Search Box

Monday, November 5, 2018

The personal vs. the political

The other day I dropped a relative off at the entrance to a hospital, then drove off to park in the designated lot. While walking back to the hospital I saw a car idling at the exit to the lot; the driver was apparently having a hard time figuring out how to pay.

As I walked by the car, the driver, who looked Central American, gestured at me and asked for help. I walked over, and he communicated to me in broken English that he didn't have a credit card and therefore could not pay. I ended up paying the $2 fee with my credit card and he handed me two one dollar bills. Afterwards, he thanked me profusely.

As I was walking backing toward the entrance where I'd dropped my relative off I saw that the Latino was waiting for me at the corner leading into the street. He gestured at me once again, and offered me a ride to wherever I was going. I thanked him and said I didn't need a ride.

But it was touching how his gratitude for such a minor favor was so palpable. He was obviously a genuinely decent fellow, and it occurred to me that no white person in that situation would ever be nearly as grateful.

It was almost enough to make me feel guilty for favoring The Wall.

The next week we switched cable services, and had two different men -- both Jamaicans -- come out on separate days to install first the satellite dish, then the phone and internet service.

Both men were efficient and polite. And after I'd chatted with each, they were friendly and exuded congeniality in a way that whites in that situation almost never would. (I've said before on this blog that when blacks are friendly, there usually seems to be an actual spirit of genuine goodwill, whereas when whites are friendly, it's usually just a matter of observing social proprieties.)

It was almost enough to make me feel guilty for having written honestly about race and IQ.

I mentioned these experiences to a guy I know who is a bit of a white nationalist. He laughed and said, "On an individual basis, almost everyone is better than whites. But that doesn't mean they should come here."

I knew exactly what he meant.

Whites, per capita, seem to have a far higher rate of pretentiousness and phoniness and entitlement. Instead of being genuine, they'll almost always just say whatever it is they think they're supposed to say in a certain situation, unless they're angry or drunk. ("In vino veritas" was an expression coined by whites.)

On the other hand, people of color don't seem to be capable of producing the sort of society -- well-functioning democracies with technological innovation, state of the art manufacturing, high literacy rates, and low infant mortality rates -- that white people are. (Before you call me racist, name a country that is majority Amerindian or black which fits that description.)

The phoniness and pretentiousness of white people may be best illustrated by virtue signaling. Consider how many of them will deny the obvious truths of the above paragraph, while simultaneously congratulating themselves on their moral superiority over those who do not.

In any case, that seems to be the choice we're facing. We can become more of a warm, friendly, welcoming country -- albeit with a higher murder rate -- or we can remain a First World country.

18 comments:

Steven said...

Hi John.

I relate to your description of black and some other non-white people as being warm and friendly and open. I've had interactions like you described where you come away feeling good. However, the way you describe white people doesn't really ring true to my experience of the working class white people I know or meet through work. I meet some very friendly ones and most are down to earth. On the other hand, you live in an affluent town or neighborhood where there might be more pretension and where people might be more polite and less direct, so I wonder if there is a class element to this.

If I was American, I think I'd be fairly relaxed about Latino immigration.

Regarding demographics, if America was 30% Latino (projected to happen by 2050), 30% white, 15% black and 15% Asian, do you think that would no longer a first world country? New Mexico is 46% Latino; California is 37%...how are they doing?

John Craig said...

Hi Steven --
You're right, after I wrote this it occurred to me that I'd overstated the case on both sides. Yes, there may be a class difference. (Though I find that working class whites generally aren't that friendly/genuine to me the way that, say, those two black cable guys were.) And yes, there are plenty of whites who aren't pretentious. (Though as a race, they still rank first.)

And actually, a little bit of phoniness isn't all that bad, a lot of that is simply observing social proprieties and good manners, both of which provide for more social lubrication of the sort that's required to keep a society functioning smoothly. But overall, I've found a difference in genuineness between the races.

America's deterioration won't happen overnight. But the more we end up looking like Brazil, the more like Brazil we'll become. California's doing fine now because it has Silicon Valley, Hollywood, a huge agricultural area inland, and it's still attractive to rich people because the entire coastline has a wonderful Mediterranean climate. But they also have the highest tax rate in the nation, the white middle class has been leaving the state for places like Oregon and Arizona for the past couple decades, and their extreme income inequality is quite visible when you visit a place like Montecito. Real estate is extremely expensive in all the desirable areas, and the homeless problem in San Francisco has reached crisis proportions. (And at the moment it seems to be on fire, though that has nothing to do with race.)

New Mexico ranks 46th among the 50 states in per capita income. (Though, to be honest, it also doesn't have the geographical advantages California does.)

Steven said...

part 2.

I think about the England that my grandparents or great grandparents grew up in. They lived in industrial slum housing with outdoors toilets, freezing cold in the winter, no or few electrical appliances. Most of society lived in dire poverty in the early 20th century and they were all white. England has changed and developed so much since then. Why assume that the Latino countries have maxed out their development potential?

I'd also like to make the point that the existence of cartels and much of the gang violence that plagues Mexico and central America evolved because cocaine is illegal.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Answer, Part 2 --
Yes, whites in England have moved forward technologically. But it's whites who've come up with almost all the technological breakthroughs. Even the East Asians, with their average IQ which is higher than whites', haven't been able to do that. Other peoples can then use these innovations; but they won't come up with them themselves, at least it hasn't happened yet. And sometimes they can't even maintain the technology.

I wouldn't blame the US for cocaine being illegal. (Is it legal anywhere?) Prohibition in the US spawned criminal enterprises, but they never got as messy as the cartels have made large parts of Latin America. Venezuela succumbed briefly to the lure of socialism, now they seem to be stuck with it, rigged elections and all, and it hasn't exactly worked out for them. Colombia is still suffering from the aftereffects of having been cartel central back in the day. And the proof of what a mess Central America is is the number of people from there who want to come here. The countries that haven't turned left are often plagued with corruption, and the socialist countries are if anything even more corrupt. (Look at Ortega in Nicaragua.) Anyway, back to the original point of the post, I can't separate all of this from the people who made it so. Demography is destiny.

Steven said...

I shouldn't have mentioned technology. It wasn't really the main point of what I was saying. It was that you could have looked at the state of England in 1900, with all the slums and dirt and grinding poverty, and assumed that was the inevitable state of white societies or that was the product of white genetics. Why assume Latin America wont go through substantial further economic development? I think your assumption is that Latin America has maxed out it's development potential whereas England in 1900 hadn't. Am I wrong?

I didn't mean to blame the US for cocaine being illegal. I do think Columbia, where cocaine is grown, and central America, through which it is transported, are likely to have been the most detrimentally affected by the cocaine trade.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The thing is, if you were to take a look at England in 1900, it would have to be in the context of the state of the entire world in 1900; which country would you compare it to back then? ALL countries have moved forward since 1900, thanks to the technological innovation of the West.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking: are you suggesting that further scientific development will come from Latin America? They can certainly take advantage of the innovation of Western Europe and the US, and already have: obviously, they now have cars and airplanes and computers in Latin America, items which were available nowhere in 1900. And it's certainly possible that some of them might develop a higher per capita GDP, and higher income. But will they rival Western Europe and the US for all the measures I mentioned: technological innovation, state of the art manufacturing, high literacy rates, and low infant mortality rates? The answer is pretty clearly no. All of the people trying to migrate to this country evidently agree with me.

Steven said...

Let's suppose that a white majority US and western Europe is destined to always be significantly more economically advanced than Latin American countries of the same time.


Even so, Brazil in 2000 had much higher gdp per capita and higher living standards than Britain in 1900. So Maybe Brazil in 2100 can much have higher gdp per capita and higher living standards than Britain in 2000 (as well as more advanced technology, whoever invents it).

The reason I say this? My impression is that you are looking at the current state of Latin American countries and thinking that's what will become of the US with enough Latino immigration. But that ignores the possibility that Latin America countries have the potential to equal or exceed current day USA.

That's my logic.

A USA with 30% or 50% Latinos might continue to grow. I doubt you'll literally drop down to the current level of Mexico or Brazil.

(By the way, did you know that Brazil is 47% white? There are more white people in Brazil than in Britain- 90 million vs 55 million).



John Craig said...

Steven --
It's quite possible that Brazil in 2100 will be more advanced than Britain's of 2000. But unless Britain's current immigration policies continue unfettered, and disaster erupts, there's no chance that Brazil's per capita GDP in 2100 will be the same as Britain's in 2100. (And Britain, unlike California, does not have the geographical advantages that California does.)

I'm not suggesting that with increased Latino immigration that the US will immediately turn into Brazil; but it will take a few steps in that direction. Take a look at a chart of the per capita GDP of the world's countries, then cross reference that with each country's average IQ. There's an extremely close correlation, with the exceptions of countries which have tremendous oil wealth (like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and also countries which have been held back by communism (like mainland China).

Re: Brazil being 47% white, they look at race differently down there. There are evidently all sorts of people of mixed race - like me -- who count themselves as white even though they'd never be considered white in the US.

Terry said...

In 1900, Argentina was one of the most developed and wealthiest per-capita countries in the world. Uruguay was until the 1950s. Chile had been climbing up there recently, getting closer to the per-capita wealth of southern European countries. How do these examples square with what you're saying to Steven?

John Craig said...

Terry --
The original Argentine and Uruguayan Spanish settlers killed off much of the Amerindian population in those countries. Inexcusable, of course, but as a result they are both essentially white countries, certainly the whitest in Latin America; that's the answer to your question. Chile is less so, but is still more European than most of Latin America.

Steven said...

I know about the correlation between IQ and GDP. I think it was Richard Lynn who promoted it.

So, in conclusion, if there is a lot of Latino immigration to America, America's economy will continue to grow (including per capita) and in 50 years America will be more wealthy than it is today but not as wealthy as it might be. And maybe if you are an open person by nature and don't dislike Latinos, you will be willing to accept that or even embrace it. Why not just let things take their course and not worry about it? It might be the recipe for a happier life. There will still be loads of white people in America anyway.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The change is going to be quite drastic. In 1970 whites were 87.7% of the country. Now they're something like 65%, and that's projected to go below 50% in another 20 years or so. The character of the country will change, and it's not just a matter of per capita GDP. There are all sorts of other measures in which the US currently differs from its southern neighbors, and those markers will all change: the murder rate, the infant mortality rate, and the literacy rate, for starters. There will be increasing tensions, more gangs like MS-13, more people living in gated communities. These won't be changes for the better.

Steven said...

In 2016, Mexico's literacy rate was 99.1% for those aged 15-21, compared to 78.9% for those over 65.

Mexico's infant mortality rate was 12.6 in 2014, down from 80 in 1969. It's currently the same as the United States was in about 1980. So when the US was 87.7% white in 1970 it had a higher infant mortality rate than Mexico does now.


Mexico's homicide rate was 19.26 per 100,000 in 2016. United States' rate was 5.35.

New Mexico's rate is 7.1 (47-48% Latino) and California's is 4.6 (38.9% Latino), both 2017.

Do Mexican Americans commit homicide at a higher rate than white Americans...yes. This is CDC data from 2015: Homicide rates by race: 20.9 for blacks (non-Hispanic), 4.9 for Hispanics, 2.6 for whites (non-Hispanic).

Let's take a historical look. The trend in the United States is a long term decline in homicide since a high point in 1980. It looks like this: 1950: 4.6, 1980: 10.2, 2014: 4.5. At the same time 1980-2014 obviously saw a large increase in Latino population.

If we look at California, homicide rate dropped from 9.1 in 1996 to 4.6 in 2017. (Can't find the figures but it would have been higher in 90 than 96.) Latino population rose from 25.8% in 1990 to 38.2% in 2012.

I'm not saying you should change your mind but personally I'd be pretty relaxed about Latino immigration.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you for looking up all those statistics. Yes, trends in all countries are generally positive. But all of these have to do with technological breakthroughs. For instance, serial killing is way down in the US since the 1980's (the heyday of serial killers) simply because these killers, or would-be killers, now know that their chances of getting caught are much greater, what with DNA identification being much more advanced, ubiquitous closed circuit cameras, and so on.

But it's not just the things I mentioned which will change. large numbers of immigrants tend to hurt the middle class, since there are more people here who will work cheaper. That's good for the upper class, bad for the middle. And I care more about the middle than I do the upper, since the middle class is the backbone of this country.

There is also the sense that this country will become more Balkanized; there have been studies which show that when communities become less homogenous, levels of trust deteriorate. The country has always had the term "melting pot" applied to it, but recently it's become more a country full of various aggrieved blocs. This is of course largely thanks to the MSM, which has done its best to factionalize everyone.

Martin Black said...

Hi John,

If it wasn't for your blog I wouldn't be so aware of the pretentiousness or virtue signaling that some whites do publicly.

And it is true that I was find non-whites (European whites included) to be the friendliest bunch.

I know of one guy in my office who exudes this pretentiousness that you mention, he usually says what he's suppose to say in the moment.

Although I have plenty examples of whites at work who do not do the same thing. I actually find it quite interesting to observe because if you pay real close attention like when the public spot light is off, it's almost like he cannot resist expressing his true views (racial undertones).

One thing I cannot understand, is his need to express those ideas in private, while still at work. Almost as if he's trying to provoke a reaction from minorities around him to then feign innocence or make out to be a victim.

On a different note, an interesting thought came to mind. If the race and IQ is a real thing, would a solution be to have non-whites and whites co-mingle? (I'm poking some fun with this question).

So kind of a match.com between races where whites who are interested in blacks/latinos select each other. That would raise the IQs overall no?

John Craig said...

Martin --
Pretentiousness and virtue signaling are pretty hard to miss, once you start to recognize them for what they are.

Racial differences in IQ are a real thing, something I've found fascinating since I was 19 (mostly because they're such a taboo subject). As far as race mixing goes, I think there are plenty of ways for those who are interested in doing so available already. Don't Tinder and Match.com both require pictures? (I realize you're partly joking here.)

And, no offense, but it would not raise IQ's overall. It would just result in an in-between number for whoever decided to engage in it. I'd emphasize that that's on average: there are certainly individual blacks who are smarter than the average white, and vice versa. But also keep in mind that one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for racial differences in IQ is that no matter how smart or dumb the parents, white children tend -- again, on average -- to regress towards a mean of 100, whereas black children tend to regress toward a mean of 85.

Martin Black said...

No offense taken, I tend be solution oriented or at least I like to ask what's the end goal is (or happy medium...since the world is not perfect).

Resulting in in-between IQ is what I would expect. Wouldn't that increase the overall population IQ?

This also opens for a lot more questions such as do we want most people to have an IQ around 100 or higher?

Because it is due to lower IQs that some countries are experiencing the problems they have?

Or do we want to separate the races and ethnicities completely?

So for example, your white nationalist friend, would you say he doesn't want immigrants here because they are not white? or because they have lower IQs and bring problems with them? So if they IQs are higher at least a 100, would they be accepted more?

And John, I believe you are INTJ myers-briggs type. I can imagine your counter argument being as such: "Then if minority countries had an average IQ of 100 they would be in a similar state to most Asian countries of today such as Japan or Singapore and there would be no need for them to immigrate in high numbers because they wouldn't be facing issues that are common in countries where the average IQ is below 100."

My argument: I'm focusing on the co-mingling that would raise the IQs of those countries. (This is me thinking of possible solutions and poking fun at the same time. I'm not foaming at the mouth here haha).

Anyways, I can understand your argument for IQ disparities, but wouldn't the real intention for some people be "we just don't want anyone different from us".

Isn't one of the intentions of immigration due to need of a workforce in some industries.

Also, tinder is still relatively new. I was suggesting a platform where it's clear that you are interested in another race or ethnicity. (still poking fun here). The somewhat dark side of this is that people who use those apps to fulfill their fantasies ;) and eventually stick to their own group for longterm, of course some not all would do this.

John Craig said...

Martin --
You ask a lot of questions; not sure how many are rhetorical, and how many you actually want an answer to. Don't really have time to write much now, but here goes:

There's a strong correlation between average IQ and per capita GDP, so, yes, the higher the better. The easy solution to the problem you describe would be to have the women of those countries get artificially inseminated from that Nobel sperm bank. But I don't think the men of those countries would be too happy about that.

The quasi-white nationalist I was talking to (he's not full-fledged) was thinking more in terms of solidarity. He's actually agreed with me in the past about how, on an individual basis, blacks are often more likable than whites. But he's thinking more of how difficult it is for a country to have a sense of nationalism, and patriotism, and solidarity, when you have a lot of competing factions at each other's throats. And he's used the same argument against Chinese immigration, so he's not talking strictly IQ, though I think he'd agree that's a consideration too.