Demographic Math

This report is full of great data about births and fertility in America. It is from the Centers for Disease Control and its main focus is medical issues related to pregnancy and childbirth, but the demographic data alone makes it fascinating. It looks at all the births in the USA in 2006.

Total Fertility Rate (lifetime # of children per woman) is 2.10, exactly replacement level. This breaks down racially as 2.10 for Whites, 2.15 for Blacks, but when Hispanics are separated out it is 2.96 for Hispanics, 1.86 for non-Hispanic Whites, 2.11 for non-Hispanic Blacks.

Other relevant stats:
Average maternal age is 28.1 for non-Hispanic Whites, 26.2 for Hispanics, 25.6 for non-Hispanic Blacks.
24.4% of births were to Hispanics. 69% of those were to Mexican-origin mothers; TFR for Mexican-origin women is 3.11.
Proportion of births to unmarried mothers: NH White 26.6%, NH Black 70.7%, Hispanic 49.9%.
Proportion of mothers born in the USA: NH White 94.0%, NH Black 87.4%, Hispanic 37.5%.
Proportion of mothers who are High School graduates: NH White 87.5%, NH Black 74.5%, Hispanic 48.5%.
Proportion of mothers who are College graduates: NH White 32.9%, NH Black 11.1%, Hispanic 7.7%.
Total US population: NH White 67.1%, NH Black 12.6%, Hispanic 14.8%
Female age 15-44 population: NH White 63.0%, NH Black 14.1%, Hispanic 16.4%

You have to be careful about interpreting fertility rates for groups. If you project TFR taking into account average generation time, and assume immigration is halted, by 2050 the Hispanic population will increase by (age-distribution-adjusted) 69% while the non-Hispanic White population will decrease by (age-distribution-adjusted) 16% (How is this math done? (2.96/2.1)^(40/26.2)=1.69 )

But that assumes not only that fertility rates will stay the same (they are always changing) but that the rates within each defined group are homogenous. If there is an identifiable subgroup which tends to reproduce mostly with itself, where the children will tend to share the group’s defining characteristic, that has a larger fertility rate than the overall group, it will come to dominate and the TFR of the whole group will rise.

Examples of characteristics that are useful for identifying such groups: race, religion, education level, social class, state or region, IQ, physical attractiveness. A characteristic that is not so useful because people don’t sort themselves by it so much when mating and because children don’t share it so much with their parents: political party or ideology.

The report doesn’t have much data on these characteristics as they relate to fertility, but it does give a breakdown of fertility by state, which I have reproduced and expanded upon below, ordered from most to least fertile. The demographic future depends strongly on which state you are in.

I will be working professionally with 2010 Census data soon, and expect to learn a lot more about the future demographic profile of the country as it relates to education, religion, etc. Although I am concerned about the racial and ethnic composition changing, I am also concerned about the other variables. This is a future I don’t want.

State	Births	B'rate	F15-44	Ftlty 	TFR	% Wh	% Bl	%Hisp	%NHW	%NHB
UT	53,504	21	22.32%	94.1	2.63	94.6%	1.0%	15.4%	78.9%	0.9%
AZ	102,429	16.6	20.34%	81.6	2.44	86.3%	4.0%	44.4%	42.3%	3.5%
ID	24,184	16.5	20.40%	80.9	2.42	96.2%	0.6%	15.7%	80.6%	0.5%
SD	11,919	15.2	19.36%	78.5	2.40	79.8%	1.8%	3.4%	76.9%	1.8%
TX	399,603	17	21.57%	78.8	2.36	83.7%	12.3%	49.6%	35.0%	11.5%
NV	40,027	16	20.54%	77.9	2.36	81.4%	8.9%	39.0%	42.0%	8.3%
AK	10,996	16.4	21.38%	76.7	2.32	63.2%	4.0%	6.8%	57.2%	3.6%
NE	26,727	15.1	20.11%	75.1	2.29	88.2%	7.1%	15.0%	74.7%	6.4%
MS	46,056	15.8	20.87%	75.7	2.26	52.6%	45.8%	3.4%	49.2%	45.8%
WY	7,672	14.9	19.63%	75.9	2.24	93.3%	0.9%	11.7%	81.2%	0.7%
HI	18,982	14.8	20.03%	73.9	2.23	29.1%	3.2%	16.0%	24.2%	2.6%
NM	29,936	15.3	20.48%	74.7	2.23	82.9%	2.0%	55.2%	28.7%	1.7%
KS	40,968	14.8	20.19%	73.3	2.23	88.0%	7.7%	16.1%	72.4%	7.3%
GA	148,633	15.9	21.96%	72.4	2.23	63.1%	33.3%	15.9%	46.8%	32.8%
OK	54,016	15.1	20.21%	74.7	2.20	77.5%	9.3%	13.1%	64.6%	9.0%
CA	562,440	15.4	21.45%	71.8	2.19	80.7%	6.1%	52.2%	28.2%	5.7%
AR	40,961	14.6	20.22%	72.2	2.18	78.3%	19.4%	10.7%	67.6%	19.1%
ND	8,621	13.6	19.80%	68.7	2.15	85.3%	1.5%	2.9%	82.5%	1.4%
IA	40,607	13.6	19.68%	69.1	2.14	93.0%	4.0%	7.9%	85.0%	3.9%
SC	62,171	14.4	20.69%	69.6	2.14	62.9%	34.6%	9.4%	55.0%	32.9%
MN	73,525	14.2	20.67%	68.7	2.14	80.5%	10.3%	8.2%	73.5%	8.6%
NC	127,859	14.4	20.87%	69	2.13	72.3%	23.4%	16.6%	55.8%	23.2%
MT	12,508	13.2	18.99%	69.5	2.13	85.6%	0.5%	3.2%	78.5%	0.4%
CO	70,751	14.9	21.23%	70.2	2.11	91.3%	4.4%	32.2%	59.5%	4.2%
LA	63,376	14.8	20.96%	70.6	2.11	58.9%	38.8%	3.7%	55.6%	38.3%
USA	4265555	14.2	20.73%	68.5	2.10	77.6%	15.6%	24.4%	54.1%	14.5%
DE	11,989	14	20.80%	67.3	2.09	70.0%	25.7%	15.7%	54.9%	25.0%
FL	236,802	13.1	19.47%	67.3	2.09	72.5%	24.0%	29.6%	45.4%	21.6%
IN	88,631	14	20.50%	68.3	2.08	86.3%	11.8%	9.5%	76.7%	11.7%
TN	84,355	14	20.74%	67.5	2.07	75.5%	21.8%	9.4%	67.8%	20.7%
MO	81,385	13.9	20.47%	67.9	2.07	81.8%	15.3%	5.6%	76.3%	15.2%
KY	58,250	13.8	20.57%	67.1	2.05	88.8%	9.4%	4.8%	84.5%	9.0%
VA	107,817	14.1	21.27%	66.3	2.05	70.3%	22.6%	13.4%	58.0%	21.7%
NJ	115,020	13.2	20.47%	64.5	2.05	71.8%	18.3%	25.4%	49.5%	15.2%
AL	63,232	13.7	20.45%	67	2.03	67.7%	30.7%	7.5%	60.3%	30.6%
IL	180,572	14.1	21.11%	66.8	2.03	77.1%	17.5%	24.6%	52.7%	17.3%
MD	77,494	13.8	21.50%	64.2	2.01	56.7%	36.4%	13.0%	47.8%	32.8%
WI	72,340	13	20.31%	64	2.01	84.7%	9.8%	9.5%	75.4%	9.7%
OH	150,593	13.1	20.25%	64.7	1.99	80.8%	16.9%	4.5%	77.0%	15.8%
WA	86,876	13.6	20.86%	65.2	1.98	82.0%	5.5%	18.2%	64.7%	4.3%
OR	48,689	13.2	20.18%	65.4	1.96	90.2%	2.4%	20.4%	69.5%	2.3%
MI	127,483	12.6	20.42%	61.7	1.93	77.7%	18.1%	6.8%	68.4%	17.8%
PA	149,090	12	19.80%	60.6	1.93	78.9%	16.8%	8.9%	72.2%	14.0%
CT	41,820	11.9	20.24%	58.8	1.90	80.7%	13.4%	20.3%	61.4%	12.4%
NY	250,104	13	21.28%	61.1	1.89	69.1%	21.8%	23.7%	50.1%	17.0%
WV	20,931	11.5	19.36%	59.4	1.82	95.7%	3.3%	1.0%	94.4%	3.3%
MA	77,676	12.1	21.27%	56.9	1.78	80.3%	12.1%	13.8%	69.1%	9.1%
ME	14,151	10.7	19.63%	54.5	1.77	95.6%	2.1%	1.5%	94.0%	2.1%
NH	14,378	10.9	20.41%	53.4	1.75	94.3%	1.8%	4.1%	89.3%	1.5%
RI	12,372	11.6	21.25%	54.6	1.72	84.4%	9.7%	20.7%	49.4%	8.0%
DC	8,523	14.7	25.17%	58.4	1.70	30.1%	67.3%	15.6%	25.1%	56.9%
VT	6,511	10.4	19.92%	52.2	1.69	96.9%	1.2%	1.1%	95.2%	1.1%
Advertisements

About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Demographic Math

  1. Jehu says:

    Solid work, I look forward to reading any insights you have from it. My wife and I are doing our best to help stave off both demographic displacement and the movie you speak of. Our planned TFR for our little subgroup will be 3, although we’re open to the possibility of 4. Our little boy, in particular, seems to be a rather effective fertility totem for the women in our immediate social circle, who he has wrapped completely around his little fingers.

  2. Polymath says:

    Right now the insights are the obvious ones — Hispanics, mostly Mexican-born immigrants legal and illegal, are outbreeding non-Hispanics even before future immigration is taken into account. Even though the non-Hispanic white population is not seriously declining, this will change the makeup of the country very negatively because the immigrants fail to assimilate, educationally and economically, with succeeding generations continuing to do worse, unlike the waves of European immigrants from the last century who caught up to the rest of American society within 2 generations. The other really disturbing trend is the increase in babies born outside of marriage, which has reached alarming levels and presages a severe cultural split.

  3. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, the reason why white don’t shrink in terms of numbers is that they’re not old enough for the death rate to outdo the fertility rate, but as the people age, the fertility rate will go down continually and death rate go up exponentially and even if the TFR for fertile women will go to, let’s say four, it won’t be enough to replace the dying old people in terms of absolute numbers. Just try to picture the pyramid.

    (Ed: this doesn’t contradict me. I said in my comment that the white population would be OK for a while but explained in the post how it would shrink within a couple of generations. But even if whites start having 3 and 4 kids, this will not be enough to stay majority unless Hispanic immigration is almost entirely halted and almost all illegals are ejected.)

  4. PA says:

    There is needless hysteria attached to current low-TFR numbers. Think of it in another way: today’s low birth rates are a corrective to the unprecedented high fertility/infant survival rates of two generations ago.

    Barring outside interference, mainly immigration, a country like Italy or Latvia in 2050 will have the same number of young people it had in 1900, just more old people thrown into the mix as well.

    As long as there is no immigration, and the socioeconomic model is changed to one that does not depend of endless population growth, we’ll be fine.

  5. rebelliousvanilla says:

    PA, I’d love having a lot of young people and competing cultures having a lot of old people. I’d declare war on them on any day of the week. And the two generations ago wasn’t unprecedented. What’s unprecendented is the current situation.

    There’s also the problem that old people aren’t young people. They don’t work nor are they able to reproduce. So taking this model to its logical extreme, you will have only two people left that are fertile and they will have a single male child(if you exclude interference).

    As long as people don’t work until they die, you need endless population growth. Also, it’s impossible to save for retirement without it, since spending goes down and returns on capital go down along with it(and with the cost of labour going up due to shortages and the marginal utility of capital going down with each extra unit).

    Oh, and to sum it up, if people have few children, it’s a self feeding feedback loop. For instance, in my country, children that are ten now don’t have anybody to play with in a two block radius from where they live. But again, since I decided I won’t have children, I hardly care about this. A society that doesn’t expand is a society full of pathetic wimps – actually, usually societies grow in numbers and take over the territory of other ones. The healthy societies do that to the unhealthy ones and I will love the moment when the deranged idiots will lose their property and territory. It’s what they deserve.

  6. PA, there is not “needless hysteria”, there is legitimate concern. The issue is not whether there are more young people than in 1900, it’s the ratio of young to old people. In welfare states people expect other people’s children to take care of them (via taxes and state pension and healthcare systems) in their old age instead of their own. So they don’t have as many children, thereby falsifying the idiotic assumptions the planners of the system made (and of course they are idiots themselves not to have as many children, because they are unable to generalize from their own experience and see that they are depending on the rest of the society not to think like them).

    As long as there is no immigration, and the socioeconomic model is changed to one that does not depend of endless population growth, we’ll be fine.

    Well, good luck with that. Actually, the failure of the population to reproduce with the exponent assumed by the politicians who planned the system was then used as an excuse by later politicians to bring in immigrant workers in order to prop up the retirement structure (they NEVER had any math to support this, they always simply pretended that the math had been done, because they had other reasons for bringing in immigrants related to leftist culture-destruction and selfish vote-pandering). And even if you banned immigration today, “changing the socioeconomic model” cannot be accomplished by pushing a button or passing a law.

  7. PA says:

    There are two reasons why it’s “nnedless hysteria.” One, politicians and corporations want to whip people up into thinking that we need immigration. Two, because those sky-is-falling low TFR arguments do nothing but demoralize. See commetner Whiskey. Reading these people woudl make me want to put a shotgun in my mouth, if I took them too seriously.

    Acknowledging that low TFRs are a problem, and then to take measures to work around them, including barring non-white immigration, is the responsible attitude. Despair-mongering is not.

  8. As long as people don’t work until they die, you need endless population growth. Also, it’s impossible to save for retirement without it, since spending goes down and returns on capital go down along with it(and with the cost of labour going up due to shortages and the marginal utility of capital going down with each extra unit).

    Oh, and to sum it up, if people have few children, it’s a self feeding feedback loop.

    I completely agree with this, if you assume retirement benefits are not sharply reduced. But that is not politically impossible. For any fertility rate there is a level of retirement benefits that it can support. With fertility as low as it is in places like Italy and Japan, that means benefits will ultimately be cut by 2/3 or so, or old people will have to work until they are 75 instead of 62, or some combination like cutting benefits in half and working until 70. (Of course fertility can rise, but any rise will be too late to help most people retired now who will be dead by the time a baby conceived today is paying a significant amount of taxes.)

    A society that doesn’t expand is a society full of pathetic wimps – actually, usually societies grow in numbers and take over the territory of other ones. The healthy societies do that to the unhealthy ones and I will love the moment when the deranged idiots will lose their property and territory. It’s what they deserve.

    An isolated society like Japan can get away with shrinking its population as long as they prefer reducing their benefits to importing foreigners. But for countries in the EU this is not really an option at all.

    I do not believe in collective guilt. What a society “deserves” for not reproducing will affect even those productive members of society who have 4 children and pay lots of taxes. Unfortunately the satisfactions of saying “I told you so” if my society collapses are not going to compensate, so I am still trying to change things politically in addition to making a good contribution to the TFR. Although you can root for a collapse, you shouldn’t expect me to be a “pathetic wimp” and accept it.

  9. Jehu says:

    I for one don’t care whether me and mine deserve to be displaced or not. We will fight by whatever means are necessary and expedient to preserve our demographic hegemony. We will not accept displacement even if it comes about by legal means in a totally above the board election. There is no ocean of blood too vast to be shed for my children’s sake.

  10. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Jehu, this is why I respect men like you. You’re actually men. But most white men are women with a different genitalia configuration. Polymath is included in this category too(the actual men one), but society at large isn’t made up with the two of you.

    Polymath, yes, but that’s because you have children. You have no idea how reliefed I am since I took the decision to not have children. Basically, anything that will happen will be inconsequential to me. I can just move if Europe or the US gets too bad and since I won’t have kids, it wouldn’t matter if I’d live among other types of people. And no, weak societies deserve to be replaced by better ones. Being outdone means you’re not worthy. Sure, this doesn’t mean you have to not compete altogether.

    PA, the truth is that those people who are desperate are right. We have two generation tops to wake up and if we do it in two, nothing will be solved without mass slaughter. But again, I could care the less. Knock yourself out people, I don’t care. It’s funny, but politics actually became amusing to me. It’s funny that an idiot like Obama is the American president when you don’t care what he does.

  11. Regarding the retirement system math, Derb is very funny this week:

    It is dawning on legislators and governments all over the Western world that the extravagant, ever-expanding welfare states of the baby-boom era are not sustainable in an age of sub-replacement fertility rates and healthy 85-year-olds.

    Britain is slashing social spending, even considering denying welfare benefits to people who won’t work — good grief! France is raising the retirement age for state pensions and laying off government employees. Ireland is cutting public-sector salaries and everything else too in an effort to prevent a bailout from the EU. Even the Scandinavians are joining in the slashfest. In fact they’re been ahead of the rest of us: Did you know that government spending in Sweden, as a percent of GDP, is now ten percent lower than it was in 1993?

    Well, President Obama set up a bipartisan commission to seek ways to reduce our colossal budget deficit. They just delivered their report, with their recommendations. Gradual raising of the retirement age to 69; double federal gas tax; increase Medicaid copays; eliminate the mortgage interest deduction; reduce farm subsidies; end congressional earmarks; close foreign military bases; cut the federal workforce. Boy, they must have been listening to Radio Derb.

    This stuff is so basic and sensible that there is of course no chance any of it will be done. When Nancy Pelosi saw the report she shrieked and jumped on a kitchen chair, clutching her skirts. After smelling salts had been administered, Nancy gasped that the commission report was, quote, “simply unacceptable.” Current administration policy is in fact for an across-the-board increase of 1.4 percent in the pay of all two million plus federal employees. That will go through in the lame duck session that starts on Monday, if Republicans can’t stop it. Obama wants to be where Sweden was in 1993, even though the Swedes don’t want to be there any more.

    And yes, if you read the newspapers last week, you did indeed learn that the number of federal employees earning more than $170,000 was 994 in June, versus 214 when Obama took office; in other words, it’s better than quadrupled in less than two years. This is a long-term trend. Quote from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, quote: “Since year 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3 percent annually above inflation compared with 0.8 percent for private workers.” End quote.

    So nobody in the administration, and probably not many in Congress, gives a fig about this deficit-reduction report. Our government will just lurch forward like the proverbial drunken sailor till it falls off the dock. We’ll just go on printing money and fudging the numbers somehow until we sink into some awful catastrophe — hyperinflation, probably. Then everyone will moan about how nobody saw it coming. Well, here’s me seeing it coming.

  12. More from the same Derbyshire program, in which he also makes my point about Hispanic educational failure indicating that assimilation is not happening as it did for previous waves of immigrants to the US:

    Readers of that wonderful sapient, and prescient book We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism will recall the author’s attempt to float the word “absimilation.” Quote:

    The English word “assimilation” derives from the Latin prefix ad-, which indicates a moving towards something, and the same language’s verb simulare, “to cause a person or thing to resemble another.” You can make a precisely opposite word using the prefix ab-, which marks a moving away from something. Many immigrants of course assimilate to American society. I think I have. I hope I have; I’ve tried to. Many others, however, especially in the second and following generations, absimilate.
    End quote. Well, here’s a paper from Britain’s Royal Economic Society on education, earnings and employment among first- and second-generation non-European immigrants in France, Germany, and Britain. Guess what: absimilation!

    Sample quote: “Employment gaps for men in Germany and the UK seem quite similar for first and second-generation immigrants but France has a number of groups in which the second-generation immigrants seem to be doing worse than the first.” End quote.

    This isn’t, of course, the only evidence of absimilation. The spread of Islamic head-coverings, creeping Sharia, radicalization of young Muslims, the colossal dropout rates of Hispanics in the U.S., it’s all telling the same story. Modern multiculural welfare states just don’t do assimilation, probably can’t.

    Europeans at least are beginning to wake up. Horst Seehofer, who is the leader of the Christian Democratic Union Party (CSU) in Germany, part of the coalition government running that nation, told an interviewer last month that, quote, “It is obvious that immigrants from Turkey and Arab countries face more difficulty integrating into German society than other immigrants. We don’t need additional immigrants from ‘foreign cultures’.” End quote.

    That’s right, pal. Democracy, multiculturalism, mass immigration — pick any two of three.

  13. I’m glad you agree that my family situation ought to make me fight to prevent American society from collapsing; but that means that the glee with which you always refer to the possibility of this collapse is saying you want me to fail. I’d be insulted if you hadn’t just reaffirmed your respect for my being in the “actual men” category. You still need to answer the related question I asked here.

  14. Jehu says:

    Even when a person is my enemy—on the other side of an existential conflict from me—I want them to fight to defend their family’s interest. The man who does not defend his family’s interest has denied the Faith and is worse than the heathen. I don’t hate anyone enough to wish for them not to fight me to defend their own, enemy or no. I’d concur with Rebellious Vanilla, in her description of them as not men at all, although I think of them far more like the ‘un-man’ from C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy than as women with alternate secondary sexual characteristics. I am many miles from neurotypical, but how is it that so many can not feel the pull of their blood? How is it that anyone can fail to acknowledge and defend one’s own children? I’m optimistic though in my gut, feeling that most parents of children among my coethnics will side with me when the time comes. When you’re willing to use whatever means are necessary, you don’t need a majority. There’s nothing sacred about majority rule or one man, one vote, or even vote with the weapon of your choice.

  15. Polymath says:

    Jehu,

    I generally agree with what you say, but I would like to understand your fundamental principles better. What do you mean by “the Faith”? And do you regard the obligation to defend one’s family as entailing any obligations to one’s ethnic group? As I said on the Tim Wise thread,

    traditional morality that speaks about loyalty to one’s family is almost universal, so that someone who feels no such duty would naturally be shunned, while loyalty to any larger group is going to be a matter of arbitrary definition, unless one believes either that “natural law” somehow extends this to arbitrarily distant relatives in some proportionate way, or that people are not free to choose their own circle of loyalty as small or as large as they wish.

    I don’t see anything wrong with feeling obligations to or solidarity with one’s ethnic group or fighting for it against other groups, my question is whether there is a moral obligation to do this similar to the generally recognized obligation to defend one’s family, and if so, under what circumstances and to what degree it operates.

    As I said on the “Feminist insanity” thread I just posted, people are often willing to subordinate their own interests if an appeal to their sense of guilt or moral vanity is made through some such concept as “social justice”. What motivates people to hold the kind of attitudes we are criticizing, that fail to defend the interests of one’s family, is a view that somehow their children would be better off in a “better society” even if it was to their immediate disadvantage to promote the things which would cause this “better society” to come about.

    There is a small degree to which this attitude makes sense: for example, I voted against Obama even though my personal financial situation benefited significantly from the crazy things he and Congress did over the last 2 years, and my family would probably be several thousand dollars poorer right now if McCain had been elected, but the overall damage I foresaw Obama would do justified voting against my own interests narrowly defined. However, this attitude is much less justifiable when the kind of “better” that the society is supposed to become does not correspond to anything measurable economically or according to other typical social metrics, but rather consists almost entirely of good feelings arising from moral self-congratulation.

    The other point I would like to make is that in a properly organized modern society the necessity to literally (as opposed to politically) “fight” another ethnic group for superiority within one’s own country should never occur, and if it does it indicates an ovewhelming societal moral failure and a probable civilizational collapse. Fights between countries are perfectly understandable, but if a country has for some time had a democratically accountable government, peace, and economic freedom, there is no excuse for allowing a situation of literal ethnic civil war ever to arise.

  16. Jehu says:

    Polymath,
    My quote was adapted very slightly from one of Paul’s letters (re: denied the Faith). I’m a reactionary Christian in terms of my belief structure. See my Solo Scriptura or Sola Scriptura post on my blog for a bit more on what that precisely means. So yes, I believe there is a moral obligation to defend the interests of one’s children. Using the test that I describe in that post, I think I’m on pretty solid ground on this. My concern for my ethnic group as a whole has two branches. The first is the attenuated family loyalty—my ethnic group is like a massively extended, fairly inbred family. What Nth cousin is my average coethnic equivalent to? The second is that regardless of my position, the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world (including those who threaten my children’s demographic hegemony) think very heavily in terms of ethnic nepotism. So even were I a totally atomized libertarian, I’d still rationally act as if I believed this way. The eternal war for status is a team sport, and by definition somebody has to be in the back of the bus. I owe it to my children to fight to insure that it’s not them. I’ve heard the universalist pleas against the interests of my children again and again, and you know what? I’ve noticed that generally they don’t even bring about the improvements for the children of the ‘other’ either (all though they do impose sacrifices on mine). You might notice, in various other postings of mine, that I’m generally quite negative on the idea of using moral language to ‘export’ beliefs. Thus I don’t generally frame my arguments in any form of moral universalism and attempt to appeal directly to each group’s self-interest, reasonably construed. When a group’s self-interest is contrary to what I want or need in an existential sense, I don’t attempt to persuade them as I consider that to be incredibly insulting.

    On your final point, ‘properly organized modern society’ is something I don’t think we’ve had since at least 1960, and probably not since 1900. At such point as one is likely to see any sort of ethnic civil war, any notion of accountable government, economic freedom, or peace is likely to be moot. A properly organized modern society would not tolerate an attempt by its elites to elect a new people. The conflict with Serbia over one of their provinces that had effectively been overrun demographically by Moslems back in the 1990s is a cautionary tale.

  17. Polymath says:

    Jehu,

    GREAT blog you have. There is not very much there, so I recommend that every reader of this blog (especially my favorite one) hop over there and read all your posts from the beginning.

    Responding to your comment:

    I’m a reactionary Christian in terms of my belief structure. See my Solo Scriptura or Sola Scriptura post on my blog for a bit more on what that precisely means.

    I’m Catholic myself, but have a lot of sympathy for Orthodoxy; the Orthodox are a lot more sensible about nationality and universalism than the Catholics are (not than the Catholic faith itself is, I am talking about what modern Catholics tend to do rather than what the faith says they should do, I’ll go into the distinctions in a blog post one of these days).

    So yes, I believe there is a moral obligation to defend the interests of one’s children. Using the test that I describe in that post, I think I’m on pretty solid ground on this. My concern for my ethnic group as a whole has two branches. The first is the attenuated family loyalty—my ethnic group is like a massively extended, fairly inbred family. What Nth cousin is my average coethnic equivalent to?

    I asked RV about this on the Tim Wise thread. I think that the attenuation is pretty severe and “family loyalty” does not get you very far, your ethnic group does not deserve your support on the basis of relatedness if it does not behave in such a way as to justify that loyalty. “Natural law”, if it exists at all here, covers people you can define your relationship to by naming the chain of relatives that connects you, and no further, as far as I am concerned; your actual formal moral obligations to the rest of your ethnic group are there because they are your community and so on, not because of relatedness. It’s perfectly natural to feel loyalty to your ethnic group, but it’s not immoral not to. RV was confused about this because she wanted to criticize Tim Wise as a traitor to whites (or, in his case, maybe Jews) when he hadn’t actually professed any loyalty to an ethnic or racial group; she raised the analogy of obligations to family members, which doesn’t require an explicit profession of loyalty, but I perceive a difference there, as I think she must too since she has elsewhere rejected the notion that she should remain loyal to her own nation given how self-destructive and dysfunctional it is.

    The second is that regardless of my position, the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world (including those who threaten my children’s demographic hegemony) think very heavily in terms of ethnic nepotism. So even were I a totally atomized libertarian, I’d still rationally act as if I believed this way.

    I agree with this too and have said similar things; however in the American context what is especially maddening is that the whites refuse not only to play this game themselves, but then refuse even to criticize the other groups for playing it! This is, as RV likes to put it, fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

    The eternal war for status is a team sport, and by definition somebody has to be in the back of the bus. I owe it to my children to fight to insure that it’s not them. I’ve heard the universalist pleas against the interests of my children again and again, and you know what? I’ve noticed that generally they don’t even bring about the improvements for the children of the ‘other’ either (all though they do impose sacrifices on mine).

    Yes. The only proper response is to denounce such pleas as illogical appeals to your emotions motivated by their own hypocritical self-interest, and not let them get away with such perfidy by pretending they have any moral standing relative to you.

    You might notice, in various other postings of mine, that I’m generally quite negative on the idea of using moral language to ‘export’ beliefs. Thus I don’t generally frame my arguments in any form of moral universalism and attempt to appeal directly to each group’s self-interest, reasonably construed.

    This is a necessity when the community you are addressing is not Christian as a community (whether they are Christians individually is less relevant). The moral universalism is ONLY legitimate when there is a specific creed or set of laws that is explicitly and formally accepted by the community — but in practice this is not the case, and the universalism is simply an attempt to trigger people’s guilt and shame reflexes or appeal to their moral vanity. You have to point out the game they are playing in order to beat them at it, you can’t accept their unspoken premises.

    RV is right again here, when she talks about how progressivism is Christianity without God — the progressives still have the same emotional attitudes and try to make the state play the role for everyone that the church used to play for believers only. The difference, morally, is that churches are voluntary organizations, which cannot (since the 1700’s at least) coerce the way states can. The progressives have to pretend that there is some equivalent to a creed or set of religious tenets which justifies what they are asking everyone else to do, but they fight desperately to avoid ever spelling it out because it doesn’t really exist, all they have is slogans like “social justice” which do not stand up under logical scrutiny.

    When a group’s self-interest is contrary to what I want or need in an existential sense, I don’t attempt to persuade them as I consider that to be incredibly insulting.

    THIS is a phenomenon that should not occur in a properly organized modern society (conflict between groups that is truly existential in its scope).

    On your final point, ‘properly organized modern society’ is something I don’t think we’ve had since at least 1960, and probably not since 1900.

    I go with 1960.

    At such point as one is likely to see any sort of ethnic civil war, any notion of accountable government, economic freedom, or peace is likely to be moot.

    Yes, that’s just turning my point around — accountable government, peace, and economic freedom ought to be self-sustaining and if they do sustain themselves that means that ethnic civil war should not have a chance to occur. In the case of the USA it is the first of these 3 that failed.

    A properly organized modern society would not tolerate an attempt by its elites to elect a new people.

    PRECISELY what I have just been saying — and this goes back to the mid-60’s in the USA which is why I said 1960 before, and involves the government becoming unaccountable which is what I just pointed to.

    The conflict with Serbia over one of their provinces that had effectively been overrun demographically by Moslems back in the 1990s is a cautionary tale.

    I have written elsewhere about this — this is by far the most egregious example, and I still think it was an aberration. I have a lot to say about the Serbian conflict, maybe that will be another blog post here.

  18. Jehu says:

    I’m glad you’ve found my work useful. Feel free to appropriate whatever ideas or turns of phrase you find useful. On Catholicism, I do like the present Pope, although I wish he had the strength to put his house in order. There is a great deal of rot in the Catholic church, but frankly, there’s more in my own denomination in general. I’m reasonably happy with my own particular church, where I’m only a sigma or two more reactionary than the average person, but my denomination in general (the Quakers) have a lot to answer for. I’m a believer that if the Pope would show strength, that a lot of the wavering Catholics throughout the world would fall into line. More than a few Protestants might also, the I find the Pope’s claim to Peter’s mandate uncomfortably strong.

    I wholeheartedly agree that Christianity without Christ is an abomination. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins fess up to being ‘culturally Christian’, which basically means the above. An easier set to manipulate than that is hard to fathom. New Testament only types also seriously earn my ire, especially if they’re ‘red letters only’. Without the context of the Old Testament it is far too easy to degenerate God from a loving AND holy God to a feel good suicidal cult that can’t possibly envision a Jesus saying things like ‘Depart from me ye wicked’. And, without the guidance of tradition, that part of the communion of the saints that is no longer alive, interpretation will always gravitate to a more comfortable embrace of the errors of one’s age.

  19. The Democrats still don’t get the message:

    Obama Pushes DREAM Act Immigration Reform for Lame-Duck Congress

    If this passes, I don’t think the voters will forget it by 2012. The fury that it was done in a lame-duck session will make it remembered. Of course a few Republicans in the Senate would have to go along to avoid a filibuster; nice if they don’t, then the Dems get on record for voting for something awful even though it didn’t pass, just as Cap-and-trade not passing the Senate didn’t stop lots of House members from being punished for it.

  20. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Any sane group absimilates when it can do so from a position of power. This is exactly why immigrants are docile and their children aren’t. The immigrants are deportable fairly easily. The only real assimilation, actually, comes from complete intermarriage to the point where there are no real ethnic differences.

    And I’m sorry, but me having a society in which I’d want to have children is more important to me than you preserving the deranged status quo. Besides, your children could benefit from it. And while Americanism being destroyed wouldn’t automatically change the attitudes of Europeans, without it being destroyed, the attitudes won’t change. And I don’t necessarily want Americans to suffer, it’s just that I don’t see you redefining yourself otherwise.

    I actually support the destruction of any moral framework that you describe – in which people don’t have the moral obligation to care about their ethnic group. And I disagree, any group that is willing to give up political monopoly inside its own country shows an abysmal moral failure and a degenerate culture and belief system. So yes, to me not being loyal to your ethnic group is a moral failure. And I’m not referring to the just bang the women of foreigners thing – I don’t care about that. And I am loyal to my own people. Destroying the current cultural system isn’t only in my interest, but it’s the only way my people would survive. And since the foundational mythology of the cultural system is rotten, you can’t really do fine tuning.

    Oh, and read Jehu’s comment in which he says that war for status is a team sport. This is why even a manly man wouldn’t make me feel different about men in general or change my belief in terms of policy. And I’d also like to point out that even the belief in the noble savage thing is a Christian concept – it’s an appeal to the getting back to the garden of Eden. It’s amusing to me to see how influential Christianity is on people who hate it.

    Jehu, I completely reject Christian ethics. I used to not do that and reject only God and I was progressive. It’s relatively amusing for me to look back now. The problem is that Christianity became completely rotten since quite a while ago. The degeneration started eons ago, but the Vatican 2 has been an abysmal failure.

  21. Any sane group absimilates when it can do so from a position of power. This is exactly why immigrants are docile and their children aren’t. The immigrants are deportable fairly easily. The only real assimilation, actually, comes from complete intermarriage to the point where there are no real ethnic differences.

    I agree with this, the reason America worked well for so long is that the different European-origin groups were close enough to each other (culturally and racially) to freely intermarry. Groups which originated on other continents were just too distant both culturally and racially for intermarriage with European-origin people to happen naturally with any frequency. In the last few decades, the left-liberals who have decisive influence on American pop culture have recognized this and responded by heavily promoting marriage relationships between couples as disparate as they can plausibly show (a census of the characters and couples on TV shows in my lifetime would show the progression very clearly).

    And I’m sorry, but me having a society in which I’d want to have children is more important to me than you preserving the deranged status quo.

    Yes, but my point was that I was trying to prevent a collapse here (which is not the same as preserving a deranged status quo, the idea is to get to a better one without violence and economic chaos), not in any country you might live in. I never claimed Americanism should be exported, so your saying your well-being depends on my society collapsing is sort of ridiculous.

    Besides, your children could benefit from it.

    What, from a collapse? They will benefit from a better America which is what I am trying to bring about while avoiding a collapse. Your main disagreements with me are that you don’t think it can happen without a collapse (I say you can’t know that yet, though in another 4 years or so I think that question will be much more reliably answerable), and that you think an American collapse is necessary because your continent is full of idiots too brainwashed to be persuaded Americanism is inappropiate for Europe in any other way.

    And while Americanism being destroyed wouldn’t automatically change the attitudes of Europeans, without it being destroyed, the attitudes won’t change.

    Why not? Wouldn’t the consequences it is having in Europe be enough to wake people up eventually? I think being closer to home those would be paid more attention.

    And I don’t necessarily want Americans to suffer, it’s just that I don’t see you redefining yourself otherwise.

    Well obviously I am working to make changes happen and avoid a collapse, and this may fail, but you can’t expect me to give up at this point. You made a good point before about groups whose conflict with each other is existential in scope being unable to have normal political interactions or cooperate with each other, but that was talking about groups living in the same place. To elevate the conflict between America and Europe to this existential plane and say that America must collapse because the only way Europeans can learn is to have the biggest imaginable bad example to learn from insults both Americans and Europeans. Only if the conflict is truly existential could you get away with saying both that I ought to fight America collapsing because of my situation, and that you hope I fail; but it isn’t existential, both because we are on separate continents, and because we are culturally and ethnically similar.

    I actually support the destruction of any moral framework that you describe – in which people don’t have the moral obligation to care about their ethnic group.

    Where did I endorse such a framework?

    And I disagree, any group that is willing to give up political monopoly inside its own country shows an abysmal moral failure and a degenerate culture and belief system.

    Where did I deny this? I thought I made it clear how strongly I loathed the elites trying to import a new people.

    So yes, to me not being loyal to your ethnic group is a moral failure.

    Where does this moral imperative come from? You have said there is no such thing as natural law, only social constructs between people, so why be loyal to your ethnic group rather than your society if they are not the same? And if they are pretty much the same, is it possible for your nation to get so dysfunctional and wrongheaded that it no longer deserves your loyalty? Has this already occurred in your country? I’m not disagreeing with you about the morality of being loyal to your ethnic group, just trying to define it better.

    And I’m not referring to the just bang the women of foreigners thing – I don’t care about that. And I am loyal to my own people. Destroying the current cultural system isn’t only in my interest, but it’s the only way my people would survive. And since the foundational mythology of the cultural system is rotten, you can’t really do fine tuning.

    I get this point, and I know you have said that only violence and chaos and suffering will change people’s attitudes in such a fundamental way. But now you’re sort of contradicting that and saying that for Europeans at least, maybe THEY can avoid the violence and chaos and suffering if America provides a spectacular enough bad example for them to learn from. I think that whatever the influence America had in the formation of the post-WW2 European order, you exaggerate its influence now. What is wrong with you Europeans if 65 years after the war, and 20 years after the Soviet collapse, you still can’t stand on your own feet culturally and socially? You have taken socialist insanity further than we have anyway, so what makes you think you won’t already be hopeless by the time we get around to collapsing?

    Oh, and read Jehu’s comment in which he says that war for status is a team sport. This is why even a manly man wouldn’t make me feel different about men in general or change my belief in terms of policy.

    I think you’re not quite getting my point. I was talking (on the other thread) about how policy would affect your personal interests, not your principles. You might think that most men are such wimps that it would be better to have policies that make it easier for women to take advantage of them; but if you were married to a man whom you did not want to take advantage of because your marriage was a genuine partnership, so that a policy which hurt his economic prospects more than it helped yours would have bad effects on your family as a whole, then the policy would no longer be in your personal interest because your interest would be connected to his. You have been equivocating between the personal and the political, first saying that even though you think the feminists are wrong you would support a feminist policy if it benefited you personally, and then turning around and saying that you would still support a feminist policy in the situation I described where it no longer benefited you personally because you were in a non-mercenary sort of marriage. Furthermore, you can’t cop out by saying you don’t think you’ll get married anyway, because you still can’t deny that other women will want to get married, and will want to have mutually loving shared-interest marriages rather than mercenary ones, and my original point was simply that these women, not necessarily you personally, would not find it in their personal interests to support the feminist insanity that was the subject of the other thread, and that most women still would prefer to have that kind of marriage and many do have it.

    And I’d also like to point out that even the belief in the noble savage thing is a Christian concept – it’s an appeal to the getting back to the garden of Eden. It’s amusing to me to see how influential Christianity is on people who hate it.

    This part I’m not disagreeing with, especially since I don’t hate Christianity.

    Jehu, I completely reject Christian ethics. I used to not do that and reject only God and I was progressive. It’s relatively amusing for me to look back now. The problem is that Christianity became completely rotten since quite a while ago. The degeneration started eons ago, but the Vatican 2 has been an abysmal failure.

    I agree that if you are an atheist you should reject Christian ethics, they only make sense if the Christian God exists. But there are different kinds of Christians; Jehu can answer for the Protestants, and I can tell you that the Catholics are moving in the right direction now, but since you come from an Orthodox background, do you think that Orthodoxy is rotten too?

  22. Jehu says:

    Polymath,
    I pray frequently that I’m never called before God to answer for the Protestants. Thankfully all the branches of Protestantism are not dead. Protestantism benefits and suffers from the fact of no central arbiter of Scripture. I see the Roman Catholic church absorbing some of the non-heretical segments of the Church of England to be a positive development.

    RV,
    Since you do not accept Jesus, I am happy for you that you don’t accept Christian ethics. Christianity without Christ is a horrid thing, something I would not inflict on my worst enemy. Should you later decide to accept Jesus, which I hope you do, you may well find that the ‘Christian ethics’ that come with it are far different from what you’ve been lead to believe. If you’re interested in some more thoughts on this, I invite you to read
    http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2010/04/sola-scriptura-or-solo-scriptura.html

  23. Jehu, I commented on that post of yours, concerning the economics of slavery.

  24. Actually, the melting pot thing began to fail when it stopped being only of Germanic people, but it was ok, I suppose, with the Italians too. The destruction of this was awarding citizenship to non-European people and then not making citizenship only by birth, which would have created a properly homogeneous group.

    Yes, but my point was that I was trying to prevent a collapse here (which is not the same as preserving a deranged status quo, the idea is to get to a better one without violence and economic chaos), not in any country you might live in. I never claimed Americanism should be exported, so your saying your well-being depends on my society collapsing is sort of ridiculous.

    And yes, Americanism can be made illegitimate by making America inconsequential politically, economically and culturally too. If you want an irrelevant country without a collapse, I have no problem with that. But Europe needs to begin seeing the US as a mortal enemy if that is the case. As it is, how China or Russia works is far closer to how things should be and it would make a better ally for Europeans than Americans.

    What, from a collapse? They will benefit from a better America which is what I am trying to bring about while avoiding a collapse. Your main disagreements with me are that you don’t think it can happen without a collapse (I say you can’t know that yet, though in another 4 years or so I think that question will be much more reliably answerable), and that you think an American collapse is necessary because your continent is full of idiots too brainwashed to be persuaded Americanism is inappropiate for Europe in any other way.

    I’d like to point out that I’m unsure if Americans, who made their slaves citizens have the legitimacy to call anybody idiotic. As I said, it’s either the US completely changing or Europe needing to begin to see the US as an enemy. America would be an enemy, of the same nature as the whole Islamic Middle East, in this case.

    Why not? Wouldn’t the consequences it is having in Europe be enough to wake people up eventually? I think being closer to home those would be paid more attention.
    Because a mythology needs to be changed with another. 95% of the people are authority worshipping people without their own beliefs, regardless of their intelligence. You should look the Milgram experiment up for the authority part. And I think it says in most communication books that people have no original ideas.

    Well obviously I am working to make changes happen and avoid a collapse, and this may fail, but you can’t expect me to give up at this point. You made a good point before about groups whose conflict with each other is existential in scope being unable to have normal political interactions or cooperate with each other, but that was talking about groups living in the same place. To elevate the conflict between America and Europe to this existential plane and say that America must collapse because the only way Europeans can learn is to have the biggest imaginable bad example to learn from insults both Americans and Europeans. Only if the conflict is truly existential could you get away with saying both that I ought to fight America collapsing because of my situation, and that you hope I fail; but it isn’t existential, both because we are on separate continents, and because we are culturally and ethnically similar.
    Americanism being destroyed is an existential issue though. Otherwise, I wouldn’t care.

    Where did I endorse such a framework?
    Well, I recall you saying that Tim Wise isn’t a traitor and that he doesn’t have automatic allegiance to his ethnic group and that this is different compared to the family issue.

    Where does this moral imperative come from? You have said there is no such thing as natural law, only social constructs between people, so why be loyal to your ethnic group rather than your society if they are not the same? And if they are pretty much the same, is it possible for your nation to get so dysfunctional and wrongheaded that it no longer deserves your loyalty? Has this already occurred in your country? I’m not disagreeing with you about the morality of being loyal to your ethnic group, just trying to define it better.
    Re-read what I said. I said to me – so in my view of morality, people who aren’t loyal to their ethnic group are immoral. Also, this is in concordance with human nature, even though this is is-ought.

    I get this point, and I know you have said that only violence and chaos and suffering will change people’s attitudes in such a fundamental way. But now you’re sort of contradicting that and saying that for Europeans at least, maybe THEY can avoid the violence and chaos and suffering if America provides a spectacular enough bad example for them to learn from. I think that whatever the influence America had in the formation of the post-WW2 European order, you exaggerate its influence now. What is wrong with you Europeans if 65 years after the war, and 20 years after the Soviet collapse, you still can’t stand on your own feet culturally and socially? You have taken socialist insanity further than we have anyway, so what makes you think you won’t already be hopeless by the time we get around to collapsing?
    Economic policy has nothing to do with cultural issues. Romania isn’t a Marxist country, despite us having an universal healthcare system. You don’t have one, yet you’re far more Marxist in the way you think than Romanians. And any mythology grows by itself. If I kidnapped your children when they were born and I raised them myself until they were 30 and then returned them to you, odds are, they’d think more like me than you(and then I could tell you that you exaggerate my influence on your children). And America collapsing could change things because you are the enforcer of progressivism around the world, not Europe. I tried to explain this to Fjordman when he put Sweden on the axis of evil along with America and France, but Sweden never exported their culture. The only reason why American leftists get moist while thinking about Sweden is because Sweden imported progressivism from you and implemented monumentally better. So it’s sort of like their child. C’mon, I expected you to understand this.

    I agree that if you are an atheist you should reject Christian ethics, they only make sense if the Christian God exists. But there are different kinds of Christians; Jehu can answer for the Protestants, and I can tell you that the Catholics are moving in the right direction now, but since you come from an Orthodox background, do you think that Orthodoxy is rotten too?
    Actually, as an atheist, I can judge all of your religions moving in the right or wrong direction. I think that Protestantism is less likely to recover than Catholicism, due to the centralized nature of Catholicism, which would make a change possible if a proper Pope will exist in the future. Right now though, Catholicism is in a far worse position – it’s actually the enemy of all people of European descent and an agent of the third world. So right now Protestants are in a far better shape, but Catholics have a higher chance of recovering, in my opinion. Orthodoxism is in a fairly good shape right now, but I think it is degrading due to Eastern European countries importing the Western insanity here. This doesn’t change the nature of Orthodox Christianity though, it just makes people not practice their religion. And it’s in a far better position due to a lot of national elements being part of it.

    Related to the marriage issue. It’s fairly simple to me. The way society is organized forces me to have a purely individualistic outlook on life, even if I’d marry a man. Having a family in the way society is now is something in which I am deeply interested in. So my marriage to a man would be solely depending on how it benefits me financially or emotionally. The mistake you make is thinking that if I marry, my interest would be connected to my husband. Sure, in a proper society, that would be the case. It’s not in how things are now. Oh, and I think you misunderstand female nature in some ways. All of us are mercenary in nature. What keeps that in check are strong men.

    And by the way, while the work related incentives of feminism doesn’t benefit women who want to be stay at home mothers, the current divorce and child support laws benefit them.

  25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofling_hospital_experiment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
    To make my point. Most people believe and do whatever they are told to do and believe. And once you take over the moral institutions of a people, if you change the moral grammar of those institutions, those people will perpetuate your changes. This is how the left won and how Americanism is being spread and this is exactly how people with my views are to prevail. Destroy or take over the current moral institutions and replace them with my paradigm. It’s hard to do it though without a collapse and in some cases impossible – for instance, I’m not sure how you can redefine what American is in an exclusive, instead of inclusive way.

  26. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Holy shit, California is beyond screwed.

    Over HALF the babies are hispanics, and barely a quarter are NH White. Goodbye California!

  27. FortitudineVincimus says:

    RV, the Germanic/Celtic mix is probably what really defined America’s first century.

    The Italians, of course, were immensely unpopular. “Guineas”, “wops”, etc. But they became Americans, eventually, and made valuable contributions.

    How hispanics turn out will be interesting. They are a mix of Indian and European, so it’ll be interesting to see if they can assimilate. Of course, immigration has to stop if they are to assimilate, rather than colonize.

  28. Jehu says:

    Italians probably never would have assimilated if they’d had quotas, set-asides, and affirmative action/diversity working for them back in the day. It’s really hard for people to grok this, but mistreating/hazing a group in a fairly mild fashion actually tends to make them assimilate better. I’ve got some more writings on this on my blog for the interested reader. The problem with the Mexican subset of Hispanic is that even if this were done away with tomorrow they’d still have a rational incentive to push for something like it for HBD reasons. Can anyone name a group with an average IQ less than White Euro-derived Americans that doesn’t? No, for me the question isn’t can Mexicans assimilate (answer: no), but can Asian Americans assimilate (answer: I don’t know, their rational incentives aren’t to use things like AA/diversity offensively).

  29. FortitudineVincimus says:

    So what scenario do we foresee in that part of the world?

    Ethnic conflict or a happy melting pot?

  30. PA says:

    Happy melting pots only happen when women of both groups are comparatively attractive. Italian girls were on average as pretty as Anglo girls, so assimilation happened.

    In contrast, Africans have been here since Jamestown, and remain a separate an in meaningful ways an unassimilated group.

  31. FortitudineVincimus, it’s either ethnic conflict or the surrender of white people. Because doing something in your interest as a white person would create the conflict in and on itself. This is what you get when you act whimpy for 60 years. And how Hispanics will turn out is simple – you can look at Mexico and extrapolate. Even if you assimilate them, they will be a new class like the blacks.

    Assimilation = complete intermarriage of the two groups and creating a new group. Good luck with that in the US without turning it into a shithole regardless, considering who you have around.

  32. There is a good discussion of related issues on this thread from RV’s blog (I posted a comment there and on another thread today which are stuck in moderation; I will have a much longer comment here after I get home from my office).

  33. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, you should link to my blog and comment here because I hate logging in to approve comments. 😛

  34. RV, I’ll do that when it’s relevant but sometimes I have comments on your blog that have nothing to do with any threads here, I guess for those I’ll just have to wait for you to log in. My comment on that old thread on your blog (which cross-links back here) was:

    Great discussion on this thread. There is more discussion about these issues, plus some much more detailed and up-to-date statistics, on my blog here.

    In addition to what I said there, I will add here that John McNeill is giving up way too soon, whites are still a big electoral majority and if they got their act together they could easily dominate the whole country rather than retreating to a seceded remnant, a counsel of defeat and despair which is very premature. I agree with almost everything RV says on this thread, even if she doesn’t anymore… 😛

  35. rebelliousvanilla says:

    I don’t see what I don’t agree with anymore about what I said there.

  36. Actually, the melting pot thing began to fail when it stopped being only of Germanic people, but it was ok, I suppose, with the Italians too. The destruction of this was awarding citizenship to non-European people and then not making citizenship only by birth, which would have created a properly homogeneous group.
    It was OK with pretty much all the Europeans who came here, from Irish to Polish, from Swedes to Greeks. They were close enough culturally and ethnically to intermarry and blend naturally into an American ethnicity. The non-Europeans who came here intermarried with the European-ancestry Americans much less freely and stayed separate ethnically.

    > I never claimed Americanism should be exported, so your saying your well-being depends on my society collapsing is sort of ridiculous.<

    And yes, Americanism can be made illegitimate by making America inconsequential politically, economically and culturally too. If you want an irrelevant country without a collapse, I have no problem with that. But Europe needs to begin seeing the US as a mortal enemy if that is the case. As it is, how China or Russia works is far closer to how things should be and it would make a better ally for Europeans than Americans.
    I’m glad you’ll let us be irrelevant instead of collapsing, but how are we supposed to prevent you at this late date from sucking up our culture instead of reviving your own? It’s not like “Desperate Housewives” or “Jersey Shore” were made with the idea of culturally corrupting Europeans. And China and Russia have no government accountability or political freedom, how is that an acceptable model?

    >They will benefit from a better America which is what I am trying to bring about while avoiding a collapse. Your main disagreements with me are that you don’t think it can happen without a collapse (I say you can’t know that yet, though in another 4 years or so I think that question will be much more reliably answerable), and that you think an American collapse is necessary because your continent is full of idiots too brainwashed to be persuaded Americanism is inappropiate for Europe in any other way.<

    I’d like to point out that I’m unsure if Americans, who made their slaves citizens have the legitimacy to call anybody idiotic. As I said, it’s either the US completely changing or Europe needing to begin to see the US as an enemy. America would be an enemy, of the same nature as the whole Islamic Middle East, in this case.

    The kind of society you want still has much more in common with America than with the Islamic world. I see your point, how we are exporting an ideology to you just as Saudi Arabia is, but when you talk about China and Russia as models or regarding America as the same kind of enemy as the Islamic Middle East it sounds like you are also rejecting all the good things America has in common with Europe.

    >Why not? Wouldn’t the consequences it is having in Europe be enough to wake people up eventually? I think being closer to home those would be paid more attention.<
    Because a mythology needs to be changed with another. 95% of the people are authority worshipping people without their own beliefs, regardless of their intelligence. You should look the Milgram experiment up for the authority part. And I think it says in most communication books that people have no original ideas.

    Numbers are key here. If you are right about the 95% I might agree with you as far is Europe is concerned, but the number is not that high in America. I think Americans are more engaged in social and political debate than Europeans are, at least judging from the news media (which is biased in America but at least has a recognizable debate taking place on important issues).

    >Only if the conflict is truly existential could you get away with saying both that I ought to fight America collapsing because of my situation, and that you hope I fail; but it isn’t existential, both because we are on separate continents, and because we are culturally and ethnically similar.<
    Americanism being destroyed is an existential issue though. Otherwise, I wouldn’t care.

    This comes back to the question why, 65 years after the war, you still prefer to listen to us than come up with your own philosophies. It’s not like anybody who is not on a retirement pension has to feel inferior to Americans because we won WW2 for you. To put this another way, is the brainwashing you say Europeans have undergone irreversible because Europeans are sheep? I know all about the Milgram work, but in that case the problem is with your idiotic unaccountable authorities in your own governments and the EU, not with us. The *authorities* as far as Europeans are concerned are in Europe. Milgram’s work applies only to actual human authority figures exerting psychological pressure, not to mere bad influences from another continentwho have no direct claim on your labor, your taxes, or even your attention. You have to replace (not convert, they are too far gone and too personally invested) the actual authorities in your own countries or nothing that happens in America will matter for you anyway.

    >Where did I endorse such a framework?<
    Well, I recall you saying that Tim Wise isn’t a traitor and that he doesn’t have automatic allegiance to his ethnic group and that this is different compared to the family issue.

    I didn’t endorse it, I was providing it as an alternative so you could clarify where you stood. Now you have explicitly said that there is a moral obligation to be loyal to your ethnic group, you can call Tim Wise a traitor, but you can no longer talk as you did recently about being loyal only to friends and family and not feeling any loyalty to your society.

    >Where does this moral imperative come from? You have said there is no such thing as natural law, only social constructs between people, so why be loyal to your ethnic group rather than your society if they are not the same? And if they are pretty much the same, is it possible for your nation to get so dysfunctional and wrongheaded that it no longer deserves your loyalty? Has this already occurred in your country? I’m not disagreeing with you about the morality of being loyal to your ethnic group, just trying to define it better.<
    Re-read what I said. I said to me – so in my view of morality, people who aren’t loyal to their ethnic group are immoral. Also, this is in concordance with human nature, even though this is is-ought.

    How fundamental is this imperative? What values, for you, would trump ethnic loyalty?

    >I get this point, and I know you have said that only violence and chaos and suffering will change people’s attitudes in such a fundamental way. But now you’re sort of contradicting that and saying that for Europeans at least, maybe THEY can avoid the violence and chaos and suffering if America provides a spectacular enough bad example for them to learn from. I think that whatever the influence America had in the formation of the post-WW2 European order, you exaggerate its influence now. What is wrong with you Europeans if 65 years after the war, and 20 years after the Soviet collapse, you still can’t stand on your own feet culturally and socially? You have taken socialist insanity further than we have anyway, so what makes you think you won’t already be hopeless by the time we get around to collapsing?<
    Economic policy has nothing to do with cultural issues. Romania isn’t a Marxist country, despite us having an universal healthcare system.

    Yes, but a social collapse must be preceded by an economic one (or by being conquered), so you’ll still get there before we do.

    You don’t have one, yet you’re far more Marxist in the way you think than Romanians. And any mythology grows by itself. If I kidnapped your children when they were born and I raised them myself until they were 30 and then returned them to you, odds are, they’d think more like me than you(and then I could tell you that you exaggerate my influence on your children).

    Bad analogy, it’s not like European culture and attitudes were obliterated and replaced with American ones — well, maybe in the occupied areas for 5 or 10 years, but you’ve had your sovereignty back for a long time. At least when Canadians obsess about American influence they have a good excuse since we are very close and 10 times as populous and their only neighbor, coming from Europeans it sounds very whiny.

    And America collapsing could change things because you are the enforcer of progressivism around the world, not Europe.

    You have a point here, even for Europe (the war with Yugoslavia over Kosovo) but at this point we no longer “enforce” anything. Nobody at all is afraid of Obama, and nobody outside the Muslim world was ever afraid Bush would attack them.

    I tried to explain this to Fjordman when he put Sweden on the axis of evil along with America and France, but Sweden never exported their culture. The only reason why American leftists get moist while thinking about Sweden is because Sweden imported progressivism from you and implemented monumentally better. So it’s sort of like their child. C’mon, I expected you to understand this.

    Yes, I get the point about Swedes — their big problem is progressivism ALMOST worked for them — it might have actually worked if they hadn’t combined it with universalism and lost their national identity. I still think Sweden is the place to watch, if they can turn around and recover then so can most of the rest of Europe (Britain is too far gone I think, Belgium too).

    >I agree that if you are an atheist you should reject Christian ethics, they only make sense if the Christian God exists. But there are different kinds of Christians; Jehu can answer for the Protestants, and I can tell you that the Catholics are moving in the right direction now, but since you come from an Orthodox background, do you think that Orthodoxy is rotten too?<
    Actually, as an atheist, I can judge all of your religions moving in the right or wrong direction. I think that Protestantism is less likely to recover than Catholicism, due to the centralized nature of Catholicism, which would make a change possible if a proper Pope will exist in the future. Right now though, Catholicism is in a far worse position – it’s actually the enemy of all people of European descent and an agent of the third world.

    See my comments on the other thread about this — the current Pope is moving things in the right direction but it is like turning a supertanker. The next Pope’s attitude will be very important.

    So right now Protestants are in a far better shape,

    No they’re not, they’ve got the liberal attitudes even worse than Catholics, and they’re just as bad about dissolving national boundaries (I’m ashamed to say they picked this up from the Catholics, but they will carry on with it even after the Catholics start to swing in the other direction).

    but Catholics have a higher chance of recovering, in my opinion. Orthodoxism is in a fairly good shape right now, but I think it is degrading due to Eastern European countries importing the Western insanity here. This doesn’t change the nature of Orthodox Christianity though, it just makes people not practice their religion. And it’s in a far better position due to a lot of national elements being part of it.

    I agree with you about Orthodoxy. I can imagine becoming Orthodox.

    Related to the marriage issue. It’s fairly simple to me. The way society is organized forces me to have a purely individualistic outlook on life, even if I’d marry a man. Having a family in the way society is now is something in which I am deeply interested in.

    Did you mean to say “not deeply interested” here?

    So my marriage to a man would be solely depending on how it benefits me financially or emotionally. The mistake you make is thinking that if I marry, my interest would be connected to my husband. Sure, in a proper society, that would be the case. It’s not in how things are now.

    Relationships are unique and are in some sense prior to any other social claims. It might be of both financial and emotional benefit to both a man and a woman to enter into a lifelong partnership even in today’s society. Some men and women are capable of this with the right partner.

    Oh, and I think you misunderstand female nature in some ways. All of us are mercenary in nature. What keeps that in check are strong men.

    I completely understand this, the point I was making is that a strong man can decisively influence a woman to have a proper non-mercenary attitude within the context of the relationship.

    And by the way, while the work related incentives of feminism doesn’t benefit women who want to be stay at home mothers, the current divorce and child support laws benefit them.

    Only if they don’t mind the negative effects on their kids of growing up in single-parent homes.

  37. RebelliousVanilla says:


    I’m glad you’ll let us be irrelevant instead of collapsing, but how are we supposed to prevent you at this late date from sucking up our culture instead of reviving your own? It’s not like “Desperate Housewives” or “Jersey Shore” were made with the idea of culturally corrupting Europeans. And China and Russia have no government accountability or political freedom, how is that an acceptable model?

    Political freedom is irrelevant. Look where it got you. I’d rather be living in Singapore, where they have a fairly authoritarian system than in America. I’d be a lot freer there. And I don’t care about their governance system. If you can’t really see it, it means it’s pointless to argue further and I was right that Americans can’t really get how things are. Oh, and if the US would be a craphole, nobody would care about its culture. Things from those shows that are American in nature would be laughed at. Well, a lot of them are laughed at anyway. Getting back to political freedom and all that, what good does it do you? Even an absolute monarch would rule better than the current ‘politically free’ systems. Heck, serfs were taxed less than the average person is now. I can go on with these comparisons.
    The kind of society you want still has much more in common with America than with the Islamic world. I see your point, how we are exporting an ideology to you just as Saudi Arabia is, but when you talk about China and Russia as models or regarding America as the same kind of enemy as the Islamic Middle East it sounds like you are also rejecting all the good things America has in common with Europe.
    Actually, not really. The Islamic world puts Muslims and their common mythology first. America doesn’t. China and Russia aren’t multicultural cesspools and neither do they act as the referee of morality around the world. They act exactly in the way Europeans should act. And I don’t reject the good things America has in common with Europe, I reject America completely. Obviously, the good things that the founding fathers got from Europe would be kept, but everything that America is now would be rejected.
    Numbers are key here. If you are right about the 95% I might agree with you as far is Europe is concerned, but the number is not that high in America. I think Americans are more engaged in social and political debate than Europeans are, at least judging from the news media (which is biased in America but at least has a recognizable debate taking place on important issues).
    It is that high. I don’t see that many people questioning the status quo. They’re just idiotic simpletons with MLK as their patron saint and we are all the same as their religion. Just look at the tea parties and you’ll see this. Debates over economic issues are completely inconsequential.
    This comes back to the question why, 65 years after the war, you still prefer to listen to us than come up with your own philosophies. It’s not like anybody who is not on a retirement pension has to feel inferior to Americans because we won WW2 for you. To put this another way, is the brainwashing you say Europeans have undergone irreversible because Europeans are sheep? I know all about the Milgram work, but in that case the problem is with your idiotic unaccountable authorities in your own governments and the EU, not with us. The *authorities* as far as Europeans are concerned are in Europe. Milgram’s work applies only to actual human authority figures exerting psychological pressure, not to mere bad influences from another continentwho have no direct claim on your labor, your taxes, or even your attention. You have to replace (not convert, they are too far gone and too personally invested) the actual authorities in your own countries or nothing that happens in America will matter for you anyway.
    I give up. It’s obvious that you have no idea what I’m talking about. The thing about getting into harangues online is still valid.
    I didn’t endorse it, I was providing it as an alternative so you could clarify where you stood. Now you have explicitly said that there is a moral obligation to be loyal to your ethnic group, you can call Tim Wise a traitor, but you can no longer talk as you did recently about being loyal only to friends and family and not feeling any loyalty to your society.
    I don’t feel loyal to society. The current society is against my ethnic group and my values, so I root for its complete destruction.
    How fundamental is this imperative? What values, for you, would trump ethnic loyalty?
    None. For instance, genocide is bad, unless you have to do it to prevent your own genocide. But these cases are usually non-existent. And if you have to slaughter 100 times more people than the numbers of your own, it would be immoral not to do it. Obviously, your family, for example, trumps ethnic loyalty since they are even closer kin.
    Yes, but a social collapse must be preceded by an economic one (or by being conquered), so you’ll still get there before we do.
    I doubt it. We owe only 35% of GDP and most people here barely have any debt. Even if our economy collapses, we won’t go down by that much. If the US collapses, everybody will be bankrupt and all their assets worthless.
    Bad analogy, it’s not like European culture and attitudes were obliterated and replaced with American ones — well, maybe in the occupied areas for 5 or 10 years, but you’ve had your sovereignty back for a long time. At least when Canadians obsess about American influence they have a good excuse since we are very close and 10 times as populous and their only neighbor, coming from Europeans it sounds very whiny.
    All it takes is executing the former leaders, replacing them with new ones and having them spread the nonsense. The Soviet troops were in Romania for only a while too. Or in any Eastern European country for that matter. Also, just look at what the US and people like Soros fund around the world.
    Yes, I get the point about Swedes — their big problem is progressivism ALMOST worked for them — it might have actually worked if they hadn’t combined it with universalism and lost their national identity. I still think Sweden is the place to watch, if they can turn around and recover then so can most of the rest of Europe (Britain is too far gone I think, Belgium too).
    They weren’t progressive. Just because you care about your co-nationals or have welfare doesn’t make you a progressive.
    Did you mean to say “not deeply interested” here?
    Deeply uninterested, sorry.
    Only if they don’t mind the negative effects on their kids of growing up in single-parent homes.
    The choices women make is proof that they don’t.

  38. Political freedom is irrelevant. Look where it got you. I’d rather be living in Singapore, where they have a fairly authoritarian system than in America. I’d be a lot freer there. And I don’t care about their governance system. If you can’t really see it, it means it’s pointless to argue further and I was right that Americans can’t really get how things are.

    Oh, I get this completely. I’d love to live in a place like Singapore, it would be a lot better than here. What you are overlooking is, when there is no political freedom, you have no way of making sure the government doesn’t turn tyrannical, as they tend to do if unchecked.

    Oh, and if the US would be a craphole, nobody would care about its culture. Things from those shows that are American in nature would be laughed at. Well, a lot of them are laughed at anyway.

    Now you get it. If you guys are taking this crappy culture you import from us seriously it’s not our fault, we’re not pushing it on you, the ones who generate the crap are hardly even aware Europe exists.

    Getting back to political freedom and all that, what good does it do you? Even an absolute monarch would rule better than the current ‘politically free’ systems. Heck, serfs were taxed less than the average person is now. I can go on with these comparisons.

    Again, I completely agree with you if you are talking about the present only and not future scenarios. But giving up liberty for security is not a good tradeoff in the long run, as the following quotes show someone used to think:


    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

    The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men. – Plato

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with the power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. Samuel Adams

    >The kind of society you want still has much more in common with America than with the Islamic world. I see your point, how we are exporting an ideology to you just as Saudi Arabia is, but when you talk about China and Russia as models or regarding America as the same kind of enemy as the Islamic Middle East it sounds like you are also rejecting all the good things America has in common with Europe. <

    Actually, not really. The Islamic world puts Muslims and their common mythology first. America doesn’t. China and Russia aren’t multicultural cesspools and neither do they act as the referee of morality around the world. They act exactly in the way Europeans should act.

    OK, this part I get, you are saying Europeans should act like Muslims and Chinese and Russians in certain ways, and presumably not act like them in other ways like enslaving women or having the government torture and kill dissenters or steal everything. You don’t actually want to live in the Muslim world or China or Russia (unless you count Hong Kong as China, which, strangely enough, you can).

    And I don’t reject the good things America has in common with Europe, I reject America completely. Obviously, the good things that the founding fathers got from Europe would be kept, but everything that America is now would be rejected.

    Well those are still a big part of what America is now, but I take your point.

    >Numbers are key here. If you are right about the 95% I might agree with you as far is Europe is concerned, but the number is not that high in America. I think Americans are more engaged in social and political debate than Europeans are, at least judging from the news media (which is biased in America but at least has a recognizable debate taking place on important issues).<

    It is that high. I don’t see that many people questioning the status quo. They’re just idiotic simpletons with MLK as their patron saint and we are all the same as their religion. Just look at the tea parties and you’ll see this. Debates over economic issues are completely inconsequential.

    You may not have noticed, but I was purposely referring to social and political rather than economic debate because I see the kind of issues you care about discussed here more than in Europe where any sort of discussion is smothered. There are idiotic simpletons as you say but the point of the Tea Party is to reduce the government’s power which is a necessary first step anyway. There need to be other changes as we have been discussing on other threads, but there is progress in those directions. Anyway we will be able to talk with much more confidence about America’s political health in another 2 years; we will probably be in more agreement one way or the other after the next election.

    > The *authorities* as far as Europeans are concerned are in Europe. Milgram’s work applies only to actual human authority figures exerting psychological pressure, not to mere bad influences from another continentwho have no direct claim on your labor, your taxes, or even your attention. You have to replace (not convert, they are too far gone and too personally invested) the actual authorities in your own countries or nothing that happens in America will matter for you anyway.<

    I give up. It’s obvious that you have no idea what I’m talking about. The thing about getting into harangues online is still valid.

    I totally get that people are brainwashed into obeying authority, but you are ignoring my point that for you Europeans, your authorities are European to and you should straighten them out rather than expecting things to get better as a side effect of the US collapsing. If you are going to follow your own leaders and your leaders accept the American insanity, you should be getting rid of your leaders and putting in new ones rather than somehow expecting them to learn from America’s collapse when they themselves are so personally invested in progressivism, universalism, etc.

    Anyway, I know how to listen patiently, so don’t get discouraged if I am too stupid for you, just keep trying to say things better….

    >I didn’t endorse it, I was providing it as an alternative so you could clarify where you stood. Now you have explicitly said that there is a moral obligation to be loyal to your ethnic group, you can call Tim Wise a traitor, but you can no longer talk as you did recently about being loyal only to friends and family and not feeling any loyalty to your society.<

    I don’t feel loyal to society. The current society is against my ethnic group and my values, so I root for its complete destruction.

    OK, now you are making yourself clearer – the problem I had with your apparent inconsistency has to do with your society (by which I mean your country) still being pretty ethnically cohesive (you’ve got small Gypsy and Hungarian minorities but it’s basically 90% Romanian). It’s hard for me to believe that Romanian society is “against your ethnic group” even if the broader European society is against your more broadly conceived ethnic supergroup (European whites). So I can rephrase this “do you feel loyal to Romania”? If your answer is no, you are loyal to Romanians but not to Romania, I will accept that you are perfectly consistent, but then I’d still like you to explain how a society that is 90% Romanian can be against Romanians and why when Romanians are still so dominant you despair of waking them up without “complete destruction”.

    >How fundamental is this imperative? What values, for you, would trump ethnic loyalty?<
    None. For instance, genocide is bad, unless you have to do it to prevent your own genocide. But these cases are usually non-existent. And if you have to slaughter 100 times more people than the numbers of your own, it would be immoral not to do it. Obviously, your family, for example, trumps ethnic loyalty since they are even closer kin.

    That’s certainly a consistent position which I’m not criticizing; however, there is obviously a continuum of relatedness and of corresponding loyalty, and the functional dependence is, I think, interesting and worth discussing.

    >Yes, but a social collapse must be preceded by an economic one (or by being conquered), so you’ll still get there before we do.<

    I doubt it. We owe only 35% of GDP and most people here barely have any debt. Even if our economy collapses, we won’t go down by that much. If the US collapses, everybody will be bankrupt and all their assets worthless.

    In this case I will agree with you as far as Romania is concerned, but there are quite a few European countries which will collapse before America does, and that will introduce so much contagion and instability that I don’t know whether all Europe would get engulfed in it.

    >Bad analogy, it’s not like European culture and attitudes were obliterated and replaced with American ones — well, maybe in the occupied areas for 5 or 10 years, but you’ve had your sovereignty back for a long time. At least when Canadians obsess about American influence they have a good excuse since we are very close and 10 times as populous and their only neighbor, coming from Europeans it sounds very whiny.<

    All it takes is executing the former leaders, replacing them with new ones and having them spread the nonsense. The Soviet troops were in Romania for only a while too. Or in any Eastern European country for that matter.

    Well we got our military occupation over with way before the Soviets did, and were way less brutal to the population in general. I sort of see your problem – because our occupation was less brutal, the Western Europeans stayed brainwashed, while because their occupation (including the rule by their puppets afterward) was so bad, the Eastern Europeans overreacted to becoming free of it in 1989 by swallowing all the progressive Kool-Aid. That explains why things are the way they are now, but it STILL doesn’t explain why you need us to fail given that you can see the bad effects in your own societies already. If we collapse what precisely will be the mechanism by which your governments change their minds, and why can’t that happen without us collapsing? By mechanism I mean will all parties move to the right, or will right-wing parties arise and take over, or will there be coups and takeovers, or what? I’m trying to understand the necessity of the connection between chaos and destruction in the US and Europe recovering.

    Also, just look at what the US and people like Soros fund around the world.

    I grant you this one, although Soros can’t be blamed on the US.

    >Yes, I get the point about Swedes — their big problem is progressivism ALMOST worked for them — it might have actually worked if they hadn’t combined it with universalism and lost their national identity. I still think Sweden is the place to watch, if they can turn around and recover then so can most of the rest of Europe (Britain is too far gone I think, Belgium too).<
    They weren’t progressive. Just because you care about your co-nationals or have welfare doesn’t make you a progressive.

    OK, I’ll grant that point, that their welfare system and caring about each other was not progressive, even if it tended towards socialism, but they certainly were universalist enough to let in groups that are destroying them. Do you think that Sweden is more or less likely to recover than Europe in general?

    >Only if they don’t mind the negative effects on their kids of growing up in single-parent homes.<
    The choices women make is proof that they don’t.

    Again, I have to grant you that one, but at since you agree that women are choosing what is good for them at the expense of what is good for their children, do you regard that as a typical and natural social situation or an unusual and unnatural one?

  39. I forgot to respond about the psychology experiments. Those links were all pretty fair descriptions of the experiments.

    To make my point. Most people believe and do whatever they are told to do and believe. And once you take over the moral institutions of a people, if you change the moral grammar of those institutions, those people will perpetuate your changes.

    I agree, but this depends on competing sources of authority or moral instruction being suppressed. For example, in replications of the Milgram experiment, although 60%-66% reliably kept administering the shocks under the original conditions, this dropped to 10% when some of the other “subjects” (who were actually shills) rebelled and refused to administer the shocks. This is why the Communists could brainwash more effectively, they controlled information and destroyed dissenters and oppressed churches and so on. Although the WW2 victors certainly controlled everything for a few years, the Western European societies were open and so the change in the attitudes of the people did not saturate the society so widely. So although the changes are perpetuated, competing narratives and ideologies remained available alternatives.

    This is how the left won

    Unfortunately the left’s triumph also involved not just propaganda and remaking education, but, in the West, a traitorous abdication of moral authority by other institutions such as churches who preferred to be seen as going along with the spirit of the times. Vatican II is sort of a special case here, which only partially exemplifies this, but that’s a topic for another post.

    and how Americanism is being spread

    not quite the same way the left won, there is a difference between the lies the left used and the sincere and blundering way Americanism was spread, which is both good and bad — good because the poisonously effective techniques of the left were not used much, bad because it was harder to see what was wrong, leftism was empirically refutable much more easily than American-style progressivism and universalism.

    and this is exactly how people with my views are to prevail. Destroy or take over the current moral institutions and replace them with my paradigm.

    Well, what specifically are the “moral institutions”? You need to be in charge of the government which determines what is taught in the schools, but in an open society where you can compete directly based on political campaigns, movies and cultural messages, etc., what else do you have to destroy or “take over” in the sense of obtaining a monopoly (taking over political power gives you monopoly on force and control of government schools, what else do you actually need to have a monopoly in?).

    It’s hard to do it though without a collapse and in some cases impossible – for instance, I’m not sure how you can redefine what American is in an exclusive, instead of inclusive way.

    The only good argument I have heard that a collapse of America is necessary is that Germans didn’t learn Nazism was wrong until it was defeated and similarly for Communism and so on. But this is fallacious — there plenty of people in other countries who knew Nazism and Communism were wrong (in the sense that their fundamental premises were wrong and therefore they were headed for failure) not simply because they were in countries who were enemies of those ideologies, but because they actually understood it based on things like economic and historical evidence — this is certainly true for the people in countries which had a real choice, because their societies had not taken sides yet.

    In order for American-style progressivism and universalism to be seen to be wrong by people who are not emotionally wedded to it, it is enough that there be evidence that other societies which don’t adhere to it are better. This is very difficult for most Europeans because on the one hand they are (despite your ethnocentrism) less willing than you are to see the positive aspects of societies like China which are ethnically alien to them, and on the other hand many of them ARE emotionally wedded to it. Breaking this emotional attachment can be tackled by a lot of techniques other than waiting for America to collapse.

  40. Bumping to the top for RV, who never answered my last 2 excellent comments 😛

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s