The Son Also Rises

F. Roger Devlin, American Renaissance, April 4, 2014

The heritability of social status.

Gregory Clark, The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility, Princeton University Press, 2014, 366 pp., $29.95.


Gregory Clark is an economic historian at the University of California at Davis, best known for A Farewell to Alms, a 2007 book about the roots of the industrial revolution. According to Prof. Clark, that momentous change happened where it did—England—and when it did—the 18th century—because British behavior had evolved over the previous six centuries. The most important changes were a decreased propensity to violence and an increased propensity to work and save. Although the book did not discuss genetics or evolution, it was still subversive in its implications: If England’s economic transformation was due to traits that evolved, it is unlikely that a similar breakthrough can be achieved in societies that have not evolved along similar lines. In other words, if Prof. Clark’s thesis is correct, thousands of bureaucrats at such institutions as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are wasting their time and other people’s money trying to bring modernity to the Third World.

Prof. Clark has now written another important study disguised by a bad Hemingway knock-off title: The Son Also Rises. The theme this time is social mobility, a pet topic among sociologists: Prof. Clark found 244,000 books and articles online that use the term. Most scholars assume that more social mobility is better, though we must bear in mind that the term refers to downward as well as upward mobility.

The conventional assumption about social mobility is that in the bad old days, a man’s position in society was determined at birth. If you were born a peasant that is what you were destined to remain for life; ditto if you were born an aristocrat. In a hereditary monarchy, even the most important position was determined by accident of birth. If a king happened to be stupid or vicious, not much could be done about it, and millions of subjects suffered.

Ivan the Terrible inherited his position as tzar.

Ivan the Terrible

At the same time, reserves of talent might be wasted because of class prejudice and inadequate opportunity. In his Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, Thomas Grey reflected on the great statesmen and poets that might have been, but never were, because they had been born, lived, and died in a rustic village:

Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
Hands that the rod of empire might have swayed,
Or waked to ecstasy the living lyre.

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page
Rich with the spoils of time did ne’er unroll;
Chill Penury repressed their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of the soul.

Toward the end of the 18th century all this is thought to have changed. The French Revolution, despite its regrettable “excesses,” opened careers to talent for the first time. The rise of industrialism disconnected economic success from the inheritance of land, and rewarded enterprise and ambition. Modern societies choose their rulers by a rigorous selection process rather than suffer the results of a biological crapshoot.

Even the threat of downward mobility has its good side, in that the captains of industry and politics are never allowed to rest on their laurels. In short, modernity meant the rule of “the best and the brightest,” and replaced classes that were based on birth and kept in power by antiquated prejudice.

One may well wonder whether the likes of Barack Obama, David Cameron, Angela Merkel and François Hollande are really such a great advance over Louis XIV or Frederick the Great. Yet the conventional narrative of the blessings of improved social mobility in modern times is still widely accepted by scholars. Such opposition as it faces usually comes from Marxists. They claim that “fair” competition is an ideological ruse by which the bourgeois order that succeeded the hereditary aristocracy stays in power; the pretense of neutrally selected ability masks the continuing reality of class domination.

This discussion is likely to be forever altered by Gregory Clark’s new book. Prof. Clark tells us that he himself long accepted the conventional view:

Only when confronted with evidence of the persistence of status over five hundred years that was too glaring to ignore was I forced to abandon my cheery assurance that one of the joys of the capitalist economy was its pervasive and rapid social mobility. Having for years poured scorn on my colleagues in sociology for their obsessions with such illusory categories as class, I now had evidence that individuals’ life chances were predictable not just from the status of their parents but from that of their great-great-great grandparents. There seemed to be an inescapable inherited substrate, looking suspiciously like social class, that underlies the outcomes for all individuals.

Prof. Clark found that social status is about 75 percent heritable between generations. In the West, this figure holds for all historical eras, all social systems and all ranks of society; it holds for income, wealth, education and longevity. Most surprising of all, there has been no dramatic rise of social mobility in modern times; previous scholars have both overestimated the degree of social mobility we enjoy today and underestimated that which existed in earlier times.

The Marxists are right: Something “looking suspiciously like social class” still exists. However it is not a result of the “capitalist mode of production” that could be eliminated through revolution. Instead, social status is passed on much like a genetic trait; it remains constant under all sorts of social and political systems.

How did Prof. Clark reach such a conclusion after thousands of sociologists had missed it? He followed the fortunes of particular surnames over the course of centuries, whereas previous studies of social mobility looked at changes in status over two, or at most three, generations. Status always involves a sizeable element of chance, which artificially inflates the appearance of social mobility over just a generation or two. Hence, previous sociologists had estimated the heritability of status at around 40 percent. Using larger datasets over many generations is like calculating a moving average: It cancels out the short-term effects of chance. The picture that emerges is one of considerable short-term social mobility that masks longer-term stability and slow change.

Prof. Clark began his survey with Sweden, a monarchy that once had a privileged aristocracy but has evolved into an egalitarian welfare state. First he selected two sets of names: one set suggested aristocratic background, and the other suggested low status. Examples of high-status names were Leionhufvud (Lion-head), Gylllenstjerna (Golden-star), Ehrensvärd (Honor-sword), and Adlercranz (Eagle-crown). ( Prof. Clark mentions that Shakespeare’s Rosencranz and Guildenstern were common names among Danish aristocrats in the Elizabethan period.) The low-status names were mostly patronymics ending in “-son.”

Prof. Clark then looked at the frequency of both sets of names among doctors, lawyers, and holders of advanced degrees. In both cases he found a slow regression toward the mean. Aristocratic names have gradually become less common in these professions and common names have just as gradually become more common. Yet even today, descendants of counts and barons are far more likely to be in medicine and law than Anderssons or Olsons. Neither the loss of aristocratic privileges, nor the introduction of free and universal education, nor redistributive taxation seem to have changed this pattern.


Many sociologists believe that in much of the Third World “inequality breeds immobility.” This would lead us to expect high social mobility in Sweden, because it is one of the most egalitarian countries on earth. Instead, surname frequency studies show no higher social mobility in Sweden than in less egalitarian countries such as Great Britain or the United States.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Prof. Clark’s book is a comparison between data sets from Medieval and Modern England. In the Medieval period, persons of low status could be identified by artisan names such as Carpenter, Plumber, Thatcher, and Baker. Around the latter half of the 13th century, such names began to be hereditary, and not necessarily related to a trade. There are four groups that can be identified as upper crust: those with surnames derived from place names, those who attended Oxford and Cambridge (there are records since 1170), Parliamentarians (records since 1295), and people whose wills were handled by the country’s highest probate court (records since 1384).

Prof. Clark found that:

Medieval England looks like a world of astonishing mobility. Artisans in 1300 were mostly illiterate workers scattered across English villages, yet by 1500 their descendants were fully incorporated into the English university system. And by 1620 they were fully represented even among the gentry whose wills were proved in the [highest probate court].

Centuries before the French Revolutionaries made a great fuss about opening careers to talent, “the social and economic system of medieval England was delivering equality of opportunity.”

There is a similar pattern of downward mobility for those bearing prestigious names. In the 13th century, surnames derived from place names were over-represented at universities by a factor of four. The figure declined to less than two during the 15th century. Yet a slight over-representation was still detectable as late as the 19th century, before finally disappearing in the 20th. In other words, noble names were losing their luster very early, but it took a long time for that luster to dim entirely. Prof. Clark states that as late as 1979, some Englishmen still thought it odd to be governed by a Prime Minister with a down-market, artisan name like Thatcher.

To explain the patterns he uncovered, Prof. Clark assumes that something he calls “social competence” contributes to higher status. However, someone’s status is also influenced by chance or personal choice. A person of good family with high social competence could go to work for a declining firm that goes bankrupt; or he might become a professor of philosophy, an intellectually demanding career with few material rewards. In both cases, his status will be lower than his underlying social competence.

Conversely, a person of low social competence might join a political party that stages a revolution, which leads to high status. Still, his children are unlikely to have significantly higher social competence than he does, so they will be unlikely to thrive without political patronage. We are all victims of time and chance, but over many generations, social competence is what leads to status. Grey’s Elegy is lovely poetry, but bad sociology: There is no reason to expect large numbers of potential Miltons and Cromwells lying about in country churchyards.

Prof. Clark emphasizes that he has not proven social competence to be genetic, only that it behaves like a genetic trait, exhibiting 75 percent heritability and convergence to the mean. Common sense suggests that social competence would be composed of factors such as intelligence, initiative, and social skills that are known to be heritable. Progress in genetics may soon make it possible to search for a direct genetic cause of the correlations Prof. Clark has found.

Prof. Clark also tested his hypothesis with data from India, China, Japan, Korea and Chile.

As one would expect, the caste system slows social mobility in India. Status persists across generations at a rate of 91 percent, about the highest figure anywhere. Since marriage in India is strongly endogamous within castes, this data may be strong evidence for a genetic contribution.

Prof. Clark includes interesting information on the reservation system for scheduled castes, the Indian equivalent of affirmative action. A large number of spots at universities and desirable jobs are “reserved” for members of certain “scheduled” castes considered victims of earlier discrimination. The list of “scheduled” castes was drawn up carelessly by the British authorities in the 1930s, and includes some groups that were never particularly disadvantaged. They have benefited greatly from the system, while those descended from truly disadvantaged groups have hardly benefited at all. This mirrors the effects of racial preferences in America, where blacks who don’t need affirmative action benefit from it, while the working class and underclass remain unaffected.

One theory popular with sociologists is that social mobility should be higher in ethnically homogeneous societies than in ethnically and racially divided societies such as the United States, where prejudice may hold back talented minorities. Data from highly homogeneous Japan and Korea do not support this view; social mobility is no higher in those countries than it is here.

China, which saw enormous social upheaval in the 20th century, provides yet another perspective. Under Mao, much of the country’s elite was killed or exiled. The rest were subject to discrimination and excluded from the Communist Party. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao tried to turn the social scale upside down by shipping prominent people to the countryside to work in rice paddies. If political intervention can create higher social mobility, it would have done so in China.

Yet once discrimination against “class enemies” was abolished shortly after Mao’s death, those with surnames characteristic of the pre-communist elite quickly began to rise again. Today, they are greatly over-represented even in the Communist Party. Those descended from the “workers and peasants” favored under Mao have quickly seen their status erode. Recent social mobility in China has been no greater than it was under the Emperors.

Data from Chile tell a similar story. The efforts of Presidents Frei and Allende to improve conditions for the poor during the period 1964-73 had no measurable effect on social mobility, while the subsequent Pinochet regime, which reversed these policies, saw no decrease in upward mobility. In Prof. Clark’s words:

Chile serves to confirm the hypothesis that social mobility rates are mainly determined within families and are mostly independent of social institutions. Events which at the time seem crucial determinants of the fate of societies leave astonishingly little imprint in the objective records of social mobility rates.

The 75 percent heritability of status can be traced backward into the past as well. People seldom go from rags to riches—or the reverse—In a single generation. Instead, the wealthiest and most successful people in any society typically come from families who are only slightly less successful, and the most down-and-out from parents only slightly less unsuccessful than they are. Whether you trace someone’s ancestors or descendents, their status tends to correlate with his at around 75 percent per generation, regressing toward the mean in both past and future.

The Son Also Rises closes with some thoughts for parents worried about the future of their children. He describes the weird world of Manhattan private schools that cater to wealthy parents tormented with status anxiety for their children. Such people have their four-year-olds coached to pass the competitive entrance exams required to secure a spot in the kindergartens of these schools; once their child gets in, parents can expect to pay tuition of $38,000 per year for twelve years. On Prof. Clark’s showing, all this is wasted. The fate of such children is determined not by the achieved status of their parents—usually partly due to luck and connections—but by the social competence they inherited at birth. Prof. Clark believes such parents, and all of us, would do better to return to the ancient practice of seeking a mate from a “good family.”

Individual success may be due to good or bad luck, but the overall status of one’s family is more likely to reflect one’s underlying social competence. Once a person has chosen a mate carefully, most of the work is done. Good inherited social competence will do more for children than tuition money and private tutoring.

Topics: , , , , , ,

Share This

F. Roger Devlin
Dr. Devlin is a contributing editor to The Occidental Quarterly and the author of Sexual Utopia in Power.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • After reading this, what the industrial and subsequent technological revolutions did was not increase the chances of upward or downward class and social mobility, but make life and the standard of living better for everyone but not equally better for everyone.

    • I had to read your comment a few times to understand it. It’s actually a very good comment once I grasped what you were saying. (Actually, a super comment!)
      I need to reread the article and make sure I understand what it is saying in terms of facts and in terms of logic, and whether I agree with the logic it is presenting. Could you explain how your comment follows from the article.

      • I’ll try again. I know you got it, but this is for those who might not have.

        If you were lower class in 1200, odds are your immediate ancestors and your immediate posterity were/going to be lower class.

        If you are lower class in 2014, odds are your immediate ancestors and your immediate posterity were/will be lower class.

        But lower class in the First World in 2014 is far far far far far better than being lower class or even upper class in 1200.

        • BonV.Vant

          only in the world created by Europeans, the “First World”. In the “third world” there is not much difference.

          • Anon

            Be more honest about what you are saying. Only white people are capable of any legitimate status above “wretched scum”.

          • 1stworlder

            the article shows proof from China and Japan but they did evolve under similar conditions to whitey.

          • BonV.Vant

            I think you meant to say: “be more blunt”

        • Anon

          What happens when low class people win the lottery. What was Anna Nicole Smith like? Her status went from trailer trash to Beverly Hills. She did not die well. Not only was she very unhappy and sick, but she caused a lot of grief for a lot of people.

        • Sick of it

          Excepting men like Da Vinci or Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Talent can bring one to the fore in any society which is not dominated solely by money.

    • Anon

      That’s a contradiction. If those who make the decisions and guide the collective behavior of everyone in such a way that wealth and prosperity increases for everyone, then they have reinforced to the entire society that their choice to follow those leaders was a good one. Upward and downward social mobility happens during societal collapses…..usually as the starving masses solve certain problems involved in stupid decision making by parking a guillotine in front of the local castle and lining up the nobility. Almost always, those who want such a thing, when they aren’t desperate or the decisions aren’t poor enough, are trying to steal and plan to victimize the entire society. Communism, for example, is all about this.

  • CourtneyfromAlabama

    Looks like a good piece. Can’t wait to read it!

  • Steven Barr

    Here in England individuals with Norman surnames are still massively overrepresented in positions of power, even thought they haven’t had a unique identity for almost 800 years. Likewise in Ireland people with English surnames, often descended from aristocratic planters, are prominent in the elite classes.

    • Alfred the Great

      Why are the Normans still doing so well?

      • Steven Barr

        Genetics. They are mainly descended from aristocracy although quite often illegitimately.

        • BonV.Vant

          Only the first three legitimate sons inherited land and titles. The sons that came afterwards were on their own. Still, judging by what this author claims, they did well for themselves without the inherited wealth. There is the issue of illegitimate children as well, and there is no doubt that much of England that does not have Norman names still has Norman blood.

      • oddball1776

        They still own their original stolen land to a large extent. They are the aristocracy, their children get the finest education money can buy and on the cycle goes.

        The stats on who owns what in the UK are very revealing. 90% of us are squished into 10% of the available land (can get the true figures if anyone is interested).

        It could be argued that the entirety of UK society is based around ensuring that this elite class remain in position.

        • sbuffalonative

          Now you’re arguing for the minority position; that white privilege in often unjustly passed on.

          This is the chicken and egg argument. Did the Normans steal their privilege unfairly at the expense of native Brits or did their natural ‘foot up’ allow them to surpass and retain their status?

          This is why education should be fair. Everyone in the same class is given the same chance and when they are sorted out by effort and results, that the best should be rewarded and we can’t ring out hands over those who can’t achieve for themselves when given the opportunity.

          All is not lost for the historic Brits. They’re a smart people and many more could rise to the top if their parents pushed them a bit harder. More British ‘tiger moms’ would be a good start.

        • Alfred the Great

          When the Normans invaded we Saxons, did the Normans have predominately dark or black hair? I ask this because I have run across this characterization of them.

          • BonV.Vant

            The Normans were a mixture of Celtic Gauls and Nordic Vikings. IT is likely they were more on the fair haired side.

        • BonV.Vant

          They have viking genetics and the superior intelligence and drives that those genetics bring.

    • BonV.Vant

      WE do have a unique identity

  • Luca

    It’s nice to have been born into a higher social status, but as a wise man once told me: “The cream always rises to the top.”

    • jane johnson

      And as a plumber once told me: “Poop runs downhill”.

    • Sick of it

      Seems to be the opposite in a world dominated by money. You know the garbage we have at the top today.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    It turned out that our ancestors were not wrong after all. Birth does count! Therefore, social programs are quite useless, but eugenic programs are probably very useful.

    • Are you for real? Though I find the Sophie Turner avatar quite fetching I do find it difficult to swallow that you think proclaiming forced selective breeding and mandated mating choices to be a good idea. Even if intellectually you might fancy that in some ideal world that would be how things might go, you must know, or should know, that saying that’s a good idea is a bad idea. Even if you think it’s a good idea.

      • oddball1776

        German/Germanic approach Augs – do not mess about – straight to the heart of the problem with a direct, efficient solution – see Heidi’s idea on how to encourage White child birth for an example – textbook Germanic perfection.

        It’s all good.

        (If you could see some of the folk round my way you’d be crying out for enforced eugenics, believe me !!).

        • We shall see.

          • Ahnenerbe

            The Hapsburg royal inbreeding eugenics program turned out real good. LOL, those defectives would have been thrown off the Tarpeian Rock in Ancient Rome

          • Throwing babies with genetic defects into the sea is good for the genetic health of the population. Doesn’t mean we should do it.

          • Ahnenerbe

            I find that most are a drag on the evolution of society and its people. Most are lifelong welfare recipients and they require excessive time of the parents. I am conflicted on the issue myself but will always remember as a kid watching a stray cat that ate its kittens because something was wrong with them. I’ll never forget that.

          • All white nationalists are axiomatically against abortion (for whites) which is great because not only does that tend to increase the number of white people but it’s also the morally right side of the argument to be on. Slaying defective babies when born however, while still serving the goal of increasing a balance of numbers with quality in the gene pool is, I think most would agree, on the wrong side of the tracks ethically. So, even though it may agree with the law of the jungle and what a stray cat will do to its own, it does not attract people to white nationalism, it drives them away, so that dictates my opinion on it.

            I know that nature makes no such fictional distinctions of right and wrong. The reality of the world is the brutality we see on “When animals attack”, more or less.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Do you believe the defectives should be sterilized? or kept from breeding by sexual segregation?

          • I think white people need to have their own space and their own nations and so within the ideal national population, a white one, I think we should basically do the white thing, so to speak. I do not believe we need to take on the Judaic-spin off yoke of subservient Christian meekness, however I do think that we are judged by how we treat the least among us. Different people define defective differently. You add up everyone’s different criteria and you’ll find the overlap takes out almost the whole population. Until we have a white nation of our own, or segregated space inside a nation for whites, this point is moot and only serves to drive potential white nationalists away because we have at best shaky grounds to dictate eugenics in our own race let alone to speak about wanting to mess with the genetics of other races.

            That sounds like some other race we know, doesn’t it?

          • Ahnenerbe

            People will find a way around dictates of gov’t anyway. Even if a anti-abortion White gov’t was set up women could still have abortions if they really wanted. Women have been inducing miscarriage through concoctions of herbs and plants for thousands of years.
            In this age with the vaccines, chemically laced foods and public water birth defects and sickness have risen exponentially. I really don’t know.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Here’s a good quote by Socrates ”I know that I know nothing.”

          • You’re right. That’s why I think the carrot is better than the stick here. I think positive economic incentives to reward white women birthing white babies, again though a thing we cannot enact until we have our own space. The white voting block was split in the 60s. We need to stitch it back together to regain political power so that we can begin to gain some momentum and maybe even a few local triumphs in elections. We need to get women on board as our number one goal. Easier said than done perhaps when so many are indoctrinated liberated liberals. But we need to be aware of this need and do what we can to work toward it.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Women have the incentive already, they can receive welfare from the gov’t and other assistance programs. It is the mentality of people in these modern times I think most. They are consumers and wish to buy man made material objects instead of having man made babies. Materialism and convenience seem to trump the procreation mindset.

          • Yes but at present the state incentives for child rearing seem to disproportionately increase non-white birth rates. Whites overall are more likely to put off their first children in order to go to college, then maybe grad school, maybe post-graduate work, then maybe wait until they get a secure job, then start pumping out kids. By doing that they make sure we get bred out. We need to encourage white women to start having kids as soon as possible and that means changing the perception of their Judaicized material values. For that we don’t necessarily need political power, but we do need non-hostile media access. We can still make some strides toward it by just reaching out to women and telling them about who has done this to white people.

            That’s one thing that, though quite politically unpopular, is unavoidable because it goes to the core of the issue, it’s factual, and ignoring it does no one any service but our overlords.

          • Ahnenerbe

            True, Europeans are natural planners. But in this age of the ”womens revolution/feminism” most will probably still want to further their education and job prospects before procreation. I don’t have an answer to change their behavior since now a lot of women in America out earn their husband’s income. Maybe the less intelligent under achieving women will go for it but the smart women will want to always shoot for the stars, so to speak, in the current money driven materialistic world. The whole of the current economic reality needs to change

          • Then we encourage stay at home dads so 18-20 year old girls can have their first kids a year after high school and let the father stay home to raise them until the girl is done with her education. Both would-be parents are running the hamster mill to pay taxes and credit card bills and student loans when they should be making babies. We have to change that.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Eventually maybe the ‘animal’ instinct will kick in on White people and realize they are being marginalized by colored hordes. I do think more and more Whites are waking up to the fact that they are being replaced. I think Nature will prevail! I have to go Augur, take care nice chatting with you.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I don’t really agree with this constant talk of treating women like a lone wolf in regards to reproduction. Men are an influence in all of this too. Women simply go along with what is acceptable or allowed in a society at a particular time. Notice that in very conservative parts of the US where men are strong, the women tend to vote like their men. I just don’t agree with the way some people on this website go about dividing women from men on all sorts of issues as if women are treated like their own nation with no influence from men. I don’t think that is really fair.

          • I’m not trying to exacerbate any sort of disunity between men and women, quite the opposite. I look at whites and I see that as a voting block they were split in the 60s by the social movements and Commies that tried to split the white voting block for their own political purposes. Now we have to stitch it back together. As it is now, many women, white women, perceive various issues within a male interests vs female interests framework, “Hands off my body!”, etc. What we must do is to shine so bright a light on our stealthy overlords that white women begin to see political issues again in terms of white interests vs anti-white interests, instead of perceiving things as a war between the sexes.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I think the issue is a lot more complex than that. I think it is an old vs. young issue. A lot of young men are ignorant about this stuff also and seem to support their female peers to the extent that they support feminism also. I also don’t see the voting gap as as big as a lot of people claim it is. 40 something percent of white women voted for Obama vs 30 something percent of white men. Hardly a difference when you compare how ALL minority racial groups vote compared to white men. Also, in conservative parts of the country women vote very similar to their husbands. This is probably also true to a lesser extent in liberal parts of the country. I am always amazed at the liberal women I see who have somehow managed to get married, and it is usually to men who think like they do.

          • I would believe that in more conservative, certainly in more Southern areas wives would vote more inline with their husband’s votes, but still not as closely as amongst husbands and wives who are non-white.

            In the last election, the only reason Romney didn’t win is because white women didn’t all vote for him the same way white men did. Blacks all vote as a block, Hispanics more or less too, all minorities vote mostly to the left, it’s only whites that are schizophrenic as a voting block and that’s because whites have high empathy, white women most of all, and so white women are therefore the most susceptible to anti-white brainwashing.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            We could say that Romney lost for all sorts of reasons: all the white people who voted third party, all the white people who didn’t vote, the 30 something percent of white men who voted for Obama, the 10% difference in white women who voted for him, the large minority population……or the biggest reason of all….the fact that Republicans couldn’t give us a better candidate! I agree with you that women think more emotionally than men for sure, and that they should have never been given the vote. But I don’t think it is fair to look at this as such a black and white issue, claiming that white women are one way and white men are another way.

          • I’m not trying to highlight real, extant differences in order to make them permanent. I’m trying to highlight them so that we can break them down and begin to push forward together on an agenda that’s good for all whites, and that means turning white women into racial realists. I checked the returns thoroughly before and the only reason Romney lost was because the white voting block was effectively split, with lots of white women voting for Obama. That is the truth.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I respect your comments on all of this, but I just find it hard to believe that that is the only reason Romney lost. I think that depends on how you break down the results. If minorities weren’t here at all, Romney would have won. If Romney hadn’t spent so much time trying to appease nonwhites, he would have won. If Republicans would have given us a better candidate, he would have won. If there weren’t so many whites who don’t vote, he would have won.

          • Courtney, Augur.

            Calm down, both of you. No reason to tear each other up.

            Marriage gap, not gender gap.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I agree with you , QD. I also think that there is an age gap. And I thought he and I were being civil. No need to tell us to calm down. I always like your input, QD.

          • Terra Magnum Imperium

            Agreed, they argue like a married couple…but both have valid points.
            My 2 cents; The Republicans lost because they have zero creditability with many white voters…

          • I’ll find you results and edit this post after I grab a snack. Whites are still the majority population in this country and the power of white women’s votes as a group completely eclipses the entire black vote, both men and women, with plenty of room to spare. I’m reluctant to quote numbers before I check it but the interpretation was clear.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I enjoyed discussing this with you. You were very civil.

          • I enjoyed learning from you that my view of the last election was wrong, as well as realizing that I really was painting it as a male vs female thing when it was not.

          • ThomasER916

            Once Whites survival instincts kick in then it’s easier for them to mobilize in their racial interests. Continually drill into the minds of Whites that non-Whites HATE you no matter how much you beg them and their version of “justice” is murdering you and taking your stuff. Of course, it’s all true but we have no media thanks to the Culture of Critique. The only way to change this is through flyers, graffiti and Social Media. The BUGS have launched a genius campaign and now the term “White Genocide” is going mainstream. The second way to get to survive this is to go “Amish” and create our own religion that is explicitly in the interest of Europeans, celebrates our culture(s), history, and heritage as sacred. Christianity doesn’t help us much as it’s not explicit, which is why the Orthodox varieties formed, though they’re “cultural” and not racial.

          • MikeofAges

            Lousy candidate. Edgy candidates win. Goody-goodies lose. Romney’s Mormonism wasn’t enough to make him edgy. Especially when he more or less apologized for it. No need these days to apologize for anything. He should have gotten right in the face of those who questioned him because of religion and repudiated the health plan as an experiment that failed in Massachusetts. Never mind that he was governor when it was enacted or whether it actually failed or not. That is how the game is played. Politics operates on a “Leo Duroucher” level. Duroucher was a social philosopher who happened to work as a baseball manager. He was the one who said, “Nice guys finish last”.

            The voters, I think, believe that someone with issues can function better in the job than a straight arrow. And maybe they’re right. Just considered as a job, being president of the United States is a strange job. The president is one of the very few people who cannot go out for a few drinks or to try to score some poonie. Even a corporate CEO can do that much.

            Every president elected since World War II has had some issue, either language processing and cognitive problems (Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, both Bushes) drug and sex addiction (Kennedy), an outright mental illness (Johnson), psychoneurosis or a major character disorder (Clinton and Obama). The one without any of the issues was Carter, was he was the most dysfunctional of all of them in carrying out the office.

            An edgy candidate can capture disaffiliated younger voters who do not really know where they stand anyway, and motivate older men to come and vote.

          • ThomasER916

            The problem with the term “Hispanic” in America is it fails to identify race. Many “Hispanics” are low-IQ, short, fat, brown Amerinds, then there’s Mestizos who are close to or virtually indistinguishable from White Europeans even though they’re mixed. Very few White, European “Hispanics” immigrate to America with the exception of the new “Hispanic” Bachelor.

            Steve Sailor wrote several articles about genetic drift in Mexican and Southern Amerinds. The successful Amerinds, male and female, were allowed social mobility because of the Catholic Church. As a result, their best left their kin and mixed with Europeans. This has been going on ever since. If an Amerind has a 110 IQ or better they compete among Whites, who are far too egalitarian and marry a White leaving behind their 85 IQ kin. Their children will have a White IQ, after deviating to the mean, and never find the dull minds of Amerinds a suitable company. It’s the same reason why only the lowest Whites find average blacks enjoyable company.

            Watch any Spanish Television and you’ll see more Whites than on American or European Television.

          • Garrett Brown

            Man, why don’t you post more? With every response I find myself vehemently shaking my head in agreement. Fantastic content Augur.

          • Thanks, man. As it turns out there’s sounding right and being right and on the voting bloc issue I was incorrect. I still believe feminism has split the white voting bloc and whites politically according to sex but the whole white votership, male and female, does not vote consistently enough to pool their collective voting power. If whites voted for their race’s interest as the primary concern, notwithstanding the fact that there are next to no candidates pushing that agenda, they’d still have some voting clout.

          • MikeofAges

            Maybe women vote like their men more than is apparent. How much of the so-called “women’s vote” is attributable to minority women? Otherwise, only women of a certain type, the single white women who see her rock star candidate as her man and as a secular Jesus who will jump start the Millennium, votes differently than her actual male counterparts. Any maybe not even that. Maybe her counterparts actually are those scruffy guys she spits on at the neighborhood coffee dungeon.

            Minority women very likely have higher rates of participation that minority men, but minority men vote the same way they do. One thing about minority women, though. They don’t vote their their daydreams. They vote their bile and their spleen. They vote their wallets and their checkbooks. Mostly they vote for as much ascension for their own as they can get their hands on.

          • Fr. John+

            Altruism is a White Genetic Characteristic. We care for others, because we care for our own, FIRST. We need to shrug off the heretical Romanist filioquist errors, and restore a true Christendom. Sterilizing unfits is not the same level as abortion- though the perversion of the Mosaic race purity laws by Rome, makes it appear so. That’s also why they (RC’s) sought to bring ‘everyone’ into the ‘Church,’ but Christ said He came ONLY for the lost sheep of the HOUSE (race, clan, people) of Israel- i.e., those racially set-apart members of the 12 Tribes (not the pseudo-nation now squatting in the Levant.) True Christianity was never meant for anyone BUT the Ecumene- the inhabitied European land mass, that was the “World” of the Great Commission. All else was to be left pagan.

          • sbuffalonative

            Today, we have ‘the pill’ and reversible sterilization procedures. Offering people compensation for not having children is a viable alternative to me. If their life circumstances change and they are capable of caring for children, they can always have children later.

            I don’t believe it’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

          • IstvanIN

            A big problem I have seen over the years with White couples whose first child is handicapped is that frequently that will be their only child. They will devote their lives to that one child, which is a huge mistake for several reasons. One, it deprives the parents of the joy of watching a healthy, normal child grow and mature. Two, it deprives the parents of grandchildren. Three it deprives the handicapped child not only of siblings, which might bring him joy and companionship, but also deprives him of family after the parents die. This leaves the handicapped child alone in middle or old age . Since it is unlikely, though not impossible, for all of a couples children to be handicapped the worst thing one can do is not have more children.

            I am against mistreating or in any way harming the handicapped and believe we should treat them with compassion and do all we can to give them a good life. I am against doing everything possible to keep a severely handicapped child alive simply to keep them breathing as a vegetable, that, too, is cruel.

            The big thing we need to do is seperate from the lessor races. The number of black and brown women who have handicapped child after handicapped child and collect over $750 a month in SSI that WE pay for is a disgrace.

          • Person of Whiteness

            Yes it does.

          • IstvanIN

            That wasn’t a eugenics program, it was for political reasons.

        • Martel

          I rather just increase the white birthrate.

          • Hefty housing subsidies, educational grants, tax incentives, and other assistance for white women giving birth to white babies.

          • Martel

            Family planning must become less stressful, a survey indicated that most British women want more children then they currently have but finding it to difficult financially.

          • I guarantee those 16 year old Somalian and Syrian refugees the U.K. has doesn’t think about financial planning before getting knocked up. I guarantee this differential in reproductive behavior racially is part of the plan.

          • Martel

            True, we are at a severe disadvantage.

          • BonV.Vant

            they know that money will be taken out of the white taxer and given to them. They know that they will not have any real worries.

          • Which reproductive strategy is more successful? Theirs or ours?

          • BonV.Vant

            That is not relevant to the issue at hand. You are saying that somalis still reproduce when they do not have money. The fact is that they do have money, they have welfare. Why do you ask if a parasitical strategy is more successful than that of being the host?

          • How is it not relevant that these refugees of foreign wars, also funded with your tax dollars, come here angry at you and feeling dispossessed by your country, and then leech off you with your own tax dollars in order to continue having kids at the rate people have kids when half their kids are expected to end up dead from famine, disease, or war by the time they’re 20? It’s not a strategy they devised. If you believe that you’re falling prey to some cunning Somalian plot, then just give up now. They are simply acting naturally. We are not.

          • ThomasER916

            This is all by design. Whites are being taxed to death. Literally.

          • BonV.Vant

            “Incentives” is the wrong tactic. One needs to make it impossible to choose otherwise. One needs to tax whites who wish to remain single and tax white couples that wish to remain childless. One needs to give them no other choice. One needs to take money, which translates into power, especially political power, out of the hands of those who do not participate in the continuation of the society in which they find shelter. This is actually the ETHICAL thing to do. It is NOT ethical to allow people to find a safe haven in a society and then not participate at all in the maintenance nor continuation of that haven. IT is immoral to allow people to exist in the society who, by the way they live their lives, by the causes they support, are actively contributing to the DESTRUCTION of that society! If a single male over the age of thirty is only allowed an extremely modest existence then “gay rights” groups and most leftists groups would simply dry up and disappear.

          • Money is not power. At some point, any currency will probably be equal to worthless. Any number of a handful of events come to pass and all that alleged wealth in your pocket becomes kindling. The only reason we think money is worth anything is because we’re trained to think it’s worth something so that others can hold the gold while we play with little green pieces of paper.

            What we need is political power and for that we need to increase our numbers. I do not believe that pushing the notion that the state will be forcefully involved with people’s mating decisions is going to help us win political power. I rather think it will marginalize us and drive away potentials.

          • MikeofAges

            The sky is falling. But until then, the power to tax is the power to regulate. Strong tax incentives, inevitably applying only to income earning persons, will work. Honest.

          • BonV.Vant

            Money is power. To dispute this is ridiculous. Gays have power way beyond their number because they have money. Young people were only able to escape the demands of responsibility when they had money in their hands that earlier generations never had. You can wax on all day about the nature of money, or how it may one day be worthless, but we are not talking about that day, we are talking about the world we are living in today. Money is power.

          • Gays have power not because they have money, but because they have
            voice. They have voice because they are a favored group of this regime
            and because the regime’s media acts accordingly. If I had a hundred
            billion dollars I still couldn’t get as much face time as homos on the
            news because my message would not fit the narrative.

            blacks don’t have any more power than gays and they have it for the
            same reason: they are a favored group of this regime and the regime’s
            media acts accordingly.

            In some ways, wealth,
            actual assets, can afford you power personally, but still personally not
            politically. My post consisted of two main contentions: 1, money
            isn’t wealth. 2, even wealth itself does not mean automatic political
            power. Political power can be held by those rich, or those poor,
            usually by those rich, but all you need is to have a lot of people who
            think like you do and some way for them to hear you.

          • Gays really don’t have that much more money, they’re just willing to spend more of it on politics, and they tend to be more single mindedly militant in their politics.

          • BonV.Vant

            you contradicted yourself in one sentence.

          • MikeofAges

            In our system, we can’t do that. We might not be able to do that under the aegis of a charitable foundation either, without facing legal action. But we can do it privately and at our own expense, with our own post-tax dollars.

            We might be able to do it through our local churches as well. That is one of the pragmatic advantages of Protestantism in our contemporary legal climate. Protestant churches — some use the the term “Christian”to distinguish between between the historic Protestant denominations and evangelical churches — each are a legally independent entity rather than part of a larger corporate structure. That makes them an almost impossible target for litigation, compared to, say, the Catholic church, for which the diocese is the corporate unit and the diocese property the legal target. In the case of Protestant or Christian churches, that little white church on the corner might not even be the same legal entity it was 30 or 40 years ago.

        • BonV.Vant

          I missed that one, what is it?

          • oddball1776

            This BVV :

            1st child: 5K

            2nd child: 10K

            3rd child: 15K

            4th child: 20K

            5th child: 20K + free rent

            6th child: 25K

            7th child: 30K

            8th child: 35K

            9th child: 40K

            10th child: 40K + free food

          • BonV.Vant

            You leave out a lot of details. Is this a government grant and is it every year? If so I don’t think this would do it. We have to understand HOW we got where we are, and I think it happened when young people started getting their hands on much more wealth than in previous generations. The irony is that when incomes were much lower, and there was much less income security, the birth rate was higher. We need to recognize that young people, when indulged, will NOT do the right thing, more often than not. They feel they are immortal, they are much more hedonistic and self centered. Having disposable wealth at an early age reinforces this form of “arrogance”. A few generations ago a child would enter the workforce much earlier, but they often were doing so to help support the family. It was nearly impossible for a person to survive without family connections. Employers also helped reinforce this by paying family men more and not hiring women. Before birth control the reality of pregnancy could not be ignored ,delayed or avoided. Women just were not a good investment of an employers time and resources.

          • MikeofAges

            If it was a grant, it would incentivize children bearing by no-income women. If it was a federal tax credit, it would incentivize childbearing only for high income people. Couple with children and incomes under maybe $50K do not pay much in federal income tax anyway, if anything.

          • ThomasER916

            Yes. It would have to be “married women only” and only while they remain married.

            Then again, I’ve always felt that voting should be based on married couples, not singles. Married couples are already thinking in a group dynamic, and less likely to want their money taken and “redistributed.”

      • Ahnenerbe

        Have you ever noticed on the internet when a individual uses a pretty woman as a avatar, they usually elicit a lot of thumbs up and positive feedback?

        • I focus on the content of the posts though in forming opinions about the poster. One thing I typically ask myself before hitting Enter is, “Is this comment good for the cause of white nationalism or is it bad for WN?” I realize that not everyone does this and even if they do their opinion on what’s damaging to us or not can vary.

          • Ahnenerbe

            It’s just a observation I have noticed on various websites, not that it pertains to your doings.

        • ThomasER916

          You’re beginning to understand “marketing.”

          Ideas need marketing. Whether they’re good or not is irrelevant. The goal is to implement those ideas.

      • Lagerstrom

        Patrick McGoohan beats Sophie Turner any day.

      • sbuffalonative

        I don’t believe it has to be that extreme.

        Education should be available to everyone. The key is to have a system that recognizes the best while at the same time recognizing that some children just can’t cut it. We need to do away with the idea that college is a right for everyone. Trades are an excellent alternative.

        The biggest problem we have today is the false belief that everyone can make it to the top is we give them the opportunity. This has never been true.

      • BonV.Vant

        There are many that would be fore a “eugenic” program.

        • Perhaps. But before we could do that we need a white nation and talking about eugenics takes us further away from succeeding in making one by my estimation. Really, how many women do you think we’ll win with the idea of state-arranged forced marriages based upon genetic criteria? If you’re talking about eugenics as applied to other races I’d say there’s already one Tribe that’s already doing that very same thing … with us …. and it’s contemptible.

      • LovelyNordicHeidi

        You and I might not yet agree. I know that you are criticising me with the best of intentions, as you are a person like me who is very concerned with White interests. I can only praise your daily support of my work, and therefore I take everything that you say very seriously. Your support and advice are not lost on me. I do not want to cause rivalry within our ranks, therefore I am aware of the need to walk very carefully towards our goals. I take very small steps, while I intend to appeal to the sentiments of my public and to turn the sentiments of my public in our favour. I am highly aware of what I am doing. What I say is not said without self-critique. I know that we are fighting against all odds, but I firmly believe that the right persons can turn the odds in our favour. The change begins within ourselves, and it influences others.

        I anticipate on what people like, and I anticipate on upvotes. I am not indifferent to their feelings and needs, because I have empathy like any other normal human being. I do, however, not let the propaganda of our enemies influence my opinions. I stand for what I say, and for what I say I stand. I am willing to die for my opinions, if necessary. The enemies try to determine our discourse and thought, but I do not let them do that. They can try to defame us, they can try to break us, but our opinions will stand and haunt them forever. Deep down in their hearts, they know what we say is true and will always be true. I understand the strategy of our enemies, and I am not afraid to use it against them, with many improvements. I know how the enemy is influencing the sentiments of the public, and I know that this causes the public to be hostile towards our message, but I also know how to change that; words are power.

        I anticipate on the hostility of the public towards us, as I take and am willing to take small steps towards our goals. Emotionally speaking, I am in touch with my public. I am constantly reminded of their emotions and needs, and these constant reminders are my mantras. Males might have another approach to our cause than I do. I am aware of what the strengths and weaknesses are of males like you, and I am aware of what the strengths and weaknesses are of females like me. Together we can win the public, and together we can build a team. You, Augur, are doing what more of us should do. We should follow each other on disqus, support each other daily by giving each other upvotes and advise each other whenever there is a need for it, like you do. You have shown us the way: we must be social and follow each other on disqus. As you are a model and leader in this respect, others should not feel ashamed of doing the same as you do.

        I believe that my female nature does make me radically different from males, but I also believe that my female nature is my strength. If males were the only ones who fight for our cause, then their struggle would have been much harder. However, there are competent females here and elsewhere who fight for our cause. I try my best to contribute to our cause as a pro-White female, and I sincerely hope my age does not make me come off as inexperienced and ignorant. I am only one of the younger ones, and therefore I respect the authority of older, more experienced people of our cause. I do not try to undermine anyone’s authority, nor am I anyone’s rival within this movement, because it is challenging enough to fight against our enemies. We are fighting against all odds. Infighting will only lead to our utter defeat. As a pro-White female, I hope to be able to help with solving minor and major conflicts within our ranks so that we can organise ours to fight against “The True Enemies.” We are not each other’s enemies; we should work on our feeling of brotherhood. As I said before, more people should follow your example, Augur, and I hope that these words will encourage more people to follow each other on disqus. Let us unite!

        • LovelyNordicHeidi

          I will comment on what you said in this thread. Take a deep breath, because what I am going to say to you might not sound so nice!

          I do find it difficult to swallow that you think proclaiming forced selective breeding and mandated mating choices to be a good idea

          Really, how many women do you think we’ll win with the idea of state-arranged forced marriages based upon genetic criteria?

          Obviously wrong! In the first quote, you do not accurately reproduce what I have ever thought or said about eugenics, but you actually place words in my mouth that I have never said. Most of the time I am busy with correcting people’s straw man fallacies, and it is sad that I have to spend so much of my time on that instead of discussing relevant issues. Both in the first and second quotes, you truly misrepresent eugenics in an oversimplification of it. Fact is, eugenics is much more complex than that. We can all have different ideas about how to implement it into our Western civilisation, but at the end of the day we are all working towards the betterment of humanity. It is highly important that one be aware that there is a huge variety of solutions to the opposite of eugenics that are are provided by modern and historical eugenicists.

          If you think that what I say is very damaging to our public image, then we should completely not speak about race. Talking about eugenics might be “damaging” to our public image, but so is talking about race. I do not perceive those things as “damaging.” What I do perceive as “damaging” is throwing around the n-word carelessly at YouTube or any other place, but many of our brethren do not seem to share our concerns. I would much rather that you help to solve that huge problem than that we are going to focus on utterly irrelevant issues. Our enemies have made race a controversial issue. They also made eugenics a controversial issue. I am not falling for any of that. If you think that talking about eugenics is a bad idea because that is what our enemies tell us, then it follows that we should also not be talking about race. In fact, we should be race denialist eugenics-fearing politically correct liberals. If that is how we should think, then we are on the wrong side, aren’t we?

          “Those who shall not be named” have had basic ideals for hundreds of years, and we also need a few basic ideals. Our racial survival and the genetic quality of our racial survival depend on those ideals. We need ethnostates for our racial survival, and we need eugenics in one way or another to maintain and improve the genetic quality of our racial survival. “Those who shall not be named” have always practised eugenics in one way or another, and we should not be afraid of doing the same. As humans, we are natural eugenicists in certain respects, and we should become conscious of our naturally eugenic choices and extend our natural eugenics towards a more successful system. If we can learn how to practise natural eugenics more successfully, it is our destiny to reach the stars, but if we cannot learn how to practise natural eugenics more successfully, it is our destiny to disappear into the abyss, forever.

          In fact, some of the ideas that you treated in this thread and support can be said to be eugenic in nature. If you think that what I say is damaging to our public image, then you should be very busy with trying to temper Spartacus and others who make many “damaging” comments about darkies. Those who make outspoken comments about darkies appeal much more to the racist stereotype that is stuck in people’s heads than I do with calmly concluding that we need eugenic programs instead of social programs. I did not call for the eradication of anyone, nor did I make any statement that can honestly be described as hateful. If one of my comments inspires some people to make inappropriate comments, then it is not my doing. I am not guilty of their behaviour. I feel responsible for our cause, and I try my best to make good comments, and I anticipate on as much as I can, but I will never be guilty of what others do with my work.

          These are some of the eugenic ideas that you treated in this thread and support:

          All white nationalists are axiomatically against abortion (for whites) which is great because not only does that tend to increase the number of white people

          but at present the state incentives for child rearing seem to disproportionately increase non-white birth rates.

          Hefty housing subsidies, educational grants, tax incentives, and other assistance for white women giving birth to white babies.

          • LovelyNordicHeidi

            A logical fallacy has led to these statements:

            Until we have a white nation of our own, or segregated space inside a nation for whites, this point is moot and only serves to drive potential white nationalists away because we have at best shaky grounds to dictate eugenics in our own race let alone to speak about wanting to mess with the genetics of other races.

            But before we could do that we need a white nation and talking about eugenics takes us further away from succeeding in making one by my estimation.

            We all agree that there is a hierarchy of relevance:

            1) ethnostates

            2) eugenics

            However, the above hierarchy of relevance does not discredit the relevance of eugenics. To discredit the relevance of eugenics on the basis of that hierarchy is to commit a fallacy of relative privation (anyone who is interested can look it up on Wikipedia).

            I agree that the beginner has to be introduced slowly to our cause, but surely the more advanced of our cause should be able to discuss any issue freely, without having to worry about the beginners. We are in fact already doing this. It comes very natural.

          • LovelyNordicHeidi

            There is a contradiction between these two statements:

            Throwing babies with genetic defects into the sea is good for the genetic health of the population.

            Different people define defective differently. You add up everyone’s different criteria and you’ll find the overlap takes out almost the whole population.

            In quote 1 you assume that you know what a genetic defect is and in quote 2 you assume that you do not know what a genetic defect is. The propositions of the above quotes are mutually exclusive. If you assume that you know what a genetic defect is, then you assume quote 1 to be true. However, if you assume that you do not know what a genetic defect is, then you assume quote 2 to be true. Double-think is not an option.

            I have heard the “we do not know what a genetic defect is” argument more often. I am not convinced by it. Doctors and other experts seem to know fairly well what a genetic defect is! Even common people seem to know fairly well what it is! It is an extraordinary claim that we would not know what it is, therefore it would require extraordinary evidence to back up that claim.

          • LovelyNordicHeidi

            Really, how many women do you think we’ll win with the idea of state-arranged forced marriages based upon genetic criteria?

            I want to make an extra statement about this. There is no reason to force people to marry on the basis of genetic criteria, because the goal of marriage on the basis of genetic criteria can be achieved much more easily. Just place people with similar genetic criteria in the same classroom for a few years, or place them together in another place, and at some point they will start feeling attracted to each other. No reason to interfere much more than placing them together. Nature will do its work. That is why we need to perceive grammar schools and universities as places where intellect comes together, and that is also why we need to promote more social activities for boys and girls in those places. We can go on for ages about this, but this is all I want to say for now.

      • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

        “…you [Heidi] think proclaiming forced selective breeding and mandated mating choices”

        Straw man. “Eugenic programs” can range from voluntary marriage counseling as regards genetic tendencies of couples considering marriage to extreme state interventions such as those you portray. It’s hard to argue that ignorance of the hereditary implications of reproductive decisions is a good idea.

        • I just think that getting an all white nation is important and that compared to the diverse soup we’re swimming in now, such a gene pool will be blissfully exclusive relatively speaking. I don’t see how, beyond that, beyond just wishing for an all white gene pool, talking about breeding various traits in or out of white people by showing more intrusion into their personal decisions than even the state now shows is going to help us. Compared to now, surrounded by blacks and browns, could you really call an all white nation anything but a resounding triumph both politically and for the security of our race? Why focus on minutiae dependent upon the outcome of battles not yet won?

      • TheCogitator

        I do not see where LovelyNordicHeidi advocated “forced selective breeding and mandated mating choices.”

        Why not play to the natural propensities of the lower classes for instant gratification and pay them to be sterilized? No force, it is their choice. Done right their numbers would be greatly diminished. Whites do not need to have large families, but we need for blacks to have very few or no children. Let the underclass eliminate themselves.

      • WR_the_realist

        There are all sorts of different programs and policies that all come under the heading of “eugenics”. Opponents of eugenics always focus upon the worst and most coercive of these policies, and then throw in gas chambers for good measure. (The Nazis’ actions against Jews were not part of their eugenics program, they were made because they considered Jews to be their enemies.)

        Already some simple forms of eugenics are available and often used. Amniocentesis is used to check if a fetus has genes for several disastrous conditions (Down’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and Tay-Sachs disease, among others) and the mother has the option of abortion if the test turns up positive. Jews test for Tay-Sachs this way so they are among the practitioners of eugenics.

        It is also possible to test for desirable and undesirable genes in embryos fertilized in vitro, and then implant the most promising ones. This isn’t done much yet, but it is already an option.

        Finally, at least as important as any program of eugenics is to end our current programs of dysgenics. We must stop paying the stupidest and least competent people to have children. If you are a humane person and don’t want to see poor people starving in the gutters you should advocate paying poor people not to have children, making welfare conditional upon the use of Norplant and the like.

        Aside from getting the government out of the dysgenics business I don’t want the government to have any role in eugenics programs. It would only corrupt them.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      I think we should gradually “phase out” less productive populations, such as blacks, Muslims and Hispanics, and encourage the selective breeding of the more evolved European subspecies. And yes, our ancestors were indeed right. Plato outlined the ideal social order in “The Republic”. In this dialogue, the philosopher, recognizing that some degree of cognitive stratification was necessary for a stable, functioning society, envisioned a three-tiered class structure consisting of rulers, warriors and artisans. Following this template, white embryos would be assigned to one of the three classes, preferably by lottery, and then genetically engineered to fulfill the role it was assigned. All whites with genetic defects would be immediately sterilized, after receiving adequate monetary compensation.

      The state would allocate a large percentage of its budget to improvements in genetic engineering technology. The sole purpose of the eugenic state will be the realization of the utilitarian imperative, which is to ensure the future happiness of mankind by eugenically breeding a more evolved human species. The crowning achievement of this platonic eugenic program will be the “philosopher-kings”, the most highly evolved specimens of this new (white) humanity. They will devote their lives to philosophical speculation and scientific analysis. The philosophers would surround themselves with beautiful things, while the other two castes would spend their days enslaving the colored hordes and maintaining the civilization bequeathed them by the philosopher-kings.

      Eugenics will be the salvation of mankind.

      • Bossman

        Wasn’t the Jewish Holocaust a kind of Eugenics program? The only kind of eugenics that will work is making education more universal so that ordinary people can know what is best for them.

      • MikeofAges

        Plato emphasized that his discourse was about the subject of what was justice for the individual. He used his model of the ideal society, which he apparently knew was no more than a thought experiment, to illustrate what the principles of justice were. In the “Myth of the Metals” summarized his concept, that justice to the individual came in form of his placement in society according to his natural capacities. Same for the “her” side of the deal too, of course.

        By following this template, we (the white European, Briton and Celt) have been able to create a highly functional order of society always providing individuals to honorably provide for every necessary function. Allying it with the Davidic moral order as later represented by the Christ we have created a similar and compatible moral order of society. Within this system, there have been numerous and great social injustices which could stand for rectification, but the system itself nevetheless represents the system of the ideal actual society. The rebellion of “disavantaged” minorities actually is a rebellion against the Platonic order. The Platonic order, when allied with the Davidic tradition — not the Abrahamic, the Davidic — is the basis for what we call “The Judeo-Christian tradition”. Anyone not willing to accept this idea either does not belong in the modern West or should be treated as frankly a renegade.

        If we intend to preserve our civilization, this is what we must defend. If we have to live on our own resources and live in a more limited way, so be it.

        The Western races will naturally produce all of the types needed for the daily functioning of society and long term prosperity of the civilization itself. Any effort to manage this process through coercion and bioengineering inevitably will produce a morally bereft dystopia.

      • JohnEngelman

        I think we should gradually “phase out” less productive populations, such as blacks, Muslims and Hispanics, and encourage the selective breeding of the more evolved European subspecies.

        – Einsatzgrenadier

        What about the “more evolved” Oriental subspecies? What about Ashkenazi Jews?

    • BonV.Vant

      After decades of having to take excrement from arrogant minorities, I am ready and even EAGER to ENTHUSIASTICALLY fill any role needed in a eugenics program that would “deal” with those minorities!

      • Randall Ward

        God disagrees with you. That is final.

        • BonV.Vant

          you are not his spokesperson

  • John R

    I’ll add something here: And despite all the civil rights and affirmative action programs, the ranking of America’s ethnic minorities between Whites, Hispanics, and blacks has remained unchanged.

    • BonV.Vant

      I had the same thought. it becomes readily apparent, when one follows this train of thought, of how incapable blacks are of achieving even a minimum standard of living ( without welfare). One also sees how they are incapable of maintaining wealth gained by good fortune and a sudden windfall. The list of black celebrities who have ended up bankrupt is a long one. On a percentage basis, they have a very bad record in this matter, same thing with black lottery winners and blacks who have won big legal judgements, they all go broke in a matter of years. Blacks are literally like a sieve when it comes to wealth, they can not hold onto it nor collect it. This is all blamed on white people and white privilege but the truth is is that it is THEIR defective nature.

  • Martel

    There is a working paper by Gregory Clark for this book online as a PDF. In the first pages he lists some of the most relevant conclusions, quite interesting.

  • frederickdixon

    The church in the picture is St. Giles, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire. It was Thomas Gray’s parish church and its churchyard is very probably the one mentioned in his “Elegy”. Gray, his mother and his aunt are buried in brick box tombs beneath the left hand window. I am lucky enough to live nearby.

    • Lagerstrom

      Thank you for that Sir.

    • rightrightright

      Stoke Poges is very close to the pretty village of Fulmer into which Shia moslems have set up a regional headquarters in order to further their cause and their war with Sunnis, all with the blessing of the local Parish council.

  • MBlanc46

    My grandfather was a craftsman. My father was a craftsman. I’m a craftsman. I’m not sure that this is an argument for heredity of status, but I’m pretty sure that there is some heredity in outlook and approach to life.

    • sbuffalonative

      There’s a young boy on my street. Sometimes he walks with me. I asked him what he wants to be when he grows up and he says he’ll likely go into a trade like his grandfather (he’s being reared by his grandmother and grandfather; I don’t know him well enough to ask too many personal questions).

      I told him trades are a good living but I also try to encourage him to think beyond his circle of family occupations and consider college and other professions.

      I don’t try to discourage him but I don’t like the fact that he seems resigned to the fact that his only option is a trade, like his grandfather.

      For the record, I believe I would have been more fulfilled perusing a trade but he seems to believe it’s invertible and less of a choice which is what bothers me.

      He’s not my kid and I have very short talks with him but I’m trying to help him see he has choices.

      • BonV.Vant

        mind your own business

      • MBlanc46

        My people were all working people of one sort or another. We lived on the fringes of a middle-class suburb and I had friends whose fathers were businessmen or professionals, but it never occurred to me that those were possibilities for me, at least once it was clear that medicine wasn’t my cup of tea. I was in my thirties before I finally found my way. I imagine that’s a real problem for many ghetto dwellers. Even those who have the mental ability to do something other than scuffle have no experience of anything else.

      • Randall Ward

        Talking to him will not help him. Talk is cheap but blood is thick. Why would you tell him he should do something “better”? You don’t know his future and where it will lead. All you did is tell him his dreams and ideas are inferior; they are not.

  • sbuffalonative

    I now had evidence that individuals’ life chances were predictable not just from the status of their parents but from that of their great-great-great grandparents. There seemed to be an inescapable inherited substrate, looking suspiciously like social class, that underlies the outcomes for all individuals.

    I believe this to be true but also agree with Thomas Grey; genius can spring up anywhere.

    Da Vinci is a good example. Unrecognized, we are all the poorer. Who knows if there might have been a peasant toiling the fields who could have rivaled Newton.

    SAT’s were supposed to help us find these people. I remain hopeful that if used properly, they can. Whether they are is another question.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      I believe this to be true but also agree with Thomas Grey; genius can spring up anywhere.

      Genius can spring up anywhere, but it’s more likely to show up in some places than others. Can you guess where the vast majority of that genius has shown up? Hint: it’s the race that has been responsible for 97% of all human achievement in science and technology from 800 BC to 1950 AD.

  • BonV.Vant

    “Once a person has chosen a mate carefully, most of the work is done.”…and this is why the left is so determined to push their media propaganda and pornography on our children to poison and confuse their minds, and it is why the left so badly wants drugs legalized, for the same purpose. There has been a war going on against white people for quite some time, and it is only now that we are waking up to that fact.

    • Randall Ward

      As a long time married, old guy, I can say with out any hesitation that marrying well is the second most important thing in anyones life; your life will be heaven or hell based on your choice of a mate. The most important thing is to ask the Lord to give you faith, so you can love the Lord with all your heart and mind.

  • BonV.Vant

    “that momentous change happened where it did—England—and when it did—the 18th century—because British behavior had evolved over the previous six centuries.”

    The talk about “EVOLUTION” in these matters, such as how the British came to the point where they developed the industrial revolution and modern society has no basis at all in any fact. It is mere conjecture to explain what happened. I would say that a more likely explanation is the spreading of Nordic genes from repeated invasions of Nordics.IT was a series of successive struggles between the best of the best of what humanity has to offer that resulted in the superbreed that brought us the modern world.

  • CourtneyfromAlabama

    I watched a documentary once that talked about how social status hasn’t changed much in England. Obviously it was told from a liberal perspective. At one part a doctor was interviewed who said things along the lines of ” I don’t think it is discrimination if the lower classes aren’t becoming doctors with the same ease that myself or my children will. I think the people already in my class are the ones who are genetically fit to be the best doctors anyways”. The interviewer looked perplexed at that point.

    As a side note, I find all the Indian, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African names that are above the European names in the chart above, pretty disturbing. I understand that immigrants send the cream of the crop here, but still.

    • Randall Ward

      Don’t be disturbed. Being a doctor is not what it used to be. Whites are smart and will go to the places where the money is being made without government interference. I expect the doctors of the future to be mostly of the not so smart class, because of government interference and a low paycheck.

  • Anon

    A few interesting comments about “social status”. First of all, I’d like to give a definition….which, after that wall of text filled with nonsense, this books seems not to give a very good one.
    Social status is the degree to which other people will cooperate with you. That implies TWO aspects. The individual and the group. There is something about the individual that signals to others that they should cooperate with him. There is something about the group where it is likely to cooperate on certain goals. An easy to understand example. Your average CEO finds it easy to organize a group of skilled white people to work in a business environment toward goals that result in profit. When removed from that context, say, by being caught at something illegal and sent to prison, his new status becomes that of jailhouse gimp. Status is not universal nor is it primarily rooted in the individual.
    A second thing to understand about status should be obvious to white nationalists but, again and again, I find a lack of understanding the implications of such things. Your race. What is your race? It is the extension of your family. Kith, kine and kindred. Your family, your clan, and all those you are related to by only a couple of degrees….your race. Understanding kith and kine as similar to your family than heritability of influence should be easy to understand. The most important father figure is the Lord of the clan which is nothing more than a large grouping of several brothers from the same father who band together because the most trustworthy people of all (for white people and white people only….cough) are your family. The title of Lord usually goes to the first born sons. Why? Because, bluntly put, first born sons tend to be stronger, smarter and more able than the rest of the children a woman might have. She has them when she is youngest (and part of the weakening of the white race is, in fact, our women refusing to have children at the ages of peak fertility, 15 to 20). But also, there are resources in a woman that are permanently used up with each child. Not only that, but such resources are passed down. So there is the tendency for the descendants of first borns to keep the genetic advantage. And there is a biological system by which this is recognized. There is your heredity of status….nothing more and nothing less than the enhanced ability to form superior families that white people have.
    Back to the biological basis of status. The most effective way to mimic status is not your behavior. Not your clothes. Not how you talk. Although all these things can be controlled to get other people to cooperate with you and do what you want them to, to the degree that what you want aligns with what is appropriate to that group to want. It’s phermonal. It is amazing to me that such things are common place and easy to come by, but in a culture obsessed with status, few people know. Buy the correct pheromone product (all of which are almost ludicrously cheap). Put a drop on you and instantly, and dramatically increase the tendency for people to defer to you. That’s for men. Similar products exist for women but I have no real experience with them.

    • ThomasER916

      There’s nothing biological in “first born sons” that makes them “stronger.” Nothing. Being the first born in a small family generally makes them more aggressive because the competition between individuals is smaller. This doesn’t matter if they’re male or female. Dolly Parton was the 4th of twelve children. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was the youngest of 7 children. The larger the family the less relevant being first born becomes. On to DNA…

      Peak fertility among women has to do more with their health and the health of their eggs. Men, on the other hand, who have children at a later age have children who live longer (telomerase length is increased by up to 10% for multi-generational aged fathers). The length of your telomerase determines your cell life. The longer your cells have to live, the longer you will live. Older men siring children with intelligent, ambitious young women is a better recipe for success since their children will inherit long life, brains, and ambition. Having a large family ensures competition and cooperation among siblings.

  • BonV.Vant

    Sorry, you are wrong. In the past social pressures were just as “totalitarian”. Sorry dude, no man is an island. You want to be totally free? Go find a deserted island then.

  • LHathaway

    “Good inherited social competence will do more for children than tuition money and private tutoring”.

    This just means most AmRen posters are doomed to a downward spiral of social status. After all, ‘social competence’ these days means being competent enough to respect diversity. And teaching respect for diversity seems to be the number one goal of most organizations there days. It doesn’t help that whites aren’t considered diversity. It does mean, that the leftists, by virtue of their greater respect for diversity, will stay on top of the social pyramid and will be the last ones to spiral down the drain.

    • Randall Ward

      Do you really believe that leftists have a greater respect for diversity? If you only listen to the media opinions, that is the view you can get, but take a look around you and see if leftists are accepting of anything out of their worldview. Remember accepting diversity is only a world view. Do you respect the diverse view that diversity is not a good thing? They you cannot accept diversity!! You are the typical liberal; you haven’t thought through your statement and worldview.

  • Randall Ward

    “A shapely leg and bosom precedes a sharp, superior mind.” I think your ideas come from your ideas and not the facts. I have never seen a study that said beautiful people don’t distribute in the IQ curve as normal people. Is there a study I am missing that points out your “ideas”?

    • PouponMarks

      You’ve missed the point. When the primary consideration of a man seeking a women is appearance, then genetic intelligence on average will be less represented in the gene pool. For many men, it is almost an option, displaced by deference, submissiveness, and the superficial. What’s the attraction to showy men of a brainiac with black horn rims, utilitarinan hair, no makeup, flat shoes, and likely disproportionate body parts, e.g., flat chested, thick ankles, uneven teeth, etc., etc. It’s breeding for show, not go.

  • dewdly

    I didn’t read all the “solutions” mentioned below but I don’t think anyone mentioned that the evolution of a race is an organic process that is easily corrupted by introducing artifice and/or removing or impairing an integral part of the system.Contraception, abortion, and the attitudes that reduce our reproductive drive to the pursuit of the isolated, satisfaction of sexual appetite all have worked to thwart and deform the female.” In times of unrighteousness and disorder women become corrupted; from the corruption of women comes the mixing of races

  • puffdaddy

    In other words, no matter what progressives try to do, people won’t quit being human.

    • WR_the_realist

      Give the progressives some credit. In Communist China, Cambodia, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and in our own ghettos. progressives have created conditions where humans act subhuman.

  • ThomasER916

    It’s disgusting how humans celebrate Down Syndome. Normally, I’m not for abortion but people need to be realistic. I can learn far more from a healthy human being than waiting hand-and-foot on a 45 year old adult with Down Syndrome.

    I’m against the idea of “Liberal Abortion” where you kill babies because it makes you feel righteous.

    I’m for severe, mentally debilitating birth defects as those people are quite literally a drain on a family. I came from a big family. They can be hectic and cooperative. I can only imagine that life would come to a screeching halt if my parents were still taking care of a sibling. They’re both retired before their years and refuse to get into politics but help with the kids. That’s what I see whenever I see someone celebrating severe birth defects – wasted potential. We only have so much time and energy. If we want our children to survive, then we want them to have grand children and great grand children. The best we can do is look after the youngest, not the ones that can’t survive or thrive.

    Heck, most people will cut loose a deadbeat relative because they’re not pulling their weight. I fail to see how this isn’t the same thing.

  • PouponMarks

    The answer to your question is Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, and any other dark skinned Indian in America, of which there are many, and of which have a much higher income and education than the average Boobus Americanus.

  • PouponMarks

    You’re confusing subjective opionion with measurable, objective, qualities.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    I’m no genius here but when money makes more money and capital gains taxes are lower than taxes if you actually work for a living, and the easiest way to get into an elite university is to have a parent that went there I would be surprised if the son didn’t rise. And what little inheritance taxes exist (50% or less) are constantly attacked as “unfair”. In the middle ages a king either had to divide up his land holdings between sons or else only allow one son to have it. Today he take his billion dollars split it three ways and due to the exploitative economic system each 1/3 of a billion can easily become a billion in ten years with little intelligence or talent needed to manage it (ok if you are a total idiot you can’t manage it but I mean someone with slightly above average intelligence who would be living on the streets if born to a poor family could manage).

    It’s not rocket science to see what is going on. And capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, progressive income tax, workers unions, minimal wage laws etc. have all been rolled back since the 60s and 70s. Education has sky rocketed since then and is not affordable to regular people.

    The good side of socialism: a more fair society has been rolled back. The Marxist side of socialism- a relentless attack against the white race as Obama puts it in his book “Dreams from my father” have been kicked into over drive. Marxism is not socialism. Marxism is a hate philosophy about hating those in power or hating a specific group. The Chinese killed off their upper crust. The Soviet Union killed their royalty and intellectuals. American Marxism (Frankfurt School/Criticial Theory) relentlessly attacks white males and Western culture.

    Republicans are probably more Marxist than Democrats. They both have the same anti-white/anti-Western view point of class and racial warfare (class struggle). The Nazis were more socialist than modern “liberals”. They are only about handouts to minorities and the poor, not about real social mobility or a fair society that protects the fundamental rights of all people. John Rawls who is the top modern “liberal” intellectual liked to say “a society is judged by how it treats its lowest members” Bill Clinton gave him a medal. Instead of advocating for a fair society based on opportunity he takes the side of a certain group (Blacks/Poor etc.) and uses it to attack another group (white males/successful people). Please stop confusing what they call “Liberalism” or “Socialism” with Marxism. Marxism likes to lie about what it is. It calls itself socialist, but its not. It calls itself liberal but its not. If you think rounding up millions of peasants in slave camps and executing them as the Soviet Union did to be real socialism I think you have problems. If you think “Affirmitive Action” that discriminates against white males is “socialism” you need to wake up.

    Marxism is a hate philosophy invented by Jewish supremacist to enhance their own perceived interests. It allies itself with Black people, poor people or whoever may find the idea of killing off or attacking another group to be appealing. Marxist groups should be on the FBI’s “hate group” list but unfortunately the ADL and B’nai B’rith are Jewish Supremacist/Marxist/Hate groups themselves and they train and advise the FBI. Why is it that you must be Jewish in order to join B’nai B’rith? Maybe we should send them some tolerance leaflets in the mail.

    But when writing future articles it would be nice to clearly make the distinction between socialism and Marxism. 1950s America was socialist with labor unions, minimal wage laws etc. Industrial revolution England was even socialist. Nazi Germany was socialist. Marxism is a particular brand of socialism that doesn’t really concern itself with socialism very much unless it plays into its racist and class warfare visions. In fact if we simply switch the word Jew with Aryan there isn’t much difference between Marxism and Nazism. One is a Jewish supremacist ideology the other an Aryan supremacist one. Except Marxism works in a “diverse” society by covert means and Nazism is overt and doesn’t favor having minorities around to exploit.

    • Raymond Kidwell

      In fact the comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany keeps coming up in the mainstream and Jewish suprema- er I mean Marxist groups like the ADL can’t censor such speech fast enough.

    • Malgus

      I still have yet to find one person to give me a legitimate reason why he or she thinks “taxes” – literally one person robbing another person at gunpoint via proxy under color of law – are even legitimate. What makes anyone think they can lay claim on anything someone else has earned? By what authority, moral or otherwise, do they think they operate under? People who wouldn’t stick a gun in your face and take your wallet are perfectly fine with “voting” to give the Almighty State the power to come and do just that in their stead. Having 99% of my neighbors “vote” to stick a gun in my face and take my stuff is still armed robbery, no matter how they try to rationalize it.

      You crab about “capital gains” taxes not being high enough. I find that people who crab about certain things being “unfair” (speculators making large amounts of money, etc) are usually the people who had a chance to do the exact same thing as the speculators, but didn’t.

      I will illustrate my point with an anecdote: Couple years ago, we were hit with a bad ice storm, uncommon for this area of the South. Two guys, risking their own money and time, obtained a large truck and, again spending their own money, time and effort, drove all over the southern states that were not hit, buying up generators. Then then came back here, set up in a large empty parking lot, hung out a sign and started selling generators – at an insane markup. They made money hand over fist.

      People crabbed that they were “gouging” or “taking advantage of them”.

      News flash – you had the same opportunity to do the exact same thing those two guys did, but you didn’t. You had the opportunity to invest in a generator when the weather was nice, but you didn’t. You could even have driven to another southern state and bought your own generator, but you didn’t. You have no legitimate room to gripe – no standing whatsoever.

      These people are cut from the same cloth as the ones who gripe and crab about taxes not being high enough on those “evil rich guys”. Pfft.. If a man makes a legitimate fortune, then I say good on him. If he wants to leave his giant pile of money to his son, ensuring his son has a good life (and what parent DOESN’T want that?), then he is free to do with his money as he sees fit and we have no say in the matter.

      Folks who want to stick a gun in a man’s face and take what he has legitimately earned (via proxy) are usually small, petty, jealous little trolls who are on the bottom of the heap for a reason…

  • JohnEngelman

    Civilization places a premium on superior intelligence. Those with high IQ genes tend to move up the social scale; those with low IQ genes tend to move down.

    During most of history in civilized nations high status people tended to have more descendants than low status people. Dysgenics is a recent phenomenon, that I expect to end.

    This is why races that have practiced civilization for several thousand years have higher IQ’s than races that have been recently introduced. Nevertheless, intelligent individuals can be found in each of the races.