Quite an astonishing performance from Bill O’Reilly and John McCain on Fox:
Bill O’Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.
John McCain: In America today we’ve got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don’t need so many.
O’Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don’t know, I don’t know. We’ve got to cap it.
McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.
Update: Amanda at Pandagon on Bill O’Reilly.
But I thought white, Christian, male privilege was a PC myth, Kim!
Err wasn’t any ‘White, Christian, male power structure’ built on the sweat of slave or imperial labour? In which case legitimating hispanic labourers should gird Mr O’Reilly.
I surmmise he doesn’t want non-white skin too close, as he doesn’t campaign against off-shoring jobs. Oh, and ‘Christian’ means ‘Baptist or Pentecostal’ cause he doesn’t want too many Catholics nearby either.
And I am Irish somewhere in my genetic make-up and have meet the interviewers,namesakes,who may vary with his opinion,and I guess being American also allows you to see everyone as numbers rather than individuals,because I guess it is implied in the word everyone.The average American may not know what is going on with the illegal matters and would have problems on the two stated attitudes Left and Right depending on their experiences and advantages disadvantages..sad it is to me see these people flocking into the place in desperation,and yes, they could turn out to be very nasty.All this probably would be solvable,by just recognising Cuba,and let the Cubans organise the weak defence of the U.SA. and who should pass through and on what conditions.How stupid the strange division is when a willigness to even except Marxism under the Cubans and their military..would probably lead to more efficient human practices for illegals and the U.S.A peoples themselves.The Right and so-called left there have to admit human life is much more complex than the simple solutions.The fence should and could be a productive place along permaculture garden lines and a ecological safety place to test and insure illegals can eat and be educated at that border,and learn some basic skills ,generally.If it considered courageous to build the fence,then admitting the other views may have some relevance too,is possible and can be exercised at the fence.Numbers to not necessarily indicate character,and,character is important for Christians, I so rudely learnt at a Technical School from a headmaster who liked punishing people re the failures of their character.
Bill, Bill, Bill….
what have you done?
everytime now I say - male power is a myth - your quote will be thrown in my face!
hah - but then again who would be game to quote you?
What kind of white, Christian male power structure would Jesus strap on an explosives belt to support?
Published by Kim on 1 June 2007 at 11:56 am
O’reilly’s “letting the cat out of the bag” is very much “dog bites man” for anyone honest enough to admit the truth about US history in particular and modern history in general. The “White Christian male power structure” may be a good thing or a bad thing. But, as Bob Dylan once said in another context, it is certainly a thing.
It is a matter of historical fact that the white Christian male power structure made the modern world, for better or for worse. The Caucasian Christian Alpha-males still run most of the world, and send their kids to Christian schools to keep things that way.
Non-Caucasians, non-Christians and non-males might have done any amount of good work and been inestimably better people. But they did not make modernity’s power structure. They do run a good line in “we wuz robbed” though.
Charles Murray Human Accomplishment sets the record straight on this issue. I personally think he underrates the Asian accomplishment. But the data supports his conclusion that pale, male Christians made most of the running in the passage through modernity:
Now is a good time to stand back in admiration. What the human species is today it owes in astonishing degree to what was accomplished in just half a dozen centuries by the peoples of one small portion of the northwestern Eurasian land mass.”
I dont think it makes much sense to commit onceself to one ethnic category for all times and places. Evolution means that all categories change over time. Every dog has its day. So the Caucasian race, Christian religion and maybe even the male gender may one day hit the dust.
I would be interested to hear Larva Prodders, experts on multicultural values, expatiate on the relative merits of European North America to Hispanic Meso America. Perhaps the Mestizos, after another generation of unchecked illegal immigration makes them the dominant ethnic group in the US, will do better than the WASPs. No doubt the US faces a bright shining future as its other states become more like New Mexico.
Amanda at Pandagon on Bill O’Reilly.
“The Caucasian Christian Alpha-males still run most of the world, and send their kids to Christian schools to keep things that way”
no one i know lives in this bizarro world that you describe
Spoken like a true gamma-male, Rogs.
I guess Spanish men are deemed by the Spengler-fixated to be insufficiently white, male, or Christian.
*Snicker*
Conservative Christian, Right Wing Republican, Straight White American Males
I do hope Todd Snider tours soon.
What? They won’t even let you in through the tradesman’s entrance?
(But on the other hand they do own hounds to keep the smellies at a respectable distance.)
Oh hello. It’s Rev Ted Haggard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GIPt1IPpg
Rogs on 3 June 2007 at 10:13 am
Then you should get out more. Or be less naive about how social systems actually work over time - through the transmission of heritable advantages.
There is a boom in enrollments into Christian schools:
A new religious school opens somewhere in NSW every six weeks. This phenomenon, however, is not merely about religion. Non-believers are moving their children out of state schools to be educated alongside the children of the devout and religiously ambivalent.
As Phillip Heath, president of Australian Anglican Schools, sees it, parents are flocking to religious education for “the package” that provides “a moral and ethical educational framework”.
And it should be obvious even to someone as sheltered and oblivious to reality as you that a large part of the boom in leafy eastern suburbs property prices is driven by the desire by well-heeled households to get children into high-status Christian schools. Now aspirational households are striving to embrace a tonier Christian moral education and a better class of fellow student for their children, in an effort to stay in the status race with esrtablished households:
It is not just the gates of “old school tie” institutions like Scotch College or Melbourne Girls Grammar that are opening. The move away from public schools is also being driven by the popularity of Catholic and low-fee independent schools in Melbourne’s growth corridors.
Enrolments at small independent schools have grown by an average of 6.7 per cent over the past decade. With fees often below $5000 a year, these schools are attracting families who previously could not afford private-school education.
I do not claim that private schools offer a better education thant state schools. But they definitely offer better social networking possibilities.
And, obviously, the more heterogenous society becomes, say through open borders immigration, the greater the pressure for stratification and exclusive access to positional goods - like private schools. But diversity-philes dont think of the down-side of diversity for a social democratic welfare state.
Katz on 3 June 2007 at 10:29 am
*Snicker*
Only someone completely ignorant of American social systems thinks Mestizos, the ethnic groups most prone to illegal immigration, are ethnic “Spanish”.
The CIA fact boook shows that Mexico has a mixed-race ethnic composition, with European whites at the top (9%) Indian & mestizos in the middle (90%) and African negroes at the bottom (?%). It is obvious to anyone who relies on their own ‘lyin eyes that the mestizos and indians are the most likely to be illegal immigrants.
The whites are not likely to be fording the Rio Grande to get $2 hr jobs at Wal Mart. THey are doing nicely at home in fortified villas with large retinues of servants.
The whole process increases national inequality in both nations. This harms poorer citizens in the US, especially blacks. And it helps richer citizens in both the US and Mexico. But I wouldnt expect a Leftist obsessed with diversity to be wise to brute facts of life.
PS Spenglerians think that the West is doomed. For starteers I think that “the West” is a silly concept. The “North” makes more sense as a predictive concept. And it is certainly not doomed, as any visitor to Shanghai can testify.
Other than that your comment is fine.
*snicker*
Christine Keeler on 3 June 2007 at 11:24 am
Oh hello. It’s Rev Ted Haggard [link]
I guess this is supposed to be a joke about white Christian male power structure come down in the world. Well I am the last to dispute this event, since one could not get any higher than undisputed world domination.
Or is CK suggesting that mordern world creation and domination was not the work and position of WASPs in the 19th C? And if so who was it that made the modern world then, little green men from Mars?
The level of knowledge and even basic street savvy shown on this thread by Larva Prodders is pathetic. Suggesting that the Christian private schools boom is “bizzarro” world, that illegal immigrants to the US are mostly Spanish and that WASPs did not make the modern world is just plain barmy.
Like I said, issues of professional competence seem to be the best explanation for the shoddy level of intellectual performance. Maybe you went to the wrong schools!
Mungo Amanda on 3 June 2007 at 10:32 am
I do hope Todd Snider tours soon.
I think Kinky Friedman walks all over him. But I have always had a soft spot for tree-hugging Texas Jewboys. Tried to visit him in Austin but he was on tour. Fred Negro did manage to get an appendage autographed by him.
PS Despite (or because) he is a solid Leftist KF is a strong opponent of illegal immigration. Obviously the class of Caucasian Christian Alpha-males includes most prominent conservatives and constructivists.
Only whites go to private schools, Jack? Gee, I didn’t know that. It’s a wonder they’re not breaking the law then.
How many of the new religious schools you praise are actually run by TEH ISLAM? Islamic schools have been major beneficiaries of Howard’s school funding policies.
As have small fundie ones. They don’t exactly provide the “social mobility” you get from your 20k a year GPS schools. Nor are they really in tune with your “Enlightenment reason” narrative.
So your basic argument is that equal opportunity is a bad thing?
And presumably that the girls’ schools should revert to teaching useful accomplishments like French and deportment since it’s a white male Christian power structure?
Maybe the lack of serious response to your comments is a function of the fact that we’ve heard them all before.
Kim on 3 June 2007 at 12:57 pm
Spot the fallacy. Okay I am not confident of your logical perspicacity. SO let me connect the dots.
Its true that Caucasians are most likely to be in Christian private schools. But it does not follow that these schools are racially segregationist, white supremacist or just bastions of privilege (although for some Alpha males that is what they are there for).
Plenty of ambitious high-IQ North East Asians parent are eager to enrol their kid in PLC or Scotch and convert to Presbyterianism. They are all welcome in such schools, which depend on status-ascendancy in the intellectual stakes for their enrollment success.
kim says:
I dont have a problem with public funding for Islamic scools, just as there was public funding for Catholic schools. I believe that both will encourage assimilation or integration. Gough quasi nationalised Catholic schools which caused Catholics to move out of their ghettos.
kim says:
Islam is not the problem. There are plenty of good Islamic people eg Turks. Immigrants from pre-modern tribal badlands bringing pre-modern barbaric cultures are the problem. Many of these immigrants are sectarian Islamic. That is a dependent variable.
kim says:
No, quite the opposite. I want to save social democracy from ignorant and foolish Left wing agitators. Social democracy only works with conservative, rather than constructivist, social policy. And it seems to go best with a cohesive nation state.
I am arguing that global open borders reduces national social mobility. I have been saying all along that diversity-philes dont seem to appreciate the internal contradictions in their ideological platform. You cannot import diversity without sacrificing local equality and national community.
In some ways diversity-philia empowers the Caucasian Christian Alpha-males at the expense of Caucasian Christian non-Alpha male households. Not surprising then that GW Bush & T Kennedy are diversity-philes. Or that working class battlers, the social foundation of social democracy, tend to be skeptical of the merits.
kim says:
I welcome female emancipation and more worldy education. Perhaps less emphasis on “we wuz robbed” feminist studies might help them climb the social ladder more rapidly. I eagerly await the ascendancy of females, whether Caucasian/Christian or not, into the higher stratas of society. Larry SUmmers has pointed the way forward.
kim says:
The “unserious responses”, which I refuted chapter and verse, are all without exception based on fallacies or falsities. So maybe these commenters have been “heard them all before” in some special solipsistic universe. They need to engage in moer reality-based communication.
So, I’m sorry, Jack, they’re part of the White Christian Male Power Structure now? Is there, like, an honorary membership category for “high-IQ North East Asians”? Is it obligatory to convert to Presbyterianism?
Kim on 3 June 2007 at 1:40 pm
Sort of. As I have repeatedly said, the global power structure is gradually morphing to include all of North Eurasia. Caucasian-raced Christian-schooled, male-led households are still predominant in the high-status positions as they are legatees of the WASP triumphs.
I expect that will change with increased skilled immigration from North Eurasia and increased exogamy amongst North Eurasian women. These females are now highly sought after as mates.
The traditional ruling class has always had a bit of room for some ethnic diversity, providing it shares values. British private schools welcomed cricket-playing Indian princes. Fortune 500 firms clamour for Asian computer nerds under the EB-1 visa.
To make it simple and easy for you to understand: one can have a more or less culturally cohesive ruling strata which at the same time slowly allows some diverse entry to exclusive circles. This is good from the point of hybrid vigour and the competitive meritocracy. Although agents on the ground simply see it as getting ahead by stealing a march.
Your arguments suffer from the common logical defect of morality-playing intellectuals: making every inference a choice between “either-or” rather than “more-or-less”. You should study statistical methodology more and left-wing ideology less.
Also your desperation to come up with “gotcha” logical contradictions in my argument means that you have disengaged with the basic empirical facts I am bringing to your attention. Like I said, a little bit more reality-based communication is indicated.
And when are you going to get out a little more Jack, and observe the real world, as opposed to the constructivism of your own fevered imaginings? If you think elementary logic amounts to ‘gotcha’ moments, you are even more deluded than your posts hitherto have seemed.
We live in Australia. Why should the United States meaning of a perfectly unambiguous word be accepted in Australia?
Hispanic from Hispania = Spain.
Ergo, Hispanic = Spanish.
If you meant Mestizo in your original post, why didn’t you use Mestizo in your original post?
*chortle*
Only thing wrong with that sentence is the pronoun. In general, “more-or-less” or “Well, sort of” don’t get a look in until well after your ideas are rebutted, Jack.
That’s not intended as an a priori argument, with a rigorous application of deductive logic by the way - it’s more of an empirical observation that I’m bringing to your attention.
Katz on 3 June 2007 at 3:21 pm
Well there is this thing called the internet which carries articles written in American usage from American pov. But since you have not quite mastered using it all by yourself I am reduced to putting training wheels on every comment for ease of portation.
katz says:
I did use Mestizo in my original comment. You were just to lazy or self-referential to bother noting it. Jack Said:
Katz says:
*guffaw*
amused on 3 June 2007 at 3:03 pm
No I do not think that logic is only useful for “gotch” critics. You are revealing your own fallacious reasoning if you invalidly draw that general conclusion from my partial observation.
My observation was particularly directed at Kim’s clumsy attempt at exposing a chink in my world model. Elementary logic, to draw interesting conclusions, needs a more substantial basis than picking holes in a straw man. To paraphrase Waugh’s pain at observing Spender’s abuse of language, watching Larva Prodders mangle arguments whilst
[logical apparatus] is to experience all the horror of seeing a Sevres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee.
Gummo Trotsky on 3 June 2007 at 3:25 pm
That’s not intended as an a priori argument, with a rigorous application of deductive logic by the way - it’s more of an empirical observation that I’m bringing to your attention.
Fair enough. I am as guilty as the next man of constructing sweeping generalisations at the cost of empirical observation.
Weber stressed the need to build “ideal types” in social science, in order to impose conceptual order on the chaos of perceptual data. This was the foundation, not the conclusion, to a structure of empirically testable hypotheses.
My method is to develop an orthogonal matrix where concepts are mutually exclusive if not exhaustive. This gives a taxonomy bounded by “idealised” polar opposites, with “realised” identies located somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
This method can reify a real thing into into a caricature. It is “unrealistic” as in reality entities are not neatly partitioned into simply distinguishable sets. They are open and “fuzzy” at the edges so that they form a continuum with other concepts.
In mitigation I can point to the fact that my theories are empirically testable and open to revision.
ROTFLMFAO. Oh Jack, Jack, Jack. Where were these Catholic ghettos exactly? Melbourne? Does that count as a ghetto?
Derrida derider on another thread had something to say which is highly relevant to the orthogonal matrices of the Strocchiverse (take the red pill!):
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/01/friday-finger-fun/#comment-373817
Christine Keeler on 3 June 2007 at 5:34 pm
It surely does if the notion of hereditary disadvantage and social exclusion based on geographical-linked ancestry was applicable to Australia. Which it was.
If you stopped ROTF and got off your FA more often you might have heard of the Irish Catholics who used to dominate the Collingwood-Richmond (Carrigbush) area of Melbourne, from the Great Strikes right up until Menzies time. This was an Irish ghetto alright, although a fairly nice one for that reason.
My Irish grandmother used to live there before she got the real estate bug and moved up and out. She met Sqizzy Taylor and was one of the more noted subjects of 2.0.CO;2-P”>Struggletown, a peoples historical book that focused on its Hibernian flavour. But she was exceptional.
The history of that time and place was covered by Frank Hardy in “Power without Glory”. As Blamey argues is impossible to conceive of the development of australian rules football without recognising the Irish prole v Anglo bourgie conflict played out on the ovals.
Gough put a stop to the whole thing by state aid to Catholic schools. This knocked the sectarian wind out of the atheist Left and anglican Right. This was only 40 years ago, when ads used to head with “No Catholics need apply”
You really have no idea, do you?
There’s a bit of a chicken/egg conundrum there. Was Whitlam able to prevail over the Labor Left on state aid because sectarianism had receded or did Whitlam give a lead in burying the sectarian issue?
Kim on 3 June 2007 at 5:38 pm
DD’s comment has very little to do with orthogonality except perhaps in the Kim-verse, a very lonely and barren place, I fear.
I have always been dissatisfied with the one dimensional ideological spectrum. So I have tried to introduce multiple dimensions to create a more usefull taxonomy.
Most obviously, Left-Right refers to political alignments based on the range of stratification accross social space. Orthogonally speaking, conservativism-constructivism refers to the pace of modulation through historical time.
An interesting implication of this is that Right is not necc. conservative and Left is not necc. constructive. This is counter to CW but is obviously empirically true. The militant constructivism of Right wing GW Bush proves this, as does the moderate conservatism of Left wing K Rudd.
YOu may think that this is so much Kool Aid, alth the better to take a pass on. But I dont see your own banal and predictable ideology giving any interesting insights beyond that which could be gleaned off the dog-eared, yellow curling pages of some remaindered manual on consciousness-raising from the seventies.
derrider derrider says:
This “within-group is greater than between-group” diversity argument was considered hot-stuff when Lewontin first cooked it up in the seventies. For sure it is right so far as it goes. Which is not very far given that it was based on genetic variation in blood groups.
But blood group DNA is more like junk DNA than functional DNA. Useful for marking bio-ancestry, but not obviously useful in measuring biological difference as cranked out by sexual selection, which is where the genetic rubber hits the race road.
The fallacy was recently refuted by Edwards. Sailer, as usual, gives a pithy reductio:
Now, blood types are, I suppose, important, but they hardly represent all we want to know about human genetic diversity. Certain other traits are known to be more racially determined — the figure for skin color, not surprisingly, is 60%. What the overall number is for all the important genes remains unknown.
Still, let’s assume that Lewontin’s 15% solution is widely applicable. That’s like going to a casino that has American Indian and African American croupiers, and 85% of the time the roulette spins are random, but 15% of the time the ball always comes up red for Indian croupiers and black for the black croupiers — pretty useful information, huh?
Most variation is within racial groups, not between racial groups. Two members of the same race are likely to differ from each other more than the average member of their race differs from the average member of another race.
Sure, but so what? No single human category can account for a majority of all the many ways humans differ from each other. Try substituting other categories like “age:” “Most variation is within age groups, not between age groups.” Yup, that’s true, too. But, it doesn’t mean that Age Does Not Exist.
Obviously this implies that a given biological classification, if measured properly, will correctly predict something interesting about any randomly selected “individual within the group”. This information might have profound policy implications if that is the only information you have to go on. Such as the formation of nations.
Of course the more we know about the specific phenotype of an individual the less we need to rely on genotypic stereotypes of a a class. But the more we know of both, the better.
“Knowledge is good.” (J. Belushi)
Which kind of screws up your argument about Gough and state aid.
Jack, the critical thing here is that percentage figure - the so called reductio tries to slide this point under the radar.
A 15 per cent variation in between-group phenotypes is huge - much bigger than even people like Murray assert for innate IQ variation between races. Most models of these sort of things have R-squareds below (sometimes far below) 0.02.
The age example you give proves my point - between-group variation in, say, skin wrinkles, is probably not much more than 15 percent but that’s enough to associate wrinkles with age in peoples’ mind. Excluding cohort effects, the between group association of adult height with age is probably far greater than the between-group association of innate intelligence with race (we all tend to get shorter as we age) but we don’t build kitchen cupboards based on the age of the house occupants - we look at the height of the actual individual occupants.