Tuesday, April 29, 2008

More on miscegenation and its effects on the demographic landscape

++Addition++John Savage responds here. He makes an interesting remark regarding the elite opinion on immigration--even if we assume the reality of human biodiversity is understood, the establishment has many reasons to lower the average IQ of the populous. Steve Sailer has summarized the elite opinion on IQ as this: It doesn't matter, but they have higher IQs than everybody else. If Steve's pithy descriptor strikes you as accurate, it's hard to argue that what John asserts doesn't describe the situation right now.


Responding to a post here on one of his own, John Savage entertains the idea of a one-drop non-white rule for preferential treatment at the national level but ultimately finds several faults in it. He points out that transnational differences, an important driving force behind whiterpeople's support for liberal immigration policies, will remain unchanged. Thus white guilt will become mocha guilt, the end result being more of the same. He also suggests that one-drop non-whites will still identify as non-whites, and thus clamor for lots of immigration from non-white places. Rather than excerpt snippets and thus obfuscate John's points, I urge you to read his post in full if the discussion interests you. My response, which I left at BNWW, is below.


The strictly national, one-drop discussion is a thought experiment. I'm not endorsing it, although I do think it would be preferable to a nominal non-white percentage requirement for preferential treatment.

No claim to a crystal ball here, either. But it's uncertain that an 80/20 white/non-white 'homogenuous' (that is, everyone is more or less mostly white with about the same amount of black/Amerindian ancestry as contemporary blacks have European ancestry--and with a one-drop rule, whites would have greater opportunity for fecundity due to greater desirability, so the mix would probably be something more like 85/15 or 90/10) will be one supportive of open immigration from Africa, Latin America, or the Caribbean. Most blacks express restrictionist views on immigration, while Hispanics tend to split or lean modestly towards restrictionism, depending on how the issue is presented to them.

Hispanics today, especially those of first generation in the US, understandably feel closer to other Hispanics entering the US than hypothetical 80%+ Euros will sometime in the future. It will similarly be more difficult for open border elites to leverage ethnic solidarity in this future, because the Indians simply won't be there (even if there is no shortage of aspiring chiefs). I suppose the pertinent question is how strongly the population buys into the tripe about one-drop. Will most people see it as a legal requirement to be exploited (in short order by virtually everyone), or as an accurate descriptor of biological reality?

Presuming only blacks and whites for a moment, were the public to overwhelmingly support unfettered immigration from Haiti or Nigeria, we'd have to throw out the working assumption that people are rationally attempting to maximize their own IQs and the IQs of their offspring. That calls into question your initial assumption that all people will have become racial realists.

Barack Obama's dominance among blacks shouldn't necessarily be taken as evidence that someone of mixed European and Other ancestry will reliably be able to appeal to Others as they rally behind him. With this presumption, it stands to reason that the mixed leader will play up his Otherness. And against an opponent who is entirely white, it will work. But against someone who is entirely Other, the mixed person will lose the battle for the Other vote.

We see this in Latin America regularly. The Amerindians back a fellow Amerindian or Mestizo who is mostly Amerindian against a more European-looking candidate (ie Morales in Bolivia, Chavez in Venezuela, Obrador in Mexico).

With Hillary as an opponent, Barack has the black vote in the bag--the mixed candidate leveraging his Other credentials to take the Other vote against the white candidate. But when he ran for Congress in 2000 against the very black Bobby Rush (who was heavily involved with the Black Panthers and is now, in addition to being a Congressman, also a preacher) in the very black 1st district of Illinois, Bobby beat Barack by a margin of more than 2-to-1--the mixed not being able to win over the Others like someone who is 'authentically' other can.


desmond jones said...

It's not clear, IMO, that elites are attempting to drive down IQ through immigration. Some countries practice a high IQ immigrant policy, yet still see the same effect, lower wages. Lowering wages transfers wealth and wealth correlates highly with well-being. Longer lives, lower morbidity, lower infant mortality rates etc. Darwin touched on this in the Descent of Man.

"The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the
power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."

He goes on to describe mitigating factors, like high infant mortality rates.

The conundrum is posed by the Salterians who believe the elites replenish their numbers by drawing upon their co-ethnics. Thus it is to their advantage to eschew the suicidal policies of mass immigration because ultimately it portends extinction. There appears to be no data to support that position. Considering regression to the mean, the offspring of the elite will tend to the average of the ethnic group. Thus some of the elite group will be lost to the banal masses. However, does it matter? If Darwin is right the elite group strategy is adaptive.

Audacious Epigone said...


Are high IQ elites better off in a country where the average IQ is high or low? The wages are consistently lower in the latter, but that doesn't seem to be beneficial even to those at the top relative to elites in higher wage countries. Even in countries like Australia and Canada, while merit immigration policies exist, illegal immigration enforcement is pretty lax. I'd think elites, if lowering wages without lowering IQ was a conscious goal, would clamor for extending the number of legal residencies granted while restricting illegal immigration entirely.

Given current TFR around the world, it's hard for me to see the middle and upper classes' as having much of a strategy at all. Throughout the West and developed East Asia, they could procreate more than they do with only marginally increased risk of an offspring not surviving to reproduce in the future.

desmond jones said...

Are high IQ elites better off in a country where the average IQ is high or low?


That's the point, it doesn't appear to matter. Mass immigration will drive down wages. It appears it always has, whether it's the famine Irish or illegal Mexicans. It may pressure different sectors. For instance, plumbers do better in Canada because high IQ migrants may pressure engineering wages. Even so there is still wide avenues for depressing the general wage rate because much of the immigration that follows, especially with certain ethnic groups will be family re-unification. Western Union did amazingly well just because immigrants send wads of cash back home. So well in fact, WU created a multi-million dollar immigrant support fund. GM, Tyson, Walmart, agri-business etc are all the biggest supporters of open borders.

The Millionaire Next Door
The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy

By Thomas J. Stanley, Ph. D. and William D. Danko, Ph. D. - describes the average millionaire as "a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children." Three children, on average, is a higher TFR than Hispanics/blacks, and undoubtedly suffers a much lower infant/maternal mortality rate, lower morbidity, longer life, better quality of life, children better educated and even those kids with an average IQ do better if they are from a wealthier family. It appears rosy, but evolution suggests there is some mitigating factor, some sort of regression that will see families over, some times a very short period of time, fall out of the elite group. The question is what is the demographics of the high IQs, say 115 & over (or La Griffe's smart fraction of 106-108). Do they largely come from outside the elite group? If co-ethnics supply the lion's share of the smart fraction, then by replacing that group with mass immigration, will it not have a deleterious effect on the well-being of elites? Or are the millionaires, that average three children, self-sustaining?