Conservatives are fleeing the evil witch and horrible heretic Jason Richwine.
Richwine pointed out what everyone knows, but no one can say: That mestizos are genetically low intelligence, and that importing a low intelligence underclass will cost Americans a lot of money, and that this underclass, even if, unlike blacks, they really want to assimilate, can never assimilate, and will forever resent their failure to assimilate, forever blaming it on racism.
Richwine’s estimates were, however, very much on the low side. He only considered the costs of a genetically low IQ underclass that sucks up welfare and fails to pay taxes. He ignored Smart Fraction Theory.
Smart Fraction Theory is that nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is somewhere around 108, a bit less than the minimum that used to be required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. This gives a remarkably good fit to variations in wealth between countries. Average IQ influences average per capita wealth much more strongly than individual IQ influences individual wealth. Richwine only considered the extent to which average IQ influences individual wealth.
Smart people create the modern economy, perhaps directly by operating businesses, perhaps culturally, by creating a society of trust and cooperation, perhaps politically, by resisting self destructive economic policies. Most likely by some combination of all three. Smart people create an environment that allows less smart people to make a decent living. Thus intelligence has a large positive externality, and stupidity, similarly a large negative externality.
A person of average IQ is not the average IQ of your friends. If you are a typical reader of this blog, you would perceive him as remarkably stupid. Consider that man in a backward African economy. Likely his best option is to scratch the ground with a digging stick, grow yams, and hunt rats and small animals (the larger animals already having been killed). He produces very little, and is accordingly very poor. The same man in Singapore is highly productive because smart wealthy people provide him with highly sophisticated equipment, and tell him what to do with that equipment. Modern living standards are a gift by the rich to the poor and a gift by the smart to the stupid.
If you have ten percent more low IQ people, then the amount of modern economy you have is diluted by ten percent, for the modern economy is, to a good approximation, smart people cooperating with each other, and the rest are in large part just leeching on wealth created by others. Thus on average every average and below person that enters the United States costs the existing residents fifty thousand dollars a year, as does every child spawned by the innumerable short fat pregnant single mestizo woman that clog up every emergency ward in California, except for the Stanford emergency ward. Richwine considers only the part of this loss that comes in the form of government expenditures.
The ethno nationalists in Dark Enlightenment hope to restore geographic white nations, on new, much shrunken borders. This seems as impractical as unscrambling an omelet, and leaves the big problem of the white underclass created by welfare and the collapse of the family. My proposed solution is an end to universal suffrage – whether by literacy tests and property tests, or by abandoning democracy altogether for some other system, any other system, and the reintroduction of segregation and small apartheid. We put a sign over the black section in the school cafeteria that says “black section” so that no one gets confused. And we also need male only areas.
Of course not all stupid people are black, and not all black people are stupid, and similarly for criminals. When considering which people need to be kept away from civilized people, we should profile. Race and culture should be one factor, an important factor, but one, as in Rhodesia, capable of being outweighed by other factors. The Rhodesian slogan was “Equal rights for all civilized men†– which they carried out to very good effect, and to the benefit of everyone, including, indeed particularly, the benefit of uncivilized men, who benefited from firm supervision, who benefit from firm supervision by their superiors more than anyone. Compare Rhodesia under white rule, with Zimbabwe.
We should employ a full Bayesian approach: Fatherlessness, employment, literacy, credit rating, criminal history, and property should weigh in various profiles applied for various purposes, as well as race and culture. A major effect and intent of these profiles should be unmix the omelet on the micro scale, to keep uncivilized men of all races away from civilized men of all races. We need ghettos, not only because there are blacks and mestizos, but because there are too many stupid whites, and too many whites that have been raised feral by single mums. And if someone who belongs in the ghetto is found where he should not be, he is asked for a justification for being where he is. If no adequate justification, gets in trouble.
[…] Blog:Â “Mestizos and National Wealth“ Share this:TwitterFacebookMoreTumblrGoogle […]
If IQ was everything then Asia would be better off than it is. Asian progress was late and based on European science and technology.
Stupid white people will obey more intelligent white people who have their best interests at heart. All white nations have been based on this, except modern England where a predatory commercial class took over.
Both white geographical areas and rule by the civilized are extremely far-fetched at this point, but I don’t think the first is more far-fetched than the last. In any case politics are a waste of time at this point.
The technological lead and increasingly the major source of cultural influence seems to be a eurasian cypherpunkish civilization, mediated by vpns, where the technology comes largely from whites but is implemented by Asian businessmen on passports from anywhere other than their own country. There is an obvious creativity gap between whites and Asians, but Asians, with their higher average IQ, do a very good job polishing up other people’s ideas.
And with white civilization going down the tubes, whiteopia is not in itself going to work. Your whiteopia is apt to be overrun with single mums and their feral children. You not only need to get rid of the black underclass, but also the white underclass.
Making a design not exactly a lower order than designing, but the skill is contained within it. Whites can make stuff as well as design it. The elite mostly doesn’t want manufacturing here because it provides dignified work for average IQ whites.
The current white overclass creates both white and black dysfunction. Replace this overclass with a functional one and white dysfunction is greatly diminished. Believe it or not there is a system that provides discipline and order with care and compassion for low IQ whites.
It would substantially diminish black dysfunction too, but I don’t feel the need to rule over blacks, even for their own good.
There is no alternative but to rule over blacks. Let them run wild, they create problems for themselves and everyone else. Hence the bubble, a ghetto for the better off. The bubble, like the ghetto, is a prison. Hiding in an ever smaller bubble is not a solution.
I am a bit suspicious of this care and compassion bit. It reminds me of the Victorian attack on marriage. Since women were supposedly sexless angels, there was supposedly no need to enforce the marriage contract on misbehaving women, and attempting to do was supposedly shear cruelty and nastiness.
Which got us to where we are.
La Griffe du Lion has noted this. And revised his Smart Fraction Theory to use verbal-analytical IQ rather than general IQ, to predict how Asian nations fare.
Overfitting the data.
> Average IQ influences average per capita wealth much more strongly than individual IQ influences individual wealth
Probably not all of the correlation is causal. Much of it is probably caused by Conscientiousness, with C * IQ largely determining most kinds of individual achievement. C seems to be a poor correlate of IQ for individuals within a pop…… yet mean C and mean IQ seem to be quite close correlates across pops. –The latter is probably the main reason productivity and mean IQ correlate extremely closely across pops.
(Extremely creative achievements are a different story, associated with high IQ, but modest C in the conventional sense, and apparently also associated with generalized mild aberrancy/deviance: Eysenck’s P. Also pretty associated with being White.)
Rational self interest. Smart people can cooperate better than stupid people. It pays to be conscientious if you are a smart person dealing with other smart people. Dealing with stupid people, conscientiousness does not pay. You just get ripped off.
Cultural difference undermines cooperation. Racial differences undermine cooperation. Fatherlessness undermines cooperation. And stupidity undermines cooperation.
> The latter is probably the main reason productivity and mean IQ correlate extremely closely across pops.
By the bye I didn’t mean to suggest IQ wasn’t also a ‘main’ cause of the IQ-achievement correlation. It’s as important as any other factor, just not as important as the IQ * C synergy.
Jim I don’t think IQ and C are necessarily as correlated within pops as you suggest. In fact I think the correlation may be pretty low to zero.
Do recall that C sometimes cuts against rational self-interest. Working harder than you can get away with and being more prosocial and honest than you can get away with are a central part of the definition of C.
Cooperation plus future orientation does not quite equal C. Plenty of cooperation has as its telos, rents, or rent-like ends — some of them having more to do with power, or even just a petty sense of power, than with wealth. Cooperation on one level can simultaneously be defection on another.
“We put a sign over the black section in the school cafeteria that says ‘black section’ so that no one gets confused. And we also need male only areas.”
— I think this is misconceived. If remedies are no longer sought for ‘disparate impact’ then apartheid-style formal discrimination is superfluous, unnecessarily imprecise, and deeply harmful. Let facts set the rules, rather than designing rules to impose presumed facts. Rhodesia did this stuff better than the RSA.
As I said, I am in favor of fully Bayesian profiling. But reality is, there is already a black section in the school cafeteria, just no one can say so.
Isn’t it better that no one says so? It’s certainly better than having the government say so.
Right. Across-the-board, state sponsored apartheid would foreclose on the reality—however statistically small—that every population does have its right-side of the bell curve which could (and should be allowed to) participate fully in civilized society. I think your post’s penultimate paragraph, Jim, is more on the right track than your final one. When we’re talking about fixing the Moron Problem, we’re not talking about John McWhorter, Walter Williams, or Clarence Thomas even though they share a phenotype with a lot of the Morons.
Really, it’s about doing away with everything and anything that resembles disparate impact law, ceasing to expect equal educational outcomes for all groups, and not funding the pathologies of or giving voice to those who can’t hack it based on the first two things.
Race based apartheid in the school cafeteria does not harm the likes of Clarence Thomas.
If we had apartheid when we streamed kids into the smart, middle, and slow streams, that would harm the likes of Clarence Thomas.
But I tell you, a society that cannot acknowledge that it has apartheid in the school cafeteria is a society that cannot stream kids into smart, middle and slow streams, when it finds that most of the blacks are winding up in the slow stream.
Right on. Rhodesia is the best model to follow.
Oh dear.
I think if we defended America and let it work – and let the natural heirs and majority rule – a lot of problems would work out. We have an underclass because we started subsidizing it in the 60s. No subsidy, underclass subsides.
The franchise should be decided locally by Voting Boards, your neighbors decide if you are responsible enough to vote. No politicians or connected to them sit on the board.
White people problems: of course. We have Patricians who loathe us and are actively seeking our destruction, and we have no Tribunes.
Your program and reaction in General: you have no power and no program to get it. If it gathers strength certainly legions would flock to a standard against it. You offer slavery, what’s not to hate?
You need a demos to get an Army. You need an Army to do this, you do. No the Singularity will NOT reveal that your hour has come. You offer the demos nothing but more abuse.
We have no Tribunes. Good God the Blacks had Dubois and Booker T. Washington, many others. Where are the White Tribunes to lift them up? You expect people to rally behind a banner to put them in their place? They’re in their place now, they have oppressors. Why exchange one group of parlor snob fascists with no power for the ones they’ve got? Especially since we know it won’t be the effetes of reaction – many of whom are already working of course in government and would be as likely to fail – won’t bear the burden of getting that power.
At least in this system you can get a lawyer to get you leniency – at a price. And the Left will give you enough corn to eat – for awhile yet.
Mind you I think the demos are getting ready to make a change. Because they have to, their fate walks before them incarnate as degraded zombies.
They don’t strike me to be the type to hand over the fruits of their suffering to spectators.
Rolling things back to the fifties is not going to work. Things went to hell in the nineteenth century. Marriage was smashed in the sixties – the eighteen sixties.
Marriage was socially enforced until the 1960s, but it was under attack by the state from 1820 onwards, and the state ceased legally enforcing the marriage contract on women in 1857 in England, and after the civil war in the US.
separate ghettos for ghetto whites and ghetto blacks
Of course. Putting ghetto whites in the black ghetto would be cruel and unusual punishment.
They would segregate out even then. Don’t you watch Locked Up?!?!
I know Cops gets shit for being un-PC, but I watched a marathon of History Channel prison documentaries this winter, and they made Cops look like an NAACP telethon. Do the producers of these shows know what a service they’re performing?
[…] Mestizos and National Wealth « Jim’s Blog […]
Be sure to take reversion to the mean into account. An exceptional black person’s children are likely to be more average, as are the children of a sub-standard white person.
But that means the exceptional black person’s children are likely to terrorize the neighborhood while the sub-standard white person’s children are likely to have the potential for upward mobility of some sort (like being prison guards instead of disability scroungers), IF the conditions allow and encourage such upward mobility.
When genes are properly controlled for, ie dads died of accidents or diseases in which they were not grossly or clearly at fault, fatherlessness has no influence on things like income, criminality, deviance. (At least in Whites. I don’t know who exactly the empirical work has been done on but I’m assuming it was done in the West.)
Anyway that’s what Malloy says, and I believe it on his authority. Since the work was probably mostly on NW Euros, I wouldn’t hasten to apply it to Blacks or even E-Slavs. Just as I wouldn’t apply the results of Dutch or Portuguese drug decrim to Blacks…… though to their credit US Blacks don’t really seem to use drugs more than Whites, and may not have been much more * up by them than Whites prior to the crack epidemic. Though it’s possible they’ve been somewhat more * up by alcohol.
If the work was mostly done on college students, that would tend to invalidate it, but you can pretty much count on Malloy to see a problem like that.
If so, the deviance of the fatherless reflects the genetic influence of defecting mums and defecting dads. Still a valid factor in a Bayesian profile aimed at screening out defectors.
> Marriage was socially enforced until the 1960s, but it was under attack by the state from 1820 onwards, and the state ceased legally enforcing the marriage contract on women in 1857 in England, and after the civil war in the US.
What are the relative imports of the de facto and de jure situations? The de jure decadence you mention is obviously a pathological sign, yet de facto counts for quite a lot.
You’re making the perfect the enemy of the good. No one ever said the old Europe was utopia ; god knows it’s been full of war and, less so in recent centuries, torture, like every other hell hole.
Now, I wouldn’t say you are nit-picking, exactly. You had people re-christening themselves ‘Citizen Egalite’ in * 1789. There is an obvious accumulation of decadent signs ; what I’d dispute is that the current path toward total unsoundness was already baked in prior to 1917 and 1965.
To some extent, something that wavers between softness-gentleness and decadence is an inevitable function of improved conditions of security and prosperity. I don’t think this necessarily dooms you. (Even the non-terminating development of our personal philosophies is full of mistakes, bad signs, wrong detours etc, though I won’t claim it is /as/ * up as the development of the late-modern West.) A conscious social reaction can arise to partly control it, and maybe even shape and re-adapt it into something more than half proper — such as the reaction to the proto-romantic ‘sensibility’ movement in England, or, more radically, the attempted restoration by Bonaparte. Clearly the very opposite took place in ’17 and ’65 and I think those sharp downturns are as important as the whole rest of the ‘perilous road’.
To turn back the clock to something like 2004 would require regime change. If we are talking regime change, we should turn back the clock to somewhere between 1680 and 1800
The left program has always been “Let us turn society arse over tit, smash everything, and grab the loot”
The conservative program has always been “Let us move leftwards at a slightly slower pace”.
This is illustrated by the conservative and libertarian reaction to the firing of Richwine. Bryan Caplan tells us he is in favor of people being fired mentioning true facts, but being such a good libertarian, is willing to tolerate a slightly wider range of true facts.
Marriage is the foundation of society. The current path toward total unsoundness was baked in when marriage was attacked in 1820, which attack was finally successful in 1857. From 1857 to 1957 was just a mopping up operation.
Jim, have you thought much about the moderate to high IQ parasite classes? Entire groups like Lawyers, Psychiatrists, regulators, bankers, professors, ect do nothing but harm. These people seem to represent a lot more power and ability than the lower classes and are probably a bigger threat to most people well being especially when they tap the under class to do their bidding.
That is the famous overclass/underclass alliance. These are the people who bring in mestizos to live on welfare and spawn democrat voters.
Of course the powerful are going to be rich, but criticizing the rich, rather than the powerful, is foolish, for the absurd tax rates on profits tell us that the rich are not powerful.
If one traces the origins of criminal banksters, for example Jon Corzine and Angelo Mozillo, their origins are democratic party politics and affirmative action, not capitalism, Jon Corzine being a classic example of descent from heaven, and Angelo Mozillo a beneficiary of politically motivated regulatory favor.
The Icelandic financial crisis was a clear case of regulatory capture, the bankers corrupting regulators and politicians, but the US financial crisis was the other way around, the politicians and regulators corrupting bankers.
If I was an Icelander, I would no doubt give more attention to the high IQ parasite classes, but in the US, our high IQ parasite class is judges, professors, civil servants, employees of quasi governmental organizations, and politicians. The rest are pretty harmless.
Stop vilifying psychiatrists. All the ones I know are compassionate, important healthcare professionals.
Psychiatrists that are directly or indirectly on the government payroll, and are empowered with government power, are bad people – the guys who give mental health opinions about those charged with crimes, the guys who dispense shock therapy for depression. If you are paying your psychiatrist for his opinion, they are good guys. If someone else is paying your psychiatrist for his opinion about you, they are bad guys.
“Stop vilifying psychiatrists. All the ones I know are compassionate, important healthcare professionals.”
Not the ones I know.
I dunno.
White proles and reactionaries are natural allies, because the Cathedral has little to offer them.
Successful societies have typically managed to find a use for them and I’m not particularly convinced that they are useless yet. Their uselessness will come a while down the road, it can be dealt with later.
Keep in mind that intelligence is distributed along a bell curve, with a fat middle and narrow tails. So when you have an average IQ of 85 there are a LOT of people who can’t possibly be productive in a modern society. Part of the fat middle can’t be productive. When you have an average IQ of 100 the non-productive parts of the curve tend to fall into the narrow tail, so there are a lot less of them. If you’re not clear on this, look at the percentages, the difference is dramatic.
Most white proles would respond favorably to a system that gave them an incentive to work (not starving) as well as an opportunity to work (not discriminating against them in favor of numberless hordes of black and Hispanic proles and not outsourcing their jobs to the numberless hordes of Asian and Indian slave laborers). Neither of these things are really present in the Cathedral’s America. Disability scamming offers a better way of life than honest labor for many.
White proles will be the cannon fodder of the reaction.
The proles have been disappearing into the underclass. If a male cannot earn more than sixty thousand a year in the US, he cannot marry and have children. Why try?
A reactionary government would probably recreate a prole class, offering the white underclass a choice between poverty and hunger, or dignified work and successful marriage. But we don’t really have a prole class any more. There just are not very many low paid white males in non government employment.
The progressives hate the white proles, and have been successfully eradicating that class. The males are going full underclass, the women are singles, either single mums on welfare, or single women in government or quasi government employment.
> Let facts set the rules, rather than designing rules to impose presumed facts. Rhodesia did this stuff better than the RSA.
You’re presumably speaking in the name of realism, but you’re also assuming a rather pure individualism.
It depends on whether racial preservation is a goal for you, as opposed to just a good society in general. Since I think raciality is probably an important part of a good/meaningful/stable society, I’m cool with the state fostering non-miscegenation in not-too-overbearing ways. Not sure I’d favor a total ban backed by severe punishment, especially if/when new mixed races are arising that will accept mixed offspring in marriage unreservedly.
It also depends on whether you want individualist meritocracy, or instead think eg excellent US Blacks should stay mostly in the Black community largely for the sake of the latter, excellent Indians should mostly not emigrate from India etc. Jim I think has some feelings along these lines. Anyway some people do. Surely India’s future stability is more in doubt now that a whole lot of high elites have departed (while remaining ones may be rather infecund). According to Unz its bottom ~20% eat a lot less than they did 30 years ago, which is not a very good sign. This concerns me a little in itself, and concerns me a lot more since they have the bomb.
Yes. We need the best blacks to rule the black community. Direct white rule will be resented and resisted.
Segregation meant white people giving the best blacks special opportunity to go to black universities and such, giving them protection from white competition, affirmative action not to give them meaningless makework pretend middle class jobs in a “diverse” community, but real middle class jobs in a black community.
And if, needing black judges and black lawyers for the segregated black community, we have to lower our standards for what is required, we send them to a black university so that they will not face invidious comparisons with white students. Similarly, we need to favor black businessmen in the black community. If the shopping centers are run by Koreans, they are apt to be burned down.
You’re right: we seriously disagree. If draconian socialist demands can be made in the name of race or ethnicity, what is to stop them being made for any number of other superficially pressing reasons? You’d really accept legislation confining people’s sphere of tolerated economic action to their ‘own kind’? I find it hard to believe you’ve thought this through.
What is so draconian socialist about acknowledging the reality of apartheid in the school cafetaria? Blacks should be excluded from certain areas, and women should be excluded from certain areas.
The disappearance of male only environments was a terrible blow against freedom of association. There is nothing socialist about such environments, they were all privately and spontaneously created, just as apartheid in the school cafeteria is privately and spontaneously created.
Similarly, apartheid and segregation in prisons is absolutely essential, as otherwise all the whites in prisons with a large black population would be killed and raped, or else raped and killed, depending on the sexual preferences of the black raping them. It is so essential that even the politically correct turn a blind eye to it.
The bubble represents an ever tighter restriction of freedom of movement on the law abiding and peaceable affluent. If the affluent are to have freedom of movement, the underclass cannot have freedom of movement. So we shovel the underclass into ghettos and restrict their freedom of movement. But obviously it would be a horrible, crime, comparable to the liquidation of the kulaks, to force ghetto whites into the same ghettos as ghetto blacks. We have to have segregated ghettos. And we need the black ghettos to be ruled by high quality blacks.
That was aimed at RS and still more specifically at the legal regime that would be required to ensure that “excellent US Blacks should stay mostly in the Black community.” I’m assuming that this goal couldn’t possibly be met unless the structures imposed also kept Koreans out of the ‘black community.’ They’d also deprive the SCOTUS of its only consistently conservative vote. In general, they’d require a huge amount of bossiness, with all the screw-ups and public choice perversions that go with it. Anybody with any entrepreneurial zip (not to mention common decency) would just get the hell out.
Yes, some such racial administration system probably is necessary in prison, where people are deprived of all freedom over their own social circulation. That’s no reason to treat the whole of society as if it was a prison (or a school) — especially because that’s what governments are going to want to do.
You are assuming that a large, intrusive, and unrealistically effective white police force is not statism, but segregation is statism.
Obviously black businessmen in the black community need to be protected from Korean businessmen. The alternative is protecting Korean businessmen from black criminals.
What in practice tends to happen today is that no one keeps shopping centers safe in the ghetto, they get burned down, and then blacks have to come into white areas to do their
shoplifting and muggingshoppingOf course, protecting black businessmen from Korean businessmen will make the ghetto poorer, will be an oppressive and interventionist government in the ghetto. Oppressive and interventionist governments are popular with members of inferior races. They will love it. They don’t love Korean businessmen, even though that is more efficient, more free, and better for them. Even less would they like the large intrusive, highly statist, and interventionist white police force needed to keep Korean businessmen safe in the ghetto.
My program is that we give members of inferior races all the government they want and all the government they need, which is to say, lots and lots of government, while members of superior races want and get considerably less government. Ghettos should be islands of socialism in a sea of free market capitalism, for ghettos should contain the people who want socialism.
Blacks want more government. If they don’t get it, they start fires. The choice is between giving them what they want, shipping them off to Africa, or killing them.
Francis.
“White proles will be the cannon fodder of the reaction.”
A reaction that isn’t getting any farther than here, the web.
“An incentive for working – not starving.”
They’ll be the cannon fodder to destroy you, as they are not going to rally behind a standard that promises to put them in their place. You offer work or die? Know your place? Die to be a white nigger Officially?
That’s your offer?
Frankly I don’t think the white proles were ever that keen on making anyone the nigger if they had to feed the cannons mouth for it, see the 1860s Jim is on about. Free soil and all that.
What you are offering is to change a sloppy and weak but usually lenient master who does after all give you food et al for an Iron Master with whips for all.
What you are offering is the sharecroppers place at the table, instead of the niggers place, who after all will be back in chains or dead. In Jim’s World the Confederacy Triumphs, and all lessers know their place and are happier for it regardless of hue.
Yeah I’m sure they’ll be beating down the recruiters door.
What you actually might offer them is a return to 1950s Fishtown. Father knows best, and the Fathers ability to again be head of the family and bring home the income.
And a word about the modern economy, and your marvelous BRAINS: what you are typing on, communicating on, wearing, eating, driving were likely produced by one of these low IQ types you are looking down your nose at….there’s no sensible reason not to bring the manufacturing jobs back, except for your – entirely fantastical – status jockeying. I said sensible reasons, not dogmatic ideology. Of course wishing everyone to be of less status based on “creative economy” superior intelligence is sensible unless….
BRAINS RULE: The cognitive elite – that you wish to replace – did not come into being because they were selected through a Confucian process for their superior intelligence. Perhaps that’s what should have happened, but it didn’t. The Cognitive Elite came into true power and Empire by…diligent cowardice. You see they were dodging the Draft, as the 20th century wars went on and on they more and more “shirked”, over time of course they self selected rapidly amongst each other..it happened faster under pressure. And the women who bred to them were breeding not just to smarts but you see…cowardice. And the shirking of the Labor and indignities associated with soldiering and war. The intelligence was merely the means, not the end. The end was Shirking.
The cognitive elite we actually have was bred for cowardice and shirking.
Meanwhile if your interested since the beginning of the Volunteer Army and Female Military Service the warriors have been doing some rapid self selection and breeding of their own the last 40 years. Do go and research it yourselves. It was already running in families with the Draft, since we’ve had both no conscription and constant conflict – and female warriors usually descended from fighting families – we’re becoming rather generational, as of course are cops and firefighters.
They WEREN’T breeding for cowardice, shirking. And guess what? They’re not dumb either.
“They’ll be the cannon fodder to destroy you, as they are not going to rally behind a standard that promises to put them in their place. You offer work or die? Know your place? Die to be a white nigger Officially?”
Well, I was offering a pro-prole critique of Jim’s program of reducing the white proles to de jure white nigger status. Less welfare, but they get to return to gainful employment, no longer have to suffer from discrimination and no longer have to compete against the slave hordes of the third world. That’s kind of a good deal. Much better than what the cathedral (or Jim) was offering.
“And a word about the modern economy, and your marvelous BRAINS: what you are typing on, communicating on, wearing, eating, driving were likely produced by one of these low IQ types you are looking down your nose at….there’s no sensible reason not to bring the manufacturing jobs back, except for your – entirely fantastical – status jockeying. I said sensible reasons, not dogmatic ideology. Of course wishing everyone to be of less status based on “creative economy†superior intelligence is sensible unless….”
Again, you’re yelling at the wrong guy here, I just said we should *not* be outsourcing prole jobs to the slave hordes of Asia. I agree that we should be bringing those manufacturing jobs back (with partial automation).
If they are now on welfare, they are not proles, but underclass.
And the underclass is too demoralized to fight for or against anyone.
But the 1950s were made illegal in the 1850s. To restore the man’s place in the family you have to go back to 1680-1820. The 1950s were just the last gasp of a social order that had been under attack from state and academia since 1820.
As for who the white proles will vote for and fight for: The overclass has been systematically destroying the white prole class, forcing them into the underclass. White proles are a 1950s phenomenon. They are not around any more.
Yes Francis I am apparently yelling at you, not personal.
And I see your points more clearly.
Reaction,
If you want to get from HERE to some better THERE you will need an army, which means you need a demos. Oh yes the Cathedrals deal sucks. But you have to offer them something other than white sharecropper.
I believe in the demos, which means I believe in them earning political power. He who takes the field earns it, he who doesn’t, doesn’t.
This might be called the Second Franchise, and Second Democracy.
It must be wielded by the responsible. That rules out for instance Fantine.
The question is what are the demos going to do? They aren’t voting.
They are arming, the shelves were bare months ago.
That’s headed somewhere. In case it wasn’t we have the host of plagues the Left’s rule is bringing on us, such as our cataclysmic finances. So HERE is not going to last.
The demos arming means they want at least options.
[I find the idea that the demos is to be cannon fodder but have no share in deciding the society they live in, share in it, or power to be highly offensive. also utterly impracticable].
Frankly a solvent democratic socialism looks a lot more attractive than the whitest nigger on the Plantation, guided by his betters.
[I understand I am breaking out the N word unilaterally, and accept responsibility.] Let me indulge further* – Nigga I don’t see you fighting, you ain’t deciding.
They are waking up but they still lack Tribunes, I daresay if I wanted to be the new Patricians I’d look into starting at Tribune.
I’m still not racist. Responsibility and proven sense of duty outweigh pigment, Sirs.
On the matter of Fantine [Les Mis]…I think we may quite be close to agreement. Certainly the Fantines of today shall find at least they do not exercise the Franchise any longer.
As far as in General, Equality under the Law is the wise and just way to preside. Mind you we need a tiny fraction of our current laws. Equal under the law, not Sequel – equality of outcome is gone.
That is Equality of the Law. Equality of the Levers – we must NOT have.
That was madness.
In other words if ye would be Reactionaries then learn from their rule. The Prince acted wisely and judiciously. He may not have acted with perfect consistency, that is not his function. That’s the idiocy of democracy or any government in the hands of …well Fantine, the unjustly oppressed, and the quite frankly never oppressed but Justly not trusted.
We may have Equality of the Law, we must not have Equality of the Levers.
But you see dears one never says that aloud….
*I had forbidden myself the use of that word, this is so liberating!! I love Reaction.*
The right called out the demos, and got the tea party, a group large, formidable, armed, and brave.
The left called out the demos, and got the “we are the 99%”, a group composed of astroturf on the government payroll and underclass who showed up for the free food and camp sites. The 99% proved to weak and cowardly. While a thousand police were strangely unable to control five hundred ninety nine percenters, three rentacops had no difficulty.
The demos is the middle class. The working class has mostly disappeared into the underclass, and the underclass is useless. The rentacops are loyal to their salt, and handful of rentacops can handle any number of underclass.
Here is what I think the demos might march for…and has expressed quite an interest in: The Constitution Restored.
You will say it’s been gone since 1933. yes..but you see…they just noticed it. And they’re quite roused.
Government by Democracy, circumscribed by the Constitution. When the election changes parties, the majority of government staff changes. Farewell Civil Servants. Speak not fool of your expertise. This was the system 1830-1933. As with the Constitution it’s been gone since the New Deal, they’ve just noticed. And they’re roused.
If these are accomplished New Deal government is thrown down, that is the Cathedral. The demos have just now woke that they are governed by administration and it’s criminally insane. Let them get their boots on.
Sum: the demos should march for the Constitution and a return to democratic government as existed 1830-1933.
Or they could march for any number of other things, perhaps instead of Tribunes who do care for them they’ll follow a far worse Pied Piper than now…who promises them they can have all that was promised them and more if they only change their rider. Democratic Socialism if only solvent and well administered is an attractive proposition.
Should we let women vote?
Should we let blacks vote?
Obviously not. We should not let anyone vote who is going to vote for an obamaphone.
The irresponsible should not vote.
The Franchise must be restricted to the responsible.
Your neighbors decide who gets the franchise. Franchise boards, like conscription and any number of other boards.
However what would make the Tea Party proceed to the next step?
What would stay the hand of the police and military?
An appeal to their oath, perhaps? To the Constitution.
And what of the demos gains for their struggle. Actual democracy in fact, perhaps? Such as existed for the century prior to the New Deal.
Demand all and give nothing, indeed take what little is literally on the table now is not a serious offer.
It’s not the Battle Cry of a Man.
It’s the baby rattle cry of the Boomers – I WANT.
It’s inverted Prog. He who demands it would be as unfit to rule as they are.
Appropriate discussion fodder: North Dakota mom (Native American and white trash) breeds 69 kids on a nurse’s salary, now living on welfare and adopting more.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578471503624865878.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
Read closer. She only gave birth to six kids, the rest were step children, adopted children, foster children and homeless kids who stayed with her. The state was calling her and asking her to take foster kids. She also worked that whole time, sometimes at two jobs. The lesson here is that kids aren’t that expensive, you should have more of them.
Ah, apologies. Need to follow the advice I dispense elsewhere and read more than headline and first paragraph.
I’ve often emphasized that much of the world is as exposed to severe collapse as the West is. Countries suffering both elite emigration and differential fecundity are pretty seriously screwed. How many elite Indians would you allow to emigrate to the West/NEA? All of them? What do you predict will happen (in India)?
I wouldn’t be in favor of exposing Clarence Thomas to the company of random Blacks, in a cafeteria or anywhere — I don’t think Jim wants that, as he wants to separate all civilized people from uncivilized ones, and probably even all civil people from all uncivil ones, etc.
What will happen to the US Black community, if Clarence Thomas doesn’t run it? Already happened: a radical rejection of bourgeois traits. –Which I do admit is not wholly cultural, it’s partly caused by dysgenesis. And I kind of admire Black gangsters in some ways. But all things within reason. There are too many gangsters and they are too brutal.
You seem to take principles more seriously than the real collapse of US Black life, the apparent real unsustainability of minimal order & security in India. Ideals matter a great deal ; realities, even more.
Well, throwing Clarence Thomas in with the other black people would be pretty cruel and unproductive (he’d be killed and eaten), but you could send him in with some mercenaries to establish order and rule as their king.
Or you could take the cognitive elites out of the black community (always keeping in mind reversion to the mean) and allow the rest of the black community to descend into a cannibal apocalypse when the welfare ends.
Emotionally, that’s a tempting idea but realistically, when whole countries descend into a cannibal apocalypse that will probably have an effect on the rest of the world, even if the border is sealed.
After all, India is at risk of a cannibal apocalypse (dsygenic breeding + cognitive elite emigration) and it has nuclear weapons.
These countries and peoples need their cognitive elites to rule over them. The alternative paradigms are even worse (re-colonization by the West or descent into savagery).
[…] ‘Mestizos and National Wealth’ (Jim) […]
Well Richwine would seem to be one of the 1st martyrs for HBD…
When he actually just pointed out his research.
Jim – what do I want to do? Let the answer inform you as to the reasons I suggest certain courses of action, as opposed to others.
@Nick Land @Jim
The disappearance of male only environments was a terrible blow against freedom of association. There is nothing socialist about such environments, they were all privately and spontaneously created, just as apartheid in the school cafeteria is privately and spontaneously created.
Isn’t this precisely the point—to allow privately and spontaneously created apartheid to exist or not exist as private citizens see fit? To not punish people who vote with their feet or associate with whom they want to associate? I think we just need a negative law here, one that doesn’t undo naturally occurring segregation or force people together by lowering standards across the board. (Or, I should say, if we’re going to undo spontaneous segregation, we should at least go full Singapore and do away with free press and jury trials while we’re at it.)
The high school or university campus is a microcosm of what should be going on: people more or less separate by race, but the separation is fluid, naturally occurring, and not draconian. No one save a few radicals ever tries to push these groups together on the quad or in the cafeteria or at frat parties. The Clarence Thomas’s can still go to the Young Republican meeting, even though it’s mostly white; a few nerdy blacks and mestizos can still go work in the engineering building, even though it’s mostly Asians and whites; and self-hating whites can still go to the Afrikan Student Association meetings, even though it’s mostly blacks. And everyone lives together peacefully in the dorms because you never have to spend much time in the dorms.
Enforced segregation seems unnecessary once we do away with enforced assimilation.
I suspect much of my problem here is terminological, since the idea of “privately and spontaneously created apartheid” simply doesn’t compute for me. Segregation can be formal or informal. Apartheid is a legal regime.
Answers.com defines apartheid as follows.
When I was a kid, there were a great many male only spaces, some of them very large indeed. I am pretty sure that none of them were created by the government telling the owners of those spaces that they must exclude women, except where government bodies owned those spaces, and I am sure that all of them were suppressed by the government, and that this suppression constituted a massive violation of freedom of association.
Consider for example the black universities in the US. Official policy was that blacks went to black universities, and whites went to white universities. But those universities were property, though in substantial part government funded. Was that a legal regime?
It is official policy that our prisons not be segregated. But for the most part they are segregated. Can anything that happens in prison not be a legal regime?
I am pretty sure that George Zimmerman did not want to associate with Trayvon Martin, in the sense he did not want to be mugged, but Trayvon Martin did want to associate with George Zimmerman, in that he needed to mug someone to pay for his drugs.
If people like Martin Trayvon do not have their freedom to move restricted (the ghetto) then better people do have their freedom to move restricted (the bubble, the ethnic cleansing of Detroit, high housing prices in the small and diminishing safe areas)
Apartheid in South Africa had no place for high quality blacks – but neither did it have the horrifying levels of rape, murder, torture, and cannibalism that today’s South Africa has. Segregation in the US and in Rhodesia did have a place for high quality blacks.
You high brah?!
The title of this post BARELY fits the subject matter. N00b.
[…] https://blog.reaction.la/economics/mestizos-and-national-wealth.html […]