Monday assorted links


#2 It is amazing. It is our time's Library of Alexandria. Did they already have this one?
#4 "First of all, if you think Japanese people share a sense of camaraderie and togetherness from all being the same ethnicity, think again." They share sense of camaraderie with no one. They behave like hyenas.
#5 So something did evolve in India. It is encouraging.

Oh for having Ray being the First commenter instead of T Rib.

"qui se ressemble s'assemble"

There are significant numbers of people proclaiming on twitter that they'd like everyone to be white?

That they'd like everyone NEAR THEM to be white, yes.

I'm curious what The Anti-Gnostic, Steve Sailer, and the other racialists here think of #4.

A commenter on that post calling himself "Mercury" had a good point that it's not about race it's about commitment to Western Civ. I tend to lean that way.

The anomaly is that "Western Civilization" only took root among people within the Hajnal lines. Substantial immigration of people outside those lines is historically unprecedented, and I think that's what enabled Westerners to presume that their civilizational values were universal.

Is there any reason to believe that we could swap out the populations of Auburn, Alabama with Mosul, Iraq and that Auburn and Mosul would remain essentially the same? If you want to maintain Western civilization, it's probably a good idea to maintain a majority of Westerners. Otherwise we're just bringing There, Here.

People have been subdividing themselves into distinct groups for a long time before the Alt-Right showed up. As I like to ask people, where do you think Diversity comes from.

I can see potential for assimilation to Western values among higher-g individuals. I know Middle Eastern Christians (a group which, perforce, avoided marriage with the Muslim invaders) who are appalled at their Muslim countrymen's clannishness and lack of civic pride, which of course is why they're here instead of there. And if you think about Christianity's proscriptions against polygamy and cousin marriage in contrast to Islam, this makes even more sense and points to genetic difference.

Another observation I've made is that the only two groups who seem to be represented in libertarianism are higher-g individuals (e.g., Walter Williams, Murray Rothbard) or Anglo-Celts (listen to Charlie Daniels, "Long-Haired Country Boy.") But we are doing appallingly bad in that area, importing people with dismal intelligence from brutal cultures.

Depends on how quickly the people change. Obviously, if you switched Auburn and Mosul instantly it would look very different from many different groups of individuals from many place gradually working their way into the population of the US over decades.

And I'd say the people coming to the US are as much "higher-g" and positively aspirational as they are 'dismally intelligent'. Your comment here is almost identical to posts you've made before. You've got your story and you're sticking to it. I just think it's not nearly so simple nor even as accurate as you claim.

I live in a city with A LOT of immigrants. It will be dismal. Most will not work past age 50.

Higher G immigrants.

You guys are both made empirical claims. What's the best data on distribution of immigrant IQ (the best measurable proxy for G)?

Look at IQ by countries of origin. Koreans, Indians, Chinese are above the US mean. Central Americans, Africans, well below.

We do get the cream of the cream from Africa, because anybody with a 120+ IQ in Africa who's not Paul Kagame's son is working night and day to get the hell out of Africa. Africa, consequently, gets dumber.

Salma Hayek obviously does better in the US than back home. Most of the Central Americans I see pushing baby strollers up the street don't look like her.

The smarter Central Americans don't look like Salma Hayek (who does?), nor would you see them pushing strollers.

And my point continues to be that there are probably more high quality immigrants (from Asia, Africa, etc) than you think and somewhat less low quality ones than you think as well. And even some of those uneducated Mexican illegals are clearly self-selecting for drive, willingness to work, and other positive traits.

"And even some of those uneducated Mexican illegals are clearly self-selecting for drive, willingness to work, and other positive traits."

What evidence do you have that's true? If its true why the hell do they have such high unemployment, high poverty rates, high rates of government assistance, etc. These people are clustered in some of the highest per capita income areas of the country, and yet somehow they just can't succeed and everywhere they go becomes "the bad part of town".

Noahpinion links to a survey saying that some Mexicans vaguely think hard work helps you get ahead...yet somehow as a group they don't act on that belief. If they really believed, wouldn't it show up in employment and income stats? Curiously no links are made to survey after survey showing they have a higher opinion of bigger government providing more benefits.

We could go down the whole work and pick it apart in the same way. It's already been done a thousand times on a thousand blogs.

"Well, the short answer is: I don't know how they're going to get it. It's not going to be possible for them to reimplement racial segregation, or kick all the Asians and Hispanics out of the country. Any serious, large-scale attempt to do that would mean civil war and the collapse of America, which I guarantee would not lead to a nice pleasant racially homogeneous peaceful life for anyone anytime soon."

It's civil war one way or the other. Once these people are a majority they will push their weight around even more then they do now. At a minimum you end up living the type of life people in Latin America, South Africa, or Malaysia live. I.E. Worse then if America stayed white. Kicking them out is harder then never letting them in the first place, but what other choice do you have. They will not leave you alone, once they take over they will dictate the terms of how you'll live. Reminds me of a quote:

As Malaysia’s longtime Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad used to say, “if you don’t like me, defeat me in my district.”

When America is majority non-white, even if the government implements garbage as ridiculous as Malaysia's government implements against its Chinese minority, you will just have no choice but to sit there and take it. They have the numbers, they have the votes.

"I think people would move there, and find that homogeneity doesn't automatically produce trust and goodwill and social peace."

We aren't asking for utopia. I'd just like things to not be like mother fucking Baltimore. No assaults. No theft. No riots. No throwing all my property taxes into a black hole. No the school in my neighborhood being rated 1/10 on Zillow. And no, paying $5k/month in rent gentrification tax is not a valid escape for 99% of the population.

"The anomaly is that “Western Civilization” only took root among people within the Hajnal lines. Substantial immigration of people outside those lines is historically unprecedented, and I think that’s what enabled Westerners to presume that their civilizational values were universal."

So, were the ancient Greeks not part of Western Civilization?

They were its foundation. They also had similar nuptiality as Western Europe.

Genetically, they probably no longer exist.

If Western Civilization is defined by anything, it is the Western Empire after the Roman Empire broke into it's two halves, and the dominion of the Catholic Church.
It's not an accident that Italy, Spain and France are all derived from Latin - they were the center of the Western Empire.

Seriously, if any European countries are kinda-sorta non-western, places with Latin languages and laws the go straight back to Rome aren't it.

"I can see potential for assimilation to Western values among higher-g individuals. I know Middle Eastern Christians (a group which, perforce, avoided marriage with the Muslim invaders) who are appalled at their Muslim countrymen’s clannishness and lack of civic pride, which of course is why they’re here instead of there."

President Temer is from Christian Arab stock. How many Arabs have been elected president of the United States? Some countries talk about integration, others do integration.

So, Ireland isn't part of Western Civilization?
Along with half of Poland, and Southern Italy?
And Western Civilization is defined by nupitality rates?
This seems awfully convenient from an alt-right perspective.
You managed to find a map which just so happens to exclude all the somewhat browner peoples of Europe (along with the Irish, not everything can be perfect).
And then you arbitrarily define "Western Civilization" as only existing within those boundaries. Because the Catholic Church does NOT represent Western Civilization! Nor the Roman Empire, or the Western Empire - which happened to include all of Italy and Spain. That wouldn't work because it would include too many Sicilians and Spaniards.

Calm down and have some chamomile, dearie, and try not to trip over the mouse poop.

I'm not sure why the former Iberian colonies turned out so much more dysfunctional than the former Anglo-Celt colonies of the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But they did.

Sicily is pretty much Northern Africa, which is why there's a Lega Nord.

My point is that your definition of Western Civilization conveniently excludes these "dysfunctional" places. Isn't it just possible that Western Civilization could have produced BOTH functional and dysfunctional colonies? Maybe there is some sub-variation within western civilization that is responsible for the difference. Western Civilization produced Adam Smith, but it also produced Karl Marx. Socialism is just as "Western" as Capitalism. For whatever reason, the form Spanish colonies went rather hard left in the 20th century. That isn't because they're not western.

I think the thing you are referring to as "Western Civilization" is not actually universally western. You are more narrowly talking about the western enlightenment, a far more recent phenomenon, centered in Northern Europe, including Germany Britain and France.

Libertarianism is a direct intellectual descendant of the enlightenment. That's why libertarians are drawn from Anglo-Celtic (or anglo-saxon) cultures. The Enlightenment spread more rapidly in protestant countries where the Reformation took hold because the Catholic Church opposed unorthodox intellectual thought, which for obvious reasons tended to suppress scientific inquiry (see Galileo). That said the relationship is not really that simple, because the Church also ran most of the Universities. All this enlightenment stuff was sort of taking place under the church's watch, advanced by church trained intellectuals. Plus there were factions in the church of course and multiple strains of thought as always.

#4 - I saw the word "diversity" and immediately knew not to read the post. I scanned #3, #4 could not be as useless.

I'm old enough to remember when the official US government (and large corporations) policies were equal opportunity, as in the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC): That policy was (note the past tense) that all persons are to be treated fairly and equally regardless of the race, ethnicity, religion, gender, . . . It seems (to me) that "diversity" walked away from that. And, now that MLK's children and grandchildren are judged by their skin color not the content of their character. That was all talk, anyhow.

Am I a "racialist?" I don't care.

Do you think those policies you mention were effective in ensuring equal opportunity, regardless of what you think of current public policies (which for the most part haven't changed)?

How long do you plan to keep quotas and such?

100 years?

And why do Asians get preferences when they are higher earners, etc. than whites?

You should be paying attention, because we're heading towards a "four feet good, two legs better" situation with intersectionality essentially being reverse apartheid judging who has the most "victim points."

Maybe your side can pull this off, where the quotas and intersectionality slowly go away, leading to color blind society, but it looks more like they are being insituationalized instead, and thus whites naturally begin to form a ethnic bloc as well.

Amusing that some think Asians get preferences. Are you unaware that good schools routinely apply negative affirmative action to Asians? There is overwhelming statistical evidence that this is true for both selective high schools and universities. On the other hand blacks are overrepresented relative to other minorities in sports and acting. No one thinks of preferences for Asians there. Let us not forget blacks making fun of Lin on tv as his star rose.

And elite schools (as Golden pointed out in The Price of Admission) have even used prejudicial statements against Asians (such as stereotypically interested in math and music) that would be firing grounds if used to reject other racial groups. Parents kill themselves helping their children overcome obstacles and are ridiculted as Tiger Moms.

Pfft. Asians suffered from legal discrimination in the first half of the 20th century, have low crime, and high performance, yet receive neither equal treatment nor racial preferences. Even worse, the traitors that suck up to the identity industry even seek to dismiss the model minority rubric and try to reduce it to just spoils and preferences.

Race blind meritocracy. It is a hard thing, but it is what we should aspire to. If the R's could only see that, they would bind the Asians to them for generations.

Harun clearly is not aware of which institutions (not that many) have affirmative action and what they entail.

What are the revealed preferences for white neighbors? Or white/NE Asian neighbors?

I don't have time to read the whole post, but it begins with pollaganda. Smith cites a survey which asked people if different races makes their country "a worse place to live," and cites the low rate of agreement as an argument that people support diversity. That's ridiculous. If people really believed it, you'd think they'd support more immigration, but the large majority do not. People want less immigration but they don't want to insult immigrants or people of other races directly.

He also cites support for amnesty which is based on presenting people with a false choice of mass deportation or legalization. When the option of attrition through enforcement is added, large majorities of every racial group support it:

Noah glosses over a lot of alt-right thinking. One of Moldbug's big pieces is "How Darwin got pwnt" which is about ideological changes more than pure racial composition. Alt-Right is a pretty diverse group (sorta like how communists are diverse and argue over the tiniest things), but not all of it groups all "white" people into a homogenous group.

Sure, no one can address an entire intellectual movement in one blog post! This is just one thesis that I see coming out of the alt-right. I'll address a couple others in other posts.

Probably not, generally reflecting the small share of neo-Nazis in the population.

I see no one is sold on the idea of a Racistbook yet. The domain name is still available.

2: Sure, THAT'S useful.

Oh right, like anybody's going to read your comment.

It's so great that people are making the inevitable sarcastic jokes about #2

Isn't it?

Salma Hayek is not actually all that attractive, compared to non-sarcastic people who look like her and non-sarcastically push baby strollers. That being said why not, instead of a sarcasm database, a database of the times that people said yes when they meant yes and no when they meant no? That would outperform a database of sarcasm.

Like anyone thinks satire is funnier. Pfft.

#4. The "siren song" is a cover of John Jay's original hit in Federalist No. 2: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

3. Is Cowen a Magnus Carlsen (no, I only know who he is because I read Cowen's link), a brilliant chess player even at speed chess? We know Cowen is a speed reader. He divulged his "secret" in interviews about his new book (he's read so many books and is knowledgeable about so many subjects that he can skim a book and discern if there's anything in it he doesn't already know). Is chess like that? Gladwell makes a point about lawyers, preferring the tortoise (careful if slow) to the hare (mistake prone if fast). It's my habit to sit on a complex document for a night (actually, sleep on it, as I go over it in my mind while lying in bed) before I finalize it. But that isn't always possible, as when a deadline looms (e.g., for financing), in which case speed must take precedence over 100% accuracy. So it depends. Adam Grant seems so fixated on the advantage of the hare (speed) that he isn't really listening to Gladwell - probably because Grant anticipates what Gladwell will say before he says it. What makes a really good interviewer is the ability to listen, and listen closely. I'm not sure Grant has that ability. He knows what he knows and knows Gladwell knows less than what he knows. I've watched Cowen's conversations and he is a good listener. On the other hand, I've watched him being interviewed and his answers are so rapid fire that one gets the impression he was given the questions in advance. I suspect not. Rather, Cowen has already thought about the question because, like all those books he has read, he's thought about most any question he could be asked.

I don't know if we overvalue speed, but you definitely undervalue brevity and paragraph breaks.

I communicate in sentences, whether when I write or when I speak. There's nothing more important than clarity in communication. I detest social media if for no other reason than it's abuse of language. And I very much appreciate the sublimity of a well-ordered sentence or paragraph. For example, one written by Walker Percy. [No, I don't fancy myself as a Walker Percy. It's aspirational. Like when I was a boy and aspired to play baseball like Mickey Mantle.]


Gotta side with The Other Jim here, sometimes your comments Rayward are reminiscent of the final chapter of Joyce's Ulysses. But then again that book is often touted as the greatest single piece of literature.

Ulysses is 732 pages. Do a couple of complex sentences equate to 732 pages? I suppose they do for some. On the other hand, War and Peace is 1225 pages. Be thankful I didn't write War and Peace.

I suspect that the feeling of ethnic solidarity that many alt-right whites feel for other alt-right whites is something unique to minorities. People who have always been part of the overwhelming majority just don't think about ethnicity enough for it to create bonds of solidarity - except in extreme situations, like a foreign war.

That is probably so. As white people become another minority among many, then, perhaps some degree of alt-rightism is/was inevitable.

Inevitable that some would feel it perhaps, but given the Pew results, it is not a majority motivation. ("A 2016 Pew survey found that only 7 percent of Americans say that growing diversity makes the country a worse place to live.")

Most people have more pressing concerns.

As Smith notes later on, though, we should be wary of placing undue reliance on survey data like that. I don't think Trump won by energizing a mere 7% of the voting age population with talk of building a border wall.

Many might have done so under the assumption that few things would change under Clinton and otherwise for reasons generally unrelated to border walls or visiting fruit & veg workers.

#6 is the most important story of these links but I bet it doesn't get many comments.

"Cassava's challenging position – described by Buckler as "pointed in the direction of extinction" – is likely due to a reduction in diversity during domestication as well as the fact that cassava is spread through cuttings rather than seeds. Without sexual reproduction and the concomitant purging of mutations through recombination, approximately 30 new mutations per generation are accumulating."

Implications for human society: (1) cloning humans is long term bad, (2) interracial marriages should be encouraged (tax breaks, societal recognition, etc), (3) [placeholder] I can't think of a third thing, but somebody will think of one.

Didn't droughts and rising food prices play some role in fomenting the Arab Spring and subsequent civil wars?

(1) and (2) are unlikely to be a problem, in practice. In agriculture, we're talking about plants that have been serially cloned thousands of generations.

The three biggest staples are grown from seed: rice, wheat, maize. However, roots and tubers are usually grown from cuttings so this could be a problem for those staples, potatoes, cassava, yams, taro. Sub-saharan africa is pretty reliant on roots and tubers, so this could become a big problem.

And when I read the link I thought the implications were just the opposite (which is why I didn't comment and why I assumed Cowen included the link). I suppose it's because you are a man of the world. Thanks for being one.

The linked article made reference to "crosses", but I don't understand how there could be any if cassava doesn't reproduce sexually. What is it supposed to "cross" with?

Tubers like potatoes reproduce both sexually and asexually: (Yahoo Answers) " I usually use asexual reproduction when trying to make potato plants. I use a potato that has sprouts on it and then cut off the sprout and root it in water. ...Although they can reproduce sexually by creating seeds in a field. If there are many plants and they are blooming then they will get pollinated. They then will drop seeds."

Bonus trivia: plant patents only cover asexually reproducing plants, except for the potato ("A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's heirs or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. ")

Bonus trivia II: Hit ler's plan to produce a master race by culling genetically inferior 'races' ran into a problem when a geneticist pointed out it would take thousands of years (Sam P's point above) to produce a 'perfect' race. But I would argue that Hit ler had the right end but his means were wrong: by encouraging cross-fertilization between races--think Franco Harris and Malcom Gladwell--you get the best of breed, even though it might take a while.

Bonus trivia III: Ghengis Khan's DNA is the most common DNA found on earth, and Mongolia has the highest IQ of any country in the world, despite being a poor country which usually means bad diet hence low IQ. Coincidence? G. Khan had lots of wives, and a high IQ, though some accounts say physically he was not that impressive.

Some plants can even go hermaphrodite and mate with themselves, as an additional strategy beyond reproducing itself through shoots from roots.

I had never heard Mongolia has the highest IQ. According to this list, it's #6:

Good point on (1).
The genome is degenerating because the cloning process copies errors that would otherwise not make it through sexual reproduction.
So yes, that has implications for human cloning.

There's an easy solution for Cassava growers too - stop propagating plants by cutting and go back to growing from seed. Might be harder (more plants will die), but that's the point. It weeds out the weaker plants.

4. A good meander. We are left to guess the meaning of the question mark. A hopeful "will it fly?"

As an aside, about this line: "They want the dream of a half-remembered, half-imagined 1950s Southern California - the clean streets, the nice lawns, the dependable white neighbors who tip their hat and say hi to you as they stroll down the lane."

By the 70's at least every kid was doing a California Missions project. We do missions like Virginia does the civil war. It's kind of hard to picture a California kid thinking this was the land of white destiny.

This is the land of the California banknote.

Its interesting that they don't include Fort Ross as a mission for that project. IIRC every 4th grader does a mission project.

My kid was assigned a mission, but if she was allowed to choose one, I'd have asked for an exemption to do Fort Ross., just to be different.

I can remember Fort Ross from my school days. Definitely in the curriculum. Since I have lived all of my life on Mission San Gabriel land, that seems the more adjacent history tho.

one sweet chunk of real estate

4. Noah Smith: "Japan has always reported relatively low levels of interpersonal trust - until recently, considerably lower than in the U.S."

But the chart he put up going back to 1981 doesn't show this.

If looking at the response to "Most people can be trusted", in 1981-1984, 54% of Japanese responded "Can't be too careful" while 55% of Americans did. In 1994 - 1998, 54% of Japanese replied "Can't be to careful" where 63% of Americans did - Americans pull ahead in cautiousness! It was about equal in 2005 - 2009 while in 2010-2014, 57% responded that way while 64% of Americans did.

The other response, "(Yes) most people can be trusted" is very similar for Japan and the U.S. except for the 1989 - 1993 period where Americans were 11 points higher.

I'm not a fan of Noah but this particular blog post is egregiously bad. Lots of strawmen, misrepresentations of statistics, and veiled falsehoods. A detailed rebuttal would be way too time consuming. The part on Japan is particularly cringe inducing.

For God's sake, he says he is skeptical of survey research then proceeds to cite a bunch of survey research.

My son has been following you for some time, and now he has me doing same. I find everything you say worth pondering but one small mention you made to Ezra Klein about eating smoked trout for breakfast had me racing to Whole Foods, where you then changed my life in a nice way a little bit. Love that stuff, can never find it, and do not trust the safety PNW salmon anymore (we live in Oregon) which is one of the sadder things on earth. Regardless, I love smoked salmon, am a really picky eater, so for the big insights and the small, thank you. I didn't quite know where else to write you. Best!

1. Is the end of ESPN the end of history (i.e., college football), or only the end of sunup til after midnight coverage of college football on Saturdays in the Fall. College football is a product sold on television like soap, but with the actors facing far graver injuries than the users of soap. I have mixed feelings about college football. On the one hand, college football keeps lots of very smart kids in the South to attend State U so they can wallow in the success of its football program. On the other hand, it's brutish and exploitative, especially of the blacks who predominate. To quote Chauncey Gardiner, "I like to watch".

My daughter was in high school marching band and will probably march at Big State U (if she thinks she can maintain her target GPA). So as someone with tangential involvement, the pageantry of large high school and college football programs shows no sign of young men having second thoughts. Risk and return are positively correlated after all. But it is an incredibly perverse system and I'd like to see the whole edifice torn down.

If not for football (and, to a lesser extent, basketball) why would very smart young men and women attend State U. They wouldn't; they'd go to a private college, up North or on the West Coast. Attending a large state university with a powerful football or basketball program is a huge draw for many 17 and 18 year olds. Of course, they are only 17 or 18 years old. In the dark ages when I attended State U it was a bargain: I never paid more than a few hundred dollars per semester. Today, kids pay tens of thousands in tuition per year. They are being exploited no less than the football players.

This is one of your most idiotic posts, and that's a high bar to clear. In-state tuition at State U. is drastically lower than private college tuition.

When you post like this, it makes it hard to credit anything else you post, even when you aren't being totally moronic.

American football is a bad product in the sense of being entertaining but a great advertising environment for television, which is pretty much why it's so popular. It would be a more entertaining and exciting game if the roster was limited to maybe eighteen players and if, like baseball, one of the eleven players on the field was substituted for he could not re-enter the game. The athletic ability required of each individual would be much greater.

As Mr. Boris Sidis pointed out, college sports rotted American universities from within and corrupted higher education.

Millions of Americans disagree. Isn't it actually gaining viewers?

I believe hockey is in fact declining, which is a shame because among the major sports it demands the most all around skill and fitness of the players. Plus it's great fun to watch.

Millions of Americans eat at Taco Bell.

Tabo Bell = gaining in popularity, too. So what's your point? It's a bad product? People vote with their dollars.

The principal difference between college football and college baseball, besides the color of the participants, is the number of scholarships awarded: in baseball, a total of 11.7 scholarships can be awarded per team, which, divided among 27 players, means a .43 scholarship per player. In football, it's 85 scholarships on full ride. Why the difference? Maybe I am idiotic. Maybe I am moronic. Maybe I don't understand simple minds.

Baseball doesn't bring in money. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

As a big Jake Butt and Michigan football fan, I really don't think CFB is going away. ESPN may go under, but televised games and the college game will remain. They may even start paying the kids a bit, which would be a good start. Football may also continue to get safer through rule changes.

#4 without black Americans where would gospel, blues, rock and roll, jazz, hip-hop and wrap music be? Would football and basketball have the same grace and entertainment value?
If black Americans gave us so much, why not let others come, besides it seems a very American thing.

I do think it is time to phase out AA and try to talk less about race and minorities and persecuted nationalities (oh and fine to try to persuade Muslims to willingly convert to Christianity).

I could deconstruct this into the ground, but I'll refrain. Let's just say, historically importing browner people to do labor you find beneath you has never turned out to be "cheap."

I will also say that while the taco trucks and margaritas are fun, otherwise it's a pretty juvenile culture.

Or we could be like the liberals, enjoying the "wrap" with a high wall separating us from those who create it. If this comment is representative, "un-thought" is a good name for your blog!

I find it interesting that the more "reasonable" proponents of ethnic homogeneity look to Japan as an example. It's mostly a myth, albeit a useful one perpetuated by the Japanese government.

How much does it need to be to fit your definition of homogeneous? 99.9%? 99.99%?

I can't tell what you're getting at. I've been there and it seemed pretty damn Japanese.

4. Unlike 99% of the anti alt right articles from the cuck-o-sphere, Smith appears to have actually read more than 2 alt-Right articles. I laughed at the last part:

But the ironic thing is, suppose they did get their Kekistan. Suppose New Zealand decided to become an all-white country (like it did in 1920), and twenty million alt-right types from around the world moved there (giving it about a quarter the population density of Japan). I think it just wouldn't work.

I think people would move there, and find that homogeneity doesn't automatically produce trust and goodwill and social peace. They would find that their population was a highly selected set - it would be made up of people who couldn't get along with the people in their homelands. And they would find that the real thing keeping most of them from getting along with their neighbors wasn't ethnic diversity - it was their own personalities.

Eventually, social strife would return. Neighbors would feud over land and resources and power and community status. Gunfights would erupt. Killdozers would be unleashed. The government would lurch from crisis to crisis. Protectionist economic policies would be tried and would fail. The economy would languish. Some people would emigrate, back to the hellscapes of diversity.

And those who remained would cling to the theory that "Diversity + Proximity = War". No one likes to give up their cherished social theories, especially if it's the theory that the country was founded on. Just as with Hutus and Tutsis, the inhabitants of Kekistan would "discover" ethnic differences that had been there all along. Suddenly they wouldn't be just white people anymore, but Russian-Kekistanis, Italian-Kekistanis, Hungarian-Kekistanis. Strife and distrust would return, and the new country would undergo decades, if not centuries, of brutal upheaval, fragmentation, clan warfare, unstable military rule, competing aristocracies, atrocities, and poverty.

I didn't just make that prediction up, by the way. That's pretty much just the history of Japan."

Anyone else here read that and think of Israel. Heh?

Are there really people calling for white homogeneity? And are there very many "alt-right" people? I've only read about them in left wing blog posts.

I know several conservatives, I read blogs and speeches of at least two Trump supporters, and have never heard any of them even say the words "alt right".

Does anyone know one in real life?

Until very recently, many "alt-right" people didn't like the term and refused to use it. They probably still don't.

Alt-right is a label the left invented to group up a whole bunch of non-mainstream conservative movements. Most MRAs have probably not heard of neoreaction, and I'm not sure opposition to feminist overreach is a core neoreaction tenet [not that one person has to subscribe to all neoreactionary ideas to count as one anyway]. Compared to neoreaction, right-leaning /Pol/acks may have opinions on muslims and socialism, but I doubt a lot are nationalistic, and even fewer are monarchistic. A big number of channers dislike /pol/ but react against censorship and censorious movements. So when these diverse and not even necessarily right-wing streams of thought got lumped in under the alt-right label, there was some backlash, and most would tell you that the entire thing came from leftist ignorance - an attempt to talk about very different movements that they do not understand, or to just group them up to make for easier nazi+racist labeling. So if you're looking for alt-right people, look directly for the subgroups that comprise the movement - look for MRAs, PUAs, neoreactionaries, conservative posters in /pol/ and so on.

4) The articles crime stuff is just one of many many bad statistical arguments in the piece. If Hispanics move in and push out blacks, the crime rate goes down in that area, because Hispanics aren't as bad as the blacks, but they are still worse then whites. Of course the blacks still move somewhere else and cause problems. In St. Louis for instance the Michael Brown incident took place in a suburb that blacks moved to after being pushed out by gentrification, only to have Ferguson go completely downhill because of their arrival.

It also cherry picks out a few great centralization cities that suck up money from the whole globe and can use it to buy off a lot of their problems. Not to mention the high rent pushes out blacks. That doesn't apply to most cities, and in some part comes from the parasitical industries of this cities sucking up wealth from the whole country.

Another basic theme throughout the piece is not noticing that Hispanics fall somewhere between blacks and whites on just about every metric (not surprising given their genetics). We don't want to compare to "average Americans". That's partially comparing to blacks, who we know are trash. We want to compare to whites. If Hispanics have worse social statistics then whites then the more of an area they control the more geography has become a "bad neighborhood" with "bad schools" that white people are now denied access too. Also the bigger the "anti civilization" voting bloc gets.

Then there is the fudging. "Immigrants" are used when we all know we are talking about NAMs, so having East Asians dilute the statistics is just a waste of time. The obvious and well known increase in crime and other dysfunction between first and second generations of immigrants isn't discussed. Nor are the different crime rates amongst Hispanics discussed. Nor do we even know who is considered a Hispanic immigrant in his statistics (do Puerto Ricans count?, how about illegals?).

Talking about Canada and such is even crazier, as they have a eugenic and thus de facto racist immigration policy. They also border no third world countries.

Here's the thing about pieces like this. They are full of flaws. Some statistical. Some logical. The author has an agenda, and he cherry picks what he wants.

I used to spend a lot of time reading pieces like this. At this point though, what's the point. You can find a good rebuttal to every point written here if you want. You can dig into the studies. Read other people that have dug into the studies. Etc.

That doesn’t even get into issues like his not understanding what people actually want or basic logic problems.

Bottom line its always going to come back to the common sense answer you always knew all along. People with good genes are more pleasant to be around then people with bad genes. Get too many people with bad genes and the whole system becomes dysfunctional. "Bad genes" basically follows the mental model you already know Asians/Whites > Hispanic > Blacks/Arabs, with ever finer points and details the more you feel like researching it. If we ever get to the point where bad gene people are a voting majority we are all fucked.

4. Because I just read it and it's good and it relates:

Comments for this post are closed