2005 April 23 Saturday
A UK Labour Party Member Loses Faith In Multiculturalism

UK Labour Party member Leo McKinstry traces the development of his disillusionment with multiculturalism and immigration.

Indeed, at the beginning of the Nineties, I could hardly have been more enthusiastic in my support for multiculturalism. As an Islington Labour councillor, I chaired the borough’s equal opportunities committee. I marched for Kurdish refugees and did voluntary work teaching English to Asians. As an aide to Harriet Harman, I spent much of my time trying to resolve the immigration and housing problems of her African-Caribbean constituents in Peckham. But even in the middle of all this activism I began to have my doubts that multiracial immigration was of universal, undiluted benefit. Peckham was a place of fear, where any sense of community had vanished and violent crime was rife.

Think about that. He had to witness absolutely appalling social decay before beginning to doubt his beliefs. Humans form political beliefs that are every bit as intense and irrational as their religious beliefs. Faith in secular platitudes like "diversity" can be every bit as deeply held as faith in supernatural matters and the afterlife.

And ethnic minorities are far more likely to be welfare claimants than their white counterparts: 28 per cent of all ethnic minority groups and 34 per cent of blacks receive income-related benefits, compared with 18 per cent of whites. When it comes to housing benefit or income support, blacks are twice as likely as whites to be claimants. But the problems go far beyond economics. Britain was once renowned as a place of gentleness, where even the policemen were unarmed, but we now have urban violence on a scale that would have been unthinkable for the postwar generation of Britons. Some of this is no doubt the result of a degenerate culture, and a reluctance by the police and courts to enforce the law, but some is clearly the long-term result of immigration. According to the British Crime Survey, 31 per cent of all street robberies in Britain are committed by criminals of African-Caribbean origin, while at least 60 per cent of all muggings in London are perpetrated by blacks. Only last week it was reported that shootings in Brent have gone up by 22 per cent in the last 12 months — this in a borough that was recently paraded as a success story in driving down gun crime. Black and ethnic minority groups account for 24 per cent of the male and 31 per cent of the female prison population, despite the fact that white defendants are more likely to be found guilty in court.

Why let high crime groups into a highly civilized country? Once upon a time in Britain the idea of saying "It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here" was considered to be a "stupid concept". But now the equivalent has been embodied in government policy and the whole nation experiences the result.

The welfare state also helped to make the decay possible. But I don't think many members of the Labour Party want to own up to how they contributed to societal decay by supporting the growth of the welfate state.

The Liberal Democratic Party trying to appeal to Muslims while the new Respect Party, a coalition of socialists and Muslims, is trying even harder to appeal to Muslims.

As the recent vote-rigging scandal at Birmingham City Council shows, Third-World practices in intimidation and corruption have now become a part of British democracy. Just as worryingly, the politics of race has poisoned some of our urban constituencies. It is telling that the Liberal Democrats won recent by-elections in Leicester and Brent because of their anti-war, pro-Islamic stance but lost in the mainly white North-East seat of Hartlepool.

The socialists see the Muslims as an important source of votes.

British political parties might end up reorganizing along ethnic and religious lines. The UK Independence Party and British National Party will compete with with the Conservatives for the white middle class and even the white working class vote. Labour and the Liberal Democrats will try to maintain their appeal to some white working class voters as well as leftists and intellectuals while competing with Respect and other parties for black and Muslim voters. But my guess is that in areas with heavy Muslim concentrations avowedly Muslim parties will win more elections.

While not much talked about America's main two political parties are already partially aligned along racial lines. The Republicans consistently win the majority of white voters. The Democrats consistently win large majorities of black and Hispanic voters. The Republican Party might not stay as one of the main two US parties though because it seems intent on promoting policies such as open borders and racial preferences that are harmful to the interests of white voters. The US might eventually see the emergence of a US equivalent of the UK Independence Party that strongly promotes immigration restriction.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 April 23 03:13 PM  Immigration Societal Decay


Comments
PacRim Jim said at April 23, 2005 3:49 PM:

There seems to be an inverse correlation between education and common sense. Liberals typically say, "It felt good until it felt bad." Why the naïveté?

Nigel said at April 23, 2005 5:32 PM:

I disagree with blanket statements (if that's what it was) that the welfare state *per se* was a major contributor to the problems discussed above. The welfare state worked beautifully when England was white, and if you read articles in the SPECTATOR (your main source for this story) about how wonderful things are in Iceland and Finland---they don't say this explicitly, but those two nations maintain a munificent welfare state yet in terms of economic growth, innovation, business expansion overseas really give the US and UK a run for our money; and they are among the most homogeneous nations on the planet (see GNXP posts about the insignificance of the Swedish ethnic minority in Finland).

(THE FINANCIAL TIMES as well is not noted for its liberal bias, but it too boasts of Iceland's and Finland's economic dynamism and tries to avoid mentioning the extravagant welfare state that co-exists along with it for fear of having to not be anti-welfare state. And obviously they don't mention the economic homogeneity.)

I guess another analogy would be Minnesota in the US. They, too, had a Scandinavian-style welfare state, unreconstructed big-government liberalism for many decades, and it coincided with a period of high economic growth and the founding of many fortune 500 companies. Good schools, good health care, good jobs, low crime, high per capita income. All of that ended when they imported hundreds of thousands of African-Americans, Hmongs, and Mestizos. But to blame *liberalism* or *the welfare state* themselves rather those phenomena combined with a blind faith in blank-slate egalitarianism and multi-culturalism would be a serious mistake.

Nigel said at April 23, 2005 5:43 PM:

Here is a SPECTATOR story on Iceland's dynamism. It focuses, naturally, on Iceland not being an EU member and having more business-friendly policies, and it doesn't note that Iceland is homogenous and has much more of a welfare state than the UK *ever* has had.


http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec402.html

bb said at April 23, 2005 9:01 PM:

I dunno, crime went up quite a bit during and immediately after Johnson's "Great Society" crap, including amongst whites. The illegitamacy rate also skyrocketed. So I don't think the welfare state is blameless here.

bb said at April 23, 2005 9:12 PM:

The Republican Party needs to go on the attack. No, black and Hispanic underperformance and crime are not due to "white oppression" but largely to genetics (this goes for low IQ whites as well). Mass unskilled immigration is highly damaging to the economy and will become more so as we become a more technologically based society. Affirmative action puts underqualified (or at least lesser qualified) people from 'underrepresented' groups in positions they are not effective in. 'Multiculturalism' is little more than anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-white bulls***. America is not a 'white-dominated' society; if anything, society bends over backwards to help minorities and put them in the most favorable light possible, as the West is put in an unfavorable light. And so on.

John S Bolton said at April 23, 2005 10:21 PM:

If dominated means 'run for the aggrandizement of one group, at the expense of another group', it could be called minority dominated. If an immigrant does damage by aggression, and he was brought in on net public subsidy to a welfare society, this was a preventable evil of aggravated aggression, resulting from an evil in the immigration policies. Officials know which populations are much more likely to commit violent crimes, especially against strangers, and they do not select against, but select ~for~ those very populations. This is because, as war was said to be the health of the state, so civil war is the flourishing of the welfare warfare state. Increasing the rates of intercommunal violence, which diversity itself causes to increase even many times beyond the growth in the numerically predictable opportunity for such violence, is the key to power. Several countries have been among the most resistant to the establishment of dictatorship. These are the ones more than others, that officials and their professoriate have targeted for pushing towards civil war and dictatorship by means of immigration of violent aggressors, overall welfarization, and reducing freedom from aggression.

lindenen said at April 23, 2005 11:29 PM:

More than likely it was a perfect storm of issues: changing attitudes toward authority, the burgeoning drug culture, the "Great Society", the eccect of Vietnam on the boomers...

Jay Z said at April 24, 2005 12:29 AM:

Whites in England actually have a horribly high crime rate in comparison to the well-behaved and orderly working class whites of the United States. There are many overwhelmingly white areas in England today that are as unsafe as the ghettos of Detroit or Atlanta. It's true that the high crime among blacks has worsened the situation somewhat in England, but even an all-white England would be a more dangerous place to live than many multi-racial American cities.

It appears that changing cultural values, wrong social policies, and welfare have done a lot to corrupt working class English whites. Anybody that has been unfortunate enough to live in a working class white area of England knows that violence, crime, drunkeness, incivility, welfare abuse, illegitimacy, and hopelessness are apart of everyday life. Even worse is that this growing white underclass in England has a strong influence over Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants.

Anybody that wants to see a civilization in decay should visit England.

John S Bolton said at April 24, 2005 12:53 AM:

Up to the 1920's and even later, it was widely accepted among scholars that immigration was one of the chief causes of crime waves. The evidence that they had up to that time didn't allow for denying the correlation. Today, however, established anticaucasianism in the colleges and elsewhere, combined with the unwillingness of scholars and others to assign third world immigrants to the human and morally significant classification, where it is possible for people to be blamed for something they do wrong, have caused this very strong correlation to go unmentioned. The peak years of crime in 91 and 92 were also the peak years of immigration. The decline from that peak tracks the decline in immigration per year, and especially the introduction of the large scale deportations of criminals out of prison, and to points far outside the country. In Europe, this correlation is so obvious that the attempt to conceal it has all but been given up on. Our crime wave started at the same time as the immigration law changed to allow mass third world immigration. The causal relation is more indirect here than in Europe. Here the suggested mechanism is a competition in ruthlessness, as each new gang associated with a different ethnic group shoots its way into a position of relative establishment. Deaths from AIDS are another unmentioned cause of the decline in crime rates from the early 90's. The effect of having millions in prison has been remarked upon frequently.

John S Bolton said at April 24, 2005 1:22 AM:

Further, recalling that 'everybody does it, why can't we' is not a moral argument, there is no way to whitewash a third world crime wave by saying that all the different ethnic groups participate. The issue is whether the evil should be increased by bringing in more aggressors on net public subsidy. People will hate you for saving them, just as the arabs hate the French in Paris, and the French hate the Americans for having saved them in the world wars. Saying 'everybody does it', allows for the increase in evil which we should be most of all concerned to avoid. Will an additional 100,000 antimerit immigrants raise the crime rates from what they otherwise would have been, and will they require net public subsidy, which is itself aggression, and an increase in evil to the net taxpayer, if no one else. The effects of welfarization on the majority are presumably stable; it is aggression arising from new immigration which is proposed to be greatly increased. Therefore, it would have to be given some justification, but it can't be; and especially not by saying that the crime problems are not limited to immigrants and their children. The existence of one evil cannot justify the increase of another.

Kenelm Digby said at April 24, 2005 4:13 AM:

The British Conservative party, demoralised by successive defeat, and a real nationalist alternative in the form of UKIP, has long passed its sell-by date, and in a system of proportional representation, in which parliamentary seats are allotted in proportion to actual votes cast, rather than the Westminster "first-past-the-post" system will long ago been forced to adapt or wither away in the the face of genuine nationalist parties such as the BNP and UKIP which make an instinctive appeal to many conservative White voters, who instinctively and visibly see the country of their ancestors disappearing before their eyes in the face of massive replacement immigration that has been fostered and encouraged by both Labor and Tory administrations.
Ironically, rather than relying on the votes of those of native stock to effect those changes, it appears that the truly seismic demographic racial changes to overcome Britain by mid-century, will ensure that specifically non-White interest parties and those "old" parties that openly pander to them will break the mould of traditional two-party British politics.
The Tory party seems, at present, unredeemible on the crucial "race" issue, and therefore doomed to electoral obsolescence.

Daveg said at April 24, 2005 5:51 AM:

While I doubt this would happen, I just wonder if the BNP and Conservative form a government if together they had a great number of seats than Labor?

Randall Parker said at April 24, 2005 9:46 AM:

For anyone who hasn't already read it see my previous post Steve Sailer On Why White Working Class Worse In Britain Than America and be sure to click through from there and read his full article.

Randall Parker said at April 24, 2005 12:08 PM:

Nigel,

Yes, I read that Spectator article on Iceland when it came out. However, I recall being dissatisfied that it didn't really prove that the Iceland welfare state doesn't cause social pathologies. I'd want to see longitudinal data on crime rates and other indices of societal health in Iceland before being convinced that they are somehow immune to the damaging effects of the welfare state.

The harm of welfare state struck harder in the US because of the rapidity with which American blacks responded to it. In the US the rise of the welfare state was tied to a parallel weakening of law enforcement mechanisms. This amplified its damaging effects.

My impression is that places like Sweden have seen development of many of the same pathologies as a result of the welfare state but that it has taken longer.

Societies often decline for multiple reasons at once. Class warfare attitudes by leftists has contributed to making the US and UK welfare states more harmful. The attitude that poor people are oppressed by the capitalists caused leftist welfare bureaucrats in the US to see a shift of poor people onto welfare rolls as being somehow a form of reparations in the war against the capitalists. If the Iceland welfare state bureaucrats do not think they are waging class warfare then perhaps they tried harder to prevent the development of a permanent non-working dependent class of welfare recipients. So it is possible that the Iceland welfare state has caused less damage.

Bartelon said at April 24, 2005 4:49 PM:

Does the welfare state cause social pathologies, or do increasing social pathologies create welfare states?
Social pathologies appear to arrive among the elites first and then trickle down.

Lighter said at April 24, 2005 5:53 PM:

Any government department that is allowed to grow without limit will eventually eat the heart out of the economy that supports it. Entitlements are growing without bound in western welfare states. Pensions, medical expenses, disability, a broken educational system. And then there is welfare. In a population containing large numbers of third world peoples welfare virtually guarantees a permanent underclass.

First world economies are intimidating to many third world people. Why bother with all that when the government is practically begging you to take its money?

Where does the "permanent underclass" come from? Is it based on third world cultural values that oppose the work ethic, on mental deficiencies or illnesses, or just an inevitable byproduct of evil capitalism?

How can we be so close to monumental breakthroughs in so many scientific and medical areas, and yet on the brink of societal collapse?

Pro-white Liberal said at April 24, 2005 10:13 PM:

Only whites can be true liberals! There was an article about that in the archives of American Rennaissance. Nigel-- I agree with you completely.

Rick Darby said at April 25, 2005 6:25 AM:

Promoting the permanent underclasss through massive importation of Third World uneducated, unskilled peasants: who has the motive, the means, and the opportunity?

1. Politicians of both major parties, for complementary reasons. The Dems figure 95 percent of the new immigrants will pull the lever for them to ensure that their welfare benefits will continue. The Repubs because they are in the pockets of big business interests who know that the more people there are competing for the same burger-wrapping jobs, the lower the corporations' labor costs.

2. The social welfare nanny-state establishment. A huge and growing dysfunctional segment of the population to minister to means bigger budgets, bigger departments, more promotions, and more job security.

3. The left-wing extremists, who are enemies of America and would like nothing better than to see it fall apart so that everyone will be equal -- equally poor and dependent on central government.

bb said at April 25, 2005 7:24 AM:

"Only whites can be true liberals!"

Really? Mass unskilled immigration is a disaster, yes, and all too many black-run cities like Detroit are horribly corrupt...and South Africa is largely a disaster. But those things certainly don't mean that people of all races can't be "liberal" (I suspect you mean in the classical sense) or fully American.

Jim said at April 25, 2005 4:29 PM:

regarding the apparent iq differences between peoples, I think culture is too confounded with race to discern whether culture or genetics (most likely some combination of the 2 of course) is at the root of genetic and social (i.e. crime) differences. In particular, I'm thinking about the U.S. 'great melting pot' concept, and it seems to me that immigrant groups that have fully assimilated have no problems, and groups that are not really integrated into the culture, but separate (by choice or discrimination against them makes little difference) have all the problems. Carrying this idea to Britain, was the immigration wave too fast for the culture to absorb, whereas a slower rate of immigration could have absorbed more of the immigrants into the culture?

mike q said at April 25, 2005 9:13 PM:

My god Randall. Who is having the kids in England ? Who commit most violent crimes? Young men. You blow up the race card when its a question of demographics. Poverty, unemployment, adjustment issues and the indignity surrounding welfare, are much more real issues.
With regard to ethnic political blocks flexing some muscle. Celebrate it. Its democracy in action. Messy but necessary in its own way. Its not as if there aren't all sorts of precedents in American political history. Multiculturalism is contributing to a renewal and enrichment of our societies. In a climate of mutual respect its a wonderful thing to be a part of.

Jay Z said at April 25, 2005 10:46 PM:

If unemployment and poverty cause crime, why has crime continued to increase even while the British economy has done very well? Why was crime so low back in the days when poverty was very widespread in Britain?

Nigel said at April 26, 2005 1:59 AM:

Jim,

You raise valid issues on separating culture/environment from genetics in terms of IQ. There *are* ways of doing it, though, through twin, diaspora, adoption, regression to the mean, and racial admixture studies. Gnxp.com has a new post today on a new paper by Rushton and Jensen that deals specifically with these issues.

Proborders said at April 26, 2005 9:14 AM:

Randall, the Democrat Party could be called the political party of black, Hispanic, and Jewish Americans even though non-Hispanic, non-Jewish whites provide the Democrat Party with most of its votes for President in general elections. The Republican Party could be called the party of non-Hispanic, non-Jewish European Americans.

Rick, I think that Democrats will benefit more from the migration of Third World immigrants with limited amounts of formal education into the USA than Republicans.

Mike, if you are Canadian, would you be pleased if Quebec were to become independent from the rest of Canada?


Mark said at April 26, 2005 10:03 AM:


Proborders I'd be pleased, that province only votes Liberal or for separatists. It's because of them we have multiculturalism. Thank god we don't share a border with Mexico, otherwise we'd have three official languages, and Spanish would be the more predominant one. Look at all the Haitian refugees to Montreal, they're accepted because they speak French and will thus preserve Quebec's culture. With an average IQ of 70 I don't think so!

Randall Parker said at April 26, 2005 10:36 AM:

Jim,

Racial differences in IQ have been studied extensively for decades. You can read The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein or "g" Factor by Arthur Jensen to learn more. If you want a free book on IQ then check out the free download of Chris Brand's IQ book g Factor (same title, different book). I haven't read Brand's book. But I'm guessing you'd learn a fair amount from it.

Mike Quinlan, When some races commit crimes at higher rates than other races then, hey, demographers notice this as well. So do criminologists and other social scientists. In America Hispanics are imprisoned at 3.7 times the rate of whites due to a higher average propensity to commit crime. Blacks in America are imprisoned at about 9.1 times the rate of whites. Here are some graphical summaries of racial differences in crime rates in America. So, yes, demographics matters a lot.

Jim said at April 26, 2005 12:08 PM:

Randall, you've pointed out those references before. I understand - they measure differences between groups of people by race using iq tests. that doesn't answer one way or another the issue I raised - that is, are the differences genetic or cultural? And assuming they are genetic, nobody can pretend to understand mixed races at this point, especially in different cultures. For all we know there is a 'hybrid' effect - like kobe or tiger in basketball/golf. And to the extent it's a cultural problem, then the goal should be to integrate new people better. There is also the fundamental problem of dividing people by race when it comes to individuals.... I know some very bright people whose parents immigrated from mexico with only a bit of english, working menial jobs, now their kids are scientists and doctors. maybe they're just outliers and I have a sampling bias, or maybe the iq tests have big cultural bias to them.

Randall Parker said at April 26, 2005 12:43 PM:

Jim,

Yes, the question of whether the differences are genetic or cultural can be answered with existing evidence and has been answered with existing evidence. I can tell you have not gone and read the books I have pointed you to about this. I've even made it easier by pointing you to a downloadable book. I'll again make it easier. Here and here (both PDF format) are two recent papers by Jensen and Rushton on this very topic. You can also read Linda Gottfredson's paper (again PDF) reacting to the first of those two papers. Of course if you doubt their honesty or competency you'll have to take the references they provide and go read some of the original papers to prove to yourself that their conclusions are consistent with the evidence.

Now, lots of people do not want to believe the truth is known and that the truth is not good news. But it is there in plain view. You can choose to read all about it (and it does take many hours to digest all the accumulated evidence) or not. But if you continue to argue that the truth is not known you either aren't bothering to read the stuff I'm pointing you due to lack of time or other limitations (and I realize it is hard work and you have only so many hours in the day) or do you feel more comfortable remaining in ignorance of what are, admittedly, facts that are socially inconvenient to admit knowing.

As for group differences versus individual differences: Of course there are smart members of groups that are dumber on average and dumb members of groups that are smarter on average. Just how many there are depends on what the standard deviations look like. Those standard deviations are well known. Some psychometricians have taken the trouble to calculate how many blacks have IQs above 120 and other stuff like that. I'm too busy to dig up links to such analyses.

Proborders said at April 26, 2005 3:29 PM:

Jim, Tiger's Thai grandfather "owned a tin mine". Tiger's father received a BA from Kansas State University in 1953. Tiger's father was a lieutenant colonel in the US Army.

It seems that Tiger's mother's family had wealth at least at one time. Only about 13% of black American men in Tiger Woods' father's age group have a bachelor's or higher degree.

Tiger's parents' backgrounds seem to be extraordinary rather than ordinary.

Bob Badour said at April 26, 2005 10:08 PM:

Randall,

If you are interested in social pathology in Iceland, I suggest you start with a look at incidence rates of alcoholism there.

Jim said at April 27, 2005 6:36 AM:

Randall, actually I did read your links, not your books. I have skimmed the bell curve years ago when it came out. I'm familiar with the data and their conclusions. I'm not arguing their iq test data. I do dispute much of the concept of race - I mean if it's genetic, then tell me what genes are involved. I don't think they can, not only because genetic screening is a big research project, but also, man is very ignorant of brain function and iq. the notion of boiling it down to one dimensional is silly. the sat/gre/etc. break it into 2 or 3 and still only get aggregate results. why? because it deals with people, not inanimate test samples. it takes 20+ years of training of the human mind to get productive, innovative people, and taking snapshots of their skill at games/questions asked on a test is a very limited way to view probably the most complex thing in the universe - the human brain.

I believe your motivation for these references is to highlight the low skill as well as the overall volume of immigrants. these are mostly from mexico. this is a problem. My point here is that the road of dividing people's general abilities by race is a very slippery slope. this country should keep it focused on merit,not race. I wish they would stop asking people what their 'race' is altogether.

To improve the chances of current minorities contributing to society, we shouldn't underestimate the value of integrating them in our culture, there's a lot to be learned from u.s. middle class culture. from there - judge people as individuals. handicapping them based on race is no better than providing affirmative action based on race (which I'm definitely against and I'm guessing you are too)

noone said at April 27, 2005 7:30 AM:

Jim,

"I do dispute much of the concept of race - I mean if it's genetic, then tell me what genes are involved."

it's obvious you won't budge from your opinion,no matter what data is thrown at you,but I suggest you check out gnxp.com(Randal has a link).And they have a bunch of links to other sites with lotsa data,too.
They're way into HBD,genetics,brain science and all that stuff,with lotsa data and info,just scroll thru.
You clearly want Randal(and others)to reassure you that you're right and others are wrong and pretty pleez provide the data since you can't find your own to support your opinion(and you won't get the reassurance you crave at gnxp,either).

It is what it is,bro.
{And please don't take this as a personal attack,it's not,it's just exasperation.}

bb said at April 27, 2005 11:25 AM:

A debunking of the idea that "race does not exist" can be found here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/lewontindebunked.pdf

Also, from Scientific American:

"Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&pageNumber=2&catID=2

John S Bolton said at April 27, 2005 12:39 PM:

Regarding assimilation as a cure for the disasters spawned by multiculturalism and its increase through antimerit recruitment policies; Hispanic incomes are less than half those of non-hispanic whites. Search for "average income per household member by race" and you will find the census.gov figures for 2000, as follows: NHWhite, ~25,000; black, ~15,000; AsianPI, ~22,700; Hispanic ~12,000. This is a stunning failure of assimilation on the assumption of equality; it includes 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation Hispanics, and includes any effect of affirmative action towards raising incomes of this group. There is also mendacity in speaking of assimilation as good, as if one were about to propose assimilationist policies,such as were used to assimilate the German Americans during and around the time of the WW's. Imagine a public teacher assimilating Mexicans by telling them that their culture and language are shameful disgraces; yet assimilationism was like that. The dishonest will not tell us so, though, nor will they admit that each and every degree of preassimilation is an improvement, if assimilation is honestly, not propagandistically, treated as a good. Every increment of English language literacy and verbal facility would be requested through public policy regarding potential immigrants, if assimilation were mentioned in an honest way. Instead, we are given lies about magical assimilation potentialities,in a castroite manner of setting up the other side to be called racially motivated, since denying the possibilities of assimilation altogether would imply that ideas are inherited. The costs of bringing in populations whose earning power is only half that of the majority are incurred today, though, they do not wait for us to debate methods of assimilation in a country devoted to multiculturalist stoking of racial and ethnic divisions, with no end in sight, but civil war, on such bases.

John S Bolton said at April 27, 2005 2:03 PM:

Responding to the notion that an interracial hybrid vigor effect might reasonably be expected; groups as large as races cannot have inbreeding depression. Hybrid vigor refers only to groups small enough to practice inbreeding, which then stop, in at least one instance. Looking at Murray's Human Accomplishment; there are essentially no mixed race persons listed, or not more than one or two out of thousands, even though racial interbreeding has been going on for 500 years, on a large scale. Likewise, bilingual countries tend to be less distinguished culturally than the adjoining countries from which one of the two or more languages is drawn. Many are bamboozled, though not any too innocently very likely, by leftist rhetorical approaches which try to advocate for that, the opposition to which, is easily smeared as objecting only for racial reasons. When that leftist approach is encountered, one's first suspicion ought to be whether this means that the left has no rational support for such a cause, and the second should be whether one is being deliberately racebaited.

Nigel said at April 27, 2005 5:15 PM:

John B.,

Rushton and Jensen (and GNXP) have sited a Hawaiian study showing hybrid vigour on Caucaisian-Japanese children on IQ (four points more than would have otherwise been predicted), and the mulatto children in the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption study were slightly above the average the the IQ scores for black and white children.

Most high-IQ people produced in part by hybrid vigour are white-E Asian or white-E Indian (although definitially the latter may not strictly be *mixed race*, and it's only been fairly recent that there have been large numbers of such people, so I'm not surprised they are not in Murray's book.

P.S. Are you sure Alexander Pushkin was not included in Human Accomplishment?

Randall Parker said at April 27, 2005 8:55 PM:

Jim,

IQ is highly predictive at the level of large groups. A group with 130 IQ scores will do far better than a group with 110 IQ scores and that group will do far better than a group with 85 IQ scores.

Does it predict exact performance of each person? Of course not. But a horsepower to weight ratio will not predict acceleration of a car from a stop since the driver could just not push the gas peddle very hard. Yet a low horsepower to weight will certainly set a low upper limit on potential performance.

Genetics and race: I take it, then, you are unfamiliar with the research of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and others on genetic markers as a function of pre-industrial age geography? Yes, enough genetic markers have heen found to allow locating a person's ancestral place of origin.

Race are fuzzy sets. But then the same is true for many other useful concepts. We talk of dog breeds even though the same arguments against the existence of races appliues to dog breeds as well.

Merit not race: Well, how would you determine merit for an 18 year old crossing the border? The kid hasn't established a track record of accomplishment in the work place yet. I say require all would-be immigrants to demonstrate an IQ of at least 120 as a minimum to demonstrate their future potential to contribute.

Of course IQ tests for immigrants are politically impossible because talk of IQ is taboo as you keep demonstrating. But building a barrier on the border with Mexico certainly would raise the average level of ability of immigrants to America and we'd need it anyway even if we started testing imimgrant cognitive abilities.

John S Bolton said at April 28, 2005 3:14 PM:

That is as good an idea as promerit recruitment is in other areas. If the Ivy League is not to be challenged for having merit features in their recruitment policies, when they could use a lottery; neither should our society be said not to have the right to be selective. The Hawaiian study doesn't seem generalizable. With small numbers, other effects are not necessarily controlled for. Those more ethnocentric in a society which uses cultural institutions to propagandize for such mixings or their precursors, might be of lower IQ on average. There are also studies finding increased drug addiction among mixed race youth, yet this could be assisted from physical pain, such as arose from genes that don't work well together. Mismatched teeth are an example of that effect, which might cause one to wonder why Tiger Woods needed to replace all his teeth, in his early 20's; that is, if he did. In general, it should be expected that randomization of coadapted complexes of genes, will almost always, result in some negative effect. This does not mean that it is impossible for a rare case of such randomization to generate a superior individual. There is a reason why we try to limit the effects of mutagens, though, and why life in general, must do so. Hybrid infertility, hybrid low fertility, and hybrid low fitness, are caused by the differences between the parents; therefore increasing the genetic differences between the parents, beyond the threshold needed to avoid inbreeding depression, cannot be assumed to be good. Apart from the effect of genetic distance, some races, such as two northern adapted ones, might have more compatibility for the genes resulting in the heritable part of IQ. The racial differences are concentrated in the genes of the immune system, and especially those related to climate adaptation relative to pathogens' ranges.

Mel said at June 28, 2005 7:54 PM:

let The Supernanny sort it out!


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©