patrick.net

Sharing a bunch of articles by beta male writers doesn’t equal an argument.

Kakistocracy says

Can you provide some data statistics from a somewhat reputable source to validate this allegation only the Democrats are responsible for the majority of these "foreign imports"

The legacy GOP is certainly culpable, but Trump is attempting to drag the party in a new direction. That’s the GOP I want to highlight: the one that promotes workers over immigrants.

Kakistocracy says

Patrick says

Money makes you confident. Confidence helps get you money.

Is that why drug cartels are so rich ?

Yes, of course.

Those Mexican cartel guys may be short, but they have balls that bulls would envy. And that's exactly what got them their money (along with a very short life expectancy).

And then flocks of women. All the poon they can handle and then some.

There are many "Kinds of Alpha Males"

Chris Hitchens was an alpha Male
Joe Girardi was an alpha Male
Oliver Cromwell was an Alpha Male

You don't have to look or act like The Hulk in a rage to be an alpha Male. Just thick skin, a drive to achieve something, confidence, all of which leads to respect from peers.

SJWs can never be alpha males to society generally, because who is an Alpha Male is actually decided by Men, not Women.

It's interesting that Trudeau and Macron are largely loathed by the Male population.

I wouldn't follow !Jeb! into battle.

Kakistocracy says

The top one per cent of fortunes holds two-fifths of the total wealth. Just one rich family, the six heirs of the brothers Sam and James Walton, founders of Walmart, are worth more than the bottom 40 per cent of the American population combined ($115 billion in 2012).

The 2nd sentence is extremely anti-human. It is morally wrong to equate people's financial net-worth with their worth.

As for money, would you rather park your money with the Walmart company, or with one of the bottom 40% who IIRC allegedly each can't put together $500 in an emergency? Of course the former. Why should that be a surprise? Would you trust people who have a track record of generating return on capital or would you trust people who have a record not only spending all their money but also going into debt for spending? That's all capital allocation is: where would people (including you) want to park their/your money. That preference has little to do with whether the bottom 40% should be respected and/or cared for for myriads of other qualities and individual rights. In fact, so many capitalists having invested in Walmart, a leader in retail efficiency, is the reason why many poor people can enjoy what they have despite relatively low income.

In fact, given that numerous people were willing to pay half a million dollars or more to become US citizens, the citizenship alone (with associated rights) has a market price of over half a million dollars over the citizenship rights of those countries where those wannabe-immigrants came from . . . and their starting point in their own country is not exactly zero. How much are they willing to pay to stay alive in their own countries as opposed to being executed? According to many cases where such a bargain was offered, the right to stay alive even in those countries were worth millions of dollars. Let's try some really low estimates: $1M for staying alive over being dead in those shitty countries, then half a million for difference for becoming US citizen . . . so that's $1.5M for the value of every US citizen. 40% of US population is 140million, times $1.5mil each, is 210,000,000,000,000; 210 Trillion dollars! That's assuming every one of those 40% (140 million people) is willing to die for $1.5 million. The number is obviously an under-estimate.

How much are you willing to die for? Most would demand more than $1.5 million price. $210 Trillion dollars is more than the entire sum total of all stocks traded in the US; i.e. the value of all public traded companies combined.

BTW, the primary reason why asset prices are so high is because the FED artificially kept the interest rate low. Low interest rates lead to high present value of future cash flows. In other words, the alleged high degree of inequality is largely due to government policies.

Patrick says

All breeds of dog have exactly the same temperament and intelligence.

Dogs are more genetically diverse than humans, and were bread for specific tasks. I do not think this is a good analogy.
Most of IQ differences could perhaps be explained away by upbringing, family access to food and education, etc. However, I have not seen a good investigation which takes all of that into account.
As sad as it is, it is so-called LIBRULS which have shouted down scientists so no one can touch this topic without being accused of RACISM! which just shows stupidity of academic left, as result of such study would probably support their ideas.

Nobody gives a shit when wealth is increasing for all.

People give a shit when wealth is increasing for a few, while wealth is declining for a good chunk of the population, while the wealthy institute programs to make themselves richer, like "Advanced Financial Instruments" and Wide Open Borders for Labor Arbitrage.

Patrick says

All breeds of dog have exactly the same temperament and intelligence.

d6rB says

Dogs are more genetically diverse than humans, and were bread for specific tasks. I do not think this is a good analogy.

Both points are correct. I think there is something to very distant populations, for example Sub-Saharan Africans vs. East Asians. Culture also plays a huge role. We can see from our inner cities where Matriarchy leads, for example. There's also a connection between Polygamy and Frequent Cousin Marriage in the Middle East and South Asia.

Herders and Fishermen seem to be the most intelligent, probably due to large amounts of abstract thought involved.

And one more thing-
genetically Sicilians are probably no that different from Libyans; South Spanish from Moroccans; Mongolians from Chinese; etc. Yet IQ"s appear to be different.

HonkpilledMaster says

Easy to explain -Culture where advancement and education is "acting white", a perpetual "chip on the shoulder" etc

d6rB says

Easy to explain -Culture where advancement and education is "acting white", a perpetual "chip on the shoulder" etc

And Matriarchy, when Criminal Bad Boys are celebrated; to get laid, boys are encouraged to become Criminal Bad Asses to win the pussy and resource sharing (due to welfare checks) of Matriarchs.

Not at all unusual for Ghetto Men to be homeless and flitter from Ho HUD apartment to Ho HUD apartment.

Get rid of welfare and HUD housing and Ghetto Culture would transform overnight.

If you are having problems with dominance, a twirling plywood pillory with shackles to bind your female guest and and nice collection of lashes is really helpful to get you in the mood.

Biden Was a NeoNazi Genocidist Who Plotted With Segregationists to Keep White American Schools White

So he is a classic Dem. Same beliefs today, different tactics. What is your point?

Ceffer says

If you are having problems with dominance, a twirling plywood pillory with shackles to bind your female guest and and nice collection of lashes is really helpful to get you in the mood.

You should leave that kind of humor to APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch.

When you try it, it's just creepy.

marcus says

You should leave that kind of humor to APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch.

When you try it, it's just creepy.

I know. When AF says it, it's so vibrant, lustrous and healthy. It's just that AF je ne sais quoi.

Quigley says

Democrats want to decrease the value of labor with importing massive numbers of immigrants and H1/2B visa holders. This works as a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

NO they don't.

Democrats have been very much in favor of strengthening the border. Obama increased border security massively. (do I need to show those graphs again?).

What did Trump do to prevent employers from hiring illegals or to prevent merchandisers from making goods offshore, when he had congress ?

NOTHING !!

AS for the visas for tech workers, yes, democrats may have succumbed to lobbying from the tech industry right along with republicans.

Putting immigration issues on democrats is total bullshit. What is it - just becasue they are less dishonest and won't even try to pin it on republicans ? Sure, they might be a bit more compassionate towards refugees. But otherwise it's been both parties.

marcus says

Democrats have been very much in favor of strengthening the border. Obama increased border security massively. (do I need to show those graphs again?).

Democrats oppose the Wall because Trump is for it and it was approaching actual reality. Look at it drop like a stone.

marcus says

NO they don't.

So, have I been hallucinating these past few years that Democrats are protecting illegal immigration at all costs? I don’t see how you could take this position given all the action the Dems have made towards enabling illegal immigration. I mean seriously, do you even news?

HonkpilledMaster says

Democrats oppose the Wall because Trump is for it and it was approaching actual reality

DEmocrats oppose the wall becasue it's a bunch of dishonest nonsense.

ACtually Trump tried to say that existing fences and repairs to fences were the wall that he was already building, but Ann Coulter didn't let him get away with it.

Try to think of it objectively, as if your political identity isn't owned by either side.

If there has been a massive increase (yes truly massive) in border security, going back a decade, both personnel and fences technology etc,. And also a truly huge corresponding decrease in illegal immigration at the border that has already occurred and then a con artist gets elected by promising a wall to play on the fears of people that want to blame their economic difficulties on illegal immigration (correlation is not causation).

Of course rational folks are going to do their homework and say that this guy is full of shit. Being against Trumps wall has little to do with an informed persons view of our immigration problems.

marcus says

course rational folks are going to do their homework and say that this guy is full of shit. Being against Trumps wall has little to do with an informed persons view of our immigration problems.

Bullshit.
Walls are easier to enforce than lines in the sand. Everyone knows this.
It’s not fucking rocket science.
Geez!

Yeah, excuse me for bringing facts in to the discussion.

marcus says

Yeah, excuse me for bringing facts in to the discussion.

Pretty convenient how your chart died with 2017. 2018 and 2019 are recording epic numbers of migrants.

Quigley says

Walls are easier to enforce than lines in the sand. Everyone knows this.
It’s not fucking rocket science.

WE have fences in places they need to be and recent (before TRumps Wall battle) unspent $billionns allocated for more fences.

You don't want to do your homework on this. You just want to believe the lies. Hell, you should realize that Trump doesn't even believe his own BS. THat's why he tried to say that existing fences and repairs to fences were the wall he was already building. (before Ann Coulter busted him on it).

Trump probably thinks your a gullible idiot. How does that make you feel ?

Quigley says

Pretty convenient how your chart died with 2017. 2018 and 2019 are recording epic numbers of migrants.

IT's just the data that's out there. I've been posting that since a long time ago, when it was fresher. YOu know back when TRump was telling the lies that he's trying to follow through on.

Do some homework. How Epic are those epic 2018 and 2019 numbers? How many years would you have to go back to find every year higher ?
I wonder how Trumps big battle over the wall pays in places in Mexico and central America where so many people have dreams of coming to the U.S. one day.

One might imagine it would cause people to feel a sense of urgency about finding a way to come sooner.

it's not a myth. I'm very real.

but liberal alpha males do not exist, that part is true.

Some posters sound like a communist poster from the 70's. Labor masses unite, rise up with hammer and sickle, if you have a job you are oppressed...

Kaki you bring back memories and what Reagan spoke against.

I think more than anything history tells us where "big government leads". I remember the fall of the soviet union and all other communist/socialist nations. Only truly gullible think that "equality" can make things work. It only drags everything down.

I'm not against social programs, or some government. But when government becomes too big, it goes past the inflection point where it's beneficial and just becomes an organization that sucks life blood out of the working sector, killing the host. Because you can't change human nature. All those government employees don't give a fuck about anything but themselves. Government is inefficient, completely useless for most part, and expensive, and when the cost of government becomes a permanent and inefficient burden it drags everyone down.

Right now the cost of CA government far far far out-weights the benefits. Half of it can be removed and life would likely improve significantly. When I look at how much government pays their employees, you can see the cost inefficiencies (especially if you consider how they never get shit done). Pension system is a racket, programs are a racket, private sector partnerships are a total scam. Whole thing is pure bullshit built on lies on top of lies.

marcus says

Do some homework. How Epic are those epic 2018 and 2019 numbers? How many years would you have to go back to find every year higher ?
I wonder how Trumps big battle over the wall pays in places in Mexico and central America where so many people have dreams of coming to the U.S. one day.

I wonder how Trumps big battle over the wall pays in places in Mexico and central America where so many people have dreams of coming to the U.S. illegally one day. FIXED
Only the poorest of the poor cross the border through the desert...People with a little money find a "pollero" who has some legit VISAS and use one that has a picture that looks like them and do their hair and makeup to look close and and pass with a carload of legit visa holders.... the wall has no affect on them.

Is it a coincidence that the declining IQ slope over time in the OP graph is a mirror image of the global warming temperature slope going up?

STUPIDITY! IT'S GLOBAL WARMING'S FAULT!

d6rB says

Most of IQ differences could perhaps be explained away by upbringing, family access to food and education, etc.

That's because these factors are tightly correlated to culture. Until 150 years ago, culture has always been a subset of race. Any surprise IQ and race have a high correlation?

Liberal alpha males do not exist anymore because modern day liberalism encourages people to seek out being a victim. Are we seriously trying to argue here that some guys are weak and lack confidence and others are not the complete opposite? I remember when I started lifting weights when I was 21. I went from a scrawny 147 to a more solid 165. I got a lot more attention immediately from girls.

Most of IQ differences could perhaps be explained away by upbringing, family access to food and education, etc. However, I have not seen a good investigation which takes all of that into account.

There have been an unintentional experiment with enormous sampling size: the federal Head Start program. After billions of dollars and decades, it's now recognized that the Head Start program of giving children born into poor neighborhoods nutritious meals and early childhood education (all funded by taxpayers and supervised by the best available bureaucratic standards, as the bureaucracy was relatively new) has no effect on the child's later long term outcome as adult. In the short term, there was indeed positive influence on the child's performance in the first few years of schooling; then the effect diminishes as the child gets to junior high and high school . . . then in the person's long term, college and beyond, there is no statistically noticeable effect. His/her genetic makeup (i.e. IQ) takes over.

That result shouldn't be surprising. It's just like height: everyone is born with a genetic coding on how tall he/she can be; malnutrition can indeed get in the way of the person reaching his/her genetic potential, but no amount of nutrition is going to make a person into a tall NBA player without the genetics to begin with.

For population genetics, the decisive factors are reproductive opportunity and massive culling. Peacocks evolved the giant "useless" tail due to Sexual Selection by peahens in an environment where food was plenty and predators/diseases were so overwhelming that the species had no chance of defending against. Humanity evolved intelligence because our ancestors didn't have particularly sharp teeth or claws and didn't run particularly fast, but had the rudimentary ability to coordinate to fight off predators and/or neighbors. Some of them moving out of Africa encountering 4 seasons in new territories certainly made planning for annual seasonable cycles advantageous to genetic survival.

Looking at that IQ map of the world, we can address some of the likely reasons for the high IQ populations through historical reproductive opportunities and culling:

We have enough historical records to show how England's IQ improved rapidly in the few centuries leading up to Industrial Revolution: the homicide rate per 100,000 was down by more than 90% over those centuries, indicating a dramatic change in population genetics; so what was happening? the county records (of birth/death records, wills and estates divisions) indicate that the relatively better off men were having far more surviving children in each generation than the poor men did. The implication was obviously that lower-IQ population was being genetically displaced by higher IQ population, in sittu, largely due to commerce. Similarly, the Black Death on the continental Europe wiping out 1/2 of the population disproportionately wiped out the poor stuck in cities, instead of those relatively better off living in or could retire to country estates with better sanitation conditions and/or lower population density. The real reason for Europe to have had better societies after Black Death may not have been the peasant-to-land ratio as often cited by mainstream historians (which I always suspected, as lost population is usually made up quickly in subsequent generations), but the genetic / IQ makeup of the resulting population.

The IQ improvement in England also explains some of the major big green blocks such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, as England (in the latter stages of that genetic transformation) supplied the colonizing population. The frontier societies in the colonies also created a situation of genetic polygamy (while still practicing dejure monogamy): the wives often died in child births, allowing the relatively well off widowers to take new wives. Slave owners mating with slaves, then the female blacks' hypergamy (preferentially selecting those with some of the former slave owners' blood) over the generations likely explain why African American population IQ is 20+ points higher than sub-Saharan Africans; when the abductions took place back in Africa, obviously it would be smarter ones abducting the less smart ones into slavery, so the initial population in the slave ships was likely to have had lower IQ's than today's sub-Saharan average.

The high IQ of Japan can also be explained by internal commerce; among all the Eastern Asian nations, Japan was the most commercial one for the past thousand+ years. Japanese culture also allow/promote successful men having side pieces in addition to their wives, thereby giving the higher IQ men more reproductive opportunities.

The high IQ of China is often attributed to its history of imperial / civil-service exams giving equal opportunity to everyone. I don't believe that's the case. To do well in those exams required decades of academic preparation, so not exactly something the poor could afford. More importantly, the ones succeeding in those exams and thereby attaining high official status had a high probability of getting caught up in court intrigues and ending up having their entire families and extended families executed! So in a lot of ways, those bureaucratic civil-service exam promotion systems not only mucked up the commerce and intellectual pursuits, but also were dysgenic. What did help improve IQ there historically was polygamy enabling the more successful men to reproduce with multiple females, as we saw in writings of 19th century European visitors to that country many young men "coolie" (laborer) did not have marriage as expectation . . . just like today's "herbivoir"/"grass-eating men" in Japan. The shame/hierarchy -based cultures seem to have reconciled the poor into accepting that they are unfit for reproduction, therefore leaving more females available to the more successful men. A shitty life for the lower status men, no doubt (or not, if having a wife was as shitty a proposition for the average men as it is in today's post-modern societies, as Rin observed). In continental East Asia, there was the additional evolutionary pressure of culling by steppes nomads. The Mongol invasion/conquest was alleged to have killed off nearly 80% of the population. Such population calamity would of course put enormous selective pressure on the gene pool: only the relatively smart could hide effectively and survive . . . a scenario similar to the stereotypical scene of Nazi thugs sweeping through the town/city rounding up hapless victims.

One significant population of high IQ that doesn't show on that map is Jewish population, which is widely recognized to have very high IQ. Jewish culture historically was also known for commerce, polygamy, female-hypergamy and periodic culling. Historical Rabbis often had multiple wives, one in the Talmud had 300 wives during a famine, a genetic-bottleneck event.

d6rB says

genetically Sicilians are probably no that different from Libyans; South Spanish from Moroccans; Mongolians from Chinese; etc. Yet IQ"s appear to be different.

Everyone is different genetically. Some are smarter, and often that trait is inherited by offspring.
Ultimately, whichever traits are reinforced by a better survival rate will be passed along. Sometimes the environment dictates a smarter hominid to survive its rigors. But I believe culture may be the most influential on population IQ. Whatever culture reinforces, it gets more of.

d6rB says

Dogs are more genetically diverse than humans, and were bread for specific tasks.

OK, dogs were domesticated. But you could look at any non-domesticated animal and still find significant genetic differences in intelligence and temperament which evolved over the last 50,000 years.

My point is that it is crazy to think that humans do not vary in temperament and intelligence by race. We are also animals, and subject to the same forces.

The belief that all human differences are due to "racism" alone is clearly false, and yet is the central and unquestionable dogma of the Left.

Quigley says

But I believe culture may be the most influential on population IQ. Whatever culture reinforces, it gets more of.

That is probably true.
Patrick says

My point is that it is crazy to think that humans do not vary in temperament and intelligence by race. We are also animals, and subject to the same forces.

I have not seen non-biased investigations - accounting for family income, education level, etc. I have seen though that in Europe IQ' s have steadily risen with increasing life quality.
With respect to animals, we would need to study populations that are separated, not individuals - no one can deny that individuals have different mental abilities.

The guy who wrote that is extremely confused or ill-informed. Jews read the Torah, not the Bible. For the reason why, see the Gospels(first four books of New Testament), and what Jesus says to the Jews. Further, he fails to comprehend the Scriptures as a whole, that God's message has always been redemption for the world, and the Jews were always supposed to be his vessel for spreading that message, not a people who are somehow better than other ethnicities. The Jews were God's example to mankind, and the books in common with the Torah and the Bible(like Joshua), clearly show that.

What happened to scholarly research, and taking meaning from context?

It's Unz - The Saker and other whackos. There are, however, some gems in the mix occasionally.

There are plenty of self-hating Jews today and back then.