Maybe I should start saying that when “progressives” call me a racist; “Hey don’t stereotype me! I hate lots of white people, too!”

See, this is what I mean about HBD not being just test scores.

Observational sociology is part of HBD (see the Inductivist’s sadly defunct blog). The only reason to downplay observational sociology is that most HBD debates are with people who will lie and say anything to deny obvious truths, so it’s easier to just stick to the most difficult to dispute ground — test scores and life outcomes. (Personally I like discussing brain volume as that’s particularly hard to dispute.)

If you’re debating in a progressive-free zone you can discuss the full implications of HBD, and observational sociology is part of where you gather evidence.

I totally agree with this. Immigration restrictions make sense no matter what one thinks about WN or HBD.

If that’s what it took to solve a relatively small difference (Northern vs Southern Europe) what do you think it would take to solve White vs Hispanic? European vs Muslim? And keep in mind that the economic and cultural conditions of today are vastly different (and less conductive to assimilation) than back then.

Jayman doesn’t even believe in free will. So if he’s pissed off at me, I guess I didn’t have a choice it was the only thing I could have done.

That said, if I was black I would deny HBD and deny HBD had any implications and then marry a white woman. Do we really want Jayman selling out his own people? I think its morally defensible for him to look out for their interests, even when its to the detriment of society at large. That’s why diversity sucks, it makes perfect sense for people to have loyalty to their ethny but that means in multi-ethic societies nobody is loyal to society at large. And when they say they are its almost invariably that they are loyal just to themselves with universalism as an excuse.

Unz position reminds me a lot of a Simpsons. Go to 20:20.

Yes, you could say, “I know HBD says that mass Hispanic immigration will result in Brazilification and destabilization that will be bad for everyone but the elite, but I’m an elite or wanna be elite, and there is some vague possibility it won’t be so bad, so here’s some clever silly self interest gussied up in universalist rhetoric and I’m really just doing it for these poor NAMs that I’m building a wall to separate myself from unless they are mowing my lawn.”

That is a position. I just think its an obviously immoral one. And I think if that was what immigration got pitched as it would be a massive flop that nobody supports. So we are left with a position that can only be achieved by mass propaganda and thought control police. If someone like James Watson points out that Hispanic immigration will actually hurt and not help something like public debt he has to be crushed, because if people came to believe its true there is no way they would take the pro immigration position. Mass immigration can’t win in the marketplace of ideas, so its being force fed through fear.

Toddy,

There is a difference between nationalistic violence by a terrorist group over the fact that Ireland was subject to British rule for 700 years and didn’t like the terms of its independence vs how regular people view and treat each other in regular life. Again, when you go into your place of work is there and Irish faction and a British faction? Do they eat separately? Do they favor each other for promotions in a nepotistic way? Do they seem to have wildly different cultural understandings on all sorts of things? No. Though you could make that same charges when talking about whites vs non whites.

I don’t talk about Eastern Europeans or Russians because America does not share a border with them, they are not immigrating en masse, and they are a small minority in the country. As such I don’t have a strong opinion on them because I don’t have to.

It seems obvious to me that Jews act different enough from whites for it to matter on a host of issues. When I went down to Florida a few weeks ago to visit a friend and remarked that he was a walking Jewish stereotype that’s because being Jewish is a distinctive pattern that is different then the pattern you would expect for a “typical white”. And he agreed, Jews know Jews are different and act like it.

“that there are some HBD believers (like Jayman, Ron Unz and a few others) who accept HBD but do not support these positions.”

Yes, but their positions are immoral and wrong given the facts of HBD. “We are going to use Mexicans to displace blacks even though they all drag down the country because we personally profit from it in some way,” isn’t exactly a defensible position.

No, but I seem to recall some interesting things happening involving Brits and Irish between 1968 and 1994 or so that made the Bloods and Crips look like a bunch of Boy Scouts. We won’t even get into Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. Certainly, I’d be the last person to argue that race differences don’t exist, but they are not ALL that exist.

“Do you know any Ashkenazi Jews? It’s really obvious they are different from your average white.”

Yeah, I do, and sure, the’re different, but we’re talking HBD here, not observational sociology. Genetic testing indicates that Ashkenazi Jews fall broadly into the “White” (or at least “caucasian”) category, and most of them are at leastpartially European in stock.

“I think it’s a given that HBD has a political platform: (1) end of mass immigration, (2) end of disparate impact.”

I certainly support both these things, and I believe that HBD does support and buttress these positions. But then again, I supported these positions before I had ever heard of HBD, and it is important to note, as T. Greer points out, that there are some HBD believers (like Jayman, Ron Unz and a few others) who accept HBD but do not support these positions.

HBD is a fact, and facts do lead us in certain directions, if we desire certain things. But in order to be brought into line with the facts of HBD, WN is going to have to change somewhat. This shouldn’t be hard, because unlike leftists, most WNs are not in total denial of the facts.

But it is quite possible to accept ecology without deciding that the the ideal political platform revolves around saving pandas.

Likewise, it is quite possible to understand the basics of human biodiversity and still be in favor of mass immigration. Indeed, as Ron Unz tells the story (see p. 13), recognition that Hispanic immigrants are substantially less violent than black Americans and poor white Americans is one of the reasons they are so eager to have such high levels of Hispanic immigration to America’s largest urban areas.

Likewise, one could still support immigration purely on humanitarian grounds, recognizing that ethnic tensions and other concerns brought up by NRx types are simply a cost worth bearing.

And so forth an so on.

Indeed, it’s a variant of Lewontin’s fallacy.

There are others that are strongly implied but debatable — things like education, welfare, etc. — but the above two are just slam dunks. If someone says HBD doesn’t imply the above they are just lying.

You don’t need to be a WN to figure this out; ask plenty of well respected statesmen over in Asia. And — surprise, surprise — they take the attitude of WN in their own countries. Japanese people don’t freak out at being labeled Japanese Nationalists when they won’t allow any immigration and tell everyone unashamedly that Japan is for the Japanese. Even the Jews are big on being Jewish Nationalists over in Israel.