My Conversation with Eric Kaufmann

Interesting and excellent throughout, here is the audio and transcript.  Eric is political scientist at Birkbeck College in London and the author of the recent Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities.  Here is part of the opening summary:

Kauffman’s latest book Whiteshift, which examines how declining white ethnic majorities will respond to these changes, is on Tyler’s list as one of the best books of the year. The two discuss the book and more, including Orangeism in Northern Ireland, Switzerland’s secret for stability, what Tocqueville got most wrong about America, predictions on Brexit’s final form, why Portugal seems immune from populism, how Notre Dame should be rebuilt, whether the Amish — or Mormons — will take over the world, and much more.

Here is one excerpt:

COWEN: Do conservative Muslims also have a much higher fertility rate?

KAUFMANN: The gradient between very conservative and sort of secular and liberal is not as strong in Islam as it is in Judaism or Christianity, but it’s about a twice higher fertility for women who are most in favor of Sharia compared to those who are most opposed to Sharia, in the cities. So I do think there is also this dynamic within Islam, yes.

COWEN: If we look at a country such as Iran, which now has a very low total fertility rate, is that a sign they’re not actually very religious? Or there’s something unusual about religion in Iran? What accounts for that?


COWEN: Which group of French Muslims has assimilated most successfully and why?

KAUFMANN: Well, the outmarriage rate is almost 50 percent for French Algerian men, but even across the Franco-Algerian community, I think it’s in the 40 to 50 percent outmarriage —

COWEN: And they’re marrying ethnically white French women?

KAUFMANN: Right, or men. I think part of this stems from Algeria in its history. You have a large Berber population in Algeria, many of whom are anti the regime. They’re anti the Arab-Islamist regime. So they’re actually quite secular in many ways.

That’s part of it, but even amongst the Moroccans in France, there’s quite a high outmarriage rate of like 40 percent. So yeah, the French Muslims do seem to be melting in better than Muslims even of the same ethnicity. Compared to Moroccans in the Netherlands, for example, there’s a much higher outmarriage in France.

COWEN: And that’s the Berber factor, in your view?

KAUFMANN: I think it is the Berber factor. I don’t think there’s anything magical that the French are doing that the Dutch are not in terms of integration policy. I think too much is made of that.


COWEN: What’s the most plausible scenario for Irish reunification?

KAUFMANN: I think the most plausible scenario is that Northern Ireland Protestants don’t have the same hostility to the Republic that they have traditionally had, so maybe a kind of charm offensive.

In a way, the unionist population is the one they have to win over. They are kind of foursquare against reunification. Somehow, the Irish Republic has to find a way to reassure them. That’s going to be the ticket to reunification, but it’ll never really happen just through economic integration. I think there’s got to be something symbolic that will win over the unionists.


COWEN: So there’ll be more of a turn against immigration?


COWEN: In Canada.

KAUFMANN: Yes, and immigration attitudes are now very different, depending if you’re a Conservative or a Liberal voter. That didn’t use to be the case even five years ago, so there is more of a politicization of that issue now.

Recommended, and I found all of Eric’s books very interesting as well.

View at


In a way, the unionist population is the one they have to win over. They are kind of foursquare against reunification. Somehow, the Irish Republic has to find a way to reassure them.

No, they don't. 'United Ireland', like 'no hard border' is a silly shtick that's properly abandoned.

Divided Ireland is a recent innovation in the long sweep of history. Northern Ireland only encompasses part of Ulster, making it more artificial still.

Northern Ireland was created against fear of poor, backward Popery. That Ireland has disappeared. Not sure how it happens, but it's just a matter of time.

Oh, just keep hoping.

Divided Ireland is a recent innovation in the long sweep of history.

Actually, Ireland had almost no history under a common government until the Tudors stamped out the last of the recalcitrant Irish grandees. The Peronist nitwits who currently govern Scotland can at least claim that Scotland was once a political unit and not merely a geographical expression.

That said, I bet the one thing that will convince the unionists to join with the Republic of Ireland would be Scotland leaving the union, especially if they get readmitted to the EU quickly.

I would bet the exact opposite, the spectre of an independent Scotland would create a backlash in the Unionists lead to even closer ties to England.

That said, I bet the one thing that will convince the unionists to join with the Republic of Ireland would be Scotland leaving the union,


What's the shame in being a cuckold?

Before the late 19th century, there was no Italy or Germany either.

Well, as we speak, Austria, the Germanophone Swiss cantons, Alsace-Lorraine, and the Germanophone portion of Trentino remain outside the Reich. The Italian Swiss cantons remain outside of the Italian Republic.

East Belfast, Bangor, and Portadown are British. Get over it.

Great convo.

But in 2019, I kinda hold my breath when these things are discussed.

One slight in tone or perhaps the use of one term incorrectly and you can loose everything.

Anyway, I forward to reading the book.

Shorter book summary: "fight for the right to be white" (clap clap clap).

Talking about whites is claptrap. The future lies in interracial marriage. The world will soon be a subtle shade of brown, just like me, which suits me fine. Notice even Miss Sweden these days is a minority and even the white girls have tans. It's over, Steve Sailer. All over but the shoutin'...

LOL. Just because Bill DeBlasio and Jeb Bush have obvious issues doesn't mean everybody else does.

Not to be rude, but have you considered what that may do to the average IQ?

If our collective IQ goes down, what would be the consequences?

Probably not good.

Even bigger grosses for super hero fantasy movies. CGI comes to dominate cinema even more. People forget how to play bridge and canasta. Kim Kardashian gets elected to the US Senate.

LOL. Just because Bill DeBlasio and Jeb Bush have obvious issues

Someone with an intact family and 45 years of marriage under his belt isn't an ordinary person's idea of 'someone with obvious issues'. (DiBlasio is peculiar for a half-dozen different reasons; that his wife's black isn't one of them; that she was middle-aged, unattractive, and had a history of lesbianism - indeed, political lesbianism - when he married her are reasons).

Bush married way down. He has issues.

Sound like his issue is not being a racist moron like you.

Bush married way down. He has issues.

He's had a functional marriage for 45 years. He knew what he was doing. He was also an upper class kid. About 97% of the female population counts as 'down'.

Which is why he used the modifier “way” down. Jeb bush’s marriage should raise all sorts of red flags.

Nah I’m gonna keep fucking white chicks. You suck as a person so you have to fuck down/ pay for sex.

White women prefer the darker and longer cocks of Muslim men. Look at those outmarriage rates. No wonder sexually frustrated white men are out there committing mass murder.

.... just more vague predictions from the Ivory Tower

what is Kaufmann's track record on 'accurate' predictions ?

I would have liked to hear more about his book on the rise and fall of anglo-america. He had an interesting debate about it with Kevin Macdonald, of all people. I don't know if the collapse of a majority-anglo ethnic consciousness in America is unprecedented, but it does seem like an under-studied phenomenon.

Great conversation! One point though—regarding intermarriage, there seems to be an assumption that the intermarriage rate is solely up to the minority. I don’t think this assumption is accurate. Intermarriage takes two consenting parties, one from the minority and one from the majority. That means that low intermarriage could be the result of members of a minority not wanting to marry out, *or* members of the majority not wanting to marry members of that minority. So there should also be discussion of what makes the majorities in some cultures more willing to marry some minorities. In fact, I’d guess that low intermarriage is usually primarily due to the majority’s preference against intermarriage, not the minority one. In the US for example, polls have shown that black support for intermarriage has consistently been higher than white support. Studies of online dating have also shown that white women have the strongest same-race dating preference of any group, while some minority groups like Asian-Americans show no same-race preference. Low intermarriage in that case should be explained through the lens of white people’s preferences rather than what minorities are doing.

Good comment. That is also how I would explain the better integration of Moroccans in France as opposed to the Netherlands. The French are both less politically correct and less racist than the Dutch. So the arab/berber minority is both pushed and pulled more to mainstream French society compared to NL.

"...Studies of online dating have also shown that white women have the strongest same-race dating preference of any group ..."

I don't believe that is true. Do you have data?

Sure, here is data:

Lol no points for guessing this guys ethnicity?

Moshe oh dear we have failed all those fair skinned blue eyed shishkas still crave tall white guys.

"So there should also be discussion of what makes the majorities in some cultures more willing to marry some minorities. In fact, I’d guess that low intermarriage is usually primarily due to the majority’s preference against intermarriage, not the minority one."

It likely has to do with the majority's stance toward assimilation, and also attitudes towards gender and moral/cultural/social education. The Assyrian Empire, for instance, would conquer various tribes and kingdoms, and then regularly encourage the conquered men to marry Assyrian women in order to wipe out the lineage/history/culture of the conquered peoples; women were seen as the "carriers" of Assyrian culture through the family. Not entirely unlike how, under traditional Jewish law, Jewishness is passed through the mother.

Contrast this with modern Japan, where until not too long ago the child of a Japanese person and a foreigner was only considered "Japanese" for nationality purposes if the father was Japanese, and (not coincidentally) the maternal role is to nurture and baby children, with moral, social, and cultural education left to state institutions (since fathers are frequently working all the time). Japan takes a much less assimilationist stance toward minority groups like the Chinese and Koreans, preferring to keep them highly concentrated in certain towns and neighborhoods.

It depends on sexual market value. Most Meso-Americans are sexually invisible to most Anglo-Europeans. So you have persistent Iberian and American phenotypes in Central and South America despite centuries together.

There is a creedal aspect to this as well. Freewheeling Americans are not going to marry into the baggage of an observant Muslim family, so Muslims will ghettoize. Any sufficiently potent creed becomes an ethnicity over time.

' Any sufficiently potent creed becomes an ethnicity over time.'

Which undoubtedly explains why it is impossible for Anglo-Europeans to tell Turk and Indonesians apart, due to the potency of their shared creed.

OMG this changes everything.

Glad I could help you recognize the difference between Turks and Indonesians regardless of their having a shared potent creed that turns them into one ethnicity over time.

When you are well rested, we can start on the difference between Iranians and Arabs.

And for an advanced course, the difference between Tunisians and Egyptians and Yemenis.

Iranians have a much more powerful god. Iraniians use the god given mind control powers to force Saudis to hijack planes in the US and attempt to destroy America by destroying NYC and the Federal government. They control to Saudi figgter piolots and Saudi backed generals who then kill civilians. They control the Saudis and force them to kill Iranians who work for the Washington Post. They force Saudis to fund the Taliban who attack the governments of Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh.

And they force Saudi men to marry lots of women and then force them to have lots of babies who if male fight for government jobs, or failing that go on jihad to kill Americans, Christians, or basically anyone who does not adhere to Wahabist ideology.

Iranian god given mind control turns British and Americans into Islamic State terrorists in Syria so Iranian soldiers can kill them.

Clearly Iranians are much more powerful than Arabs, and everyone else because they believe in the most powerful god.

The god that will allow Iran to destroy America with one nuke, and then create a shield over Iran that will block the thousands of nukes Trump orders fired on Iran.

Only the god Kim has more power, which Trump recognizes, and thus worships because he likes being buddy to the most power Korean god ever.

No one wants to marry down

KAUFMANN: I don’t necessarily think it is wrong, other than the fact that, right now, the economy is about 85 percent government.

Per the Office of National Statistics, utilities, medical care &c, education, and public administration account for 25% of the value-added in Ulster. Add in some portion of the construction industry and unspecified services, and maybe the sum total of public sector activities accounts for 30%. This man's utterances are 'self-recommending' or whatever.

It's well known that the Irish economy is founded on drinking and lying.

Isn't Ireland basically a branch bank for US and European public companies?

Ireland's national income accounting is peculiar. A great deal of corporate revenue is booked there for tax reasons, which exaggerates the dimensions of local production. The ratio of employee compensation to gross value added (0.31) is half that of a normal occidental country. They have a healthy labor market: about 63% of the population over 16 is currently employed. About 5% of their workforce is employed in financial services.

I mean, this is a discussion about Northern Ireland, but I guess we can all talk about something we know some vague thing about.

Does Tyler get a cut of any book sales originating from his blog?

In theory it's possible

In practice, the volume of sales may lead to 10 cents of income per month. Is that an incentive? =)

Good points. Canada is a very interesring country and we probably have much to learn fom our Northern cousins.

I believe our system needs an overhaul if America is really to keep its place as the leader of the world. I don't think neither Trump nor the Democrats contenders fully understand the challanges America faces.

For instance, shouldn't we have already signed a new treaty woth Brazil to make sure we can count on a steady supply of much needed niobium for our industry?

Hi Thiago!

I think you are mistaking me for another person. I am Mr. Stevenson, from Illinois.

Niobium — overrated. Better mineral deposits of great interest are found in Russia, which possesses world's largest reserves. Unlike Brazil bumpkins, majority of the Russian population lives in cities — 109.3%. As a concerned American, I want to see ourselves making the more preferable alliance.

"majority of the Russian population lives in cities — 109.3%"

I am sure it is a statistical mistake. They must have counted some people many times. Brazil is a very urban country, with a very sophisticated populace. Aldo, Brazil is a real democracy and a peaceful country. Brazil has never fought a war of aggresion. And, let's remember, Brazil controls the world's supply of the niobium America's economy needs to be able to compete with Red China. I think the die is cast already.

Russia is a better democracy. One person many votes: this is after all "pluralism". Vote-tally experts can also supply homeland elections, right here in America.

No, it is not. It is actually a dictatorship controlled by Putin. In Russia, you elect Putin. In America, Putin elects you.

fwiw the Frontline piece on the Bundy/Malheur events is worthwhile.

It's an interesting case study in particular how various right wing nativist and nationalist groups coopted and projected their agendas onto the Bundy's. And the son allowed himself to expand and ultimately overreach while seduced by the spotlight.

I was intrigued by the internal schism spurred at the Malheur march, and by Bundy's recent statements about immigration and Trump in general - correctly identifying the irony of supposedly constitutionalist and individualist anti-authoritarian groups flocking to and remaining loyal to Trump - the hilarious conundrum of what to do when your government hatred comes face to face with your gaining power over the government you hate.

Also fascinating is how badly the Feds bungled both events at prosecution.

I was curious how the Bundy's viewed groups like the anti-WTO protests and more recent anti-war and Occupy movements. i.e. if their anti-government oppression posture was strictly directed to right side movements. There was one broad comment referencing that.

Relevance here is not just white movements, but Mormons, of which Bundy's are said to be devout. This led to a couple interesting essays about Mormons and individualism, and anti-government traditions.

Your fascination with an extreme outlying group like the Bundys and friends is very telling. Now doubt all you discover reinforces your bigoted stereotypes of centrist and conservative people. Do you really believe that the approximately 50% of voters that chose

...that chose Trump over Hillary are accurately represented by the views of the Bundys and their supporters.

Here is some shocking news for you: they don't.

That an open border with Mexico and thus the rest of third world Central and South America might not be healthy for the stability of the US is not an extreme view.

Conversely, the belief that we should open the border and take all comers and provide them with free education and medical care is an extreme view. It is is also plainly stupid.

They're not interested in the welfare of the United States. They're interested in striking attitudes, promoting the Democratic Party vote farm, and job opportunities for Democrat clientele like social workers.

And further, while I am supporter of the second ammendment, I think that many of its fiercest advocates are actually frightened cucks and paranoid d-bags.

The clown who got himself shot at Malheur being a great example of a guy who choked on his own dog food.

editor, why did you delete my reply? Besides a brief snark in closing it was a reasonable continuation of my thoughts

There's an interesting article in the WP about Bunny Mellon's garden, Oak Spring. One thing mentioned in the article is that Paul Mellon was an Anglophile while Bunny was a Francophile. For some reason that struck me as a typical male-female difference in the immigration debate. Anyway, the article is interesting and includes many photos of Oak Spring.

The Amish diminishing
I recently visited Lancaster PA, home of the largest Amish community in the United States. The Amish are struggling, basically designed as an agricultural based community that has outgrown its agricultural roots. A lot of there income now comes from tourism. Most of the young men get jobs working as carpenters/contractors for construction firms based in the Lancaster area. Many of these firms get work hours away from the Lancaster area. The Amish for wages are exempt from FICA taxes due to religion. A very good yet dated article about the distortion in local contractor markets that gets created with competing with the Amish contractors:

for all things Amish see

"Whiteness" is not a coherent ethnography, full stop.

It is a "not" group, defined ad hoc and without grounding in history or biology. The US Census, attempting to square this circle gave this guidance in an explicit "RACE" section:

"White – Print, for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc."

That is a crazy catch-all. Germans and Egyptians do not have any meaningful common history or descent. It's just a way to define a "white" "race" that is not black, American Indian, or Asian.

If you want to be proud of your actual ethnicity, talk to your grandparents.

"Race" is for bigots.

Black Lives Matter! And anybody who doesn't enthusiastically agree is a bigot.

Why would you choose this moment to insist that black lives do not matter?

I think what he is trying to say is that, for black Americans, their race IS their ethnicity, and it's been that way for some time. The same will probably happen, and realistically is already underway, for white Americans: at some point, your history of Scots-Irish great grandfather, German grandmother, Italian grandfather, and Polish great grandmother all just gives way to "white" as the specific family history becomes increasingly remote.

For what it's worth, non-Orthodox Jewish kids are increasingly seeing their Jewishness as just another white ethnicity, rather than any religious identifier. Likewise, there is a lot of talk about Asian-Americans as a category, when this extends from Afghanistan all the way over to small islands in the Philippines and north into Manchuria, and younger Americans whose parents or grandparents hailed from Cuba, Venezuela, or Honduras are increasingly seeing themselves as "Hispanic" rather than of those specific countries in terms of heritage (which is already complicated, of course, by the fact that lineage in those Latin American countries is already frequently tied to various old world groups like the Lebanese, Italians, and Germans).

I think that is a generous rereading, but to answer you, why in the age of and 23andMe would that "flattening" to "race" happen?

I think we are heading in the opposite direction. Even those cut off from family history can re-acquire it.

Personally, I'd hope American immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela, or Honduras know their family history *and* embrace an American identity based on ideals of freedom and equality.

This also neatly removes the white, non-white gulf at the heart of our political dysfunction. After all, letting *some* people into the "white" group, and by implication let them become Real Americans, doesn't solve our problems. Not by a long shot.

That's neat. I went back to 23 and Me and clicked through to DNA Relatives. It's totally full of real Icelanders, with traditional -son and -dóttir names. That's a re-acquired ethnicity, not "white."

> Likewise, there is a lot of talk about Asian-Americans as a category

That was already a done deal, many years ago. Although perhaps originally it primarily meant Far-East-Asian and nowadays sometimes includes the whole continent.

When the Gangnam Style viral video fad took over YouTube in 2012, various groups of people put up videos of themselves doing the dance. Most simply used the original song, but I vaguely recall one video done Glee-style by some group of students, with an Asian-American girl singing.

The point is, she was Filipina, and was merely doing her best to pronounce the Korean lyrics. And that wasn't considered cultural appropriation, as it surely would have been if some white kid had done so, even if that person was reasonably fluent in Korean (or perhaps I should say, especially if).

(Do not doubt that exist, by the way, with Kpop as motivation and widespread language learning resources on the Internet)

Black Americans are kind of forced into identifying as black because of how other people regard them. They have visible distinguishing features and get treated in a certain way because of it. This is why second generation Jamacians identify as "black" not "Jamaican". They grow up having the shared experience of being treated as 'black' in a majority white society that still has underlying racial divisions. African Americans also do have a shared cultural heritage due to developing as an ethnic outgroup substantially isolated from mainstream "white" society.

I don't see that happening to majority "white" society, because that process required African Americans to develop largely independently of, and in reaction to, the larger society. White society doesn't have anything to develop independently of. It doesn't have a thing to react against to keep it internally coherent, and I hope that we never experience sufficient racial animosity to make that happen either. In other words, in order to get white people to all identify together as "white" it would probably require some external threat. This is precisely why the purveyors of racial division want to portray white American society as being under attack, either from immigrants or "progressives", or by black people (in various coded language). They know the only way to bind white society together into a coherent entity is by fomenting racial animosity, and that's exactly what they want. They want racial conflict. I would not go down that route as it leads to nowhere good.

Black Americans are kind of forced into identifying as black because of how other people regard them. T

They aren't. Go back to Saskatoon. You're ignorant and unteachable.

There's actually a couple of episodes in the show 'Atlanta' that addresses this point directly.

There's the comedy one where there's a black guy who identifies as a 40 year old white man. Which is really hilarious because he keep talking about how people keep treating him like he's black, but he's not black, he's actually white. (He's obviously black).

And then there's a more serious one in which two female characters are going to Octoberfest, and the one tells the other something like 'you're going to be a baby mama, but that's ok, because you chose black' - i.e. implying that she chose to identify as black. And the other one makes the point that she didn't choose it - she's black because that's how society sees her, and she doesn't have a choice about that.

My aunt described moving (as an Air Force bride) from California to Texas, and seeing "white only" drinking fountains. This is still living history.

Yes there are still people who were alive 70 years ago

Actual black lives do not matter to the people pushing Black Lives Matter. They matter to Wm. Bratton. "Black Lives Matter" is an Alinskyite attack on law enforcement (which in turn induces less law enforcement and more black-on-black homicide in slums).

That is a very cynical take. Indeed a dark view of human nature.

Why would you NOT enthusiastically agree that black lives matter?

Because black people cant even pretend to believe the corollary and in fact get angry when it’s suggested that all lives matter.

Why can’t you stop fantasize about sexy dark skin and just be content with your poor boring Mayo husband. I hope he has a side piece.

I don't believe race is the driving factor in the opposition to mass immigration into the US. I think the main objections are cultural and economic.

I am white, mostly of Irish heritage, and thus you might think a racist might feel comfortable saying something racist to me, yet I can't even remember the last time anyone said anything racist. However, I do hear objections to mass immigration that are economic and cultural - multi-lingual ballots, affirmative action, overcrowding in single family home neighborhoods, crowded schools, bilingual education, section 8 housing, welfare benefits for the US born children of illegal aliens, etc.

It's not about race, it's about your culture being erased.

Personally, I can't stand all the oompah music on the FM dial and blaring in a our public parks. If it's any consolation, I hate white country music even more - at least the Mariachi bands have some excellent brass players.

I heard somewhere that in hell Mariachi and country western music is played nonstop. That's enough to make me want to be good.

There are certainly many coherent and non-racial ways to discuss immigration. I'm responding to Kaufmann's ideas that (1) more immigration leads to more white identity populism, and (2) a way out of the trap is to endorse and expand the idea of "whiteness."

My alternative would be to endorse a non-racial American identity based on common values, and to treat ethnicity as what it properly is, a very specific family history.

My alternative would be to endorse a non-racial American identity based on common values, and to treat ethnicity as what it properly is, a very specific family history.

Every empire in human history has tried this.

Interesting claim. I think (1) not all, but (2) some of those that did became dominant world cultures for centuries.

Can you really ask for more than that?

Beats being an ethic enclave.

The Israelis, Turks, and Lebanese seem happy with their nation-states, and the "Romans" are long gone. I think Hindu prefer being Hindu over "British." Haitians voted for exit from the French empire a long time ago. The Baltic nations don't seem interested in being a part of the Russian imperium. Is Mongolia agitating to join China?


Happy is a funny word to describe the Lebanese situation.

Just let the US, Russia or China know you're unhappy having a Lebanese nation-state. One of us will be glad to run it for you.

I am not Lebanese, but again the Lebanese and their religious puzzle don't strike me as happier than the Yugoslavs did with their ethnic puzzle did.

And happy is an especially funny word to describe situation of those people formerly known as 'mountain Turks.'

And the only Israeli I personally know is not happy with his nation state, but then, he is in a minority. Of roughly 20%.

Your friend is an Arab who wants an Arab nation-state.

Your alternative would be obliteration of the modern Democratic party.

'yet I can't even remember the last time anyone said anything racist'

How about read?

July 3, 2019 at 11:34 am

The problem with the mass immigrations into Europe is that first of all the new immigrants will not become European, they will not integrate they will not assimilate their intent is to dominate. Secondly they are openly hostile and violent and will inevitably seek open civil war against the Europeans. So Europe is setting themselves up for the very real possibility of civil war that may kill millions.'

Though in all fairness, maybe that commenter was not familiar with the concept of Eurabia.

Stop laughing.

And I'm sure it was just a minor slip that you did not write welfare benefits for US born citizens, which of course is what they are.

For all the mawkish citizenship swearing-in stories the media continues to produce, albeit less frequently than in the past, I don't think citizenship is trading at a high. If anything, the notion has become tainted. I am sure you'll feel the taint is deserved. The how or why, in this instance, if indeed it is the unusual event with but a single cause, perhaps takes a back seat in interest to who will be best served by the change.

"We've always been at war with ourselves."

The value of citizenship is diluted by giving it out to everybody, hence Robin Hanson's idea of awarding citizenship, membership in good standing in the State, to the highest bidders. I pointed out this would mean the "good school districts" phenomenon but on a global scale, and he enthusiastically agreed.

'I don't think citizenship is trading at a high'

So, make America great again is just a hollow slogan that has nothing to do with being an American citizen?

'I am sure you'll feel the taint is deserved. '

Why? As a matter of fact, I was just asked by an American citizen who plans to settle in Germany with his American wife and daughter whether I had, or planned to get, German citizenship. An always amazing question to hear (especially in this specific case, as it at least makes sense from a German), since I am an American citizen, and plan to remain one until I die.

This is always so fascinating to see here - I consider the Constitution one of the finest documents in human history, and for all of its flaws (ones that far too many Americans seemingly feel best ignored or actively denied), the U.S. represents one of the finest achievements in human history.

Of course, just as with any other political system, it will decline, to be replaced in time. Something that I had expected to happen decades after my death, but here we are, on the cusp of Trump making Independence Day celebrations in the nation's capital a Trump production, at taxpayer expense.

I remain extremely proud to be an American citizen, a member of a republic based on values, not blood, even if you feel that the value of American citizenship is declining.

I could easily see that being a conversational refuge for you, and it would make little to no difference whether the miraculous document had self-destructed like a Banksy artwork on a timer (leaving the Bill of Rights untouched, of course).

'So you think the following comment (from Anon) is racist?
The problem with the mass immigrations into Europe is that first of all the new immigrants will not become European, they will not integrate they will not assimilate their intent is to dominate. Secondly they are openly hostile and violent and will inevitably seek open civil war against the Europeans. So Europe is setting themselves up for the very real possibility of civil war that may kill millions.'

Where is the mention of race?

EdR, your culture isn't being erased. It evolves. Your kids don't grow up to be exactly like you so don't expect the same from everybody else. Fighting against evolution is a fools errand. What's the deal with you hating on mariachi and country? Don't like big hats or guitars?

I was half joking. I really don't like Mariachi, but the brass, especially the tuba, is worth listening to.

I can't think of anything redeeming about white boy country music. The cowboy costumes are rediculous and the music is formulaic. I hate it.

I like jazz - Coltrane, Miles, etc - and world music ( a strange name) including Brazilian, Cuban, Afro-beat (no go die) and more ...


Foisting change upon a population by allowing, even enabling, violation of US laws and sovereignty is not evolution. That is an invasion, one that is enabled by a good many of our own citizens who care little about the impact on their fellow citizens. The enablers are traitors.

Thanks. Good comment. Better than my tongue-tied attempt below. Also, as I was pointing out, "whiteness" is already in use as a pejorative against what people perceive to be structural racism. there are all sorts of people who WANT to conflate "white" culture with structural racism, and adopting this term to describe your own heritage would be playing directly into their hands.

Structural racism being affirmative action, special giveaways to minority groups throughout big law, academia, government contracting, etc.?

Maybe Cowen and Kauffman have a low opinion of the general population, and think they have to embrace whiteness and reduce immigration to appease the bigots.

Peace in our time.

"I think it is the Berber factor. I don’t think there’s anything magical that the French are doing that the Dutch are not in terms of integration policy. I think too much is made of that." - Possible, but unlikely. The Berbers mostly live in fairly remote areas, away from the major cities, and are therefore less bi-lingual. They are also poorer and less educated - both of which I suspect make them less desirable intermarriage material, ceteris paribus. What Algerians immigrating to France have is a fairly high probability of speaking French (~60% in the general population), while those immigrating to the Netherlands have, to a first approximation, zero probability of speaking Dutch. And, of course, the language is not the only vestige of French "presence" in the Maghreb - French culture has influenced and been influenced by North African culture. To focus on Berber secularity for explanation seems... myopic.

Great episode.

One note regarding the Iran birth control discussion -- the religious leaders only changed track and endorsed birth planning because they (religious leaders) had, of course, become the state. They had to deal with a massive population, and saw that it was a problem.

As far as I know, other countries' clerics have never moved away from pushing for more births -- just as Iran's did not pre-revolution or in their initial years in power.

Interesting notion. So perhaps the best way to deal with population is put the Catholic Church in charge.

And the best way to deal with climate change is to make Exxon pay for seawalls and drought mitigation.

Hey, I like it.

If I were a Californian, I'd for sure like Exxon to be in charge of drought mitigation. As it's said, if the government were in charge of the desert, it'd run out of sand.

The fertility implosion happened all over the Arab world and points adjacent. The only countries which maintained high fertility were dirt poor, like Afghanistan and Yemen.


"COWEN: Why is Switzerland now so much richer than the rest of Europe? It’s a market difference, right?"


Unless there’s a violent conflict going on, attachment to your own group is not the same as hating an outgroup. Attachment to being white or attachment to a North European ancestry is not a predictor of disliking a minority.

I think this is conflating two different things. I know many people who have an attachment to the country their ancestors came from, which is not at all racist. But it's also not at all the same as having an attachment to "whiteness". There are lots of different "white" ethnic sub-groups. It's very clear what culture those ethnic subgroups represent, and that that culture is not defined by opposition to other ethnic groups (except maybe in the case of Orangemen, which I do think is a problem in Ireland). But in the case of "whiteness", there's no clear definition of what that means other than the exclusion of non-whites. There is a shared European the term "whiteness" is already in use as means of describing structural racism. I think if you were to say that "whiteness" represents some sort of shared Northern European cultural heritage including liberal individualist values free markets and so forth, you would be making a massive mistake, because that's exactly how the far left wants to define it - to teach people that free markets and individualism and so forth are in themselves part of a system of structural racism. I.e. that "whiteness" is not an ethnic identity but a system of oppression of non-white minorities. Furthermore, by encouraging white people to identify with "whiteness" you would be setting up and reinforcing inter-ethnic conflict that already exists upon racial lines. You would get white racists who essentially agree with the far-left that "whiteness" is a system of oppressing non-white, and approve of it, mixed in with white people who just want to run around wearing kilts like their Scottish ancestors, and you would be implying that they share some sort of common set of interests.

There's a lot more to be said about this, I think. If you want to say that there is some legitimacy to the idea of people being attached to European heritage in some non-racist way, similar to the way people are attached to their Scottish heritage, that's fair. But I think the word "whiteness" is just a completely horrible way of describing that on so many levels, it's hard to articulate all of them.

I like your comment too.

No shit you both fantasize about black cock.

If you saw the size of my THICC black cock, you'd start fantasizing about it too. No homo.

Wouldn't this be similar to the current black culture in America? You have black racists who hate "white" culture. Particularly rural white culture. But most blacks just celebrate their uniqueness as a group. Once you have various Black culture group, Hispanic groups, various Gay groups, Woman's day, etc eventually you either accept White and/or White male groups or just admit that you are, to some degree, a bigot.

Now personally, I'd rather have a more pluralistic culture and de-emphasize every group having its own specific public persona and celebrations. But if you only push back against one group or set of people, then you have revealed a prejudice by your actions. I don't appreciate the Proud Boys. I think they are bigots. However, on the other hand, Antifa are not only bigots, but violent bigots.

For years the Left has criticized the Right for the violent bigots that are "loosely" with-in their ranks. Despite the fact that many on the Right routinely criticized those groups. Now we have a re-appearance of violent Leftwing bigots and the Left not only has violent bigots with-in their ranks, but they've been largely supportive.

Did you must make a statement about what "most blacks" believe?


I don't think I'd even try that.

Oh, the Obama recommends a very good antidote to this kind of generalization:

"When Dr. Pauker and I discussed this over a poke bowl — a Hawaiian dish with East Asian influences that has become popular on the mainland, too — it brought to mind something James Baldwin said decades ago: Racism exacts a toll on those who are racist, distorting their humanity and hindering their ability to be fully self-reflective beings. That’s surely no consolation to the victims of racism, but Dr. Pauker’s findings seem to confirm Baldwin’s thesis. The mental rigidity required to harbor racist ideas ends up bleeding over into other cognitive domains."

I feel like you didn't even bother to read my comment. There is no coherent "white" ethnicity. There are people who celebrate their own ethnic subgroup, like Scottish, Irish, Italian, Greek.
White people may think of themselves as racially white, but ethnically, they are from some actual country of origin. Imagining a "white" ethnicity requires a peculiar degree of attachment to race specifically. I think you could possibly imagine "white" being an ethnicity, but unfortunately, in reality there are people already doing that and they are mostly racists. You want to get your supposedly non-racist "whiteness" mixed up with an overtly racist white supremacist movement that already exists? Why would you want to do that? If you want to celebrate your cultural heritage, you already have avenues for that - we already have ethnic specific parades like St. Patricks day and Columbus Day (reimagined as an Italian American event) and Oktoberfest and such. There's absolutely zero need to bind white people together into some sort of "white" identity group. The onyl way to do it is by drumming up fear of non-whites, and the only possible result is an enlarged and emboldened white supremacist movement.

"I feel like you didn't even bother to read my comment. There is no coherent "white" ethnicity. ...There's absolutely zero need to bind white people together into some sort of "white" identity group."

Yes, I read that. It's a bigoted statement. You don't get to decide what some group of people believe. Nor do I. The Proud Boys (or any other group) have a Constitutional right to celebrate Western chauvinism or whatever they want to celebrate.

If you were making that argument that no group should be based upon racial characteristics, then fine. It still wouldn't be your decision, but it would just be an intellectual position. But clearly you aren't arguing for an end to "Black" groups or "Hispanic" groups. Instead you set up a double standard, whereby one group of people has less rights than other groups of people based upon their skin color. There's a name for that.

She doesn't say anything about rights. She's just making an argument about why it's somewhat incoherent and indeed racist to be about 'White pride' vs say an ethnic or national pride.

People can think anything they want and say anything they want, racist or not. Her point is that there's a difference between marginalized groups and the dominant one, and it's easy for people hellbent on 'celebrating their whiteness' to slide into racism. At no point is she saying they have no right to do so. She's just making a point.

And I would suspect based on her posting history she is opposed to all identity politics and overemphasis on one's race/ethnicity/nationality, white or non. Libertarians are about individuals not groups.

Correct. Though I think in the cases of blacks and hispanics having an "identity" based on that is somewhat understandable because of the fact that those identities are formed by the experience of being a racial outgroup. When the larger society looks down on you because of your skin color then that tends to be a shared experience that binds you to other people with the same skin color. What do "white" people have to bind them together? The shared experience of having college kids tell them to "check their privilege"?

We got Jeff Foxworthy and The Smiths and the state of Utah

So how do Asians fit into this picture? Are they looked down on because of their skin color? Or in reality are people of certain races discriminated against rationally because their race is prone to criminality and a lack of academic success?

I think the obvious thing that binds white people is their shared American culture, European heritage, and new position as pariah under constant attack and discrimination from leftist elites who are embarrassed by the reality of race and will do literally anything to elide it. The constant attacks by people like you who claim systemic racism without foundation are what is really promoting a white identity.

Ok, I'll accept the argument that it wasn't explicitly about Rights.

However, when you hold one group to a different standard than another due to the their skin color, your position is racist.

You're too smart to go in this direction. You don't see the point?

The point is bored stay at homes married to beta provider husbands fantasy about that dark meat and concoct numerous reasons why black racial groups are different than white racial groups. It’s classic sublimation. Lust transfigured as ideology.

How could we not see that?

Sod off you blatant racist troll!

"You're too smart to go in this direction. You don't see the point?"

I see the point. I also see that the point is inherently racist.

The argument being made looks to me to be:

a) It's acceptable to be racist against a dominant group in favor of marginalized groups
b) But it's not acceptable to be explicitly called racist
c) Therefore, I'm going to modify the standard meaning for the word racism to avoid the mental conflict.

A further confounding point is that somehow groups like the Proud Boys are to considered "dominant" but groups like the Black Caucus are "marginalized".

This leads to:
d) Groups will be considered to be marginalized based upon some subjective criteria.

At that point, I reject the entire argument and instead go with my preferred definition of racism: Holding one group to a different standard than another due to the their skin color

You have this all wrong. Yes, if you want to celebrate "whiteness" no law can stop you but it doesn't make it a good idea. You probably don't like other identity groups that call themselves Hispanic or Latinx for similar reasons but you'd be okay with Mexican Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo. One is a real cultural, ethnic identity while the other is a political front masquerading as a culture. Same with these "whiteness" groups. Blacks, unfortunately, had their cultural memories completely wiped out due to centuries of slavery so they only have black groups. Instead of reasoning from universal principles like all discrimination is bad (which I agree with btw), look at the actually lay of the land. Reality doesn't fit neatly into theory.

This is how it is.

It might not be a good idea but it is necessary. If all interest groups mobilize politically except for whites, it will end in a disaster for them. In an ideal world American would be a melting pot but the left has rejected that. Your advice is similar to telling soldiers in a foxhole that war is bad and yeah the other guys shouldn't be doing it but that doesn't make it right for you to shoot back.

According to Hazel the entire idea of whiteness is already inherently racist because the left said so. I guess they caught them napping?

If we're being real, "Mexican culture" is a relatively recent invention of the early-mid 20th Century as a consequence of the Revolution. It's a political front that became a "real" ethnicity, despite the fact that Mexicans range from white, to mestizo, to Indigenous, to black: the Spanish Empire had a complicated racial caste system, one which remained very residually strong into the early 20th Century. The same thing will happen with "whiteness" eventually: critical race theorists and other radicals constantly expound upon and expand what constitutes "whiteness", applying these categories to white people as something bad about them. Eventually enough white people will internalize these critiques as something essential to them and as something to be proud of, and politics becomes essence.

Do you really think "Brazilian identity" is not a political construct?

So to be clear in South Africa the converse is true right? White power movements are ok but not black power movements? My recommendation for you would be to focus your internet bitchfits advocating for the boers them. They are in a shit ton more danger than blacks in the USA. You aren’t American so it’s not like you hide behind the gaslighting excuse of I’m just focused on my own country. And a lot of those boers are kind of dark with mad dick swagger- nothing like your boring husband so you can keep that tingly feeling.

People that post like this are obviously really successful alphas without any seething resentment or anger. So rich, so handsome, so many hot ladies. That's this guy.

Lol this shit doesn’t work anymore. If your comment weren’t pure projection you would have just ignored him. There isn’t any resentment in his post just pretty funny and on the mark mockery of one of this shit site’s embarrassingly cringey posters. Then again hazel has been caught multiple times using socks (she isn’t very smart and even with all the time of a stay at home mom that kind of slowness seeps out) so maybe this is another one of hazels socks.

This HH guy is obviously a bitter incel. And he's probably you.

I seem to have messup halfway through writing that. Just delete "There is a shared European" and Replaced with "Also".

*sigh* Too many revisions and lost track of them.

I do not believe the Japanese are using propaganda. They used to be an expansionist empire but are very peaceful now. When my family in Illinois meets Japanese people theyu are always very nice to us.

This is an imposter. I am Mr. Stevenson, from Illinois.

They are both imposters. I am Mr. Stevenson, from Illinois.

Let's be blunt. The Japanese regime keeps preaching the most vile anti-West propaganda. The Japanese never repented from their war crimes and never sincerely apologized by them.

What is the propaganda you mean? I don't see any vile anti-West comments from Japan anywhere.

Incel cuckory, to be sure.

Is there a more precise definition of the term “outmarriage” in this interview?

Because in my experience European Muslims outmarry a lot, it’s just that it’s usually muslim-men marrying non-muslim women and almost never the other way around.

And even in those rare events where an infidel can marry a muslim women, even then its 9 times out of ten the non-Muslim that has to convert.

I will not even delve into the whole field of honor-killings of young Muslim females for dating non muslims, that happen across Europe or the lengths Muslim parents go through to get their offspring “legitimately married” (e.g. sending them some family’s wedding videos from the old country to choose their next husband/wife from and the whole process that follows) or the racist bullying kids of mixed origin have to go through - not from the white majority but from the “purer immigrants”.

Comments for this post are closed