Non-Diverse Wisconsin Teachers

Richard Spencer makes some astute comparisons between members of the Tea Party and the union protesters in Wisconsin.

Whatever the details of their demands, the fundamental cause of the recent protests in Wisconsin is the growing recognition among the American Middle that the lifestyle to which they are accustomed—think a house in the ‘burbs, a reliable pension or 401k, and the ability to live it up on easy credit—is vanishing before their eyes.

Yes, we were sold a bill of goods, told to buy houses - which of course never decline in value - told to load up the 401k with mutual funds that can't even beat the S&P 500 but produce a great stream of fees for investment companies, and some of us even thought that we were told to max out our credit cards. We can probably add most or all of these to our list of lies.

Spencer notes that the Tea Party and teacher's unions both are highly white, and that the Feds are refusing to bail out the states; yet the Feds have no problem with bailing out both Wall Street and the federal government itself. The federal government is NOT highly white.

In 2007, the advocacy group Adversity.net examined the racial hiring practices of Washington’s Executive Departments and Independent Agencies, from the Department of Education to NASA. The group discovered that with a very few exceptions, federal entities dramatically overfulfill their “Diversity” quotas. Indeed, the best agencies at hiring Blacks put the Post Office of lore to shame: the Controlled Substance Ordering System, the Government Printing Office, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, for instance, overhire Blacks at 800, 500, and 400 percent, respectively.  Even the “worst” agency for employing African-Americans, über-nerdy NASA, overhires Blacks at a clip of 50 percent.

In this line, government entities have increasingly dropped their mission of, well, governing in favor of the greater cause of minority outreach and empowerment. In America, one could lament, the Black man is either dead or in jail—or enjoying guaranteed benefits working at the State Department.

A teacher’s union meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, has the demographics of a screening of The English Patient. And however they might disagree on hot-button issues, the Tea Party and the Wisconsinites are essentially the same people.

John Derbyshire (quoted by Malcolm Pollack) makes a similar point:

We’re going to win these fights, listeners, and the public-sector unions, and the Democratic Party they nourish, are going to be humbled and brought low. Let’s just keep in mind the American tradition of magnanimity in victory. These are our neighbors, our friends, sometimes our family members; and we’re all Americans.

"We're all Americans" - if only we could get the teachers to see that.

We must also note the absence of cries from the Left accusing the Wisconsin unions of racism because they have so few minority members.

Perhaps the larger point is that neither teachers' unions nor Tea Party have understood how our masters in various levels of government have used mass immigration, AA, and "diversity" to undermine the white American middle class. Nor do they want to understand, because that's a hatefact.

Texas Anglos Crushed: Here's What You Need to Know

Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos':

Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."

Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.

Today's Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state's public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said. [...]

By 2040, only 20 percent of the state's public school enrollment will be Anglo, he said. Last year, non-Hispanic white children made up 33.3 percent of the state's 4.8 million public school enrollment. [...]

Unless the trend line changes, 30 percent of the state's labor force will not have even a high school diploma by 2040, he said. And the average household income will be about $6,500 lower than it was in 2000. That figure is not inflation adjusted so it will be worse than what it sounds.

"It's a terrible situation that you are in. I am worried," Murdock said.

Texans seem to want to fool themselves that their pro-business economic climate and abundant land mean that everything is alright. Politically, California is in many ways the opposite of Texas, with high taxes, and anti-business climate - but also with a fair amount of land - yet "Anglos" are on their way to becoming a minority here. As the demographer says, he's "worried" that, leaving aside everything else, 30% of the labor force won't even have a high school diploma.

Most of the state's population growth is natural, Murdock told the House Mexican American Legislative Caucus today.

Sounds to me like Texas needs House White American Caucus pronto. For all the good it would do; they'd probably spend most of their time proclaiming their love of diversity and/or apologizing for the Alamo.

What is to be done? At this point, damned little.

Exams, Celibacy, and IQ

Peter Frost defends his thesis that the Chinese exam system could have increased average IQ in China; he also notes that while Japan and Korea "only partially adopted" the exam system,

This objection ignores the broader emphasis on education in all East Asian societies. China, Korea, and Japan have long been "exam cultures," even if we exclude the civil service exam. This exam grew out of values that were embedded in Confucianism and present throughout East Asia:

He makes a good case but, as I've said before, I don't believe I'm in any position to judge. It seems to me that much more research would be needed before we could decide definitively one way or another.

More interesting I thought are his speculations on the difference between East and West in this area:

But why did this exam culture develop in East Asia and not in Europe? Greco-Roman society similarly valued study of classical literature and proficiency in archaic Greek and Latin (as opposed to the contemporary Koine Greek and Vulgar Latin). With the advent of Christianity, however, classical “pagan” literature became viewed with suspicion. Emphasis shifted toward study of the Bible, and such study usually involved entry into celibate religious orders. Insofar as academic success was linked to heritable predispositions, the overall impact of natural selection would have been negative.

True enough as far as it goes. But how many of those with bright minds actually became celibate and spent their lives on scholarly pursuits? While at various times in the European Middle Ages the percentage of priests, monks, and nuns was relatively high - 10% is a high number I recall reading - most of these would have been involved in the rather mundane aspects of their vocations, such as ministry and administration and even manual labor. The number who did serious scholarship, such as those at the University of Paris, the institution of Thomas Aquinas, must have been quite small as a percentage.

Another aspect of this is, how much or often did academic success lead to a celibate and/or monastic life? Many who entered the Church did so for lack of alternatives, so one might imagine that only a fraction of the intellectually gifted left no children. Furthermore, celibacy wasn't strictly enforced for centuries, though it appears to have been the rule, and the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches had and have less strict rules, for instance celibacy for bishops only.

In short, the claim that celibacy impacted in any large way average IQs in Europe requires much more supporting evidence, in my opinion.

"My daughter's assault"

The blog My daughters assault [sic] appears to be written as a vehicle for a horrified and justifiably angry mother to publicize the brutal beating of her 12-year-old daughter, and the subsequent failure on the part of various authorities such as school and police to do much if anything about it. The daughter was previously threatened and nothing was done then either.

The perps: "refugees brought over from Kenya and Ethiopia." This is in New Hampshire.

The mother knows that raising this issue could make her look very politically incorrect, and I would venture that the same reason guided the choice of teachers, principal, and police. So she loads her post with sentences and phrases that ensure that everyone will know that she's on board with the liberal agenda:

She has always been a well liked girl with lots of friends, and a passion for humanity. She's known for standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves giving them a voice and the courage to stand up for themselves.

I don't really see how that's relevant; if she hadn't had "a passion for humanity", would she have had the assault coming?

The boys are refugees brought over from Kenya and Ethiopia. It makes me question if we are providing these children with proper coping skills for a healthy transition. Also, is it safe for these students to be held back to due to language barriers leaving such a great age difference between students. I can't imagine the rage these boys must be harvesting inside to attack a girl so brutally.

So, it's "our" fault for not "providing these children with proper coping skills". The best skill I could think to teach them would be coping with Kenya and Ethiopia after we deport them.

But never mind all that. I see no mention of a father in this post. The first people to arrive at the school after the assault were a grandmother and an aunt. A real father would be demanding justice, or assuring that it be done, and also ensuring that his daughter was protected.

And what would be the fate of these boys in their native lands after assaulting the daughter of some neighbor? Their future ability to do so again would be impaired. But here, the boys probably knew that they could get away with it.

Being a refugee shouldn't be sufficient grounds for immigration to this country. They're not our problem, and they only create problems for us.

Clueless Conservatives and Marriage

Whiskey writes about why conservative women don't get it, which I would generalize to why conservative women and men don't get it. The article under discussion is one by Kay Hymowitz, Where Have All the Good Men Gone?, which uses feminine shaming language and logic to indict today's young men for refusing to "man up", put away childish things, and get married. She of course ignores the nearly complete inversion of sexual values over the past 40 years or so, the existence of no-fault divorce laws - together with the fact that women initiate upwards of 75% of all divorces - man-rape in the divorce courts, the decline of the middle-class wage, and that so many of the women who want men to man up have, in the colorful words of the manosphere, ridden the cock carousel for a decade or more and are thus wholly unsuitable to be the wives of men who have a shred of self-respect as well as to raise decent children.

Whiskey covers all this and more very well, so let's jump to his proposed solutions:

To change this state of affairs, it is therefore necessary to change women's behavior. First, male dominated jobs must be brought back: eliminate outsourcing, insourcing, H1-Bs, remove Affirmative Action, and demand companies instead prefer White men for hiring. [...]

Second, women need penalties to change their preference for sexy men over responsible ones. That means a stable, relatively non-mobile and deeply connected (not atomized) society where female friends, relatives, moms, and so on harshly criticize and penalize "slutty" behavior such as sleeping with felons, trustafarians, indie rockers, etc. [...]

Third, women must face penalties for staying on the sex partner carousel too long, and benefits for getting off it with early marriage. [...]

This can be done but is very unlikely to be done.

These things are so unlikely to be done in the foreseeable future that we might as well call them impossible. It would require a veritable social revolution, or a reversal of the revolution that occurred over the past few decades.

Meanwhile, where have conservatives been on the issue - a critical one, in my view - of no-fault divorce? In a recent comment thread here, someone asserted that conservative concern about gay marriage was misplaced, no-fault divorce being the far greater problem. The fact is, gay marriage is just the end game for an institution that no-fault divorce and family so-called courts have already ruined. With certain exceptions, most men would be fools to take their chances with an institution that is just as likely as not to rob them of money, children, and happiness, despite the encouragement to do just that by some clueless conservatives. She writes:

Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.

"Honor... is the only thing that counts." What about livelihood, love, children, happiness? Oh, but while he's living under a bridge because the ex, in alliance with the government, has robbed him of everything, he can assure himself that he still has his honor.

Laura Wood wants men to man up for, in a nutshell, the good of society. Perhaps if it were more evident that society gave a tinker's damn about men, they would be more willing to do so.

Bernanke vs. Bush

George W. Bush spent hundreds of billions of dollars, over 4,000 American dead and nearly 32,000 wounded, all to make Iraq a democracy.

Then Ben Bernanke comes along and prints a few trillion, causes world food prices to spike, and all of a sudden we've got revolutions all over the Middle East, revolutions which have at least as much a chance, maybe better, at making these countries as democratic as Iraq (and Afghanistan) currently are. A dictatorship which looked to last nearly forever, Gaddafi's, is on the ropes and headed for a fall, after years of American and especially European sucking up to it, all because of Big Ben.

Maybe when Bush and the neocons got their grand idea to invade the Middle East and turn the Muslim countries into democracies, they should instead have just fired Greenspan and appointed Helicopter Ben Bernanke. Though he's clueless as to the unintended consequences of his money printing, he's inadvertently spreading democracy, and so far at no cost in American lives.

Reactionary Pessimism

OneSTDV writes on "the reactionary Right's nihilism", although from his examples and rhetoric I'm going to assume that "pessimism" better describes the phenomenon he discusses rather than "nihilism". (I doubt that many on the new right are nihilists; Bruce Charlton may, however, disagree.) He asks how a defeatist attitude can possibly succeed if it already concedes defeat.

I've also witnessed an "I hate everything and everyone" meme sweeping through reactionary Right. Some reactionaries and iconoclasts who absolutely no positives amongst the conservative mainstream, holding every political voice to an exceedingly high standard. They see a slight deviation from ideological purity or anything less than a reactionary initiative as sufficient reason to condemn everything.

I agree with him in seeing lots of demands for ideological purity coming from my side of the divide, and I also confess to being exceedingly pessimistic both about the chances for any sort of rightist revival as well as about the future of the country.

Movements like the Tea Party need our qualified support. While the likes of Sarah Palin are a total turnoff (at least to me, though I certainly don't hate her), much of the Tea Party is groping towards the realization that their movement is implicitly bound up with the fate of whites in America; this can be seen in their support for Arizona-type immigration laws and the repeal of birthright citizenship.

But, and it's a big "but", the future of the country looks grim, and frankly I'm getting quite frightened at the near-term outlook. Hyperinflation, food shortages, and general social breakdown will not be a pretty sight. For the reactionary Right, doing much about our perilous situation lies outside our powers. We can only watch and warn and prepare ourselves and our families. Even if you believe that my outlook is too grim, there's just no denying that financially and economically the country is pretty well screwed.

Furthermore, the demographic decline of whites appears to be set in stone at this point, barring some major unforeseen development. Virtually all support for conservative, fiscally responsible, and race-fair policies comes from whites. Fewer whites means more race-based, corporatocratic socialism.

Silver Goes Parabolic

Silver, and to a lesser extent gold, have spiked up in price. See, for example, here.

Meanwhile, the Ben Bernank says that we have no inflation and that the Fed still needs to print money to prop up the economy. The latter half of that sentence is absolutely true: without continued money printing, the U.S. is doomed. The problem is, we're probably doomed with it.

Do you see any news about the silver spike in the MSM? I didn't think so. All that they want to do is keep the sheeple in the dark, buying equities (like Wal-Mart!) for their 401(k)s, not worrying that USG is driving the country, as well as much of the rest of the world, into the ground. We're about to see the biggest one-year jump in government debt in history. China and Russia have become sellers of US Treasury bonds. Shadow Government Statistics has the true unemployment rate at about 22%.

I know I usually get a big yawn here when I write about this stuff, but I believe that one should be paying attention, that is if one values one's future. The government is doing its damnedest to assure everyone that everything will be alright, but it just won't.

Gambling the Country Away

The Diversity Visa Lottery - that's right, it's a lottery, do they sell scratch-off tickets at the 7-11? - is designed to do nothing other than increase the "diversity" of the U.S. population; in other words, since diversity = race replacement, it's designed to ensure that eventually whites will lose control of the country founded by their ancestors for their own posterity. The lottery has come up in the context of spending cuts. (Thanks to eh for the link. He says that the amendment to cut the lottery looks to be failing, but I didn't come across that.) Here's what Roy Beck has to say:

So why would Congress insist on continuing to import more and more poverty by giving out more than a million green cards a year to immigrants who are much poorer than the average American.

If more than half of all immigrant families with children are poor enough to use welfare services, continuing our immigration program obviously just adds a lot more people to divide up a shrinking pie of social services.

If nearly 90% of the increase in the uninsured in America in recent years is due to immigrants, continuing our immigration program obviously just puts enormous demands on all of our country's health care systems to fill in the gaps.

If the average typical poorly educated immigrant household costs the government around $20,000 more in services than are paid in taxes, then continuing our immigration program obviously just makes all the choices on spending cuts and tax increases that much more difficult. [...]

The amendment to the CR by Rep. Goodlatte (R-Va.) to suspend the visa lottery program would reduce permanent foreign worker visas by 50,000. It would be a small step but oh so much less painful that some of the cuts debated on the floor today.

Why would Congress continue to import more poverty? That's an easy one. Because it increases demand for government services and hence jobs for bureaucrats, increases the number of eventual Democrat voters, and perhaps most important, increases diversity, which, just as racism is the zeitgeist's epitome of evil, is its epitome of good.

A description of the visa lottery:

The Visa Lottery Program is managed by the Department of State, which awards up to 55,000 permanent resident visas a year to applicants from countries with relatively low rates of immigration to the United States compared to other countries, based on data from the previous five years. The visa lottery grants visas based on pure luck to people regardless of family ties, skills, education or to the United States, exposing this country to national security threats such as espionage, terrorism, and criminal refuge. The bipartisan Barbara Jordan Commission in 1995 recommended the elimination of the lottery, since it serves no national interest.

At VDare, Patrick Cleburne states that this program, deliberately designed to dispossess white Americans - and black and other Americans too - costs $2 billion annually. And, that number does not include the cost to cities and states for health care, education, public housing, public safety and so on.

It's probably good that cutting the program has come up when dealing with budget cuts; that way whoever votes for cutting it will have the cover of doing so to save money, and perhaps be spared charges of being anti-diversity.

Things I might have blogged about were it not for an attack of apathy

James Delingpole: Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!

Thilo Sarrazin's planned talk at the LSE canceled due to antifa threats. Of course, the LSE says that they still believe in freedom of speech.

Christina Hoff Summers: There's no evidence of discrimination against women in science, quite the contrary. (Via Malcolm Pollack.) Too late to save Larry Summers, though.

Satoshi Kanazawa: More intelligent people are more likely to get drunk. Dr. Kanazawa has his theory about this, and I have mine: intelligent people need to escape the reality of mass stupidity.

Discrimination Against Asians in Higher Ed

Yan Shen pointed me to Steve Hsu's latest, Demography and Destiny, which deals with discrimination against East Asians at the university level. At the University of California, where reverse discrimination has been officially banned, East Asian student numbers are much higher than in the state's population, although the universities still have more subtle means to keep an unwanted demographic out, as well as the will to use them.

Without such racial filters, the percentage of East Asian students at the University of California at Irvine shot up to 61 per cent, Berkeley 42 per cent and University of California, Los Angeles 38 per cent, in a state where East Asians comprise just 13 per cent of the population.

This indicates that universities in other states are handicapping East Asian applicants, Hsu says.

"It's all hush-hush, but it's pretty clear from the data," he alleges. "[Elite] schools ... don't disclose they're doing it. They just all sort of magically end up with under 20 per cent Asian students."

Hsu's comment on this is actually kind of funny for the naivete it displays.

The reporter was shocked at the clear cut statistics showing discrimination against Asians in elite higher education. He wondered how this could be the case in the 21st century and why the story wasn't covered more widely. In trying to get approval to do a bigger story he was told that since Dan Golden (NYTimes) had written about it a couple of times there was no need to make a fuss about it.

Steve (and all you other high-achieving East Asians): welcome to my world! In this country, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against whites; not only legal, but in fact celebrated and justified as a necessary measure to overcome the legacies of slavery and segregation. (I'm not sure how that justifies Hispanics getting AA, but I'm sure they've come up with a "reason".) Did you think that you East Asians were going to be spared, just because you work hard and have some smarts?

Furthermore, aren't East Asians eligible for AA in other areas, for example government jobs? My impression is that being non-white puts you at the head of the line. And yet some complain about discrimination at the university level. Chutzpah.

The biggest losers in discrimination at the university level are white Christians, the descendants of those who built the nation - and its university system.

Creativity, Intelligence, and East-West

Peter Frost writes on the relatively recent nature of much geographic IQ variation:

Thus, one theoretical model cannot account for all or even most variation in cognitive capacity among present-day humans. The higher IQ of East Asians, for example, almost certainly came about during historic times and was probably favored by the widespread use of exams as a means of social advancement. Likewise, the higher IQ of Ashkenazi Jews and other European populations is probably post-medieval in origin and driven by the high fertility of successful entrepreneurs, particularly those in cottage industries who could expand their workforces only by having larger families (Frost, 2007).

If it's true that higher Chinese IQ came about due to the exam system (in other words, those who passed the exams had the opportunity of higher reproductive rates), then perhaps the exam system also selected for other personality traits, such as conformity or agreeableness, less neuroticism, less openness to experience. This might be able to explain some of the relative lack of intellectual curiosity and subsequent underperformance of the Chinese compared to the West. It should be noted that Michael Hart's Understanding Human History attributes geographic variation in IQ to much older patterns, specifically the ice ages. (I'm in no position to judge which theory is more correct.)

Bruce Charlton wonders whether hereditary psychology can explain broad cultural types and trends. He agrees with Frost that "the increased IQ has a variety of evolutionary causes (e.g. see Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark and the 10,000 Year revolution by Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending) - and increased IQ itself, in turn, causes cultural change - including religious transformation."

This is all a part of my larger thesis that higher average intelligence drove modernization (including industrialization) - but, mainly due to its effect in weakening spontaneous religiousness, is also destroying it.

However, it appears that the higher average IQ of the Chinese did not drive modernization and industrialization in that country, as those are recent developments learned largely from the West.

I have not touched on personality here; but much of what I said about IQ applies also to personality.

Complex agricultural societies provide a strong selective force for re-shaping and taming personality, promoting conscientiousness, docility (reducing spontaneous aggression and violence) and reducing spontaneous creativity.

These are the marks of the 'civilized' personality. 

And this is why genius is so rare: because creativity and intelligence are reciprocally correlated, yet both must be present for genius to happen.

Bruce Charlton is the psychiatrist here, not me, but it seems to me that creativity and intelligence aren't quite "reciprocally correlated". It depends on how we define creativity. The type of creativity found in folk art, for instance, may well be inversely correlated to IQ - for an example, see the Reverend Howard Finster. But I would argue that a Newton or Huygens or Watt must have been highly creative.

No Extreme Weather

The WSJ reports that a new analysis of global weather since 1871 shows no evidence, despite Paul Krugman's certainties, that the incidence of extreme weather events has increased.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

Imagine that: actual data.

Also, I've linked this before, most recently in a comments section, but Why Global Warming Would Be Good for You by Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institution, is well worth a read. The pillars of AGW rest on three foundations: 1. human-derived CO2 causes a rise in global temperatures; 2. arresting the rise in CO2 will allow us to control the climate; and 3. global warning would be a disaster. Moore's article shows that the latter, at least, is false.

Is Salvation of the Europeans?

France's Sarkozy is yet another European leader who has declared that multiculturalism has failed.

PARIS — French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups. [...]

"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said. [...]

"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said in the TFI channel show.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar have also recently said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.

Merkel in October said efforts towards multiculturalism in Germany had "failed, totally."

The comment followed weeks of anguished debate sparked by the huge popularity of a book by a central banker saying that immigrants, in particular Muslims, were making Germany "more stupid."

Notwithstanding that the terms in which all of these have put their reservations, the terms being those of liberalism, these leaders for once don't seem to be berating their own people for the failure of aliens to "integrate". Since liberalism is the overarching creed these days, the one dissenters to which are figuratively cast into the outer darkness, it seems that it could hardly be otherwise. But it's a good sign that this is being said, as it now opens the door for others to carry on the conversation, perhaps in less liberal terms.

Meanwhile, USG has promoted the use of an American Muslim comedy troupe called Allah Made Me Funny as more diversity outreach, this time to British Muslims:

“The message their performance would send - of American Muslims, proud to be both 'American’ and 'Muslim’ - is a powerful message that would open British Muslim eyes to American cultural and religious diversity as well as encourage reflection on the part of British Muslim community in a positive, self-defining direction.

Maybe the Europeans are getting ahead of the curve here, while USG revels in American diversity.

Whites Less Than Half of Three-Year-Olds

NYT:

Whites continued to decline as a share of the American population in 2009, and they now represent less than half of all 3-year-olds, according to a Brookings Institution analysis of census data released Monday.

The country’s young population is more diverse than ever, with whites now in the minority in nursery schools, preschools and kindergartens in eight states — Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas — and the District of Columbia, according to William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings. That was up from six states in 2000.

Time is getting short.

The gap between the country’s diverse young population and its older white one is raising difficult issues for policy makers, who are trying to balance the growing costs associated with the aging white population with the need for financing to educate an increasingly diverse youth.

Aside from the huge unfunded liability problems of Social Security and Medicare, these programs worked at least for awhile because they were seen as inter-generational pacts; once one generation had done their work, the next would help take care of them in their old age. But as with all welfare programs, ethnic homogeneity is, if not essential, at least an important component of maintaining support for them. When virtually all SS recipients are white, and when the contributors are largely non-white, I would expect support for these programs to decrease.

But that's probably the least of our problems. Whites will continue to be wealthiest overall group (in the sense of productivity x numbers) so will continue to be targets of income redistribution.

Most of all, that under-three-year-olds are less than half white is evidence that the election of a new people is working.

Krugman: Don't Blame Me

Paul Krugman, whom The Atlantic considers the most influential pundit in America, blames global food inflation and the subsequent popular insurrections on the weather.

So what’s behind the price spike? American right-wingers (and the Chinese) blame easy-money policies at the Federal Reserve, with at least one commentator declaring that there is “blood on Bernanke’s hands.” Meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France blames speculators, accusing them of “extortion and pillaging.”
But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.

So now Krugman is an expert on global warming, which, if it were really occurring, ought to increase agricultural productivity due to warmer weather and higher CO2 levels. The commentator to whom Krugman refers, the one who says that Ben Bernanke has blood on his hands, is Mish Shedlock, who has more integrity in his little finger than Krugman has in his entire body.

Krugman has consistently urged the printing of more and more useless dollars. He's the preeminent Keynesian intellectual in this country, and his literally bankrupt prescriptions are starting to have ominous results not just for this country, but for the entire world.

Unfortunately for Krugman's thesis, prices of non-food commodities are soaring. Gold, silver, and copper are just about hitting new highs. And they are not subject to weather-related production problems. Far from industrial demand driving the prices of these, they're going up because nations and people all over the world, most especially the Chinese and other Asians, are trying to exchange their increasingly worthless dollars for hard assets.

State Department's Albert Goes Global

The comment here which has gotten quite a bit of traction on the paleo blogosphere (see the whole thing at Hail to You), written by "Albert", who claims to be a State Department employee in Europe, was translated into Serbian on the blog "Сиви Соко" ("Grey Falcon"). It now appears in Croatian in the Novi Standard of Belgrade and is featured on its front page.

Given what the U.S. did in the former Yugoslavia, their interest in perfidious America and its State Department is understandable. Perhaps the European ethnic awakening and repudiation of the multicult will come from Eastern Europe?

More Friedman Globaloney

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times' propagandist-in-chief for globalism, believes he has some answers to the causes and solutions of Egypt and the rest of the Arab Middle East: China, Twitter, and 20-Year-Olds.

...Of course, China per se is not fueling the revolt here — but China and the whole Asian-led developing world’s rising consumption of meat, corn, sugar, wheat and oil certainly is. The rise in food and gasoline prices that slammed into this region in the last six months clearly sharpened discontent with the illegitimate regimes — particularly among the young, poor and unemployed.

No, China, whether per se or not isn't fueling the rise in food and fuel prices; Friedman needs to look a little closer to home: Ben Bernanke and unlimited money printing are doing so. In other words, the policies recommended by his buddy Krugman and all the other great and good in the U.S. have potentially started a process of global revolution.

When China can make Egyptian Ramadan toys more cheaply and appealingly than low-wage Egyptians, you know there is problem of competitiveness.

Well, yes, but why? Friedman won't go near that one, as it would upset everything he thinks he knows about global competitiveness.

Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia today are overflowing with the most frustrated cohort in the world — “the educated unemployables.” They have college degrees on paper but really don’t have the skills to make them globally competitive. I was just in Singapore. Its government is obsessed with things as small as how to better teach fractions to third graders. That has not been Hosni Mubarak’s obsession.

Another great Friedmanian theme with little or no basis in reality: education will solve all our problems. Let's see: Singapore has an estimated IQ of 103, of which the Chinese portion of the population must be closer to Hong Kong's 107 (link), and ranked at number 5 in the world, while Egypt's estimated IQ is 83, ranked number 60. Somehow I doubt that even if it were Mubarak's obsession to teach third graders fractions, Egypt will be a long time catching up to Singapore.

Egypt’s government has wasted the last 30 years — i.e., their whole lives — plying them with the soft bigotry of low expectations: “Be patient. Egypt moves at its own pace, like the Nile.” Well, great. Singapore also moves at its own pace, like the Internet.

Maybe if the Egyptian government ought to give everyone free Wi-Fi.

Friedman also says that he is "not the least bit worried about the Muslim Brotherhoods in Jordan or Egypt hijacking the future." Given his track record and his obtuse thinking, I think we should be worrying.

Muslims in Europe

The Pew Forum has done a study on The Future of the Global Muslim Population (this particular link is for Europe), and concludes:

Europe’s Muslim population is projected to exceed 58 million by 2030. Muslims today account for about 6% of Europe’s total population, up from 4.1% in 1990. By 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 8% of Europe’s population. Although Europe’s Muslim population is growing, Europe’s share of the global Muslim population will remain quite small. Less than 3% of the world’s Muslims are expected to be living in Europe in 2030, about the same portion as in 2010 (2.7%).

Most European Muslims will continue to live in Eastern Europe, but some of the biggest increases in Europe’s Muslim population in absolute numbers over the next 20 years are expected to occur in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and other countries in Western, Northern and Southern Europe. [...]

In annual percentage terms, Europe’s Muslim population is projected to grow at a declining rate, in part because of falling fertility rates and in part because Muslim immigration to Europe is leveling off (see discussion of fertility on page 132 and of migration on page 133). Nevertheless, Europe’s Muslim population will continue to grow at a faster pace than its non-Muslim population, which has been decreasing. As a result, Muslims are expected to make up a growing share of Europe’s total population.

The populations of France and Sweden are expected to be around 10% Muslim by 2030 - only 19 years away - while on the low side, Portugal will have only 0.6%, Ireland 2.2, Finland 1.9.

While these statistics seem to me neither a cause of complacency or one of alarm that Muslims will become a majority, as we've seen, members of the global elite are using Muslims and other minorities to promote "diversity", and thus to undermine the traditional nation-states of Europe. It's not just our own State Department, but coalitions of leftists, minorities, and transnational elites (bureaucrats, bankers, and the like) in Europe itself object most strenuously to any attempt by European nationalists to maintain their majorities and restrict immigration, going so far as jailing those who speak out. Thilo Sarrazin - who was sacked - Geert Wilders and Lars Hedegaard - who are threatened with jail - are only the most prominent of European nationalists (all are avowed liberals too) who have felt the wrath of the transnational elite in their own nations.

The problem of Muslim immigration, just like the problem of illegal immigration here, could be readily solved given the will to do so, without repressive measures or anything the least bit illiberal. But the real enemy appears to be among us, on the inside, thwarting every attempt to restore traditional nationhood.