So this recent interview of Ann Coulter by Vivek Ramaswamy got a lot of attention because she straight-up tells him to his face that despite admiring his intelligence and politics, she can’t vote for him because he’s an Indian. I always thought it was incredibly naive of Ramaswamy to think he could transcend race and succeed in a Republican primary (assuming it wasn’t just a publicity stunt), perhaps thinking Indians would face less racism than blacks do.

But I applaud Coulter for her honesty. Usually white conservatives can never admit they oppose a minority because of race, there always has to be six or seven other reasons, but Coulter to her credit has the courage, integrity and self-awareness to not play those games. Because as much as Ramaswamy may share her politics in theory, he may always regress to his racial mean in practice.

Unfortunately, as the politics becomes more complex, Coulter’s tribal instincts can no longer compensate for her sub-genius IQ. She complains about all the Muslims at the university protests and to her credit, she has the math chops to understand that even if there are more native born whites, there are proportionately more immigrants or children there of. This in Coulter’s eyes, is proof that the immigrants are anti-American. That would only be true if America supported Bibi out of strategic U.S. interests and not because Biden and Congress are bought and paid for by Zionist billionaires. She’s not even sophisticated enough to realize that? Doesn’t she read Steve Sailer? Has she never heard of Mearsheimer and Walt? And Ramaswamy is presumably too politically ambitious to touch this Third Rail.

And then when it comes to why there are so many immigrants, Ramaswamy has long argued it’s because the Democrats want more liberal voters but Coulter thinks it’s because the rich want cheap labor or because they just hate America.

So when it comes to the two main policies of the U.S. establishment (what Steve Sailer calls invade the world/invite the World) both Coulter and Ramaswamy are either too dumb or too scared to articulate the role of Ashkenazi elites. Or if you want to evade the JQ, at least go with the Mug of Pee/Tucker Carlson argument that racial diversity serves as a distraction from economic inequality and makes it easier for elites to divide and conquer the masses.

A few commenters have mocked me for supposedly worshiping the rich when in reality I just believe in Darwinism, but according to Coulter, this, along with the first two amendments, are American values and another reason why she wont vote for Ramaswamy even though he also appears to worship the rich and is almost a billionaire himself. But he is Indian and Indians view the poor as closer to God according to Coulter.

Coulter says she can call Ramaswamy articulate because he’s not an American black. I can’t tell whether she’s once again calling him non-American or just non-black or both. If he were the son of Nigerian immigrants would she have said the same thing? It’s a fascinating question because black skinned Brahmens have long been considered not only Caucasoid, but 100% pure Aryans, but then David Reich got jealous and did a study proving Indians are a hybrid of Middle Eastern and Andaman Island adjacent people. Andaman Islanders are morphologically Negroid in my opinion, however the subset that Indians are descended from may have evolved into the first Caucasoids before mixing with their Middle Eastern descendents.

Also of interest, Coulter strongly opposes reparations for black Americans. Not only does she deny they built America, but argues that slavery held America back because it disincentived innovation and her evidence of this was the relative poverty of the U.S. South compared to the non-slave owning North.

For years it’s been known that Jews have some of the lowest crime rates of any ethnic or racial group. Jewishvirtuallibrary.org reports:

However it’s well known that crime decreases as a function of socio-economic status and IQ (especially verbal IQ) and given that Jews in Western countries rank high on both of these variables, it might be argued that their apparent law abidingness is just a function of these other traits.

Thus when I stumbled upon a list of extremely rich Americans who had trouble with the law, I was intrigued because such a list, by definition, largely controls for economic variation. In their book ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, Peter Bernstein and Annalyn Swan studied everyone who has ever appeared on Forbes magazine’s authoritative list of the 400 richest Americans from 1982 to 2007 and find at least 16 got in trouble with the law. Upon reading the list of names, what jumped out at me was that just over half of the 16, (56%) were Jewish.

Of course this doesn’t prove all that much because it’s long been known that Jews are hugely overrepresented among the Forbes 400, with some sources claiming they’re about a third of the list, however it’s interesting that among the tiny subset who had trouble with the law, their percentage increases from a third to over half. Of course given the small sample size, this result is probably not statistically significant.

Nonetheless if merely controlling for wealth can cause their crime rate to go from low to not low, I wonder what controlling for both wealth and verbal IQ would do.