May 17, 2012

The Judah P. Benjamin Whiteness Crisis

On Kevin Drum's blog, Adam Serwer recounts recent conventional wisdom about American history:
White ethnics—Irish, Italians, Jews—were long excluded from whiteness on the grounds that they were racially inferior, but they were integrated into a more inclusive redefinition of whiteness post-World War II.

I used to reply to this:
Indeed, who can forget that stunning scene in Gone With the Wind when Scarlett O'Hara's Irish last name is accidentally revealed, and thus she is immediately sold into slavery. 

But, true believers in the wisdom of Noel Ignatiev always reply to the effect: "Hey, dumbass, don't you know Gone With the Wind is fiction?!"

So, as a nonfiction example, above is a Confederate two dollar bill from 1862. The man pictured is Judah P. Benjamin, who served the Confederate government as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State. And it wasn't just a Confederate thing either: both Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce had previously offered Benjamin a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, an honor he declined each time in order to keep his U.S. Senate seat.

(Benjamin was the second Jewish Senator. The first was his first cousin once removed, David Levy Yulee of Florida, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1845 and resigned in 1861. He served in the Congress of the Confederacy until being imprisoned by the victorious Union forces in 1865.)

According to Wikipedia's article on Benjamin:
He was a noted advocate of the interests of the South. According to the author Carl Sandburg, the abolitionist Benjamin Wade of Ohio said the Southern senator was "a Hebrew with Egyptian Principles", as he represented slaveholders.[6] Benjamin replied, "It is true that I am a Jew, and when my ancestors were receiving their Ten Commandments from the immediate Deity, amidst the thundering and lightnings of Mt. Sinai, the ancestors of my opponent were herding swine in the forests of Great Britain."[7]

Similarly, in 1835, Benjamin Disraeli replied to an attack by Irish Roman Catholic leader Daniel O'Connell: 
‘Yes, I am a Jew, and while the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.’”

The popular version in which Disraeli begins, "While your ancestors were painting themselves blue..." appears to be a subsequent embroidery. But, a good one!

203 comments:

1 – 200 of 203   Newer›   Newest»
Darwin's Sh*tlist said...

Benjamin was also thought by many to be gay. A contemporary once remarked that if he were the Sheik of Arabia, he would have no qualms about letting Benjamin tend his harem.

He was also the only high Confederate official to successfully flee the country after surrender. He had a hell of an adventure getting to England, where he embarked on a successful legal career.

Steve Sailer said...

Interesting. His rich wife and one child decamped to Paris five years after they married in 1842. He would visit them annually.

Anonymous said...

As a result, the definition of "white" will continue to evolve into greater inclusiveness in America. From the one-drop rule of the slavery era which led to such visibly white children being enslaved:

http://www.multiracial.com/images/tenzer/tenzernew.gif


To the tri-racial Zimmermann being considered "white":

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0417/4-17-12-george-zimmerman/12292803-1-eng-US/4-17-12-George-Zimmerman_full_600.jpg

DRH said...

The greatest of all the Confederate division commanders spent the first 15 years of his life in County Cork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

And the more famous Pierre Beauregard didn't learn to speak English until he was 12.

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of reporting today of the projection of when whites will falling below the majority level and some talk about their low birth rates compared to Hispanics, and a lot of talk about how the demographics might affect political outcomes, but not a single question has been raised about how the future economic outlook of the country might be expected to look different from what it has been the last couple of hundred years or what might be the social outcomes of such ethnic shifts.

It hasn't occurred to a single one that they shouldn't expect the swell of Hispanics and blacks to produce physicists, engineers, mathematicians, ITs, entrepeneurs, doctors?

They must have knowledge of some magic juice.

Anonymous said...

From what I understand the Rothschild family also sided with the Confederacy.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why that Disraeli quote gets so much traction. In the context of the events of the time the Jewish guy was the Prime Minister of the British Empire, and O'Connell was trying to get Catholic Emancipation - that is, the right to participate in politics.

Which sort of undermines the narrative of the Jew as the Eternal Underdog and defender of the rights of the oppressed.

Steve Sailer said...

Disraeli wasn't Prime Minister yet, he was a young dandy on the make.

But, yeah, it's kind of like if some catty wisecrack that Gore Vidal had made about Martin Luther King had gone into the history books as a killer comeback. Who knows, after the Great Diversity Wars finally shake out, maybe there will be a 50 foot tall statue on the National Mall of Gore rolling his eyes at the 30' MLK statue's dubious taste.

Anonymous said...

Ancient Celtic artifacts seem much more elaborate and impressive than that of the ancient Hebrews.

But Benjamin and Disraeli's comments "work" because of the dominant mythic narrative in the West via Christianity that privileges Jewish history and position.

Anonymous said...

"but not a single question has been raised about how the future economic outlook of the country might be expected to look different from what it has been the last couple of hundred years or what might be the social outcomes of such ethnic shifts"

Brazil 2.0 here we go

Anonymous said...

You're right Steve, but it's more basic than that too. Were the Irish ever excluded from the category of 'free white citizens'? Is there any evidence of the Irish being considered 'non-white' from a legal standpoint? No. What's interesting to me is how an idea so fraudulent, so lacking in evidence, can take root so quickly. Whether or not the Irish were despised, the extent of that contempt, has no bearing on the legal status they enjoyed. And here is an indicator of why this idea is popular: the Irish, like many others, were not socially accepted as WASP Americans... because they were not WASP Americans. It's as if someone were to walk into your house, ask to be treated like your son, be rebuffed, and then complain that you therefore consider them not-white.

The abolish- whitey crowd love to explore and invent the intricacies of race identity, but they're deliberately conflating the varied social reception of the Irish ( in some places well, some places not, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not) with racial categories backed by law. Was Thomas Francis Meagher black? Hey, maybe the rioters who burned down a NYC Black orphanage were, who knows? What a load of shit.

anony-mouse said...

OK. Who's the first one who's going to claim that the CSA was run by gay Jews?

Anonymous said...

Ancient Celtic artifacts seem much more elaborate and impressive than that of the ancient Hebrews.

But Benjamin and Disraeli's comments "work" because of the dominant mythic narrative in the West via Christianity that privileges Jewish history and position.


7,000 years ago the largest free standing structures in the world were the longhouses of the LBK culture of the Danube basin.

And archaeologists in Ukraine have unearthed the remains of an ancient pyramidal structure that pre-dates those in Egypt by at least 300 years.

In short, the myths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism may be little more than our history ripped from us, exported, repackaged and reidentified, and imported to us as a foreign religion. If you look at what Hollywood does with our history, you see very much the same pattern.

FredR said...

The height of Anglo-Saxon or core ethnie ideology in America (besides the Know-Nothing blip) came around in the late 19th early 20th century. That there is no longer such an ideology is what this "Irish weren't white" meme is trying to get at.

Anonymous said...

And here's another one of those non-white Irishmen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mitchel

Clearly, WASPS manipulated him away from his true self-interest with cunning appeals to social issues. If only someone had told him he was black! Again, what a load of sh*t.

Anonymous said...

@Steve Sailer

Please post the earlier submitted excerpt on Grant's General Order No.11 during the Civil War.

It provides insight into the participation and influence in American life by Jewish persons and is somewhat at odds with the "eternal outsider" and "oppressed minority" narratives. It appears that Jews had quite a bit of sway with the White House, even way back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_%281862%29

Whiskey said...

The NYC/Boston Irish/Jewish guys I knew in New Orleans all were big Confederate buffs. That is not surprising. New Orleans, and Charleston SC were friendlier to Jews and even the Irish than say the outposts of Puritan Brahamins and the Dutch mercantilists.That is not surprising.

Whiskey said...

OT, the future of the US is NOT Brazil. But rather race-based spoils wars. Brazil has little welfare, little social spending, and thus the middle White class and middling Upper classes can escape the heavy hand of both the state and the favelas.

Here in say, Santa Ana, about 98% of the kids qualify for the free/reduced lunch program, so much so that the District got a USDA waiver and provides all meals free. Without welfare, most of the Hispanic/Mexican kids would starve.

Moreover, Hispanics do not have magic wombs and White women do not have cursed ones. Hispanic girls start having kids at age 16, far too often. You cannot support kids at that age -- you're still one yourself! Hispanic fertility is the function of Whites subsidizing kids out of wedlock at young ages, at the expense of their own kids.

Very soon we are looking at confiscatory taxation to support an ever expanding welfare state keeping the kids of 16 year old Hispanic and Black girls alive. That is sure to trigger a taxation revolt. And demands for ever greater White social/cultural subservience as Whites rapidly erode in numbers.

This will not end well. What people forget is how good White Beta Males are at organized, years-long, brutal violence in sustained industrial combat. Nerdy beta male types were able to possess the discipline and intelligence needed to survive places like Tarawa, or Pelileu, or the Bulge. Your hard core banger may be good at a momentary mob attack, but lacks the discipline or intelligence to be truly Stalingrad-type deadly.

Since I'm likely to be among the first casualties of any such fight, I look upon that certainty with a shudder of the grave.

Look at the Balkans. "White people can't fight" is a myth. Even with a sustained air campaign by the West, Serbia got most of its war aims. Despite a massive Saudi funded jihad and men, arms, etc.

The near total dependency of non-Whites who are not Asians, plus rapidly declining Whites, equals a spoils war. Likely to turn ugly very rapidly.

ATBOTL said...

If our ancestors were so primitive, why did this guy's ancestors leave the paradise that is the Middle East to live with them?

Anonymous said...

Steve, I'm a big fan, but honestly I still don't understand your comment on Drum's blog. You slipped into hipster sarcasm and lost me.

Aging Hag said...

There were quite a few Jewish Confederates. I wonder what the white nats make of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/28/reviews/010128.28hoffmat.html

The NY Times naturally makes a joke of them.

Lucille said...

It was fiction, but since it was published in the 20s or 30s, it depicts social attitudes pre-WWII. So I'm not sure what the "it's fiction" comment is supposed to prove...

Anonymous said...

But Benjamin and Disraeli's comments "work" because of the dominant mythic narrative in the West via Christianity that privileges Jewish history and position.

Spoken like a po-mo lefty academic, especially the use of "privelege" as a verb.

Anonymous said...

"but not a single question has been raised about how the future economic outlook of the country might be expected to look different from what it has been the last couple of hundred years or what might be the social outcomes of such ethnic shifts"

Having recently spent a great deal of time on the front lines of these ethnic shifts, I can tell you for certain: we're screwed. Gone. Down. The Shithole.

Economically, Hispanics work a bit harder than blacks, but that isn't saying much. In the second-generation, when they're eligible for welfare, their work ethic deteriorates. Most of the fattest cities in the country are heavily Hispanic - Las Vegas, Miami, Houston, etc. Even when their work ethic is decent they produce few geniuses. Whatever replaces the iPad or Facebook or Google will have few if any Hispanics involved in their inventions or improvement.

Blank Slate Fascism has literally been the undoing of this and perhaps every other Western country. You are not. Allowed. To criticize. Blank slatism. Ever.

And hence, we are finished.

By the way, the second Jewish governor of America was elected in...Idaho. The third was elected in...Utah. The first was elected in California when it was still hicksville, and fiercely anti-Chinese immigration. Anglo Southerners interbred with blacks (on the sly) and Native Americans (not-so-on the sly) to a much greater degree than Northerners ever did.

Anonymous said...

Brazil 2.0 here we go

Brazil's economy is currently one of the fastest growing ones, if not the very fastest, in the American continent. Its nominal per capita income has reached almost $13,000 and its GDP is now the 6th highest in the world. It will be holding the world's two premier sporting events back to back: the Football World Cup and the Summer Olympics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil


By contrast 100% white Moldova has a per capita income of less than $2000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova


And 100% white Ukraine with a population of 44 million has a nominal per capita income of $3,600:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

green mamba said...

"As a result, the definition of "white" will continue to evolve into greater inclusiveness in America."

Indeed. In the Norfolk story O'Reilly has been harping on (to his credit), the old blowhard keeps referring to two "white" reporters who were beaten up, while showing a picture of a white man and a woman who is obviously of Middle Eastern or Asian descent (Persian, perhaps? I'm too lazy to google).

Which reminds me, I once saw a mumblecore movie which featured an East Asian girl who introduces the lead character to her "brother", who turns out to be white. No explanation is given for this.

On a related note, I think Romney would do well to pick Bobby Jindal as his running mate. An intelligent, non-threatening minority member would not hurt him with his base, and might attract some hitherto uncourted Asian voters, who are conservative by temperament and probably feel left out of the racial spoils game.

Anonymous said...

Disraeli was a very peculiar kind of jew. His standard response to accusations that jews killed Jesus was to say that they'd done the world a favor, because atonement wouldn't be possible otherwise!

Matthew said...

Jewish oppression was never quite what it's presented to be. The father of English poet Siegfried Sassoon was disinherited for marrying a Christian, and the will of scientist Rosalind Franklin's grandfather also stipulated disinheritance for any heir who married a Christian. Those are the only two I've ever read of, but I'm sure there are plenty other examples out there, including those which didn't make it into the history books.

Fred said...

At this point, I'm rarely surprised to find any number of things that are commonly taught as historical 'facts' have been horribly tainted with leftwing lies.

As far as I'm concerned, the left is completely out of credibility with me no matter what historical 'fact' is brought up by one of them.

ziel said...

Yes, we definitely don't want to be like Ukraine or Moldova. But do you seriously want to be like Brazil? I think I'd prefer to stay like America.

Matthew said...

"By contrast 100% white Moldova has a per capita income of less than $2000...And 100% white Ukraine with a population of 44 million has a nominal per capita income of $3,600"

Yes, but but the US has never had anything like an Eastern European economy. It's always been culturally and economically (and genetically) Western European. Until recently.

Further, even if Brazil does well by Latin standards, it still does far worse than America. An America economically like Brazil would be a very big drop for us. Much of the growth in the Brazilian economy has been in the kinds of industries we sloughed off a decade or more ago as too low on the economic ladder: textiles, steel, etc.

You choose three outliers to visualize the future: the very best of the Latin countries versus the very worst of the white, European ones.

Anonymous said...

Spoken like a po-mo lefty academic, especially the use of "privelege" as a verb.

The difference is that what I said is true, while what po-mo lefty academics say isn't. I use "privilege" as a verb to say something true, while the po-mo lefty academics use it to say something false e.g. when they talk about "white privilege".

Paul said...

"Anonymous said...

As a result, the definition of "white" will continue to evolve into greater inclusiveness in America."

- We are hearing about Irish not being whites, Italians not being white, etc because it splits up the majority, breaks up their domination for the benefit of others. The same reason why white women are labeled a minority, to pull them away from the camp of "white men" into the camp of left wing minorities.

"To the tri-racial Zimmermann being considered "white""

- No one actually considers Zimmermann to be white, it was a case of left wing journalists jumping to assumptions based on their narrative, then trying to do damage control.

Anonymous said...

"And 100% white Ukraine with a population of 44 million has a nominal per capita income of $3,600."

Is this the guy who maintained that Beethoven was a mulatto? Dude, I'm going to help you out a bit with a short lesson in rational thinking. The important comparison in this discussion is between the average white country and the average largely-mulatto country. Cherry-picking examples for one of the two sides of the comparison (Ukraine's GDP is far from the white average) will quickly expose you to ridicule.

Let's practice this apples-to-apples and oranges-to-oranges thing with an exercise:

I would guess that the most important individual Ukrainian contributor to the world of modern technology was Sergei Korolev, the chief engineer behind Sputnik and humanity's first manned space flight. Who do you think has been Brazil's most important technological innovator? What did he contribute? Was this person a mulatto? If so, was this in the same way as Beethoven or in real life?

Anonymous said...

Comparison of Brazil to Moldova or Ukraine is absurd. If you had to choose being randomly born as a citizen in one of those three countries you would be insane to choose Brazil. The vast majority lives in African-level poverty. You don't see that in Eastern Europe.

Brazil's powerful economy is 100% white-run, and its benefits limited to the white upper and upper-middle and somewhat-mixed (and small) middle classes. The blacks live as they do in Afreaka.

Anonymous said...

Jewish oppression was never quite what it's presented to be. The father of English poet Siegfried Sassoon was disinherited for marrying a Christian, and the will of scientist Rosalind Franklin's grandfather also stipulated disinheritance for any heir who married a Christian. Those are the only two I've ever read of, but I'm sure there are plenty other examples out there, including those which didn't make it into the history books.

The Rothschilds were notorious for their bigotry toward non-Jews.

"Mayer Carl cut Margaretha out of his will for converting to Christianity. As late as 1887, Salomon James's widow Adele disinherited here Helen for marrying outside the faith. Even Alphonses's grandson Guy was reminded by his parents 'at every opportunity' that 'the most important rule was the one forbidding marriage with a woman who was not Jewish.'"

The House of Rothschild: The world's banker 1849-1999
By Niall Ferguson

Anonymous said...

Brazil has little welfare, little social spending, and thus the middle White class and middling Upper classes can escape the heavy hand of both the state and the favelas.

Once again, Whiskey pontificates without knowing anything about the subject matter. Read something about Brazilian social policy, you lazy moron! Brazil is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. The "middle and middling classes" pay for the whole shebang, both for the poor and the rich - just like in America. The difference is that the Brazilian middle class is too poor to be milked as profitably as the American one.

Steve Sailer said...

I've ridden on smaller jetliners designed and built in Brazil.

Anonymous said...

Brazil's powerful economy is 100% white-run.

Actually, there would appear to be a significant Jewish presence in Brazil's economy, too. Eduardo Saverin (the Facebook investor who recently renounced his U.S. citizenship) is Jewish, the son of a powerful Brazilian business magnate, and was a member of an all-Jewish fraternity at Harvard.

stari_momak said...

@anonymous

There is a lot to the 'po-mo' stuff about controlling the discourse, etc.

And while Moldova and the Ukraine may be doing poorly, most Eastern block countries, from Lithuania to the war weary Yugoslav successor states, easily outstrip Brazil. Further, I think you'll find that within Brazil, the whiter south does far far better than the blacker Bahia.

Anonymous said...

A Disraeli quote for HBDers:

"Is it what you call civilization that makes England flourish? Is it the universal development of the faculties of man that has rendered an island, almost unknown to the ancients, the arbiter of the world? Clearly not. It is the inhabitants that have done this. It is an affair of race.… All is race, there is no other truth."

Anonymous said...

Brazil's current President is Bulgarian.

The economic engine of Brazil is more than likely German and other Euro descendents. Argentina, Uruguay, and Costa Rica are all whiter than the US. Brazil is about 50/50.

Anonymous said...

Correction/qualification:

Eduardo Saverin (the Facebook investor who recently renounced his U.S. citizenship) is Jewish, the son of a powerful Brazilian business magnate, and was a member of an all-Jewish fraternity at Harvard.

Saverin's fraternity is considered "Jewish" but I am not certain that equates to "all-Jewish."

--Anonymous that posted the above.

The Frankfurt School said...

Blank Slate Fascism has literally been the undoing of this and perhaps every other Western country. You are not. Allowed. To criticize. Blank slatism. Ever.


MOO HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Anonymous said...

And while Moldova and the Ukraine may be doing poorly, most Eastern block countries, from Lithuania to the war weary Yugoslav successor states, easily outstrip Brazil.

Not really. Lithuania's and Russia's per capita nominal incomes are a bit lower than Brazil's. While Serbia's is at $6000, not even half that of Brazil.

Brazilian said...

Hi Steve, Embraer is the pride of Brazil.

Anonymous said...

Brazil's powerful economy is 100% white-run.

Don't the 'whites' in Brazil have non-trivial sub-Saharan African and or Amerindian ancestry?

Anonymous said...

Argentina, Uruguay, and Costa Rica are all whiter than the US. Brazil is about 50/50.

Most of the "whites" in these countries have significant non-white genes. In Argentina it is mostly amerindian while in Brazil it is mostly african.

Anonymous said...

Brazil's current President is Bulgarian.

She looks like a mulatta.

Anonymous said...

Argentina, Uruguay, and Costa Rica are all whiter than the US.

Not really. Because the 'whites' down there aren't as white as the whites in North America:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-anglosphere-exception/

Brazilian said...

Brazil is the most bereaucratic and taxed country in the World.

angry less-rich white men said...

At the Huffington site the other day I saw a headline that went, "Clinton, Boehner and Some Other Rich White Guys Had a "Summit" and Agreed: It's Your Fault". I didn't even need to click the bio to see that the author was at minimum a white guy, but lo and behold: "worked for AIG and other insurance, risk management, and financial organizations. He was also a public policy and finance/economics consultant, in the US and over 20 countries"

Anonymous said...

a reptile...just fit now, after being twice discarded by the people, to become a Conservative. He possesses all the necessary requisites of perfidy, selfishness, depravity, want of principle, etc., which would qualify him for the change. His name shows that he is of Jewish origin. I do not use it as a term of reproach; there are many most respectable Jews. But there are, as in every other people, some of the lowest and most disgusting grade of moral turpitude; and of those I look upon Mr. Disraeli as the worst. He has just the qualities of the impenitent thief on the Cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, the same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude. I forgive Mr. Disraeli now, and as the lineal descendant of the blasphemous robber, who ended his career besides the Founder of the Christian Faith, I leave the gentleman to the enjoyment of his infamous distinction and family honours.

I give O'Connell the point - the accusation is better than the rejoinder. What I can't find out is what provoked it. O'Connell supported and inspired Jewish rights activism.

Anonymous said...

Antisemitism in the US didn't really get going until large #'s of uneducated poor Jews from E. Europe started showing up. At the time of the Civil War, there were very few Jews in the US. Later on (and up until the end of WWII) there were "restricted" hotels were no Jews were allowed to stay, companies and law firms that would not hire Jews, etc.

Anonymous said...

Oh relax people, Benjamin was firing off a flippant response to a taunt. I swear, the right wing resentment machine can make anything into an insult.

Anonymous said...

You choose three outliers to visualize the future: the very best of the Latin countries versus the very worst of the white, European ones.

Consider this: the very best off of the larger latin countries is majority non-white (and most of the whites themselves are mixed race); while the very worst off of the European countries are among the very whitest.

What do you make of that?

Steve Sailer said...

I don't believe even the Japanese try to compete in the airliner market, but the Brazilians have done okay in it. That's impressive.

Anonymous said...

Brazil's current President is Bulgarian.

She looks like a mulatta.


She looks very Balkan.

Anonymous said...

"Antisemitism in the US didn't really get going until large #'s of uneducated poor Jews from E. Europe started showing up"

The Jewish mafia together with the Italian mafia dominated the American organised crime in the first half of the 20th century. They pretty much created Las Vegas.

Anonymous said...

"By contrast 100% white Moldova has a per capita income of less than $2000..."

The average Moldovan isn't any whiter than Beethoven was, and you've already declared Beethoven to have been a mulatto. So how come you call Moldova "100% white"?

Anonymous said...

Do you think Portugal's historical nautical ability might be expressing itself in Brazil aeornautic acumen?

Anonymous said...

above is a Confederate two dollar bill from 1862. The man pictured is Judah P. Benjamin, who served the Confederate government as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State.

Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade in the New World just as they were in eastern europe, so no surprise that some of them were socially prominent in the South. I read somewhere that jewish slaveowners in the South owned more slaves per capita than their gentile counterparts.

The biblical justification for slavery most commonly used by the southern slavers, the ridiculous story of Ham and Shem, was straight from the Talmud.

Even today southern evangelicals are among the most rabid zionists in America.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the airline market is in the hands of few countries: USA, Brazil, France, Germany, Britain, Canada.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

O'Connell was the man. At the beginning of the industrial age, he made the statement that the steam engine would be the future of the Irish nation.

This led some wag to write "Making Babies by Steam" (the tune is aka Larry O'Gaff for unknown reasons), a jig still popular in celtic music circles:

Oh people of heart I pray pay attention

Listen to what I'm about to relate

Concerning a couple I overheard talking

As I was returning late home from a wake


As I rode along sure I saw an old woman

Who sat in a gap, she was milking her cow

She was jigging that tune called "Make haste to the wedding"

Or some other ditty I can't tell you now 



Ah, the next came along; it was a bold tinker

Who happened by chance to be passing that way

The day being fine they sat down together

What news of that man, the old woman did say


There's no news at all mam, replied the bold tinker

But the people all wish that he never had been

He's a damned of a rogue of a Daniel O'Connell

And he's now making babies in Dublin by steam



Ah, the children are ruined replied the old woman

Or has the quare fellow gone crazy at last

Or is it the sign of a war or rebellion

Or what is the reason he wants them so fast


It's not that a
t all mam replied the bold tinker
The children of Ireland are getting too small

It's O'Connell's petition to the new Lord Lieutenant

That he won't let us make them the old way at all



By this pipe in me mouth, replied the old woman

And that's a strong oath on me soul for to say

But I am an old woman and if I was near him

I bet you me life that he'd rue the day


For the people of Ireland they're very well known

They gave him their earnings when needing them bad

And now that he is recompensing them for it

By taking the only diversion they have 



I light to your coach mam replied the bold tinker

Long may you live now with youth on your side

If all the young girls in Ireland were like you

O'Connell could throw his steam-engine aside


If I had the young men of Ireland around me

And girls making babies as fast as they can
A
nd whenever Her Majesty wanted an army

We'd be able to send her as many as Dan

Anonymous said...

Oh relax people, Benjamin was firing off a flippant response to a taunt.

And you are in a great position to know that, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

Antisemitism in the US didn't really get going until large #'s of uneducated poor Jews from E. Europe started showing up.

Did "antisemitism" ever "really get going" in the United States?

At the time of the Civil War, there were very few Jews in the US.

There were in fact very many Jews in the South by the time of the Civil War. Many in port cities and other commercial hubs.

Later on (and up until the end of WWII) there were "restricted" hotels were no Jews were allowed to stay, companies and law firms that would not hire Jews, etc.

Whatever. It is clear that discrimination by Jews against "The Other" has been as great and greater. Many Jews don't exactly welcome Europeans into Jewish organizations, clubs, temples, and families.

Luke Lea said...

Actually Jews were quite popular in the South. And why not? The planter elite were into planting, not commerce. Jews were very useful to them. In fact throughout European history you will see that Jews were always welcome where and when they were useful, not when they were in competition. Kings and nobles generally found them useful, as sources of loans, for their administrative skills, etc. (See the arenda system in Poland for an extreme example.) Of course once the king and nobility got too deep in debt their Jewish creditors were no longer useful. At that point they roused the rabble and drove them away, defaulting on their loans in the process of course. Interestingly -- and surprisingly to me (I guess my education was lacking) -- that Catholic Church always protected the Jews in its jurisdiction as best as it was able. All other sects it wiped out -- and it would not tolerate fake Christians either, even if they secretly were Jews. The secular authorities persecuted the Jews, the church protected them. The peasants? They were just pawns in the game.

Matthew said...

The South was less ethnically diverse than the North because an agrarian society didn't offer nearly as many opportunities for immigrants as the industrializing North. Exclusion of non-British whites had little or nothing to do with it. After the Civil War it was so dirt poor for ~80 years it didn't even offer much opportunity in the agricultural sector. If the entire country had remained agrarian the massive influx of the late 1800s to early 1900s mostly wouldn't have happened.

Anonymous said...

Of course once the king and nobility got too deep in debt their Jewish creditors were no longer useful. At that point they roused the rabble and drove them away, defaulting on their loans in the process of course.

Can you point to some actual evidence (or a source) to support your assertion that this is how things actually went down? It conflicts with everything I know about the period but it is most definitely consistent with the anti-European mythology.

Anonymous said...

Oh relax people, Benjamin was firing off a flippant response to a taunt.

Speaking from firsthand experience obviously.

Matthew said...

"Consider this: the very best off of the larger latin countries is majority non-white (and most of the whites themselves are mixed race); while the very worst off of the European countries are among the very whitest. What do you make of that?"

Now you're just being stupid.

I make of it what I make of West Virginia's all-white poverty: immigrants don't go to places where circumstances suck for the people already there; where there is little job creation. They move to economies which are creating jobs.

It is not immigrants creating the economic growth, but economic growth drawing in the immigrants. You can completely separate this from questions of nationality or racial diversity. We've seen vast population movements within this country as various industries sprouted up or grew rapidly, as with the industrial centers of the North which drew in thousands of migrants from the South during WW2. Blacks who moved to Detroit during the world wars didn't create the auto industry - they simply fed its labor needs. And now, of course, they have destroyed the very city whose economy they were supposed to help.

Q said...

Disraeli was a very peculiar kind of jew. His standard response to accusations that jews killed Jesus was to say that they'd done the world a favor, because atonement wouldn't be possible otherwise!



Disraeli was a Christian, which makes him a very peculiar Jew indeed by our modern definitions.

(I'm not going to engage with those who will say that he was only pretending to be Christian)

Anonymous said...

Matthew makes a great point.

How do the worst off of the white nations compare with the worst off of the rest?

Anonymous said...

"Interestingly -- and surprisingly to me (I guess my education was lacking) -- that Catholic Church always protected the Jews in its jurisdiction as best as it was able."

Education lacking, brainwashing complete (as it is for most Americans, so don't feel bad). That's the story you read of repeatedly during the anti-Semitic outbreak in the Rhineland during the early Crusades - the Jews in every single town went to the local bishop seeking protection, and they almost always received it (though the bishop couldn't always hold back the mob). See Steven Runciman's trilogy on the Crusades.


"The secular authorities persecuted the Jews, the church protected them. The peasants? They were just pawns in the game."

The secular authorities did not always persecute the Jews. They persecuted the Jews when they became a political liability or could, perhaps, be used as a distraction.

But yes, the peasants were often little more than pawns. Lost in all the hot air about how badly the poor Jews supposedly had it was how badly the serfs actually had it. Given a choice between being a Jew in Middle Ages Europe or being a serf, no informed person would choose the latter; and serfs comprised about half the population of Europe.

Anonymous said...

"The South was less ethnically diverse than the North ..."

Is this true? I always heard that the South was more ethnically diverse. The South was essentially the part of the US that had been settled first, in the age of sail, when the main port of immigration was Charleston, SC. (sailing ships came across where the winds were best (one reason why the slave trade existed, ships from Europe often first sailed south to Africa to catch the winds straight across); later in the age of steam they could easier go straight across to NY).

Also, the south was an outgrowth of the British Caribbean; originally the Carolinas provided meat to the rich Caribbean sugar plantations; there was a lot of ethnic mixing in the Caribbean.

The south had various Caribbean mixed folks (like those pirates that helped out Jackson at New Orleans), Spanish Florida, French Louisiana, Indian tribes (like the Cherokee) that had largely adopted white ways (and many fought on the Confederate side; the last Confederate general to surrender was an Indian chief), Texas of course had been Mexican not that long before the Civil War... there were not a lot of Jews in the south, but I've seen it written that Jews preferred to live in the south because it was more mixed and wasn't as conformist. There is a Confederate Jewish military cemetery in Richmond.

The south may have been more worldly about human diversity because they had more.

Then there's the theory that the North was terrified that the US might end up like the Caribbean (the blacks had pretty much taken over and things had gone a bit... uh, south, after the British freed the slaves in the Caribbean not that long before the Civil War. Thus Northern interest in stopping slave-state expansion--it was an effort to keep the US a white nation and not becoming a tense Caribbean-type place or even a place where ethnic cleansing was common.)

Anonymous said...

I make of it what I make of West Virginia's all-white poverty

That still begs the question: why are white Ukraine, Moldova, Appalachia etc so poor? Isn't the thesis of the HBD crowd that whites have higher IQs and higher IQs lead to prosperity?

It is not immigrants creating the economic growth, but economic growth drawing in the immigrants. You can completely separate this from questions of nationality or racial diversity.

That is a valid point, but how does that apply in the comparison of Brazil with eastern europe? Neither is reliant on immigrants. I wasn't comparing Ukraine to France but to Brazil.

Matthew said...

"The Rothschilds were notorious for their bigotry toward non-Jews."

One Rothschild woman did marry a Christian - Archbald Primrose, who would go on to become, after her early death, the prime minister of Great Britain.

I have no problem with Jews insisting their children marry other Jews, up to and including disinheritance. None. Zero. I merely grow tired of anti-Semitism being blown out of all proportion to its real extent, as well as being overstated relative to the misery suffered by other Europeans. Such exaggeration is its own form of poisonous bigotry - a bigotry directed at the goyim.

During the Middle Ages Jews, like now, were richer than the Christians of Europe. They had a near-monopoly on the lending of money. They often used that wealth and power to affect politics. This attracted the unwanted attentions of both kings and commoners. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly -- and surprisingly to me (I guess my education was lacking) -- that Catholic Church always protected the Jews in its jurisdiction as best as it was able.

There is a good selfish reason for why the Catholic Church protected the jews. They were presented to the people as living proof that the Bible was based on reality not myth like the pagan religions. The jews also had to be kept in inferior circumstances to the christians as evidence that they were being punished for rejecting Christ.

When Napoleon freed the jews from their ghettos 2 centuries ago and allowed them full civil rights, it was over the strenuous objections of the Church.

Anonymous said...

Hilaire Belloc during his considerably shorter stint in Parliament also got heckled by the Westminster peanut gallery. He gave as good as he got; mind you, being a Roman Catholic was a far more, uh, "explosive" association than Jewishness, even at that late date. Cripes, people used to have thicker skin about these things.

Anonymous said...

Considering all the intertwining elements of feminism, Semitism, biodeterminism, Nobels and other elite obsessions I'm really surprised that Rosalind Franklin and her early death from ovarian cancer (caused by x-rays or genes? HMMMM) has not been turned into a multi-Oscar release by The Weinstein Company already. There was a recent off-B'way workshop play but that's the best my googlecraft can turn up.

Reg Cæsar said...

The first was his cousin once removed...

First cousin once removed? Second cousin once removed? Tenth? Twelfth? Forty-ninth?

"Cousin" is vague, while "removed" is precise. You really need to give the degree to make sense.

In fact, "cousin" refers to all your relatives not direct ancestors or their siblings nor your descendents and niblings.

(And sometimes even those. Our sons are my tenth cousins and their mother's ninth twice removed. Ah, Québec! But we're all "cousins"...)

Anonymous said...

When Napoleon freed the jews from their ghettos 2 centuries ago and allowed them full civil rights, it was over the strenuous objections of the Church.

When did all Christians receive full civil rights?

Maya said...

Tending swine or walking small circles in a desert for 40 years. Painting own self blue or tending to a carry on luggage which supposedly has God inside it. What is this, some kind of a contest of who's the biggest shmuck?

Anonymous said...

"The Rothschilds were notorious for their bigotry toward non-Jews."

One Rothschild woman did marry a Christian - Archbald Primrose.


So what? Even that one instance was controversial among Jews. Yes, they were bigoted against non-Jews.

Brazilian said...

"Hilaire Belloc during his considerably shorter stint in Parliament also got heckled by the Westminster peanut gallery. He gave as good as he got; mind you, being a Roman Catholic was a far more, uh, "explosive" association than Jewishness, even at that late date. Cripes, people used to have thicker skin about these things."

Catholics had it harder than Jews in the Anglo-sphere.

Reg Cæsar said...

Brazil 2.0 here we go...

Not quite. Brazil can boast first-rate music and a single language. We haven't had either for decades.

Who's the first one who's going to claim that the CSA was run by gay Jews?

Howard Schultz, perhaps? He wasn't Jewish and didn't live to see the CSA, but William Rufus DeVane King, a.k.a. "Miss Nancy", lives on in the name of Seattle's county. At least until recently, when it was MLKed.

Anonymous said...

Not quite. Brazil can boast first-rate music and a single language. We haven't had either for decades.

Oh come on. Brazilian music isn't that good. Bossa nova is pretty nice to listen to when you first hear it but it all sounds the same after a while. Brazilian music just sounds like elevator music after a while.

Anonymous said...

The Brazilian aircraft industry is most likely a heavily state-subsidized vanity project done to 'prove' to a sceptical world that the Brazilians are technically savvy.

To the dumb-ass who pontificates about Ukraine and Moldova (which aren't, in fact, the topics under discussion), well I strongly doubt that Brazils low IQ mullato and black population are the wealth creators.'Tis the Brazilain middle class who do that - Italians, Poles, Germans etc.
The only decent part of Brazil is the far south, across the water from Uruguay. Mostly German and Polish, few blacks. The worst part, Recife, is the black homeland.
It's Brazilian blacks and mullatoes who are the favela dwellers, the murderers, the drug dealers, the thieves, the burglars, the general pain-in-the-ass that drag that cursed country down.

Brazilian said...

"The Brazilian aircraft industry is most likely a heavily state-subsidized vanity project done to 'prove' to a sceptical world that the Brazilians are technically savvy"

It started this way, but Embraer was privatised in the 90s--with success.

bjdubbs said...

Speaking of Brazil, Steve would love the movie Mandabala. A Brazilian friend rec'd I see it. The best part is the world's premiere ear reattachment surgeon.

dearieme said...

"Catholic emancipation" happened before Disraeli's quip. (Else his opponent wouldn't have been in the Commons, would he?) The quotations are from WKPD:

Voting: "The British Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791 was adopted by the Irish Parliament in 1792–93. Since the electoral franchise at the time was largely determined by property, this relief gave the votes to Roman Catholics holding land with a rental value of £2 a year."

Being an MP: "The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 24 March 1829 ...
The Act permitted members of the Catholic Church to sit in the parliament at Westminster. "

Anonymous said...

When Napoleon freed the jews from their ghettos 2 centuries ago and allowed them full civil rights, it was over the strenuous objections of the Church
cite please? What were these objections?

Sean Burgess said...

Every time I hear that Disraeli quote, I think of this place:

http://newgrange.com/index.htm

The money quote:
“The accuracy of Newgrange as a time-telling device is remarkable when one considers that it was built 500 years before the Great Pyramids and more than 1,000 years before Stonehenge.”

Worth a visit if you’re in the area. I knew about it only because it’s a half hour drive from where my father was born and my relatives recommended seeing it when I was visiting Eire.

[enter username here] said...

Not sure why you chose this tack, Sailer. The guy's career is little more than writing about how he's Jewish-black biracial and you retrieve a prominent Hebrew Southerner--not really the lifeblood of secession politics, wouldn't you agree? Ignatiev isn't half-Irish by any stretch but Serwer at least knows from claiming whichever side he wants. Unless you just thought he was a wigger; otherwise it looks churlish.

travis said...

Some of these comments remind me of the little ol' southern ladies often found in the novels of Walker Percy:

She was much as he remembered other ladies at home, companionable and funny, except when she got off on her pet subject, fluoridation or rather the evils of it, which had come in her mind to be connected with patriotic sentiments. Then her voice become sonorous and bell-like. She grew shorter than ever, drew into herself like a fort, and fired in all directions. She also spoke often of the “Bavarian Illumnati,” a group who, in her view, were responsible for the troubles of the South. They represented European and Jewish finance and had sold out the Confederacy.

“You know the real story of Judah P Benjamin and John Slidell, don’t you?” she asked him, smiling.


-- Walker Percy, "The Last Gentlmen"

[enter username here] said...

Actually I now see he's blogged prodigiously on varied left-liberal topics, like HBO reviews and talking smack about Guantanamo/military-industrial stuff, so maybe that was the problem.

Anonymous said...

Brazil can boast a pioneer of aviation in Santos Dumont. He has a town named for him not far from Rio in the state of Minas Gerias, if I recall. (ah, good times...)

Gilbert P.

Raymond said...

"That still begs the question: why are white Ukraine, Moldova, Appalachia etc so poor? Isn't the thesis of the HBD crowd that whites have higher IQs and higher IQs lead to prosperity?"

- Opportunity and hardship probably plays a role- The Ukraine for instance, was under the foot of the the Soviets until the breakup of the Soviet Union. It takes a while to readjust. In addition, the Ukraine was subjected to state implemented famines, etc that seemed to be designed to try to wipe them out as a people during their domination.

I've been told that West VA has been avoided by a lot of businesses because shipping in and out of there is troublesome with poor, winding mountainous roads. Low commerce, low money for schools, public health, etc. Coal mining and strip clubs do well there, though. Some ski slopes as well. But these occupations largely don't require a degree, so probably there is some brain drain going on with intellectuals going elsewhere.

Lastly, not all whites are alike. Some white ethnicities have IQs that average 110 or higher, some have IQs that average ~90. That's a pretty big split, on par with the difference btwn the white average and black average.

Anonymous said...

" Maya said...
Tending swine or walking small circles in a desert for 40 years. Painting own self blue or tending to a carry on luggage which supposedly has God inside it. What is this, some kind of a contest of who's the biggest shmuck?"

HBD, the religion whose Golden Rule is that the course of evolution can be nudged by human will. This cult requires it members to have great faith and hope. The congregation uses blogs to evagelize.

Peter A said...

"why are white Ukraine, Moldova, Appalachia etc so poor? Isn't the thesis of the HBD crowd that whites have higher IQs and higher IQs lead to prosperity?"

The thesis is that whites are smarter than blacks on average. That doesn't mean you can't have pockets of very stupid whites. Especially in the modern world with increased mobility a sifting process is already going on whereby intelligent whites (or Asians or Indians) move out of communities of their less intelligent co-racials. You would expect pockets of white and Asian poverty and low IQ will get worse over time, not better. By the same token, if you strip Jews and Northern Europeans out of "whites", all of a sudden whites aren't looking that smart. Southern Italians, Greeks, South Slavs etc. do not constitute a high IQ population. True ethnic Russians and Ukrainians (as opposed to Russians of Jewish, German, Polish descent) also tend to be fairly stupid in my experience. There's a reason those countries have historically tended to be ruled by foreign elites.

Svigor said...

OT, the future of the US is NOT Brazil. But rather race-based spoils wars. Brazil has little welfare, little social spending, and thus the middle White class and middling Upper classes can escape the heavy hand of both the state and the favelas.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Mexico has little welfare because the White middle and upper classes aren't big enough to sustain such a large welfare class. They refuse to play. It's likely the same thing will happen here; the gov't will shrink from both ends - on one end, it'll lose legitimacy (because of the spoils game), and on the other end, it'll shrink voluntarily to chase legitimacy.

Very soon we are looking at confiscatory taxation to support an ever expanding welfare state keeping the kids of 16 year old Hispanic and Black girls alive. That is sure to trigger a taxation revolt.

Right. And the loss of legitimacy will be catastrophic to the welfare state, and it will consequently shrink to a shadow of its former self.

And demands for ever greater White social/cultural subservience as Whites rapidly erode in numbers.

Whites are the ones who demand and enforce subservience in other Whites. As their relative influence shrinks, they, too will withdraw their stake in the welfare state's legitimacy.

This will not end well. What people forget is how good White Beta Males are at organized, years-long, brutal violence in sustained industrial combat.

That's a good reason for it to end well. Because people actually don't forget stuff like that.

The near total dependency of non-Whites who are not Asians, plus rapidly declining Whites, equals a spoils war.

More likely, it equals a temporarily increasingly nasty spoils war, which triggers an abrupt slide onto a steep gradient toward illegitimacy and a rapidly shrinking gov't. People take their toys and go home.

This is all leaving aside the accelerant that is the federal debt, which is unsustainable regardless of demographic change.

Svigor said...

The secular authorities persecuted the Jews, the church protected them. The peasants? They were just pawns in the game.

There was (typically) a high-low split on that Church protection. The higher you went in the Church, the greater the affinity for the Jews, and the lower you went, the greater the antipathy (the upper ranks favored the nobility and Mammon, the lower ranks favored their constituents, the peasants and common folk)

The south may have been more worldly about human diversity because they had more.

The south had strong connections to the Caribbean states. They were intimately familiar with the results of Freedom + Negroes. Hunter Wallace is the guy you want to read for this stuff, his blog is jam-packed with it.

Then there's the theory that the North was terrified that the US might end up like the Caribbean (the blacks had pretty much taken over and things had gone a bit... uh, south, after the British freed the slaves in the Caribbean not that long before the Civil War. Thus Northern interest in stopping slave-state expansion--it was an effort to keep the US a white nation and not becoming a tense Caribbean-type place or even a place where ethnic cleansing was common.)

That's a real stretch. Abolition was a Yankee dream. Emancipation was a Yankee dream. Freedom + Negroes was a wholly Yankee notion. The south was terrified at the prospect, not the north.

That is a valid point, but how does that apply in the comparison of Brazil with eastern europe? Neither is reliant on immigrants. I wasn't comparing Ukraine to France but to Brazil.

You dragged France into it when you said:

the very worst off of the European countries are among the very whitest

Remember that? You implied that correlation implied causation, and were demolished for it. Too late to dodge, you're already impaled.

And you are Obsidian, aren't you? Just a guess, mind.

Svigor said...

There is a good selfish reason for why the Catholic Church protected the jews. They were presented to the people as living proof that the Bible was based on reality not myth like the pagan religions. The jews also had to be kept in inferior circumstances to the christians as evidence that they were being punished for rejecting Christ.

That's not a good selfish reason. It's a good fig leaf. The reason was Jewish wealth.

Matthew said...

"That still begs the question: why are white Ukraine, Moldova, Appalachia etc so poor? Isn't the thesis of the HBD crowd that whites have higher IQs and higher IQs lead to prosperity?"

No, HBD theory is that whites on average are smarter than blacks and Hispanics. No HBDist would argue that all ethnic groups and nationalities considered white are intellectual equals. Just as races did not evolve evenly, neither did the various sub-races (i.e., nationalities).

In addition, migration causes people to distribute themselves unevenly. Some of it is due to the natural advantages of a particular locale, which is why the Massachusetts Bay Colony, including Boston Harbor, quickly surpassed Plymouth Colony in size; and why the coastal regions of California continue to draw large numbers of well-educated people.

West Virginia has never been enticing to large numbers of whites with talent. Hardscrabble farming and coal mining were the primary options. In fact, that's why West Virginia is a separate state to begin with, and has few blacks - large-scale agriculture was never tenable there, so slavery wasn't economical, so they left Virginia at the start of the Civil War.

"I'm really surprised that Rosalind Franklin and her early death from ovarian cancer...has not been turned into a multi-Oscar release by The Weinstein Company already.

I read her biography, The Dark Lady of DNA, in a college course. Nothing exciting there to make a movie from, unless they make shit up (Hollywood do that? Never!)

The stipulation by her grandfather (iirc) to disinherit heirs who married Christians was thrown out in court, probably as a result of the rule against prepetuities.


"The jews also had to be kept in inferior circumstances to the christians as evidence that they were being punished for rejecting Christ."

Jews weren't really in inferior circumstances. During the Middle Ages they lived like the minor nobility.


When did all Christians receive full civil rights?

Ha! Indeed...

Bruce Banner said...

There´s a high likelidood that Mr. Benjamin´s ancestors were herding goats back then in Israel. Swine are not kosher.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"'Brazil's powerful economy is 100% white-run.'

Actually, there would appear to be a significant Jewish presence in Brazil's economy, too. Eduardo Saverin (the Facebook investor who recently renounced his U.S. citizenship) is Jewish, the son of a powerful Brazilian business magnate, and was a member of an all-Jewish fraternity at Harvard."

which, since Jews are White, simply confirms the fact that the Brazilian economy is run by Whites.

Anonymous said...

"Mayer Carl cut Margaretha out of his will for converting to Christianity. As late as 1887, Salomon James's widow Adele disinherited here Helen for marrying outside the faith. Even Alphonses's grandson Guy was reminded by his parents 'at every opportunity' that 'the most important rule was the one forbidding marriage with a woman who was not Jewish.'"

This happens too in modern day Illinois

Anonymous said...

Since the topic diverged to Brazil, here is some interesting stuff on the Confederados

Martin M. said...

The Museum of the Southern Jewish Experence is located in Utica, Mississippi. I'd encourage everyone to visit Utica, but there's a nice website if you're busy.

Anonymous said...

To the poster who lauds Brazil as an example of diversity working.

You are undoubtedly the same one who claims that Beethoven, Pushkin, and Dumas were great because they might have been part Black (the Beethoven claim is completely spurious of course if we just glance at the thirty or so portraits that were painted during B's lifetime (let me guess Mr. Afro-Centric, is that you Truth?, it was a KKKonspiracy!! of the painters to hide his true origins!)

Simply put, your specious arguments are an example of the fallacy of division and other related fallacies.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.

This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.

The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)... "

If the greatness of Brazil was due to its mixed race Black and Ameridean populationand not its 50%White population and rich natural resources then you would see the mixed race peoples and Blacks running things in Brazil,no? Except if you have actually been to Brazil you will see that is not the case in the industries that provide growth in Brazil.

Brazil's economic expansion has ocurred "despite" not "because of" its diversity.

Undoubtedly, even if Pushkin and Dumas were part Black their greatness is in "spite of" this fact not "because of" it.

Otherwise, we would see great literary traditions in Africa, but in actuality early White explorers of the sub-Sahara actually only found scant evidence of a written language.

Similarly, because Afrcan Americans are on average 20% White, the greatness of American Blacks such Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, etc.. must be due to their White genes, no?

Otherwise, you would see great music traditions in Africa. But you don't because prior to the introduction of Western musical forms such as the Western 12 note scale into Africa, Africans only used the five note pentatonic scale that was incapable of advanced harmony or melody (I will grant that they had some rythmic ideas of their own which differentiated their music from the West).

For this lesson in elementry logic, you may remit payment to Steve, who is kind enough and brave ennough to provide this wonderful forum.

Anonymous said...

That still begs the question: why are white Ukraine, Moldova, Appalachia etc so poor? Isn't the thesis of the HBD crowd that whites have higher IQs and higher IQs lead to prosperity?

I can't really speak for them, but I think that's an oversimplification.

(A) I doubt they think all Caucasian populations have the same average IQ (and recognize that populations can lose high-IQ members, e.g. due to their being drawn to emigrate away to places which give them better opportunities, or due to their being selected against in mass executions, etc.), and

(B) I doubt they think High-IQ is a sufficient condition for prosperity. They recognise that Northeast Asian populations have higher IQ than most White populations but mostly have lower standards of living because of their political institutions or other factors (I suppose, like the French at Dien Bien Phu, some of them suspect Asians lack the necessary elan or whatever). North and South Korea are, of course, the best example of how two populations starting with roughly the same genetic stock can have their fortunes diverge extremely quickly due to a combination of differing political systems and mass execution.

Lucille said...

That Mother Jones thread is an example of why I reject leftist thought: 95% of all leftists are incapable of actually debating opposing viewpoints. They truly believe that sarcasm and name-calling like "racist" is a substitute for debate.

Anonymous said...

Howard Schultz, perhaps? He wasn't Jewish and didn't live to see the CSA, but William Rufus DeVane King, a.k.a. "Miss Nancy", lives on in the name of Seattle's county. At least until recently, when it was MLKed.

It's only a matter of time before someone protests that the retcon of King County's name was homophobic. Order your popcorn now.

Anonymous said...

"Eduardo Saverin (the Facebook investor who recently renounced his U.S. citizenship) is Jewish, the son of a powerful Brazilian business magnate..."

When I first read of Saverin renouncing his citizenship to avoid taxes I wrote it off as unimportant. I vaguely recalled that Saverin was Brazilian and (wrongly) assumed he was only in the US attending Harvard when he co-founded Facebook. If that were the case I don't think he would owe the US any particular loyalty, and certainly not a lifetime of high tax rates.

This, however, is what Wikipedia has to say about him: "By 1993 [when Eduardo was only 11], Saverin's father had become wealthy, and in 1993 it was discovered that his son Eduardo´s name had been placed on a list of kidnapping victims by gangs specializing in kidnapping for ransom. As a result, the family moved to Miami to find a safer place to live. Saverin attended Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami, and went on to Harvard University."

So, he and his family came here seeking the safety and (by extension) freedom not available to him in Brazil. He benefitted from the best the US had to offer, from living in Miami, to attending an elite prep school, to attending the premiere American university founded by those nasty, vile WASPs. And then, when he makes bank, he gives us the middle finger.

Fuck these people. Really. And by "these people" I don't mean Jews, but all of the immigrants who come here for no reason other than to leech off the blessings of America while giving nothing back in return.

Dutch Boy said...

It is my understanding that the "whiteness" question about ethnics had nothing to do with a change in perceived racial category as it did with a change in identity - from Irish, Italian, Polish etc. as a primary self-identification to a generic "white."

Truth said...

"Indeed, who can forget that stunning scene in Gone With the Wind when Scarlett O'Hara's Irish last name is accidentally revealed, and thus she is immediately sold into slavery."

No Steve-O, there's truth to it; for instance, there was a law in colonial Virginia that anyone married to a slave could be legally enslaved. The slave traders brought over more men then women from Africa, and the "indentured servant" traders brought many more women then men from Ireland, this created many African slave males without wives...you can imagine what happened next...

Anonymous said...

"To the tri-racial Zimmermann being considered "white":"

Not anymore.

Baloo said...

Interesting that the big three Jews in political history — Disraeli, Benjamin, and Goldwater — were all Episcopalians, if memory serves, and that puts a different spin on the discussion.

Anonymous said...

"That still begs the question: why are white Ukraine, Moldova, Appalachia etc so poor? Isn't the thesis of the HBD crowd that whites have higher IQs and higher IQs lead to prosperity?"

It raises the question, not begs it. Ukraine has undergone a genocide within the last 80 years, was slammed by communism, and still has a serious russian problem to the tune of slightly less than half the country being essentially russian thanks to the soviets. And they are eastern European, so we don't quite know what they'll be able to do for themselves, If they ever get some peace and safety we'll see.

The poorest parts of appalachia are the most marginal land that the left end of the tail curve resides on, its an area where they can form a critical mass. The children that regress upwards bail, keeping the area poor.

Moldova I have no idea.

Anonymous said...

"From what I understand the Rothschild family also sided with the Confederacy."

From what I understand of the Rothschilds, I expect they sided with both sides.

Crawfurdmuir said...

ATBOTL said...
"If our ancestors were so primitive, why did this guy's ancestors leave the paradise that is the Middle East to live with them?"

The Roman emperor Titus had something to do with it - see the "Jewish Wars" of Flavius Josephus. The later emperor Hadrian finished the job Titus began - see Dio Cassius.

Judah Benjamin was a Sephardic Jew, as was Disraeli. The Sephardim in Holland and Britain were rather different in their politics from the German and eastern European Ashkenzic Jews. In Britain, the Sephardim tended to be Jacobites and Tories, a consequence of the declarations of indulgence given them by Charles II and James II. James II's daughter the princess Anne (queen from 1702-14) was the first English royal to visit a synagogue.

The largest Jewish settlements in colonial America were at Charleston, S.C., a bastion of tolerant Anglicanism, and Newport, R.I., where the Baptist Roger Williams had fled from the Puritans of the Bay Colony to establish a colony without a religious establishment. Puritan Massachusetts did not welcome Jews, and while Nieuw Amsterdam under the rule of Peter Stuyvesant had a small Jewish contingent, Stuyvesant tried to discourage Jewish settlement and described the Jews as "the deceitful race, – such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ," desiring that they "be not allowed to further infect and trouble this new colony."

On the subject of Confederate Jews, it's interesting to note that the famous Jewish financier of the 1920s and '30s, Bernard Baruch, was one of the sons of Robert E. Lee's personal physician. Simon Baruch, of Camden, S.C. Baruch's mother, a Sephardic Jewess of old colonial stock, was an early member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In 1925, Bernard Baruch endowed the UDC's Mrs. Simon Baruch University Award for scholarly writing on Confederate history.

Truth said...

Hey, you guys are always bloviating about black people being shoehorned into movies that are quintessentially white, but tell me; is that life following art, or art following life?

Research data said...

Anon sez:
You're right Steve, but it's more basic than that too. Were the Irish ever excluded from the category of 'free white citizens'? Is there any evidence of the Irish being considered 'non-white' from a legal standpoint? No. What's interesting to me is how an idea so fraudulent, so lacking in evidence, can take root so quickly.

^^Kevin Drum never said the IRish suffered from being LEGALLY excluded as free white citizens. He said they were excluded from the societal privilege of whiteness. Two different things. One canhave the LEGAL status of a citizen an still be discriminated against or looked down on socially.

And here is an indicator of why this idea is popular: the Irish, like many others, were not socially accepted as WASP Americans... because they were not WASP Americans.
Actually that's not an indicator at all as to why the idea of "acceptance into whiteness" is "popular." It is clearly documented historically that the Irish were despised going back to the time of their struggles against the ENglish. This prejudice translated into the American context, where the Irish were still initially seen as savage and sub-human, and thus not altogehter white. There is clear historial documentation on how they were perceived. Kevin Drum is on solid ground historically as to his point. See How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev or more general histories like New directions in Irish-American history, KEvin Kenney 2003 or The Columbia guide to Irish American history, T. Meagher 2005.


The abolish- whitey crowd love to explore and invent the intricacies of race identity, but they're deliberately conflating the varied social reception of the Irish with racial categories backed by law.
Kevin Drum never conflated that reception with explicit racial categories by law, nor do the "abolish whitey crowd" do the same. Can you name any credible historian that does this?

Blank Slate Fascism has literally been the undoing of this and perhaps every other Western country. You are not. Allowed. To criticize. Blank slatism. Ever.
Actually Blank Slate Facism is not the only problem undoing Western countries. One of the most devasting hurricanes to hit "the West" was racism- most notably in the form of an ex-corporal named Schickelgruber, who left tens of millions dead, included 6 million plus civilians murdered in the name of "racial cleansing."


Then there's the theory that the North was terrified that the US might end up like the Caribbean (the blacks had pretty much taken over and things had gone a bit... uh, south, after the British freed the slaves in the Caribbean not that long before the Civil War. Thus Northern interest in stopping slave-state expansion--it was an effort to keep the US a white nation and not becoming a tense Caribbean-type place or even a place where ethnic cleansing was common.)
Can you name any credible hsitorian than asserts the above? Plantation owners in the British empire were cashed out and compensated by the British government on abolition, and the ex-slaves for the most part still had to provide labor in the plantations though not under the same harsh slavery regime. SO how did things How did things "go south" when the British abolished slavery? WHere was this alleged "ethnic cleansing" after British abolition pray tell?

Salmon P. Chase said...

Actually, the funny thing is that if the Confederates were hoping that Judah P. Benjamin would be good with money, the picked the wrong Jew. Admittedly, the South was at a disadvantage financially for a number of reasons, but national and local fiscal and monetary policies combined to make the worst of a bad situation (see Douglas B. Ball, *Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat*). JPB made no real effort to advocate and implement a sound currency (there were options available other than just printing paper money, which is what they wound up doing).

Anonymous said...

I read somewhere that jewish slaveowners in the South owned more slaves per capita than their gentile counterparts.

Could that be because Marie Thereze Coincoin is forgotten about?

Anonymous said...

The uncomfortable truth for the WN types is that there is huge diversity amongst whites. Southeastern Europe (with the exception of Greece) has always been poor and backwards. Either the tens of millions of whites in this region of Europe are not nearly as smart on average or it proves the huge importance of culture.

Anonymous said...

When Napoleon freed the jews from their ghettos 2 centuries ago and allowed them full civil rights, it was over the strenuous objections of the Church


The striking things about Jews is their entirely Jew-centric understanding of history. You might expect something like this from blacks, but Jews are, allegedly at least, cosmopolitan, intelligent and educated people.

And yet they keep displaying this stunted and parochial perspective.

Anonymous said...

The ancient Brits were far from savages, and Disraeli's ancestors probably never set a foot in Palestine. Glibness over substance as usual.

Steve Sailer said...

So, that's why boxer John L. Sullivan, the son Boston-born son of Irish immigrants, was so unpopular in the 1890s!

Oh, wait ... from Wikipedia:

"He was the first American sports hero to become a national celebrity and the first American athlete to earn over one million dollars."

Anonymous said...

"The uncomfortable truth for the WN types is that there is huge diversity amongst whites. Southeastern Europe...has always been poor and backwards. Either the tens of millions of whites in this region of Europe are not nearly as smart on average or it proves the huge importance of culture."

How are differences between ethnic groups any different, biologically, than differences between races?

HBD has never been premised on equality, within or between races. There are a vast number of viable explanations for why SE Europeans may be genetically less intelligent than NW Europeans.

And even when culture matters it may not be in the way you intend. Culture can shape evolution by creating its own selection pressures. See Cochran's & Harpending's recent book. While humans were busy domesticating plants and beasts we were also busy domesticating ourselves - at the genetic level. In fact higher intelligence may be as much about domestication as it is about random new mutations arising in various groups. African-Americans have plenty of white admixture, but they still have yet to produce a Nobel science laureate or more than about 2 billionaires. If it were a matter of inheriting a few good alleles we'd already be seeing a lot more black geniuses and CEOs. "Human domestication" is a big part of why some populations are smarter than others, and domestication was as uneven in Europe as it was anywhere in the world.

Anonymous said...

When did all Christians receive full civil rights?

During the Enlightenment which stood against feudalism and the power of the Church.

Napoleon emancipated the jews under his dominion giving them the same rights as the rest of the citizenry, something that was denied the jews under christendom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Jews


"The ascendancy of Napoleon Bonaparte proved to be an important event in European Jewish emancipation from old laws restricting them to ghettos, as well as the many laws that limited Jews' rights to property, worship, and careers.


The French Revolution abolished the different treatment of people according to religion or origin that existed under the monarchy; the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guaranteed freedom of religion and free exercise of worship, provided that it did not contradict public order."

Anonymous said...

Actually Blank Slate Facism is not the only problem undoing Western countries. One of the most devasting hurricanes to hit "the West" was racism- most notably in the form of an ex-corporal named Schickelgruber, who left tens of millions dead, included 6 million plus civilians murdered in the name of "racial cleansing."

They always "forget" the "hurricane" of the anti-racist Bolsheviks. The Red Terror, the Holodomor and the Great Purge all preceded the Holocaust by quite a few years.

Anonymous said...

"That Mother Jones thread is an example of why I reject leftist thought: 95% of all leftists are incapable of actually debating opposing viewpoints."

Based on my Facebook friends, leftists are by far the biggest assholes. When my conservative friends post something on politics they're generally pretty respectful. They never imply that those who disagree are either stupid or evil. Just about every lefty friend I have (or had) on Facebook routinely implies exactly such things.

The Left is so far gone it's not even funny. Many of those on the Right - Iraq War supporters, tax-cut-for-the-rich enthusiasts, snake handling talking-in-tongues, trees-for-Israel types - aren't all that far behind.

SFG said...

1. What do people know about the story that the Southern flag is an 'X' and not a cross because a Jewish guy wrote in and complained the flag shouldn't be the emblem of a particular region?

2. So the Rothschilds wouldn't let their children marry out of the faith. Were there any other instances of actual anti-Gentile bigotry by them? I imagine they were as venial as any other commercial concern...

3. "Interesting that the big three Jews in political history — Disraeli, Benjamin, and Goldwater — were all Episcopalians, if memory serves, and that puts a different spin on the discussion."

You could think of a few others--those were the only ones on the right, at least as far as such labels apply that far back. (Disraeli's rural-rich coalition was the ancestor of modern conservatism, so it may.) That said you'd expect conservatives to be more willing to conform, to the point of converting.

4. As for Disraeli and the Celts: I'm not sure the level of civilization was that different, but the other fellow started it. Disraeli had a couple of good quips; the Brits were always more tolerant of wit in their politicians.

Matthew said...

"This happens too in modern day Illinois"

In fairness, the Feinbergs didn't disinherit grandchildren who married convert (non-ethnic) Jews. Interesting that 4 of their 5 grandchildren married out of the faith. Virtually all of the Jews I know from college, high school and work married non-Jews as well.

Anonymous said...

It seems mendacious to depict ethnic conflict between WASPs and other whites as somehow related to questions of "whiteness." During WW1 the Brits produced propaganda that depicted "The Hun" as generally subhuman and even as apelike. Does that mean that the English considered the Germans to be nonwhite?

Anonymous said...

The uncomfortable truth for the WN types is that there is huge diversity amongst whites. Southeastern Europe (with the exception of Greece) has always been poor and backwards. Either the tens of millions of whites in this region of Europe are not nearly as smart on average or it proves the huge importance of culture.

They turn a blind eye to uncomfortable truths.

Here are some more uncomfortable truths:

The ancient christian nations of the Caucasus Georgia (per capita income $3,200) and Armenia (per capita income $3000). Compare that to Mexico's per capita income of over $10,000.

The currently wealthy and advanced northwestern europeans were impoverished and uncouth barbarians just a few centuries ago. Did they suddenly acquire high IQ just a few dozen generations ago?

Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Cauvin and Knox said...

During the Enlightenment which stood against feudalism and the power of the Church.


Uhhh...

"Enlightenment" == "Reformation" ?!?!?!?

Anonymous said...

Ukraine has undergone a genocide within the last 80 years, was slammed by communism, and still has a serious russian problem to the tune of slightly less than half the country being essentially russian thanks to the soviets.

You are right about the last one, although not in the sense that you intended. When the Soviets drew the borders of Ukraine they gifted it with many lands to the East and the South that were always more Russian than Ukrainian. Ironically, these areas are now wealthier than the Ukraine proper, while during the Soviet period they were poorer.

Moldova I have no idea.

Moldova is a tiny, tiny place, unable to stand on its own economically, that was left high and dry by the breakup of the USSR. in the Soviet days they specialized in growing fruit and making wine and shipping all that up North. After the USSR disappeared their Northern neighbors realized that they could get the same goods elsewhere, but cheaper and of a higher quality. To survive, Moldova needs to trade with the outside; but at the moment it has nothing anyone else wants.

Sheila said...

"The striking things about Jews is their entirely Jew-centric understanding of history. You might expect something like this from blacks, but Jews are, allegedly at least, cosmopolitan, intelligent and educated people.

And yet they keep displaying this stunted and parochial perspective."


This.

And this, too: "The ancient Brits were far from savages, and Disraeli's ancestors probably never set a foot in Palestine. Glibness over substance as usual."

Anonymous said...

By the 1890s the Irish had arrived. They took control of whole cities and, in fact, were busy putting down the more recent waves of white immigrants. There was a lot of bad blood between the Irish and the Italians for decades until the 1960s.

corvinus said...

It raises the question, not begs it. Ukraine has undergone a genocide within the last 80 years, was slammed by communism, and still has a serious russian problem to the tune of slightly less than half the country being essentially russian thanks to the soviets. And they are eastern European, so we don't quite know what they'll be able to do for themselves, If they ever get some peace and safety we'll see.

Yes. Genocide, Communism, and transitioning out of Communism all put severe strain on Ukraine and explain nicely why it's not as rich as France now. I wouldn't say the Russian presence per se really made things worse, since Ukrainians and Russians are related people. Soviet rule definitely hurt, though -- having 100% of your economy run by the state -- and then removing Soviet rule and building a new economy from scratch was another severe blow. It took the whole 1990s and part of the oughts to get back on their feet enough to count as a real economy again. Ironically, because they hyperinflated and/or devalued away all their debt, they're in a better situation than much of the rest of Europe (*cough* Greece *cough*)

The poorest parts of appalachia are the most marginal land that the left end of the tail curve resides on, its an area where they can form a critical mass. The children that regress upwards bail, keeping the area poor.

Pretty much. We can also point out that they're so white because they never attracted nonwhite parasites.

Moldova I have no idea.
The Appalachia of Ukraine. (Or Romania, rather.)

Anonymous said...

"Enlightenment" == "Reformation" ?!?!?!?

Of course not. The protestants were as religiously intolerant as the Catholics. Calvin burned the protestant scientist Servetus at the stake for criticizing belief in the Trinity.

When the Enlightenment liberals who founded the American Republic passed the Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion they were defanging the Protestant churches of the american colonies.

Anonymous said...

"You are right about the last one, although not in the sense that you intended. When the Soviets drew the borders of Ukraine they gifted it with many lands to the East and the South that were always more Russian than Ukrainian. Ironically, these areas are now wealthier than the Ukraine proper, while during the Soviet period they were poorer."

Yea, I meant in terms of a demographic issue that The Ukraine is going to have, though it is probably a non-sequitur to bring up.

Anonymous said...

gah, posted this in the wrong thread:

"The ancient christian nations of the Caucasus Georgia (per capita income $3,200) and Armenia (per capita income $3000). Compare that to Mexico's per capita income of over $10,000."

Mexico is next to a country that has continually invested in it for more than a century, and is quite rich in natural resources, Georgia and Armenia have had a somewhat different historical and geographical circumstances.

"The currently wealthy and advanced northwestern europeans were impoverished and uncouth barbarians just a few centuries ago. Did they suddenly acquire high IQ just a few dozen generations ago?"
No, we were wealthy and advanced back then as well. the genes for IQ have been there for probably a while now, though they may not have been as able to express themselves until within the past 1500 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205234308.htm

I will concede that there have been serious cultural changes among northwestern Europeans, such as christianity destroying clannish tribalism for the most part, atleast in western Europe. hbdchick has plenty on the mayoral system, marriage practices, and other factors that have spent the past millenium changing us into who we are today.

Anonymous said...

were as religiously intolerant as the Catholics. Calvin burned the protestant scientist Servetus at the stake for criticizing belief in the Trinity.

When the Enlightenment liberals

the "Enlightened" 'liberals' of the first French republic destroyed St. Denis one of the most beautiful monestaries every built.

They wanted to destroy Chartres cathedral but were thrawted because an engineer convinced them that they did not have the manpower to clean up the rubble that would result in pulling it down.

Anonymous said...

What do people know about the story that the Southern flag is an 'X' and not a cross
It's st. andrew's cross - like that of Scotland's national flag.

New York Jews however, did get rid of crosses on city ambulances and pressured the rest of the country to follow suit.

Anonymous said...

So, that's why boxer John L. Sullivan, the son Boston-born son of Irish immigrants, was so unpopular in the 1890s!
Admiral Farragut (damn the torpedos) was of Spanish descent. Decatur (great naval captain) was french hugoneot.

Research data said...

Anonymous said...
The uncomfortable truth for the WN types is that there is huge diversity amongst whites. Southeastern Europe (with the exception of Greece) has always been poor and backwards. Either the tens of millions of whites in this region of Europe are not nearly as smart on average or it proves the huge importance of culture.

Indeed. You raise a good point. There are many factors in the mix besides the simplistic "race-iq" distortions spun by the "biodiversity" or "HBD" crowd. And numerous European countries have failed to produce Nobel Science laureates, including Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Moldovans, Icelanders, Serbians, SLovakians, Swiss, Turks, Macedonians and the much touted Greeks.

Culture can shape evolution by creating its own selection pressures. See Cochran's & Harpending's recent book. While humans were busy domesticating plants and beasts we were also busy domesticating ourselves - at the genetic level.
Humans don't "domesticate themselves at the genetic level" How for example did Greeks "domesticate" themselves to acquire elements of Haplogroup E?


Anon 2 said:
African-Americans have plenty of white admixture, but they still have yet to produce a Nobel science laureate or more than about 2 billionaires. If it were a matter of inheriting a few good alleles we'd already be seeing a lot more black geniuses and CEOs.
But Nobel Prizes are a very recent development for Europeans. The much touted Greeks have failed to produce any for example. If Europeans were these alleged "leaders" in "self-domestication" why didn't they invent the alphabet, or metalurgy, or algebra, or trigernometry, or powered machinery, or monumental building, or the key plant and animal domestications that revolutionized human culture? WHy did it take the Natufians, a people with clear sub-Saharan links to pioneer the Neolithic Revolution? WHy didn't white NEanderthals pioneer plant and animal doemstication? They had tens of thousands of years and a rich eco-system bursting with plants and animals such as ancestral wheat, barley, pigs and cattle. YEt they failed to move beyond the Stone Age. What happened to the alleged "leaders" in "self-domestication"?

See
The
pioneering Natufians




And even more ironic, conservative geneticists show white EUropeans are not a "pure" race at all but mixed breed hybrids, one-third African and two-thirds Asian. The touted "self-domesicated" Noble Prizes are the product of mixed breeds per these DNA studies. See Cavalli-Sforza:

Europeans
are a mixed, African_Asian hybrid population

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer said...I don't believe even the Japanese try to compete in the airliner market, but the Brazilians have done okay in it. That's impressive.

It is, but a friend of mine (works in aircraft maintenance) says Embraer planes are OK, but they arent built to last - he works on them regularly. He made a direct comparison between Embraer planes and these British built aircraft, the BAe 146 which he also works on. Apparently they are a lot more durable, their theoretical working lives much longer.

Anonymous said...

The uncomfortable truth for the WN types is that there is huge diversity amongst whites. etc etc

Is this a straw man argument I see before me?

Plenty of WN types acknowledge difference between different white groups, between north & south in Europe.

Its not WNs saying whites are a monolithic group.

Anonymous said...

The issue isn't Kevin Drum, it's the argument put forth by your 'credible' historians (Ignatiev et al), who posit a uniquely evil WASP collective, capable of imposing a uniform, ethereal, but 100% determinative 'system' of 'white privilege' that other groups (again, as coherent, unified collectives) can 'join' for a 'price'. Whereas the reality is hostility towards the Irish varied from place to place, and this variation can be explained by lots of factors, one of which would be the behavior of the Irish themselves, or, more precisely, their tolerance for the behavior of certain portions of their society. I don't disagree that the Irish were despised by many, no one does, but that's not the argument Ignatiev is making, he's saying they were excluded from a fungible category, whiteness, and that by being anti-black they were admitted into this category. By whom? Was there some Protocols of the Elders of Episcopalianism deciding these things? More importantly, where does this hatred towards WASPs come from? That there's your conspiracy, boy-o, and a real one too.
But let's continue. Let's talk about why the Irish didn't get along with blacks. Your crowd say it was to gain acceptance. Whereas I think it had something to do with the behavior of blacks, the behavior of the Irish, wage competition, many things. The idea some Irish tough was fighting blacks to gain acceptance from the WASPS is laughable; if they were actually trying to gain social acceptance they would have done the opposite, especially in the North. But in your little narrative (which pays you all so well!) there is only the WASP, everyone else is acted upon, never acting.


BTW, Steve, a great book on this subject is here...

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-South-1815-1877-David-Gleeson/dp/0807849685/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337395821&sr=1-4

wherein one can learn even more about those non-white Irishmen. What really pisses me off about this 'whiteness' crap is its profligate historical illiteracy, always matched by the the slack- jawed faggotry of the 'credible' crowd. Posturing is the most popular sport of your types; it's the only thing you're good at.

Another link, here's John Mitchel's Jail Journal,

http://archive.org/details/jailjournalorfi00mitcgoog

where you can learn all about his non-whiteness. Heck, go deeper and find out about his grandson, that famously non-white 'boy' mayor of New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Purroy_Mitchel

Anonymous said...

No, we were wealthy and advanced back then as well. the genes for IQ have been there for probably a while now, though they may not have been as able to express themselves until within the past 1500 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205234308.htm


According to your own link England was very far from "wealthy" during the Middle Ages. Unless you consider a per capita income of $1000/year (in 1990 dollars) wealthy.

In any case I was talking about the barbarian age of northern europeans, which preceded the medieval age by a few centuries. Why couldn't the natives of the British Isles, or France, or Germany, in their pure racial state for thousands of years produce any science, literature, philosophy etc that could qualify them as civilized?

Anonymous said...

Mexico is next to a country that has continually invested in it for more than a century, and is quite rich in natural resources, Georgia and Armenia have had a somewhat different historical and geographical circumstances.

In other words there are non-genetic explanations for wealth and poverty? Welcome to the real world.

Here are some more inconvenient truths for the HBD/IQ crowd:

Trinidad and Tobago, ~100% non-white, per capita income $17,000

Venezuela, ~80% non-white, anti-american and not located next to the USA, per capita income $10,000

Barbados, 96% non-white, per capita income $16,000

Bosnia and Herzegovina, 100% white, per capita income $4,600

Belarus, 100% white.per capita income $5,900

Anonymous said...

There were so few Jews in America in the early days and probably fewer still in the largely rural South that they had to accommodate whatever culture they were surrounded by. There wasn't going to be a critical mass of Jews in the antebellum South to organize along ethnic lines, so they ingratiated themselves to the powers that be just like they did in medieval Europe. I think Italians and Greeks faced some discrimination particularly in Southern cities or border state cities. There were anti-Greek riots in Omaha, Nebraska because a Greek man was talking to a "white" woman in the early 20th century. There was also the trial of Leo Frank, a wealthy Jewish businessman in Georgia during WW1, were a white gentile mob lynched him because his death sentence was commuted to life in prison by the governor. All the killers were publicly known and none were ever tried for the murder. Over half the Jews in the state of Georgia left after that happened. He was largely convicted on the word of a black man. Evidently Southern WASPs found Northern Jews less trustworthy than they did blacks under Jim Crow. The Irish were largely cannon fodder for the Union and Confederate Armies, and Southern plantation owners used Irish immigrants to do work they considered "too dangerous" for slaves to do like swamp draining. These examples are largely 19th and early 20th century, but nontheless real. Later as the 20th century wore on, Northern European Protestants increasingly accepted these non-WASP ethnic groups.

Anonymous said...

The ancient Brits were far from savages, and Disraeli's ancestors probably never set a foot in Palestine. Glibness over substance as usual

Considering the the ancient Brits left behind no records about themselves they couldn't have been all that advanced.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The exchange was not not about whose ancestors were more civilized. It was about a matter much more important to a mid-19th century man: whose ancestors worshiped True God.

Research data said...

Anonymous said...

it's the argument put forth by your 'credible' historians (Ignatiev et al), who posit a uniquely evil WASP collective, capable of imposing a uniform, ethereal, but 100% determinative 'system' of 'white privilege' that other groups (again, as coherent, unified collectives) can 'join' for a 'price'.
Your claim itself is a bit of a distortion of Ignatiev's argument. He and other similar scholars admit variability from place to place, not your so-called "100% determinative" 'system' of 'white privilege'. There could not have been "100% determinism" espoused because Ignatiev and other "whiteness" scholars admit that white atitudes and behaviors varied based on several factors- religion being one of them. So sure the whiteness crowd has to stretch their theory re "admission to whiteness" - but they never claimed that there was any monolithic central whiteness headquarters handing out 100% membership cards.


Let's talk about why the Irish didn't get along with blacks. Your crowd say it was to gain acceptance. Whereas I think it had something to do with the behavior of blacks, the behavior of the Irish, wage competition, many things.

They aint my crowd as my previous blog quotations of Sowell illustrate.


.. if they were actually trying to gain social acceptance they would have done the opposite, especially in the North. But in your little narrative (which pays you all so well!) there is only the WASP, everyone else is acted upon, never acting.

Actually your logic seems flawed here. You say the Irish would have done the opposite and have been nice to blacks if they were attempting to gain acceptance. This does not at all square with social reality at the time, nor the historical data. In fact, many in the WASP establishment were hostile to blacks and passed laws restricting their social and economic activities before the Irish arrived. In some states like "liberal" New York for example, free blacks were forbidden from entering certain occupations or buying property in various areas. In some northern states, interracial hookups were forbidden, breaking up common law unions that had been freely entered into between blacks and whites for decades.

In short, there was plenty of anti-black racism BEFORE the Irish arrived in significant numbers. The Irish "fit right in" by doing what the WASPS were already doing. ANd many Irish were strong in anti-abolitionism, which again, was quite in sync with the political and merchant interests in the north making a profit from things associated with slavery. In sum, the Irish "fit right in with the (anti-black) program" when they appeared.
See Foote 2004 (Black and WHite Manhattan) for the well documented anti-black racism of early New York. So while there was no "Protocols of the Elders of Episcopalianism" for on "whiteness certification" the record shows that Irish racism was quite in keeping with the racism of their fellow white citizens.

Anonymous said...

"According to your own link England was very far from "wealthy" during the Middle Ages. Unless you consider a per capita income of $1000/year (in 1990 dollars) wealthy."
For 800 years ago, yeah that is wealthy.

"In any case I was talking about the barbarian age of northern europeans, which preceded the medieval age by a few centuries." - You said few dozen generations, which this falls into.

"Why couldn't the natives of the British Isles, or France, or Germany, in their pure racial state for thousands of years produce any science, literature, philosophy etc that could qualify them as civilized?"
The crux of the argument is that the harsh ice age conditions that caused the selection for higher IQ, among other things, also prevented civilization from forming. That said, the keys to cracking, or perhaps expediting, the European miracle came from further south(end of tribalism due to Christianity, agricultural techniques, and so on).


-----

"In other words there are non-genetic explanations for wealth and poverty? Welcome to the real world."
Some absolutely, that does not change the fact that genetics play a role as well.

"Venezuela, ~80% non-white, anti-american and not located next to the USA, per capita income $10,000"
"Venezuela's proven oil reserves are among the top ten in the world. Oil generates about 80 percent of the country’s total export revenue, contributes about half of the central government’s income, and is responsible for about one-third of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP)."

"Barbados, 96% non-white, per capita income $16,000"
"Dependent on international business and tourism, almost everything has to be imported"
http://www.bermuda-online.org/economy.htm

Trinidad and Tobago I don't have anything at the tip of my finger for this former british colony.

We get it, Eastern Europe is in terrible shape, especially when we've bombed and helped tear the area apart(not that it needed much help).

Anonymous said...

There were anti-Greek riots in Omaha, Nebraska because a Greek man was talking to a "white" woman in the early 20th century. There was also the trial of Leo Frank, a wealthy Jewish businessman in Georgia during WW1, were a white gentile mob lynched him because his death sentence was commuted to life in prison by the governor. All the killers were publicly known and none were ever tried for the murder. Over half the Jews in the state of Georgia left after that happened.

Along with the greeks and jews the italians also faced racial/ethnic prejudice in pre-1960s America. One could look at this as a continuation of the ancient hostility between the nordic barbarians and the mediterranean races of the Roman Empire. The Italian Mafia thrived for decades as muscle and avenue for revenge for many a sicilian immigrant racially abused by the WASPs and Irish.

Even today in Australia the local anglo aussies are hostile towards immigrant greeks, italians, lebanese, aka the "wogs". Leading to incidents like the Cronulla Riots of 2005 between anglos and lebanese (the "whitest" of the arabs) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots

Research data said...

Anon says:
According to your own link England was very far from "wealthy" during the Middle Ages. Unless you consider a per capita income of $1000/year (in 1990 dollars) wealthy.

In any case I was talking about the barbarian age of northern europeans, which preceded the medieval age by a few centuries. Why couldn't the natives of the British Isles, or France, or Germany, in their pure racial state for thousands of years produce any science, literature, philosophy etc that could qualify them as civilized?


There are many factors that make up economic and technological advance, and nations and peoples change over time. Britain was once a poor backwater, but over centuries, that changed. Likewise advanced Asian nations fell behind and had to catchup. The mix is complex and contradicts simplistic one-issue HBD claims.

Indeed, in the medieval period, some African kingdoms such as Mali were much more prosperous that Britain and various other European kingdoms, in monetary wealth and territorial extent. As Thomas SOwell notes, history reshuffles the rankings of peoples and nations, another warning against simplistic "race" models.

Along with the medieval era, one could ask your same question of the NEanderthal era. The white cold-adapted Neanderthals in EUrope had a rich ecosystem to work with but did not move beyond the stone age .. Here is an example of the favorable environment they had:

"Sea levels plummeted more than 300 feet; dry land connected not only North America and Asia but Britain and continental Europe. Southern Europe was cold, dry and covered with rich grasslands. In regions with some topographical relief, like southwest France and northern Spain, vegetation was more varied; sheltered and exposed localities created different micro-climates. ..
To judge from discoveries of pollen and seed at some sites, and from engravings at others, peoples of Lascaux and their contemporaries ate blueberries, raspberries, acorns, hazelnuts, and other tubers, nuts, berries and grasses.
The last Ice Age was by no means a period of unrelieved cold, millennium after millennium. Temperatures fluctuated, sometimes coming close to today's balmy interglacial climes, and the animal and plant communities fluctuated in concert with them. Warmer climes brought woodland and forest where only open grassland had existed previously. At the same time, the horses and bison- animals of the plains, were replaced with red deer, wild boar and other confines of a forest habitat.. "

-- Lewin, Roger (1988). In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 144

The above data contradicts the claims of assorted HBD proponents that so-called "harsh" European environments sparked a supposed "leap" in "IQ" that made all the good and great possible. To the contrary, the environments were not "harsh" or "unforgiving" at all, but richly resourced, stable and predictable, yet cold-climate Neanderthalers and early cold-climate Europeans failed to move beyond the Stone Age. It was the coming of anatomically modern humans from Africa, tropically adapted migrants from Africa that finally brought about epochal leaps in technology and culture to Europe. See Brace 2005, Holliday 2001, Stringer 1991, Trinkhaus 2000. et al for the data)

Notes
on human culture

rob said...

Oh relax people, Benjamin was firing off a flippant response to a taunt.

It was not a taunt. Judah was a Hebrew who behaved as vilely as Pharaoh did in that silly book.

Anonymous said...

"Along with the medieval era, one could ask your same question of the NEanderthal era. The white cold-adapted Neanderthals in Europe had a rich ecosystem to work with but did not move beyond the stone age .. Here is an example of the favorable environment they had" - Neanderthal spent a disproportionate amount of his time hunting for food, which is why he was outcompeted.

"stable and predictable"
"Temperatures fluctuated"
You are contradicting your source, more to the point, it is arguing that Southern Europe had a warmer climate, to which I can only respond: duh.

"It was the coming of anatomically modern humans from Africa, tropically adapted migrants from Africa that finally brought about epochal leaps in technology and culture to Europe. See Brace 2005, Holliday 2001, Stringer 1991, Trinkhaus 2000. et al for the data)" - Post-SubSaharan/North African split.

Anonymous said...

"In any case I was talking about the barbarian age of northern europeans, which preceded the medieval age by a few centuries. Why couldn't the natives of the British Isles, or France, or Germany, in their pure racial state for thousands of years produce any science, literature, philosophy etc that could qualify them as civilized?"
There's never been a period of a "pure racial state". Ancient Europe is characterized by waves of migrating peoples with different genetic resemblance to each other intermixing. And obviously culture isn't only transmitted through genes. But anyway, it was Northern barbarians who invented the wheel which gave them an advantage big enough to spread their culture (genes and language) all the way to India. It's also the language and mythology of these barbarians that dominated Europe's civilized parts before Christianity entered. So culture was also transmitted from the North to South before it was the other way around. That must count for something I think. If I understand your point we are on the same side here - culture doesn't automatically manifest due certain genes. But this can be said without invoking images of primitive barbarians receiving all their culture from the South when historically it traveled both ways (including East to West and West to East of course.)

Anonymous said...

There was also the trial of Leo Frank, a wealthy Jewish businessman in Georgia during WW1, were a white gentile mob lynched him because his death sentence was commuted to life in prison by the governor. All the killers were publicly known and none were ever tried for the murder. Over half the Jews in the state of Georgia left after that happened.
you forgot to mention that there were two jews on frank's jury that found him guilty. What angered people was the fact that he seemed to be 'getting away with murder' - and if you examine his behavior he was as much an 'angel' as trayvon. he was lynched for being jewish but for being a child rapist and murderer.

you also slip right past 'his death sentence was commuted by the governor' why was it, who had it commuted and why? Look into what's being attempted with Jon. Pollard now and you have your answer.

Anonymous said...

The Irish were largely cannon fodder for the Union and Confederate Armies,
so where 100,000 of yankee boys - countless towns in new england lost every able bodied male of fighting age (because regiments were organized by region, so, a reg. leading an assualt would suffer 80-90% losses.

The insulting idea, constantly put forth by ethnics of all stripes, is that anglo-saxons didn't fight as much.

BTW, Irish also rioted because they didn't want to fight - which gave the south hope and probably prolonged the war.

Further, up until the 60s when the 'new elite' came in, the WASP elite and upper middle classes, like the anglo elite in the UK, actually suffered higher losses than enlisted because they made up front line officers.

My family could be classified as 'blue book" (though no longer, since they NYT is now the 'decider' of 'society') - my Uncle and many of his classmates withdrew from their ivy league school to enlist in WWII - despite the fact that he and my family were America First republicans.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 5/18/12 9:59 PM :

BS comment #1:
The Italian Mafia thrived for decades as muscle and avenue for revenge
There is 'mafia' in Sicily and it's a huge problem throughout italy. Did WASPS 'cause' this too?

BS Comment#2:
Leading to incidents like the Cronulla Riots of 2005 between anglos and lebanese (the "whitest" of the arabs)
The riots were between MUSLIM lebanses who had stabbed an aussie lifeguard (something of sacrilege in Australia ) and muslim gang-raping and harassment of white women - and the muslim 'community' protecting them and many saying aussie (White) women 'deserve it' this is a common pattern whereever they go- similar to Somalies..

Your disingenuous lies/self deception are worthy of MSM but won't fly on Isteve.

Research data said...

ANon sez:
"stable and predictable"
"Temperatures fluctuated"
You are contradicting your source, more to the point, it is arguing that Southern Europe had a warmer climate, to which I can only respond: duh.


^^No your reading comprehension is off. I said the RESOURCE BASE was stable and predictable not the climate. And it is not southern Europe, but Europe as a whole had variable temperatures that the author references, and was hardly the so-callled "harsh" and "unforgiving" venue painted by HBD proponents.


There's never been a period of a "pure racial state". Ancient Europe is characterized by waves of migrating peoples with different genetic resemblance to each other intermixing. And obviously culture isn't only transmitted through genes. But anyway, it was Northern barbarians who invented the wheel which gave them an advantage big enough to spread their culture (genes and language) all the way to India.

You are again woefully misinformed. Northern barbarians did not "invent the wheel." Quit making up stories and get a grip on basic anthropology.


So culture was also transmitted from the North to South before it was the other way around.

Inaccurate again. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa, in the south. It was from there that the flow of culture began, not the north. You need to get a grip on basic history and evolution.

Durendal said...

And who can forget those oppressive miscegenation laws preventing intermarriage between Irish and Anglo-Saxon?

Svigor said...

I think this thread has made it clear:

Wogs, ethnics, darkies, etc., are just not safe around YT. YT is brutal and savage and racist.

The enlightened, noble Ws, Es, and Ds should withhold the grace of their presence and stay in the paradises they create for themselves.

YT doesn't deserve you guys.

Anonymous said...

^^No your reading comprehension is off. I said the RESOURCE BASE was stable and predictable not the climate. And it is not southern Europe, but Europe as a whole had variable temperatures that the author references, and was hardly the so-called "harsh" and "unforgiving" venue painted by HBD proponents.

"To the contrary, the environments were not "harsh" or "unforgiving" at all, but richly resourced, stable and predictable," - No you didn't. Also, again Southern Europe is not Northern Europe.

4/10 got me to respond.

Anonymous said...

"You are again woefully misinformed. Northern barbarians did not "invent the wheel." Quit making up stories and get a grip on basic anthropology."

The technology spread through Indo-European expansion. Wheels were used in Central Europe and by the Maykop culture in Russin. Indo-Europeans were "northern barbarians". Anyone who still denies this is ignorant of the genetic evidence that has become available recently. (Is that what you mean by basic anthropology?)The only one misinformed here is you.

Sumerians probably invented wheel technology independently but that doesn't change anything unless you can proof hat they spread it to northern Europe before anywhere else.

Anonymous said...

Wogs, ethnics, darkies, etc., are just not safe around YT. YT is brutal and savage and racist.

What does YT stand for?


We know who the "wogs" are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog


"Wog...is a slang word with a number of meanings, sometimes considered derogatory and, in some instances, offensive when used in relation to ethnicity. The term is essentially used differently within the UK and Australian context: in the United Kingdom, historically it referred to "dark skinned" people and in its modern usage is considered overtly racist and is not used in polite conversation. In Australian English the term is a pejorative for migrants from the Mediterranean"

"Wog in the UK is usually regarded as a racially offensive slang word referring to a dark-skinned or olive-skinned person from Africa or Asia. It can be applied to any darker-skinned people, but is used generally to refer to peoples of the East Indies and India, as well as immigrants from the Middle-East and Mediterranean. Most dictionaries refer to the word as derogatory and offensive."

"It is suspected that the term WOG involves the British involvement in India and Pakistan with the term WOG referring to the indigenous populace. The term WOG literally means WithOut God. Many dictionaries say "wog" derives from the Golliwogg, a blackface minstrel doll character from a children's book published in 1895"

Anonymous said...

The riots were between MUSLIM lebanses

How do you tell apart MUSLIM lebanese from Christian Orthodox Greeks, Catholic Italians and other "wogs"? The lebanese muslims do not run around wearing beards and turbans last time I checked.

http://202.4.229.29/Stories/Cronulla_Riots_from_the_eyes_of_a_wog.aspx

"Go back to your own country!" Alongside 90 other students, I sat in my sociology lecture theatre and watched a video of hundreds, thousands even, of Aussies my age, going to university just like me, wearing the kinds of clothes I probably would to the beach.... Slandering every Lebanese, Italian and Greek in sight. I felt sick to my stomach. One of my friends had been there that day, but had left before the fights broke out, and he and his family lived within the area, their neighbours a young Lebanese couple, and across the road an Italian family. For months afterwards, he'd said they scarcely left their homes, except for work and to go shopping."

"After watching the documentary on the Cronulla riots, I suddenly realised that although we have come a fair distance in discrimination, especially racism, in Australia, we still have an immense trek to go, and although policies and legislation have been more fairly balanced (except our very sad step back in Indigenous rights, a.k.a the Aboriginal Intervention policy), there still exists a very strong, very poisonous undercurrent of racism."


http://www.greekplanet.com.au/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t5863.html

"Also Now to Cronulla Riots!!! Cronulla riots started because of the Racism that wogs have faced in this country for years!! We are all treated as second class whether we like it all not."


The northern barbarians against the Romans in Cronulla:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bZxC1rLEySY/ToB8w_LEEhI/AAAAAAAAADI/ftwPC2lMGlc/s400/cronulla.jpg

Antioco Dascalon said...

According to the racial rules of Brazil, it is majority white and the wealthier the area, the whiter it is. Sao Paolo, the biggest city, is 60% white, over half of whom are Italian or Portuguese descended. There are more than ten times as many of French origin as of indigenous origin and blacks make up just 6.5 % of the population.
Two of Brazil's biggest companies (the largest if you exclude government founded ones or subsidiaries of multinationals) are OGX, an energy company and Gerdau, in iron and steel. OGX was founded by Eike Bautista, whose mother Jutta Fuhrken was born in Germany and Eike grew up in Europe and went to the University of Aachen.
The driver of the latter held the last name "Johannpeter was Curt Johannpeter and today Johannpeters are CEO and Chairman. Together, these two companies have a market value of about 65 billion dollars.
So, I am not sure that Brazil is the best example of "non-white" achievement as most of the success has come from Portugese or Italian leaders and it has an unusually small population of indigenous and only 6% self-identify as black.
And of course, you chose to compare Majority White Brazil with so-called 100% white Moldova, even though nearly 5% of Moldovans are Gagauz, who speak a Turkic language (though genetic testing suggests that they are Balkan in origin).
Still, it seems only convenience to your argument, not logic, is the only way that one could classify Portugese or Italians as not white (as in Brazil) but Bulgarians or Gaugaz as white (as in Moldova). Finally, Moldova's reported GDP growth in 2010 was 6.9%, not far from Brazil's rate of 7.5%
But of course, the main issue is that you don't seem to understand the term "statistical outlier". Moldova has 3.5 million people, a tiny fraction of the white population, yet you cherry-pick it to support your point. If you contest either point that you seem to be trying to attack: that whites/asians have in aggregate higher average IQs than NAMs and that national IQ is correlated with higher GDP growth, you are not doing that with this argument. BTW, Moldova's PISA score seems to suggest that it has a national IQ of 95/92 compared to Brazil's 87/82.

Silver said...

Sailer,

I used to reply to this:

Indeed, who can forget that stunning scene in Gone With the Wind when Scarlett O'Hara's Irish last name is accidentally revealed, and thus she is immediately sold into slavery.


I simply reply: yes, they did consider us inferior, but that was then, this is now. Close the damn border. And secondly, I simply don't care if WASPs consider/ed themselves superior/me inferior. Don't care at all. Try it out if you like, go on: "You slimy, greasy piece of inferior dago trash!!!" Me: Hey, nice one. Wanna go catch a movie?

The vast majority lives in African-level poverty.

Rubbish. Brazil's no paradise, but it has taken great strides forward in improving conditions for its poorest. Regardless of how imperfect the place is, it's on the right track. That can't even begin to be questioned. Of course, amateur HBDers will, and idiotically so: but the mean IQ, and god, how many black genes and blah blah blah. It's beside the point. The place is getting much, much better, not much, much worse.

Not really. Lithuania's and Russia's per capita nominal incomes are a bit lower than Brazil's. While Serbia's is at $6000, not even half that of Brazil.

Nominal GDP is far from ideal for comparisons. You really need to look at purchasing power parity GDP. Serbia is about even with Brazil when it comes to PPP, but the comparison is skewed because Brazil is a much more unequal country. So while Brazilian industry is more advanced, Brazilian poverty levels are rarely encountered in Serbia (except among gypsies).

Brazil is the most bereaucratic and taxed country in the World.

Spoken like a Brazilian, one might say, lol. But the fact is you're being Brazilian by itself in no way qualifies you to comment intelligently on how Brazil stacks up with respect to taxation. The truth is Brazil is far from the most taxed country on earth.

She looks like a mulatta.

She could certainly pass as one. But then so can a lot of people from southern Europe. (Not that many would be keen to try, of course.)

Consider this: the very best off of the larger latin countries is majority non-white (and most of the whites themselves are mixed race); while the very worst off of the European countries are among the very whitest.

They were all richer than Brazil (on a per capita basis, which is what counts) at the time communism ended. Some of those countries required ten years to return to communist era GDP. Consider their "lost decade," like Brazil's in the 1980s, but worse.

The Brazilian aircraft industry is most likely a heavily state-subsidized vanity project done to 'prove' to a sceptical world that the Brazilians are technically savvy.

Even so, they compete in a free market so the international customers buying their aircraft obviously see SOMETHING of value in them.


It raises the question, not begs it. Ukraine has undergone a genocide within the last 80 years, was slammed by communism, and still has a serious russian problem to the tune of slightly less than half the country being essentially russian thanks to the soviets. And they are eastern European, so we don't quite know what they'll be able to do for themselves, If they ever get some peace and safety we'll see.

The poorest parts of appalachia are the most marginal land that the left end of the tail curve resides on, its an area where they can form a critical mass. The children that regress upwards bail, keeping the area poor.


Funny how culture and political events all of a sudden matter decisively when it's the home team under scrutiny. If you were observing Brazil in the 80s I'd bet you be only too quick to declare them doomed citing genes and nothing but.

Silver said...

Even today in Australia the local anglo aussies are hostile towards immigrant greeks, italians, lebanese, aka the "wogs"

That definitely used to the case, but it has died down almost completely in the major cities. I don't know what I'd have to do get abused as "you effin wog" in a major city these days. Even the unabashed racist types (as in skinheads, even if their heads aren't shaved) tend to make the exception that "you wogs are okay," while reserving the bulk of their contempt for the more recent (and drastically more racially divergent) arrivals.

On the other hand, I was at a bar in a country area, mostly untouched my immigration, by myself a few months ago. And as I was outside having a beer and cigarette, I overheard three yokels speaking among themselves but rather obviously loud enough for me to hear. "So whaddya reckon this cunt* here is? Italian?" asked one. "Yeah, he looks like a bit of an Italian stallion," his friend remarked sarcastically. "I can't stand these cunts. They come here and think they're better than ya," said his friend in a contemptuous tone that made me think of the scene with the senator in Godfather II. I thought they might try something physical but they eventually slunk off. It's been many, may years since I've experienced something like that. I told my friend (anglo) about it later and we had a bit of a laugh about it. (I love to do impersonations of yokel wog-hating racists. I'd give any Jew in America a run for his money at this stuff.)

Silver said...

Btw "cunt" in colloquial Australian speech means "guy" in the context of my story. It's considered vulgar but not offensive.

Anonymous said...

According to the racial rules of Brazil, it is majority white

Most of the self-identified "whites" in Brazil (around half the population) themselves have significant non-white admixture. The great majority of brazilians are mixed race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Brazil#Composition_of_Brazil.2C_genetic_studies

"The Pardos [browns] make up 42.6% or 79.782 million people of Brazil's population. Multiracial Brazilians live in the entire territory of Brazil. Although, according to DNA resources, most Brazilians possess a mixed-race ancestry, less than 45% of the country's population classified themselves as being part of this group.[19]"



Moldova has 3.5 million people, a tiny fraction of the white population, yet you cherry-pick it to support your point.

Funny how you cherry picked one of the smallest countries in my cherry-picked list. Conveniently ignoring Ukraine which with a population of 45 million has a per capita income of $3,600.

Eastern Europe as a whole, including Russia and the Balkans, has a much larger population and a significantly lower per capita income than Brazil.

Anonymous said...

Funny how culture and political events all of a sudden matter decisively when it's the home team under scrutiny. If you were observing Brazil in the 80s I'd bet you be only too quick to declare them doomed citing genes and nothing but.

Yeah it is funny how the HBD crowd starts singing a different tune when they are forced to explain facts, current and historical, that don't fit their simplistic, self-aggrandizing worldview.

Anonymous said...

"WHere was this alleged "ethnic cleansing" after British abolition pray tell?"

http://repeatingislands.com/2009/05/07/st-lucia%E2%80%99s-indian-arrival-day/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Caribbean

"The British looked... initially in China and then mostly in India. ...resembled enslavement. Instead of calling them slaves, ... indentured labour. Indians and southeast Asians, began to replace Africans previously brought as slaves... The first ships... left India in 1836. Over the next 70 years, numerous more ..."

Caribbean violence was well-known at the time of the Civil War, both in the north and south. British abolition occurred in 1834; of course, the Caribbean was far from only British. This list has 13 Caribbean slave rebellions between 1830-1840; 4 were British (Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Caribbean#Slave_rebellions

Claiming the US Civil War cannot be understood without understanding the Caribbean does not appear controversial. A history professor at Yale, Edward Rugmer, has a recent book, "The Problem of Emancipation: The Caribbean Roots of the American Civil War", 2008. He claims knowledge the Caribbean contributed to the Civil War. Among other things he:

"... examines how southern and northern American newspapers covered three slave rebellions that preceded British abolition..."

A review: http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/751

Apparently a book of considerable influence, both in the north and south, by a virulently pro-slavery author, concerned the (bloody) slave revolt in Haiti, "Historical Survey of the French Colony of St. Domingo (1797)".

Northern fear is considered in "The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue", Lawrence R. Tenzer, 1997. One (not-so-sympathetic) reviewer puts it ultra-condensed: "Northerners ... feared that the continued existence of slavery would lead to northerners becoming enslaved. Because skin color no longer was any real guide, southerners could claim northern whites to be their runaway slaves and recapture them via the Fugitive Slave Law." A recent article of which Tenzer is co-author, apparently over the same ground.

It wasn't fear of blacks, black self-rule, or British emancipation. It was the whole package of the Caribbean. Elites willing to sell out anyone. Open borders, always someone more desperate below. Blacks abandoning society (can't blame 'em) and engaging in endless inchoate violence that apparently knows no end (like Jamaica?). Slavery without end; kidnappers on the prowl for escapees who aren't very discriminating, maybe they'll grab you. Ethnic tensions, each fighting for their own. Low trust society. Not a nice place to raise a family. Not-so-elite whites leaving if they can. Like Detroit. None dare call it ethnic cleansing.

In Steve's terms, you're a young family from a nice Ohio town. You can move to the Carribean or go West. Easy decision. Just about the last thing you want to hear is that the South beat you to the West and it has become... the Caribbean. Nice place to visit, but...

Steve Sailer said...

Don't forget the 1857 Indian Mutiny, too. It probably worried Southerners about slave revolts.

Research data said...

No you didn't. Also, again Southern Europe is not Northern Europe.
You referred to Lewin on climate. I referred explicitly to the resource environment. Quote from earlier:
To the contrary, the environments were not "harsh" or "unforgiving" at all, but richly resourced, stable and predictable." And the point holds for BOTH Northern Europe and Southern Europe. Both had a stable, predictable resource base over several millennia, and a variable climate that was not all the alleged "unforgiving" Ice Age venues claimed by some.


Sumerians probably invented wheel technology independently but that doesn't change anything unless you can proof hat they spread it to northern Europe before anywhere else.

There is no need for them to spread it to northern Europe before anywhere else. The first initial spread would be to places closer to Mesopotamia if anything. ANd from there or various intermediate points the wheel also spread into Europe. This does not mean that there was not distribution from the north as well, but a significant south-north spread into Europe is supported by several scholars- quote:"The wheel spread from MEsopotamia quickly into Northwest Europe."Bunch et al. 2004. The History of Science and Technology.

Steve Sailer said...

Also, Charleston, SC, the ideological heart of secession, had a long connection to Barbados. Planters had relocated to Charleston from the Caribbean, and brought Caribbean attitudes to SC.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5/17/12 7:40 PM wrote

"The Rothschilds were notorious for their bigotry toward non-Jews."

The Rothschilds intra-familial prohibition of intermarriage broke down in the late 19th century. In England, one Rotschild heiress married the 5th Earl of Roseberry. One French Rothschild heiress married one of the Ducs de Gramont, and another married one of the Barons van Zuylen van Nuyvelt van de Haar. None of these women was ultimately disinherited. Hannah Rothschild's inheritance helped fund her husband's political career not to mention greatly enhanced the wealth of the future Earls of Roseberry who inherited the grand Mentmore Towers estate and its priceless art and furnishings. The Baron van Zuylen van Nuyvelt van de Haar used his wife's money to rebuild the ruined Casteel de Haar in grand fashion. Those were just the beginning. The current Lord Rothschild is half-Jewish, and his children are only one-quarter Jewish by ancestry. All of his cousin Evelyn de Rothschild's children are half-Jews.

Unfriendliness towards Gentile suitors/girlfriends on the part of ordinary Jewish families was a rare occurrence because such individuals were few and far between until the last 25 years. It was mirrored on the Gentile side, although the opportunities to express it were rare given the low frequency of intermarriage at that time. For example, Clarence MacKay was publicly disparaging of his daughter's relationship with Irving Berlin.

As for the matter of Jewish clubs, until very recently, they weren't in fashion. Most had only been established because Jews were not admitted to Gentile establishments. I'm not sure they're really in fashion even now.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the 1857 Indian Mutiny, too. It probably worried Southerners about slave revolts.

The successful slave revolt of Haiti against France at its prime should have worried the Southern slavers far more than the failed revolt of brahmins and muslims against the British half a century later in far away India.

By the way, it was because of the slave revolt in Haiti that Napoleon abandoned any New World ambitions and sold off Louisiana to the USA for pennies an acre.

Anonymous said...

One (not-so-sympathetic) reviewer puts it ultra-condensed: "Northerners ... feared that the continued existence of slavery would lead to northerners becoming enslaved. Because skin color no longer was any real guide, southerners could claim northern whites to be their runaway slaves and recapture them via the Fugitive Slave Law." A recent article of which Tenzer is co-author, apparently over the same ground.

I suspect that another motivation for northern abolitionism was the fact that white sailors from New England were being captured and enslaved by the non-white Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Anonymous said...

The riots were between MUSLIM lebanses

How do you tell apart MUSLIM lebanese from Christian Orthodox Greeks, Catholic Italians and other "wogs"? The lebanese muslims do not run around wearing beards and turbans last time I checked.

you are missing the point - the lebanese muslims were gang raping white women, and harrassing others and stabbed a life guard- you should know how that would go over in Australia. - you are blaming it exclusively on anglo saxon 'racism' , which at this point, I wish there was a little more of.

as for not being able to tell muslim from christian - true some muslims can be fair and christians dark - and for that matter many british people (since they originated from iberia) can look dark - welsh in particular.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that another motivation for northern abolitionism was the fact that white sailors from New England were being captured and enslaved by the non-white Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
absolutely correct - read skeletons of the zahara - the book written by the captain had a major influence on LIncoln and the captain went on to become an abolitionist.

Matthew said...

On the slow arrival of civilization to Northwest Europe:

"The plow is considered to be one of the most important (and oldest) technologies developed. In fact, the history of the plow stretches back to the Neolithic (New Stone) Age that began about 8000 BC in Mesopotamia. In the Middle Ages, however, the plow was radically improved and was used with multiple-oxen teams. This innovation facilitated the clearing of the forests of fertile northwest Europe (Gies & Gies, 1994). Before this time because of the nature of the soil, it was difficult to plow these fields. And, obviously, this inability to cultivate these fields reduced the population of northwest Europe. After the redesign of the plow, allowing the plow to plow the heavier and wetter soil of northwest Europe, there was a dramatic increase in agricultural productivity, and subsequently, the population of these areas."


Trinidad and Tobago, ~100% non-white, per capita income $17,000

T&T is 40% Indian, only 37.5% black, and the rest is "other." It is not a 100% black tropical paradise. It benefits greatly from its location in the Caribbean and its proximity to US tourists. Its population is only 1.2 million. It is the leading Caribbean producer of oil and gas.

Matthew said...

The Cronulla Riots began thus: "On 4 December 2005, a group of volunteer surf lifesavers was assaulted by a group of young men of Middle Eastern appearance, with several other violent assaults occurring over the next week."

So, the native Aussies grew tired of being abused, and decided to stand their ground. And the Left is pissed they dared to do so.

Anonymous said...

"Indo-Europeans were 'northern barbarians'"

The historical and population genetic evidence remains unclear on the origins of the Indo-Europeans. The farthest that Razib of GNXP thinks the evidence can nail down the urheimat is north of the Caspian and west of Iran. That would make them "northern barbarians" in relation to the ancestral South Indians (ASI) they conquered, but not northern barbarians in relation to everyone else.

Grover Prosling said...

"I suspect that another motivation for northern abolitionism was the fact that white sailors from New England were being captured and enslaved by the non-white Barbary Pirates of North Africa"

Could very well be. The Irish masses in general vigorously opposed abolition of slavery and were involved in several attacks against black and white abolitionists. Irish nationalist leader Daniel O' COnnell lamented that his countrymen were so opposed to the end of slavery in the USA, and had adopted American racism- what he labelled "the filthy aristocracy of skin." (Garner 2007.) Another important factor was the decades long campaigns of the abolitionists, particularly in the Christian churches. It was a long slog but they eventually shamed governments into putting a stop to slavery. Some of today's liberals downplay the abolitionist campaign because of the religious background. I guess they don't want churches or Christians to be given too much credit for a good outcome- as it would expose "The Narrative" of Neanderthal "fundamentalist" bogeymen.

Anonymous said...

"Steve Sailer said...
I've ridden on smaller jetliners designed and built in Brazil."

Brazilians claim to have invented the modern airplane too. By a man named Santos Dumont.

Commenters here truly don´t understand Brazil, or South America. I can tell that because they show leftist thinking, that whites are always upper class and blacks are living in African conditions. True to a certain extent, but in a Brazilian airport you will notice many fully blacks acting middle class taking trips around the country and the world.

Also, my doorman here in Rio is obviously fully Dutch who immigrated from Brazil´s northeast(used to be a Dutch colony and is the mexico of brazil).

However, I would say Brazilians whites GDP would probably be closer to Western European/American levels than expected

Svigor said...

It wasn't fear of blacks, black self-rule, or British emancipation. It was the whole package of the Caribbean. Elites willing to sell out anyone. Open borders, always someone more desperate below. Blacks abandoning society (can't blame 'em) and engaging in endless inchoate violence that apparently knows no end (like Jamaica?). Slavery without end; kidnappers on the prowl for escapees who aren't very discriminating, maybe they'll grab you. Ethnic tensions, each fighting for their own. Low trust society. Not a nice place to raise a family. Not-so-elite whites leaving if they can. Like Detroit. None dare call it ethnic cleansing.

Now fold "Reconstruction" into all that. I got a finnsky for you if it still makes any sense afterward.

Svigor said...

What does YT stand for?

Whitey.

And WOG stands for Worthy Oriental Gentleman, dinchaknow?

simply reply: yes, they did consider us inferior, but that was then, this is now. Close the damn border. And secondly, I simply don't care if WASPs consider/ed themselves superior/me inferior. Don't care at all. Try it out if you like, go on: "You slimy, greasy piece of inferior dago trash!!!" Me: Hey, nice one. Wanna go catch a movie?

Precisely the WASP attitude. "You pasty, degenerate piece of White trash!!!" Me: "Work on your form a bit. Maybe something about inbreeding or incest. Wanna grab a beer?"

Both had a stable, predictable resource base over several millennia, and a variable climate that was not all the alleged "unforgiving" Ice Age venues claimed by some.

Was it less forgiving than the other climate in question, or not? You seem to be dodging the issue.

By the way, it was because of the slave revolt in Haiti that Napoleon abandoned any New World ambitions and sold off Louisiana to the USA for pennies an acre.

An early gentrification land deal. Who said the black undertow never gave us nothin'?

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, I was at a bar in a country area, mostly untouched my immigration, by myself a few months ago. And as I was outside having a beer and cigarette, I overheard three yokels speaking among themselves but rather obviously loud enough for me to hear. "So whaddya reckon this cunt* here is? Italian?" asked one. "Yeah, he looks like a bit of an Italian stallion," his friend remarked sarcastically. "I can't stand these cunts. They come here and think they're better than ya," said his friend in a contemptuous tone that made me think of the scene with the senator in Godfather II. I thought they might try something physical but they eventually slunk off. It's been many, may years since I've experienced something like that. I told my friend (anglo) about it later and we had a bit of a laugh about it. (I love to do impersonations of yokel wog-hating racists. I'd give any Jew in America a run for his money at this stuff.)"

I laughed reading this, I love it. Even though im half italian, I know where there coming from so it just makes me laugh.

However, I hate how "racism" is so easily thrown around, but in my experience Austrailians are very racist. But it doesn´t bother me...

Anonymous said...

absolutely correct - read skeletons of the zahara - the book written by the captain had a major influence on LIncoln and the captain went on to become an abolitionist.

You learn something new every day on the internet. Thanks, that will definitely be useful in future debates.

Actually, a little further research reveals that the "Skeletons of the Zahara" written in 2004 was directly based on the enslaved captain's 1817 book originally titled "Authentic Narrative of the Loss of the American Brig Commerce" which Lincoln listed as one of the 3 major influences on his political thinking. This book must have been the inspiration for the morally honest Lincoln's famous quote encapsulating his abolitionist stand: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletons_on_the_Zahara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufferings_in_Africa

http://www.amazon.com/Sufferings-Africa-Astonishing-Account-Enslaved/dp/1585740802


There were other books as well about white americans, mainly sailors, being enslaved by the arabs and berbers of north africa. This was a common happening and a major concern for the newly founded American Republic:

http://www.amazon.com/White-Slaves-African-Masters-Narratives/dp/0226034046/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1337555465&sr=8-3


"Some of the most popular stories in nineteenth-century America were sensational tales of whites captured and enslaved in North Africa. White Slaves, African Masters for the first time gathers together a selection of these Barbary captivity narratives, which significantly influenced early American attitudes toward race, slavery, and nationalism.

Though Barbary privateers began to seize North American colonists as early as 1625, Barbary captivity narratives did not begin to flourish until after the American Revolution. During these years, stories of Barbary captivity forced the U.S. government to pay humiliating tributes to African rulers, stimulated the drive to create the U.S. Navy, and brought on America's first post-revolutionary war. These tales also were used both to justify and to vilify slavery."

Anonymous said...

By the way, the white americans enslaved by north african arabs and berbers constituted just a small fraction of the million plus white euros who were captured and sold into slavery in North Africa since the expulsion of muslims from Spain in 1492:

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Mediterranean/dp/1403945519/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1337555465&sr=8-10


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

"About 20,000 British and Irish captives were held in North Africa from the beginning of the seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth, and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815.[1]"

"Pirate raids for the acquisition of slaves occurred in towns and villages on the African Atlantic seaboard, as well as in Europe. Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries. It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves during this time period.[2] Famous accounts of Barbary slave raids include a mention in the Diary of Samuel Pepys and a raid on the coastal village of Baltimore, Ireland, during which pirates left with the entire populace of the settlement. Such raids in the Mediterrean were so frequent and devastating that the coastline between Venice to Malaga[3] suffered widespread depopulation, and settlement there was discouraged. In fact, it was said that this was largely because 'there was no one left to capture any longer'.[4] The power and influence of these pirates during this time was such that nations including the United States of America paid tribute in order to stave off their attacks.[5]"


Amazingly, these african pirates even sailed as far north as Scotland, Ireland and even Iceland in their slave-capturing expeditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Abductions

"In 1627 Barbary corsairs from Algiers and Salé (Morocco) descended on Iceland in two separate raids, taking around 400 prisoners, the population of Iceland being reasonably estimated to have been then about 60,000. This dramatic event is popularly known as Tyrkjaránið – the Turkish Raid – as the two cities were then part of the Ottoman Empire. "

"A few letters written by captives reached Iceland and along with other accounts, they indicate that the captives were treated very differently by their masters. Guttormur Hallsson, a captive from Austfirðir, said in a letter written in the Barbary in 1631: "There is a great difference here between masters. Some captive slaves get good, gentle, or in-between masters, but some unfortunates find themselves with savage, cruel, hardhearted tyrants, who never stop treating them badly, and who force them to labour and toil with scanty clothing and little food, bound in iron fetters, from morning till night."[5]

Anonymous said...

Some of today's liberals downplay the abolitionist campaign because of the religious background. I guess they don't want churches or Christians to be given too much credit for a good outcome- as it would expose "The Narrative" of Neanderthal "fundamentalist" bogeymen.

Actually:

1. the South was the more religious then, just as it is now. The North was full of free thinkers, Deists, Unitarians etc, aka "infidels" to the fundamentalist evangelicals.

2. the Bible backs up slavery, and hence the Bible was the biggest weapon of the South in its propaganda war against northern abolitionists.

3. The Curse of Ham, based on the Genesis story of Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Talmudic interpretations thereof, was extensively used by southern slavers to justify slavery. It was also used to justify serfdom in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it was this bible based belief in the Curse of Ham that led to the one-drop rule in the South? Which resulted in many slaves who were indistinguishable from whites, except for their known genealogy. This too must have helped the abolitionist cause.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 203   Newer› Newest»