Saturday, November 28, 2015

Miscellany of brief items

++Addition++See Tangoman's arguments for the necessity of an ethno-state in the comments.

---

- I use a termite bait station to keep termites from getting into my house because I know their presence will lower my family's quality of life. I support the construction of a border fence to keep illegal immigrants from south of the border out of my country because I know their presence will lower my family's quality of life. As it is not fear but simple prudence that compels me in both of these cases, the terms "termitephobic" and "xenophobic" are both equally inapplicable for describing my behavior.

- Assuming a stable population, even at the most theoretically violent, where martial prowess and an unrelenting focus on pugilistic tactics would put the Spartans to shame, the average person can, at the very maximum, only kill one person over the course of his entire lifetime. This occurred to me when I recently heard Lew Rockwell talking about how incredibly unnerving an experience it is for the vast majority of people to be put in a the situation of having to take another person's life, irrespective of the context. To have killed more than one person is to be an extreme historical rarity.

- These shirts are floating around my neck of the woods:


There is some grim satisfaction in watching the same people who superciliously call Kansas "Brownbackistan" now criticize the governor for resisting the transformation of his state into something that will genuinely move it in the direction of resembling an actual crapistan.

- Using the image above as a segue, the percentages of self-identified homosexuals who have engaged in heterosexual sex is 34.4% for gay men and 66.1% for lesbians. The percentages of self-identified heterosexuals who have engaged in homosexual sex is 6.1% for men and 5.3% for women.

Some non-exhaustive conjecture on why homosexuals engaging in heterosexual sex is significantly more likely than heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex is: A relatively tiny pool of potential preferred partners for gays, perceived social pressure to conform to a non-deviant lifestyle, and the existence of more of a sexual spectrum for those exhibiting sexual dysfunction than for those with normal sexual function.

- Answers to the question "Would you be more or less likely to support for president a candidate who is Jewish?" among Hispanic, black, and white Republican survey respondents:

Hispanics

Blacks

White Republicans

That's a less likely-to-more likely breakdown of 70.6%-29.4% for Hispanics, 70.8%-29.2% for blacks, and 60.0%-40.0% for white Republicans. This in spite of the fact that white Republicans are almost certainly more likely to be cognizant of the fact that Bernie Sanders--a man they'd never vote for--is Jewish than blacks or Hispanics are.

When it comes to the fracturing of the Coalition of the Fringes, it's more a question of when than of if.

- Finally, AE is now active on twitter, so engage me there as well if you're so inclined.

(Post title courtesy of John Derbyshire)

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

The coalition of fringes is a nice term. democrats have a loose hold on them, it seems. I saw a nice comment on a website I cant remember that claims the real divide is between globalist cosmopolitans and nationalist/citizenists. until Trump, the latter group has had no real political representation but it rightfully includes some blacks and hispanics who recognize shutting the door behind them is rational. its also why some of the hardcore realtalk against blacks is counterproductive for nationalist americans, they are not going anywhere and we need solutions rather than just letting globalists fan the flames. the globalist solution is gimmedats which will never work. what is ours? cutting off immigration into low skill jobs is a great start, but the globalist victim agenda is so pervasive into media, academia, etc. that the culture war will be impossible to fight with policy alone. as Trump has done for electoral politics, the nationalists will need an ultrarich to fight with entertainment. not just criticizing it, but producing sensible aternatives.

Audacious Epigone said...

Steve Sailer's concept of citizenism seems like a good place to start. Regarding feasibility, cut off illegal immigration, get illegals here to self-deport, and then seriously make legal immigration limited and contingent upon cultural affinity, merit, and good behavior (as proxies to heavily favor NW European immigration without explicitly doing so). No need to pander to non-whites, but no need to explicitly antagonize them, either. There is conceivably still time to do this and make it work.

TangoMan said...

its also why some of the hardcore realtalk against blacks is counterproductive for nationalist americans, they are not going anywhere and we need solutions rather than just letting globalists fan the flames.

There exist a class of problems to which no solutions are possible. I strongly suspect that America's black problem qualifies in this regard. We see how most of white society chooses to live and this takes the form of white flight. The more whites can isolate themselves from blacks the better their lives. This is unacceptable to blacks and some whites and their solution is to use government to trump free association. This then becomes unacceptable to a most whites.

. . . but producing sensible aternatives.

Same as above. I'm going to frame my response to you in a particular way, which is to say I'm going to bring in an issue you didn't raise but I suspect you might buy into. A lot of white people could support policies designed to create equal opportunity for everyone, that is, some poor black kid should not have his potential capped because of his parent's SES, if he has the smarts and gumption to rise is society, he should have every door opened to him, just like every other kid in America. No unearned privilege from wealth or nepotism. The problem is that even this doesn't insure equal outcomes. Even when we actively discriminate in favor of NAMS we still can't get equal outcomes. Check out how this plays in academic hiring:

The researchers looked at about 31,300 doctoral recipients surveyed from 1993 to 2010, examining both their likelihood of obtaining tenure-track positions and their likelihood of obtaining tenure. . . .

When it came to landing tenure-track jobs in their field, women and members of minority groups considered underrepresented appeared to be at a significant advantage. Black and Hispanic doctorate holders were both quicker and, respectively, 51 percent and 30 percent more likely than their white counterparts to obtain such positions. . . .

The picture changed markedly when it came to getting tenure, which tenure-track professors, on the whole, were most likely to receive at about the seven-year mark. Non-Asian minority members and women were slower to receive tenure, and black assistant professors were substantially less likely to ever receive it.


So, even with active discrimination IN FAVOR of blacks and Hispanics when it comes to hiring them and giving them a shot, they get out-competed by the disadvantaged white guys when it comes to performance metrics. This is going to burn the egos of NAMS. What they want are equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

There are no sensible solutions which can deliver equal outcomes in an equal opportunity system. You may see more effort to insure equal opportunity in society to be a sensible path, but you can bet that most of the NAMS who fail to make a go of their shot in such a society are still going to be pissed off at the inequality of outcomes that they see before them. For these folks the sensible possible is going to be to insure equal outcomes, no matter how they're achieved. This sensible policy is going to seem unjust to folks like you.

I hope I wasn't off the mark with the liberty I took here.

This brings us to the big picture question - can a good society be salvaged from what the US has been turned into? I suspect not. If so, and time misspent on a fruitless effort just makes matter worse, then better to take the bitter medicine sooner rather than later and split up the whole kit and caboodle or actively work to shift the demographics to return back to 1940s America, either of which is going to be messy in the extreme but which hold out the promise of restoring a good society back to us.

Audacious Epigone said...

There are no sensible solutions which can deliver equal outcomes in an equal opportunity system.

That quote beautifully encapsulates the problem.

Secession appears politically untenable now, and will always meet some level of resistance from people who might otherwise be open to it because of its association with the war between the states, but what it would conceivably do is politically formalize the boundaries and distinctions people try to effect in the process of white flight (or middle class black flight from somewhere like Detroit).

Another potentially helpful thing, because it would make the problem less salient, is to stop collecting data on outcomes by race, sex, class, etc (iirc correctly, Charles Murray suggested this several years ago). That is only a measure that buys more time though, not one that fixes the underlying problem.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Weirdly enough, Bayes' Theorem would indicate dudes who've been with both men and women overwhelmingly identify as heterosexual.

I guess the whole "continuum" thing people talk about is true although I've had an exclusive preference for females since puberty so it's hard to empathize. Maybe the heterosexuals with same-sex experience are largely men who've been to prison?

Anonymous said...

i think accepting that equal outcome is impossible is actually the first step. more vocational training for low iqs, strong law enforcement, and a less inflammatory media, voluntary segregation in real estate and schools. blacks will always be part of america, and i dont see any clean secession lines. they wont be philosopher kings but plenty can be done to bring down crime rates and limit welfare, and nudge them towards eugenic breeding.

TangoMan said...

i think accepting that equal outcome is impossible is actually the first step. more vocational training for low iqs

Look about you. All the grievance monger movements, and their institutional successes, are focused on equal outcomes. Not enough women on corporate boards, not enough female athletes, not enough minority firemen, not enough minority professors, not enough black employees at Google, etc.

What you're doing is wishcasting, taking your view of something sensible and projecting that view onto your opponents and, essentially, saying "be smart like me, see the wisdom of my position." Look at the situation from their point of view - your sensible solution creates a structural division in society - blacks at the bottom (not much different from present reality) but this time with all hope stripped from them. A fair and equal opportunity society is meaningless if you, and your group, can't use that system to your benefit and you FAIRLY, end up at the bottom.

Media isn't creating this problem, blacks and their liberal white sympathizers actually believe that society is actively working to hold them down - this is the creationist mindset, all peoples are actually equal. Mother Nature says otherwise. Humans always try to craft society to their liking - we're a rationalizing species, so if blacks and Hispanics believe that they're actively being oppressed by invisible force fields which whites emit then they're going to work to create equality and the only way that they find satisfaction is in seeing equal outcomes. An equal outcome society is severely disadvantageous to whites and Asians because this delinks talent and hard work from reward and so doesn't benefit people who can be rewarded by an equal opportunity society.

blacks will always be part of america, and i dont see any clean secession lines

There are no clean secession lines. This won't be a state-by-state secession movement, it will be much messier, because every city block, will have people who represent the 2 or 3 or 6 different groups. Think of the partition of Greater India and the mass migrations which followed.

Europe is going to be an interesting place to watch over the coming decades. People have a tendency to choose the path of least disruption and that path is usually characterized by accommodating oneself to change and accepting more oppression because the alternative comes with too high a cost of disruption to the cycles of daily life. There are, however, always people out on the margin who will choose to push back against the negatives sloshing over them and their society. As conditions get worse in Europe, as European culture gets eroded, as more freedoms get sacrificed, people will long for the old ways and the margin will move inwards and here's the important point - the mass of people don't matter so much compared to the people who are willing to take action. Once that latter group reaches some critical mass, pushback will happen and it will drag the fencesitters along for the ride. This is how America came to be. Revolution didn't have 100% popular support.

They same will happen in America. The Freedom of Association movement will grow over time as oppression grows more severe in order to implement equal outcomes by race.

TangoMan said...

blacks will always be part of america

No. The modus vivendi of the 1940s era, when America was 89% white and 10% black cannot hold when the terms change. Today, instead of 9 whites for every black, there are 5 whites for every black. All the costs of uplift for blacks, Hispanics, Asian, Arabs, and all other groups come at the expense of whites. While the burden of uplifting blacks was manageable when there were 9 whites for every black, it becomes unmanageable when 5 whites have to uplight 5 NAMS.

plenty can be done to bring down crime rates and limit welfare, and nudge them towards eugenic breeding.

This is just wishing.

Look, the wisdom of secession is that the racial differences aren't so in your face because they're "over there." Bleeding heart white liberals are focused on inequality in America and give far less attention to the inequality between the West and the 3rd World. A society being torn apart by multiculturalism can be freed of a lot of strife and oppression if it isolates the problems. This is white flight. The problem is that many blacks pledge to cut off the avenue of escape for whites, hence the recent SC decision on using affordable housing to diversify neighborhoods which are too white.

TangoMan said...

Secession appears politically untenable now, and will always meet some level of resistance from people who might otherwise be open to it because of its association with the war between the states, but what it would conceivably do is politically formalize the boundaries and distinctions people try to effect in the process of white flight (or middle class black flight from somewhere like Detroit).

The old saying of "Generals are prepared to fight the last war" kind of applies here because when people think of secession movements, they tend to focus on secession of established geographic units - all the people of State X will secede from the Union. I suspect that, for the American question, that those days are gone. The next secession movement will involve internal migrations, a sorting of peoples, and once a sorting of like-minded folks overlaps with geography, then secession faces a lot less internal dissent. The problem here is like the Gnome Underpants model - the big middle ground of how that sorting commences.

We all know about the "fight or flight response" and this kind of applies to present-day American society - stability can be purchased when people have the freedom to flee social problems. I've had discussions with blacks about the phenomenon of white flight and a few have told me that they actively support efforts to block the flight option for whites, that is, they're very enthusiastic about finding ways to force people to accept diversity. In general form, this is what motivates a lot of the legal activists - they want to destroy safe havens for whites.

The question here is what happens when flight is no longer an option? There is no safe, or non-diverse, neighborhood to which you can flee. The multiculturalists believe that this will usher in an age of Aquarius where harmony and good will will lead to a marvelous multicultural future once the toxicity of white culture is erased. What if they're wrong?

Audacious Epigone said...

Secession, however it shakes out, also resets (at least theoretically) things like the EEOC, disparate impact, affirmative action, etc in places that secede, even if the secession lines are not explicitly ethnic or racial. Pointing out the 'problem'--and creating an apparatus/industry that must continue to point out said 'problem' to remain relevant--really does increase the anger and resentment from those who perceive their groups to be failing.

Jokah,

Ha, the GSS doesn't have a question about incarceration, but it does have a question about having ever been booked for an arrest. Among self-identifying heterosexual men, 8.8% of those who've been arrested but only 4.4% of those never having been arrested report having had sex with at least one man.

TangoMan said...

Secession, however it shakes out, also resets (at least theoretically) things like the EEOC, disparate impact, affirmative action, etc in places that secede, even if the secession lines are not explicitly ethnic or racial.

I know a Prepper in real life. We were talking about the EOTW one night and how best to rebuild society. His view was that he'd rebuild on a multicultural model but insure that all of the EEOC, etc programs never be reborn. I told him that this would fail because the structural problems which led to the creation of these programs in present society would lead to the same outcome in his 2nd generation America. My argument convinced him but he really didn't like the conclusion of the necessity of an ethno-state.

I see similarity between his position and yours. Sure, the immediate effect is a reset but if your new groupings are multicultural, and DEMOCRATIC, then you have both the source of disparity and the means to remodel the new state and you'll get the same problem surfacing again.

Pointing out the 'problem'--and creating an apparatus/industry that must continue to point out said 'problem' to remain relevant--really does increase the anger and resentment from those who perceive their groups to be failing.

Point taken. My response - "we can't cut the AA because the group is too weak, and now we can't cut AA because the group is too powerful." We're at the stage where the racial grievance industry is too entrenched and powerful.

I really don't see an incremental way to scale back on AA and these other programs because holy hell would be raised at any such effort. We're on the express elevator to hell here. In terms of resistance, whites offer less resistance to having to deal with these quotas compared to the resistance put up by NAMS in support of maintaining and expanding these programs. The path taken will always be that which offers the least resistance. Look at the capitulations on university campuses. Look at corporate capitulation. The only resistance we see to oppression is from small flower shops, bakeries, photo studies, and that's only on homosexual issues.

Racial grievance positions are to America and the west like the apparatchiks were to the Soviet Union. Now part of the system and only getting stronger.

chris said...

@TangoMan

Should call equal outcomes what it is. Racial Communism.

TangoMan said...

Should call equal outcomes what it is. Racial Communism.

Racial Communism = Social Justice.

I understand the term justice but I always play dumb when someone mentions social justice and I ask them to define the term for me. As they burp out some hamfisted definition, the definition always focuses on equal outcomes centered on group identity. After which I ask them why they don't simply demand justice, don't we all value the concept of justice? No one has every answered that question, they've usually had a hissy fit and stomped off by that point because I don't buy into their world view and they get frustrated defending it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Tangoman,

Make no mistake, I feel like Cleanthes to your Philo here, essentially arguing that the mid-twenties to mid-sixties was the goldilocks period for the legal and cultural structures of Western civilization (yes, I realize WWII took place during this period but I don't see those sorts of wars as necessary outgrowths of a healthy civic nationalism but instead of a particular post-colonial period in history) and if there was just a way to tread that same water we'd have our solution.

That said, it seems at least conceivable that enshrining the right to free association for individuals and corporate entities--explicitly and unequivocally--into something akin to the bill of rights in a freshly seceded sovereignty could keep the problems from resurfacing for a longer period of time. The US is still probably the country that provides individuals who say unpopular things the greatest legal protection in the world, this despite it being more racially diverse than anywhere in Europe, in no small part because of the first amendment.

TangoMan said...

(I lost the 1st part of my response, all that's left is this) Which bring us to:

The US is still probably the country that provides individuals who say unpopular things the greatest legal protection in the world, this despite it being more racially diverse than anywhere in Europe, in no small part because of the first amendment.

This arises from a particular world view and this view was widely shared by the elite in the US and the elite led the culture which in turn taught the populace that this is OUR value and we are proud of it. There is a tradition, a history, to American values on free speech, that is, it doesn't stand apart from culture. Culture is a reflection of the people who inhabit the society. I know I'm preaching to the choir here and you get it, but for other readers I'll continue. I know a guy who was born in Eastern Europe and immigrated to the US before he started grade school. As an adult he see "his people" as the Founding Fathers - he's completely rejected his Czech identity and taken on a deep admiration for what the English did here in the US and what they created. Meanwhile there is the Nigerian immigrant I know who is big into racism, oppression, etc and the 3rd generation Hispanic-American who is focused on Hispanic identity in our culture and especially in our schools. The latter two sure don't identify with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, the society they came from, the ideals they advanced, are from a different world that they don't feel comfortable with and to which they don't relate. My point is that as the people of the US transform, so too does the culture and philosophy and the past really does become a foreign country, in a very profound way.

As to the 1st Amendment, look at what is going on with college students these days. Do you see a respect for free speech. From this group of activists and cultural leader will come future SC Justices. We're dealing with a time-lag effect - the fact that present day jurisprudence is ruling in favor of free speech in a culture which is increasingly intolerant of free speech is due to old judges coming up in a different culture 40 years ago. This shouldn't be news - do you think 19th C. judges would have gone along with the attack on free association rights, I don't. Which brings us back full circle - a constitution is only as good as the judges who enforce it - look at how Roberts found ways to justify his positions, look at Kennedy's reasoning for homosexual marriage, so you placing your entire stake on a bet that some future constitution is going to save your society doesn't, to me, seem like a wise bet. I'd rather bet on reducing the opportunity to discriminate by shaping the population to remove a lot of racial heterogeneity. You don't need malaria nets when you have no mosquitoes.

TangoMan said...

1st part recap.

Free association = right to discriminate. All social "progress" has moved in the direction of eroding this right. People are used to living under this oppression. I can't see how this flips completely to where people embrace the right to discriminate.