"Third, several variables vary smoothly between the pre-treatment and post-treatment periods, including sociodemographic variables, economic structure, unemployment rates, tax revenues, eligibility for EU structural funds, geography, voter turnout, and referendum outcomes. The discontinuity generated by migrating Nazi elites is a unique exception."
So those elites made the far-right bigger, but the far-right being bigger had no measured effect on those other outcomes? Evidence that local politics don't matter, or that far-right parties don't matter?
It really shocks me that the "Genosphere" is surprised by Hanania's retard take on immigration: he is a (non White) immigrant. How can you expect a person that, without his ancestors' immigration in the USA, would be in Gaza to be against immigration?
Moreover, but his preference to market economy, Hanania too is a "left-leaning immigrant": his whole political position is "Clinton's sister Souljah moment". His "immigrants stop the welfare state" is a thesaurus-translation of "diversity is our strenght".
The same can be said about Kirkegaard and aNAFOly Karlin: the first is an individualistic Scandinavian scared that collectivist immigrants would export socialist Denmark in the USA, Karlin is a russian nationalist that copes his expat status with his "international human capital"...delirium.
People belive in what they are: is really this simple.
110 years ago Palestine was an undeveloped backwater that mass immigration of high human capital migrants lifted to a highly developed economy. I'm sure the current descendants of the original population really appreciate the increased GDP that the new migrant elite created.
1) After 2020 I started to change my mind on high IQ immigration. From "it's great" to "its neutral and complicated."
High IQ immigration basically just means "Asians" and the way Asians behaved during COVID was incredibly discrediting. I would not trade wearing a mask all day for slightly higher GDP.
I would add that pretty much the entire last twenty years has been bad for Asia (they are literally going extinct of their own volition).
I would probably still welcome some 130+ IQ STEM people, but I don't really care about whether we have more mediocre desk warmers.
2) In general non-white elites and low IQ browns all favor more socialism. Asians are naturally into the administrative state and safetyism. Browns don't really have an ideology but they understand "gibsmedat". Southern White hatred of Southern Blacks helped the Southeast keep the welfare state at bay for awhile, but there really is no evidence that mass importation of Latins has done anything other then turn places like CA from Reagan to Newsome or help people like Obama defeat Romney.
The default we've seen is more immigration = democrats win elections = more welfare state. You've got to lie to yourself to get to any other conclusion.
If the United States is to have immigration, it should strongly favor the highly intelligent. Intelligence is one of the most important human traits. The United States is quite capable of producing more than enough low-intelligence people to meet its needs.
In the beginning of the article, you mentioned that hereditary ideological effects can be attributed to genetics, tho only if the offspring is smart. Is this a claim that you hold strongly? Because imo, intelligence indicates ability to absorb information, which in my view, explains the ideological preferences of offsprings more than genetics.
When it comes to footnote 1, what are your thoughts on the report about the fiscal impact of migration in the netherlands("Borderless Welfare State: The Consequences of Immigration for Public Finances"), seemed to show a negative impact even when looking across the entire lifetime and across generations for most immigrants. I guess this would not be robust to the interaction effects mentioned. It would be interesting to see a study looking at say if non-immigrant populations are wealthier in places with more (low-skilled) immigrants as suggesting by a pulling up effect, even after controls. Also the section on CITO scores(dutch standardized test that strongly correlates with iq), being strongly correlated with net contributions by country of origin, given research showing that this measure correlates with other socioeconomic outcomes on this level(education is mentioned on the individual level, but see Kirkegaard, 2017), and previous correlations between national iq(Jones, 2010, see a basic meta-analysis: https://rpubs.com/EmilOWK/LCI_2017_talk), and sometimes selection(https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/out-of-europe-history-of-migrations used iab brain drain data) and immigrant outcomes(and those two factors + environmental impacts would be the main factors behind CITO performance).
Impressive article! Impressive in its combination of genetics, history and politics. Elucidating on the function and importance of elites, and on the question of elites moving from one place to another. I’ve also been wondering why I started reading that political orientation is strongly heritable, as I believed to know it was only at the most moderately heritable. Apparently - heritable goes together with cognitive ability in this case. So if your brothers or sisters (twin or not) hold completely different and random political points of view, it could be a telltale sign that your family isn’t tightly knit at all or that you are not very smart.
Amazing article but you should really split it up! Footnote 1 should be its own post.
This is one of the most incredible articles I’ve ever read on SubStack. Great set of analyses. Well done
I’m not sure if you can read my “restack” but one of my ancestors was a forty eighter who fled to Portugal - https://wilhelmachilles.wordpress.com/vor-und-wa%cc%88hrend-der-revolution-1848/
It would be really interesting to see the wider effects that this migration wave had!
Truly a fascinating article throughout, thank you for writing it.
"Third, several variables vary smoothly between the pre-treatment and post-treatment periods, including sociodemographic variables, economic structure, unemployment rates, tax revenues, eligibility for EU structural funds, geography, voter turnout, and referendum outcomes. The discontinuity generated by migrating Nazi elites is a unique exception."
So those elites made the far-right bigger, but the far-right being bigger had no measured effect on those other outcomes? Evidence that local politics don't matter, or that far-right parties don't matter?
It really shocks me that the "Genosphere" is surprised by Hanania's retard take on immigration: he is a (non White) immigrant. How can you expect a person that, without his ancestors' immigration in the USA, would be in Gaza to be against immigration?
Moreover, but his preference to market economy, Hanania too is a "left-leaning immigrant": his whole political position is "Clinton's sister Souljah moment". His "immigrants stop the welfare state" is a thesaurus-translation of "diversity is our strenght".
The same can be said about Kirkegaard and aNAFOly Karlin: the first is an individualistic Scandinavian scared that collectivist immigrants would export socialist Denmark in the USA, Karlin is a russian nationalist that copes his expat status with his "international human capital"...delirium.
People belive in what they are: is really this simple.
A Forty-Eighter migrant was Karl Marx.
110 years ago Palestine was an undeveloped backwater that mass immigration of high human capital migrants lifted to a highly developed economy. I'm sure the current descendants of the original population really appreciate the increased GDP that the new migrant elite created.
1) After 2020 I started to change my mind on high IQ immigration. From "it's great" to "its neutral and complicated."
High IQ immigration basically just means "Asians" and the way Asians behaved during COVID was incredibly discrediting. I would not trade wearing a mask all day for slightly higher GDP.
I would add that pretty much the entire last twenty years has been bad for Asia (they are literally going extinct of their own volition).
I would probably still welcome some 130+ IQ STEM people, but I don't really care about whether we have more mediocre desk warmers.
2) In general non-white elites and low IQ browns all favor more socialism. Asians are naturally into the administrative state and safetyism. Browns don't really have an ideology but they understand "gibsmedat". Southern White hatred of Southern Blacks helped the Southeast keep the welfare state at bay for awhile, but there really is no evidence that mass importation of Latins has done anything other then turn places like CA from Reagan to Newsome or help people like Obama defeat Romney.
The default we've seen is more immigration = democrats win elections = more welfare state. You've got to lie to yourself to get to any other conclusion.
If the United States is to have immigration, it should strongly favor the highly intelligent. Intelligence is one of the most important human traits. The United States is quite capable of producing more than enough low-intelligence people to meet its needs.
Really good work! One question
In the beginning of the article, you mentioned that hereditary ideological effects can be attributed to genetics, tho only if the offspring is smart. Is this a claim that you hold strongly? Because imo, intelligence indicates ability to absorb information, which in my view, explains the ideological preferences of offsprings more than genetics.
When it comes to footnote 1, what are your thoughts on the report about the fiscal impact of migration in the netherlands("Borderless Welfare State: The Consequences of Immigration for Public Finances"), seemed to show a negative impact even when looking across the entire lifetime and across generations for most immigrants. I guess this would not be robust to the interaction effects mentioned. It would be interesting to see a study looking at say if non-immigrant populations are wealthier in places with more (low-skilled) immigrants as suggesting by a pulling up effect, even after controls. Also the section on CITO scores(dutch standardized test that strongly correlates with iq), being strongly correlated with net contributions by country of origin, given research showing that this measure correlates with other socioeconomic outcomes on this level(education is mentioned on the individual level, but see Kirkegaard, 2017), and previous correlations between national iq(Jones, 2010, see a basic meta-analysis: https://rpubs.com/EmilOWK/LCI_2017_talk), and sometimes selection(https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/out-of-europe-history-of-migrations used iab brain drain data) and immigrant outcomes(and those two factors + environmental impacts would be the main factors behind CITO performance).
RETVRN error? The below chart is missing Utah and has Vermont twice.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb5638d4a-c79e-42ca-acda-0dc1bce228a2_964x771.png
Impressive article! Impressive in its combination of genetics, history and politics. Elucidating on the function and importance of elites, and on the question of elites moving from one place to another. I’ve also been wondering why I started reading that political orientation is strongly heritable, as I believed to know it was only at the most moderately heritable. Apparently - heritable goes together with cognitive ability in this case. So if your brothers or sisters (twin or not) hold completely different and random political points of view, it could be a telltale sign that your family isn’t tightly knit at all or that you are not very smart.