Friday, July 07, 2017

The White death

++Addition++I made a couple of sloppy transposition errors in the composition of the initial post. They have since been corrected and the figures presented are now accurate. Interactive feedback is a great thing in the pursuit of the truth. I always welcome it.

---

Using the UN's most recent population projection figures, the rate of population increase (decrease) by major geographic area from 2015 to 2100:


In 1950, Europeans comprised 20% of the world's populationAfricans made up 9%. A century and a half later, those figures are projected to be 6% and 40%, respectively. Over a period of 150 years that means for every one European the world has added 17 Africans. 

How does such a disparate rate of population growth come to be? African fertility is high and European fertility is low, but surely not that high and that low?! Differences in maternal ages at the time of childbirth in addition to differences in total fertility rates, that's how (here's an app that illustrates). 

Put in another way, Europe's population from 1950 to 2100 will have gone from 550 million to 653 million, an increase of 18.7% over a century and a half (0.11% per year). During the same period of time, Africa will have gone from 229 million to 4,468 million, an increase of 1,851.1% (2.0% per year).

41 comments:

Issac said...

"How does such a disparate rate of population growth come to be? African fertility is high and European fertility is low, but surely not that high and that low?! Differences in maternal ages at the time of childbirth in addition to differences in total fertility rates, that's how."

So far as I understand it, European fertility has never matched Africa. The problem of falling European fertility is exacerbating things; however, the real crisis is that of Africans aren't capable of civility and yet enjoy civilized medicine bolstering their birth-rates and staving off the corrective of mortality.

legateofjudea said...

There is no white death. Non-obese Europeans have a positive fertility rate. The overall birth rate will rise as they become a larger share of the population. The population can't grow this large with our current level of technology and resources.

Mortimer Cladwell said...

An app to investigate the relative contributions of fecundity and generation time:

http://lostnat.net/lnsDFoKytr/2017/07/04/fertility/

Anonymous said...

The graph generally looks positive. Wall off Africa and begin deportations from the USA and you basically have stable/declining populations.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mortimer,

That is fantastic, thanks!

Audacious Epigone said...

Issac,

When r reproductive strategies are able to artificially tap K-level investment, they'll overwhelm K reproductive strategies.

Legate of Judea,

Source? I've never seen that. If differential fertility is accurate (the GSS doesn't suggest so--shows most kids to least as "somewhat above average [weight]", "considerably above average", "average", and "below average" but it's a small sample and an imprecise weight measurement), that's still not necessarily convincing. The religious have outbred the irreligious for as long as it's been tracked, yet religiosity continues to decline.

Anon,

You make it sound so simple, heh.

Jim Bowery said...

For the statistically literate, this rank ordering of State demographic measures has mother's age at first live birth among the most informative about the others. It's not as high as certain income measures, Jews, Russians and AIDS but it's up there.

The really important thing to understand about lowered fertility in the so-called "demographic transition" is that it selects out of the very next generation the phenotypes demanded by the economy. This is because it is largely if not mostly due to a bidding war for young women -- a war between the economy and young men.

Bedtime stories like those from our friend Legate of Judea, must be buttressed by other bedtime stories like Transhumanist genetic engineering, etc. to con the 115 IQ goy into slumber.

legateofjudea said...


AE - people shy away from discussing intelligence and you are surprised that we don't want to discuss contemporary evolution? Look what happened to Murray. I used to have a better study, it must have gone behind a paywall. Here is a 36% negative correlation on obesity with total female fertility. The relationship is stronger when you look at women who were obese in their teens, because becoming obese later in life has less an effect on fertility. There is also a smaller male effect reported. There are also other health problems not examined in this study.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010587
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/886.full

Religion is different then obesity in terms of the effect of genes in the modern environment. There was essentially no US obesity epidemic pre 1900 (0.1% <). Obesity is a plague affecting the modern world. Genes that protect against it are selected for strongly. People who have more children also probably become more religious, and in resource scarce times evolution selects for quality instead of quantity. Population numbers were stable for most of human history. This changes in brief periods.

legateofjudea said...

Jim Bowery - I'm focusing our attention on the real problem. The healthy plague affecting the modern would. It is a call to action, not slumber. When you identify the real problem, the answer is to take action against it. I don't want evolution to fix this problem. I was us to fix it first. However, we have been working on it for decades. If we fail, it will no be because we were "told a bed time story" it will be because we weren't yet smart enough.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

If for the sake of argument we grant that reducing obesity rates back towards preindustrial levels, that gives us a stable native population over the long term rather than a gently declining one as is the case in Japan. If large scale immigration continues to be permitted, it doesn't change much of anything.

The following three things are necessary (not necessarily sufficient, but probably so) for Western civilization to continue, ranked in importance from most to least:

1) The repatriation of non-citizens
2) A moratorium on immigration lasting for at least a generation
3) Native fertility getting to at least replacement level

legateofjudea said...

AE,

Lets consider the United States the peak, or emblematic of the peak of Western Civilization, for the sake of argument. I don't disagree that numbers 1 and 2 are largely a good idea currently. However, they largely didn't exist from the pre-colonial period to the 1930s. The main issue is number three, the other two are short term actions that would eventually be overwhelmed. Once native fertility gets to replacement level, other subgroups will be above, and barring resource constrains or new problems, total fertility will rise above it.

I would disagree with your characterization of a sub 0.1% obesity level as a pre-industrial level. The first industrial revolution was characterized by steam and boiler power and its related inventions (the stream train, the steam ocean liner, the mechanized factory). Obesity levels at that point appear similar to those seen in the middle ages among the wealthy. My current hypothesis is the problem began with the second industrial revolution (electricity and the internal combustion engine) and was made much worse by the third industrial revolution (IT and the computer).

Issac said...

I'm inclined to agree, in some part, with the obesity dysgenics angle.

What makes the obesity tangent of some importance is that it's suppressant to the reproductive rate of Europeans above and beyond African and Arabs in particular (obesity rates among African, Mestizo, and Arab female migrants are sky high, along with their TFR). What makes it a tangent is the fact that this selective pressure wouldn't be much of an issue to correct absent the much more important pressure of third world immigration.

FWIW, I consider the religiosity angle a similar tangent. Religiosity does predict higher TFR, but only marginally higher, and if we take the obvious into account (that progressivism is a modern religion) then religiosity might be said to have reached an all-time high. Traditional religion doesn't seem to be well equipped to stave off the march of "progress," so I've never seen the value in revivalism over more direct methods of appealing to biological imperatives, the answer to which is either acceptance or suicidal nihilism.

With respect to your three points AE, I would say the first is insufficient, the second might be overkill, and the third should be a natural outcome. What I would suggest is that repatriation be predicated on whatever metric ejects the most non-productive, free-riding, and cabalistic norm-destroying non-Europeans as possible. Secondly, I would suggest that immigration should return to the pre-1965 norm of targeting congruent western stock. Assuming the latter was done, moratorium would likely be redundant as most Europeans would be invested in saving their own nations.

Of paramount importance is the proliferation of the idea that biology and population statistics matter. Groups largely predisposed to free-ride and subvert the western populations have to be addressed bluntly.

Anonymous said...

War against the Left in The West, esp America.
Which is all I'm bound to defend.

In interim on way to victory cut all aid to Africa. That's a leftist religious cause not ours.

Put another way...

/k invests in killing /r.

This restores /k to it's natural prominence and solves the Africa, etc, /r problem.

/k is for Kill.

Kill the motherfuckers. That's a quick demographic fix, and the winners get the booty. They can deny it if they want, violent men turn them on.

Jim Bowery said...

Social etiology is important to get right and so long as we keep arguing with each other rather than either 1) Experimenting with control groups or 2) Using Kolmogorov Complexity of social models to rank order their veracity (or both), we're going to stay in this power-dive.

http://fairchurch.org/challenge.html

Audacious Epigone said...

Issac,

The moratorium isn't necessarily optimal in a perfect world, but it's a much easier political sell. Pushing immigration only from "white" countries probably won't fly. And, with the exception of South Africans, we need them to stay where they are, anyway. An immigration timeout meshes better with our collection notions of fairness.

Legate,

We're on the same page wrt to obesity, for aesthetic, economic, political (if low-T makes men leftists), and now procreative reasons.

Anon,

I don't want a grisly solution. If it comes to that or extinction, though, the choice is easy.

Issac said...

AE- I'd wager moratorium would be very close to eurocentric in terms of current political difficulty rating for you, but maybe that's my perspective being an outsider and not being totally in tune with your politics. You do; however, make a good point that your notion of fairness is pivotal. I think that anti-tribalism sentiment has to experience some erosion before you are out of the woods in the longer-run.

As I've explained to several of my fellow Israelis, White solidarity is an umbrella for covering many ethnic groups in the same way Jewish solidarity covers several of our ethnic groups. Americans can still commend themselves for being relatively universal if they only open their borders to their cousins because everywhere else in the world (other than besieged Europe) only embraces their direct ethnic kin.

Absent some kind of major genetic breakthroughs that can turn savages into civil citizens, I don't think universal concepts can stretch further than these ethnic cousin groups except in very small amounts (which you already more than have).

legateofjudea said...

Anonymous - you won't like what happens if there is civil war in this country. The most educated and talented people will leave. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. What do you think will happen to this country if those three million people move to New Zealand.

legateofjudea said...

AE - the lower fertility rate has created the desire for increased immigration to prop up the entitlement programs. Obesity has also reduced marriage rates. I think people want different things in politics when their primary concern becomes their children. Note the difference in voting patterns between married and single women.

Issac said...

Legate- "the lower fertility rate has created the desire for increased immigration to prop up the entitlement programs"

That is absolutely not why the great majority of leftists wants increased immigration. That is the tag-line for center-"right," cuckservatives to sell it to the chamber of commerce which is clearly a minority of the voting right. The latter should be well aware by now that third world immigration has imposed more burdens on the entitlement systems you have, rather than propped them up.

The sentiment motivating the majority of pro-immigration voters is pure political tribalism. They see immigrants, correctly, as overwhelmingly likely to help them defeat their right wing counterparts, for good.

Audacious Epigone said...

Issac,

It would be a tough political sell, though also a pretty populist one. It could conceivably get 50%+ electoral support.

A pre-1965 immigration policy, in contrast, is politically inconceivable in the current political environment. Keep in mind the US is now only 60% non-Hispanic white. The idea of "European cousins" is politically radioactive.

Legate,

Issac is correct. The argument about propping up entitlement programs overwhelmingly functions as the "conservative case" for immigration.

Feryl said...

1) The repatriation of non-citizens
2) A moratorium on immigration lasting for at least a generation
3) Native fertility getting to at least replacement level

How 'bout burying the notion, once and for all, that sticking up for native Westerners=Hitler? Regardless of actual policy, the most basic thing to get done is returning to a pre-1980 level of discourse regarding the "intersection" of ethnic politics, cultural continuity, and economic security. Post-1980, The Kock Bros wing of the GOP was able (with Dem assistance) to suppress dangerous blacks via prison building, as well as tamp down black birth rates by reforming welfare to single mothers. The public safety benefits reaped were quite good (fewer dangerous blacks being born and roaming the streets). It took two decades of dreadful liberal overreach (the 60's and 70's) to unleash the full horror of blacks, and subsequent decades were spent bottling it up. Post 1980 PC doesn't allow anyone to admit just what we were doing and why we did it, but everybody born before 1986 remembers how out of control black crime and reproduction used to be.

We may have succeeded at at least not allowing the black problem to get worse. Problem is, at around the same time we were dealing with blacks, we were also importing vast numbers of immigrants (so elites get cheap labor and more restaurants). Most of these groups are not as outright dangerous as blacks, so when the going was (relatively) good for white natives, we looked the other way. But elites kept on pushing, and pushing....With so many foreigners getting subsidized housing, health care, schooling, and lowering wages while raising housing costs, and grabbing AA jobs at the workplace, the majority of whites are finally saying "enough!".

Relatively erudite concerns like "who'll vote GOP in the long run?" don't really matter to most voters. Most of couldn't care less about many things as long as elites play fair and give us a chance. And what did the GOP do to earn our loyalty, any way? They gleefully shredded through many aspects of our culture that gave us camaraderie and harmony. For far too long, they only seemed to care about moralist hobby issues (like abortion) and making sure that nothing was done to impose on a company's ability to make money. Recently, they've gotten even worse as some seem to agree with corporate cultural Marxism, in which no possible customer or employee can ever be offended.

For relatively benign groups who come from outside of Africa/the Middle East, Western natives might begrudgingly accept them as long as the immigration spigot gets turned off tight (ideally forever, but if not that at least for a good 50+ years) and these groups become culturally (if not politically) Western. Now, what will become of recently established Muslim areas if we shut immigration off? The only two options seem to be forceful repression (as was done to legacy blacks in America) or looking the other way while they attack us and seek to drive Westerners from their territory. I suppose repatriation is possible, too, but that's fraught with literal Hitler allegations and the vast majority of white Westerners don't want to be accused of that kind of thing. One thing's for sure: West African descended traditional American blacks can be managed since they're too chaotic to be good at self-organizing. Whereas new Muslim blacks are able to fight back collectively. So going down the forceful repression route is likely to result in large scale violent opposition from Muslim blacks.

When whites don't fight back (see: Britain and France), we get a cold(er) one sided war. When whites do mount an opposition, things'll really flare up since Muslims by default believe that anyone who opposes them is an infidel (and of course non-Muslims by default are infidels).

Feryl said...

Trump got a big boost from bashing PC. Clearly, white Westerners are sick and god damn tired of 37 years of not being able say what's:

- true
- sincere
- intuitively understood by all

In the 80's, we still could get away with bashing homos because during high crime eras, people have a good grasp of some people being....not quite right in the head. Homophobia began declining around 1993, which is exactly when crime began to decline. But that also was the decade where many people started to go to embarrassing lengths to not state the obvious about race (blacks are dangerous, Jews are greedy, Chinamen are sneaky bastards who put lead in "our" toys, etc.). The risible "good area"/"good school" thing really took off at that time, too. A late 70's National Lampoon did a riff on stereotypes that has to be seen to be believed. Knowledge of differences was a prosaic thing, back then. Nobody felt guilty about admitting it.

Feryl said...

good schools

code word for "schools without poor visible minorities" mostly found in lily-white suburban and exurban areas.

Used mostly as a code word along middle and upper-middle class white people who believe culturally insulating their children will lead to them growing up to be successful consumabots.

Steve and Chloe moved out of the city and bought a 5,000 sq. ft McMansion in East West Bumfucksville to send their daughters Madison and Taylor to the good schools found there.

From Urban dictionary, which also has a listing for good school district which further explains that lower class whites much more readily admit why an area is appealing.

The exurb phenomena came about almost entirely due to high immigration levels and black birth rates. The black boom of the 60's-early 90's far surpassed white birth rates of that time, while immigration really took off in the 80's and 90's. Eventually, due to population growth and a desire to avoid crime/"bad schools", whites were displaced from much of early suburbia, a territory that from 1946-1990 was synonymous with white people. Whites fled to more remote areas, and this time they packed large lot sizes with them, the better to keep an area exclusive (e.g., light skinned).

Consider: with declining white birth rates, and more sensible welfare/immigration policies, much post-1990 development would've been unnecessary. That gotta be one "intersection" that hurts liberals: non-whites have been responsible for much of the world's recent population growth, and all the negatives that come with it (higher pollution, resource use, loss of natural areas, etc.)

Audacious Epigone said...

That gotta be one "intersection" that hurts liberals: non-whites have been responsible for much of the world's recent population growth, and all the negatives that come with it (higher pollution, resource use, loss of natural areas, etc.)

The sincere ones, yes. If a putative environmentalist has nothing to say about this then they have no valid claim and cannot be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

your numbers are off, population growth per year from 1950 to 2100 is 2% in africa and 0.00016% in europe. a growth rate of 12% means 229 mio. x 1.12 ^ 150 = 5,527 trillion africans in 2100. iirc niger with its tfr of 7 is growing at 3% per year.

Anonymous said...

"Over a period of 150 years that means for every one European the world has added 18 Africans."

Birth control and green revolution.

Without those, Europeans would likely be 50% of the world's population because white folks are not going to let their own kids starve so they can feed foreigners. Without birth control, natural increase would lead to more white mouths to feed and more cultivation of soil to feed them. Without the green revolution, there would not be enough food for whites to feed both their own kids and those unable to cultivate enough food for themselves.

Whites created the situation of black population increase with the green revolution and vaccines.

Blacks in the USA have tfr of about 2.2. So, under certain conditions, blacks can have lower fertility.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Wow, yeah, oops. Just divided by 150 without taking compounding into consideration. Fixed, thanks.

Anon,

K-levels of investments through transfer/aid for r-levels of reproduction.

Feryl said...

BTW, some of the "good school" non-sense can be traced to state repression of crimetalk. Laws were passed during and after the civil rights era to forbid real estate people from talking about racial demographics. I mean, really. You can't discuss it, period. End of story. Who's the authoritarian now?

The truly disgraceful thing is that these mouth laws are meaningless since they don't have any effect on foot behavior. Liberals try and bully people into not talking or even thinking in an "offensive" way, yet it doesn't change where we choose to tread.

While other Western countries go much further than we do in repressing un-PC speech, America shamefully dishonored it's (usually credible) reputation for expansive speech mores by making realtalk among realtors legally and even criminally actionable.

Left wing lawyers, since the 1960's, have made a living bullying those who openly defy their agenda....The fact that we've yet to come up with any method to convince people to ignore their common sense and live among blacks just doesn't matter to liberals. They're never going to give up the dream. But at least they can make hay out of harassment of middle class people just trying to make an honest living. See also Clint Eastwood's war with ADA driven lawyers over making his restaurants more handicapped accessible.

Feryl said...

The blockbusting thing....Well, perhaps realtors wouldn't have succeeded at this scheme if people just magically ignored their grasp of HBD and didn't have any warm feelings about homogeneity .

It's like the moronic whining about blacks getting substandard shopping and housing; blacks destroy crap, they're often broke, and tend to be sullen and aggressive when they're not in a good mood. Just the kind of people that are the target demo. of Whole Foods and REI. And what law says that you can't build and repair your own housing, or hire others to do it for you if it's beyond your expertise or credentials?.

We realtalkers get carried away with accusing liberals of naivete. They're aren't that stupid. If they were, then they'd live in the ghetto and yuppies would open up stores in the ghetto. It's more that they know how crappy black people are, but instead of admitting that the game clock expired with an airball and whites and conservatives have beaten blacks and liberals by a score of 130-58, they'd rather have cognitive dissonance freakouts where white dino bigots are said to be cheating.

Sid said...

"We realtalkers get carried away with accusing liberals of naivete. They're aren't that stupid. If they were, then they'd live in the ghetto and yuppies would open up stores in the ghetto."

I would say that liberals shift back and forth between naivete and cynicism.

By the 1990s, most Democrats acknowledged in their hearts that black social pathologies needed to be fixed. The Clintons made it a point to be tough on crime, for example.

In private, almost all liberals would concede that blacks commit crimes at far, far higher rates than whites, though they would still claim that blacks are punished too harshly and would say shlock like, "BUILD MORE SCHOOLS, LESS PRISONS," as if we'd put violent 20 year olds in schools.

But as crime rates fell and liberals gained more cultural power, they became less cynical about blacks, and really did start to believe their BS. They started to believe that bad schools produced bad students, instead of bad students making schools lousy places to send your children. Heck, Slate and HuffPo produced articles arguing you should send your students to lousy schools out of social duty.

Liberal naivete and stupidity peaked with BLM. In the middle of 2015, I got in an argument with a relative who insisted that America was a racist society and all that jazz. She stated that it was racist to say that blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of crimes, and they're no more dangerous than whites or Asians. I told her that was the dumbest thing I'd ever heard someone say, but she genuinely believed it.

BLM proved to be a complete disaster a year ago when a BLM-inspired shooter killed five cops. Obama called the police racist at their memorial service and Hillary had the Mothers of the Movement at her convention, but after that the shitlibs took their rhetoric down to a more cynical minimum.

That's part of the danger about not being able to discuss race honestly: after awhile, people start believing their own lies and disaster needs to strike before they wake up again.

legateofjudea said...

AE and Issac - this isn't just the conservative case for immigration, this is what many people on the center left belief as well. Certainly this is what most people believe that are making policy. We can't win over people who want immigration for tribalistic reasons. We can win over people who are trying to make good policy decisions. We just need to point out that the labor participation rate has fallen and don't have the ability to absorb additional low and medium skill workers. ( < $125K+ annually )
There are few of those high skill workers, they will be limited to the major urban areas (LA / NYC / SAN / BOS) and have no effect on electoral outcomes as those areas are deep blue.

The way you phrase the argument is likely to turn voters off. Remember, Sanders made a case against immigration based on policy. Democrats accepted that argument. This shows that a large part of their coalition is open to that argument. If you want to capture additional voters, make that argument to them. If you want to alienate the centrist voters and not win, just keep telling them that they are trying to destroy the country.

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
--Cistercian

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
--Hanlon's razor

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

forbid real estate people from talking about racial demographics

Experienced it firsthand when we were buying our current house a few years ago. Our real estate agent, a Filipino woman, had an ongoing joke with us about "good schools". I made it clear that I knew what that meant and she laughed and said she couldn't say anything more than that. greatschools.org cannot be highly recommended enough--shows racial/ethnic composition of every public school in the country, elementary, middle, and high school.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

The Democrat party did not endorse Sanders' initial anti-Koch position. He changed it during the course of the campaign and became an unfettered supporter of open borders as was Hillary Clinton.

Sid said...

It was absolutely cringe worthy to see Hillary and Bernie trying to outbid the selling of their souls in front of Univision.

Just kidding. Hillary sold her soul a long time ago. It was seeing Bernie do it that made me grimace.

legateofjudea said...

AE - I haven't see any evidence Sanders changed his opinion, he seems to have down player it to try to win the primary. What convinced you otherwise? He had a very developed philosophy on the matter and voted that way in Congress. I don't agree with his politics, but I do believe his views were genuine. Per the Breitbart poll, it seems that few democrats see immigration as a tribal issue. The republicans won because they captured many of these voters.

“Open Borders”: A Gimmick, Not a Solution - Bernie Sanders
https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/

Breitbart: "By a 25-to-1 margin, voters believe that unemployed American workers should get preference for a U.S. job rather than a foreign worker brought in from another country. Democrats agreed with this sentiment by a margin of roughly 30-to-1 (69.8 percent who think jobs should go to unemployed Americans whereas only 2.3 percent think foreign labor should be imported)."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/31/blockbuster-immigration-poll-demonstrates-americans-want-total-revolution-mass-immigration/

We have over 12 million million discouraged or unemployed low and mid-skill workers (maybe ~$125K < annual). Democrats support ending low skill immigration when it is done to help American workers. The problem is the narrative, not the policy. Claiming that 70% of democrats want to use immigration to harm the country is inflammatory and works against the republican plan to capture more of these voters. Even the 27% who aren't for or against a preference are probably just not thoughtful people.

legateofjudea said...

AE - by the way. Trump doesn't want to convince the democratic party. He hopes the democratic party position stays the same. He only wants to convince more of their voters to support him.

Feryl said...

Policy positions don't indicate the degree of concern, though, unless the poll specifically asked people to rank issues or indicate the intensity of a position.

As of Obama's inauguration, it became unacceptable for any Dem to express opposition to large levels of immigration. Polls show that Trump voters were much more "culturally" concerned than Hillary voters regarding immigration. Of course, that in itself is evidence of liberal biased polls since Trump voters would no doubt indicate that they feel immigrants are taking too many jobs, too many houses, and too many gubmint goodies. None of that has anything to do with culture; it's pure economics. But the modern liberal position on immigration doesn't even permit public discussion of how immigrants are used to batter the native born working class and even lower tier professionals to a certain degree. Instead, you're called a bigot and a dinosaur who's upset that the suburbs don't look so 1950's anymore.

BTW, when the Dems pander so hard to black criminals and immigrants (esp. Muslims), it's apparent that those who are concerned about immigration and the impact of "minorities" on our well-being likely don't even identify as Dems anymore.

Hard-core shitlibs have no self-awareness that many positions they now take for granted were just not so before Obama. E.g., a call to bring back 1960's soft on crime policies was unheard of in the 90's and early 2000's. Also, that Obama ushered in an era of hard-core cultural Marxism with total emphasis on race/nationality while suppressing class issues.

Audacious Epigone said...

Immigration restriction is a populist issue, no question about that. The average voter is considerably more restrictionist than the house and senate members who "represent" him. This is generally true throughout the entire country.

Nowhere are Trump's mild immigration restrictions communicated honestly ("Muslim ban", etc). He's not the one doing the obfuscating.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

Yes, I remember that and it's good to see that it's still on his personal site. Was it on his presidential campaign site, though?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

I remember thinking "secession is inevitable" when watching that. These different worldviews are irreconcilable.

legateofjudea said...

AE and Feryl - Breitbart is polling Americans under what circumstances they support immigration restriction out of a sense of intellectual curiosity. This is to construct a narrative people support. The same action can be supported or opposed based on the narrative. If Trump closes the border because he says the Mexicans are rapists, polled Americans will say they oppose. If Trump closes the border because he says he wants to give discouraged American workers a chance at the jobs, polled Americans will support. Breitbart is working with Trump, same action, different narrative, different electoral support.

AE - Sanders didn't have Breitbart helping him construct immigration restrictionist language supported by the majority of Democrats. Trump has Banon in the White House. You are only discussing the actions Trump has taken to date. He has said he wants to reduce unskilled immigration while allowing skilled immigration.

Restricting immigration to high skill people will mean they are primarily from Europe and Asia. This will reduce the number of generations necessary to return native fertility to replacement level as these people have a lower genetic propensity towards obesity in the modern environment.

People with very high IQs (over 3 SD+ above the mean) are very rarely elected to office. They are too different from the ordinary people to be understandable. Around regular people, they try to play down their intelligence. They make gaffes to be less threatening. When Trump does it, and its too obvious, I feel like he is winking at me.