My views on race differences did not come from some heavy-handed indoctrination from anyone. It came from looking at atlases and tables. I love tables and lists, when I’m bored I’ll make lists out of things just for fun.
Murray Rothbard, when reading about regulatory policies of the US Federal Government, said that he didn’t set out to find some conspiracy – but that the conspiracies just popped right out at him. Seeing these conspiracies between industry and government was not a product of some analysis on Rothbard’s part at first. It was a holisis, or an immediate piecing together of a narrative based on a scattershot of information. And here I’m going to try to convey in a single article the “holisis” of information I slowly internalized over a 2 year period.
This is how it starts. Then you dig deeper and usually confirm the holisis, sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you stick to your initial impressions long past the point that any reasonable person would have changed his mind.
And so with race differences, when you look at the global data, and then “inequality” within white countries, it isn’t some grand effort or bigotry to “just assume genetics”. It’s that a genetic difference between the races is just an explanation that “pops out at you”, it’s not “assumed” in the colloquial sense but something you unavoidably run into. To the contrary, once exposed to the full array of data, it takes tremendous effort to NOT see the systematic race differences; such differences most easily explained by genetic differences, and so that becomes the operational position.
Family and Race
In the previous article in this series I made a distinction between shared (“unchosen”) and unshared (“chosen”) environment.
But lets go out even further; even the proportion of the environment that you had zero personal choice in, the one directly given to you by your parents – well, what proportion of your genes do you share with your parents? Compared to a background relatedness of zero, half.
Your parenting is influenced by the traits of your parents, who you share a quarter of your genes with, and other family members, who you share varying proportions of your genes with.
But of course there’s a broader environment beyond that – the broader economic context of the country and region that you are in.
You can get more complex than this, but lets use race, because that’s what I know a little bit about. Hammer – nail? Perhaps, but I can’t help it.
As the late Henry Harpending showed, Fst values function as an inverse kinship coefficient times two.
So you have a kinship coefficient of 0.5 with your parents, assuming a background relatedness to everyone else of zero. However, if you took other Europeans as the background population, set that kinship to zero, then your kinship with Africans would be -0.32, i.e. a negative value. But the European-African gap is one of the biggest race gaps, lets say the average Fst distance is .125, which would give us a kinship of -0.25 with “other races” in the aggregate.
Putting this number on top of other relations, we can come up with a rough visualization of the relatedness you have with the people who influence your beliefs compared to your relatedness with the rest of humanity:
This is assuming that 90% of your contacts are of the same race as you.
So just adding these up, one may consider a “rough and ready” guesstimate for the heritability of your unchosen political environment to be about 44.9%. And a “rough and ready” guesstimate for chosen political environment to be about 55% (based on the heritability of independent reading mentioned in the previous article in this series).
Based on twin studies covered in the previous article, the direct heritability of political views in the United States is around 0.4, and if the heritability of the environment is about 0.5, this would give us a direct and indirect heritability of political views of about 0.7 (factoring in that the environmentality, which explains 60% of the variance, is itself about 50% heritable).
But this is assuming that race only has a 25% of a kind of “phenotypic relevance” to the variance in political views, when there is reason to believe it is higher. And that is that several genes associated with brain development show higher levels of population (race) differentiation than genes associated with skin pigmentation:
And yes, “pigmentation” does refer to skin pigmentation in this paper, as can be seen in reference 14 in that paper. So while total population differentiation may only be the equivalent of an “anti-kinship” of -0.25 on average, it’s probably more meaningful than that would seem to imply. Because across the genome, the races have very small differences at any given location, in fact statistically zero at a majority of locations.
But at locations relevant to skin color, the differences are big enough to be nearly typological, i.e. aside from unique conditions like albinism, there are basically zero people indigenous from the Congo who have lighter skin than an indigenous Swede.
And there are at least SOME genes associated with neuron development that show greater population differentiation than skin color. And that Fst distance of 0.125, roughly the distance between Europeans and another race, takes into account a whole swathe of the genome with basically zero racial variation, even though there are those segments with massive, almost typological variation between the races.
And, as shown in the previous article, some genes associated with variation in collectivism and social sensitivity have large, almost typological racial differences, despite the average across the genome being 0.125.
Support for free speech is a very European thing, and possibly Amerindian thing. Pew did a survey of multiple countries, and found on every question, European countries, and the United States and Canada, had some of the highest support for free speech:
An interesting fact here is that Latin Americans on surveys say they support more free speech than Europeans do. However, if we look at two press freedom indexes, we see that, at least according to these indexes, they have less press freedom than in European countries:
We can also look at a similar index called the Freedom House Press Freedom Index:
Like with the Reporters Without Borders index, Freedom House found that Latin America has a less free press than North America and Western Europe, despite the Pew Survey results suggesting Latin Americans support a free press about the same as Western Europeans do.
This is evidence for the idea that hispanic, along with black, oriental and east asian voting is weighted toward “the gibs”, or free stuff given to them by the government. And so even though they may support free speech in the abstract, when it comes to voting, all that matters is which politician they think is going to give them the most free stuff. The result being that issues such as free speech and regulatory burden never get dealt with, and the “special interests”, “lobbyists”, “deep state” or whatever you want to call it are able to just pile on more crap and there’s no party that is motivated to deal with it, because the parties are just trying to get votes by promising free stuff.
But we can also open the lid and look within the United States, and see that Africans and Latin Americans living inside the United States will support silencing something so long as it is labeled “hate speech”:
Now part of this could be down to non-Europeans in the United States perceiving themselves as “minorities”, whereas in their own countries they aren’t “minorities”.
But that is why the global data is important, because blacks aren’t a minority in Ethiopia, and they oppose free speech there too.
We also see the same pattern in Britain, where non-Europeans are more likely to support banning speech that “offends”:
One may chalk up the opposition to free speech among Arabs as being an “environmental” impact of Islam. But of course, if Europeans opposed free speech and were hyper-religious, where would that “environment” in Europe come from? In that situation, would we say that the Catholic Church was the environmental impact that promoted anti-free speech norms in Western Europe?
Earlier on in this article, I showed genetic data on genes associated with social sensitivity. But there was also a study by Taylor Feenstra that measured opinion conformity in response to a perceived contrary consensus using students at William and Mary.
People were given a 100 question questionnaire on various topics, and those answers were recorded.
They were then put into “discussion groups”, but the other people in those groups weren’t other subjects like them, but were people pretending to be random subjects, they were actually confederates of the experiment who were there simply to disagree with the real subject.
After the “discussion group”, the real subjects were then asked to re-answer the questions on the questionnaire.
The degree to which the subjects changed their answers on this second survey in response to the “discussion group” was labeled their “conformity”.
The degree to which the subjects either didn’t say anything, or publicly stated things in the discussion group that were contrary to what they said when they took the survey the SECOND time was labeled “censorship”.
I.e. – if a person publicly agreed with the discussion group, but later when taking the questionnaire the second time held fast to their original opinions, that was called censorship. If they outright changed their responses toward the direction of the “discussion group”, that was conformity.
On average, whites in the experiment conformed 54.6% as much as the non-whites, but they censored 77% as much.
Opinion Conformity Following Discussion Groups (Feenstra 2014)
(Self) Censorship by Race (Freenstra 2014)
Now this result is profound, and we would expect the difference to be even bigger among the general population, as the subjects in this experiment were all William and Mary students; and so we would expect a black and a white at William and Mary to be more psychologically similar than two randomly selected white and black people.
Because even with affirmative action, the cognitive differences between the races are going to be smaller at any given university than it is among the general population.
Another indicator of race and conformity would be belief in significant man-made global warming, and on that, as one would expect, non-whites are more likely to believe this than whites:
Whites disbelieve in human-caused global warming 53-44%, while blacks believe in it 56-43%, and hispanics believe in it 70-30%.
It’s also interesting to note that blacks and hispanics in the United States are more likely to trust the government than whites are:
In the United Kingdom, non-whites have more faith in parliament than whites do:
Now – question time: if you were some shadowy elite trying to secretly rule the world, who would you be trying to increase the political power of?
Big Government / Small Government
We can also see that there appears to be a relation between support for big government when in the United States, and scores on the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom for the countries the racial groups came from:
As also detailed on this site, one of the most important factors in the index of economic freedom is overregulation and corruption. And the truth is that blacks and hispanics probably aren’t in favor of oceans of regulations, and they’re not in favor of courts being arbitrary and able to shut people down for trivial reasons and fuzzy law.
I ran a correlation between the percent white a state was in 2012 and their fiscal and regulatory freedom in the CATO “Freedom in 50 states” index from 2016. I ran a logarithmic correlation and got a correlation of 0.321. I was surprised it was as high as this, given the phenomena of whites in states such as Vermont and Maine voting heavily Democrat, while heavily black southern states voting Republican due to white bloc-voting.
And there is a negative impact on the budget that comes from voting for these things, as detailed here.
How this manifests politically is support for political parties that most closely resemble the government policies in third (and second) world countries.
To repeat, someone can say that this correspondence is a function of “culture”, but “culture” doesn’t just come out of the sky. These are beliefs and ways that real people of real biology have. I’m not to say that the variation is 100% down to direct and indirect genetic effects. The scores of Belarus and Ukraine, and possibly Russia, may just be, at least in part, the long tail of a fluke historical event in October 1917. Cuba and Argentina probably wouldn’t score super-high on this index if not for certain events that led to authoritarian leaders being able to quickly take power.
In East Asia we see an exception, with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan scoring higher than China, North Korea and Vietnam. But even that exception seems to prove the rule, as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were all occupied by the United States and had at their outset governments installed by the United States. Whereas the East Asian, under his own devices, created countries that score lower on this index.
One counter could be the rise of Communism in China, which could be considered a “historical fluke” just as communism in Russia, and was in fact made possible by the Soviet Union, creating Maoist China. Then Maoist China made possible North Korea and, as much as the Vietnamese wouldn’t want to admit it, “communist” Vietnam. However, prior to the rise of Communism in China, China would probably be considered “less free” than western Europe – but then again, so was Russia. So perhaps the rise of “communism” among Russians (and the Balkans) and among the East Asians, even if traceable to an environmental spark, needed some underlying genetic traits to get the fire going.
And certainly Eastern and Western Europeans are genetically distinguishable and there are differences in breeding patterns along the Hajnal Line that may have selected for different traits in Eastern and Western Europeans. And so Eastern Europeans being “White European” in appearance but of the old world in behavioral pattern.
Voting in Canada and UK
The ways in which racial groups vote in the United States has been well documented on this site here.
In the UK, third world peoples tend to vote for “Labour”:
Like in the United States, we see the blacks leading the way in third-world party support.
I was not able to find exit poll data by race in recent Canadian elections, but I was able to find some things that tell us that it is much the same story in Canada as in the US and UK. First is the fact that of the 47 “visible minorities” in Canada’s Parliament, 39 are part of the “Liberal Party”. Muslims in Canada in 2015 voted Liberal 65% of the time, NDP 10% of the time, Conservative 2% of the time, other party 2% of the time, and the rest didn’t vote.
The site “multicultural meanderings” analyzed the 33 ridings (similar to house districts) with 50%+ “visible minorities”. And it found that the Liberal Party won 30 of the 33 seats, NDP won 1 seat, and the Conservatives won 2.
France, Germany and Sweden don’t have racial data.
Within Africa itself, 35% of Nigerians and 53% of Kenyans say that ethnic discrimination is a significant barrier to them having a job:
Additionally, in Kenya, about the same proportion said they would be willing to take political action to deal with ethnic discrimination as would be willing to deal with government corruption:
Similar numbers exist in South Africa. However, most people have a big story in their minds about apartheid, a story that is almost entirely wrong. In reality, South Africa is just another data point in the general trend. Because they have white people, they create a story of ethnic grievance surrounding the white population. In Nigeria, the Igbo and Yoruba craft grievance narratives around what exists in Nigeria.
In Zimbabwe, while the anti-white racial hatred is the stuff of legend, less known is that the Ndebele, a minority ethnicity, apparently receive less land and less food aid per-capita in Zimbabwe than the dominant Shona tribe does. This is something I predicted: as whites flee Africa, and the period of colonialism becomes more and more distant, the Africans will return to grievance narratives surrounding other black tribes.
Or maybe the Chinese in some cases, as more Chinese enter Africa and exist as salient entities to become a new focal point of grievance. Also East Asians will become “racist” within their own countries as well.
The website “Peoples Under Threat” documents minority groups around the world facing various forms of threats – economic marginalization, physical attacks, political marginalization – and created this map of where they think the big oppressions are going on worldwide:
Degree to Which “Minorities” are Under Threat Around the World According to the Website “Peoples Under Threat”
As always, these images should be taken with a grain of salt. It is fashionable to pile on Russia today and to turn a blind eye to the darling of integrationism South Africa. But kudos to this organization for NOT falling for the BS in the United States. I’m skeptical about India, given that it is such a large and diverse country that there’s bound to be some ethnic oppression going on, even if it’s accidental.
Humorously, there has been much media buzz about the Ethiopian migrants to Israel. So the state of Israel chose to take in people from a country that rates dark orange on this map of tribal / ethnic conflict, and is then surprised to find that these people find a way to “be oppressed”, get media sympathy for their oppressions, and do big demonstrations in Israel about how unfairly they are being treated. They have learned very quickly to use the language of “justice”, “rights” and “racism”.
Strangely, none of them are trying to go back to Ethiopia.
So what happens in White European countries when they bring in non-Europeans? The answer, of course, just like everywhere else, is grievance.
In Finland, you get mainstream publications talking about how Finland is a racist country, how 66% of Finns say Finland is a “racist” country, how anti-discrimination laws are necessary, and big rallies to battle all of the “racism” in Finland.
In Sweden, you get mainstream publications talking about how Sweden is a racist country, you get black lives matter in Sweden, and you have a discrimination act in Sweden designed to deal with all of the “discrimination” that those bigoted Swedes are doing. But fear not, like in Sweden, there are no shortage of Swedes willing to rally against “racism” in Sweden.
Norway also, in 2006, passed a law barring racial discrimination in Norway, and there are people doing little stunts designed to get Norwegians thinking they’re “racist”, and of course rallies against “racism”.
In Denmark, some first-worldists tried to have a rally against third-world influence on Denmark, but were outnumbered 33 to 1. It’s important to have these rallies, though, because the Danish government, in response to a gang-war between two third world tribes living in Denmark, deported all criminal non-citizens involved. And these are the important things to march against, you see!
Of course in the UK, where a white man in his 20s is rated by the population as having the worst character traits of any age-race-gender group in the UK, in defiance of all crime and income data saying that, just like everywhere else, it’s blacks who are the worst in all these categories, you still have more non-whites claiming to be discriminated against than whites. From the website integration hub:
“13.6 per cent of respondents to the Citizenship survey reported experiencing harassment compared to only 2.2 per cent of white people. 7 per cent of white people said racial or religious harassment was a problem in their local area compared to 16 per cent of Asians, 17 per cent of blacks, 16 per cent of mixed ethnic people, and 9 per cent of Chinese. Higher proportions of those saying it was a problem in their local area were found in London, the West Midlands, and Yorkshire & the Humber; lower proportions in the South West, Wales, and the East Midlands.”
And so I wondered, what proportion of these regions voted “Labor”? And while I haven’t run a regression, the regions of London, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humber visually appear to vote Labor at a higher rate than the rest of the country.
2010 and 2015 UK General Election Results
And so “racial discrimination” in the UK seems to be entirely a function of what extent the meme of “discrimination” has gotten into your brain, presuming that big “Labor” regions are more into all the bugaboos about ethnic oppression.
And of course Canada has organizations popping up to deal with the big problem of “racism” in Canada.
But the real takeaway is that a culture of “racism” and “anti-racism” and “discrimination”, all of these things are things that you get when you have non-whites in your country. They are the politics of grievance. They don’t just exist in the United States, and they have nothing to do with historical events.
Those historical events that they hype up – those are just the things that they latch onto for the United States in particular. Slavery, segregation, and now the new era of “white privilege” and “institutional racism”. These exotic, unfalsifiable and roundabout ideas will increase proportionate with racial diversity.
It won’t stop, there are zero signs of it stopping or even decelerating. It is a function of having Non-Europeans in a European country.
Black Africans in China have “racism”, Indians in China have “racism”, Chinese in Africa and Malaysia have “racism”, Chinese in Italy have started a low-level race war against Arab migrants, Europeans in Africa get positively gutted, and, FOR THE SHOCKING REVEAL: all these groups, when they enter European countries, embrace the politics of grievance once they are in those European countries.
For the United States:
As pointed out in a previous post, even if you assign 100% of the United States military budget to whites, whites still, on net, payed $249.5 billion more in taxes in 2014 than they consumed in government services.
Blacks, even with whites shouldering 100% of the military budget, on net cost $306.5 billion, or $7,700 per person, and Hispanics cost $291.3 billion, or $5,160 per person. The numbers in the United States are driven mostly by the differences in tax payments; differences in use of government services is less important.
For other countries, I don’t have the same kind of detailed analysis. But all the evidence that exists points to the situation being “much of the same”.
For Britain, the integration hub once again delivers a smorgasbord of data showing the futility of integration. First, the proportion of each ethnic group in Brtain living in relative poverty:
Thigh roughly corresponds with wealth by ethnic group, but not entirely:
What this shows is that the taxes in the UK are being paid, on a per capita basis, by the white British, the white other, and probably highest per capita, the Indians.
The problem though is that there is no such thing as an “Indian”, as India is composed of several genetically-distinguishable populations, and castes that have different expressed IQs, and based on generations of a de facto eugenics and segregated breeding program in India, almost some of the differences are going to be genetically-based. Which is to say, the high wealth of “Indians” in the UK doesn’t mean that you can bring in any random “Indian” and expect the same results. You’re going to need the same high-caste slice that makes up the UK’s legacy Indian population to replicate these results.
We can also look at economic inactivity by ethnic group in Britain:
This, coupled with the higher poverty rate of Indians, is evidence of more genetic diversity of the “Indian” population in Britain, with some super-elite and some who are more like Pakistanis.
And in welfare use, the pattern is the same, with only the Chinese and Indians using jobseeker’s allowance at a lower rate than whites:
A humorous statistic is the NEET (not employed, educated or trained) percentage by ethnic group:
Another thing to note is that the kind of work that whites do tends to be more of the “real production” work, as opposed to the services, food industry and “education”, which non-whites disproportionately work in:
So not only do non-whites work less in the UK, but the work they do is less of the “backbone work” of resource production of manufacturing.
Data for other countries is less readily available.
In France, we can see that Africans are about twice as likely to be “unemployed” than whites are, however “unemployed” is defined in France:
France outlaws any government statistics of racial data, and thus racial data is very sparse.
Also immigrants from north africa and the middle east have lower levels of “higher education”. But one should always be skeptical of this, as, by some measures, blacks in the UK have “higher education levels” than whites. For “education levels”, the sources can easily cook the data in the way they present it to you, in addition to the universities just admitting a whole bunch of brown people ahead of better qualified whites and using grade inflation to ensure their graduation. There’s all sorts of stupid little games third worldists can play with “education level”.
In Denmark, 84% of welfare recipients are “non-western migrants”.
In Germany, 80% of the Turks live off welfare.
While older, there was a paper done that compared the poverty rates of non-EU to EU migrants and native-born citizens of Spain, Germany and Sweden:
Now one may imagine that the other-nationality immigrant wages will increase in the following generations, but in the US, the differences in wages between first and second generation immigrant families is negligible:
It’s possible that these countries are different, and in these countries, there will be bigger increases from first to second generation than what you saw in the United States to where they will earn slightly more on par with non-immigrants. But that’s a proposal in need of evidence.
Don’t be so quick to chalk up big racial gaps in wages up to “immigrant status”. The countries that people like them created and that they fled are the way they are for a reason.
Another country we have okay data on is Canada. Not surprisingly, they have roughly the same racial disparities as everywhere else. And we can see these disparities in median income:
Income by “Visible Minority” Category in Canada
There are some exceptions; the Koreans in Canada are exceptionally poor, poorer than the average immigrant and the average “visible minority”. But we still see the same trend.
We also find similar mean and median income disparities in South Africa and Brazil:
The numbers for South Africa are very extreme compared to Brazil and the United States. My speculations would be emigration bias, where the poorer whites in South Africa are the ones more likely to flee after the rise of black rule. The numbers for Brazil are more normal.
We can also look at skin color and income throughout the whole of Latin America:
Now it’s important to note that skin color is only a very crude measure of racial admixture, and it’s not specific. For example, in Brazil, we know that people with African ancestry as a visible majority of their ancestry earn less than any other major racial group in Brazil. However, if you just go by skin color, the absolute darkest people earn slightly above average. Not as much as whites, but above the mid-point. There’s all sorts of reasons this could be: immigrants, either African businessmen or unmixed people from India, or it could just be an error in the sample for Brazil.
But the “broad arc of the data” points to the same racial inequalities in the United States manifesting throughout Latin America.
Again, there are circumstantial, non-genetic reasons for all sorts of differences from time to time. But when you see this consistent, generalized trend across countries and across time, well, you’re either going to have to extend the “racism” and “white privilege” narrative to Honduras, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, etc. etc., or you can, for the time being, go with a much simpler explanation that it’s just genes.
Or at least, genes as the foundation which differences in circumstance act upon.
What all of this points to is that bringing in third world populations into first world countries is going to have a net negative impact on your budget. And it’s all intergenerational, a function of IQ differences that regress to the mean. As described in my article on fiscal impact by group, For the United States, it’s about $10,000 net negative for each black person, for “hispanics” it’s about $7,300 net negative.
Other countries may lose even more per black, or per arab, or per latino, than the United States does. Or they may lose less. But no country ever got rich by bringing in second and third world populations.
So we can see that third world populations, everywhere it is measured, are a net financial drain on first world countries, and even within “second world” countries like South Africa, Brazil and most of Latin America, they are the poorer populations, and are probably a slight fiscal drain even in those countries.
Economies Around the World
The economic differences within first world countries are like a mirror unto the rest of the world:
This uses Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), which takes into account the fact that things are cheaper or more expensive in different countries, using the United States as the baseline. For example, nominally, Russia’s per capita GDP is around $14,000, but with that amount of money, you can purchase about $27,000 worth of stuff if you buy it in Russia.
Now anyone can be cute and compare South Africa to Ukraine and with that say there’s no racial trend. Sure, exceptions. South Africa, Namibia and Botswana are wealthier than the rest of Africa thanks to British influence, much as Hong Kong and Singapore and wealthier than China and Vietnam. Oil can also produce outliers – Norway being significantly wealthier than Sweden, for example, or the Arab gulf states being so wealthy.
An analogy would be like soil quality and farming. Sure, there are other factors that influence the yield of an area. Competent farmers can produce more with all sorts of techniques.
But imagine if you tried to explain all differences in farm yield around the world without any reference to the quality of the soil.
Now to some degree you would have some success, because good land would have more invested into it; better fertilizer, machinery, irrigation, whereas the deserts would have nothing invested in them. And so soil quality correlates with how much is invested in it.
You may even be able to, on occasion, correct someone who thinks that farm yield differences between Germany and Romania are due to soil quality, when actually German farms just have better techniques.
And so you could, to a point, explain differences in yield by referencing nothing more than the farming techniques, or lack thereof, on land. And then come to the conclusion that the Gobi desert could be a breadbasket if farmers just added fertilizers, tractors and irrigation. And you could show a robust 0.6 correlation between some index of farm infrastructure and crop yield to make this a compelling case.
But then be shocked at how it never works, that all the attempts to turn these deserts into good farmland fail. Because they’re deserts.
But the reality goes beyond that soil analogy. In the United States, whites earn about $50,000 per person, blacks about $35,000. But see, that’s in a country where whites have managed to remain in control of most of the government. When blacks are in charge, they never reach the living standards that blacks in white countries reach.
Of course whites in the US are wealthier than whites just about anywhere else. So lets instead look at Russia, one of the poorest white countries. The per capita GDP (PPP) of sub-saharan Africa is around $3,700, while the per capita GDP (PPP) of Russia is around $27,000 (it’s around $14,000 nominally, but PPP takes into account the lower prices of things in Russia).
This is why the data on VOTING is important. Because when Arabs or Pakistanis, or Amerindians, or Central Asians, or especially Africans, are in a European country, they are just a little bit poorer than the whites.
From an immigration standpoint, this will hurt your budget, forcing you to cut back on benefits in order to balance the budget, because welfare policies that worked with an all-white population don’t work when you have brown and black people.
But when they have their own countries, the traits that made them only slightly poorer within Europe become recursive, with their third world traits influencing government, which limits their productivity even more.
East Asians will be a very productive addition to a European economy until they start making the rules. They are wealthier than Europeans within Europe, and yet, when left to their own devices, create poorer countries than Europe.
At that point they will start running companies and government like in Japan or China or Korea, which is to say very consensus-oriented, very hierarchical with no questioning of the higher ranks, and opposition to change, since change-agents are always a numerical minority; and since East Asians are predisposed to consensus-driven everything, change is difficult. Now, East Asians are able to still compete globally with a kind of “brute-force” of intellect and diligence, but they should definitely NOT, as a group, be making the rules. If all of humanity were East Asians, there would have never been an industrial revolution because the ideas that led to it would never get out of committee.
Something that almost nobody knows is that Japan used to be wealthier than France and Britain on a per-person basis, but has since stagnated and started to fall behind the wealthier European countries. This is important because it defuses the myth that Japan being poorer than western Europe is because Japan is “still catching up”, because they had at one point not only caught up, but passed Western Europe, and have since fallen behind slightly.
Obviously we would want more evidence in the future on this, but as it stands, the most parsimonious (Definition #2 here) explanation for all of this is aggregate genetic differences between the races.
This is not to deny the effects of previous events that influence government, or popular memes in areas that could cause certain people to be in favor or opposed to free speech, but the easiest explanations of what we see in the world is a foundation of genetics with everything else overlaid.
This is like saying the easiest explanation for variance in farm yields is soil quality as the basis for everything, with farming techniques an influencer of that base.
Now farming techniques are important. Good soil, if not farmed at all, can produce literally zero edible crops, and creating a greenhouse in a desert can produce some crops with a very high investment.
And Ukraine is poorer than Botwana. Ukraine shouldn’t be poorer than Botswana, as Ukraine is full of white people, and should be about as wealthy as Poland. But there are some things going on in Ukraine causing it to be poorer than the surrounding white countries, and even a few majority black countries with significant white minorities such as Botswana, Jamaica, Namibia and South Africa.
This can be explained as, despite having “better” genetics than those countries, the circumstances of Ukraine are so bad that they’re still poorer than the wealthiest black countries.
Of course you COULD explain what we see with zero reference to genetic differences. You could say that all is environmental and circumstantial. But these arguments become increasingly complicated and convoluted.
There’s no need to demand some mountain of evidence for genetic differences between groups explaining some “substantial” part of the race differences both within first-world countries and between first-world countries and the rest. It would be nice to have that, and certainly we should never stop looking for it.
But right now, at this moment, the genetic position should be your operational position, the one that will inform all policy. These differences are acting as if they are genetic, so even if they are purely environmental, they show no signs of changing; we haven’t figured out the methods to turn Africans into Europeans – and there isn’t any kind of political influence or program to implement them even if they existed.
When a company releases a shampoo product, they are required to show that it works and that it’s safe. But bizarrely, nobody demands this for the great multiracial experiment – the deviation from monoracial nationalism that was the global norm up until around 1965. Nobody demands proof that integration can ever happen, or what even constitutes integration.
Wrapping it Up
Racial data for the United States tends to be satisfactory. Data for other countries is not so good. However, whenever we have any kind of data, is enforces a first world / third world dichotomy that holds like this:
First world: non-conformity and limited respect for authorities, pro-free speech, non-criminal, responsible voting which ties into not being focused on / inventing grievances, high IQ and good employment.
Third world: big conformity and reverence for authorities, anti free speech, criminal, voting on the basis of the gibs and grievance, low IQ and bad employment.
This is of course an archetype. Everyone knows, or at least claims they know, of some really upstanding negro and some really awful whigger – various individuals that completely invert these tendencies. But what distinguishes Europeans, as a group, from everyone else, are these things.
Most groups don’t fully fall into one end or another in this dichotomy. Africans are the only ones who we can neatly describe as “third world” with no significant reservations. The rest just trend that way.
For example, Latin Americans in their own country claim to support free speech, and have slightly freer speech in practice than the rest of the world – though not as free as Europe. However, once inside the United States, they are decisive opponents of free speech.
Most “brown caucasians” fall in between Europeans and Africans on all the important traits. The exception being certain groups from India. More study needs to be done to figure out which groups in India have first world tendencies and which ones don’t.
East Asians have first world IQ, non-criminality and employment, and are consistently higher than even the Europeans on these metrics. But they are slightly worse on grievance, bad on free speech, and have completely third worldist voting wherever it is documented. This would explain why East Asian countries, when left to their own devices, are not very free and not very rich, despite their high IQ and high diligence populations. And why the wealthier East Asian countries – Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Japan – also happen to be the ones with the most European influence on their governments.
These exceptions are actually evidence of a kind of east asian pathology, as the least pathological countries are the ones with the most European influence. Countries less influenced by Europe – China and Vietnam (leaving North Korea out as a special case for now) are less free and less wealthy.
So when you bring in immigrants in groups other than Europeans or high-caste Indians, you’re bringing in more conformity to authority and the group-think and lack of political flexibility that inevitably results. You’re bringing in opposition to “offensive speech”.
When you bring in immigrants in groups other than Europeans, high-Caste Indians or East Asians, you’re bringing in more crime and the kind of personalities and random street confrontations that comes from a population with more criminal tendencies – these same people who want to shut you up if you say anything unflattering about them.
You’re bringing in bloc voting on the basis of endless and never-satisfied grievances and the gibs. The result being that things like tax reform and cutting back regulations never gets dealt with, and the “lobbyists” or “deep state” or “career bureaucrats” or whatever you want to call them just pile on the regulations. Because nobody is voting on that basis; there’s no constituency for “cutting regulations” because all anyone is voting for is their free stuff. When was the last time you’ve heard a democrat, let alone a black democrat, make “cutting regulation” a big part of his platform?
And to top it all off, you’re bringing in low IQs and low employment and low wages, which results in bigger financial problems. Cities with a lot of blacks, like countries with a lot of blacks, face constant and chronic financial problems. Cities with a lot of Latin Americans, like their countries, are better than Africa, but still an enormous downgrade from Europe; inner city LA has more crime, more poverty, more regulations and taxes than white rural Nebraska; and the people there are less intellectual and are more likely to lash out at you if you start deconstructing their shibboleths.
If you want nuance, give-and-take and intellectual engagement, go to rural North Dakota. If you want pig-brained indoctrination, chanting and bloc-politics, go to San Francisco and Stanford. Or Mexico City or Kinshasa or Cairo.
East Asians tend to do very well so long as it is Europeans making the rules. The more East Asians “become who they are”, deviating from the western values embedded in their governments, and instead of investing in profitable industries focus on propping up moribund community-corporations, the longer Japan will continue to stagnate with their consensus politics and consensus economy.