All slopes are slippery

The Guardian remarks:

The deeper fear among Tory remainers now isn’t just of a recession. It’s about the rise of something new in British politics

When Tony Abbott halted illegal immigration to Australia he took a total no exceptions policy – not one illegal would be allowed in or allowed to stay, however sad his case, not one anchor baby would be allowed to stay. A power struggle ensued over a tiny handful of cute babies with photogenic ailments requiring urgent medical attention, and it immediately became obvious that both left and right believed that if one cute baby whose parents were fleeing religious persecution was allowed in, it would swiftly become extremely difficult to say “no” to one hundred million black male African Muslims with machetes fiercely screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, that if you cannot hold the simplest possible reasonable Schelling point, you cannot hold any Schelling point anywhere, that everyone with any expertise in politics believed that all slopes are slippery.

Brexit may well lead to a cascade of independence movements, and a cascade of walls against brown skinned people and Muslims – or at least that is what our leaders fear.

Brexit does nothing in itself to prevent Britain from being overrun by Muslims who are fundamentally and intrinsically hostile to Britain and the British. But it makes possible the will and intent to prevent Britain from being overrun with Muslims.

Brexit makes it possible for Britain to make free trade agreements with those nations with which she is united by history, language, culture, and customary law – which suddenly means that history, language, culture, and customary law are likely to become salient in people’s minds. Those that seek to abolish Britain and the British can no longer claim that unelected Eurocrats make abolishing Britain and the British economically efficient.

I am not saying that we are winning (indeed as long as we have one person one vote we are inexorably doomed to lose horribly, to vanish utterly from history, and to be unremembered as those capable of remembering the past perish also) but Brexit is going to set free dangerous thoughts.

The Altright is the Dark Enlightenment manifesting as a mob, and Trump is the altright manifesting as electoral politics. Brexit is also the altright manifesting as electoral politics.

A key point of the Dark Enlightenment is that mobs are not the solution to the problem and electoral politics are not the solution to the problem – but they are a manifestation that people are thinking about the problem and thinking of solving it. Even if Trump becomes president, his greatest accomplishment will remain that Trump set free dangerous thoughts. Ideas are far more powerful than guns, for someone has to aim the guns. The mob, and the electoral politics, are not power, but are echoes of power, they are the thunder that tells us the lightning has already struck.

Tags:

124 Responses to “All slopes are slippery”

  1. glenfilthie says:

    Great minds think alike, Jim!

    But as to our winning – our victory – or rather, the fall of liberalism… It’s a done deal. They were doomed from the start. All empires rise and fall. Freedom, civil rights and free markets only possible in the most developed and intelligent societies. The default condition for Man is tyranny and war.

    White men alone rose above all that and made an honest, serious effort at bearing The White Man’s Burden. Sadly, uplift IS a matter of genetics and not Magic Dirt.

    What do YOU see in your crystal ball, Jim?

    • peppermint says:

      » made an honest, serious effort at bearing The White Man’s Burden

      this was always a cuck idea imposed by souls theorist cucks.

      While the hyelomorphism of Thomas Aquinas does not necessarily support this, believing in souls and gods prejudiced the pre-scientific minds against observing human behavior as animal behavior or taking evolution seriously.

      The British Empire was already ruined by ((Yahweh)) by the time ((Yahweh’s Chosen)) took over.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Was it? Or was it a propaganda excuse to engage in good old regular exploitation in a way that calmed down a third party–namely, the sort of people you call cucks?

  2. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    Civil war is coming.

    The elites are frantically importing third worlders to use as a mob army against Whites, and, in the US, are working hard to disarm White men. That their end goal is instability, conflict, and conquest is apparent.

    The greatest danger for the Alt-Right is in believing that electoral politics is the answer, that we won’t have to fight our way out of this mess.

    Ideas + Guns = Victory.

  3. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    The Dark Enlightenment eschews both street politics and political violence, and is thereby marginalizing itself.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      The DE’s insight is that the elite always rules, and therefore is aimed at persuading the elite that Progressivism is a defect-defect equilibrium within the elite.

      Amassing proles to overthrow the elite never works. Whenever you see proles overthrowing a government, that government had already lost the support of the elite.

      • Irving says:

        The proles either passively, if at times resentfully, accept the authority of the elites, or else they, with the support of foreign elites, rise up against their local elites. Yet proles never independently rise up against the elite.

  4. Cloudswrest says:

    OT, a friend on FB posted this. Haven’t seen anything on the news here in the States. Muslim rioting in Sydney.

    https://youtu.be/y3j85XCPoCk

  5. Irving says:

    Brexit, as much as I think that it is a good thing, has nothing to do with ideas. Over 70 percent of voters with university degrees–which is to say, precisely that demographic that is the most likely to align their votes with their ideas–voted to remain, and over 70 percent of voters without university degrees–which is to say, exactly that demographic which is likely too dumb to care about ideas at all–voted to leave. We aren’t going to get anywhere by projecting our concerns and ideas on the mob, which doesn’t share our concerns and ideas, and is for the most part exclusively preoccupied with venting their frustration over their increasingly dismal economic condition and the influx of immigrant economic competition, and with expressing their purely emotive (as opposed to HBD-based) hostility towards Muslims mainly and blacks secondarily.

    • viking says:

      University degrees are given to niggers and women at a dime a dozen, the cathedral wants you to believe if you haven’t been re educated your opinion is useless. I have a 132 IQ and work in construction i sit at tables with other foreman and can tell we are all about the same IQ, my crews are divided between sub human niggers from affirmative action and legacy whites the whites are all over the curve. Despite Murray we are not quite as sorted as assumed also in rural areas where i have other interests all are white and very very few go to university The distribution in rural areas is normal. Another factor is High IQ people can be raised to have no interest things that are assumed to signal intelligence despite my blue collar job i was raised in an upper middle class house I can spot intelligence even among niggers having spent a good amount of time among them as well but I notice upper class people first cant judge outside their class and usually use a class sensor as a proxy the result is they grade each other easy and others hard. High IQ people of low education have excellent instincts whats really happening is pattern recognition with the language to describe but it works.

      • Irving says:

        >University degrees are given to niggers and women at a dime a dozen

        The coursework required to get a university degree has been watered down considerably over the past few decades, but university degrees still make for very good proxies of intelligence and income.

        >the cathedral wants you to believe if you haven’t been re educated your opinion is useless

        That’s what the Cathedral says. What I’m saying, however, is that if you are dumb, you’re opinion is worthless, and these days, not having a university degree in most cases means that you are, at best, of mediocre intelligence.

        >I have a 132 IQ and work in construction i sit at tables with other foreman and can tell we are all about the same IQ…

        Personal anecdotes are irrelevant when posted anonymously on the internet.

        • Hard Right says:

          Someone with an IQ of 132 should understand how to use punctuation.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          @Irving

          College degrees aren’t a proxy for intelligence. STEM degrees are. The skilled trades are also a proxy for intelligence as well.

          A degree in Africoon Studies isn’t a marker for intelligence.

        • viking says:

          Personal anecdotes are irrelevant when posted anonymously on the internet.

          Im not having my comment peer reviewed simply pointing out that most people you assume to be intelligent have a much more limited experience of the world than I. Working half the year in NYC construction and half in the rural western Rockies, the traveling between over thirty years Ive realized there are huge swaths of the american population that dont even consider university. Unless you know of something in the water that effects intelligence in certain areas then the count is off. Actually Im aware there is research out that at least minimally addresses the missing.It worth mentioning that intelligent people are who have fucked up the world

        • viking says:

          and then I started reading all your back and forth and realize youre a troll, so your point is brexit was stupid idea by stupid people, yeah good luck with that pal

          • Irving says:

            >Im not having my comment peer reviewed simply pointing out that most people you assume to be intelligent have a much more limited experience of the world than I.

            The point is that you tried to base your entire argument around a personal anecdote. Personal anecdotes could potentially be illuminating if they are thrown in to back up an argument that is strong enough to stand on its own, but to base an argument entirely on a personal anecdote, especially when it is posted anonymously, is unacceptable.

            >and then I started reading all your back and forth and realize youre a troll, so your point is brexit was stupid idea by stupid people, yeah good luck with that pal

            I think Brexit was a good idea. I just took exception to Jim’s assertion that Brexit will presage the transformation of England into some kind of neo-reactionary country or something.

    • peppermint says:

      » has nothing to do with ideas

      our host just said that

      » voters with university degrees–which is to say, precisely that demographic that is the most likely to align their votes with their ideas

      lol what does this even mean? perhaps it’s denying that non-elites have Ideas, or asserting that non-elites will dutifully recite elite Ideas while doing what they can for their families

      » for the most part exclusively preoccupied with venting their frustration over their increasingly dismal economic condition and the influx of immigrant economic competition, and with expressing their [ethnic] (as opposed to HBD-based) hostility towards [enemies of their ethinicy]

      why, yes, we are

      • Irving says:

        >our host just said that

        Jim wrote “Brexit is going to set free dangerous thoughts”. I’m merely pointing out that the people who voted for Brexit are, by and large, incapable of thinking, and the Brits who actually can think voted for the most part against Brexit, making it unlikely that Brexit will make them think dangerous thoughts.

        >lol what does this even mean? perhaps it’s denying that non-elites have Ideas, or asserting that non-elites will dutifully recite elite Ideas while doing what they can for their families

        My bad, my original post was sloppily put. What I meant though is that the pro-Brexit constituency is made up of people who are largely frustrated with their f-ed up economic situation and with Muslims, but mostly with their f-ed up economic situation. That’s pretty much it. I don’t see the white underclass and middle-class-but-soon-to-be-underclass types in Britain engaging in politics with the purpose of achieving some idealistic end like establishing a white ethnostate or something.

        • jim says:

          I’m merely pointing out that the people who voted for Brexit are, by and large, incapable of thinking

          The people who led the vote for Brexit are not only capable of thinking, they are vastly smarter than your typical Harvard PhD. In a democracy, to get stuff done you need a high low alliance, and it silly for progressives whose hold on power rests on women and blacks to complain that their opponents depend on white working class males.

          The average woman is seven points lower in IQ than the average male, and at the high end, among the smarter people, among the people who hold down the better sort of job, about fifteen points, a full standard deviation lower. It was women and coloreds who voted against brexit.

          Thus, pretty clearly, it was the smarter people that voted for Brexit.

          Because of affirmative action, race and sex are these days more reliable indicators of intelligence than credentials, and by race and sex, it was the smart people who voted for brexit, and if we look at the leadership, the brexit leadership is very smart.

          • Irving says:

            The majority of everyone in Britain with a degree above a GCSE (which, from what I’ve read, is equivalent to a high school diploma in America), with the disparity becoming wider the higher up the educational ladder one goes. And given that Britain doesn’t do affirmative action, their degrees are more reliable IQ proxies than are American degrees.

            I don’t know about the gender disparity in the voting. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

          • Irving says:

            According to the Telegraph, there was no gender gap. The major faultlines were rather centered around age and education: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-which-type-of-person-wants-to-leave-and-who-will-b/

          • Irving says:

            Here’s the official data. 51 percent of women voted to stay and 50 percent of men voted to go, and as you’ll see, the people who voted for Brexit were largely less educated and lower class.

            https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/24/eu-referendum-provincial-england-versus-london-and/

          • Irving says:

            This keeps happening. You’ll post a response to one of my posts, then I respond to your response, then I refresh the page, and then your post becomes 2x longer, and then I have to post another response. I don’t know if the problem is my computer or something. In any case, I missed everything starting at “Thus, pretty clearly…”.

            In any case, as the data shows, it isn’t just the educated people who voted against Brexit, 62 percent of those with professional jobs, etc., etc.. The point that I made still stands.

            • jim says:

              You are correct. People with professional jobs are smarter, and tended to vote for remain. But, on the other hand.

              For “in” voters, the top three [British problems] are: British banks, the Conservative-led government since 2010 and growing inequality.
              For “out” voters they are: EU rules and regulations, immigrants willing to work for low wages and the last Labour government.

              Out voters seem to be in far closer contact with reality.

              Complaining about cheap labor imports is an indicator of smart working class. Complaining about EU rules and regulations is an indicator of top tier professional class – ordinary members of the professional class are not impacted directly by EU rules and regulations.

              Secondly, there was no race breakdown. Britain has been flooded by colored, largely Muslim, migrants, who tend to be low IQ. Pretty sure that all of them voted against Brexit. Pretty sure that many of them are in the professional classes due to the affirmative action that you say does not exist in Britain.

          • Irving says:

            >You are correct. People with professional jobs are smarter, and tended to vote for remain. But, on the other hand.

            >Secondly, there was no race breakdown. Britain has been flooded by colored, largely Muslim, migrants, who tend to be low IQ. Pretty sure that all of them voted against Brexit.

            You haven’t gone far enough. The voting results clearly show that the smarter the voter, the more likely that voter was to vote Remain.

            As far as race goes, remember that non-whites are on average considerably younger than whites in England, and therefore they are underrepresented among the voting-eligible population. None the less, I’d bet that most Asians (including Chinese) and blacks voted to stay. Some of those non-whites were high IQ and therefore likely voted the way that they did for the same reasons that high IQ whites voted that they did, and the low IQ ones couldn’t have made up a significant enough portion of the electorate to give the pro-Brexit voters the upper-hand IQ-wise anyway

            >Complaining about cheap labor imports is an indicator of smart working class.

            No. One doesn’t have to be smart to know that cheap labor imports negatively effect the working class. Take a look at South African blacks, who routinely massacre cheap labor immigrants from other African countries for the simple fact that they are cheap labor immigrants, and are therefore likely, by their very presence, to negatively effect the economic position of South African blacks.

            • jim says:

              You haven’t gone far enough. The voting results clearly show that the smarter the voter, the more likely that voter was to vote Remain.

              No.

              They show that on those correlates of intelligence that it was permissible to look at, the smarter the voter, the more likely that voter was to vote Remain.

              Considering that leadership of the remainers want to bring in several hundred million Africans to vote correctly, other correlates of intelligence might well have given a different picture.

              Less educated people are less exposed to state propaganda. Smarter people are more resistant to state propaganda. The list of issues considered important by exit voters correlates with smarter people

              You need to be slightly above average intelligence to grasp supply and demand. Exiters grasped supply and demand. Remainers did not.

            • jim says:

              , and the low IQ ones couldn’t have made up a significant enough portion of the electorate to give the pro-Brexit voters the upper-hand IQ-wise anyway

              Looking at photographs of London, which voted for Remain, pretty sure the great majority of Londoners are low IQ colored people.

            • jim says:

              the low IQ ones couldn’t have made up a significant enough portion of the electorate to give the pro-Brexit voters the upper-hand IQ-wise anyway

              One in six of the electorate are nonwhite. On the look of them, looks like most of them are low IQ. The US has a significant number of high IQ nonwhites due to H1-B visas, but Britain has no equivalent.

              London looks to be majority nonwhite, and power is in the hands of (comparatively high IQ) nonwhites – mainly the whiter kind of Arab. Used to be Jews, but the Jews are getting kicked to the curb by the Arabs they brought in to vote left.

          • Irving says:

            Say what you want, but when a clear majority of the white collar middle class, the professionals, the university educated, etc., vote one way, and the uneducated and economically marginalized vote the other way, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the former group of voters are smarter than the latter.

            • jim says:

              No it is not sufficient evidence, when it is politically correct to look at certain correlates of intelligence, correlates that have become less reliable in modern times, and not politically correct to look at certain other correlates of intelligence.

              Universities are the churches of the state religion. That the smarter people in every country and at every time tend to believe the state religion is not an indicator that the state religion is true.

              If to get ahead, you needed to believe in Moloch, all the smart people would believe in Moloch, and sacrifice their first born in the fires of Moloch – or more likely adopt some poor kid and sacrifice him and claim he was their first born.

              Which is what you see happening with these kids who supposedly want to sexually transition before puberty. Their adoptive parents are forcing them into it to prove holiness, but they are forcing adoptees, not their blood children.

          • peppermint says:

            » white collar middle class, the professionals, the university educated,
            » uneducated and economically marginalized vote the other way,

            » there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the former group of voters are smarter than the latter.

            This is the mantra that elitist liberals repeat to themselves at night to help them sleep and into the mirror when they look themselves in the eye and tell themselves they’re not contributing to the genocide of their own people.

            But in reality, professionals are subject to much more terror than others, and are experiencing much more rapid replacement by mud people than others. The escalating terror that professionals were subjected to is the reason there was intense enough evolutionary pressure on the Narrative doctrines that colorblindness was dropped in the ’90s, which, as we see now, was at least a decade too soon.

            When uneducated and marginalized means Whites who refused to participate in educational terror, determining that the easiest way to have a family would be to avoid that scene, it no longer means stupid.

            In reality, ordinary Whites are not stupid. Ordinary Whites used to listen to Homer and Shakespeare, which elites refuse, ostensibly because these are FUCKING WHITE MALEs, but secretly because these White men are harder to read than women like Emily Dickinson or women of color like are popular now.

            Ordinary Whites do not need the elite professional classes of academics, politicians, and journalists. Ordinary Whites hate politicians and journalists, but don’t yet understand that they hate academics as well. It is the challenge of the alt right to convince ordinary Whites to openly hate academics, and the challenge of ((neoreactionaries)) to tell ordinary Whites that they are stupid and should shut up and be openly ruled by ((elites)).

          • peppermint says:

            PS. Shakespeare and Homer were high art, but now egalitarianism has destroyed high art. The answer to this neoreactionary riddle is that what actually destroyed art was Jewish control and censorship.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Irving thinks a degree in Nig Nog Studies is a marker of intelligence, doh!

          • Irving says:

            Jim deserves a more substantive response, which I will post later, but suffice it to say that a degree in ‘nig nog studies’ is proxy enough to show that that degree is , minus affirmative action which the uk doesnt have, usually going to put the holder ahead of the unemployed coal miner who hasnt had a regular 9 to 5 since Thatcher.

          • peppermint says:

            » Prime Minister race down to ✡ and half ✡
            » London mayoral race down to ✡ and ☪
            » ✡ have their own police dressed up to look like the normal police, normal police don’t mind
            » ☪ have Sharia squads running around harassing people
            » ☪ rape ⊕ children with impunity

            England has far worse problems than affirmative action,

            » BBC needs less ⊕

            but does, in fact, have affirmative action

          • Irving says:

            The UK doesn’t have affirmative action as a matter of university admissions, I meant

            • jim says:

              You mean it does not admit to affirmative action as a matter of university admissions.

              But in fact British non whites are more likely to admitted to university than whites, and more likely to graduate, and women more likely to be admitted to university than men, and more likely to graduate, despite the fact that they perform markedly worse on any objective test of ability.

              If there was any place in the west that did not have affirmative action in university admissions, the US State Department would declare them Nazis and install a color revolution, and proceed to murder everyone until it got its way as in the Congo and Syria.

              It is unimaginable that any white country would be permitted to admit people to university on the basis of ability.

              If the US is not funding armed groups to commit genocidal mass murder against the British, the way it is funding, arming, and feeding terrorist groups to commit genocide against the Alawites, then the British have affirmative action in University admissions.

              It is clear that the non white population of Britain is on average substantially lower IQ than the white population, and the female population substantially lower IQ than the male, and yet the university system grants them on average substantially higher credentials.

              Despite substantially lower average IQ, a non white is twice as likely to be admitted to a British university, and twice as likely to graduate from a British University. Similarly for females. However, nonwhite and female graduates have dramatically poorer performance on external measures of ability.

              Since nonwhites are overwhelmingly more likely to vote against Brexit than whites …

              Because of affirmative action, a degree is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, as much as it is an indicator of nonwhiteness.

              And nonwhiteness predicts voting against Brexit.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Irving says,
            “but suffice it to say that a degree in ‘nig nog studies’ is proxy enough to show that that degree is , minus affirmative action which the uk doesnt have, usually going to put the holder ahead of the unemployed coal miner who hasnt had a regular 9 to 5 since Thatcher.”

            Unbelievable, Irving actually thinks a degree holder with a Nig Nog Studies degree has better employment prospects than a skilled coal miner!
            He’s either an idiot, or he is one of the con men who are tricking people into going in massive debt for a worthless degree.

          • Irving says:

            >It is clear that the non white population of Britain is on average substantially lower IQ than the white population

            3 percent of the UK is black, and it is far from clear to me that those blacks are of substantially lower IQ than the UK’s massive and growing white underclass.

            7 percent are Asian, with 3 percent of those Asians being Chinese and Indian. I highly doubt that those Asians are significantly dumber than white British.

            • jim says:

              3 percent of the UK is black, and it is far from clear to me that those blacks are of substantially lower IQ than the UK’s massive and growing white underclass.

              You might try checking the link that you yourself gave that tells us that blacks are on average eight points lower than whites. Pretty sure the white underclass is not eight points lower.

              I highly doubt that those Asians are significantly dumber than white British.

              Again, you are barking mad, but you might try checking the link that you yourself gave for actual data on inferior races in Britains, which tells us that pakis are ten points lower than whites.

              What you are calling Asians is a British euphemism for Muslims. Muslims are significantly dumber than whites, as you can tell by just looking at the six o’clock news.

              Yes, Asians are about the same IQ has whites, east asians smarter but less capable of cooperation, hence their relatively poor performance in war. But Indians and Pakistanis are not Asians, and very few Muslims are Asian. The middle east is not Asia, Africa is definitely not Asia, and Persians are not Asians even though Persia is geographically in Asia, any more than Detroiters are Whites. Afghans are biologically white, but culturally Pakistani. There has been a hell of a lot of Völkerwanderung since the Bronze Age got started.

              Asians are a particular and recognizable racial type, and Indians are a different type, indeed several types.

          • Irving says:

            >Unbelievable, Irving actually thinks a degree holder with a Nig Nog Studies degree has better employment prospects than a skilled coal miner!

            Is there even such a thing as a “skilled coal miner”? Usually one is a coal miner precisely because one hasn’t got any skills.

            In any case, I meant that in a university system, such as the UK’s, which doesn’t practice affirmative action, it is reasonable to believe that, on average, someone with a degree in ‘nig nog studies’ has got a higher IQ than someone working as a coal miner, or as is more likely the case in the UK, someone who was a coal miner but who hasn’t worked a regular 9 to 5 since Thatcher

          • Irving says:

            >You mean it does not admit to affirmative action as a matter of university admissions.

            Yes

            >But in fact British non whites are more likely to admitted to university than whites, and more likely to graduate, and women more likely to be admitted to university than men, and more likely to graduate,

            Have you got any evidence for this claim? I ask even though I already know that the answer is no.

            >despite the fact that they perform markedly worse on any objective test of ability.

            Yes, black and minority university graduates perform worse than white university graduates on tests according to the evidence you’ve cited. But of course the typical Brexit voter isn’t a university graduate.

            >If there was any place in the west that did not have affirmative action in university admissions, the US State Department would declare them Nazis and install a color revolution, and proceed to murder everyone until it got its way as in the Congo and Syria.

            Well, maybe the State Department hasn’t yet made its move against the UK, because the UK doesn’t do affirmative action in its university admissions.

            >It is unimaginable that any white country would be permitted to admit people to university on the basis of ability.

            Maybe its unimaginable for you, but the facts are the facts.

            >If the US is not funding armed groups to commit genocidal mass murder against the British, the way it is funding, arming, and feeding terrorist groups to commit genocide against the Alawites, then the British have affirmative action in University admissions.

            Stop speaking nonsense

            >It is clear that the non white population of Britain is on average substantially lower IQ than the white population

            Not true. Here’s some data: http://akarlin.com/2012/08/minorities-cognitive-performance-in-the-uk/

            >the female population substantially lower IQ than the male

            agreed

            • jim says:

              >But in fact British non whites are more likely to admitted to university than whites, and more likely to graduate, and women more likely to be admitted to university than men, and more likely to graduate,

              Have you got any evidence for this claim? I ask even though I already know that the answer is no.

              You are frothing at the mouth barking mad. That whites are systematically discriminated against and continually punished for being white, and males continually punished for being male, and that the US engages in terror and mass murder against any non nuclear regime that fails to punish, humiliate, and degrade superior races and males is as plain as the nose on your face.

              But since you asked for statistics on how badly whites are discriminated against in Britain, here they are:
              http://ww2.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Labour_market_information/Graduate_Market_Trends/Ethnicity_and_graduates__early_outcomes_Winter_05_06_/p!edcbFXe

              Amongst 2004 UK- domiciled first degree graduates, 13.8% were from a minority ethnic origin, compared with 7.9% of the total population in the UK [3]. ‘Indian’ constitutes the highest percentage of minority ethnic graduates (4.1% of the 2004 total graduate population), followed by ‘other (including mixed)’ (2%) and ‘Pakistani’ (1.9%). 3.9% of graduates did not report their ethnicity.

              In other words, despite substantially lower IQ “minority ethnics” have double the chance of attending and graduating university that whites have.

              Similarly for women.

              >It is clear that the non white population of Britain is on average substantially lower IQ than the white population

              Not true. Here’s some data: http://akarlin.com/2012/08/minorities-cognitive-performance-in-the-uk/

              Your link tells us that Indians score three points lower than whites on verbal quantitative reasoning, and Pakistanis ten points lower.

              I just looked this stuff up now, but from the fact that the US is not feeding, arming, and funding terror groups to exterminate the white British the way it is feeding, arming, and funding terror groups to exterminate Alawites and Syrian Christians, I knew what I would find: That nonwhites have roughly double the chance of graduating university as whites, and women roughly double the chance of men.

          • Irving says:

            >But since you asked for statistics on how badly whites are discriminated against in Britain, here they are:
            http://ww2.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Labour_market_information/Graduate_Market_Trends/Ethnicity_and_graduates__early_outcomes_Winter_05_06_/p!edcbFXe

            >Amongst 2004 UK- domiciled first degree graduates, 13.8% were from a minority ethnic origin, compared with 7.9% of the total population in the UK [3]. ‘Indian’ constitutes the highest percentage of minority ethnic graduates (4.1% of the 2004 total graduate population), followed by ‘other (including mixed)’ (2%) and ‘Pakistani’ (1.9%). 3.9% of graduates did not report their ethnicity.

            These statistics don’t prove that whites are discriminated against in Britain. And in any case, I asked for evidence that non-whites are more likely to be admitted to and graduate from university, which you haven’t provided.

            And the statistics which apparently show that ethnic minorities are disproportionately likely to have degrees prove nothing. It is likely that the dumb ones are getting degrees from crap schools. After all, the top schools in the UK, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are still overwhelmingly, as in well over 85 percent, white.

            >In other words, despite substantially lower IQ “minority ethnics” have double the chance of attending and graduating university that whites have.

            I don’t care about the odds of nonwhites “attending” or “graduating” from university. You said that they are more likely to get into university and to graduate from university than whites. Now you’re changing the terms of the question because you know you have no evidence for your previous claims.

            >Your link tells us that Indians score three points lower than whites on verbal quantitative reasoning, and Pakistanis ten points lower.

            The point is that the link shows that nonwhites in the UK are not “substantially” dumber than whites. Indians in the UK are comparable to whites, the blacks in the UK are actually fairly smart compared to blacks elsewhere (with the Nigerians there managing to surpass whites in terms of academic achievement), etc.

            _______

            Anyway, let’s not change the subject. The point here is that all of the evidence points to Brexit supporters being dumber than its opponents. You haven’t said anything to undermine this evidence as of yet

            • jim says:

              These statistics don’t prove that whites are discriminated against in Britain.

              These statistics prove that British whites have half the chance of going to University, despite the fact that your own link shows that whites have higher average IQ than any of the other groups.

              After all, the top schools in the UK, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are still overwhelmingly, as in well over 85 percent, white.

              Your are barking mad. I have had enough of producing statistics to prove the glaringly obvious. How about you producing some statistics on the racial breakdown of Oxford and Cambridge graduates?

              I can well believe that “only” 15% of Oxford graduates were non white – back in 2004 when only 7 percent of people in Britain were minority.

              I can easily believe that Oxford and Cambridge graduates that are actually employable are overwhelmingly white, but if Oxford was not preferentially graduating members of inferior races ahead of whites, and systematically humiliating and degrading its whites students, the US would be bombing them with napalm and phosphorus.

              And in any case, it is just barking mad insane to claim that whites are not continually punished, harmed, and humiliated for being white, and barking mad insane to claim that Oxford and Cambridge do not do it as much or more than everyone else.

              Give me data for the racial graduation rates of Oxford and Cambridge in a given year, and data for the racial proportions of Britain for that same year.

          • Irving says:

            >You might try checking the link that you yourself gave that tells us that blacks are on average eight points lower than whites.

            >Pretty sure the white underclass is not eight points lower.

            If an 8 point IQ gap constitutes a substantial difference, fine.

            Otherwise, I’m glad to hear that you are “pretty sure” that the white underclass isn’t 8 IQ points dumber than the white British mean. But, your surety means nothing. I haven’t any hard evidence that would ascertain their mean IQ, but by all accounts the underclass in the UK is largely white, and that underclass evinces a degree of welfare dependency, illegitimacy rates, unemployment, crimes, substance abuse, etc., that is comparable to that of American blacks. It is obvious that they’ve got very, very low IQs.

          • Irving says:

            >How about you producing some statistics on the racial breakdown of Oxford and Cambridge graduates.

            According to page 13 of the following link on Cambridge’s website, 65.7 percent of Cambridge students are “white – British” and 23.3 percent are “white – other”, meaning that 89 percent of Cambridge student body is white:
            http://www.equality.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/equality_and_diversity_information_report_2013-14.pdf

            And this link, taken from Oxford’s website, shows that 86 percent of accepted students in 2013 were white:

            https://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/admissionsstatistics/Admissions_Statistics_2013.pdf

            So basically, UK’s top universities are overwhelmingly white, as I said above. That nonwhites may or may not disproportionately get degrees can only mean that they are getting those degrees from less competitive universities, and indeed, the numbers you cited suggest that that is the case, given that nonwhite graduates were more likely to work in jobs that didn’t require a degree.

            • jim says:

              Let us consider the category Asian British – Indian and compare it with the category White British.

              Your link tells us:
              2233 white British were accepted in 2013
              85 Indian British were accepted in 2013

              In 2013 Wikipedia estimates that there were 734,000 Indian residents of Britain, hence one in eight thousand accepted (1/8635)

              I cannot find 2013 white population, but 2011 white population should be near enough 51,736,290

              Thus, one British white in twenty three thousand accepted.

              So in 2013 white British had one third the chance of being accepted as Indian residents of Britain, despite the fact that Indian residents of Britain have lower IQs on average.

              Which is roughly what I expected from the fact that the US is not bombing Oxbridge with napalm and phosphorus.

              As I said, you are barking mad, you are frothing at the mouth insane. You live in an imaginary world that if it existed in real life would be deemed nazi and met by fire and steel. Whites and males are discriminated against, punished, and degraded, and the higher up the status ladder, the greater the price one must pay in humiliation, punishment, and degradation.

              The closer an institution is to the center of power, which is to say, the closer to Harvard, the greater the discrimination against whites and males, and the more severe the humiliation and degradation.

              Thus, unsurprisingly, Oxbridge discriminates more severely than other institutions.

          • peppermint says:

            » Is there even such a thing as a “skilled coal miner”? Usually one is a coal miner precisely because one hasn’t got any skills.

            There is even such a thing as a skilled pizza chef. In my city, there is this one pizza place that is run by Whites, who have been there for many years and know exactly what they are doing, and make pizzas perfect every time.

            By contrast, McDonalds prefers to keep their employees turning over quickly so they don’t have to deal with seniority and demands for promotions and raises from niggers.

            Some Whites recognize that this institutional rejection of institutional learning is a problem, but many of them refuse to recognize that the reason for this is anti-discrimination law.

            However, with so many unemployed and underemployed with bleak prospects, it’s getting more difficult to keep people terrorized into reciting the party line unthinkingly.

            The reason you say that people are in non-college-degree jobs because they have no skills is that employers are permitted to discriminate between college degrees and no college degrees but not between skills and ability to learn and no skills or ability to learn.

            Now that everyone has college degrees, especially non-FUCKING WHITE MALEs, and FUCKING WHITE MALEs can’t even get jobs with college degrees, having a college degrees is an indication of lack of skills and ability to learn, and also willingness to submit to and impose the terror.

            College degrees are low quality toilet paper. Academics are charlatans.

            Currently, everyone hates journalists and politicians. Soon, they will also hate the academics that many of them went into debt over.

          • Irving says:

            >Let us consider the category Asian British – Indian and compare it with the category White British.

            >Your link tells us:
            2233 white British were accepted in 2013
            85 Indian British were accepted in 2013

            >In 2013 Wikipedia estimates that there were 734,000 Indian residents of Britain, hence one in eight thousand accepted (1/8635)

            >I cannot find 2013 white population, but 2011 white population should be near enough 51,736,290

            >Thus, one British white in twenty three thousand accepted.

            >So in 2013 white British had one third the chance of being accepted as Indian residents of Britain, despite the fact that Indian residents of Britain have lower IQs on average.

            White people in England are bottom-heavy whereas Indians were brought to the UK selectively. That Indians in the UK have an average IQ that is roughly 25 points higher than the average IQ in India according to their PISA scores proves this.

            In any case, the main point is that the elite universities in the UK are overwhelmingly white, and if affirmative action were used in the UK’s university system, you’d expect that there would be many more blacks, Bangladeshis, etc..

            None the less, this is all besides the point. Your style is to make a hugely improbable assertion and then to defend that assertion tooth and nail in the face of all of the evidence that is thrown at you that would tend to disprove your assertion. Then, finally, you conclude by hurling insults and abuse, as if that proves anything. So I’m not going to sit here trying to change your mind. The evidence that I have provided speaks for itself and the fact that you continue to refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever for your claim that white students in the UK are less likely to be admitted to and graduate from university also speaks for itself.

            • jim says:

              >So in 2013 white British had one third the chance of being accepted [to Oxford] as Indian residents of Britain, despite the fact that Indian residents of Britain have lower IQs on average.

              White people in England are bottom-heavy whereas Indians were brought to the UK selectively. That Indians in the UK have an average IQ that is roughly 25 points higher than the average IQ in India according to their PISA scores proves this

              No Indians are not brought to England selectively: http://akarlin.com/2012/08/minorities-cognitive-performance-in-the-uk/ shows that Indians in England average three points lower than whites on IQ scores. PISA scores are affirmative actioned and are in any case not intended for comparing performance of different groups within a nation, but of similar groups between nations – they try to measure Finns in the same way as they measure British, rather than trying to measure British Indians in the same way they measure British. Pisa are trying to measure the result of affirmative action, rather than the raw material that affirmative action has to work with. If group X is affirmative actioned into more advanced courses, their Pisa scores will be better than kids who were not affirmative actioned into advanced courses, even though their Pisa scores will be worse than those who got into the more advanced courses on merit.

              If group X has lower Pisa than group Y within a nation, this indicates that the educational establishment is making sure they have lower Pisa, and has essentially no relationship to the average merit of group X as compared to group Y.

          • Irving says:

            I really can’t believe that you think your point is proven by the fact that Oxford apparently accepted a couple dozen Indians more than you think is acceptable.

            • jim says:

              Absent affirmative action, the lower average IQ of Indians would mean that they would be accepted in to Oxford at a far lower rate than whites. Instead, accepted at three times the rate of whites.

          • Irving says:

            >That Indians in the UK have an average IQ that is roughly 25 points higher than the average IQ in India according to their PISA scores proves this

            I meant that Indians in the UK have an average IQ that is roughly 25 points higher than the average IQ in India, with the average IQ in India being based on that country’s PISA score performance

          • Irving says:

            >Absent affirmative action, the lower average IQ of Indians would mean that they would be accepted in to Oxford at a far lower rate than whites. Instead, accepted at three times the rate of whites.

            On AVERAGE, yes, the IQ of Indians in the UK is slightly lower than that of whites in the UK. But, due to selective migration, we can assert that the proportion of the white population with low IQs is much higher than that of the proportion of the Indian population with low IQs, and given this, the admissions statistics that you’ve cited suggest no foul play.

          • Irving says:

            And again, I repeat, if there is affirmative action in the UK’s university system, why isn’t there more blacks attending UK’s top universities? Even if what you’re saying is true, and it isn’t, all you’d be proving is that there is affirmative action only for the Indians (who are only ~3 percent of the population) and no one else.

            • jim says:

              If there is affirmative action in the UK’s university system, why isn’t there more blacks attending UK’s top universities?

              There are more blacks attending Britain’s top universities. One British resident of black African origin in eleven thousand was accepted to Oxford in 2013, whereas one white Briton in twenty three thousand was accepted to Oxford in 2013, despite a ten point (enormous) IQ difference between black Africans and white Britons.

              The governments of all white countries are pretty open that their policy is to destroy whites by denying them educational and employment opportunities, forcing whites into an underclass than will racially mingle with other races, and open that their policy is to impose black mating practices on all races but especially upon whites, punishing deviation from black mating practices as marital rape and domestic partner abuse.

          • Irving says:

            >There are more blacks attending Britain’s top universities. One British resident of black African origin in eleven thousand was accepted to Oxford in 2013, whereas one white Briton in twenty three thousand was accepted to Oxford in 2013, despite a ten point (enormous) IQ difference between black Africans and white Britons.

            Blacks are also in Britain due to selective migration, otherwise they wouldn’t have an average IQ of ~94.

            In any case, this discussion isn’t exactly relevant to our original disagreement. Your argument was that voters who voted for Brexit are smarter than than those who voted against it. I have provided ample evidence which shows that the professionals, the white collar middle class, the university educated, etc., opposed Brexit, thereby supporting my argument. Your only response to this has been to say that the UK university system practices affirmative action, which in fact it doesn’t, but even if it did, obviously doesn’t do so on a significant scale, and we know this because the UK’s top universities are still overwhelmingly (that is, 85%+) white.

          • Irving says:

            Also, judging from your comments, you don’t seem to be familiar with how large (and growing), dumb, lazy and criminal the white underclass actually is, which goes a long way towards discrediting your argument.

            • jim says:

              The governments of all white countries are pretty open that their policy is to destroy whites by denying them educational and employment opportunities, forcing whites into an underclass than will racially mingle with other races, and open that their policy is to impose black mating practices on all races but especially upon whites, punishing deviation from black mating practices as marital rape and domestic partner abuse.

              But they have greatly exaggerated their success in this goal.

              Just as you were spectacularly deluded about the extent of affirmative action in Oxford, you are spectacularly deluded about the white under class, which though badly behaved, is still far better behaved than upper and middle class blacks.

              Poor whites have substantially more assets than upper class blacks, indicating greater personal thrift, higher fatherhood rates, despite a government policy of driving fathers from their homes, and so on and so forth.

          • Irving says:

            >forcing whites into an underclass than will racially mingle with other races

            Funny how when nonwhites behave in an underclass way, you say it is because they are racially inferior, but when whites behave in an underclass way, you say it is because they are forced to, kind of how many NAM “activists” say the problems of NAMs are forced onto NAMs by “the [white] Man”.

            • jim says:

              But poor whites do not in fact behave in an underclass way to the extent that upper class blacks behave in an underclass way. This became particularly obvious during the mortgage crisis, where it turned out to be quite impossible to identify a white population segment that underperformed the hispanics and blacks, even upper class blacks. Mortgages to absolute white trash were far more likely to be paid than mortgages to any category of black or hispanic.

          • Irving says:

            >Just as you were spectacularly deluded about the extent of affirmative action in Oxford,

            How was I “spectacularly deluded” when all of the evidence points to the fact that I am right?

            ?you are spectacularly deluded about the white under class, which though badly behaved, is still far better behaved than upper and middle class blacks.

            Even if this were true, which it isn’t (i.e. how can underclass whites possibly be “far better behaved” than middle class blacks?) it doesn’t matter, because there aren’t many blacks in the UK, and blacks had little to do with the Brexit vote, which is what we are talking about right now.

            • jim says:

              >Just as you were spectacularly deluded about the extent of affirmative action in Oxford,

              How was I “spectacularly deluded” when all of the evidence points to the fact that I am right?

              Liar

              Low IQ British Indians are admitted to universities at twice the rate of British whites, admitted to Oxford at three times the rate of British whites

              Very low IQ British blacks of African origin are admitted to Oxford at twice the rate of British whites.

              • jim says:

                how can underclass whites possibly be “far better behaved” than middle class blacks?

                An upper class black is likely to punch you in the face, an underclass white is unlikely to. Similarly, rape. There is an awful lot of rape by upper class blacks, particularly rape of white women. Tends to go unpunished because “racism”.

                We don’t have statistics breaking down black criminality by class, just anecdote and casual observation, that upper class black criminality is pretty terrifying, that upper class whites are terrified of upper class blacks, but we do have statistics on mortgages. Mortgages that go to blacks go primarily to upper class blacks, and are seldom repaid. Mortgages that go to even the lowest income whites are usually repaid.

          • Irving says:

            By the way, the white underclass in the US is by all accounts far superior to the white underclass in the UK; they aren’t even comparable.

          • Irving says:

            >But poor whites do not in fact behave in an underclass way to the extent that upper class blacks behave in an underclass way.

            Whatever, so let’s just say that blacks are inferior and drop it. The supposed inferiority of blacks has nothing to do with the Brexit vote.

          • Irving says:

            Why don’t you quit irrelevantly talking about blacks and address the question at hand?

            • jim says:

              Whites voted for exit, nonwhites voted against exit. Whites are smarter.

              The measures that you argue are indications of smartness in those who voted to remain are also indications of adherence to the official belief system – and adherence to the official belief system does not correlate with smartness when the official belief system is evil, crazy, and suicidal.

          • Irving says:

            >Whites voted for exit, nonwhites voted against exit. Whites are smarter.

            All whites did not vote for exit, only 53 percent did. Nonwhites (except for Jews and Sikhs) voted to say, and of these nonwhites, Hindus are comparable to whites IQ-wise, and Muslims and blacks made up too small a proportion of the voters to matter very much.

            >The measures that you argue are indications of smartness in those who voted to remain are also indications of adherence to the official belief system – and adherence to the official belief system does not correlate with smartness when the official belief system is evil, crazy, and suicidal.

            OK, so IQ positively correlates with “adherence to the official belief system” — so what?

          • Irving says:

            In any case, it is transparently obvious that whites who voted against Brexit are smarter than whites who voted for it, though I’ve no doubt that you’re stubborn and dishonest enough to deny it, just so you don’t have to admit that you are wrong.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          I think it is wrong to view the UK as being in the same position as Syria or Congo.

          The UK is a nuclear weapon state and an undefeated power in the Second World War. One of only a handful of countries of which that is true: now-defeated Russia, the US itself, maybe China if it didn’t already count as a US muppet in 1937.

          The UK is also the location of several powerful Cathedral seats, such as Oxford and Cambridge whose policies we are discussing.

          There is substantial convergence between the US and the UK on Cathedral policies but that is because Cathedral is an Anglo religion that has roots, not just outposts, in both countries. The two national Cathedral traditions are very similar but not identical.

          The UK was more or less unique in having a powerful Left party that was both anti-American and anti-Soviet. It was perhaps the only White Western countries that had no 68 student protests. If it is a surprise that Britain will leave the EU, it is not a surprise that the country to leave the EU will be Britain.

        • Irving says:

          >You might try checking the link that you yourself gave that tells us that blacks are on average eight points lower than whites.

          >Pretty sure the white underclass is not eight points lower.

          If an 8 point IQ gap constitutes a substantial difference, fine.

          Otherwise, I’m glad to hear that you are “pretty sure” that the white underclass isn’t 8 IQ points dumber than the white British mean. But, your surety means nothing. I haven’t any hard evidence that would ascertain their mean IQ, but by all accounts the underclass in the UK is largely white, and that underclass evinces a degree of welfare dependency, illegitimacy rates, unemployment, crimes, substance abuse, etc., that is comparable to that of American blacks. It is obvious that they’ve got very, very low IQs.

        • Irving says:

          >Low IQ British Indians are admitted to universities at twice the rate of British whites, admitted to Oxford at three times the rate of British whites

          >Very low IQ British blacks of African origin are admitted to Oxford at twice the rate of British whites.

          I answered all of this already, but whatever, I have no problem conceding it, just so we can come to a conclusion on this argument. The main point is that IF the UK university system does affirmative action, it doesn’t do so on a siginificant scale, or else 85%+ of the top UK universities wouldn’t be white

          • jim says:

            >Low IQ British Indians are admitted to universities at twice the rate of British whites, admitted to Oxford at three times the rate of British whites

            >Very low IQ British blacks of African origin are admitted to Oxford at twice the rate of British whites.

            I answered all of this already

            liar.

          • Irving says:

            >liar

            I did not lie. My response was that because of the dynamics of selective migration, it is the case that immigrant groups in the UK are less bottom heavy than are white people in the UK.

            • jim says:

              My response was that because of the dynamics of selective migration,

              But Britain does not have selective migration. Your nonwhite migrants are stupid. It is obvious that nonwhite migrants are more “bottom” heavy than white Britons.

              And in any case your initial claim was that blacks and “asians” (not that Hindus and Muslims are asians) were not overrepresented at universities.

              When it turned out that they were overrepresented at universities you changed your claim to that they were not overrepresented at elite universities.

              When it turned out that they were overrepresented at elite universities you changed your claim to that they deserve to be overrepresented at elite universities.

              But in fact nonwhite graduates spectacularly underperform white graduates on objective tests of ability, therefore they do not deserve overrepresentation.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                British legal migration is less selective than H1B. On the other hand Britain does not have a land border over which millions of illegals are pouring. Illegal migration is basically not an issue in the UK and that is the main source of truly terrible immigrants in all countries.

                So British immigrants are significantly above the mean of their populations of origin. British blacks seem to have about a 95 average IQ. British Indians seem to have white-level IQ. British Chinese are about a standard deviation above the whites.

                On average immigration has probably not affected the mean British IQ although it has increased the variance. There are more really dumb immigrants than really dumb white Brits and more really clever immigrants than really clever white Brits (a frightening large proportion of the top figures in all the political parties have substantial foreign ancestry, including Farage).

                IQ loaded courses at good British universities are overwhelmingly white, Chinese, and Hindu Indian, in that order.

                There are some courses in being black and I do know a few (intelligent, but not super-intelligent) blacks (well, mixed race with some black) who have been funneled through these into state employment. They are however not competing with whites and Chinese for these courses because whites and Chinese aren’t interested in them.

                • peppermint says:

                  » The Farage name comes from a distant Huguenot ancestor.[15] One of his great-grandfathers was born to German parents who migrated to London in the 19th century.

                  Really, one great grandfather? Well, the SS required a pure German genealogy back 200 years for officers…

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The majority of British people have basically no foreign admixture. In most parts of the country, before 1970 effectively all of it, “Farage” is a weird and distinctly non-British name.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  And yeah Farage is one of the weaker examples but given that he is the leader of a nationalist party the fact he is one at all is a bit surprising.

                  Cameron is pure British as best I can tell, as is Corbyn.

                  Ed Miliband is 100% Polish Jewish, as is his brother David, who is still tipped as a future leader of the Labour Party.

                  Boris Johnson, who will probably be Prime Minister in a few months, is descended from Swiss, Turks, and Russian Jews.

                  Nick Clegg, former leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy PM, is Dutch on one side and partly Russian on the other.

                  Ian Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative Party, is part Japanese.

                  Michael Portillo, the Conservative Prime Minister-we-never-had and former Defence Secretary, was half Spanish.

                  Maybe none of this sounds unusual in America, but in Britain these people are essentially a different ancestry grouping to those they rule. The vast majority of British people will have never met a white person with this sort of background.

                • jim says:

                  British blacks seem to have about a 95 average IQ. British Indians seem to have white-level IQ. British Chinese are about a standard deviation above the whites.

                  None of this is true.

                  British Chinese are about equal to whites. All the rest are substantially lower. And there are very few British Chinese.

                  American Chinese and Australian Chinese are indeed smarter than Australians and Americans, especially recent Chinese Australian migrants. British Chinese are not because the British legal migration program is primarily intended to bring in left wing voters rather than productive citizens, whereas the Australian migration program is primarily intended to bring in businessmen, talented individuals, etc.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  That is not what the data says (linked in other post). What is your reason for thinking otherwise?

          • Irving says:

            >But Britain does not have selective migration. Your nonwhite migrants are stupid.

            By selective migration, I mean that the immigrant groups are smart compared to the people in their countries of origin, not that they are smart compared to people indigenous to the UK. Of course you know that.

            • jim says:

              not that they are smart compared to people indigenous to the UK

              Then selective migration fails to explain overrepresentation in university admissions and graduation.

          • Irving says:

            >It is obvious that nonwhite migrants are more “bottom” heavy than white Britons.

            No, actually the precisely opposite is the case. Each of these immigrant groups are about 20 to 25 IQ points smarter than people from their countries of origin. It is obvious that the UK is making sure not to bring in random blacks or indians

            • jim says:

              Each of these immigrant groups are about 20 to 25 IQ points smarter than people from their countries of origin.

              Possibly, but they are still dumber than native born whites, as directly measured by IQ tests, and as shown by the underperformance of nonwhite university graduates.

              I don’t have data for British underclass behavior, but I do have statistical data and direct personal observation of American underclass behavior, and the American white underclass is far better behaved (honesty, peaceableness, thrift, fatherhood) than the American black upper class.

          • Irving says:

            Forget it, I give up. I concede the argument, you win.

          • Irving says:

            There’s no point in continuing this debate when you’re obviously going to continue to make irrelevant comments about American blacks or largely if not entirely non-existent affirmative action at British universities.

          • Irving says:

            >Then selective migration fails to explain overrepresentation in university admissions and graduation.

            Selective migration clearly does explain the overrepresentation of Indians, as they’ve a comparable IQ to but are much less bottom heavy than white Brits. I can’t speak for blacks though, but of course their presence at UK’s elite universities is statistically insignificant, so I don’t see how they’re relevant here

            • jim says:

              Selective migration clearly does explain the overrepresentation of Indians

              But, nonwhite graduates underperform on objective tests and employment consequences of graduation relative to white graduates. This is inconsistent with the proposition that overrepresentation of nonwhites is caused by selective migration.

              As is the low IQ of non white immigrant groups.

              Plus, the fact that the US airforce is not bombing Oxford and Cambridge with napalm and phosphorus is inconsistent with the proposition that Oxford and Cambridge do not practice affirmative action. If they were not doing their best to destroy the white race, war would ensue. Your triumphal announcements of how horrible the white underclass is, is about what they aim to achieve, not what they in fact have achieved.

              Yes, the white underclass is horribly degraded and dehumanized, but they have not yet forced them down to Arab, let alone black, levels yet.

          • Irving says:

            >Your triumphal announcements of how horrible the white underclass is, is about what they aim to achieve, not what they in fact have achieved.

            I don’t speak of the white underclass in a “triumphal” way. I’m just trying to emphasize how f-ed up the white underclass is in the UK, given that before this exchange, you didn’t seem aware of how bad they actually are (which is surprising to me because this entire time I thought you were British yourself).

            >But, nonwhite graduates underperform on objective tests and employment consequences of graduation relative to white graduates.This is inconsistent with the proposition that overrepresentation of nonwhites is caused by selective migration.

            To repeat yet again, the top universities in the UK are overwhelmingly white. This shows that affirmative action is either non-existent in the UK’s university admissions or else that affirmative action is practiced very minimally. Either way, my argument stands.

          • Irving says:

            If you wanted to prove that affirmative action is pervasive in the UK’s university admissions process, the best way of doing that would be to find some way to prove that whites are underrepresented in the universities, particularly in the elite universities, compared to their overall demographic representation in a meaningful way. Of course, you can’t do that, and in fact it is arguably the case that whites are OVERREPRESENTED at the top universities in the UK compared to their overall demographic representation.

            • jim says:

              If you wanted to prove that affirmative action is pervasive in the UK’s university admissions process, the best way of doing that would be to find some way to prove that whites are underrepresented in the universities,

              One white Briton in twenty three thousand of their demographic representation gets admitted to Oxford in 2013.

              One Indian British resident in eight thousand of their demographic representation gets admitted to Oxford in 2013.

              One Black African British resident in eleven thousand of their demographic representation gets admitted to Oxford in 2013.\

              This is under representation.

              Non white graduates perform poorly relative to white graduates.

              This is under representation.

              Of course, you can’t do that

              Liar. I just did that. Did that repeatedly. Four times so far.

              Further, you are repeating the same lie, and I am repeating the same rebuttal. After a certain number of repetitions I will block you to prevent further waste of reader bandwidth.

              By the way, are you Jewish? My experience is that if someone stubbornly repeats the same lie barefaced after being exposed as a liar the first time, he is a Jew, exhibiting the characteristic Jewish trait of Chutzpah. Which is not to say that other races do not have their own irritating characteristics.

              • Irving says:

                >By the way, are you Jewish?

                No

                >Further, you are repeating the same lie, and I am repeating the same rebuttal. After a certain number of repetitions I will block you to prevent further waste of reader bandwidth.

                Block me if you like, but you haven’t yet answered my rebuttal, which is that there is in fact no affirmative action in the UK university system, that if the apparent overrepresentation of nonwhites in the UK university system can be explained without bring attributed to affirmative action (such as selective migration), and that the fact that whites make up such an overwhelming majority of the students at the best universities in the UK would seem to lend credence to non-affirmative action explanations for apparent nonwhite overrrepresentation in the UK’s universities.

                Or else, at the very minimum we would have to conclude that if there is affirmative action in the UK university system, it obviously isn’t being practiced on a significant enough scale given that it is only leading to the overrepresentation of nonwhites by a couple dozen people, and it isn’t having much of an effect on white students, who are typically the major losers in any affirmative policy.

                Either way, the conclusion would have to be that the UK’s university system is meritocratic enough that the possession of a university degree there can be taken as a valid proxy for IQ, which would in turn tend to confirm my point that Brexit supporters are in large part less intelligent than Brexit opponents.

                • peppermint says:

                  If the niggers aren’t there for affirmative action, why do they act exactly like the affirmative action niggers in the US wrt BLM tier protests? Niggers are really the smoking gun here, since they are known to not only have low IQs but be unable to function academically even if they have high IQs from some fluke of nature or miscegenation.

                  Sticking to a lie isn’t necessarily a Jewish habit, it’s something Christcucks learn from their Jewish religion. Aryan religions were much more PvE than PvP, in the PvP religions such as the Abrahamic religions and Zoroastrianism righteousness consists of helping the good gods defeat the evil gods by any means necessary, including hoaxes and forgeries, whereas in PvE religions righteousness consists of building, which everyone knows is made more difficult by lies.

                  There are indications that Zoroastrianism was also a Jewish imposture upon the Aryan mind, such as the fact that priests had to be ethnic Magi, an ethnicity ostensibly from one corner of the empire but present everywhere, that was passed matrilineally.

                  Revilo Oliver says here ( http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/The_Last_Stand.html ) that St. Jerome famously said that hoaxing people is good if it brings them to the Faith. While I can’t find a cite for that quote, I trust him because he has a PvE religious outlook.

                  Irving is a neoreactionary from ca.2012. He thinks that IQ is the only major factor and that niggers with high IQs belong in universities. That’s why he thinks that those 6% of university niggers drawn from 3% niggers in Britain have high IQs.

                  Incidentally, I could only find statistics for British students, but the British universities are packed with foreign mudslimes and niggers as well.

              • Irving says:

                Another alternative explanation for apparent nonwhite overrrepresentation of nonwhites at UK universities that doesn’t include affirmative action is this:

                You are saying that nonwhites are overrepresented according to their overall representation of the UK’s population, but of course this is a foolish thing to say, given that there is every reason to believe that nonwhites make up a much more significant part of the population of applicants to UK universities each year than they do of UK’s overall population, given that they are so much younger than whites. If you want to prove that nonwhites are overrepresented, then, you’d have to show that nonwhites according to their proportion of annual university applicants.

                • Irving says:

                  As far as I can tell, the racial demographics of UK citizens below the age of, say, 30, would show that whites make up a far lower percentage of that population than 85 percent, meaning that they are overrepresented rather than underrepresented at the top universities.

                • jim says:

                  You can make up numbers, but the numbers we have show drastic and extreme affirmative action, as does the massive underperformance of nonwhite graduates.

                  Produce these numbers for nonwhites under thirty. To explain away over representation in Oxford, they would have to be extreme.

                  We can approximate these hypothetical numbers by looking at non whites in educational institutions. Obviously nonwhites in universities are over represented relative to nonwhites in high school, therefore affirmative action, and none whites in elite universities (Oxford) are overrepresented relative to nonwhites in non elite universities, therefore affirmative action.

                  You propose that hypothetical invisible numbers would not show affirmative action, but the numbers we actually have show massive affirmative action – as does the fact that the US is not bombing Oxford.

                  Supposing that these hypothetical invisible numbers do not show affirmative action, what is your explanation for the fact that nonwhite graduates massively underperform white graduates?

                • Irving says:

                  [Censored for unending repetition

                  I delete your lengthy comment because I have produced a pile of numbers showing affirmative action, and you just keep asserting that they do not show affirmative action. If you produce some numbers showing absence of affirmative action, for example low IQ groups having lower, rather than substantially higher, participation in universities and elite universities in proportion to their numbers, or nonwhite graduates having comparable performance by objective measures to white graduates, I will publish your comment.

                  New data, or new arguments, I will let through. Repetitious denial will be censored, or else it just goes on forever.]

                • Irving says:

                  As far as I’m concerned though, no white underperformance, if real, is explained by the fact that non whites students attend lower ranked schools, not that they benefit from affirmative action

                • jim says:

                  You live in a fantasy world. Whites overperform relative to accreditation, and non whites underperform despite preferential admission to Oxford and Cambridge.

                • peppermint says:

                  of course, a lot of the muds at the top universities are foreign students, which are there because their government paid for them (with Western tax or oil money), or the British government paid for them through foundations, and must be passed and given degrees or cause an international incident. And if one wog can get a degree without showing up and with poor test results, another wog who’s “native” has to get the same treatment, or it’s discrimination.

                • Irving says:

                  >I delete your lengthy comment because I have produced a pile of numbers showing affirmative action, and you just keep asserting that they do not show affirmative action.

                  I never claimed to prove in a definitive way that affirmative action is not practiced in the UK’s university system. I merely pointed out that there is no official policy for affirmative action and that all of the evidence suggests that affirmative action is either not practiced at all or that if it is practiced, it is not practiced on a significant enough scale that would warrant anyone to say that university degrees at UK universities are not proxies for IQ. The point here is that I never denied the statistics that you cited; rather I just pointed out that those statistics don’t necessarily prove the existence of affirmative action. Why you would have such a problem with any of this is beyond my comprehension.

                  In any case, I don’t really care one way or the other whether there is affirmative action in the UK university system. In fact, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m quite happy to concede that there may well be affirmative action, for the reason that I know and you know that the evidence shows that if there is affirmative action, it isn’t practiced on a meaningfully large scale, such that all UK university degrees would be discredited and devalued. UK university degrees are still indisputably proxies for IQ, and it cannot be denied that 70 percent of voters with university degrees voted against, and not for, Brexit.

                • jim says:

                  I hate censoring people even when they lie tediously, blatantly, and repetitiously, so I have let through your repetitious lies again.

                  If you google https://www.bing.com/search?q=whites+british+university+graduates

                  Almost everything that comes up is evidence of massive and drastic affirmative action

                  First hit ethnic minority graduates underperform, which the paper blames on racism.

                  Which article also tells us what I have been telling you and you have been denying “most ethnic minority groups in Britain are highly educated on average and are more likely to attend university than white Britons.” Since they are lower IQ on average, this is evidence of affirmative action.

                  Second hit: “White High School Drop-Outs Are As Likely To Land Jobs As Black College Students.”
                  I know how desperately employers struggle to find even barely acceptable black employees, so this is a pretty good indication that British universities are accepting black students that should not be allowed out of the zoo without a leash and a keeper.

                  And the third hit clinches it:

                  White British pupils are on average the least likely ethnic group in the UK to go to university, a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has revealed.

                  Young people from every other ethnic group, including those who tend to perform worse in school exams, such as black Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, are more likely to go on to further education.

                  After examining university entrance records and 2011 census findings, the IFS said that just under one in three (32.6%) of white British pupils go on to university. Indian and Chinese pupils are, on average, more than twice as likely to go to university as their white British counterparts, with 75.5% and 67.4% participation rates, respectively.

                  These differences also vary by background – Chinese pupils in the lowest socio-economic group are, on average, more than 10 percentage points more likely to go to university than white British pupils in the highest socio-economic group.

                  There are hundreds more along the same lines.

                  Almost every link, of thousands of links, provides powerful evidence of massive discrimination against whites.

                  And the analogous search with males instead of whites provides similar evidence of massive discrimination against males. Males are massively under accredited, and massively overperform relative to accreditation.

                • peppermint says:

                  Few of the people whose experiences were colored by the need to avoid being racist by recognizing at least some of the colored people and women in school with them as intelligent have the kind of memory that permits them to reevalute their estimations. That may be what happened to Irving.

                  Since I went to school very recently, and idly played with hatefacts in the back of my mind as jokes while I was there, I was able to recognize after I left that only the White men, the Chinamen, and some of the Indians and Middle Eastern White-descended “Arabs”, actually belonged there.

                  One of the saddest things about this whole lying for the true faith thing is the Boomers and GenXers who truly believe that they have experiences backing up the Christo-Marxist lies.

                • jim says:

                  To draw the conclusions that you draw, you need to compare the number of white and nonwhite British students going to university, with the number of white and non white potential British students of the same age not going to university.

                  Which the Institute for Fiscal studies did for 2011, and which you fail to do.

                  Therefore, I continue to censor your posts for repetitious lying. You go through the motions of providing numbers, but you are not in fact providing numbers relevant to the conclusions that you draw.

                • jim says:

                  That does not work, because people apply who think they have a chance of being accepted – and quite obviously white males have very little chance of being accepted, due to the policy of destroying the white race.

          • peppermint says:

            » the top universities in the UK are overwhelmingly white. This shows that affirmative action is either non-existent in the UK’s university admissions or else that affirmative action is practiced very minimally

            » overwhelmingly white

            compare

            https://www.hesa.ac.uk/stats

            with

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity

            Asians were 7% and niggers were 3% and Whites 87% of the UK in 2011, Whites 78% of students in 2014 with niggers at 6% and asians at 10%.

            Must be all those young niggers and asians flooding the place going to college, right?

            If niggers are 6% of students and 3% of population, you know there’s affirmative action going on.

            Biggest recent story out of British universities: UK chapter of BLM tries to get the statue of Cecil Rhodes removed http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/02/students-cecil-rhodes-statue-campaign-oxford-oriel-college

            google for british university.

            (✡ says he was called a mean name, is given money) http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.727255

            (☪ who doesn’t even go to a university rapes ⊕ women) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-who-went-on-a-rape-tour-of-british-universities-is-jailed-a7053936.html

            Bonus: in 2008, British nigger studies professors were wondering if they would have enough students https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-numbers-are-at-risk-as-uk-demographics-shift/401165.article

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Some comments on this whole thread, because the UK is not the US in important respects:

      – The UK never had a GI Bill. In Britain access to university education was very limited as late as the 1980s and has been rapidly expanding throughout the 1990s and 2000s. This makes credentials a poor measure of intelligence across the whole population. A 115 IQ person who was born in 1950 probably does not have a degree; a 115 IQ person who was born in 1990 almost certainly does. Brexit supporters skew older, which makes them “less educated” even at fixed IQ.

      Of course, in recent years the massive expansion in credentialing has led to the US situation where people, particularly women, of moderate verbal intelligence but with few useful skills stay in education indefinitely as an alternative to rather than as preparation for entering the job market. This overstates the actual intelligence of younger educated voters and these time-wasters are of course more pro-EU than any other demographic.

      If you look at social class (basically a proxy of income and job title in the statistics) then the top social classes split about 60-40 in favour of the EU, which seems reasonable to me. The skew in support of better educated people for the EU is real but is greatly overstated by how the MSM chooses to report the data.

      – There has been no significant sex skew in the referendum. In fact for many decades British women voted disproportionately for the Conservative Party and may still do so. The idea of the left as the “womens’ faction” seems to be a US local condition not a general trend. One reason for this might be that until the 90s Labour was a masculine working man’s party, not a US-style “Progressive” party. But I think part of it is that there is simply less identity politics in the UK (for now?).

      – The idea that dumb British people got the right answer when the elite didn’t is hardly unprecedented. The British elite loved Marxism from the 30s to the 60s, but the working class never fell for it. Orwell observed that the British elite thought that Britain was pretty much doomed between 1939 and 1944 while the working class was irrationally certain that Britain always wins. I am not saying they have good reasons for believing the things they do but purely in terms of results it is not totally easy to argue they should be ignored.

      – The UK has no explicit affirmative action and I also did not “feel” any such affirmative action there when I attended university, not so long ago. Written statements made by students to universities are expected to contain only motivation for wanting to study a particular course. Focus on victimhood status as in the US was entirely absent. Universities are allowed to skew significantly by sex – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-314026/The-university-sex-ratio-table.html For pretty much all universities except Oxford, Cambridge, and medical schools, selection is done almost purely on the basis of grades in standardised tests. The UK is a long way from US norms in this regard.

      – UK immigrants would *seem* to have a somewhat different IQ profile to US minorities. Here is the best quality data on the subject – http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-4.png

      As you can see UK blacks seem to be significantly cleverer (about half a standard deviation) than UK blacks. Muslim South Asians are about on-par with the blacks. Other South Asians do not seem to be any less intelligent than the white population (but do seem to work harder). Social class is more significant than race still in deciding outcomes (2/3 s.d. advantage for having attended private school, 2/3 s.d. disadvantage for being eligible for government-funded lunches).

      The average intellectual capacity of British minorities seems to be rather higher than that of the US minorities and considerably higher than that of continental minorities. Initial racial differences aside, selective immigration works.

      (of peripheral interest, the huge sex gap in IQ described by jim isn’t seen here, although women do as usual show smaller s.d.)

      • Irving says:

        Jim, I’ve provided numbers for the racial demographics at Oxbridge, but those are in moderation. For the moment, though, look at this very welcome comment by Cromwell, which more or less confirms the point that I was making.

      • Irving says:

        >If you look at social class (basically a proxy of income and job title in the statistics) then the top social classes split about 60-40 in favour of the EU, which seems reasonable to me. The skew in support of better educated people for the EU is real but is greatly overstated by how the MSM chooses to report the data.

        The voting results seem to show that the higher up the socioeconomic ladder one goes, the greater the opposition to Brexit

        • jim says:

          And if the state religion was Moloch worship, they higher up the socioeconomic ladder, the more of one’s children one would have burned in the fires of Moloch.

          • Irving says:

            All that says is that the higher the IQ, the higher the propensity to Moloch worship, which may well be true

      • jim says:

        The UK has no explicit affirmative action

        If you google https://www.bing.com/search?q=whites+british+university+graduates you immediately see clear, massive, and overwhelming evidence of massive, extreme, brutal, obvious, and harsh affirmative action.

        For pretty much all universities except Oxford, Cambridge, and medical schools, selection is done almost purely on the basis of grades in standardised tests.

        Untrue. There is no way you can get overrepresentation of blacks and women by standardized tests.

        Whites and males are massively discriminated against.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          “The report also considers participation at 52 of the most selective universities, or “high tariff institutions” as we call them in the report. Most ethnic minority groups are, on average, more likely to attend such institutions than their White British counterparts, but the differences are smaller than for participation among all universities, and could generally be better explained by differences in school attainment.”

          Sounds like more non-Whites choose to go to university, but only get in to bad universities, which fits my experience. The worst universities are almost all filled with Pakistanis and Blacks; elite universities do not look like they are doing any affirmative action. Whites with the grades to only go to bad universities do other things instead.

  6. Brit says:

    I can confirm that UCAS (the British university application system) does literally ask for ethnic origin, it even asks for your sexuality, you wouldn’t even need to mention it in the personal statement or during an interview.

    Perhaps they do not care much about identity culture like in the US, and are simply blatantly looking the paperwork and discriminating. Perhaps they do the the same for sodomites, transexuals, and the disabled.

    • peppermint says:

      » BLM activists tried to get Cecil Rhodes taken down

      » no one can talk about Muslim rape gangs because community relations or whatever

      » do not care much about identity culture like in the US

      nigger please

  7. Alan J. Perrick says:

    I’m still going to be keeping an eye on Calais, there was really wild stuff happening there.

Leave a Reply