Randoms

The anti-enlightenment versus mainstream conservatism (HT: AnomalyUK).

LMAO

– If a “personal poverty coach” could “coach” you into certain jobs and into making all your important life decisions, wouldn’t this be a sort of watered-down slavery? Well if they’re bringing back colonialism, why not slavery?

– Ron Unz does some legitimate gloating about hispanics and crime. Fair enough, but he sounds like a retard when he talks about this stuff. First, his findings are arguably more politically incorrect than the hypotheses of his “racialist” opponents. If hispanics act like white people when they’ve been in the US for a while, blacks must be really f’ed up. Second, the fact that he’s discussing these topics makes him as much of a “racialist” as anyone else. The only non-racialist position on these issues is pretending they don’t exist.

– I would never tell you whether or not to get married. In the debate, this seems about right to me.

– Elusive Wapiti on illegitimate rape:

one thing is clear: the rate of false rape accusations is not zero. Not even close. The data seems to suggest that somewhere between one in twelve to one in four rape accusations are reliably false.

No one is cool anymore.

Why on Earth would someone close comments?

Advertisements

24 Responses to Randoms

  1. JL says:

    Ron Unz does some legitimate gloating about hispanics and crime.

    If you don’t mind, I’ll post here a reply I wrote to Unz that did not get through moderation at the AmConMag:

    I don’t know how serious La Griffe is about his analysis, but in any case he makes the same blunder that Unz made in his His-Panic article. Like Jason Richwine and others have shown, native-born Hispanics are considerably more crime-prone than first-generation immigrants (the same seems to be true of immigrants from any background). La Griffe’s statistical model does not take this into account, so he ends up underestimating the true impact of Hispanic immigration on the homicide rate. His model also depends on several other dubious assumptions, such as within-race homogeneity in homicidality across states and cities.

    See here for links to rebuttals of Unz’s His-Panic piece, and here for a video where Richwine goes through all sorts of data sets that demonstrate that Hispanics commit a lot more crime than whites. Unfortunately, Unz once again just ignores all this contrary evidence.

    The same blogger had also earlier claimed that the weighted correlation of 0.86 I had found with regard to timewise Irish IQs was probably due to random effects.

    I believe StatSquatch is quite correct that when the data is as heterogeneous as the Irish IQs are you should use a random effects model. (BTW, a quick comparison of Unz’s and La Griffe’s statistical chops alone should convince anyone that they’re not the same person.) However, the most straightforward refutation of Unz’s Irish analysis was provided by Chuck who showed that there’s no significant rise in Irish IQs when the independent variable is the average birth year of those tested rather than a study’s publication year. This decidedly refutes Unz’s analysis, but, as Chuck notes, there’s fat chance that Unz will admit this.

    Given that I claim no great expertise in IQ matters, while Prof. Jensen—although nearly ninety—is still alive and well and publishing at Berkeley, perhaps his numerous research errors should be brought to his attention.

    I do regard Jensen as an intellectual idol, but the specific criticism of Jensen that StatSquatch makes would hardly come as a surprise to Jensen, because many criticisms of the method of correlated vectors have been made by other academics (see e.g. here and here).

    I don’t understand why Unz thinks anyone would be impressed by claims supposedly made about Hispanic IQ by Eysenck and Jensen 40 years ago. It does not matter who makes the claim, the only thing that counts is the quality of the data and analysis. Where did Jensen make this claim, and based on what data? I could not locate such a claim in any of his works I looked at. For example, in the book “Bias in Mental Testing”, Jensen notes that the white-Mexican gap is smaller in non-verbal tests and when SES is controlled for, but he certainly does not argue for the non-existence of the gap. In this article Jensen suggests that the most plausible explanation of the white-Hispanic gap, too, is 50% genes, 50% environment.

  2. James says:

    AnomalyUK uses this word “neoreactionary”.

    There’s a reason why the English language uses “the” to mean “the” and “antidisestablishmentarianism” to mean “antidisestablishmentarianism” instead of antidisestablishmentarianism other way around.

    — Yudkowsky

    The word “neoreactionary” is strictly inferior to the more concise and equally expressive “reactionary”. And as we aren’t tied to the present, “neo” seems particularly inapt.

    • Anomaly UK says:

      I discuss “neoreactionary” here. The reason for distinguishing neoreactionaries from other reactionaries is that the absence of a religious throne-and-altar basis changes a lot of the underlying theory. For me, the true reactionaries are the Orthosphere, and we neoreactionaries are allies or fellow-travellers.

      The Pareene piece is pretty obviously talking about neoreactionaries rather than traditional reactionaries.

      BTW I should have credited @nydwracu on twitter for finding the Pareene article.

      • totalesturns says:

        Anomaly, is there a reason you don’t allow non-Google/OpenID comments? I’d wanted to comment on the post Foseti linked, but I prefer to post with just a name/email combo. (If I start having to manage a separate login for pseudonymous alt-right commenting, I’ll inevitably lose track of which one I have active at a given time…)

  3. anonymous says:

    >blacks must be really f’ed up.
    No shit?

    >Half of the commune’s 10,000 households are being assigned a “household development agent”
    In the ancient times, every household had a Father and Mother

  4. josh says:

    So you are “willing (and ready) to leave” your wife and children?

    • Foseti says:

      Not really, but mine’s never been sexless either. I guess the point is that there should be a limit to the amount of shit that you’d put up with. I’ve known men that should have left their marriages, given how much crap they were putting up with. Of course, if they could have legitimately threatened to leave, they (almost certainly) wouldn’t have had to put up with so much crap.

      • josh says:

        I suppose. It would be nice to live in a world where a man had other options for leverage, such as a slap across the face or control of the family finances. Even if I didn’t like my wife, I would have a hard time leaving, knowing what effect divorce would have on my kids both now and in the future.

        Of course, having daughters, and not wanting them to be modern feminist nightmares, is also the main reason I don’t act like a pussy at home, which is I guess may be why my wife doesn’t treat me like shit. Either that or she has a soul, free will, and isn’t a total bitch.

  5. Tschafer says:

    Unz can gloat all he wants, but Hispanic crime rates (according to Griffe) are still about 11% higher than non-Hispanic white rates. Even considering that if we just considered recent immigrants, instead of people like the Gallegoes of New Mexico, or Miami Cubans, the rates would certainly be significantly higher, saying, in effect “we should let more Mexicans in because they only commit 11% more crimes than the people who are already here” is pretty lame. Besides, even if their crime rates were lower than whites, that’s still that much more crime in the U.S. Unz is just not reliable on this issue.

    • I constantly point out the huge admission against interest that occurred when Rubén, Roberto, Golnaz, and Charlie studied the crime rates of foreign-born immigrants vs. US-born Hispanics with ancestry in various countries.

      I’ve even seen Ron Unz (or perhaps a poster named RKU, who may or may not be the same guy?) opine on the UC Irvine study; I believe his response was that it’s not usually clear what country an incarcerated person is from.

      Unz is gloating about basically nothing. When this generation of people born in Latin America (and in the US legally or illegally) has sons, they will grow up to be about three times as likely to be incarcerated as US-born Whites. US-born males of Mexican descent have the third highest incarceration rate on Table 1 (behind US-born Black males and US-born males of Lao and Cambodian descent). That is assuming current criminality ratios hold steady; crime going up or down is not enough to change this. I believe it is safe to assume that the criminality ratios will hold steady because they are correlated with IQs (ratios holding steady in spite of the Flynn effect) and national indices of corruption.

      (Note also that people born in Europe are less criminally-inclined than people born in any Latin American country other than El Salvador or Guatemala.)

      I probably come off like a broken record (analog reference! I’m old!) to anyone who reads alt-right comments a lot, but I’m still looking for more commenter on Rubén & Roberto’s work at UC Irvine. If that study is studied enough by the alt-right, I predict that Migration Policy Institute will take it down; this will be a victory for us assuming that someone has an archive of it somewhere.

  6. totalesturns says:

    Does that tumblr actually belong to Alex Pareene?

    This may be confirmation bias talking, but to the extent that they’re aware of it, mainstream liberals seem to find the alt-right genuinely threatening (as opposed to risible, declasse, square, etc.) Pareene was so scandalized by White Girl Bleed A Lot — a self-published book that’s otherwise been ignored by the media — that he published a lengthy hatchet job at Salon. Would he ever bother doing the same for this season’s Ann Coulter or Jonah Goldberg screed?

    (Pareene in particular has more reason than most to secretly fret over whether the scary bad people might be telling the truth after all.)

  7. Handle says:

    1. Hey, I’ll be in your neck of the woods soon, check your email

    2. As far as Hispanics and Crime goes, a while back, I think it was Derbyshire, but maybe Sailer or somebody else, there was a post doing an interesting exercise (noticing patterns one’s not supposed to notice) looking at the identities and Hispanic representation of the “most wanted’s” in various states (and thinking in the background about whether they are overrepresented compared to their fraction of the population). Let’s pick a few at random:

    Tennessee. 4 out of 10, 40%

    Kansas. I count 18 out of 22, 82%!

    Do my eyes deceive me? Is something going on here, or is this mere anecdote and artifact? These damned lying eyes! Part of the issue, of course, is that if you ask a lot of these fellows what group they fall in, they often say “White”, which I’m guessing distorts the statistics for both groups towards the mean and obscured the difference.

    • Yeah, but look at Tennessee. There’s totally a WASP in there: ROBERT HOUSTON SANDERS. What could be a WASPier name than that?

      Srly tho, the left is going to dismiss those as small sample sizes. Also I heard a better dismissal: US citizen don’t appear on those lists as often because they can’t retreat to their home country. Mexicans can, easily, so the only choice the US authorities have is to put them on that list and hope that the DHS or some Arizona sheriff will nab them at the border.

      Not too bad an argument. I’m thinking crime is not the only axis on which to critique mass Mexicanization. (But note my three-to-one stat from the UC Irvine study I blabbed about above. Or rather, 5.9 to 1.71–percent of young US-born males incarcerated, of Mexican descent compared to WNH.) Cultural dispersion (excessive diversity), environmental costs, unemployment, and welfare dependency are all subjects to bring up when criticizing Mexicanization.

      History is also worth bringing up; I understand that the Mexican government alienated many tribes in the 19th Century, which is why Comanches and/or Apaches always sided with the US. And, of the tiny number of Mexican families in the territory the US bought from Mexico, none were displaced.

      That’s my blueprint in a nutshell.

  8. One of my approaches was rather elegant, and I was quite surprised it had not previously been utilized by the academic community. – Ron Unz

    Ack. That man is really a smarmy little commie freak. I hate talking about people like that, but really.

    Reading through these threads tends to demonstrate the rather unimpressive quality of much typical racialist thought on the Internet…

    So basically he didn’t read through the thread. Beyond my smashing everything he wrote with a link to the UC Irvine study, which him and all the anti-White pro-immigration thugs refused to address that time, Severn absolutely took Unz apart.

    … with most of the angry participants denouncing the incompetence of their erstwhile intellectual idol, and several even darkly suggesting that “La Griffe has to be Unz.”

    Most people are still trying to figure out whether “RKU” is Unz. RKU has claimed not to be Unz, but some have linked statements from the two as being to apparently time-coördinated to be coïncidences.

  9. Toddy Cat says:

    Unz can tap-dance all he wants, but the answers to the following questions won’t go away, no matter whose numbers you use:

    1. Do Hispanic immigrants commit crimes at a greater rate than the native white population? Yes.

    2. Are Hispanic immigrants over-represented in prison? Yes.

    3. Are Hispanic immigrants more likely to have fatal auto accidents than the native white population? Yes.

    4. Are Hispanic immigrants over-represented on “ten most wanted” lists? Yes.

    5. Does allowing more Hispanic immigrants into our country increase the total amount of crime? Yes.

    These facts are totally non-refutable. Unz can buy every conservative magazine in the country, and it won’t change things. Choose a better cause next time, Ron…

  10. Toddy Cat says:

    You also gotta love people like Unz who say that Mexicans are the new Italians or Irish, and will assimilate just like they did. Well, sure, all it took was a hundred years, two major crime waves, Lord knows how many deaths, a passle of stupid laws like Prohibition, the corruption of the old Republic by political machines, slums, depression of wages, the Mafia, massive expansion of the Federal Government, mind-boggling deficits, two world wars, and who knows what damage to our culture. But, hey, we got linguini, Sinatra, and JFK, so it’s all good, right? I say this as a Sinatra fan who is descended from Irish immigrants, by the way, and I’m really happy to be an American. But in all honesty, are we so sure that there was a net gain here?

    • PA says:

      With Italians and Irish, arguably there was a net gain: ethnic whites in New England curbed the Puritan Anglo ruling class’s ambitions. Today, it appears that Italian-Americans are overrepresented among prominent immigration restrictionists.

      But ultimately, only one thing determines if an immigrant group is a net-plus: are their women as pretty or prettier than girls of the native stock? Therein lies the chasm between last century’s and this century’s immigration waves.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        Yeah, some Italian girls are pretty hot, but then again, so are some Hispanic girls. But in all seriousness, I’m not saying that Italian, Irish, and other immigration wasn’t a net plus. I’m just saying that it took a long time, caused lots of problems, and wasn’t the happy-clappy story of easy assimilation that Unz and a lot of his buddies seem to think it was. The net result may very well be positive for our last great immigration wave, but it’s not a slam dunk, not by a long shot.

      • Callowman says:

        I must confess to thinking this thought rather often when walking around my city, seeing the fat, mustachioed MENA natives, BMOs and mutilated gypsy beggars we are for some reason importing. There are some nice ones, too, but it’s definitely a net negative. Would that we could stick to Poles and Russians.

  11. Matt says:

    Unz has a policy of studiously ignoring the existence of black people. He managed to write an incredibly long IQ article without mentioning blacks once. I think it is that he doesn’t really like blacks and doesn’t care about them.

  12. Bill says:

    It was pointed out in Sailer’s comments, but I’ll do it here. La Griffe was joking: that or he is much less competent than he elsewhere appears to be. There are tells all through the piece. Sarcasm often works badly on the internet.

  13. anti-racist says:

    Hispanics have “high crime rates” and such because of white privilege

    • Toddy Cat says:

      Yeah, if we just counted all the Hispanic criminals as white, the phenomenon of “Hispanic crime” would go away. Now, where’s my job with the Department of Justice?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: