Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

""The Pinch""

36 Comments -

1 – 36 of 36
Blogger agnostic said...

The mediating variable between Anglo cultural DNA and its susceptibility to invasion is social trust. We trust others more, so we're more willing to outsource a lot of tasks that would otherwise be done in-house, obviating the need for gigantic households. Ditto for relying on non-kin employers and relying on the market in general.

But more trusting people are more easily taken advantage of, which is why no group has only trusting people, and why levels of trust cycle over time.

4/26/10, 12:49 AM

Anonymous stari_momak said...

Breadwinning men are less likely to have family resources to fall back on, so need out-of-work benefits.

Having not read the book, it seems the author misses the self-organizing of the English trading and working classes to provide such benefits. Take the 'International Order of Odd Fellows'. I, like I imagine 99% of the population in the US, thought this was some sort of joke. But no -- turns out in Victorian England (and before) various trades had organized to provide things like scholarships for promising children of their colleagues, death benefits, disability benefits and the like. 'Odd fellows' were chaps that didn't fall into one of the organized trades -- 'odd' in the sense of 'odd jobs'. Even these, by definition hard to self-organize, chaps organized themselves.

4/26/10, 12:58 AM

Blogger Gyan said...

I thought guilds were typical of medieval Europe generally and are not English specially.


Trade unions are just modern relics of medieval guilds.

4/26/10, 2:04 AM

Anonymous SFG said...

Frickin' brilliant.

It's true, isn't it? The best way to marry a doctor these days is to go to medical school. ;)

4/26/10, 3:40 AM

Anonymous Mr. Anon said...

"Women graduates marry male graduates and this trend towards "assortative mating" has increased in recent years, which means that on a household level, inequality is bound to rise."

I believe that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein pointed this out sixteen years ago. Is this supposed to be new?

4/26/10, 4:01 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should we be going to more clan-type family structures to survive? If we can't reverse current trends, then that would seem to be the only good option for our descendants.

4/26/10, 4:48 AM

Anonymous Acilius said...

"remarkably non-political book; David Cameron is mentioned just once" It's horrifying that a book which mentions David Cameron even once should be considered "remarkably non-political," even if its author is a Tory MP.

4/26/10, 5:27 AM

Blogger Luke Lea said...

Where do the Scandinavian countries fit in?

4/26/10, 7:18 AM

Anonymous Mercer said...

I think immigration is bad for white men in the US because so many employers have diversity policies favoring black and brown people. Are such policies common in the UK and other European countries?

4/26/10, 8:44 AM

Blogger Dutch Boy said...

"This is why medieval guilds, trade unions and churches have played such an important role in our history."

Really?: medieval guilds - long-gone
trade unions - on the ropes
church - Henry VIII and the British elite castrated it long ago

4/26/10, 8:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein pointed this out sixteen years ago. Is this supposed to be new?

And I believe that Jane Austen was obsessing about her Pianoforte skills and her Latin declensions 200 years ago.

And I can guaran-dad-gum-tee you that Livia Drusilla was worrying about exactly the same kinds of things 2000 years ago.

There's nothing new under the sun - plus ça change & whatnot.

4/26/10, 11:16 AM

Blogger David said...

>medieval guilds - long-gone

>trade unions - on the ropes

>church - Henry VIII and the British elite castrated it long ago<

These things worked well for our people, but were abandoned. Why?

Guess the mysterious "tide of history" is responsible. Nothing to see here, move along.

4/26/10, 11:25 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are such policies common in the UK and other European countries?
the UK has become worse than us in this regard. Towns and cities were called 'dangerously white' in one report.
One of the most destructive things is arts funding - if you are not diverse you dont' get funding - so an all white ballet corp or church choir are not funded, however, an all islamic sufi chant group WILL get funded because they meet minority percentage requirements - 'diversity' is not the requirement (eg 30/30/ white/asian) having a certain threshhold of brown people is.

4/26/10, 12:27 PM

Anonymous GreerThompson said...

Steve, love your work I am an avid reader just too busy to comment alot! LOL

Anyways, I was looking at some articles on race online and i came across this Abagond guy he wrote an article about you:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/steve-sailer/

He is typical of many blacks, blames whites for everything and thinks he knows it all! LOL
He totally annoyed me with his "know it all" commentary on you, what do yu think of him?

4/26/10, 12:49 PM

Anonymous bjdouble said...

"I think immigration is bad for white men in the US because so many employers have diversity policies favoring black and brown people."

I don't think this is true. It's true maybe in the military, foreign service, and other government jobs, and also in universities and some large and visible employers, like FoMoCo, which got sued by it's own employees for diversity policies. But 90% of the economy just wants competence and doesn't really care who it is.

4/26/10, 1:13 PM

Anonymous Svigor said...

Whoops, wrong thread.

4/26/10, 2:26 PM

Anonymous Svigor said...

That’s because any challenge to the Left’s post-1960s dominion over the past is going to arouse real passion.

The narrative IS leftism. Every useful idiot is ruled by the narrative. "Who? Whom?" is the leftism of the narrative's creators.

4/26/10, 2:26 PM

Anonymous BamaGirl said...

"Women graduates marry male graduates and this trend towards "assortative mating" has increased in recent years, which means that on a household level, inequality is bound to rise."

And smart people marrying smart people is a bad thing exactly how?

4/26/10, 2:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I believe that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein pointed this out sixteen years ago. Is this supposed to be new?"

No, but it takes 16 years for Murray-Herrnstein radiation to fall to levels safe for Guardian readers.

4/26/10, 2:41 PM

Blogger Andrew said...

I clicked through the link, hoping for a better explanation of why the book's author seems to feel so sure that life in England is some sort of zero-sum-game between the classes. I have never seen any evidence that there is a some limited number of good jobs that people must fight for. Instead, most of the evidence I see suggests there are a limited number of productive people, who all earn something roughly akin to what they produce, less money for their employers and the government and the portion of the population that leaches off productive people.

Yes, if you double the number of good engineers in a two year period, the wages for engineers will plummet, but the market adapts in the long run as investors put more money into buying capital for all these new engineers and some of them move to other professions. In the long run, there is no limit to the number of people who can be prosperous. Everyone in Western Society today is incredibly prosperous by the standards of 18th century England. The only cap seems to be the incredible struggle of getting ever larger percentages of the population to adopt bourgeoisie lifestyles. (As for limits in talent, which is obviously a major theme of this blog, they certainly exist, but most of today's most self destructive poor have the mental wherewithal to do just fine, if they had self discipline.

4/26/10, 2:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idea that we used to live in big, warm, noisy My Big Fat Greek Wedding-type families is a myth. "Think of England as being like this for at least 750 years," he writes. "We live in small families. We buy and sell houses. We go out to work for a wage."

As I pointed out a while back, there is a French sociologist, named Emmaneul Todd, who wrote about the effect of family structure on political orientation [or, if not "effect", then at least the very strong correlation between the two]:


Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems
(Family, sexuality, and social relations in past times)



And I just noticed that there's an Amazon review of Todd which touches on the Anglo-Saxon question.

4/26/10, 4:23 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And not just for one generation, either: just 5% of degree-­educated mothers split up from their partner before their child's third birthday, compared with 42% of mums with no qualifications."

It doesn't mean they are not having sex. They just are more careful or have abortions to get rid of the baby before they are married. .

4/26/10, 4:59 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

""I think immigration is bad for white men in the US because so many employers have diversity policies favoring black and brown people."

I don't think this is true. It's true maybe in the military, foreign service, and other government jobs, and also in universities and some large and visible employers, like FoMoCo, which got sued by it's own employees for diversity policies. But 90% of the economy just wants competence and doesn't really care who it is."

I think immigration is bad for white males,especially in large metro areas. There are so many Indians being hired it's a joke. I am so sick of corporate diversity.The Indians come to school here and then marry another Indian so they can stay.

4/26/10, 5:02 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

How did the English in the past have small families without reliable birth control, while other countries had large families? Most people thought birth control was bad until the mid1900's.Even Goerge Orwell looked askance on birth control and he wasnt't religious. Did they marry in their late 20's? I read that the middle class men in England in the 1800's would go to prostitutes until they thought they could bring up a family.

There is no virtue in having a large family. If everyone did that the world would be a disaster. This is another reason the Catholic Church is a farce.

Maybe the Catholic Church is the reason why Aegentina and Brazil didn't do well, since they are Catholic countries,while the US is a Protestant country that was founded by the English.
On the other hand,England was a disaster for many working people during the Industrial Revolution. They were treated as machine parts that could be discarded when broken.

4/26/10, 6:24 PM

Anonymous Dahlia said...

"I would add that this "cultural DNA" -- nuclear families, home ownership, and supra-family employers -- makes Anglo-American societies particularly vulnerable to mass immigration."

This seems to be a pretty good theory for why Continental Europeans seem to be more "people of the soil with strong roots". This rings true to me based on my family's experience (The German model) though at a micro-level exchanging "immigrant" for "outsider". There is less concentrated wealth, but it is much less risky.
For what it's worth, I grew up in a provincial German-American farming town where everyone adopted the same family business practices and it had more millionaires per-capita than any town in the U.S. back in the 1970s; I don't know how it is ranked today.

Agnostic said:
"But more trusting people are more easily taken advantage of, which is why no group has only trusting people, and why levels of trust cycle over time."

Perhaps the Continentals are a less trusting people of others, I don't know. They are less trusting of themselves, I think. The advantage of their system that I've had personal experience seeing up close is that it protects people from themselves as well as outsiders. A business owning man gets old and has a stroke. Or suffers a car accident that impairs his cognitive function. Or marries a bad woman who turns him against his children and family. Or suffers plain old dementia. And on and on and on. In such states, he is vulnerable to bad-decision making and being manipulated by people not looking out for his interests in the least.

The veto power of siblings in a handed-down family corporation is a beautiful thing.

The English system is more dynamic to be sure; they both have their good and bad qualities, but Steve's theory is a good one and certainly a good point in favor of the Continental model.

4/26/10, 8:07 PM

Anonymous Dahlia said...

To be clearer, when I wrote the Continentals may trust themselves less, I don't really mean a man trusting himself less, but perhaps more wise to human fallibility. For example, a German man tends to find it more in his descendents' interest to hand down his business to all his children to tend to as insurance against the all-too-common human foibles and accidents that would be disastrous if they were visited upon a sole heir.

4/26/10, 8:32 PM

Anonymous Cicero said...

A good overview on the family dynamics of Early Modern England would be Roy Porter's "English Society in the 18th Century." Working Class Englishmen of that era seemed to be unique among other nations in that they did put off marriage until they could afford it. Children almost always moved out of the house after they grew up, even if they inherited the family business. There was tremendous physical mobility as well, although that rarely translated into economic mobility. It still astounded travellers from the Continent however that the common folk were able to travel the country so freely. How much did that tie into marriage as well?

Porter's book is just an all around good read though. If you want to understand why the English broke ahead of the French in politics and commerce during the 1700's despite a smaller population and resource base, it's critical reading.

4/26/10, 8:40 PM

Anonymous Bigbill said...

Speaking of family and tribe taking care of each other, I love this description of cradle-to-grave social services among the Syrian Jews, God bless'em. Race purity number one!

4/26/10, 8:55 PM

Anonymous AlmostButNotDearime said...

"Really?: medieval guilds - long-gone
trade unions - on the ropes
church - Henry VIII and the British elite castrated it long ago"

That's why he said "have played such an important role in our history" note the words 'have' and 'history'. Perhaps I should not assume that history is a word in Americanish.

4/27/10, 4:55 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How did the English in the past have small families without reliable birth control, while other countries had large families? ... Did they marry in their late 20's?"

Yes, they married later (in certain periods in their late 20s). They were probably also more willing to go sexless than modern people. And, of course, they did practice birth control, through the withdrawal method ("belly-painting" as it was called), which is actually a lot more effective than they told you in high-school sex ed.

Late Victorian and early 20c sexual morals were pretty strict (in the middle classes), but that's not true of every period.

4/27/10, 7:33 AM

Blogger David said...

>I don't think this is true. It's true maybe [?] in the military, foreign service, and other government jobs, and also in universities and some large and visible employers, like FoMoCo, which got sued by it's [sic] own employees for diversity policies. But 90% of the economy just wants competence and doesn't really care who it is.<

Wow.

1975 just called. It wants you to return and get back to work.

Government, military and large corporations are 10% of the economy?

I have worked in several industries for all sizes of employers. I have seen with my own eyes dozens of incidents in which perfectly good white men and women were passed over for a Protected and Valuable Minority. In every case, without exception, the Protected and Valuable Minority caused the employer to bitterly regret his or her choice. I personally have been the victim of outright racial discrimination at least six times. In one instance, a formal job offer to me was withdrawn after I accepted it because a black woman suddenly applied for the position. The explanation offered to me was "You are the wrong color." (I was too poor at the time to realistically bring suit alone.)

If you're going to argue that racial quotas don't have much effect, you're destroying your credibility with a great number of deeply pissed-off people in every business everywhere.

Get out more.

4/27/10, 8:14 AM

Blogger David said...

PS: That black woman lasted five months.

4/27/10, 8:14 AM

Anonymous beowulf said...

I wonder if he cited Gregory Clark's "A Farewell To Alms":

Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations.

In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy, who were less violent, more literate, and more productive. This process of "downward social mobility" eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Clark_(economist)

4/27/10, 9:22 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, if you double the number of good engineers in a two year period, the wages for engineers will plummet, but the market adapts in the long run as investors put more money into buying capital for all these new engineers and some of them move to other professions.


The market will adapt in the long run, but that is little help to the engineer whose wages plummeted or who had to find work as a non-engineer now.


most of the evidence I see suggests there are a limited number of productive people, who all earn something roughly akin to what they produce, less money for their employers and the government and the portion of the population that leaches off productive people.



Oh look, a Randian!

4/27/10, 10:47 AM

Anonymous Svigor said...

Oh look, a Randian!

I think Steve's right about libertarianism as applied autism. You really can't communicate with these people, it's like you need punch-cards or something. I had a run-in with them recently and now I take them a loooooot less seriously than I used to.

4/27/10, 1:54 PM

Blogger Truth said...

"I have seen with my own eyes dozens of incidents in which perfectly good white men and women were passed over for a Protected and Valuable Minority."

Aren't women often the Protected and Valuable Minority? It's a little late to start with the PeeCee Bullshit now, Sport.

4/27/10, 9:52 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL