Quote notes (#9)

Ron Unz writing at his own blog:

The more conspiratorially-minded racialists, bitterly hostile to immigration, sometimes speculate that there is a diabolical plot by our ruling power structure to “race-replace” America’s traditional white population.  Perhaps a hidden motive along these lines does indeed help explain some support for heavy immigration, but I suspect that the race being targeted for replacement is not the white one.

(via, of course)

Well-argued, and bolstered by statistics, this article is going to turn some heads around.

July 22, 2013admin 19 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : , ,

19 Responses to this entry

  • Handle Says:

    Have you read, “The American Millstone”. That + Zimmerman is indispensable evidence of the notion that public narrative intellectual progress is impossible or, in our discourse and presentation of evidence, we’re been stuck in a temporal tarball for over 30 years. Progress on Crime has been due almost exclusively to de facto “vote with your feet and bid it up to the sky” Unaffordable Apartheid and mass incarceration an order of magnitude greater than half a century ago.

    It’s like being unable to convince anyone of the Pythagorean theorem. You can prove it over and over and nothing changes.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s not a book that I know — does it make recommendations?
    Your Pythagoras analogy is unclear to me — are you saying that people are refusing to acknowledge the facts, or that they are ignoring a clear solution?

    Unz makes an important argument: the absence of an honest ‘conversation’ doesn’t freeze a situation, but drives it in a direction where the answer sought can be disguised as something quite different. I find his model — of White Brahmins using immigration dynamics as a surreptitious mechanism for ethnic cleansing — extremely plausible. I’m not seeing the overall picture though. Where does the displaced black population end up, and what happens there? Is it being concentrated, or dispersed?

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    1. I heavily encourage you to get a copy of American Millstone and read it and try to remind yourself “This was 30 years ago!”. You won’t get a better snapshot of the (surprisingly honest and balanced – at least compared to today) reporting on this issue. I’ll mail you a copy as a gift it you like.

    2. Pythagoras: 2,400 years after Pythagoras, President Garfield (arguably the most intelligent President in US History who, alas, was shot by that damn insane Guiteau only four months in!) came up a novel proof of the theorem in 1876 based on the lemmas for trapezoidal area and the sum of interior angles of a triangle. Clever! But not illuminating since everyone already knew the fact and the proofs. Unz has Garfielded this question, but why should that alter the dreadful pattern of discourse?

    Nothing has changed statistically for 50 years. What Unz has done isn’t new at all – far from it. But it doesn’t matter – even when they’re not putting their fingers in their ears, when liberals acknowledge disproportionate Black criminality (as Obama just did) – it’s ‘really’ caused by racism and history, etc., etc. .

    In fact, that’s the null hypothesis of HBD, isn’t it? That if you look back, nothing much should change if you adjust for biology population fractions? And nothing has changed. If something had changed over the last fifty years (and since the correlations between black preponderance and violent crime is near 100% in almost all heavily Black districts outside of NYC – it would have had to have changed for the worse) then we’d be looking back to the 60’s to see what they were doing better back then. But they weren’t doing better, and anybody who looked at the numbers (as Moynihan did), knew just as much as Unz and we know today. Of course, what they were doing back then was experiencing the green-shoots of the seeds of an explosion in criminality, family chaos, ethical breakdown, and social pathological dysfunction.

    3. I could write a book on the answer to you last few questions, but I’ll try to briefly address this one: “Where does the displaced black population end up?”

    It’s better to start with “What do SWPL White American people want?” Mostly – they want to move back downtown from the suburbs. They want an ethnic reversal / reconquista / uber-gentrification of core urban living – to live like Urban Whites did before the 1960’s – without fear of crime from Blacks, with ‘good’ public schools (full of children of their own type and class), without long traffic-jammed commutes, enjoying cultural opportunities and proximity to centralized institutions (especially of upper middle class employment), and enjoying ‘pleasant person patronized’ public transport.

    They want a more European-style white-urban experience, and for that they have to accomplish the ‘Parisization’ of the cities and move all the underclass to the banlieus or low-rent suburbs. This has already begun in several cities, giving a map of the racial distribution a kind of bulls-eye / archery target appearance.

    DC is probably the best example of this process that I’ve ever witnessed, but that’s because it’s one of our few ‘elite’ cities (like San Fran and NYC) with something unique and special (and lucrative) going for it and driving the process. The process works mostly through real estate prices and government housing vouchers (‘Section 8’), which price out everybody but the upper-middle class, and makes low-class blacks move to the old-near-suburbs and middle/lower-middle class whites flee the Black influx to the new far suburbs, having to suffer the commuting consequences.

    For NYC, the banlieus are increasingly located in New Jersey – and tolls+congestion over the bridges and tunnels works its special magic. Everything Bloomberg does has a dramatic disparate impact on Blacks in the guise of something ‘Progressive’. That’s why he’s popular. In the future, the Democrats will give us Jim Crow with a Progressive Face.

    There are two sets of Black politicians these days – the Obama class of white-popular enlightened Progressive Reformers (Patrick, Fenty, Booker) and the old-school Urban-Black-Machine bosses (Marion Berry) who are trying to use every political trick in the book to fight “The Plan” and keep things as they are and preserve the black character of their shrinking vote-bank wards.

    My own father grew up in an ‘old near suburb’ which would be very low-rent by today’s standards, but back then it was a thriving, spotless, crime-less, meticulously maintained, orderly neighborhood with excellent schools and about which he never expressed anything but genuine justified nostalgia. And a fellow in his High School just a class above him went on to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Today it’s a 98% Black rubble-field that’d make Detroit look good and they closed down the school because of all the fires set by the inmates students. It wasn’t the rapes or drugs or murders, we can tolerate that socially, but, gravitationally and structurally, arson is just intolerable.

    It you were to do the ethnic musical chairs overnight, you could literally witness the ghetto and all it’s social statistics be picked up and moved a few miles away from the center and replaced. Almost like the Indian Removal Act – but on urban scales. That’s ‘The Plan’. It’s just like Baldwin said in 1963, “Urban Renewal is Negro Removal”.

    Now, whether or not this process will succeed depends on a few key factors of the city. The black population percentage, industry-income-employment trends, the geography (‘natural borders’), and whatever ‘special sauce’ the city has to rely on as a young-family moneyed-SWPL attractant (‘cognitive concentrator cities’). A lot of cities will never be able to achieve this vision, and they will continue to die and hollow out. Some will and will become the few ‘Whitopias’ – with, by the way, very hefty windfall rewards for the first generation of pioneer gentrifiers.

    I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the slow trickle of reversal of The Great Migration of blacks returning to the South, especially to cities like Atlanta. In time, maybe the fondest wishes of those old crazy Black Nationalists will come true and this time the USG can just let the entire Very Deep South secede without a fight this time (and maybe some generous severance pay).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s extremely helpful. So, the Paris model it is. This explanation should be stapled onto Unz’s essay as a permanent footnote.

    I’m increasingly convinced that entropy dissipation theories of demographic redistribution capture the basics of what is going on. If there’s now an at least partially (if discreetly) acknowledged elite urbanism, conceiving the global city as a low-entropy metropolis dissipating its disorder to zoned suburban population warehouses — to which no visitor would have any reason to go — it tells us a lot about the way things can be expected to unfold.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Any idea what the corresponding crime statistics would look like going back 80 or 100 years, before we became so “enlightened”?

    Handle Reply:

    @Peter A. Taylor:

    Yes, I have a few sources on that, to include Stuntz’s “Collapse of American Criminal Justice”. Anything in particular you’d like to see?

    Alrenous Reply:

    Everything Bloomberg does has a dramatic disparate impact on Blacks in the guise of something ‘Progressive’.

    Just pointing out a sophistry sighting. Before, it was black injection with a progressive face, now the reverse. I guess they finished whatever they were trying to do?

    Posted on July 22nd, 2013 at 10:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Heath Says:

    I suppose I would be considered one of those “conspiratorially-minded”, even though I don’t believe it’s a “conspiracy” or a “diabolical plot”. I do believe it is ethnically driven, but not necessarily as a conscious, deliberate activity. The resemblance to conspiracy is similar to other emergent phenomenon, such as a flock of birds flying in a unified pattern as if each individual bird had conspired to fly in a specific manner, even though in reality there was no conscious deliberation by the bird and the behavior is driven by more basic, primitive drives.

    I actually like Unz, but he can’t be completely honest on certain issues due to his heritage, though he certainly is much better than most.

    Also immigration has reduced the white share of the population, has increased the cost of family formation and reproduction, and herding people into cities – demographic sinks – does reduce population.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I actually like Unz, but he can’t be completely honest on certain issues due to his heritage” — One good thing about his writing is that the special pleading is stitched on his sleeves in letters of fire. Being a minority perspective, intelligently worked-through, it adds something.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 22nd, 2013 at 6:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • SOBL1 Says:

    Handle’s comment is great. Might I add using the NY Times 2010 census maps with the racial filters on will show how segregated the US urban areas are. NYC itself being one of the most segregated. Potential future gold mines may be cities in red/purple states that allow for school voucher programs. That would allow whites to move back to a city but not have to pay the double rate of city taxes + tuition for education. With a voucher in hand, they can send their kid to a good private school.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2013 at 4:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Friesian Lesion Says:

    I trust Ron Unz and his analyses about as far as I could throw Al Sharpton:

    i’m using unbelievable in two senses of the word here: 1) that what run unz says cannot be believed, and 2) i can’t believe the things ron tries to get away with! (see what i did there? (~_^) )

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/the-unbelievable-ron-unz/

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2013 at 8:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Handle

    Do you have something that would resolve the controversy between John Derbyshire vs. Mark Steyn? Derbyshire seems to be saying that America’s race problem is basically genetic, and Steyn says it’s cultural.

    “Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados? Why is India India and Pakistan Pakistan? Skin color and biological determinism don’t get you very far on that.”

    IIRC, the differential racial statistics on out-of-wedlock childbirths seem to support Steyn; the numbers changed over time (post 1960) in a way that culture can explain, but genetics can’t. But am I cherry-picking? Do pre-1960 crime statistics reveal a golden age of lawfulness or is it “a kind of cold despair” as far back as the statisticians can see?

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Barbados isn’t all that cracked up.

    India and Pakistan suck in extremely similar ways. And Islam is as strong a cultural input you can get.

    Biological determinism takes you pretty far I’m afraid.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    @Peter A. Taylor, @Spandrell:

    Before I get into the numbers (which are, alas, scant – we just weren’t as good at data collecting before the 20th century, which we didn’t do obsessively until teh post-war era), I think it’s obvious the answer has to be ‘both’.

    That violent crime has a genetic component is as easily visible by observing the drastic difference in the offense rate between men and women within any race or culture. This is pretty clear when one considers the influence of testosterone levels on rage, anger, muscularity, machismo, impulsiveness, combativeness, sexual drive (rape rate?), etc. – all contributors to a propensity to commit violent crime. We know from Rushton that testosterone levels vary by race in the expected order, which is the same order as intelligence and criminality.

    But culture and context also obviously have an impact on criminality. The Wild West was Wild because the same people were much more murderous with each other than they were in the East. You can see this by comparing members of the same ethnic group in different contemporary contexts. Until about a century ago, New York’s homicide rate was over 10 times London’s stunningly low Victorian rate. Stuntz gets this from Monkonen’s database and Ted Gurr’s, “Trends in Violent Crime: Europe and the United States” and also his, “Violence in America”. (Gurr is quite the prolific author actually).

    For example, from 1840-45, the murder rate per 100,000 in New York was 4.4 but in London only 0.3. London’s population was about 2 million at the time – so that means only one murder in the whole city every two months. And remember – this was at a time of essentially zero life-saving emergency medicine. Bring our ambulances and technology to Victorian London and in a city of millions there might be a single homicide in a year. Isn’t that, after all, the Vision of Reactionary Utopia? The only American city comparable to London was … Boston (which has always been the safest big city in America)… but even there it was three times as high even before the Irish arrived in large numbers.

    Anyway, Charles Murray also plots the path of low-class Whites over time in his “Coming Apart”. We see new immigrants like Italians and Irish because fairly violent when they get into the country (Moynihan ascribed it to the lack of fathers, too many single young men in female-led households), but then improve dramatically in a generation or two – reverting to the overall White mean. And then, since 1960 – getting worse and worse alongside the Blacks.

    Consider variations in imprisonment rates (not a perfect proxy, I know, but it’s what I have to work with) across various States with small black population percentages in 1880:

    New York: 124
    Michigan: 72
    Massachusetts: 60
    Illinois: 60
    Pennsylvania: 43
    Ohio: 40

    That’s a huge difference for similar ethnic compositions. But there’s also always been a huge gap between Black and White imprisonment rates. See: Margaret Werner Cahalan “Historical Corrections Statistics in the United States 1850-1984). In 1950 – the rate was 86 for Whites and 402 for Blacks (about 5 times more). In 2000, it was 244 for Whites (180% increase) and a stunning 1,830 for blacks (355% increase, and almost 8 times more than Whites!).

    Then again, the Homicide rate in New York was more or less stable between 3 and 5 from 1875 until something goes seriously wrong at the inflection point in 1958. Within 15 years it would explode exponentially, increasing 350%. New York was over 90% White until … the 1950’s. Here is black percentage by decade.

    1930: 4.7
    1940: 6.1
    1950: 9.5
    1960: 14.0
    1970: 21.1
    1980: 25.2
    1990: 28.7

    A 6-fold increase. Keep in mind that the peak of NYC crime was in 1990 during the ‘crack epidemic’ at 30 homicides per 100,000 – 6 times the pre-war stable rate, and prior to Giuliani’s stop-and-frisk program implementation that reduced the rate 75% in just 10 years. The most successful policing reform achievement in US History based on Racial Profiling, but not permitted to be copied in any other jurisdiction. But the black percentage is still 25.6, so to the extent ‘culture’ includes ‘policing’, a major shift in a particular category crime rate occurred without ethnic proportional change. Then again, they threw most of the most impulsive violent criminals in jail and threw away the keys – so that helps.

    There are some other anomalies. I’d guess Memphis and Atlanta were similarly black in 1937, but Memphis’ murder rate was 13 whereas Atlanta’s was 39. (Boston’s was 2).

    So, it’s both nature and nurture. With the nurture part going bad for Blacks in the aftermath of the Great Migration and just getting worse and worse since then. But though it’s hard to get old numbers, I see no evidence that there has even been a period in American History when there wasn’t a massive order of magnitude difference in violent criminality between Blacks and Whites. If you do a statistical factor analysis (like Unz did) you find that the explanation reduces to a single variable of one dimension which tracks race almost perfectly.

    I should also add that ‘poverty’ and ‘wealth / income gaps’ have always been true as well, however, the degree of those gaps has oscillated wildly without much of an apparent effect on the crime-gap. In the early 1970’s, the median household incomes for Whites and Blacks had come as close as they had ever come before. But that was the ‘low water mark’, and they began to diverge again which has continued until the present day without sign of stopping.

    As far as ‘cold despair’ goes, the fact that nurture and culture and social pathology have any significant impact at all is grounds for at least some hope. On the other hand, what are you going to do to fix these things? It seems like it would take some pretty brutal / draconian / fascist policies to correct things like culture, ethics, and illegitimacy. Sailer talks about the coming ‘stolen generation’ when Progressives take all the Blacks’ kids away so they can do extreme ‘early intervention’ and try to raise their test scores.

    But people were talking about that 30 years ago.

    Consider Unz’s letter to the Economist from 32 years ago. He hoped. “… to help elect [Los Angeles Mayor and Black Democrat] Tom Bradley America’s first black governor”.

    From page 145 of American Millstone we get both strategies,

    One idea, suggested in August by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, is for underclass children to be taken out of their homes and placed in boarding schools to break ‘this whole cycle of failure.’ The willingness of Bradley, one of the nation’s most prominent black officials, to suggest such a radical proposal indicates the growing seriousness of the problem of underclass education. Yet, he was quick to note that his city would be unable to administer such a costly and, most likely, controversial program.

    Another suggestion, proposed on Sept. 23 by a task force appointed by U.S. Sen. Paul Simon [D. Ill.] to suggest improvements in Chicago’s public schools, is to have preschool classes, possibly mandatory, for all 3- and 4-year-olds in the city by 1988.

    And with that – I’ve been able to connect every subject in this comment threat in a weird Ouroborus chain. Nothing ever changes. And nobody remembers. Cold Despair Indeed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2013 at 3:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • nydwracu Says:

    Why’s it happen in Europe? Unz may have provided a conservative defense of immigration, but if the goal is to turn New York into Paris, why is Paris doing it too?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Unz may have provided a conservative defense of immigration” — you might be bolting ahead of yourself just a little bit.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    No one can explain Europe’s immigration situation better than Christopher Caldwell in his “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe”. It’s essential reading on the subject and densely insightful. I’ve got a few relatives over there and everything they say is completely consistent with the book. Tragically, that includes a burst of naive enthusiasm combined with an awakening and awareness of their mistake and a despair at the irreversibility of a monumental error that now requires constant ‘management’.

    But briefly, the incentives of European elites are similar to our own but amplified to a greater degree of severity.

    1. Nationalism is a dirty, low-class word and the European Project is hugely important. There is this constant, palpable fear that the local populations will reject the enlightened leadership of their betters and revolt and the whole grand scheme will fall apart. And so it must be held together by any means necessary. Immigrants and multiculturalism means a huge non-nationalist constituency. In America, the question between our parties is “How much Socialism with our Nationalism?” In Europe, it’s, “How much Nationalism, with our Socialism?”

    2. Because the Nationalism question is so central over there – the cynical democratic political calculus is much more overt and explicit – because the nationalist party is naturally the anti-immigrant party, and the anti-nationalists are guaranteed America-Black levels of immigrant support. This is ‘elect a new population to achieve permanent one-party rule to complete the Socialist Revolution’ plan. See Peter Hitchens on this subject

    3. The Europeans have a huge welfare state with generous early pensions and lots of old baby boomers who forgot to procreate. The Ponzi Scheme collapses without new young workers. Europeans don’t have Japanese trade, currency, and debt policies and the ability to rely on 100% internal finance at 0% interest. (Well, the Germans, Swiss and the North could, but that’s a different story). I specifically remember my relatives parroting this popular and frequently-repeated line of state propaganda on the subject. And there may even be some truth to it – if you don’t mind losing the character of your country in the process of having a nice nursing home experience.

    4. Power and Global Influence to Rival the US – Europe wants it badly. They thought a few dozen million immigrants and their offspring would boost their populations and stagnating economies (think of all that new Aggregate Demand Pump Priming!) to get their social engines going again. Not so much.

    5. Overconfidence in their own attractiveness and in the automaticity of assimilation despite the prevalence of no-questions-asked, nothing-demanded multiculturalism and the theological vacuum. Basically, a Secular Socialist Frenchman found it utterly inconceivable that someone would come from some crap country and arrive in France and do anything other than immediately drop all those backward old ways and beliefs and rush as quickly as he could to become as much of a Secular Socialist Frenchmen as he could. To be fair, the French – being more naturally Nationalistic and possessed of a healthy amount of No-Apologies French-Ego-Pride, have done a better job than the guilt-ridden Germans and Nordics on insisting on this. But the point is that it came as an absolute surprise that anyone would retain alternative culture and Orthodox Islamism, or that the French-born offspring of immigrants would be particularly likely to adopt radical, violent forms of it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2013 at 4:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    @Handle

    Re. city maps of racial distribution having a “bulls-eye / archery target” appearance –
    During the 2011 English riots, city centres were indeed targets. Surrounded by suburbs seething with yob estate resentment, they were invaded by feral gangs from all directions.
    For inner city re-colonizers therefore, such benefits as no longer needing to commute will be offset to some extent by being strategically more vulnerable during outbreaks of civil unrest.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 23rd, 2013 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Handle:

    Thank you. I’m going to have another drink now.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 24th, 2013 at 3:53 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment