April 29, 2009

UPDATED: Why aren't we paying unemployed illegal immigrants to go home?

From Business Week, here's the latest on places with Depression-level unemployment rates: A couple are in Greater Detroit, but most are in California, and are heavily Hispanic. By the way, in El Centro, the place with the worst unemployment in the country, minorities got 84.3% of all conventional home purchase mortgage dollars in 2006 (prime and subprime) according the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database (see page 2 of this government report). In Merced, the only other place in the country where unemployment is over 20%, minorities got 79.7% of the 2006 mortgage dollars.

Of the top 203 metropolitan statistical areas in Q1-2009, "Merced, Calif., had the second highest [foreclosure] rate, according to RealtyTrac.

So, our bipartisan policy was to lure in illegal immigrants "to do the jobs Americans just won't do" building the houses Americans just don't need and that Hispanics, American or illegal, turned out to just not be able to afford.

Cities With Jobless Rates of 15% or More
Metro Area State March 2009 Jobless Rate Rise From March 2008
El Centro CA 25.1% 7.5
Merced CA 20.4% 6.7
Yuba City CA 19.5% 6.8
Elkhart-Goshen IN 18.8% 13
Visalia-Porterville CA 17.7% 6.1
Modesto CA 17.5% 6.3
Bend OR 17.0% 9.2
Fresno CA 17.0% 6
Redding CA 16.8% 6.6
Hanford-Corcoran CA 16.7% 5.4
Stockton CA 16.4% 6.2
Bakersfield CA 15.9% 5.2
Salinas CA 15.7% 5
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton NC 15.4% 9.1
Flint MI 15.3% 4.6
Madera-Chowchilla CA 15.3% 5
Yuma AZ 15.3% 5.4
Ocean City NJ 15.0% 4.2





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

57 comments:

Lucius Vorenus said...

Why aren't we paying unemployed illegal immigrants to go home?
Uh, because then there might be just the faintest hope for a resurrection of the GOP?

To paraphrase The Tribalist Ballerino: Never waste a good crisis - especially when it presents the opportunity to drive a stake through your opponent's heart once & for all.

Thrasymachus said...

I think Mickey Kaus's answer on this was the right one.

David Davenport said...

Why aren't we paying unemployed illegal immigrants to go home? Simple. If illegales go back to Mexico, it's harder for those Mexicans to vote in US elections.

rightsaidfred said...

Why aren't we paying them? Probably because no amount of money will induce them to go back to the dreary place from which they came.

David said...

We should just stop paying them to stay.

testing99 said...

WSJ has an article, either today or yesterday, forgot which, on the Czech Republic paying immigrants to go home.

Short answer, it's not working because most won't take the payments, those that do just go home and come back.

Anonymous said...

Miles here, .........If we paid illegal immigrants to go back home to Mexico, and a strong borders candidate got elected in four years and put an effective fence up, the Dems would be screwed long term.


If this nation had no immigration since 1970, it would be very conservative by now because the church bunnies are having over 2 children per female, and the SWPL's are having about 1.5 children per female.


In other words:
200 SWPLS become 150 SWPLS in the next generation

but

200 Church bunnies become 200 church bunnies in the next generation.



If the SWPLS cut themselves by 1/4th again, then the 150 become 113.

If the chruch bunnies replace themselves again, then their new generation stays 200.
-----------------------------------



So lets review shall we?

200 SWPLS + 150 SWPLS + 113 SWPLS

vs.

200 Church's + 200 C's + 200 C's


You'd have three generations of SWPLS equalling 463 people.

You'd have three generations of church bunnies equalling 600 people.



600>463. (and after that, the numbers really would begin to largely favor the Church bunnies when the first generation of SWPLS died out. The next generation of SWPLS would be 85, and their total would be down to 348, easily dominated by the 600 Church Bunnies electorally. 600>348.




Can all of you see NOW why the left seeks to import new voters for left-wingers not born?


Can all of you see why left wingers love outsourcing and H1B visas to economically damage, and hopefully damage the birthrates of fly-over America, those people that they hate/fear/despise above any other on earth so much. Politics is WAR BY OTHER MAEANS folks, and SWPLS hate conservatives above all things.


....in all my cruelty, m

Matt G. said...

The cities of Elkhart and Goshen Indiana are 20 and 25% hispanic respectively (source: bestplaces.net).

clem said...

Can all of you see why left wingers love outsourcing and H1B visas to economically damage, and hopefully damage the birthrates of fly-over America....Fine, but church-going conservatives want high levels of immigration (incl. H-1B [not "H1B"] visas) to drive wages down and break unions, just as much as godless liberals want immigrants for votes. That's been true up here in Canada for the past quarter-century; it's the same for you guys south of the 49th.

Politics is WAR BY OTHER MAEANS folks, and SWPLS hate conservatives above all things.The problem is not that SWPLs are at war with conservatives; it's that both sides have the same disastrous solution (i.e., high levels of unskilled immigration) to their different, high-priority problems. It doesn't even matter who wins that "war": we're sunk regardless. Outsourcing and H-1Bs are just "good business" and a better return for your shareholders; and it ain't just "the left" that's figured that out, eh?

Anonymous said...

You could sweeten the deal by letting them disassemble and take home all the extra houses in those towns, which would be even more extra without the immigrants.

PeterW said...

Would have to outweigh the various transfer payments they get.

AmericanGoy said...

Because we want the wages of American workers further depressed.

Yes, Naomi Klein was, is and will be proven right.

Chief Seattle said...

To the anonymous poster with the detailed Church Bunny progeny calculation - just because IQ is heritable doesn't mean politics is. I can't tell you how many families I've seen, including my own, where a prosperous, conservative patriarch gives rise to bleeding heart liberals.

Anonymous said...

Chief Seattle said:
"I can't tell you how many families I've seen, including my own, where a prosperous, conservative patriarch gives rise to bleeding heart liberals."

True. I'm a Republican in a family of Democrats. But politics is often inherited. I believe I read once 80% of the time children vote their parents' party. Or a child may switch politics as a form of rebellion but as they age they return to the political ideologies they were raised with.

Sisyphus said...

To the anonymous poster with the detailed Church Bunny progeny calculation - just because IQ is heritable doesn't mean politics is. I can't tell you how many families I've seen, including my own, where a prosperous, conservative patriarch gives rise to bleeding heart liberals.The logical, if extreme, extension of this would be that a place like New York City would oscillate wildly between communism and fascism every generation or so.

But NY and Mass are blue, and Texas (the majority white part, anyway), Utah, and Idaho are red, and all have been for several generations. And it's hard to imagine any of that changing anytime soon for any reasons other than demographic shifts.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Because, for the last time, THERE IS NO "WE"! You have no country. Stop the charade.

Toadal said...

It is interesting to see Merced, Modesto, and Fresno on the list. I was in downtown Merced last Saturday on my way to Mariposa in the Sierra Nevada. While my attempts to locate a Wall Street Journal near the local Starbucks was fruitless, I did watch a heavyset 'madre de cuatro hijos' clucking in Spanish over her large brood.

Merced is a sad, dusty, town whose fabric is as torn and faded as its VFW Post US flag.

The only hub of grace and efficiency was the local In-N-Out Burger the many welfare recipients flock to when they can gather the cash.

Those teaching at UC Merced probably wonder why they chose the teaching profession. Today the kids who attend UC Merced are either improvised locals or the taxpayer subsidized semi-literate.

California's San Joaquin Valley has become and will certainly remain an economic 'Dead Zone' for the foreseeable future. The workforce is made up of the symbol debilitated whose goal is to find steady employment on farms or local government. Any industries needing similar skills, would logically locate in Mexico, Guatemala or Honduras to escape California and Federal heavy regulations.

Could a Merced Chamber of Commerce member add his perspective regarding its future?

From Wikipedia
San Joaquin Valley Poverty

The United States Census Bureau issued a report entitled the American Community Survey in 2007, which found that six San Joaquin Valley counties had the highest percentage of residents living below the federal poverty line in 2006. The report also revealed that the same six counties were among the 52 counties with the highest poverty rate in the United States.[5]

Truth(er) said...

Church bunny...

The SWPL strategy of import-without-births won't work.

The newcomers will vote for their own people and push the white liberals out of power.

Democrats have no future because this mexicans do not care about the same things SWPL'ers do.

Anonymous said...

The people who keep insistently reiterating that the immigrants (I'm ignoring the meaningless matter of legality here) are being encouraged to stay because the powers that be in the Democratic Party want their votes, are not quite seeing far enough. Why indeed do these vague powers that be choose to be Democrats in the first place (and thus be in need of said immigrants' votes)? Perhaps because they actually believe in things like massive immigration in the first place?

Simplicity therefore would have us skip the intermediary step about votes and note simply that the people in power who encourage the immigrants to stay do so simply because they support the position that America should be open to massive amounts of immigrants.

WHY do these shadowy ones so love immigration? For one of three main reasons (it would appear to me) and each applicable to a very different group of people but all of whom together comprise so powerful a vice on policy that tens of millions of foreigners came into this country with clear intent to long overstay their visas before the knowing eyes of the entire country, the majority of which vehemently opposed this policy.

The three strongest reasons for support of immigration (or, more accurately, anti-anti-immigration) are:


1) Immigrants perform cheaper labor. Businesspeople and folk who employ lots of gardners, nannies and the like obviously benefit from lots of immigration. Hence the loud farce where the Republican Party shouted, yelled, rolled its eyes, pulled its hair and spake in tongues about the ills of massive immigration while the folk who monetized the party ensured beyond a shadow of a doubt that massive immigration would continue unabated (during a hyper-powerful 6 years of Republican rule, mind you).

2) Moral superiority rocks. When you've got an immigrant-proof job pulling in some 100K/yr you have lots of time and energy for some feel-good noblesse oblige. You COULD care about assisting your fellow American suffering through a demeaning and dangerous minimum wage job but why should you? People in lots of developing countries don't even have have running water. Throwing your spare 'care' in THEIR direction gets you more bang for your buck. Helping these folk move to the states and thus tripling their income (or at least scoring them flushable toilets and treatment for murderous illnesses that can be treated with a regimen of penicillin) will of course make things harder for so many of your fellow citizens who are struggling with their somewhat lesser problems... So? They're LESSER problems! Never having been in the armed forces or in any other manner been forced into developing any particular camaraderie with those people oft-called your "fellow Americans" you see no rational reason to care more about their slight poverty than about the deathly poverty of people who are not members of this unknown human quantity hitherto called your "fellow Americans".

3) It seems from the media, left right and center, that only haters of the worst sort have any serious problem with immigration. The face of the fellow denouncing massive immigration on your tv set is invariably cloaked in a hood. He's painted by his hosts (or, at best, OTHER hosts) as the product of illiteracy and incest and comes to reminds you of no one so much as Hitler (or in the rare case of the left-leaning opponent of immigration who eloquently notes the harm that it does to lower-earning Americans, she comes across as a horned devotee of Marx). Of course this picture is fabricated by members of the first two groups but young university students whose ideas have literally been molded into their heads by members of these two groups (primarily their instructors in economics and in the liberal arts) are quite socially conscious and eager to be on The Right Side of the culture war that engulfs their society. (Siding in advance with the eventual winning side in a battle and coming across as intelligent, "good" and a true blue "member of the team" to that winning side has been quite the evolutionary advantage for young folk over millions of years after all.) And thus they comprise the unthinking hordes who (pro bono mind you) carry out the wills of the former two groups.

To return then to the original question - why are the excessive immigrants being encouraged to stay here? Because the folk with the money, the media and the masses want them to.

Moshe Rudner

Anonymous said...

"Why aren't we paying unemployed illegal immigrants to go home?"

As a Christian I was also hoping for this type of solution to illegal immigration problems. However there are several snags:

-Illegals should not be rewarded financially for breaking the law.
-National interests, if valid (and not wanting illegals in your country is valid), do not have to be paid for. They are a right which should be enforced (i.e. using the law and the army).
-Paying money is just an attempt to get around the violence and bad PR which deportations would cause. So it means payments are cowardly.

Israel and possibly China and Russia are deporting hundreds of thousands of people yet you never read anything about it in the papers. Why is that?

Anonymous said...

"But politics is often inherited. I believe I read once 80% of the time children vote their parents' party. "

So it works this way: 80% of conservative kids vote conservative. 20% turn Dem. On the Dem side: 80% vote Dem. The remaining 20% either stop voting or vote Green. I have not met a person yet who switched from being liberal to conservative, but plenty in the other direction.

Anonymous said...

Chief Seattle and Sisyphus,



Miles here again, the poster who speculated about Church bunnies and SWPLS....



Let me tell you two how I see it, just from my observations:



The generation of Americans born from roughly 1960-1975 still believed the media, and still sent their kids to college with naivete', and still saw many of their kids turn SWPL on them, so the SWPL culture which emanated primarily from the professorariate, and later the media, swayed many of them to wander from their upbringings.


Now, SWPL culture, with its childlessness, endless nights at clubs, late marriages, divorces and attendent financial distress for the male, is pretty well-known to all. Many less people are inclined to believe the media, and know exactly where the professors are coming from. In fact, the trend toward online schooling amongst males is only going to increase as brick-and-mortar colleges keep increasing tuition.
Churches and religious entities set up single's websites to help religious teenagers and young adults find each other and marry also. I think you will see some kind of bounce in the religous birthrates, especially as the media cheerleads the wide-open importation of the other, and the media can no longer lecture these people on things like "overpopulation".

My subdivision is hemmed in by a mega-church and another medium sized church. The kids are legion. If I had to guess the birthrate of the big church from the parking lot........I'd have to say its three per female or thereabouts. I see now way, given no-fault divorce, that the SWPL birthrates are going to be reaching replacement levels. There is just way too much for a man to lose unless his wife believes divorce is morally (religiously) wrong.

In other words, blue state SWPLS will still breed at about 1.5 children per female for the next 20 years, and any increase in the white blue state birthrate will be amongst religious whites in those states. Churchs and religious organizations are doing a much better job (other than me, most of my extended family goes to church----yes, Im the black sheep with goat horns) of providing a extended social life for their adherents via the internet and other tools, and keeping them out of the bars and the single life, so they intermarry with each other earlier than rather than late. I suppose they are copping the mormons or whatever, but I would predict that the religous will be doing a much better job of circling their wagons in the future than what they did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when they really were seeing an exodus of their youth.



One commenter pointed out that many churches are pro-open borders. My response is that many are also opposed to illegal immigration, and would not vet a candidate who enforced the border and immigration law.



Question for all.......What in the hell are we going to do when technology (robots---see videos on youtube about them) can do most of the stuff illegals are doing? Put all the illegals on welfare? Progress, probably via the Japanese, is coming no matter what. The wealthy may not need that day maid in 10 more years......

Anonymous said...

Question for all.......What in the hell are we going to do when technology (robots---see videos on youtube about them) can do most of the stuff illegals are doing? Put all the illegals on welfare? Progress, probably via the Japanese, is coming no matter what. The wealthy may not need that day maid in 10 more years......

Yes, we are already putting hem on welfare. And they are voting in alien politicians according to their ethnicity. In Germany and Switzerland many mundane tasks have already been automated. Yet the politicians are importing ever more Arab/Turk/Black aliens and cannot wait to have their first Turk/Arab or maybe Black prime ministers. There is no connection whatsoever between automation and the import of aliens, in fact if anything, it's inverse. It’s due to Multiculturalism which has now become state doctrine.

Walter said...

Instead of paying them to go home, perhaps a better plan would be to institute a bounty: $1000 to a U.S. citizen for every illegal identified and deported. That would put money directly into the pockets of people in the most depressed areas.

Anonymous said...

Could a Merced Chamber of Commerce member add his perspective regarding its future?I can tell you his answer. "What we need are more wonderful immigrants. Then our economy will prosper."

By our economy he means his own bottom line of course.

Peter said...

It's probably time to retire "SWPL" from this blog. It seems to cover everyone from tattooed Oregon punks to GOP voting New York hedge fund managers. Isn't "white upper middle class" good enough? It's also important to recognize that there's a consensus between business elites (typically Republicans) and white professional types (typically Democrats) that immigration is a good thing. As long as that is so it just doesn't matter what lefty Marxists or traditional conservatives think. This is really class war, and Americans strongly resist thinking along class lines so they don't see what's happening.

But what I'm beginning to see is that a real danger to traditional American values lies in the truths that Sailer is helping to bring to light about IQ and race-based genetic inheritance. As a 130+ IQ white professional, why should I feel any allegiance to a 92 IQ white American worker? Especially when it is clear that that 92 IQ guy is not going to get smarter or more successful no matter how many classes my daughter enrolls him in. I'd certainly rather my children marry an intelligent German, Argentinian or Chinese national - or a black American Harvard grad - than a white American redneck, and apparently most high status whites feel the same - look at whom the Bushes are marrying their daughters off to. We live in a global world where status is global and trumps nationality. And by helping spread the word that genetics are very important Sailer, Cochran et al. are probably accelerating the trend to ignore national allegiances in favor of allegiance to your genetic peers.

Anonymous said...

I have not met a person yet who switched from being liberal to conservative, but plenty in the other direction.Well, then here's a data point for you -- I was raised by extremely left-wing parents, but I am now somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. Also I am female and non-religious. Bonus: I breed!

David said...

Toadal said

"While my attempts to locate a Wall Street Journal near the local Starbucks was fruitless,"

Careful, Toadal! You just put yourself on the SWPL Watch List here.

Next, you'll tell us you use a Mac and drive a dadgum Toyota!

SWPL SWPL SWPL - it can never be said too often.

SWPL!

Ronduck said...

Can all of you see NOW why the left seeks to import new voters for (the) left-wingers not born.

And since Catholics have a higher abortion rate than Protestants can you now see why the Church works for the importation of more Catholics? Besides, the RCC is part of the left.

Moshe, good analysis.

Colin Laney said...

To return then to the original question - why are the excessive immigrants being encouraged to stay here? Because the folk with the money, the media and the masses want them to.

Moshe Rudner
Moshe, who are these "folks with the money" who control the media? Do you have any clues to offer on that score?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

I have not met a person yet who switched from being liberal to conservative, but plenty in the other direction.

To begin with, we live in a decade where the conservative ideology has been undermined by alleged conservatives like George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Armey and Grover Norquist. Right now you won't see too many people switching from liberal to conservative.

But more importantly, people don't so much switch to conservatism as migrate to it. As the saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality. As Obama, Pelosi & Frank continue mugging more Americans, more people will slowly begin to see the light.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

What in the hell are we going to do when technology (robots---see videos on youtube about them) can do most of the stuff illegals are doing?

True or false: We've been hearing for decades that low-skilled jobs were disappearing by the thousands, that kids need education, that they have no future without skills or a degree, etc, etc.

True.

True or false: we've been hearing for decades that Americans aren't getting enough education, that we don't have the skills we need for a job, that too many Americans finish school without even being able to read, etc., etc.

True.

True or false: we've been hearing for at least the last decade that America doesn't have enough unskilled workers to fill all of our unskilled jobs, so we need to import millions of illegals to do them.

True.

We hear these things repeatedly from the same people.

The open borders lunatics don't even try to make sense.

Anonymous said...

"Also I am female and non-religious. Bonus: I breed!"

Let me know if you live in the NYC area. And post a photo.

- Mr. Wonderful

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Moshe, who are these "folks with the money" who control the media? Do you have any clues to offer on that score?

Spare us the anti-Semitism. I live in a part of the country where there aren't too many Jews and where our WASP (yes, WASP) political/media/business elite are fanatically in favor of amnesty and open borders. I may not agree with most Jews politically, but you don't need Jews to ruin a country.

Pete and Repeat Sat on a Fence... said...

"As a 130+ IQ white professional, why should I feel any allegiance to a 92 IQ white American worker?"

Because he built your country and you're descended from people like him, twat. Because without him YOU DON'T EXIST.

"We live in a global world where status is global and trumps nationality." That's what you believe, Pete, because a lot of columnists and bestsellers and filmmakers who are hardcore into their own nationality tell you to believe it. And you - thinking nationality means "the place someone lives" instead of "extended kinship group" - do believe them. Guys like you almost always do.

Try marrying your talented offspring to some 92 IQ Hindu. The vast majority wouldn't have her. They don't fall for the tricks high IQ whites do. A 92 IQ wife from the same tribe is superior to the daughter of a 130 IQ paleface.

I'm curious, what kind of a professional are you? What is it that you do that you think is so amazing that the world couldn't get along without it?

All you blustering antisemites here, note that it's guys like "Peter" who've always been your greatest enemy. I'll take a thousand 92 IQ whites raising cathedrals and breeding cauliflower out of cabbages and standing by my side when the Mongols ride in over a million tools like this guy.

Matt G. said...

Anonymous said...
"I have not met a person yet who switched from being liberal to conservative, but plenty in the other direction."

Really? I thought the conventional wisdom was that people got more conservative as they got older. I know I have. I'm 34 now and a recovering liberal. Ten years ago I believed in multiculturalism (diversity is strength), open borders, and race as a social construct. After being inundated with "diversity" for most of my life: going to school with, working with, and living with various minority groups I started to see what a fraud the whole concept of diversity was. Getting "mugged by reality" a few times helped as well. Six years ago I started seeking out alternative viewpoints to what I had been taught. I came across Vdare and started reading Steve's columns. I was amazed at how his columns squared so well with what I had observed in my daily interactions with different minority groups, and how he presented his ideas in an analytical and thoughtful way. I became a conservative because I saw that human nature is real and can't be easily manipulated. Liberalism is a utopian philosophy with little basis in reality, which is why it fails consistently.

Tanstaafl said...

All you blustering antisemites here, note that it's guys like "Peter" who've always been your greatest enemy. I'll take a thousand 92 IQ whites raising cathedrals and breeding cauliflower out of cabbages and standing by my side when the Mongols ride in over a million tools like this guy.That's hilarious. You blame "anti-semites" for tools like Peter? I suppose it was "anti-semites" who opened the borders and handed themselves trillions in taxpayer money too. Yeah, those "anti-semites" are ruining everything. You can hardly criticize them, they're so powerful and evil.

Svigor said...

But what I'm beginning to see is that a real danger to traditional American values lies in the truths that Sailer is helping to bring to light about IQ and race-based genetic inheritance. As a 130+ IQ white professional, why should I feel any allegiance to a 92 IQ white American worker? Especially when it is clear that that 92 IQ guy is not going to get smarter or more successful no matter how many classes my daughter enrolls him in. I'd certainly rather my children marry an intelligent German, Argentinian or Chinese national - or a black American Harvard grad - than a white American redneck, and apparently most high status whites feel the same - look at whom the Bushes are marrying their daughters off to. We live in a global world where status is global and trumps nationality. And by helping spread the word that genetics are very important Sailer, Cochran et al. are probably accelerating the trend to ignore national allegiances in favor of allegiance to your genetic peers.

Lemme get this straight. You're saying that IQ-fetishism cum race-realism is more conducive to miscegenation than race-denial?

NAMs + AMs + Whites < AMs + Whites?

You're also saying that IQ-fetishism cum race-realism is less conducive to Salterism (Ethnic Genetic Interests, EGI) than race-denial? Those were some serious mental gymnastics.

John Seiler said...

And let's not forget that Clinton rigged the unemployment numbers to exclude those no longer looking for work. The real numbers are much higher, and are available at Shadow Stats:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

John Seiler said...

Also, check out the GDP numbers at Shadow Stats, which show that, except for a brief blip of growth in 2004 (which I would attribute to Bush's tax cuts, now expiring), the economy has been in a recession since 1999 -- 10 years of decline.

That means Bush presided over 8 years of economic disaster, not just 1 year. There was no recovery from the dot-com bust of 1999. Even before last September, we ALREADY suffered through the longest period of contraction since the 1930s.

The causes of such a great calamity are many: Greenspan inflationism, open-borders immigration, easy mortgage credit, Bush's wild deficit spending, the Iraq War, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. And now Obama's socialism is going to give us no relief.

Here's the Shadow Stats URL: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

Svigor said...

Or, as an alternative answer to the Jew-baiter-baiters, this is a rough draft of what I'm considering as my new boilerplate:

I can reduce the whole conversation to its key points:

Me: bla bla bla, bla bla bla.

Opponent: bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla.

Me/Opponent: well, clearly we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Me: yep. So let us have for ourselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel, and you can have for yourselves whatever it is you want, and we can agree to disagree in peace.

Opponent: *crickets chirping*


I like it because it cuts through all the prevaricating BS and gets right to the heart of the matter.

John Seiler said...

By the way, it's too bad Rodney Dangerfield isn't around to play Alan Greenspan in the movie version of the Bush Depression. He already starred in "Easy Money."

"I don't get no respect, I tell you. I make it easy for everybody to buy a home, and all I get is grief because there are a couple of foreclosures."

TomV said...

To the commenter who responded forcefully to Peter (I don't think you want to be called "Pete and Repeat Sat on a Fence... "):

Bravo, my man. Bravo.

To Peter:
In fairness, perhaps you meant to demonstrate, awkwardly, that that attitude is undesirable. Although there's nothing wrong with wanting you kids to marry high-IQ people, but IQ is not the only thing. Barack Obama Sr. was a smart guy (and a Harvard grad!), would you have wanted your daughter to marry him? Even without the polygamy business, I would not bless any nuptial that would produce a grandchild who practically disowns my bloodline.

Yawn said...

Until there's a bludgeoning word for people who make the most minor of comments about my group, spare us the anti-antisemitism, Captain Gutmensch.

Stopped Clock said...

I have not met a person yet who switched from being liberal to conservative, but plenty in the other direction. I am one, and I've spent my life helping turn others in the same direction.

John Seiler said...

Ronduck wrote: "And since Catholics have a higher abortion rate than Protestants can you now see why the Church works for the importation of more Catholics? Besides, the RCC is part of the left."

It's a lot more complicated than that, Ronduck. On importing church members, see John Zmirak at Takimag.com and elsewhere. And at least 2/3 of America's Catholic bishops should be canned by the Pope, the 2/3 that coddled the molester priests. If that happened, we'd get a lot of young, conservative, orthodox bishops, because that's what most young priests are nowadays.

But either you're too young, Ronduck, or you don't remember the history of abortion in America. I well remember that it was almost only Catholics who opposed legalizing abortion in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Mainline Protestants -- Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, most Lutherans -- were all for legalizing abortion. In the late 1970s, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants started campaigning against abortion, such as with the Moral Majority; but for the last decade they were more interested in promoting Bush's wars.

As to the higher Catholic abortion rate, that may be because Catholics are targeted by the abortion establishment, as Fr. Paul Marx, founder of Human Life International, has pointed out. The newest Planned Parenthood "clinic" near me is in the Latino area of Costa Mesa, Calif., and includes a WIC (Women, Infants, Children) office. The abortions and the welfare come, of course, from my tax dollars. PP offers a complete service: if you don't contracept your Catholic Latino baby, abort it; and if you don't abort it, get it hooked on welfare.

Finally, remember how Paul Blanshard, author of "American Freedom and Catholic Power," and others (Google him) were obsessed with the high Catholic birth rate of the 1940s and 1950s, and acted against it, with the results you quote.

Anonymous said...

" I am now somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. Also I am female and non-religious. Bonus: I breed!"

Will you marry me?

-Vanilla Thunder

Anonymous said...

Captain Jack that was the dumbest thing I have read on this blog in two years of regular reading.

I guess those WASPs in your area are not only dominating local coverage, but propogating their biases nationwide, vice the other way around.

That is probably easily accomplished through thier proportional overrepresentation in the academy and the court. Perfidious WASPs.

Saw said...

Thank you, Miles, for briefly and concisely explaining why, exactly, demographics are never, ever taught, examined or emphasized as the engine of human events, in the public or private US school curriculum.

Peter said...

Thanks guys. I suspected most of the posters here were people self-conscious about their lower than stellar IQs - the responses have basically confirmed that. Funny thing is, I wasn't actually expressing my chosen attitude - I'm talking about what is actually happening. There can be no question that elites today value global status and heritable IQ more than nationality when seeking a mate. Anyone here really want to deny that? I've been to B-School, worked in Board rooms, worked with Republican politicians. And I've never ever met anyone who's said "I hope my kid marries an American." Even very right-wing Republican elites would think that's an odd idea - and a lot of them seem to be married to Asians...None of them share TomV's attitudes, that's clear.

It should be obvious to people who follow Sailer's ideas that fetishizing a "blood-line" a la TomV is a dead end. Sure race is real, but it's also very mutable over time - that's what the race fetishists don't want to recognize. We can breed better people, why should we lock ourselves into the existing racial groups? We can create new and better races, pretty easily actually if that's what we as a species want to do. And that's the attitude most elites will have, so be ready for it.
Anyone who's shocked by the idea that IQ-fetishism cum race-realism is more conducive to miscegenation than race-denial?
needs to think it through a little more. We already know that most "race-denialists" are hypocrites who don't really deny race. Most of them wouldn't be happy marrying their daughters to inner city black men for some reason, even though supposedly their children would be exactly the same as the child of a Jewish lawyer and Chinese professor. But IQ realism could easily give people the ammunition to justify the abandonment of low performing whites as well, who are very often the same sort of low income, low achievement types their great great grand parents were. And it will, that's the "meritocratic" world we've been working towards for forty years now. HG Wells may have been more prescient than he knew.

Anonymous said...

Peter,
You are one of the rare persons who has listed his own IQ on this site, so it is a bit much to cast aspersions on what you see as the obsessions of what you see as the majority of readers here.

Be that as it may, your statement that the last forty years have been a meritocracy is astounding. Perhaps you can explain that statement. In what way is it a mertiocracy? It is interesting to consider about how things would be if that were actually true. Where would our economy, culture and science be if it were so? Apply the idea of merit to societies and cultures as well as individuals for a more interesting, and germane, topic.

It appears that you have not controlled for a single variable in your thinking.

Anonymous said...

Tanstaafl said, "You blame "anti-semites" for tools like Peter?"

Have no idea how you read that into what was written. It seems the commenter is saying clean your own house first. As long as there are guys like Peter who claim to be the same as you, what's the point in seeking an outside enemy?

Peter, why do you make assumptions about commenters who disagree with you? Why do you think that people who come to a very interesting and insightful blog on biology, race, sociology, economics, etc...would somehow belong to a lower IQ group than your own? That seems like some type of bolster to self-esteem on your part, or at the very least juvenile goading.

You were unclear in the useage of pronouns in your original post. What you're saying now is that the "I" was hypothetical. Fine. For my part, I welcome the racial paring off of people who see value only in a mate of high IQ, no matter the race. What does their culture, and the culture offered their offspring, become then but some syrupy plucking of a bit of this and that from the globalist smorgasbord? What legends and myths do they tell their children, what holidays do they celebrate, what foods do they eat that have any meaning? For their whole lives they must rely on an ersatz culture, a constructed cosmopolitan one, and end up prey to what Geoffrey Miller was talking about in one of Steve's other recent posts - empty consumerism and the shallowest career jockeying, rather than being able to be submerged in the totality of race and culture. That's what the Hindus, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Lebanese, Koreans, etc...seem to get, and it's why they're where they're at and why ridiculous "whites" are where they're at.

I'm going outside now with my wife and three fantastic European children. It's May Day today, and we begin it, like our ancestors have for centuries, by washing our faces in the dew.

Truth said...

"Will you marry me?

-Vanilla Thunder"

Sorry sport, as T99 would tell you, she has no respect for betas.

ben tillman said...

But what I'm beginning to see is that a real danger to traditional American values lies in the truths that Sailer is helping to bring to light about IQ and race-based genetic inheritance. As a 130+ IQ white professional, why should I feel any allegiance to a 92 IQ white American worker?

It's called morality - a/k/a self-interest. It's good for you to look out for him -- both because he shares your genes and because you (one would hope) share membership in a higher-level organism (or moral community). You have shared interests.

Of course, you can count him out of your moral community, but, if you do so, he is morally justified in doing absolutely anything to you. Do you get it? Morality is a two-way street.

And what would be the point to turning your back on Mr. 92 IQ? The allegiance you disdain costs you NOTHING.

ben tillman said...

There can be no question that elites today value global status and heritable IQ more than nationality when seeking a mate. Anyone here really want to deny that? I've been to B-School, worked in Board rooms, worked with Republican politicians. And I've never ever met anyone who's said "I hope my kid marries an American." Even very right-wing Republican elites would think that's an odd idea....Yes, that would be an odd thing to say -- kind of like saying you want your child to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It goes without saying.

ben tillman said...

I live in a part of the country where there aren't too many Jews and where our WASP (yes, WASP) political/media/business elite are fanatically in favor of amnesty and open borders. I may not agree with most Jews politically, but you don't need Jews to ruin a country.And where did that fanatical support for open borders come from? Your WASP elite certainly didn't think it up for themselves -- we know that because that support doesn't serve their self-interest, i.e., it doesn't maximize their inclusive fitness.

Instead, for some reason, they're putting their short-term personal interests ahead of their ultimate, all-inclusive interests in life.

They are doing this -- acting in the interest of others -- because of the "Four I's": indoctrination, incentivization, intimidation, and imitation (i.e., imitation of those who have gained success by adopting the desired political posture).

Tanstaafl said...

Peter writes:

I suspected most of the posters here were people self-conscious about their lower than stellar IQs - the responses have basically confirmed that. Funny thing is, I wasn't actually expressing my chosen attitude - I'm talking about what is actually happening. There can be no question that elites today value global status and heritable IQ more than nationality when seeking a mate. Anyone here really want to deny that?

This after writing:

As a 130+ IQ white professional, why should I feel any allegiance to a 92 IQ white American worker? Especially when it is clear that that 92 IQ guy is not going to get smarter or more successful no matter how many classes my daughter enrolls him in. I'd certainly rather my children marry an intelligent German, Argentinian or Chinese national - or a black American Harvard grad - than a white American redneck, and apparently most high status whites feel the same -

Come now. You were expressing your chosen attitude, unless by "why should I" and "my daughter" you were actually referring to someone else. Then again maybe a 130+ IQ makes you think you can cause scrollbars everywhere not to function.

IQ certainly is your primary concern. Look, even your insults are based on it. And clearly you do believe "most high status whites feel the same". The burden however is not on anyone else to "deny" what you've made no attempt to substantiate. You could start by investigating and reporting the spousal selection of, say, the "high status" leadership of any branch of government, Fortune 500 CEOs, media moguls, or university presidents. There's no doubt in my mind that many of them share your dim view of "rednecks". What I suspect you'll have quite some trouble demonstrating is that "most" value anything higher than their own "nationality", or more precisely, their race/ethny. It might be a valuable learning exerience for you IQ-boy. Good luck.

We can create new and better races, pretty easily actually if that's what we as a species want to do.

. . .

But IQ realism could easily give people the ammunition to justify the abandonment of low performing whites as well, who are very often the same sort of low income, low achievement types their great great grand parents were.

Let us know when "we" get to vote on any of this, ok? Empirically it seems your high-status high-IQ idols have quietly and unilaterally decided to do their best to bury "low performing whites" with mestizos, asians, middle easterners, and africans - many whom have lower IQs, some whom have a higher propensity for violence, and few who have adopted your deracinated views. What alot of your idols say they desire is a coffee-colored (ie. White-free) utopia. What's happening conflicts somewhat with your high-IQ (redneck-free) vision, but not where it matters to this White "race fetishist" (I prefer "normal healthy human being who doesn't want himself or his extended family to disappear", thanks).