Truth said...

"(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a white-to-black wealth transfer going on via welfare when blacks generate almost as many recipients as whites with roughly 1/6th the population)"

And what if the US Govt. more than equals this inequity by selling drugs in black neighborhoods. (as per rev. Wright). Preposterous, I know!

http://www.finalcall.com/features/cia-pawn.html

"I reject the premise of your question. I don't know that blacks experienced negative action, in real terms."

I would say that 300 years of forced, unpaid labor followed by another hundred years of taxation without representation would qualify as "negative action" wouldn't you?

"I think it's likely their descendants were far better off in 1870"
If you would prefer working 6 16 hour days at someone else's business to hunting, farming and fishing on your own, the answer would be 'yes'; I wouldn't.

" I think it's galactically obvious their descendants are far better off here today than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa."

Yes, and the brainpower of 40 million people forced away, followed by another 100 years of colonization and 50 years of serf-like relations with the CIA/MI-6 Bilderbergs have much to do with that.

"for whom the narrative is now to whine about their "misfortune."

Agreed! There are too many black people chanting 'woe is me' today. Of course there are also way to many whites arguing about 'disadvantages' when you still own 98% of everything.

"Maybe we should do some math:"

Here's more math.

x= number of long term wealthy families in America
y= number of long term wealthy families in America, had they paid wages to their slaves.

I would say that x>y.

"This of course is all in the spirit of indulging the idea that guilt is inhereted and whites today deserve to pay for the sins of their ancestors"

I don't think any white should have to pay for the sins of his ancestors. Do you think that I should have to pay for the sins of OJ Simpson, Tookie Smith or Willie Horton. I'm not even related to them.

" (in addition to suffering what the more honest, if still misguided social scientist types call "black pathology")"

What qualifies as pathology? Would that be the 561 whites (including Arabs and Asians) killed by blacks in America last year...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

...or the 100,000 Arabs killed by whites in in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves."

My personal idea for reparations is that every black American who can trace his heritage here before 1960 should be given a 30 day all expense paid trip around the continent of Africa, followed by a check for 30 days of salary, whatever he makes. Once returning to the US, he should receive a state department packet with instructions on how to expatriate to an African country should he desire, taking a lump sum of his social security benefits with him. I do not believe on people getting money for nothing. It would solve no problem.

I also believe that part of this should be full disclosure on US government involvement with CIA enter-city drug dealing and creation of the AIDS disease as a stone-age biological weapon which it was. Do you agree? or do you believe that people have sex with chimps?

Truth said...

"if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?"

Whites are not collectively guilty for black failure, whites are partially guilty for black failure. Blacks are also partially guilty for black failure as is timing.

The English have been neighbors with the Irish and the Scotts since the Roman empire, yet the two latter groups have been abject failures in comparison for 1700 years until the creation of the worlds largest affirmative action system (The E.U.) Are the geneticly inferior?

Truth said...

"Hey "Truth", those are some pretty big claims. Can you give us some references? Tell us who your sources are."

http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/166.html

Svigor said...

(Steve, long post to review. If memory serves I didn't get too rough and tumble, so you might want to approve now and review at your leisure)

Apparently not if you read the corresponding article to this thread.

What, the link titled "Welfare Fraud"? I just glanced at the headlines but it looks parochial.

The Recipient Class

(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a white-to-black wealth transfer going on via welfare when blacks generate almost as many recipients as whites with roughly 1/6th the population)

40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"

I reject the premise of your question. I don't know that blacks experienced negative action, in real terms. Would the blacks bought by Europeans have been better off not being bought by Europeans? I honestly don't know. I think it's likely their descendants were far better off in 1870 than their counterparts back in sub-Saharan Africa. I think it's galactically obvious their descendants are far better off here today than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa.

700,000 black slaves begat 30+ million black Americans (how many would exist today had their ancestors never been brought here?), for whom the narrative is now to whine about their "misfortune." Don't expect me to find this anything but odd from a strictly honest, logical standpoint. You couldn't drag more than one in a hundred thousand back to the motherland, what with all the kicking and screaming. Broaching the subject of equitable compensation (cost of repatriation) for the injury (bringing them here) is a great way to induce cries of racism.

Maybe we should do some math:

x= wealth of the average American black today.
y= wealth of the average sub-Saharan black today.

x-y=z

If Z is a negative number, then it represents what America owes American blacks.
If Z is a positive number, then it represents what American blacks owe America.

This of course is all in the spirit of indulging the idea that guilt is inhereted and whites today deserve to pay for the sins of their ancestors (in addition to suffering what the more honest, if still misguided social scientist types call "black pathology"); that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves.


2

Collective guilt is obviously a double-edged sword; if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?

Of course liberals are holding the sword (confirmation #139913 of "who? whom?") and they obviously aren't worried about anyone taking it from them, but that doesn't help when you get down here in the pit and try the same nonsense that works in the echo chamber with a captive audience.


3

And what if the US Govt. more than equals this inequity by selling drugs in black neighborhoods. (as per rev. Wright). Preposterous, I know!

Are you suggesting that the massive, involuntary wealth transfer from whites (collectively) to blacks (collectively) via tax and welfare (and "affirmative action") isn't a bad thing, because a few corrupt CIA Contra handlers rubbed elbows with and maybe protected a Nicaraguan who sold coke to black kingpins in Los Angeles?

Are you suggesting that all whites are responsible for the sins of this handful of whites? (btw, unless this handful is roping blacks and forcing them to process coke into crack, bag it up for distribution, and inhale the smoke, blacks are willing partners in this crime you seem to be pinning on all whites)

I would say that 300 years of forced, unpaid labor followed by another hundred years of taxation without representation would qualify as "negative action" wouldn't you?

I don't know. It depends on whether they would've been better off in sub-Saharan Africa. You apparently take that as a given, but I don't. How do you know they wouldn't have spent 300 years doing forced, unpaid labor in Africa, followed by another hundred years of taxation without representation? From everything I've read, the number of Africans actually enslaved (as opposed to purchased) by Europeans was miniscule. In other words, they'd have been slaves either way (though demand of course drives supply, but we're talking about roughly 700k people, not the 30+ million of their wildly successful descendants). Maybe they'd have wound up as slaves to Arabs, otherwise. The Arab practice was to castrate the vast majority of their male African slaves, from what I've read. Bye-bye, 30+ million descendants.

You're operating under the standard black American mental landscape of slavery. I.e., you see the whole thing through white liberal egalitarian eyes. Try seeing it from a more pragmatic perspective, say from an honest 3rd worlder's view: you're captured by an enemy (black) tribe. Fortunately, they don't kill you. Fortunately, they enslave you and !hallelujah!, they don't sell you to Arabs, but to Europeans. The Europeans are an arrogant, stuffy, inscrutable lot, but they have lots of silly ideas about conduct so they won't castrate you or bugger you. If you're bought by a Portugee or a Spaniard you'll probably be worked to death in the Caribbean or Brazil, but you get lucky and wind up in the U.S. Eventually the Europeans have a crisis of conscience or whatever and fight this massive war (no need for blacks to even start a revolt!) and the upshot is your descendants are not only freed, but gradually enfranchised into European civilization.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I'm an African sitting in chains in Tunisia in 1700, and I can somehow see all the outcomes ahead of me and my posterity, I run for the Yankee ships as fast as my skinny legs will carry me. If I'm an African sitting unchained on my porch in sub-Saharan Africa, I probably pack a lunch, then run for the ships. If I'm a mischievous bastard, I think about how my descendants can follow the gravy train around in 2000, whining their misfortune with their hands out, palms up, and I have a good laugh.

If you would prefer working 6 16 hour days at someone else's business to hunting, farming and fishing on your own, the answer would be 'yes'; I wouldn't.

Slavery is still practiced in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today. Rights are more or less down to typical tribal power struggles. Corruption is the norm. Who says you'd be fishing, farming, or hunting as a free man? Who says you'd even be alive (I say you'd almost certainly never have lived).

So, did blacks in 1870 move Heaven and Earth to get back to the motherland (sue the government, raise hell, whatever), and just fall short? Or were they so hornswoggled by then that they didn't know what they were missing? Did the effects responsible last right up to the present, or did conditions change at some point to make the U.S. more palatable to blacks than Africa? If the latter, when did this change take place?

Yes, and the brainpower of 40 million people forced away, followed by another 100 years of colonization and 50 years of serf-like relations with the CIA/MI-6 Bilderbergs have much to do with that.

But 40 million people weren't forced away! 700,000 were (at least to the U.S.; more went to Brazil). And fellow blacks did the forcing, not Europeans. Receiving stolen goods != burglary or robbery. C'mon, you really expect anyone here to believe that the slaves represent a brain trust that would've made a significant difference (relative to the comparative paucity vis-a-vis western civilization) to Africa's technological and cultural development? Ceteris paribus, those who wind up as slaves are likely to be less gifted, not more gifted, than the other members of their population; generally (in this context at least) slaves are the guys who lose wars.

This does raise the question of reproductive success once again, though; on average, how many surviving descendants would those 700,000 (or any given 700,000 in sub-Saharan Africa) have had in Africa?

Everybody squawks about the effects of colonialism. God forbid anyone come in and build roads, power grids, bridges, railroads, communication grids, schools, etc. God forbid anyone provide a use for that black goo under the ground and pay good money for it, show anyone how to get that shiny gold stuff out of the ground, introduce medicine and hygiene, rule of law, etc. God forbid anyone turn Rhodesia into the bread basket of Africa, or South Africa into a semblance of a first world nation. God forbid anyone dramatically increase carrying capacity, or life expectancy.

Imperialist bastards!

Face up to reality - sub-Saharan Africa was better off before the Europeans pulled out, and worse off after (though I don't mean it was a rosy picture; Belgian Congo, roads as disease vectors, etc). That's why South Africa had a hell of a time trying to keep illegal immigrants out during the Apartheid era (I recently tried to find a few crumbs of honesty about this online and actually found a piece by a leftist complaining about how whites keeping blacks out of SA during Apartheid was racist! Ha!)

(Don't get me wrong - I think colonizing sub-Saharan Africa was a huge mistake. I think bringing blacks to the U.S. was a catastrophic blunder)

Food for thought - why doesn't India look like Africa? Why didn't Europeans conquer/colonize China?

More food for thought - the evils of African Colonialism are the fault of the white man, and by extension Americans, even though America had no colonies in Africa! Polaks are to blame for Africa's condition!

Agreed! There are too many black people chanting 'woe is me' today. Of course there are also way to many whites arguing about 'disadvantages' when you still own 98% of everything.

(I should point out that I don't blame blacks for their whining, the way the chorus at Amren do. It ticks me off, but I blame white liberals for this, not blacks. The former know better (or should), which isn't true of the latter.)

Whites don't bloody well own 98% of everything. Besides, that's not the point. The point is, whites are discriminated against by the law of the land, a land their ancestors made. Blacks are discriminated against by Mother Nature (or, if you prefer, phantom white racism, which is at once pervasive, all-powerful, and unfalsifiable)

(btw, who do you think Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermom are going to blame if they really get wind of how hard they're being screwed - regardless of the facts? Bilderbergers, the liberal elite, or blacks? I think it's in the interests of smart, forward-thinking blacks to at least try to nip this thing in the bud before pitchfork-torch-noose time...don't you?)

x= number of long term wealthy families in America
y= number of long term wealthy families in America, had they paid wages to their slaves.

I would say that x>y.


Hey, I'll buy that. What's your point? The point of my math is that the "grievous injury" blacks are metaphorically suing for is actually a great boon, and if anything they owe whites, not the other way around. You seem to be saying that a few whites benefitted in the process; true, but overall whites have gotten the short end, and blacks the long end.

I don't think any white should have to pay for the sins of his ancestors. Do you think that I should have to pay for the sins of OJ Simpson, Tookie Smith or Willie Horton. I'm not even related to them.

Fair enough. But you did write:

40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"

Which implies that the wealth transfer from whites (collectively) to blacks (collectively) is okay because whites did blacks wrong in the past.

Ethnic Nationalism aside, what do you say to people who see this massive collective tax-and-spend process, from one race to another, and say, "man, there's just something really wrong with that"? I mean, how can one call the things done to blacks "racism," but not call this process "racism" as well?

Why does "disparate impact" stop applying the second it starts helping blacks and harming whites?

What qualifies as pathology? Would that be the 561 whites (including Arabs and Asians) killed by blacks in America last year...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

...or the 100,000 Arabs killed by whites in in Afghanistan and Iraq.


I don't know; I put it in scare-quotes because I think it's bunk. But, I suspect that with the way psychology works, both, but the former more than the latter (e.g., gutting a man like a fish with a bowie knife and eating his liver is far less objectively evil than pressing a button and killing a million people on a planet in the Ford galaxy, but it's probably more pathological)


"that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves."

My personal idea for reparations is that every black American who can trace his heritage here before 1960 should be given a 30 day all expense paid trip around the continent of Africa, followed by a check for 30 days of salary, whatever he makes. Once returning to the US, he should receive a state department packet with instructions on how to expatriate to an African country should he desire, taking a lump sum of his social security benefits with him. I do not believe on people getting money for nothing. It would solve no problem.

Not bad! I prefer the plan I imply above; present complainant blacks (who meet ancestry requirements) with a bill for the extravagant wealth they enjoy due to their presence amid evil whites, plus a receipt showing how much largesse they've received directly from white taxpayers (I remember reading somewhere that the average amount of white taxpayer money on blacks over their lifetimes is ironically quite close to the number per black suggested by reparations-jockeys as compensation).

I also believe that part of this should be full disclosure on US government involvement with CIA enter-city drug dealing and creation of the AIDS disease as a stone-age biological weapon which it was.

(The Rev comes out of the closet and you think the time is right to do the same?)

Okay, you've got the Blandon-Ross thing, with the CIA looking the other way, and maybe protecting them from the government. Do you have any evidence that it's something systemic? That more than a handful of people in the government were in on it?

Do you agree? or do you believe that people have sex with chimps?

I reject the either-or premise of your question (though I wouldn't rule out people having sex with chimps; stranger things have happened). The most plausible explanation I've read for the presumed jump of AIDS from simian to human is the eating of bush meat (the active ingredient perhaps being a bugger who ate bush meat, if we want to get really precise).

"if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?"

Whites are not collectively guilty for black failure, whites are partially guilty for black failure. Blacks are also partially guilty for black failure as is timing.

It seems you're stating that the collective guilt of whites is only a partial cause of "black failure," but that the guilt is indeed collective.

So, my six year old niece is guilty of causing "black failure"? My eleven year old nephew? My posterity, too?

I'm guilty of causinig black failure? My mother too? My sister?

Please tell me what I, my mother, my sister, my nephew, and my niece have done to (help) cause "black failure." Please tell me what my posterity will (inevitably!) do to bring this (partial) guilt upon themselves. This I'd really like to know.

Food for thought: if whites are collectively guilty, doesn't that pave the way for whites to be collectively other things, too? Like collectively interested in one another's well-being, collectively interested in their own future and living space, etc? If whites are to be collectively guilty, doesn't that mean they're a people, and not a bunch of atomized individuals? Is this the can of worms liberals want opened?

The English have been neighbors with the Irish and the Scotts since the Roman empire, yet the two latter groups have been abject failures in comparison for 1700 years until the creation of the worlds largest affirmative action system (The E.U.) Are the geneticly inferior?

It seems likely that the Irish are somewhat less intelligent and capable than the English. I dunno about the Scots.

But, the Irish and Scots have shown an ability to get their acts together. Blacks have not. More to the point (and perhaps unfairly expanding the conversation), I don't care if blacks are all genius PHDs. I like who I am, I like my ethnic/racial group the way it is, and I want it to at least have the option of growing and preserving itself in its own mental and physical space.

Svigor said...

Oops, I forgot to pare away the previous posts (I save my posts before submitting so I can repost if they get lost, or edit and repost if they get rejected); just scroll down to 3, plenty of hot air after that as it is.

J. said...

Steve, You need to update your attitude towards children. Children, specifically European children, are today a very scarce resource, and many countries are ready to pay for them. Sweden, France, etc. pay and subsidize mothers having children. Mormons produce children at a very low cost to society. You should be happy having them.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer's comments that we should not let these people steal from the treasury,etc. is a point of vigilance we owe across the board in what is left of America.
And his emphasis upon use of RICO
is also due across the board (particularly vis a vis $PLC !!). The wrinkle in
his commentary is that by all indications there was from day one no governmental reluctance at any level to "throw the book" at this
commune. The State spent millions to put this group through the meat grinder of child well-being policing and of prosecution. The results do not bear out the suspicions listed in Steve's template here. In fact, the results reported from this expenditure of millions of dollars are probably more meagre than what we might expect if the same governmental meat grinder had been visited upon any randomly selected group of Texans having demographic similarity to this radical Morman commune. Where, then, in retrospect, is the EVIDENCE that these people were "infesting" Texas in order to milk the treasury to any extent beyond what most Texans are willing to do????