It is heartening to hear a neocon question the wisdom of unrestricted immigration, although I'm skeptical. When they start talking about an immigration moratorium, the only viable solution IMO, I'll be more convinced.

What Lowry fails to mention in his article is that legal skilled immigration affects the wages of skilled natives also. Peter Brimelow alerts us to this fact in his review of Jorge Borjas' latest work (www.vdare.com).

As I pointed out to godless in the previous thread when he asserted:

Many tech workers don't want competition from immigrant skiled labor (though employers and those employed by immigrants are ok with it), but again it's not in the interests of the consumer to let them stop skilled immigration.

The price the consumer pays is not the only gauge by which we measure national economic vitality. Obviously if immigration, whether skilled or unskilled, drives down wages generally, then the decrease in the price of goods is more than offset by the population's decreased ability to buy goods.

razib,

Which studies are you referring to? Do you have a link? It seems to me that there would have to be a stronger correlation between the degree of white ancestry and IQ, at least with respect to blacks. How would you account for the IQ difference between American blacks and black Africans? I believe Steve has suggested that the difference could be attributed to the higher morbidity rates of black Africans.

I found this quote by Mr. Ogbu interesting:

"Blacks traditionally saw big leaps in social mobility only during times of national crisis such as war -- or during shortages of immigrant labor."

razib,

"I think we can understand why the Kurds are one of the few philo-Semitic Muslim groups-they have lived under Arab domination"

I didn't quite understand this sentence. Aren't Arabs Semites? Are you saying that the Kurds are exceptional because they like Arabs? Or are you saying they favor Jews.

I agree with Jason. Steve is basically a paleo-con (although I'm sure he would say evol-con) The only difference between Steve and Sam Francis, aside from Steve's emphasis on biology in explaining behavior, is the degree to which each espouses White nationalism. Sam Francis believes that non-whites are not capable of maintaining America's current democratic capitalist society, thus advocates that whites remain comfortably in the majority. Steve also believes that whites should remain the majority population, but for different reasons. Note that neither man is a white separatist, unlike Jared Taylor. All three men are hostile to the notion that the United States is a “proposition nation”.

A rational argument can be made for white hegemony in the United States. I really don’t see how the racial-realist views propounded on this site are somehow more rational than paleo-con views on race.

David,

I agree with Randall. I don’t think MacDonald is trying to have it both ways. He clearly states in his response that he is not tallying the positives/negatives of Jewish influence ledger-style as Derbyshire does. His book, I gather, postulates that Jews engage in specific behaviors to further Jewish interests. I fail to see the anti-semitism in this.

“At the heart of it, MacDonald and his book are anti-Semitic.”

How so? By your line of reasoning, Charles Murray is racist for stating that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, on average. Could MacDonald have used less inflammatory language in his response to Derbyshire? Yes, but the fact of the matter is that gentile intellectuals are enthralled by Jewish intellectual ability, and have a tendency to give them passes on certain issues because of this (What the heck happened to Joe Sobran anyway?).

Is it possible for us to assay the validity of MacDonald’s work instead of focusing on his politically incorrect language?

Randall wrote:

“Selection for reproductive fitness isn't happening if the group in question is not reproducing as fast as other groups are.”

Isn’t reproductive fitness independent of the rate of reproduction (assuming the rate is non-zero)?

razib,

I never said that blacks were inferior to whites generally. I said that blacks were, on average, intellectually inferior to whites. Inferior meaning in lower quality or value. You are beginning to sound like one of those "race doesn't exist" drones who pretend that calling race something other than race will end racism. Inferiority is inferiority. Whites are, on average, inferior to those of West African descent in terms of sprinting ability. This does not mean that whites are inferior to blacks in all areas of endeavor.

That said, g does in fact positively correlate with a host of behaviors, as I'm sure you are aware. You folks at Gene Expression may not like to use the word inferior, but I really don't see what difference it makes. Gene Expressors are free to state that blacks are less intelligent, less law abiding, more promiscuous, more violent and less capable of generating wealth than other racial groups but we are not free to assert that these negatives equate to the general inferiority of blacks. Hmmm. A rose by another name perhaps?

Is it possible to think of a group as being, on average, inferior to another group without being racist?

"on the other hand-saying that june is uglier than wendy is a judgement that has more bite and conveys human value judgements."

Making such a remark is impolite, but not necessarily inaccurate. Is it really less offensive to say that wendy is more attractive than june (as compared to using the "U" word), especially when june never gets asked out on dates? What is wrong with making human value judgments? We make such judgments all of the time, regarding friends, mates etc. Why is it so wrong to make the same distinctions among groups? Of course, I would never do such a naughty thing and I would condemn any person who did, but I wonder......

I wonder whether the gender gap contributes to the obesity problem among black women. If large numbers of black women do not have realistic chances of attracting mates, many may figure that maintaining their weight isn't worth the effort.

razib wrote:

"The intensive plow-based farming that requires a large quotient of upper body strength that dominates in much of riverine Asia tends to require men of course, going a long way to explaining the dominance of the male gender on the village level in India or China."

Perhaps, but if this was the case, wouldn't we see more sexual dimorphism among Asians as compared to West Africans?

razib,

Oh, alright.

duende,

Black women didn't always have ghetto attitudes or extra pounds. Additionally, black men have even worse attitudes, but still manage to date non-blacks in significantly larger numbers than black women.

Condolezza Rice, Anita Hill and Mae C. Jemison are all intelligent, well educated, thin black women with nary a ghetto 'tude among them. Why are they single?

Note: Is Condolezza a ghetto name? I've searched a number of name databases and have not come across it. I think her parents made it up.

duende,

The black out-marriage rate in the U.K. raises interesting questions. The rate is significantly higher for both black men and black women as compared to the U.S., but the ratio still seems to be about 2 to 1 (including people co-habitating). Do you have any idea as to why the out-marriage rate for blacks in the UK is higher than the rate for blacks in the US?

There are many black women who will not date white men, but do these women constitute a majority among black women? How many of these women are in positions to date white men? How many of these women exclude white men from their dating pool as a defense mechanism to avoid being rejected themselves?

There are many career-oriented women who still manage to get hitched. Did Condi become career-obsessed in reaction to the grim marriage statistics? Anita Hill was not always a radical feminist. She did work for Thomas during a Republican administration, after all.

Pawan,

I have no doubt that muscles count, but I've seen fat black guys (like Stanley Crouch) with white women. Please define "delicate toned".

I imagine white men never discourage white women from dating black men. None of those women are labeled sluts or n*gger lovers. NOPE! No pressure on white women. Is it your contention that black men somehow, given the gender gap in education and their virtual non-existence in family affairs, cow "strong black women" into endogamy? This seems highly questionable to me

“At this upper end, I'm guessing we'll see an increasing number of black women taking on equally well-educated, non-black partners.”

This is possible, but unlikely. You have to remember that white women outnumber white men on campus in ever increasing numbers also. The educational gap between white men and white women is not as pronounced as the gap between black men and black women, but it is significant. I read that the sex ration between men and women at most universities will be 4:6 sometime in the near future. A well-educated black woman will face increasing competition from the overabundance of similarly situated white women (not to mention Asian women) for white men. Why is Condi Rice single? What about Anita Hill?

I would hazard a guess that the biggest source of white partners for interracially inclined black women is the Armed Services.

“In defense of Oleg, he didn't say this directly in front of anyone in public”

This is a public form, no?

“To me, sexual preferences are always arbitrary.”

Is a sexual preference for intelligence arbitrary?

“Often the dad got mama pregnant and split. I think a lot of these fatherless biracial black girls come to the conclusion, based on their fathers' treatment of the mothers, that black men are unreliable and better avoided.”

There is the other angle. Perhaps these girls ask themselves why their mothers were irresponsible enough to get knocked up in the first place. My personal observation has been that black men pursue biracial girls much more ardently than white men do, generally speaking. I don’t have any hard stats to back this up, but it seems to me that most biracial (black/white) girls end up with black men.