February 16, 2013

Peter Turchin on the Big Picture

Peter Turchin is a professor at the U. of Connecticut who started out in zoology and ecology and has moved over time into human history from a quantitative standpoint, searching for general patterns. He was born in Russia (his father was prominent dissident Valentin Turchin). His historical theorizing benefits from his knowing much about Russia, which few Americans do. Whether or not his theories -- e.g., the rise and fall of social cohesion, the meta-ethnic frontier, overproduction of elites, and so forth -- are right (I'd say he's on to something), you'll still learn a lot of fascinating stuff from him about the history of the Russian frontiers in Siberia and on the steppe.

Turchin has a new article "Return of the Oppressed" in Aeon Magazine on cycles of inequality:
In his book Wealth and Democracy (2002), Kevin Phillips came up with a useful way of thinking about the changing patterns of wealth inequality in the US. He looked at the net wealth of the nation’s median household and compared it with the size of the largest fortune in the US. The ratio of the two figures provided a rough measure of wealth inequality, and that’s what he tracked, touching down every decade or so from the turn of the 19th century all the way to the present. In doing so, he found a striking pattern. 
We found repeated back-and-forth swings in demographic, economic, social, and political structures 
From 1800 to the 1920s, inequality increased more than a hundredfold. Then came the reversal: from the 1920s to 1980, it shrank back to levels not seen since the mid-19th century. Over that time, the top fortunes hardly grew (from one to two billion dollars; a decline in real terms). Yet the wealth of a typical family increased by a multiple of 40. From 1980 to the present, the wealth gap has been on another steep, if erratic, rise. Commentators have called the period from 1920s to 1970s the ‘great compression’.

That's what I recall from my avid study of the Guinness Book of World Records around 1969: the records for wealthiest man and highest income were really boring. The wealthiest man was, I think I recall, oilman J. Paul Getty, but if you adjust for inflation, the old time capitalists like Rockefeller in roughly 1900 or Ford in 1925 were richer. Nobody seemed to be really richer in 1969 than in 1929. Similarly, the highest annual income was something like the chairman of G.M. making a million dollars per year. Boring.
The past 30 years are known as the ‘great divergence’. Bring the 19th century into the picture, however, and one sees not isolated movements so much as a rhythm. In other words, when looked at over a long period, the development of wealth inequality in the US appears to be cyclical. And if it’s cyclical, we can predict what happens next. 
An obvious objection presents itself at this point. Does observing just one and a half cycles really show that there is a regular pattern in the dynamics of inequality? No, by itself it doesn’t. But this is where looking at other historical societies becomes interesting. In our book Secular Cycles (2009), Sergey Nefedov and I applied the Phillips approach to England, France and Russia throughout both the medieval and early modern periods, and also to ancient Rome. All of these societies (and others for which information was patchier) went through recurring ‘secular’ cycles, which is to say, very long ones. Over periods of two to three centuries, we found repeated back-and-forth swings in demographic, economic, social, and political structures. And the cycles of inequality were an integral part of the overall motion. ...
So it looks like the pattern that we see in the US is real. Ours is, of course, a very different society from ancient Rome or medieval England. It is cut off from them by the Industrial Revolution and by innumerable advances in technology since then. Even so, a historically based model might shed light on what has been happening in the US over the past three decades. 
First, we need to think about jobs. Unless other forces intervene, an overabundance of labour will tend to drive down its price, which naturally means that workers and their families have less to live on. One of the most important forces affecting the labour supply in the US has been immigration, and it turns out that immigration, as measured by the proportion of the population who were born abroad, has changed in a cyclical manner just like inequality. In fact, the periods of high immigration coincided with the periods of stagnating wages. The Great Compression, meanwhile, unfolded under a low-immigration regime. This tallies with work by the Harvard economist George Borjas, who argues that immigration plays an important role in depressing wages, especially for those unskilled workers who compete most directly with new arrivals. 
Immigration is only one part of a complex story. Another reason why the labour supply in the US went up in the 19th century is, not to put too fine a point on it, sex. The native-born population was growing at what were, at the time, unprecedented rates: a 2.9 per cent growth per year in the 1800s, only gradually declining after that. By 1850 there was no available farmland in Eastern Seaboard states. Many from that ‘population surplus’ moved west, but others ended up in eastern cities where, of course, they competed for jobs with new immigrants. 
This connection between the oversupply of labour and plummeting living standards for the poor is one of the more robust generalisations in history. 
... The tug of war between the top and typical incomes doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game, but in practice it often is.

This is well said. It's common to see people who have taken Economics 101 inform you that things don't have to be a zero-sum game, which is true. But in practice, they often are.
... Naturally, the conditions affecting the labour supply were different in the second half of the 20th century in the US. An important new element was globalisation, which allows corporations to move jobs to poorer countries (with that ‘giant sucking sound’, as Ross Perot put it during his 1992 presidential campaign). But none of this alters the fact that an oversupply of labour tends to depress wages for the poorer section of the population. ...
Falling wages isn’t the only reason why labour oversupply leads to inequality. As the slice of the economic pie going to employees diminishes, the share going to employers goes up. Periods of rapid growth for top fortunes are commonly associated with stagnating incomes for the majority. Equally, when worker incomes grew in the Great Compression, top fortunes actually declined in real terms. ... 
It is relatively easy to understand the periods when the wealthy bent the agenda to suit their interests (though of course, not all rich people care exclusively about their own wealth). How, though, can we account for the much more broadly inclusive policies of the Great Compression era? And what caused the reversal that ended the Gilded Age and ushered in the Great Compression? Or the second switch, which took place around 1980?
History provides another clue. Unequal societies generally turn a corner once they have passed through a long spell of political instability. Governing elites tire of incessant violence and disorder. They realise that they need to suppress their internal rivalries, and switch to a more co-operative way of governing, if they are to have any hope of preserving the social order. We see this shift in the social mood repeatedly throughout history — towards the end of the Roman civil wars (first century BC), following the English Wars of the Roses (1455-85), and after the Fronde (1648-53), the final great outbreak of violence that had been convulsing France since the Wars of Religion began in the late 16th century. 
Put simply, it is fear of revolution that restores equality. And my analysis of US history in a forthcoming book suggests that this is precisely what happened in the US around 1920. ...
Reforms that ensured an equitable distribution of the fruits of economic growth turned out to be a highly effective counter to the lure of Bolshevism. 
These were the years of extreme insecurity. There were race riots (the ‘Red Summer of 1919’), worker insurrections, and an Italian anarchist terrorist campaign aimed directly at the elites. The worst incident in US labour history was the West Virginia Mine War of 1920—21, culminating in the Battle of Blair Mountain. Although it started as a workers’ dispute, the Mine War eventually turned into the largest armed insurrection that the US has ever seen, the Civil War excepted. Between 10,000 and 15,000 miners armed with rifles battled against thousands of strikebreakers and sheriff deputies. ... Add to all this the rise of the Soviet Union and the wave of socialist revolutions that swept Europe after the First World War, triggering the Red Scare of 1921, and you get a sense of the atmosphere. Quantitative data indicate that this period was the most violent in US history, second only to the Civil War. It was much, much worse than the 1960s.

That's generally been my impression: that the U.S. underwent a nervous breakdown during the second Wilson Administration, and then recovered under the underrated Harding.
The US, in short, was in a revolutionary situation, and many among the political and business elites realised it. They began to push through a remarkable series of reforms.

Wilson's reforms and foreign adventuring contributed to the scary years of 1917-1921. But over many decades, there's a general continuity of direction in the first half of the 20th Century in how WASP elites settled old differences amongst themselves in order to create the modern but stable country that won the Big One, went to the Moon, and prevailed in the Cold War.
In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed legislation that effectively shut down immigration into the US. Although much of the motivation behind these laws was to exclude ‘dangerous aliens’ such as Italian anarchists and Eastern European socialists, the broader effect was to reduce the labour surplus. Worker wages grew rapidly.

The subject of immigration had been studied by responsible leaders in a depth that's unimaginable today. Congress set up United States Immigration Commission in 1907, for example. After four years of work, it issued the 41-volume Dillingham report. Today, the notion of writing 41 volumes on the impact of immigration sounds horrifying. Didn't they know back then you aren't supposed to know anything about immigration other than that diversity is our strength?

Here's the kind of man who was involved in the Immigration Commission: Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA). Wikipedia explains:
He was cousin to the American polymath Charles Peirce. In 1872, [Lodge] graduated from Harvard College... In 1874, he graduated from Harvard Law School ... After traveling through Europe, Lodge returned to Harvard, and in 1876, became the first student of Harvard University to graduate with a Ph.D. in Political Science. His teacher and mentor during his graduate studies was Henry Adams; Lodge would maintain a lifelong friendship with Adams. Lodge wrote his dissertation on the ancient Germanic origins of Anglo-Saxon government.

Uh, uh, obviously an uneducated ignoramus nativist!

Back to Turchin:
At around the same time, federal income tax came in and the rate at which top incomes were taxed began to increase. Somewhat later, provoked by the Great Depression, other laws legalised collective bargaining through unions, introduced a minimum wage, and established Social Security. 
The US elites entered into an unwritten compact with the working classes. This implicit contract included the promise that the fruits of economic growth would be distributed more equitably among both workers and owners. In return, the fundamentals of the political-economic system would not be challenged (no revolution). The deal allowed the lower and upper classes to co-operate in solving the challenges facing the American Republic — overcoming the Great Depression, winning the Second World War, and countering the Soviet threat during the Cold War. 
It almost goes without saying that there was a racist and xenophobic underside to all this. The co-operating group was mainly native-born white Protestants.

For example, women's suffrage was a pro-WASP ploy. WASP women were much more liberated than immigrant women, so giving women more power gave WASPs more power. (Prohibition was tied into women's suffrage. WASP feminists hated men drinking, so if they were going to get the vote, politicians had better pass Prohibition to mollify them.)
African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and foreigners were excluded or heavily discriminated against. Nevertheless, while making such ‘categorical inequalities’ worse, the compact led to a dramatic reduction in overall economic inequality. ...
It is no coincidence that the life of Communism (from the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989) coincides almost perfectly with the Great Compression era. The Red Scares of, firstly, 1919—21 and then 1947—57 suggest that US elites took the Soviet threat quite seriously. More generally, the Soviet Union, especially in its early years, aggressively promoted an ideology that was highly threatening to the political-economic system favoured by the US elites. Reforms that ensured an equitable distribution of the fruits of economic growth turned out to be a highly effective counter to the lure of Bolshevism. 
Nevertheless, when Communism collapsed, its significance was seriously misread. It’s true that the Soviet economy could not compete with a system based on free markets plus policies and norms that promoted equity. Yet the fall of the Soviet Union was interpreted as a vindication of free markets, period. The triumphalist, heady atmosphere of the 1990s was highly conducive to the spread of Ayn Randism and other individualist ideologies. The unwritten social contract that had emerged during the New Deal and braved the challenges of the Second World War had faded from memory.

It was not just individualist ideologies that flourished after the collapse of a credible military rival to the U.S., but also, famously, "globalist" ideologies, which are anti-nationalist and thus anti-patriotic and thus pro-elite and pro-inequality.

129 comments:

DaveinHackensack said...

This is fascinating -- Turchin's sweeping theory of history reminds me of Kondratieff's (maybe this sort of speculation is a Russian thing?). Those Italian anarchists were also suspected of the Wall Street bombing of 1920.

Anonymous said...

It was not just individualist ideologies that flourished after the collapse of a credible military rival to the U.S., but also, famously, "globalist" ideologies, which are anti-nationalist and thus anti-patriotic and thus pro-elite and pro-inequality.

Yes, I think over the 1980s and 1990s quite a few people from the hard left got wooed into an alliance with the Davos Summit, IMF, World Bank, EU types. "We're not so different really, we both want the same things". It helped to blur the old distinctions too as CEOs learned to wear jeans and use the word "awesome" a lot; like some reformed hippie who's just doing it for fun and to "help change the world".

Ex Submarine Officer said...

Back when the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union fell, I was fond of observing that, "The end of communism wasn't going to bring capitalism just to Russia, but the USA as well".

Little did I know then how right I was and how disastrous this was going to be.

Anonymous said...

Well, Steve the average income today is better than in 1957 when I was born but not as good as 1972. People are complaining abut the 1972 rate and women have worked for decades driving the price of housing up. And of course people forgot that when I was growing up a lot of whites live in mobile homes not 2,000 square feet houses. In 1957 white poverty was over 20 percent and by 19972 it was around 8 percent and today with inflation probably 12 percent. Inequality isn't the problem but stagantion because of immirgants and mother's working/ Also, household size is down which means parents can spent more on their offspring, the younger babyboomers from large families had to share things growing up. Whites in the 1950's were the same as Mexicans today more likely to be renters and higher poverty rates its the 1970's were the average Joel is having problems in the comparisons.

Anonymous said...

Ronald Reagan made the mistake that Hispanics-Mexicans would have the income of whites in California. Whites were in the most part even living in mobile homes in the early 1970's didn't feel low class as you would today. So, the great communicator chnaged the demographics of counties like Orange, San Diego and the Valley area of La, and Riverside and handed those counties to wage stagnation over a time, those were the counties that gave birth according to suburban warriors to the modern conservative movement since if you have a poverty rate around 6 percent then people don't need welfare. Now those areas average 12 and above poverty rates. Same as in Texas White poverty is only 7 percent and Hispanic over 20 percent in Texas so whites vote for Republicans.

Anonymous said...

See, White poverty is actually lower in major metro areas in Texas than New York City and other big cities. Contrary what liberals say Texas and the South have sometimes lower white poverty rates and this explains the more conservative/Libertarian thinking among whites.

Anonymous said...

Steve, it would be interesting to get your take on the Oscar Pistorius affair. His story is fascinating on so many levels -- high-profile man kills blonde model girlfriend on Valentine's day. When was the last time a double amputee Olympian was charged with murder?

Anonymous said...

Immigration restrictionist had it right.

Jason Hops said...

We will enter another period of turmoil starting in 2017. The regular GOP leaders, conservative and moderate are paid to pretend race has nothing to do with anything. After the GOP loses again in 2016, it will be clear to everyone that race is central (it is actually obvious now but another election cycle is needed to drive the point home.). GOP may pick up seats in Congress in 2014, but they will lose again in 2016.

Then, things get interesting, once Whites and the GOP realize they can't ever win again using the old playbook. What shape it will take is unknowable, but it won't be the same politics again.

Anonymous said...

"Nevertheless, when Communism collapsed, its significance was seriously misread. It’s true that the Soviet economy could not compete with a system based on free markets plus policies and norms that promoted equity. Yet the fall of the Soviet Union was interpreted as a vindication of free markets, period."

Interesting point.

Anonymous said...

Percentage of residents living in poverty in 2009: 8.1%
(3.8% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 21.6% for Hispanic or Latino residents)

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Plano-Texas.html#ixzz2L6xMvvvM Another huge gap between hispanics and whites, Texas would have the lowest poverty rate in the US if their were no Hispanics or the state was only 10 to 15 percent like it was years ago. Texas is a cheap housing verison of Orange County Ca, high income and low poverty for whites and low income and high poverty for hispanics.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

An engaging and challenging article. Yet I notice that Turchin writes rapturously about new attitudes by the elites during the Great Compression and attributes a great deal of wage equality to theories of sharing, but the main mechanism he describes is restriction of immigration. He doesn't provide much evidence that all the other bells and whistles so dear to his heart actually did anything.

HenryCanaday said...

Kevin Phillips is cheating on the timing of the recent cycle a bit, to grind his usual axe against a Republican Party that does not pay as much attention to him as he thinks it should. Income inequality began to increase around 1973, well before 1980. And when incomes become more unequal, wealth, which is merely accumulated income, will inevitably follow.

The years in which income inequality first increased, 1973 to 1980 were not, to say the least, years of pro-inequality policies. This period followed: a) the oil-price explosion, which cut growth, shifted income and caused political and economic turmoil; b) increased unskilled immigration; c) the moral collapse and change in sex and marriage habits of the late 1960s, both of which tended to increase inequality, among other effects.

By 1980 we had the worst of several worlds: a) increasing inequality; b) slow and erratic growth; c) real after-tax returns on most corporate capital that were inconsistent with the continuance of a market economy. All of which prompted the explicitly pro-growth polices of the 1980s. These were not aimed at increasing inequality. The tax cuts were spread across income classes and the easing of regulation was expected to be mostly neutral in its effects on income distribution. But these policies were followed by both a continued increase in income inequality and, eventually, stronger growth, at least for a little while.

Why has inequality continued to increase? Some candidates:

1. Private sector labor unions continued to shrink, not due to any public policy, but because they destroyed the companies or industries they dominated.

2. One pubic policy, the national minimum wage, declined in real terms, at least for a while.

3. Immigration of unskilled workers continued strong.

4. The moral collapse continued and illegitimacy continued to rise, breeding less responsible adult males, often self-destructive young males and the addition to the workforce of less-skilled single mothers.

5. Tax cuts and changes in the financial system allowed smart people to make a lot more money.

6. Changes in corporate governance and compensation did the same.

7. Education and training ceased contributing much to the value of most workers, due to both problems in education and problems with many students.

Now which of these can you, or should you, want to reverse?

You can’t reverse 1, and it would likely do damage to growth if you could.

You can change 2, but it will increase unemployment and thus may worsen equality even in the short term. And it will certainly reduce average income.

You can probably only slow the damage from 3, at best.

Politicians probably cannot do much about 4, except perhaps be honest about it. (Chortle, chortle)

You can change 5 and may or may not damage growth significantly.

Same, probably, for 6.

In principle we should be able to alter 7, but we have been trying to for a long time and have not accomplished much yet.

The Barney Bubble solution is to let illegal immigration roll and then try to bludgeon the economy back toward more equality by changes in taxes, regulation and spending. I don’t think it will work, but that is apparently the direction we are headed.

rightsaidfred said...

So the peons need to organize and scare the elites once in a while.

I'm wondering if, over time, the elites are better at mollifying the peons; than the peons are at organizing themselves.

Thus we are loaded with porn and savory snacks while the upper crust flies to Gstaad and brags about how safe they are.

spandrell said...

The decline of public discourse makes me really depressed.

There's this thing about cyclical history that produces a sense of hopelessness. No wonder the chinese are so cynical.

deconstructingleftism said...

My thesis is that the elites made a deal with the white working class with the New Deal. This lasted until the early 60's, when the affluence of the white working class started to worry the elite and they brought in blacks to cut them down to size, along with renewed immigration. The condition of the white working class has steadily deteriorated since then. The elite has acquired so much power through the media and law that they can't be challenged and the white working class has no representation anyway.

Turchin puts the beginning of the compact too early. He underestimates the hatred and fear the elite has of non-Anglo-Saxon whites. The immigration restrictions were only to prevent English Protestants from being too threatened. Prohibition was aimed at the Germans and Irish and wasn't repealed until the New Deal. He puts the end too late, but that would involve acknowledging a racial element, which is of course impossible. He has gone pretty far just by talking about immigration.

Still it's interesting to see the kind of historical analysis usually limited to reactionaries in a mainstream intellectual. People are getting the idea things are not as we have been taught.

FredR said...

I tend to think of Turchin as a little underinformed about the american scene (he's a fan of shadow stats, and in general is too willing to take certain ideological claims at face value), but then again, I'm the idiot who didn't know about the battle of blair mountain, so now I'm not so sure.

Chief Seattle said...

Well written. A refreshing change from the propaganda we're constantly fed through the media and politicians that complains about lack of jobs without mentioning trade and has reduced the argument over more immigration to "are you nice or mean?"

The good news is that we are in the early stages of the robotics revolution and that once robots can clean houses the elites' desire for more immigration will decrease. Unfortunately their need for native born workers for anything other than call girls will decrease as well.

Anonymous said...

The term "Progressive Era" is conspicuously absent from Steve's commentary as well as Turgin's selected excerpts. Is the terminology deemed too liberal for this audience?

It seems Turgin's work might contain some unique perspective, but the post as a whole comes off as if some hidden, long lost period of American History has been newly rediscovered.

Anonymous said...

"You can’t reverse 1...You can change 2...You can probably only slow the damage from 3, at best...Politicians probably cannot do much about 4, except perhaps be honest about it....You can change 5 and may or may not damage growth significantly...Same, probably, for 6...In principle we should be able to alter 7, but we have been trying to for a long time and have not accomplished much yet."

Most of those are the result of deliberate policy of a treachorous ruling class waging war on their own citizens.

Number 3.
The ruling class deliberately encourages 3, refuses to do anything to stop it and actively resists efforts at the state level to restrain it. Unskilled immigration could be completely curtailed if the will was there.

It is the biggest part of the problem and it is entirely the result of deliberate treachery on the part of the ruling class to serve their own economic interests.


Number 4
The moral collapse is a direct result of the media destroying the traditional restraint culture which existed in the 50s and replacing it with an anything goes culture as by encouraging destructive and maladaptive r-type behaviors while maintaining k-type behaviors for themselves the ruling class reduces potential competiton.

It is entirely reversible if the will was there.

Numbers 5 & 6
Repeal of glass-steagal and all the 1980s stuff that relate to it and led up to it e.g. easier hostile takeovers combined with shareholder value, are all part of a treachorous ruling class rigging the game in their favor.

Number 7.
Education was actively destroyed by the educational idealogy that came out of cultural marxism. No amount of trying will make a rubber hammer work. However the only thing needed to fix education is to go back to the way it was pre-60s.

Anonymous said...

"but the main mechanism he describes is restriction of immigration"

supply and demand is the simplest and most effective mechanism.

Anonymous said...

If Turchin is right, so what? If the WASP elite made a deal with the other WASPs during the 1920s to save the bacon do we think the elite will do it again in the 2020s? Or do we suspect they will cut a deal with the diverse instead? If so, wouldn't it make sense to preempt that deal? No wonder the elites have been going non-linear over gun control, a makeshift militia of unemployed Iraq and Afghan war veterans supplied by sympathetic members of the active military could make for interesting times.

Anonymous said...

The Great Compression was, for lack of a better word, a very artificial era. INequality and elitism are the natural state of affairs. In order to reverse this, elites had to give up some of their power, make concessions, and all that. Both the elites and proles had to engineer a society based on mythology bordering on fantasy (pleasantville, camelot, whatever you want to call it.)

ben tillman said...

My thesis is that the elites made a deal with the white working class with the New Deal. This lasted until the early 60's, when the affluence of the white working class started to worry the elite and they brought in blacks to cut them down to size, along with renewed immigration. The condition of the white working class has steadily deteriorated since then. The elite has acquired so much power through the media and law that they can't be challenged and the white working class has no representation anyway.


You left out the part where the one elite was replaced by another in the early/mid-60's, with the results you noted.

Anonymous said...

"Lodge wrote his dissertation on the ancient Germanic origins of Anglo-Saxon government."

Uh, uh, obviously an uneducated ignoramus nativist!


No, worse, a Nazi!

Cennbeorc

Clutch cargo cult said...

Interesting tidbit on Lodge,quite a contrast to our "elite" today. They are, without exception, craven, ignorant, and of low intellect.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly South Africa also saw great labour unrest in the 1920's. In 1922 the SACP marched under the banner "Workers of the world unite for a white South Africa" and in that same year Jan Smuts, the man who was key to the establishment of Britain's RAF, suppressed the Johannesburg miners'strike by throwing bombs at them from aeroplanes. Is it a coincidence that, like Wilson, Smuts was a true internationalist? (He was also a major proponent of the League of Nations and later wrote the preamble to the UN's charter.) After the Boers turned their backs on Smuts and promoted the nationalists to power, South Africa also experienced converging incomes among whites. When Mandela became president he enjoyed even greater international acclaim than befell Smuts in his day, yet today, despite all the talk of equality, our income disparity is among the highest in the world. A few weeks ago 34 striking mine workers were killed by police to once again protect British mining interests. This was apparently carried out at the behest of one of the mine's South African co-owners, Cyril Ramaphosa. He was once favoured by Mandela to be his successor and may well become SA's next president.

Anonymous said...

One possible implication is that we should stop calling out OWS and their like as the goons they are and start supporting them.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

11.2% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 24.6% for Black residents, 25.7% for Hispanic or Latino residents,-Los Angeles 8.4% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 23.9% for Black residents, 26.5% for Hispanic or Latino residents-long Beach, 7.9% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 18.4% for Hispanic or Latino residents,-san Jose. These are the California cities and white poverty is not really that high but Hispanic is,so it more importing Hispanics than whites losing factory jobs and becoming retail workers or telemarkters part time.

Anonymous said...

Percentage of residents living in poverty in 2009: 20.6%
(7.2% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 25.7% for Black residents, 28.0% for Hispanic or Latino residents, 26.7% for other race residents, HoustonPercentage of residents living in poverty in 2009: 19.5%
(10.0% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 26.8% for Black residents, 23.2% for Hispanic or Latino residents,San-Antonio-:(8.6% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 30.5% for Black residents, 29.8% for Hispanic or Latino residents, 31.8% Dallas

Its the same story in Texas too blacks and hispanics account for most of the poverty. yet, both political parties want to expand Hispanics, yeaks.

Reg Cæsar said...

--anon.

I'd look more closely at this before trumpeting it as fact. Queens is the rare county where black income is greater than white. But much of this is explained by young, ambitious whites moving out and leaving their retired parents behind (the rest by self-selected African immigration.) A similar distortion might be taking place here, such as more rich whites than poor moving into Texas.

Anonymous said...

The problem with your elite thinking is some of th places that supported a lot of illegal immirgation let's say like San Diego whites had mixed ancestory. I talking about the business elite and politicans not the people. Probably a lot of Texans are becoming more mixed lately because of Midwesterners and Califroniaians moving there.

Noah172 said...

Henry Canady wrote:

Why has inequality continued to increase? Some candidates:

Your list does not include free trade. That is a big omission.

1. Private sector labor unions continued to shrink, not due to any public policy, but because they destroyed the companies or industries they dominated.

Repeating what I just wrote, free trade, very much a public policy, gutted the unions. What's the point in organizing if your factory moves to China and the boss can sell his wares at greater profit without you?

Sure, unions can and did at times get too greedy and complacent. Under protectionism, however, companies can get around that by shifting to lower-cost areas of the US, still employing Americans; or, foreign competitors can set up shop in the US, again hiring Americans, and provide a check on union militancy (as foreign automakers did by building plants in the South when Reagan threatened them with tariffs and import quotas, a very successful policy).

With free trade, Rust Belt and Sun Belt workers, union and non-union, get the shaft.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Many points raised here.
In fact, it was Thomas Malthus (he of over-population fame), who first theorized that the laboring classes are forever trapped in the vice of near beggardom wages, due to the reality of simple competition, no more, no les. I believe that David Ricardo further built on this with his 'iron law of wages'.Thus the earliest and best economists, the chaps who actually worked from rationality, logic, first principle and arithmetic ertainty were pretty much united on this - ony today's politicized bullshitters try to undermine these facts with word=storms, mind-games and reams of nonsense hieroglyphs.
On the subject of globalisation, over the past 5 years or so the UK has faced its worst period of economic decline and stagnation ever recorded ie since men started to gather statistics about such things. This has coincided more or less with the most determined and ultimate push towards 'globalisation' (including as it happens unlimited, uncontrolled mass immigration) ever seen. Empirical evidence must suggest that in Britain, at least, more gobalisation equals more economic disaster. But try telling that to any member of the political/economics establishment. You'll be derided as the man who tried to call black white.

Anonymous said...

The pendulum swung too far to the right.
The charlantry of the Friedmanites was, unfortuantely, taken too seriously.
Withe the failures of Gorbachevism and subsequent fall of the USSR, the right had, virtually, a clean open sweep. 'Lefty' ideas were discredited - and a determined effort was made everywhere by paid-for agents in the press to discredit leftyism as far as possible ("blah, blah,... Sweden!...poorer than Mississippi...ho, ho, ho, socialist....doesn't work...aren't we Americans clever!), well never mind the sub-prime, here's the bollocks.
What you have to remember is that leftism (I'm talking about real, workers' rights balls-out leftism here, not that anti-racist, feminist, gay digshit that hi-jacked he movement)was introduced 100 years ago for a reason. A good reason. A reason that millions of Americans a week's wages away from disaster, whilst Sheldon Adelson builds a gold-plated doghouse, can't seem to understand.

Old fogey said...

Many thanks, Steve, for finding this fascinating article for us and for putting it into such good perspective. It is always a pleasure to click on "isteve."

Reg Cæsar said...

(though of course, not all rich people care exclusively about their own wealth.) --Turchin

In fact, the most dangerous of the rich are those willing to give it away-- e.g. David Rockefeller, George Soros, etc. If we could just make them go home, count their money on the yacht, and leave us alone!

...then recovered under the underrated Harding. --SS

No one comes close to Harding for the title of Most Underrated President Ever. Signing the immigration law within days of taking office alone should qualify him for Rushmore.

Chicago said...

The "dangerous aliens" were Europeans who may have harbored dangerous ideas such as socialism, communism, anarchism or perhaps just ideas of worker rights. The current crop of aliens are third worlders who, at the lower end anyway, have no ideologies beyond a sense of tribalism. It's a step up for most and they're more likely to be compliant, at least for now.
The state has really been ratcheting up internal security for many years now what with it passing more laws, more spying and screening,infiltrating everywhere, homeland security, TSA, formation of hire-a-mercenary companies, and so on. They may be ahead of the curve here and have decided that force and repression may be the way to go next time there's some sort of upheaval. Rather than getting a greater share of the wealth the clamoring populace will get the usual divide and conquer tactics along with the billy club. There's no longer any need to showcase how wonderful we treat our people since the lure of communism has collapsed. We can just go straight to the Latin-American pecking order of Conqui- mestizo-Indian.

Anonymous said...

Of course the change in immigration didn't happen at the end of the cold war, but 25 years prior to it. The low ebb of immigration was from 1924 to 1965, with the Cold War ending in 1989-91. Technology may also drive increases in inequality which when combined with a flood of immigration leads to massive increases in inequality. The increase in inequality in the 19th century may have stemmed from the explosive growth of oil, chemicals, cars, planes, electrical and communication technology. This second wave in inequality in the US, is driven by high tech and to a lesser extent biotech, plus the software and knowledge necessary to make it go. Of course the new billionaires are far less WASP centric and more Jewish than ever before as well. This of course can be tied to the elite universities ending affirmative action against Jews. Although Gates and Buffett are WASPs, Ballmer is half Swiss, half Jewish, and Ellison, Page, Brin, Bloomberg, and Zuckerberg are all Jewish as is Microsoft's fourth billionaire, Charles Simonyi and Intel's transformer Andrew Grove. The new Jewish elite of course was not only in favor of opening the Ivy League to competition, but ending immigration restrictions. Simonyi and Grove escaped communist Hungary, and Ellison and Brin were the kids of Jews who escaped persecution in the Soviet Union.

Simon in London said...

Randian individualism is a very minor thread in the weave of what brought us here today. What this makes me ponder is whether there is an alternative explanation to the incredible victory of cultural Marxism/Political Correctness, which was unheard of in the UK in 1987 and by 2007 was totally dominant. Could its vicious war on the indigenous working class be seen as part of this 'revolt of the elites' after 1989, just as with Globalism?

Anonymous said...

"See, White poverty is actually lower in major metro areas in Texas than New York City and other big cities. Contrary what liberals say Texas and the South have sometimes lower white poverty rates and this explains the more conservative/Libertarian thinking among whites."

I don't know about that. Maybe it is true in Texas, but I would not lump the rest of the South in. Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida all have very high white poverty rates.

jody said...

"At around the same time, federal income tax came in"

the federal income tax was created 100 years ago this year, in 1913. before that there was no regular taxation of americans' income.

yet the nation continued to grow economically, build cities, expand farms, participate in the industrial revolution, and create and invent stuff. the railroad, coal, oil, electrical, steel, plumbing, and rebar concrete infrastructure of the united states were all built or underway prior to the establishment of a national income tax. people went to public schools, and over 100 universities already existed. the US had already raised an army and navy and won actual wars by this time.

all of which obama and his modern liberal peers seem to think would be impossible without things like a federal income tax feeding a huge, hungry, and growing national government.

zerohedge posted a fascinating article on the subject:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-03/happy-100th-birthday-us-federal-income-tax

discussing the history of income tax and showing the original paperwork of the 16th amendment.

Kibernetika said...

Not to broaden the scope here too much, but it's cool to catch the connections between Peter Turchin's Cliodynamics (Clio with a calculator!)and the Soviet Cybernetics so important to his father's generation.

Francis Spufford's recent historical novel Red Plenty is a must read. There's a fantastic interview with Spufford at the New Book Network (under history, but check out their Russian and Eurasian Studies section, too, for great stuff).

Francis Spufford > Francis Fukuyama

The danger with these disciplines is that they may uncover truths unpalatable to our benevolent betters, things contra the prescribed establishment narratives. Thomas Friedman is concerned, damn it ;)

Even now the latitudinal fuerchen in his brow deepen, the lines around his wise eyes crinkle.

Nick Diaz said...

@Steve Sailer

"Uh, uh, obviously an uneducated ignoramus nativist!"

Not difficult getting into Harvard in those days when your surnames were "Cabot" and "Lodge". How many of those old families attend Harvard today? The last time I was at Harvard I saw a lot of Asian and Asian Indian faces, and I am assuming there aren't many Asiatic branches of the Cabot and Lodge families. The few White people I saw at Harvard were usually eastern European with very few White Americans

As for the topic of the article, you cannot compare the inequality of the 19th century to that of today. 19th century inequality was the result of the most vicious capitalist exploitation. The new immigrants were treated like identured servants by WASP "captains of industry", who retained all political power. The immigrants were forced to work for subsistence wages, while the Rokefellers and such became more and more affluent. The American plutocracy at that time was essentially a feudal aristocracy, and treated people lower than them on the socio-economic scale as their dogs. Current day inequality, conversely, is caused mostly by discrepancy of ability. The labor market is free, and the influence of money on the system keeping the Common Man down is very small. The reason why there is such an increased inequality in the U.S is because the markets are free and now there is none of the semi-socialistic mechanisms there was before to artifically decrease the inequality gap.

As for globalization, yes, that is the other reason of the increased inequality. Americans don't understand that the "sweet life" they had in the post WWII era was mostly due to a series of rare circumstances. The only two economic competitors that the U.S had back then, western Europe and Japan, laid in ruins and there was the threat of communism. Hence, the U.S could monopolize World economics and the U.S government could dictate economic policies, and because American corporations had no where else to go, they had to comply with the American labor Market. Such is not the case today. The American worker was SPOILED and now he is waking up to brutal reality. Now there are 180 fgree-market countries in the World and, even though only a minority compete with the U.S in science and such, most do compete with the U.S i9 low-skilled labor. Supply and demand. You cannot pay the American worker 10 X more than a foreign one if he doesen't produce 10 times more. Simple as that. This is economics 101, and Steve Saielr does not like it because the science of economics is not intrinsically nationalistic.

And globalization cannot be stopped. It is one of those processes that transcends any country, including the U.S.A. Globalization is mostly the result in advancements in communication technology that allows trade of ideas on a global scale. Just like the invention of agriculture at the start of the Neolithic Era allowed the formation of cities.

What is happening is that Humanity is proceedingt towards becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale, and the only way it will not happen is destruction of a global level. There is no turning back the clock. Steve Sailer does not consider for a second that the very concept of nation-state might not be eternal, but just a stage in the evolution of Mankind.

Steve Sailer said...

FredR says:

"I tend to think of Turchin as a little underinformed about the american scene (he's a fan of shadow stats, and in general is too willing to take certain ideological claims at face value), but then again, I'm the idiot who didn't know about the battle of blair mountain, so now I'm not so sure."

That's exactly my view. I often notice where Turchin isn't as expert on American history as, say, a reasonably well-informed amateur like myself is, but then his Russian-centric perspective also provides angles that I've missed, like the Battle of Blair Mountain, which I hadn't known about until yesterday.

As an American, it's easy to get lost in the weeds of the small differences between, say, in 1912 Teddy, Wilson, and Taft. But the view from Russia says that they all look like dynamic WASPs who are trying to modernize according to an Anglo-American model while trying to maintain stability and cohesion as well, just differing over details.

Steve Sailer said...

Reading Turchin's stuff, you get the impression that deep down he believes Russia is the center of the world. Yet, as we Americans all know, you can take one look at a map and see that ... oh ... well, he may have a point.

Anonymous said...

"This is well said. It's common to see people who have taken Economics 101 inform you that things don't have to be a zero-sum game, which is true. But in practice, they often are." - Status is a zero-sum game though, and that is where all this derives from. If the elites want more status they have to take it.

Anonymous said...

"And of course people forgot that when I was growing up a lot of whites live in mobile homes not 2,000 square feet houses." - We don't have those 2000 square feet houses because we just had to have the space, but because its a mechanism of price discrimination to keep poor dysfunctional minorities out of a neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

If Turchin is right, so what? If the WASP elite made a deal with the other WASPs during the 1920s to save the bacon do we think the elite will do it again in the 2020s?

There is no WASP elites anymore. Jews are the only that are allowed to have na opinion.

FredR said...

Turchin has a blog (http://socialevolutionforum.com/) which he updates regularly. It's a good resource.

He's also started a free-access journal (http://escholarship.org/uc/irows_cliodynamics) on the science of history, which has featured a lot of the big names in 'big history' (think Ian Morris or Kenneth Pomeranz) type investigations.

candid_observer said...

There is one other key way in which immigration increases inequality, which is pretty well exhibited by the contrast between European countries, which mostly enjoy relatively low inequality, and the US.

It has been well established by Robert Putnam that in diversity there is loss of sense of community. If there is little sense of working for the common good, and the pervasive attitude is instead one of every man for himself, there will be no check on the elite's deciding -- because they are by position the deciders of such things -- that they should be wildly rewarded for their efforts, damn the disunified workers.

In most European countries the larger uniformity of society makes it much harder for the elites to set themselves up against the common man (a now quaint notion in the US, though the stuff of multitudes of movies during The Great Compression.)

Anonymous said...



As for globalization, yes, that is the other reason of the increased inequality. Americans don't understand that the "sweet life" they had in the post WWII era was mostly due to a series of rare circumstances. The only two economic competitors that the U.S had back then, western Europe and Japan, laid in ruins and there was the threat of communism. Hence, the U.S could monopolize World economics and the U.S government could dictate economic policies, and because American corporations had no where else to go, they had to comply with the American labor Market. Such is not the case today. The American worker was SPOILED and now he is waking up to brutal reality. Now there are 180 fgree-market countries in the World and, even though only a minority compete with the U.S in science and such, most do compete with the U.S i9 low-skilled labor. Supply and demand. You cannot pay the American worker 10 X more than a foreign one if he doesen't produce 10 times more. Simple as that. This is economics 101, and Steve Saielr does not like it because the science of economics is not intrinsically nationalistic.


Pure horseshit. A unskilled laborer in Mexico makes much less than an unskilled laborer in the United States, because Mexico is made up of mestizos with a mostly-white ruling class beholden to the mestizos. The United States is still run by whites and Jews. These are, therefore, two different nations, and in the one nation labor has less value because the nation cannot provide the infrastructure and social structure to benefit from that labor the most. No wealthy Mexican is going to build a factory in Mexico to make goods for export out of his pocket, as Econ 101 would theorize he should, because Mexican workers are much less productive and because if he were successful his plant would be nationalized.

The guitar is Mexico's national musical instrument, if one actually existed, yet Mexican guitars are all garbage. For a hundred and fifty years the rich girls who play classical or parlor guitar in Mexico bought or received as gifts Spanish guitars, or Martins made in Pennsylvania. When classical guitar became a "concert instrument" after Segovia, Spanish or German guitars were what all the serious guitarists used. When jazz and then rock guitar became popular in parts of Mexico, they had Gibson or Fender guitars. Only when Fender and Taylor built guitar plants in Mexico with CNC machines programmed in the US were functional guitars ever made in Mexico.

Mexico makes good beer because German and East European beer brewers migrated there. All the top brewmeisters in those plants are European. All the equipment is made in Europe or America.

The same scenario is played out all over the world. All nonwhites want to live in white countries because their labor is much more valuable there. But as nonwhites come in, the country becomes nonwhite and falls apart.

Anonymous said...

Florida doesn't have a high poverty rate its in the middle. The other two states I think white poverty is around 10 to 13 percent, New York City is over 10 percent and La is 11 percent. Its bad poverty that makes Tn or Al high not so much white poverty. Its Ky and Wv that have the high white poverty.

Anonymous said...

But as nonwhites come in, the country becomes nonwhite and falls apart.

I wouldn't mind if the masses of nonwhites coming in to this country were all Japanese or Korean.

Anonymous said...

Well, this proves the old sunbelt theory where whites left the north and went south to cheaper housing and lower taxes since white poverty in most of the south except Kentucky or West Virginia on the whole is not really high.

JSM said...


"What is happening is that Humanity is proceedingt towards becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale"



No, dude. "Humanity" is not proceeding towards a Type I civ.

*White people* -- for a brief span of time -- were proceeding towards a Type I civ.

White people were, and are, the only known creatures in the universe to have EVER escaped the gravity well of its home planet. Once upon a time, White guys walked on the moon.

But that's all changed. With the advent of the "strengths" of "diversity" (i.e., anti-White policies) America now can't even get it up anymore to the space station. We have to thumb a ride with the (White) Russians.

(And White Russians are most emphatically notnotNOT diversity a/k/a "humanity" lovers.)

"and the only way it will not happen is destruction of a global level."
That destruction, of White people, (on a global level) is proceeding apace.

IF, big IF, the (White) Russians are someday successful in creating a Type 1 civ, they most assuredly won't be taking the rest of "humanity" (like, say, the Nick Diazes of the world, for instance) along with them.

Dahlia said...

Steve,
I found his article riveting, but there was something notably absent.

My question for Turchin is how much do the populists who agitate against the elite and bring about more economic equality actually represent the common man?
What was missing is that since the French Revolution, nearly all Leftist movement have sided AGAINST the common man when it comes to religion, virtues, and morality: France, Russia, Mexico, Spain, China, etc.

If these people are "the people", why would they do this to themselves? The economic Right in America gained so much credibility and trust with the common man in America because of the Left's hatred of Christianity of which history was replete with examples to point.

The purest expression of who the common man is, in political form, to my mind, was the Mexican Cristero.

The answer, I think, can be hinted at from Peter Turchin's article: just as there are huge differences among the elite, there are huge differences among the non-elite.
I do believe that the common man has no real representation and hasn't since at least the French Revolution. His supposed leaders, as defined by Turchin as non-elites who bring agitate for more economic equality, are highly likely to persecute him for following Christianity, subvert his authority over his children, mock him, and may even kill him when they themselves gain power.

jody said...

"and Ellison, Page, Brin, Bloomberg, and Zuckerberg are all Jewish"

larry ellison's dad was italian. i did not realize that until i saw it on wikipedia a few years ago. it's not clear what his birth name is, maybe spellman, after his mom, but ellison is an adopted name.

what's kind of funny is that it's SAP, ze germans, who are battling ellison's oracle, for database supremacy. it's world war 2 all over again in the enterprise software industry.

Nick Diaz said...

Anonymous 5:01 PM

"Pure horseshit. A unskilled laborer in Mexico makes much less than an unskilled laborer in the United States, because Mexico is made up of mestizos with a mostly-white ruling class beholden to the mestizos. The United States is still run by whites and Jews. These are, therefore, two different nations, and in the one nation labor has less value because the nation cannot provide the infrastructure and social structure to benefit from that labor the most. No wealthy Mexican is going to build a factory in Mexico to make goods for export out of his pocket, as Econ 101 would theorize he should, because Mexican workers are much less productive and because if he were successful his plant would be nationalized."

This paragraph is so convoluted that I cannot make sense of your "point".

Saying that Mexico does not have the social and infra-structure to benefit from it's labor is easily disproven since lots of corporations that previously manufactured in the U.S moved their factories to Mexico. If they couldn't benefit from Mexico's labor, they wouldn't have moved there. Case closed.

The reason why Mexican laborers get paid less is a combination of two factors: first, they are less productive, and secondly, they are less spoiled.

The reason why so many companies have moved there is because, even though Mexican workers are less productive per hour worked, they demand a LOT less pay for their labor. Say, if American workers have twice the productivity of Mexican workers but charge 10 times more for their labor, the cost-benefit of having a factory in Mexico is far superior to the one of having a factory in the U.S. Productivity is not the only fator that matters. The other big fator is cost, and the ost in the U.S is MUCH higher than in Mexico due to much higher labor costs. Again, you are easily disproven by the fact that tons of factories ARE open in Mexico, but almost none in the U.S.

"Mexico makes good beer because German and East European beer brewers migrated there. All the top brewmeisters in those plants are European. All the equipment is made in Europe or America.

The same scenario is played out all over the world. All nonwhites want to live in white countries because their labor is much more valuable there. But as nonwhites come in, the country becomes nonwhite and falls apart."

Ah, the good ol' racist theories. China has not have any problems growing it's GDP at 10.5% for the past 30 years from having a population almost 100% non-White.

Conversely, if you created a nation that is 100% White made of whites from the Appalachians, it would be a Third World country.

Also, 700 years ago Europeans were poor and uneducated compared to both Arabs and the Chinese. Who do you thik invented Álgebra? The fortune of nations and ethnic groups change. White people are not a "special" race with a series of unique characteristics that only they have.

jody said...

"What is happening is that Humanity is proceedingt towards becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale, and the only way it will not happen is destruction of a global level"

if the europeans are pretty much functionally gone by 2100 or so, i don't see this happening for sure. at that point you're relying on the han to make astounding technical breakthroughs, which they've never shown much ability to do. it might still be possible, but without lots of european geniuses around, the odds go way down. in 2100 i don't see the han "going for kardashev!". in 2100 i see the han battling the muslims for control of earth. the US navy, which currently prevents that, will not be around, nor will any large european controlled navy. once the US navy is unable to credibly stop chinese expansion, they will probably sweep across the globe.

2100 could, in fact, auger the beginning of the tang dynasty, or chu dynasty, or whatever appropriate chinese name is assigned to the start of a long, relatively unchanging period where the globe is mostly stagnant after the oil age ends, and the industrial/computer age has reached stasis as the flood of ideas coming from european minds over the previous 500 years comes to a close, with improvements in technology, medicine, and engineering slowing down to a trickle.

again, note your assumption that technological progress is inevitable. in reality, it is based mostly on what smart white guys come up with, and depends on them coming up with more new stuff every couple decades. otherwise, the economists' ideas about perpetual growth come to an end, and the proposal that kardashev achievement is inevitable, becomes shaky. we would be in deep trouble right now if a couple smart white guys employed by exxon, working in isolation on their own free time back in the 1980s, hadn't spent 10 years developing the horizontal fracturing which energy companies are using today to unlock previously untouchable oil and gas.

things will be slowing down anyway as the oil age ends and all those trillions of units of free work, free labor, locked up in the hydrocarbons, are used up. we already see this in the US. the population keeps going up, but americans drive less total miles. americans can't send astronauts into space anymore. the post office will not deliver mail on saturday anymore. under a combination of liberals like obama, and expensive energy, america does less.

there won't be any oil by 2100. if humans don't take the next step up the energy ladder and make the transition to nuclear, the future is not so bright and becomes far more uncertain. take a look at the current nuclear fusion projects. almost none of them are in china. it's the usual suspects here, as always.

Five Daarstens said...

One underrated reason for the rise in inequality since about 1973 was the fall of the Bretton Woods accord in late 1971. This was caused by the US spending money like crazy in the 1960's on things link Vietnam, the space race, and Great Society programs.

Luke Lea said...

Interesting. The following two sentences could be improved however:

"Immigration is only one part of a complex story. Another reason why the labour supply in the US went up in the 19th century is, not to put too fine a point on it, sex. He fails to mention the revolution in agricultural technology -- tractors, combines, etc. -- which greatly reduced the demand for labor, forcing those who were not needed into the big cities in search of a living.

New labor saving technologies are just as important as immigration and trade in increasing the supply of labor relative to demand. The advent of modern home appliances played the same role in the 1970's and 80's as the advent of tractors and combines in a previous era. And of course the revolution in new labor saving technologies continues apace, this time in the forms of computer automation and new and more efficient forms of telecommunication.

There is only one logical way to offset the reduction in the demand for labor relative to its supply caused by changing technology: decrease the length of the standard work week. Only by that measure can real hourly wages be maintained at a level capable of sustaining a middle-class life-style, what we used to call a Western standard of living. The alternative is a vast new servant class similar in style to the one that serviced the upper classes in 18th and 19th century England. It is my impression that we are headed that way.

Anonymous said...

"Steve Sailer does not consider for a second that the very concept of nation-state might not be eternal, but just a stage in the evolution of Mankind."

Forward, Comrades!

Some people never get the word.

Anonymous said...

Conversely, if you created a nation that is 100% White made of whites from the Appalachians, it would be a Third World country.

You do realize Pittsburgh is in Appalachia? I am not saying that Appalachia would be a world beater, but I highly doubt it would be third world.

Cail Corishev said...

What was missing is that since the French Revolution, nearly all Leftist movement have sided AGAINST the common man when it comes to religion, virtues, and morality: France, Russia, Mexico, Spain, China, etc.

If these people are "the people", why would they do this to themselves?


Exactly. How does a 99% Catholic country like 1800s Mexico have a "revolution of the people" that puts into power an explicitly anti-Catholic communist regime that kicks many priests out of the country and outlaws public expressions of faith?

There's just no way that came from the common people. It had to be worked up by some portion of the elites, or come from outside.

Nick Diaz said...

@Anonymous 9:30 PM

"Forward, Comrades!

Some people never get the word"

This has nothing to do with communism. Understand that I am talking about extremely long spans of time. I mean, you are aware that Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years, right?

Did nation-states exist 10,000 years ago? No. The first nation-states appeared at the beggining of the Neolithic Era some 8,000 years ago. The very first one was Babylon. The first nation-states appeared when tribes settled a definitive territory and organized themselves to defend that territory. There was no such thing before 6,000 B.C.

Globalization is the next stage in that evolution. If you went to 10th century England, the Saxons and the Angles and the Normands would never interbreed as they7 saw themselves as different peoples. Eventually, they did interbreed to form the Engloish people. You might object saying:"Oh, they were all whites!". But the fact is that in the 10th century there was no such distinction, and the Angles and Normands saw themselves as different "races" just like whites and blacks see themselves as different races today. All peoples in the World will eventually mesh into one "race", even if it takes many centuries yet. Even if they don't, genetic engineering will transform humans so much in the next centuries that the minor distinctions between "races" will become meaningless.

From Hunter-gatherer tribes to nations, then to huge trade federations and eventually to one global society. The process is already happening. Wake up. It has nothing to do with communism; in fact, it is being promoted by the enormous growth of the free markets. Marx got the process right: his mistake was only how and why the process would happen.

Nick Diaz said...

@Anonymous 1:03 am

"You do realize Pittsburgh is in Appalachia? I am not saying that Appalachia would be a world beater, but I highly doubt it would be third world."

Don't play with semantics. You know exactly what I meant. There are many communities in the Appalachians that are composed of almost 100% White people who, if you formed a nation with them, would be a Third World nation.

Anonymous said...

Well, the highest white poverty I seen was around 21 percent, still lower than lower than Hispanic and Black poverty. Mexicans are attractive to the US since their poverty rate is cut in half of what it is in Mexico. Chula Vista in San Diego had the lowest Hispanic poverty around 14 to 15 percent and so did Riverside around 14 percent. Wages in Mexico are similar to the US in the 1970's so by world standards Mexicans don't make that bad but not as good as the Us but Mexicans were for years attractive to expensive housing places like La where they have to have several people to afford the place. I'm not certain if LA is really that much better for them than Mexico.

Anonymous said...

One of the above commentators claims American workers are "spoiled". If they are, so what? We're entitled to spoil our own extended family members. Who is he to tell us white workers shouldn't be paid more than Mexicans pay theirs in their own country? We can do so if we want, it's our country. Most everything south of the border is unhygienic and of low standard with open sewers all over, not something to emulate.

Peter Frost said...

"The American worker was SPOILED and now he is waking up to brutal reality"

Nick,

Median household income has stagnated in the U.S. since the mid-1970s, so the word "spoiled" seems a bit inappropriate. It might be more applicable to the top 10%, who have seen a sharp rise in their incomes and who feel entitled to low-paid nannies, gardeners, home builders, etc. In the mid-1970s, one had to pay first-world wages for that kind of work force.

Another question: if globalization is inevitable and can't be helped, why is so much effort being made to promote it?

Anonymous said...

Henry Adams was a raging anti-Semite. It was popular at the turn of the century to extol the democratic virtues of the Germanic peoples. Walker, the president of MIT, wrote a "well reasoned" anti-immigration piece in The Atlantic, about how Jews and Italians were "broken men from broken races" and completely unsuited for democracy unlike the wonderful Germanic immigrants of earlier decades whose ancestors had met under the council oaks of Germany. Only a couple of decades later, the Germans showed their wonderful capacity for democracy by electing Hitler. In retrospect, those 41 volumes are filled with racist crap and pseudoscience. If the doors had not been slammed closed, millions could have been save from Hitler. And isn't it a paradox that mass unemployment of the Depression occurred AFTER immigration was closed off, not before.

Now the Mexicans are not the raw material that the Jews were (but a lot of the Asians are giving the Jews a run for their money), and the current situation where all discussion is verboten is not healthy, but the bottom line is that early 20th century anti-immigration folks were narrow minded racists and wrong by any standard.

David said...

Now you're talking, Steve.

Seneca said...

Roman history is instructive on this issue.

Two points.

First, one of the early civil wars in Rome (there were a number during differnt periods) was between the small independant farmers who comprised much of the early Roman army against wealthy land owning aristocrats who wanted to bring in large numbers of slaves to till their lands. The small farmers objected that bringing masses of slaves would change the culture and undermine the value of their own labor. The small farmers lost the war (just like the White middle class is losing or has lost the same type of battle today in the U.S.A.).

Second, the Third Servile War in Rome (the third major slave uprising which involved Spartcaus) was followed by reforms in the treatment of slaves by Romans. The success of Spartacus so scared elite wealthy Romans that efforts were made to ameliorate some of the harsher aspects of Roman slavery including giving them the possiblitly of freedom in some instances and some modest protections against abusive masters.

No question the revolt was brutally put down... but interestingly after Spartacus and the reforms there were no major slave uprising in Rome.

Some Roman historians believe the reforms spurred by the Spartacus uprising were the cause of greater slave pacification (I am sure being a Roman slave was terrible but at least the reforms apparently made the slaves less inclined to revolt).

What is the old expression..."political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

Apparently nothing changes until people who are in the postion to make change happen (the wealthy elite) are really ...really .... worried.

No question the increasing police state and hysteria about gun control are signs of concern by the U.S. elite.

IMO we are still a ways away from the meaningful reforms needed and outlined by some of the other commentors on this thread.

David said...

>the influence of money on the system keeping the Common Man down is very small<

Winner, Whiskey Award, February 2013. I will be giving these out every month.

>The years in which income inequality first increased, 1973 to 1980 were not, to say the least, years of pro-inequality policies.<

A poster mentions the end of Bretton Woods. Something to look into, Henry. That was the biggest one of all. It led to most of the instabilities you mention. And it was a major victory for the new robber barons.

Noah172 said...

Only a couple of decades later, the Germans showed their wonderful capacity for democracy by electing Hitler

Actually, the Germans elected Hindenburg. The NSDAP suffered defeat after defeat until they won a plurality -- not majority -- in the parliament in 1932. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in a failed, but not unreasonable at the time, attempt to co-opt the Nazis' anti-Communism (Germans were far more scared, and understandably so, of a Communist revolution than a fascist one) while moderating their darker impulses.

To reiterate: neither Hitler personally nor the NSDAP as a party ever won a majority of votes in a free and fair election.

If the doors had not been slammed closed, millions could have been save from Hitler. And isn't it a paradox that mass unemployment of the Depression occurred AFTER immigration was closed off, not before.

Yawn. Ellis Island nostalgia substituting for clear thinking.

There have lots of genocides and wars and natural disasters and so forth just in the last hundred-odd years. Must the US take in all their refugees? If not, how do we draw the line?

The worst genocide in the world during the 1930s was not Nazi persecution of Jews -- the Final Solution was in the 40s, during the war, although Jews in Germany certainly faced nasty treatment before then -- but the Holodomor in the Ukraine (3-8 million Ukrainians starved to death in less than a year[!] after Stalin ordered their food to be confiscated, a scheme carried out under the direction of his Jewish brother-in-law and close henchman, Lazar Kaganovich). Then again, one never ever hears open-borders advocates, especially those who break out the violins re: Jews and the Holocaust, mention the idea of America taking in Ukrainian Holodomor refugees.

As for the Depression, did you know that the economy of the 1930s was the second, not the first, event in American history to be known as "the Great Depression"? The first Great Depression was in the 1890s, a period of high immigration (the Ellis Island era, as a matter of fact). More recently, the US has suffered several severe recessions since the opening of the immigration floodgates in 1965, a period (that is, 1965 to the present) of very high and unprecendentedly persistent immigration -- our own current doldrums are of course included.

Holdon said...

This one was a bit long, but a pretty good one, nonetheless.

But it requires doing the opposite of what nearly every major politician these days is pushing for. Which suggests we are in for some very interesting times in the near future...

Anonymous said...

One reason why socialism has never taken root in the USA, and only a bare mininmum welfare state exists, plus the fact that America continues to reject a national health system (being *the* consistent outlier amongst developed nations), is the fact of the large black and latino minority, and the reluctance of whites to 'subsidise' different ethnies in real or imagined socialist policies. Hence the Tea Party.
A cruel irony is that poor whites are cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. By supporting the Tea Party and other Randian Republican tendencies all they are doing is making themselves miserabler and poorer whilst fattening the pockets of the 1%.
Yet another reason why diversity is evil and must be avoided at all costs.

Anonymous said...

Grover Norquist Attempting to Smear Anti-Amnesty Groups as Leftist Eugenicists on frontpage mag, Daivd Horowitx rag, a lot of folks would not agree with him on isreali but one of his task Daniel G wrote this article. So, yes a lot of conservatives are opening their eyes late.

Mr. Anon said...

"Seneca said...

No question the revolt was brutally put down... but interestingly after Spartacus and the reforms there were no major slave uprising in Rome."

The Romans lined the roads of Italy with crucified slaves - thousands upon thousands of them. I'd wager that the folk tales of that persisted for at least a century thereafter, if not more. There might have been a little carrot for the slaves - but there was an even bigger stick.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

Don't play with semantics. You know exactly what I meant. There are many communities in the Appalachians that are composed of almost 100% White people who, if you formed a nation with them, would be a Third World nation."

He's not playing with semantics, you tendentious douchebag, he's pointing out a fact. There are plenty of quite respectable cities in the mountatin south: Knoxville, Nashville, Chatanooga, etc. Hardly third-world. The assertion you made - like all your assertions - is bullshit.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

The last time I was at Harvard I..."

Riding a lawnmower?

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

Ah, the good ol' racist theories. China has not have any problems growing it's GDP at 10.5% for the past 30 years from having a population almost 100% non-White."

Nobody here claims that the Chinese are not as smart or smarter than whites - only that your mexican countrymen are - on average - deficient in that regard.

Anonymous said...

"The labor market is free, and the influence of money on the system keeping the Common Man down is very small."

Almost comically dishonest.

The influence of money in offshoring and immigration is all powerful and has allowed a treachorous ruling class to wage relentless economic warfare on their nominal fellow citizens.

Supply and demand where the supply is being set solely for the benefit of a treachorous ruling class.

.
"but the bottom line is that early 20th century anti-immigration folks were narrow minded racists and wrong by any standard."

The future of the new balkanized America will show if they were right or not (even if their reasons were instinct aka racism, dressed up as science).

.
"If the doors had not been slammed closed, millions could have been save from Hitler."

It's probably true that if the people who were behind the various Bolshevik movements - basically the sort of people who believed they should be the ruling class but were blocked by european landed aristocracies - had had the option of moving to the states they probably wouldn't have ended up murdering 30 million people in the Soviet Union and Hitler and the other violent anti-communist movements in Europe who sprang up as a result of the Bolsheviks murdering 30 million people might never have happened along with all that ensued from it.

.
"And isn't it a paradox that mass unemployment of the Depression occurred AFTER immigration was closed off, not before."

Not in the slightest, seeing as it was the result of banksters creating and bursting a credit bubble which they do on a regular basis causing great misery and distress.

You may have noticed they just did the exact same thing in 2008 - at a time of extremely high immigration.

Although now you mention it if the banksters were running some new immigrant ponzi schemes - over housing maybe? - then the sudden stop in new entrants might have been the pin that burst the bubble.

Interesting thought.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

This is economics 101, and Steve Saielr does not like it because the science of economics is not intrinsically nationalistic."

The "science of economics" is not a science. If you think that economics is a science, then you know nothing about science. And you probably know little about economics too.

Based on the body of your posts, you are just a yammering nitwit, who knows little about anything.

Anonymous said...

"All peoples in the World will eventually mesh into one "race", even if it takes many centuries yet.

Man, you really need to learn about places like Northern Ireland. Or old places that have been trying this many centuries, like Iraq or Syria. The smaller the differences, the more they become worth fighting over apparently.

I think you've gone full religious-nut on this one. Sure, in the long run we are all dead, the sun burns out, and the universe collapses, but that doesn't mean we know the inevitable future.

"...the Saxons and the Angles and the Normands would never interbreed as they7 saw themselves as different peoples.

This is just factually wrong. The reason the Norman William had a reason to invade England was he had a kinship claim on the throne. Think competition among elites, not racial politics.

You're believing in a fantasy. A popular fantasy, but fantasy nonetheless. I'm also interested in what your fantasy expects to do to people like me who don't buy it. If we all die off in a generation, well, that's probably great for you, fits into your dream. But if we don't, we're just that natural state that keep rising every generation, what are you going to do? Religious people can really get carried away, drink the cool-aid and all that. Jonestown wasn't pretty, and they were all literally "one-racer" religious folks. Think about it.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

Henry Adams was a raging anti-Semite."

Is this according to the usual definition of "anti-semite"? i.e., someone who says something - anything - that is remotely critical of jews?

"It was popular at the turn of the century to extol the democratic virtues of the Germanic peoples. Walker, the president of MIT, wrote a "well reasoned" anti-immigration piece in The Atlantic, about how Jews and Italians were "broken men from broken races" and completely unsuited for democracy unlike the wonderful Germanic immigrants of earlier decades whose ancestors had met under the council oaks of Germany. Only a couple of decades later, the Germans showed their wonderful capacity for democracy by electing Hitler."

1.) The german people never elected Hitler, but you seem generally ignorant of history so it's not surprising that you didn't know that. 2.) Perhaps if those 48ers and other Germans had stayed in Germany, rather than coming to America, it's history would have been quite different. The Germans do have a greater sense of participatory government than most peoples. And by the way, the English are also largely a germanic people.

"In retrospect, those 41 volumes are filled with racist crap and pseudoscience."

Translation: They are filled with things you don't like.

"If the doors had not been slammed closed, millions could have been save from Hitler."

So I take it that your house is filled with Sudanese refugees? I don't see that America was obligated to take anybody in.

"And isn't it a paradox that mass unemployment of the Depression occurred AFTER immigration was closed off, not before."

No, because the depression happened AFTER immigration was closed off. The postwar boom likewise happened AFTER immigration was closed off.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon,

Accusations of anti-Semitism may be thrown around too casually, but in Henry Adams we may have someone who genuinely fits the bill. Per wiki, his acquaintance John Hay (not Jewish) wrote of him that when he "saw Vesuvius reddening... [he] searched for a Jew stoking the fire." He also left evidence of his hatred for Jews in his letters. A simple web search could have revealed this to you.

jody said...

i have 3 ideas about why wages stopped going up in 1971. they've been touched on.

1) hart-celler act, 1965. immigrants flood in, the price of labor goes down.

2) executive order 11615, 1971. the gold standard ends, real fiat inflation begins.

3) by that time, germany and japan, which had had their infrastructure totally destroyed by 1945, had finally rebuilt enough of it, and were turning out stuff in their factories, ending america's post world war 2 free ride window as the planet's sole industrial supplier.

number 3 is probably not talked about enough. when you destroy all your competitors, you're the only game in town. a lot of america's golden age of the 1950s was due to this, and not due to any policy the US was operating under during the time.

jody said...

if you took the europeans out of appalachia and forced them to make their own nation, it would not be a third world country. it would probably be something like ireland, the czech republic, or poland. it would be better than any nation in latin america, africa, and most of asia.

heck, you might even have a fledgling australia on your hands. they would mine, they would farm, they would build. hicks and rednecks are natural builders and tinkerers.

they would build their own car factories and start their own racing leagues. rednecks LOVE trucks, motorcycles, and boats. they love HVAC, building their own houses, adding extensions. they love getting out there on the tractor and harvesting. they'd start their own state universities for agricultural studies. they'd have national sports leagues in every sport.

liberal political policy would be reset to near zero, leading to growth. all the "vibrant" people would be gone, along with the boat anchor effect they have on growth.

what are we talking about here? a nation of people with a mean IQ of 95, operated in the same fashion as texas, populated by observant christians who marry, stay married, and have lots of kids? i think they would do fine. world beaters? heck no. self sustaining and steadily growing? definitely.

Jim said...

"There are many communities in the Appalachians that are composed of almost 100% White people who, if you formed a nation with them, would be a Third World nation."


Maybe a half century ago. This was an agarian community and outside of logging and coal, there were little other opportunities. Companies haven't wanted to develop in the mountains, because of costs of shipping, etc. Times have changed there, as increasing opportunities have come with investment. The gaps with other white groups have been dramatically increasing over the last half century. Contrast this with your Hispanic brethren- they have good opportunity when they come here, but by the time you get a couple of generations out, they are still underpeforming their parents and grandparents. In short, your 'point' disproves your idea: give an average white opportunity, and they improve their lot dramatically, in education, productivity, etc.; give an average Hispanic opportunity, and they fail dramatically to keep up with the aforementioned white.

Metropark said...

It will be interesting to see how all of this pans out. Nearly a century ago, the US formulated a wise compromise to maintain productivity, and benefit all parties, while preventing violence and cultural shifts. Under the current demographic trends, will the current populations involved all have the wisdom to delay gratification, act with their heads instead of their impulses, and will the elites reach a mutual agreement or care to, with populations who are dramatically different from themselves?

Anonymous said...

what are we talking about here? a nation of people with a mean IQ of 95, operated in the same fashion as texas, populated by observant christians who marry, stay married, and have lots of kids? i think they would do fine. world beaters? heck no. self sustaining and steadily growing? definitely. The problem with that comment is that Texas whites have more college than California whites. It seems you have a prejudice on religous folks here. Steve Sailer has stats showing that Texas whites did better than California whites back even in 1970. Texas whites like California whites got themselves in trouble because of cheap labor with Mexicans.

Steve Sailer said...

My hunch is that the oil industry since 1901 has attracted a lot of above average whites to Texas, so that the median white IQ in Texas is likely a point or two higher than in California. California is probably ahead at the 99.9th percentile.

West Virginia is clearly suffering an on-going brain drain. Tennessee, hard to say.

I like to point out than in a midwestern Scots-Irish mountainous outpost, the Ozarks, Sam Walton built the world's biggest company employing mostly local talent in management. So, the Ozarks had a fair amount of talent that wasn't being economically exploited fully until the last generation.

Anonymous said...

If these people are "the people", why would they do this to themselves? The economic Right in America gained so much credibility and trust with the common man in America because of the Left's hatred of Christianity of which history was replete with examples to point. Actually, a lot of your Tea party Religous Right people are not common blue collar workers as people here think. Spencer is having meeting against Islam in Mission Viejo ca where most folks are retired engineers, own small business, or sell real estate, maybe a few do blue collar jobs. The birther lady was from an affluence area of Orange County in Laguna Niguel. Granted, in Rand Paul's district probably Tea Party peoplefit the sterotype.

Whiskey said...

A couple of objections here. First, does the original article trace the decline, fall, and rise of new elites? The people who say, ran England after Bosworth Field, were very very different during the Lord Protector's reign, and different still during the Stuarts, the Hanoverians, the Victorians, and the 1920s.

In my view this is due mostly to technological change. All societies need "more." More energy, more power, more resources, and more ability to deter or conquer dangerous neighbors. European societies have historically been more flexible, bending but not breaking when new technology say gunpowder makes the landed knight obsolete, and the whole part of society that depended on that.

The big change, as noted by a recent FT editorial about Spain, is the total corruption of elites in constructing a monopoly that prevents new elites and preserves old ones, in government, politics, media, culture, business, and everything else. This means no technological innovation because such would threaten old elites and create new ones. Which existing elites cannot have.

If elites regularly turn over, they don't form the current situation of alliance with foreigners to destroy threats to their elite rule.

As for Leftism, all that amounts is a "scientific" aristocracy, see the families that ruled under Lenin, Stalin, etc. Not too different from the cousin wars of Richard III, save "Red" symbolism and grandiosity.

Anonymous said...

Immigrants back in 1920 were the more backstabber types.

1. Socialists
2. Italian anarchists
3. Large politically powerful blocs of Irish/Germans that meddled with US foreign policy to the detriment of the national interesat

Anonymous said...

"This has nothing to do with communism. Understand that I am talking about extremely long spans of time. I mean, you are aware that Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for 200,000 years, right?"

In a quarter million years, isn't it more likely that humans will evolve to have many more races, perhaps even entirely different species again, rather than races vanishing? Genetically engineered humans to live undersea, to live in Antarctica, to live in zero-g in space, to live in high-radiation environments on Mars, AI/humans hybrids, etc... Isn't your future the future of the uniform algae mat?

Anonymous said...

"but in Henry Adams we may have someone who genuinely fits the bill"

I've no doubt a lot of the people involved in the immigration restriction in the 1920s were racist and anti-semitic but as most US media pundits say diversity and unlimited mass immigration is a terrible idea for the majority population and should be prevented by any means necessary - when it's Israel - i don't see how they have the right to judge.

Anonymous said...

All peoples in the World will eventually mesh into one "race", even if it takes many centuries yet. Even if they don't, genetic engineering will transform humans so much in the next centuries that the minor distinctions between "races" will become meaningless.

The idea that we are all going to evolve into Tiger Woods is something a lot of Americans are peddling. You know the same types who peddle multiculturalism and diversity, but live in whitopias. But I think this is blown way out of proportion. Yes, there are more interracial marriages in the US today than there were in 1980, but to project what is happening in the USA to the rest of the world is not valid.

China has about 20 percent of the world's population. They are not mixing with anyone on any noticeable basis. Sub Saharan Africa is the fastest growing population. They are not mixing with anyone on any noticeable basis.

So maybe those pushing this notion are not really pushing the notion that we are all going to become Tiger Woods. Maybe they are pushing the notion that whites will disappear. Because there is no way Chinese and Sub Saharans are not going to be around as distinct groups. That would require them to open up their lands to massive immigration from dissimilar places which I doubt either are eager to do.

Anonymous said...

If the doors had not been slammed closed, millions could have been save from Hitler.

There have lots of genocides and wars and natural disasters and so forth just in the last hundred-odd years. Must the US take in all their refugees? If not, how do we draw the line?

It wouldn't have helped, anyway. Open borders would have saved very few of Hitler's victims (and Stalin's, Mao's, etc.) It's the lucky few that flee man-made disasters such as these, and they usually find a safe place to live. You think Hitler or Stalin would have allowed a Jew or Kulak slowly dying of starvation to pick up and leave, even if such a person had the strength to do so?

John Lilburne said...


Peter Turchin has his own social evolution site that he posts on every 3-4 days
http://socialevolutionforum.com/

John Lilburne said...

Peter Turchin has his own site that he posts on every 2-3 days

http://socialevolutionforum.com/

Anonymous said...

Germany didn't invade Poland until 1939. If the U.S. had allowed in persecuted Jews during the 1930's, many of the Polish Jews, who were already facing hostility from ethnic Poles before the German invasion, might have been able to survive. If there weren't the impression that the immigration legislation of 1920 directly targeted their cousins in Eastern Europe, I suspect that current-day Jewish politicos might also be less pro-immigration than they are.

Matthew said...

Anonymous at 9:58PM - To what extent were Jews being persecuted in Poland in the 1930s, and to what extent was there any realization that Germany would be invading Poland, etc. and exterminating Jews?

Sure, millions of Jews died in Europe during World War II. So did tens of millions of people who weren't Jewish. Were we supposed to let all of them in in order to avoid that conflagration? Is the blood of 20 million Russians on our hands, too, because we reduced immigration in the 1920s?

Anonymous said...

Hitler made abundantly clear in his speeches throughout the 1930's that he wanted to rid Europe of Jews, and this sentiment actually spread to the ethnic Polish anti-Semites. There were anti-Jewish boycotts in Poland conducted by ethnic Poles before the Nazis invaded. Polish Jews would also have heard of the Nuremberg Laws and, later, Kristallnacht. The situation was for both German and Polish Jews was so terrible by late 1938 that anyone willing to appraise the situation realistically would have seen the handwriting on the wall. Of course, not everyone would have been willing to stare into the abyss like that. So not everyone could have been saved, but certainly some could have been saved.

The difference between the Polish Jews and the Russians lies not only in the Nazi attitudes towards the respective populations but also the attitudes of their own governments. The 1930's Polish governments were hostile to Polish Jews and wanted them to emigrate, but there were few places willing to take them. In contrast, Stalin did not permit free emigration from Russia.

Matthew said...

"The 1930's Polish governments were hostile to Polish Jews and wanted them to emigrate, but there were few places willing to take them. In contrast, Stalin did not permit free emigration from Russia."

But Belgium, France, Holland, Great Britain, Denmark, etc., etc. all allowed emigration, and yet millions of those people, Jews and non-Jews, were cut off from escaping to the United States. The USA was not responsible for those who died there because we felt our old immigration rates to be unsustainable.

I know you aren't necessarily suggesting it, but I grow tired of people suggesting that the United States is not allowed to keep a sane, rational immigration policy because someone, somewhere might possibly die because of it.

Anonymous said...

No, I am not suggesting that the U.S. can't set a sane immigration policy. I am Jewish, but I fully realize that no degree of foolish unrealistic immigration policy will bring back the dead. But I do think we might have an easier time convincing the people who matter if they didn't perceive themselves to have a (irrational) reason to take proposals for immigration restriction as a personal attack.

Peter the Shark said...

@Noah172,

You make mostly good points but this - Then again, one never ever hears open-borders advocates, especially those who break out the violins re: Jews and the Holocaust, mention the idea of America taking in Ukrainian Holodomor refugees. is a specious comparison. There was never an option for the US or anyone else to take in Ukrainian refugees since the USSR firmly denied any famine was taking place and discourage emigration. Germany actually encouraged Jews to leave in the 1930s, provided they could pay for it.

Anonymous said...

"There was never an option for the US or anyone else to take in Ukrainian refugees since the USSR firmly denied any famine was taking place and discourage emigration."

There was a demonstration in New York by Ukrainians trying to publicize the holodomor.

A mob from the New York Communist Party attacked them with iron bars and prevented them marching.

Anonymous said...

"If the U.S. had allowed in persecuted Jews during the 1930's"

Then maybe the Bolsheviks wouldn't have murdered 30 million people thereby sparking off the violent anti-communist movements around Europe.

Your version of history is always only half the story - the half where Jews were the perpetrators not the victims.

.
"many of the Polish Jews, who were already facing hostility from ethnic Poles before the German invasion"

Again, the Bolsheviks invaded Poland in 1921. Many Polish Jews joined and fought with the invaders. The current leader of the UK equivalent of the Democrat party is descended from one of them who fled Poland after the invasion failed.

No doubt there were other Jews who fought on the Polish side but got the blame for the others anyway but that's only half the story

.
"I suspect that current-day Jewish politicos might also be less pro-immigration than they are."

Kevin MacDonald has shown conclusively that Jews were always fanatically open borders from at least the 1880's onwards.

An international mercantile minority people who don't want to assimilate will always be in favor of open borders (except in places where they are in the majority) for reasons which should be perfectly obvious.

Anonymous said...

"but got the blame for the others anyway."


This is the key. As Hay says, when an anti-Semite sees Vesuvius reddening, he searches for a Jew stoking the fire. October Revolution - Jews fault. Hitler - Jews fault for starting the October Revolution. Holodomor - Jews fault - after all Stalin's brother in law was Jewish and so was his dentist. If a few Jews fought on the Soviet side in the Soviet-Polish War of 1919, then that war is the Jews fault too and all the Jews in Poland were 5th Columnists who were legitimate targets for the Polish nationalists prejudice. Anything bad that ever happened or will happen - Jews fault.

I think that 8:38 AM fits the bill here. Hays has got your number.



Anonymous said...

Most Jews living in Poland in 1921 were Orthodox religous, not radical socialists or Marxists. To a Jew-hater like you, when a few Jews do something you don't like, all should be held responsible whether they sympathize or not. But your group is composed of individuals who are responsible only for themselves. FWIW< I wasn't blaming all Poles for the anti-Jewish boycotts. Clearly, not all were involved. But the boycotts affected a large swath of the Jewish population and contributed to their misery. That would have made them eager to emigrate, and whether they would have been willing to emigrate is the issue that prompted this discussion.

In 1880, there weren't that many Jews in the United States, but I have no doubt that they were pro-immigration since they would have been interested in bringing over their own relatives. Likewise, can you show that Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans and Slavic-Americans of the period weren't eager for more immigration for the same reason? The odd part about current pro-immigration sentiment among Jews is that the people entering are not only non-relatives but even hostile to Jews.

As for "not interested in assmilating," most American Jews are assimilating. The ultra-Orthodox are a major exception. But Reform Judaism is now surprisingly open to converts, and many rabbis will perform intermarriages.

Mr. Anon said...

"Peter the Shark said...

Germany actually encouraged Jews to leave in the 1930s, provided they could pay for it."

And the Nazi government, just like the Soviet government, denied that any oppression was taking place. What government ever openly proclaims that they are oppressing people?

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

But I do think we might have an easier time convincing the people who matter if they didn't perceive themselves to have a (irrational) reason to take proposals for immigration restriction as a personal attack."

So, gentiles do not matter? And when jews push immigration and seek to change the traditional character of the nation - don't you think that perhaps we gentiles might percieve that as a personal attack? But that is of no import. Only the perceptions of "the people who matter" count.

So many jews seem to view every other group as nothing more than stage scenery in the passion play of their own peoples history, even when that play is performed in someone elses theater. And yet they express puzzlement as to why those other groups might not like that.

LEROY said...

in the 1970's we lost the convertability of dollars to gold.

Over the 1980's, 1990's, and 2000's, we went slowly from a "fractional reserve" banking system to a "no reserve" banking system. With that, asset prices spiked, and guess who owns most assets?

Hint: It isn't median wage earners.

Anonymous said...

"An international mercantile minority people who don't want to assimilate"

Oh, boy, oh, boy, do you have our number now, mister. I just looked in the mirror and I, like 99% of American Jews, have a beard and payes and my weath is in gold futures on the London exchange. Now all I need to do is find a Christian baby so I can make matzos. In the meantime, I'll do my best to spread Marxism.

Anonymous said...

A bit touchy are we, Mr. Anon? I didn't intend to convey that the only people who matter to the immigration debate are Jewish. That's actually the position of Jew-haters like you. Please forgive me for not proofreading more carefully and writing "the Jewish people who matter in the immigration debate." I happen to be a Jew who favors immigration restriction, and I clearly am not among the group of people whose opinions about immigration are considered to matter.

Anonymous said...

"Anything bad that ever happened or will happen - Jews fault."

No, just some - but some, not none.

Your version of your history - where Jews are always the innocent victims and never the perpetrators is what leads to Jewish cultural warfare on the host population as a kind of pre-emptive self-defence.

JayMan said...

This is along the lines of what I've said here, at least in terms of cycles of upheaval. It's nice to see some potential causes being pinned down.

Dark Times Ahead? | JayMan's Blog

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

A bit touchy are we, Mr. Anon? I didn't intend to convey that the only people who matter to the immigration debate are Jewish. That's actually the position of Jew-haters like you. Please forgive me for not proofreading more carefully and writing "the Jewish people who matter in the immigration debate." I happen to be a Jew who favors immigration restriction, and I clearly am not among the group of people whose opinions about immigration are considered to matter."

I can only reply to what you actually write, not to what you intendeded to write. That apart (and I don't fault you for miswriting - everyone does) there is this, which I wrote before: we perceive what is being done to us as a peronsal attack - an attack on OUR culture, OUR nation, OUR people. What of that? Do you not see how maybe that might tend to make US angry? Or do WE not matter?

I don't believe that all jews, or even most jews, have it in for western, christian civilization. But it's getting difficult to ignore that of those who are it's enemies, jews are highly over-represented, out of proportion to their numbers. We are not stupid people - we know how to evaluate what we see.

If you want to call that anti-semitism, go ahead. That term is going the way of the word "racism".

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

That's actually the position of Jew-haters like you?"

I didn't notice that before. So I'm a jew-hater? Why, exactly? Because I responded critically to something written by a jew? I suppose you think I have a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in my library, a copy of "Jud Suss" by my DVD player, and Nazi regalia in my closet? Why, that's the only kind of person who could actually question the actions of some people from your group, and who could be concerned about how those actions might effect my group. It's always just a dark night in the staedtl for some people, with the black-hundreds on the way.

I view such casual assertions by some jews as a kind of projection. Perhaps you are just gentile-haters. Do you realize how many anti-semites your ilk has created, with your obnoxiously reflexive defensiveness? (and just to clarify: by "your ilk" I mean "people like you", not jews generally).

ben tillman said...

Most Jews living in Poland in 1921 were Orthodox religous, not radical socialists or Marxists. To a Jew-hater like you, when a few Jews do something you don't like, all should be held responsible whether they sympathize or not.

You're projecting. Western law rejects collective responsibility categorically. Orthodox Jewish law, however, says that all Jews are responsible for the actions of each. As Salo Wittmayer Baron explained,

To this day orthodox Jewish ethics has remained in its essence national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.

Anonymous said...

First, that standard applies only among Orthodox Jews. The leftist atheist radicals did not accept censure from the religious who would have had no effective means of controlling them. As for attempting to apply that standard to Jews in the U.S. now, most of us, myself included, are not Orthodox. We don't accept the dictates of Orthodox rabbis. Likewise, the Orthodox don't respect non-Orthodox rabbis or secular Jewish authority. It's been a long time since what Wittmayer described was normative.

Micha Elyi said...

4. The moral collapse continued and illegitimacy continued to rise... and the addition to the workforce of less-skilled single mothers.

... Politicians probably cannot do much about 4, except perhaps be honest about it. (Chortle, chortle)

--HenryCanaday

Being honest about the moral collapse, rise of illegitimacy, and boom in single - no, let's be honest - unwed mothers is probably all politicians need do to quash those social pathologies. Not overnight nor even in the span of a few election cycles, perhaps, but over time honesty can spur a great change.

Anonymous said...

Nick Diaz said "Also, 700 years ago Europeans were poor and uneducated compared to both Arabs and the Chinese. Who do you thik invented Álgebra? The fortune of nations and ethnic groups change. White people are not a "special" race with a series of unique characteristics that only they have. "

It is generally believed Algebra was "invented" by one or a small group of Jewish mathematicians living under Moslem rule. Dhimmitude and all that.

There are a number of moslem scientific achievements however there are no significant Arab achievements of which I'm aware. Your inability to draw a distinction between Moslem and Arab is revealing.

Anonymous said...

Exempt the masses in America are now so divided as America has become a global shopping mall rather than a real nation. Blacks, Hispanics are too dumb oo protest and end if they did they won't fight alongside whitey. I fear what we face is not a repeat of history but something new, either the white nations continue destroying themselves via immigration, the PC cult, state and media pushed miscegenation or it wakes up. The problem is how will even smart whites who are awake push back to save at least our European homeland when if ur lung like myself their seems no guarantee that we'll even have jobs in the future as the a hones take over. It gets me wondering if may e bill gates and them do plan on reducing world population soon. I fear their just selfish bastards.

Anonymous said...

Hey, nick Diaz,

Ur probably right in your Davos view that globalization is inevitable. However, that doesn't,t justify America,s crazy short sighted immigration pro.cies since 1965. We won,t need all these new Americans very soon when the robot revolution arrives. And anyways Steve doesn't right much on tariffs. Not that any nation has really tried Buchanan,s policies. Anyways, what world do you live in we're Steve Sailer is the bad guy. I guess you prefer Marco Rubio, Obama and hannity and all the other hacks.

Anonymous said...

To the guy who calls Henry Cabot Lodge an antisemite,

You may be right about Lodge or Walker. I,m half Jewish myself. But then you claim that the 1924 Immigration Act was a huge mistake. Actually your a few decades off. Surely you mean 1965 Imm. Act was the big mistake. For America has been in deline not since 1924 but since 1965. Your half baked attempt to blame the 1929 stock maker crash and ensuing depression on a lack of immigration is preposterous.. How would adding o the labour pool in a depression have made things better? there is a book called he raw deal I think high goes ino some more realistic reasons or that depression. Just to make it clear u approve of current US Imm. Policies?

Robert said...

I think both conservatives and liberals miss an essential point of Turchin's negative correlation between income inequality and societal well being. If you look at his "double helix" graphic (http://socialevolutionforum.com/2013/02/08/the-double-helix-of-inequality-and-well-being/#comment-43880), it looks like well being peaks a few years earlier than the income inequality bottoms. If we assume some time delay between a hypothetical optimal level of income inequality and maximum well being, this appears to imply that some level well before the minimums of income inequality is ideal. In other words, too much distance in either direction from a hypothetical ideal level of income inequality reduces overall well being.

This looks to be rather strongly reinforced not only by the earlier peak, but by the substantial decreases in well being preceding the minimum points of income inequality. I suspect this indicates the existence of a natural ideal that represents an aggregate statistical fairness in rewarding individuals for actual contributions to an economy. If income inequality is artificially reduced below this ideal, as in strong socialist or Marxist economies, overall societal well being decreases and also decreased well being when crony and predatory capitalism rewards a financial elite for unfairly extracting money from the less powerful.

If this is so, both far left socialism and the Ayn Rand fanatics are fighting each other for the right to drag down overall societal well being by opposite means. That's how I see a lot of the current political polarization.