white liberals recently became the only demographic group in America to display a pro-outgroup bias—meaning that among all the different groups surveyed white liberals were the only one that expressed a preference for other racial and ethnic communities above their own.
You may recall that I witnessed this at my third daughter’s college graduation. The graduation speaker reported recently reading that the U.S. is going to be majority minority by 2050, and the students erupted in whoops and applause. I thought to myself, “They have been indoctrinated to hate white people.” The other night at my talk, I thought that the same thing might be at work in the way that the students applauded particularly strongly for anti-free speech remarks made by African-Americans (although they also applauded similar remarks made by whites).
Goldberg also notes
The years between 2012 and 2016 were a watershed for white liberal racial consciousness. But the seismic attitudinal shifts of those years have implications that go beyond race: They are also tied to a significant decrease in support for Israel and—perhaps more surprisingly—a rise in the number of white liberals who express negative attitudes about the perceived political power of American Jews.
For most of my Jewish friends who are progressive, left-wing antisemitism doesn’t fit their preconceptions. Therefore, for them it doesn’t exist.
I believe all of this, but if you personally decide to treat people as individuals rather then members of demographic groups (e.g. “identity politics”), is it that useful to dwell on?
Yup, there is a lot of race hate going around. Dr. Kling does himself no favors by noticing, however. It would not be surprised if this morning he has already been branded with the scarlet letters AR for alt-right on twitter or some other festering social media cesspit.
White self-hate shows up more concretely in suicide numbers, child abuse, white male detachment from the education system, drug abuse statistics, emigration, and taking on other identities (so-called race dysphoria, or identifying with a race other than the one you are “assigned” at birth in a riff on the vocabulary of the gender dysphoria promoters).
The 2020 census will be interesting. The US Census reported that the total U.S. population grew by 9.7 percent, from 281.4 million in 2000 to 308.7 million in 2010. In comparison, the American Indian and Alaska Native (self-reported without additional reported race) population increased almost twice as fast as the total U.S. population, growing by 18 percent from 2.5 million to 2.9 million. The American Indian and Alaska Native alone-or-in-combination with another self-reported race population experienced faster growth than both the total U.S. population and the American Indian and Alaska Native alone population, growing by 27 percent from 4.1 million in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2010. I imagine a lot of that growth is accounted for by the growing Ward Churchill/Liz Warren opportunist population but also maybe a lot of whites who can’t bear being white.
The percent of the US population reporting as white will decline markedly ion the 2020 census, much faster than can be explained by birth, death, and emigration/immigration trends. And a lot of people will have found distant non-white ancestors with the boom in genealogy testing and software. And one wonders just how many people will misreport just for the sheer fun of sabotage.
As neo-apartheid policies ossify in US law and policy, the likelihood of any reform or meaningful change diminishes. And there is no interest in promoting peace as demonstrated by the reparations movement. As the hate grows stronger, the US will be at a distinct disadvantage to countries like China that maintain borders and regulate immigration.
Immigrants want in on the reparations action too and race hate strengthens their claim. In This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto, an NYU professor and immigrant, Suketu MehtaIn, claims history entitles Indians to reparations: “Indeed, a huge bill is coming due to the West. And it is one that the West is not only morally obligated to pay, but one that it should look forward to paying.” His manifesto states “I claim the right to the United States, for myself and my children and my uncles and cousins, by manifest destiny…. It’s our country now.”
And indeed it is.
Trump was a last gasp effort at maintaining something resembling balance but he has been utterly ineffectual and the haters have won. US culture and history are now set upon an irreversible trajectory of race hate, revenge, and greed and there will be no good outcomes. Get out while you still can.
I suspect that leftism and anti-Semitism are simply different manifestations of the same underlying psychological drive. If you look at classic anti-Semitic rhetoric, much of it bears a striking resemblance to left-wing rhetoric about blood-sucking capitalists and cabals of billionaires controlling everything from the shadows. Very often, you need only cross out “Jews” and write in “the 1%” to disguise a quote’s provenance.
If you think its only on the left you are willfully ignorant.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/05/donald-trumps-star-david-tweet-recap/
Um, that gruel is thin enough to be water. The ‘star of David’ being a red star with a blurb about Hillary Clinton inside it? The image may have been made with anti-Semitic intent, but I’m pretty sure almost no one, including myself until it was pointed out, and most likely Trump as well, saw it and thought about Jews. Sorry, but this is simply not good evidence of Trump being anti-Semitic.
Pittsburgh shooter? Good ppl on both sides? Okay. I get it.
Um, what?
A nearly universal fact across the developed world is that leftist politics is strongly anti-Israel and toughly correlated with the varieties and levels of sophistication of anti-semitism appropriate to one’s particular identity and class – which for many boils down to little else but classic Jew hatred.
To the extent there were any exceptions it was because of the prominence and outsized influence of local Jews in leftist movements and among the wealthy donors to leftist causes and parties. (That is, those Jews who hadn’t rejected affiliation with, and having any special affection for, Judaism, the Jewish people, and the state of Israel). It was also because of the smaller proportion of Muslims in the population.
But this exception – like all unprincipled exceptions – was unstable, most especially in the case of support for Israel, because the logic of progressive principles and analysis necessarily makes Israel the bad guy in several important dimensions (in exactly the same way as America would be the bad guy for them in similar disputes).
This is especially true these days since:
1. In the 60’s and 70’s, Israel was seen as ‘scrappy’, relatively poor, dependent on help, fundamentally tactically and strategically weak due to bad geography and being outnumbered and surrounded by large hostile forces tending towards alliance against them, etc. Today Israel is rich and powerful (as military strength has shifted to being more capital-intensive than labor intensive), and seen as likely to be overwhelmingly dominant in any all-out war with its local rivals, the destruction of which is prevented due mostly to restraint (exercised internally and imposed externally). So they don’t get any underdog points anymore, and instead get the overdog ‘privileged oppressor’ handicap in the moral calculus.
2. Israel had it’s own version of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms after hitting it’s own high-water mark of secularism and socialism in the 70’s and early 80’s, after which it began to make it’s turn to both market neoliberalism, increasingly conservative nationalism, and increasingly deferential to the preferences and concerns of the religious due to demographic change in favor of the orthodox. Obviously the left isn’t happy with any of those trends.
Add in a lot more Muslims, and a lot fewer baby boomer Jews in western countries, and you have a recipe for the “Corbynization” of leftist politics in any country. This includes clear opposition to Israel and desire to treat it as a pariah state in the mold of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa on the one hand, and, inevitably, a lot of crude Jew-hatred which always goes along for that ride: all of which is what has been happening to the Labor Party in the UK.
And it’s inevitable that it will happen in the U.S. too.
As a general rule, for anything one might care about, about the most dangerous thing that can happen is that the subject because a clear and salience axis of conflict and dispute between the progressives and conservatives, so that all the usual group psychology and social political dynamics start to apply.
It means that the progressives will identify the principle as being an indispensable part of their ideological portfolio, and will immediately start the competitive sanctimony rat race to take positions on that matter to increasing extremes, viewing any lenience or moderation on the matter as a sign of right-wing crimethought and betrayal of loyalties.
Pretty much every other country has crossed that Rubicon and it was only a matter of time before the U.S. did too, and it’s arguable we have already, or if not, we will soon. Which leaves Jews (who still care at all about identifying as Jewish) with a choice between being progressive and anti-Israel, or being pro-Israel and thus impossible to be considered a “member in good standing” among the progressives.
My guess is that about 1/3rd of left-leaning Jews will defect to being center-rightists, and 2/3rds will just become full-on Conversos to progressivism, leaving Jewish identity behind, and trying to conspicuously signal that they are the most anti-Israel person around, with liberal (heh) use of the “As a Jew …” trope which is supposed to act a credibility enhancer in the manner of an admission against interest. But they won’t perceive that the welfare of Israel will be in their immediate interest any more.
At least, not for another generation or so, until, to the extent they still identify as Jews, they become like the Jews of France, who are bailing out, having discovered that the New France, in the process of replacing the French, is now inhospitable to their presence.
And by the way, if you think liberal whites hating on other whites (or “whites in general”) is something, you should see progressive Jews hating on other Jews, that is, Jews committing heresy against progressivism. I think the latter trendline runs in advance of the former, and is even more severe in passionate intensity.
In our sales office, we have remind ourselves perception is reality so I recommend avoiding the ‘indoctrination’ stuff. (And yes I wish the Left follow that advise!) And remember how different school and young people are today than when you grew up. Look at the Parkland ‘anti-guns’ teens led by David Hogg, as that look like the young Obama Democrat society with people from backgrounds.
1) The American Southwest border states (include NV here) most average public students don’t go to a white over 50% majority of the students. This is their America reality.
2) Republicans voted for a President who called Mexican Immigrants rapist his speech! And the Clarement Institute or Pat Buchanan (Godfather of Trumpism) sound just whiny to me as the NAACP today.
3) Probably worst aspect of lots of information is we can choose our narrative. Average everyday events in MS, can easily witnessed by a Californian. (Or Visa Versa) One of my favorite Daily Show segments is a Correspondent went to Waffle House in MS and conducted a gay marriage proposal with average people. And the average breakfast goer gave them a golf clap for it! In reality, 98% everyday life is discrimination situation. (And the Daily Show to their credit went with it for the segment.)
4) Honestly, I think the worst problem is woke liberals and conservative are missing the group that falling through the cracks the most today which is the WWC in the Rust Belt. The issues for WV are huge and significant with coal demand falling every year since 2005.
Yes, left-wing antisemitism is rising along with right antisemitism.
In many this workeness of race differences is at the center of the Democratic Primary with Joe Biden doing exceptionally well with older Democrats and weaker with younger Democrats. And in terms of older Democrats, Biden’s biggest support is older African-Americans in South Carolina. (I have heard numerous The Green Book Primary here.)
So it will interesting to watch how this plays out.
Watch what white liberals do, not what they say. Specifically, their Other-Racial and Ethnic outgroup is fine to like, but only from a distance. They still prefer to live exclusively among each other in upper middle class white neighborhoods and suburbs. And they send their kids to schools with students who resemble themselves.
That said, white liberals do have a genuinely detested outgroup: Lower class whites. Hence, their disdain for Walmart, guns, large SUVs, etc. I suspect that their disingenuous affinity for The Other is actually an expression of “the enemy of my low-class white enemy is my friend.”
I know some of this is true, but anybody in SW America interacts with loads of minorities everyday. They are our neighbors, friends, co-workers, and increasingly spouses.
1) Go look up the realities of CA-48 Congressional district which centers in South Orange County. The most planned suburban community is Irvine and at this point it is only 51% white with about 40% Asian-American. When the Claremont Institute complains about diversity, they lose a lot of the population. Older Californians call these voters Obama Republicans and I still believe our state moves right after Trump.
2) Look at Texas demographics at some point as it is not just Blue states here.
I don’t think you really make your point by using that particular Congressional district. Now, if the district were 51% white and 40% black, you might have one.
It’s not “self”-hate. It’s the (overly?) educated elite (wannabees?) who hate the poor white trash — those whites who don’t go to college.
Whites who like NASCAR.
Normal poor and even just not-rich whites, who don’t like homosexuals nor Muslims nor illegals. Who often have similar problems and phobias as normal poor Blacks.
The elite want to be “morally superior”, but are especially against less educated white men.
+1
I have the same impression you do. Their out group affinity is about a mile wide and an inch deep.
Article confirms my impression that wokeness movement is driven primarily by educated, white liberals. That certainly cuts against the anti-immigration argument that immigration threatens our (classical) liberal culture. Educated white liberals are natives. Immigration restrictions don’t keep out people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
This also cuts against the “against David Frenchism” arguments of the populist Right. If saving classical liberalism depends on reaching primarily educated whites, then well-reasoned civil arguments would seem more effective than boorish, bar-room style rantings that would only serve to reinforce white liberals’ caricatures of conservatives. David French seems much more likely than Tucker Carlson to persuade white college students and young professionals.
Immigrants vote for white liberals in overwhelming numbers and either actively support or don’t much mind the progressive agenda.
My city is majority African American. Its absurdly “woke” in its government and culture. Maybe in some sense blacks don’t feel the exactely same as white liberals, but it doesn’t really matter for outcomes does it.
Wokeness happened because non-whites became a large enough % of the population that white liberals could go crazy without causing a self defeating political and economic backlash because they can always count on brown people to vote for and support them in exchange for a cut of the spoils wokeness generates for them.
White liberals are indeed more morally repulsive in this scenario, but the bottom line is that outcomes are the same.
We need to start with the idea that liberals whites can’t be convinced (that matches the evidence) and need to be defeated. Absent the presence of brown people they would be a strong minority of whites and would not have power.
The idea that we are going to convince these crazies through argument is absurd, and the idea ignoring the fact that their power stems from their imported vote blocks is doubly insane. Without immigration there would have been no great awokening.
“Absent the presence of brown people they would be a strong minority of whites and would not have power.”
This is demonstrably wrong. Portland is very white and probably the wokest city in America. White progressives are in power in lots of places with few brown people. Tangentially, the wokest schools are whiter-than-average, expensive and private.
There have always been “the woke”. And they have always been basically the same people. Stuff White People Like predates the Great Awokening. This set already tried this shit in the 60s, then again in the 90s (where the term politically correct comes from).
They couldn’t force themselves on normal white not because of a lack of will, but a lack of power. They were outnumbered. So they imported mercenaries to boost their ranks.
Romney won the same % of white as Reagan when he had his landslides, but lost the election. Whites didn’t change. The electorate became less white.
Portland hippies weren’t a problem for everyone else when their idiocy was limited to themselves. Without immigration it would have stayed that way.
Dain, you make some valid points, but I don’t see asdf as being demonstrably wrong. In fact I think the simple “demographics is destiny” is story is much more convincing than your counter-example of Portland.
Bill Kristol wrote after the November 2018 elections:
Kristol is just one man, but he was one of the most prominent critics of the “demographics is destiny” argument. He spent decades chastising those would would make that claim. But, after all of that, in 2018, he basically admits, well, I fought it for decades, I hate the idea, but it’s the undeniable truth… That’s telling.
Also Portland is still white, 72.2% non-hispanic white as of the 2010 census according to Wikipedia, but that is actually much less white than the 90.7% in 1970. And I imagine today, in 2019, it’s less white than 2010. And 20%+ change will absolutely change the political dynamics.
asdf,
I agree with you on almost everything except that “liberals whites… need to be defeated”. Defeated electorally, I presume? You and I are individuals and we can express our preferences, we can express them passionately, but ultimately we have to accept that we are small fish, and accept the outcomes of the election.
I absolutely agree that immigration has pushed politics to the left and triggered the great awokening and will continue to do so… I will vote and advocate for immigration restriction. But realistically I expect immigration restrictions to fail anyway. Normally, it’s not worth fighting a losing fight, but in this case it is worth fighting a losing fight for the bigger picture. It’s important to understand that freedom of migration was pushed for the interests of the migrant, over normal rules of law and rules of democracy.
Many aspects of open borders I agree with. In a free market sense, improving ease of migration makes perfect sense. In terms of voting, especially when people vote based on racial or religious groups, immigration doesn’t make sense. Next, people care about their identity, they care about their race, culture, and language, and the open borders crowd seems to expect some groups to simply shrink or die for the benefit of others, and this doesn’t seem reasonable.
“but ultimately we have to accept that we are small fish”
It’s true, but also self defeating. It’s like a paradox of the average voter. For each individual, voting makes little sense in terms of effort involved versus likely impact on election. And yet if everyone else decides to stay home based on that analysis, the remaining voters have all the power.
In a sense, those most convinced they matter even when they don’t, through the chemistry of ?(un)coordinated? group effort end up actually having an effect.
If you prefer a John Haidt example, each individual member of the phalanx is insane for charging into other peoples spears, but somehow if we are all insane together we become an unstoppable killing machine that wins every battle with and its rewards.
What I’m against is simple:
1) That liberals will change their minds due to argument.
2) That we can continue to divide ourselves over petty nonsense when we are faced with an existential threat.
Those are things certain conservatives wish were true, because it doesn’t require them to do anything they don’t want to, but aren’t actually true. Once you accept that the course of action is clear.
Liberals get this. They stick to the narrative. They go nuclear. They never compromise. And it gives them power. Even when they squabble amongst each other, they always unify when its time to fight the outgroup.
Let me give you a simple example. Liberals have coordinated to ruin the lives of random christian bakers they track down and harass and sue into oblivion. If conservatives were serious about fighting liberals on this they would respond in kind. The people bringing forward the suits would get fired from their jobs. They themselves would be sued and harassed based on the even the flimsiest means available. The companies processing their payments would cut them off from payments. Judges that ruled in their favor that were up for election would face unified campaigns to unseat them, and judges that aren’t up for re-election would get blacklisted from any professional advancement to the extent it was within our sides power. Etc Etc. Fill in the blanks by examining the tactics liberals have used over the years and copy them. No mercy. No understanding. Only the knowledge that breaking them, and only breaking them, will bring them in line and get them to leave us alone out of fear for their own well being.
If they can do this, why can’t we? Why can they engage in coordinated insanity and we can’t? How can 9/10 blacks vote for one side every time? Do you think they all came to some reasoned conclusion of who would rationally make life better for the entire citizen body? Or did they not give a shit about any of that and ask only “whose going to get the most for our side.”
I don’t particularly care about crazy people who only hurt themselves. If college hippies want to self destruct, fine. It’s when they got the power to harass and destroy regular normal people in the real world going about their business then it became obvious we had to fight back.
Most big political issues are steered by a smaller number of passionate influential people not the masses. I hope you become one of those influencers. I would support you and maybe even join your cause… Personally, I want to chase my present career and family concerns.
I know a lot of normal black people. Many hate Trump, a few genuinely love Trump, but most are in the middle. Most recognize that Trump is fighting with the progressive news media and not them. Winning over the black vote is possible.
“Most recognize that Trump is fighting with the progressive news media and not them. ”
I think that’s true. I don’t have a particular problem with black ethnic chauvinism or looking out for their own. A degree of that is natural and probably healthy. I think if whites did the same instead of fighting each other we would probably arrive at some sort of pragmatic negotiated truce we could all live with.
“Winning over the black vote is possible.”
I don’t think that’s true.
Look, you don’t need to be a progressive true believer to put progressives in power. Most ethnics function on a spoils system. They want some concrete payoff from whose in power. The point appealing to low skill people is that a marginal dollar (or status points) is worth more to them than an independent middle class person. Their support (politically, culturally, etc) is cheap. But since its one man one vote, that is a really cheap way to pick up votes.
But there is a problem with that. If you’re the party of middle class family responsibility (that is what “the right” is going for), you can never match the giveaways of the party of everything should be free.
So yes, I don’t think blacks are “true believers” in the same way self hating whites are*. But they want stuff. They want status. One party will always be able to get more of it for them because the needs and interests of the middle class and the underclass are usually in conflict. So they will always be with that party.
*I don’t think all progressive whites are “true believers”. I think most are just a shrewd and ruthless interest group within whites that turned on other whites for their own gain. That’s why I don’t think presenting them with rational arguments is really going to work. Ezra Klein is perfectly smart enough to understand what Charles Murray is writing, but if he acknowledged it a lot of the Vox agenda collapses so he’s against it. Is he a “true believer”, or is he a Machiavellian out for himself?
asdf,
>—“Ezra Klein is perfectly smart enough to understand what Charles Murray is writing, but if he acknowledged it a lot of the Vox agenda collapses so he’s against it. ”
Anyone “smart enough to understand what Charles Murray is writing” will recognize that Murray thinks his work recommends something very different from your own White Supremacist racial separatist ideas.
The Bell Curve notes the same issues with low IQ immigration that I’ve raised, and while Murray has waffled on immigration some over the years his current view is restrictionist and matches what he wrote in The Bell Curve.
Against affirmative action, check.
Against blaming white people for black dysfunction, check.
Against government interventions that can’t possibly succeed because they ignore IQ, check.
These are the things Ezra disagrees with Charles on, and Charles and I are in agreement on them.
So what exactly is the difference?
I do think there probably are differences between Charles Murray and I, but I’m interested in knowing just what you think they are.
asdf,
>—-“I do think there probably are differences between Charles Murray and I, but I’m interested in knowing just what you think they are.”
Well, he is interested in IQ tests but he does not think that human worth is measured in IQ points. He is not a White Supremacist. He is not a racial separatist. And he has never “waffled” on those points.
So there is that.
“Well, he is interested in IQ tests but he does not think that human worth is measured in IQ points.”
What is “human worth”?
I think high IQ is important for producing economic surplus in modern society, and for political, cultural, and economic stability. I worry about what happens to society when its average IQ drops, especially what impact having a large underclass has. I know that Charles shares these exact same concerns and has written about them. Our policy concerns on these matters are basically the same.
“He is not a White Supremacist.”
What is a White Supremecist? Which of my views are white supremecist?
For a guy whose heroes are mostly Asian shitlords, I’m a pretty bad white supremacist.
“He is not a racial separatist. ”
He lives in 95% white Burketsville, MD despite the state and city being overwhelmingly brown. I live in Baltimore, MD which is majority black. One of us is living out the separatist dream a hell of a lot more than the other.
I think that people should be able to choose their neighbors. If they are forced to pay taxes for government schools, I think they have an interest in how those schools are run (including their demographics to the extent it impacts discipline and education). I also think they are entitled to physical safety, and if the government has a monopoly on force than it has an obligation to provide that. I would shy away from underclass of any race, but the brown underclass is the one primarily effecting my life.
Charles has stated that importing low IQ people is dangerous for this nation and needs to end for the foreseeable future. He says the reason for this is that he accords higher moral obligation to people of his own nation than people of other nations. So “arbitrary” elevation of the rights of some people over others? Check. Strong overlap between low-skill immigrants and brown people? Check.
What else you got?
asdf,
>—“What is “human worth”?
Maybe it is that thing you were referring to when you recently offered the dystopian fear that “your kids will be impoverished and dispossessed by hostile and worthless brown people.”
>—“I think that people should be able to choose their neighbors. ”
Choose a different neighborhood then if you like. No one will stop you and there is an excellent chance your neighbors would prefer someone less hostile. Everybody wins from the move.
>—“Our policy concerns on these matters are basically the same.”
And yet your policy conclusions are so different from Murray’s… which is something you usually conveniently forget to mention when you are citing him as an authority to justify your policy agenda.
Well, they are hostile. That should be self-evident based on the evidence.
And in terms of building a first world country, they don’t appear to contribute on net based on easily verifiable math (worthless in the context of achieving a particular goal, much as a four year old would be worthless at playing running back in the super bowl).
Worth is determined within the context it is being judged. I laid out my context pretty clearly.
“Choose a different neighborhood then if you like.”
Like every other individual I try to choose the best neighborhood I can. Most people try to live away from the underclass. They pay a premium to live in different neighborhoods. They pay a premium to be in a different school district. Everyone, across the political spectrum, including those that deny it vehemently, have basically the same preference in living arrangements as I do.
When say buying a house I worry about the same things everyone else does:
1) What likely demographic effects will this neighborhood undergo in the future?
2) What is the composition of the local school going to be like?
3) Will the redistricting they are debating effect the quality of my kids education?
After all, I’m making an investment that I hope to last for 30+ years. My kids will also be more likely to settle down in this city/state than somewhere else, so I’m making a >30 year decision. I don’t have the kind of money or career flexibility to buy/sell houses and move all over constantly, as is the case for most people. Not to mention the effects on the children of such actions.
And it’s a big decision. Things go south fast around here. I’ve seen places in the county go from 20% black to 80% black in less then a generation. The schools start having brawls at graduation. The property values tank. It’s depressing to see a guy sell a house at a loss so his kids can go to a better high school, and you know that he knows its because the blacks moved into the area at his old high school, but he can’t say it without being punished for the sin of noticing, he just has to eat that his lifetime investment got destroyed.
So yeah keep living in your rich white/asian enclaves and telling anyone who can’t do what you do to drop dead because they can’t run away from what you run away from.
If there is a difference between Charles Murray and I its that his observations are purely academic (neither he nor his kids are remotely threatened at a personal level by these changes, so it can be a detached concern), but I’m actually worried for my actual family.
“And yet your policy conclusions are so different from Murray’s”
Which ones?
@asdf,
“Most ethnics function on a spoils system. They want some concrete payoff from whose in power. The point appealing to low skill people is that a marginal dollar (or status points) is worth more to them than an independent middle class person. Their support (politically, culturally, etc) is cheap.”
Not just “ethnics” or “low skill people”, but absolutely everyone wants a concrete payoff of status, power, or money. Why shouldn’t they? People don’t just divide themselves by ethnicity. “Student loan forgiveness” is an obvious political bribe to those with outstanding student loan debt. Also, the elderly, and veterans, families, the working class, are all vying for government status and benefits.
asdf,
So you are trapped in a dangerous neighborhood in one of the most dysfunctional cities in America without the ability to improve your situation and the cause is your neighbors from the inferior races not having higher IQ’s?
It must be disappointing to get so little return on all that extra brain power.
Greg,
It’s amazing how full circle this all comes. You berate me for disparaging low IQs and wanting to be a separatist, but your final insult is “if you can’t afford to get away from them your worthless”.
Amazing. Confirms all my thoughts about your type. You wish this on others, but only because you believe that this will never effect you, and even take the fact that it will never effect you as a kind of superiority. You rail against separatists while judging yourself on your ability to separate.
In any event, I don’t much think it matters my current situation. Even if I have the means to switch cities or neighborhoods, that really isn’t the point. My points where simple.
1) It’s not always possible to switch cities/neighborhoods all the time. Even if it were technically possible for an UMC professional like myself, it certainly isn’t possible for the vast majority of the citizenry.
2) You can’t actually predict all that well what direction a neighborhood is going when you make a real estate purchase. Demographics change. Schools get redistricted. What was once good can turn bad, and that can be devastating.
3) Related to #2, in the minority-majority world you are trying to create, everyplace will be Baltimore. That’s the whole point of the fear.
Baltimore may have always been pretty black, but where I grew up far away didn’t have a lot brown people. Then all of a sudden in the last few decades they swarmed in from PR and the other Islands and now its minority-majority.
If the problem is that “only losers live near brown people”, what happens when the majority of the country is brown.
4) Even for those of us that can constantly move, do we really want to live like one of those third world basket cases where the top X% lives behind gated communities and just tries to hang on and not get swept into the chaos outside. That is literally what Charles said would happen in The Bell Curve chapter on immigration.
5) Lastly, you seem to ENTIRELY discount actually wanting to remain in the same place. I’ve been in Baltimore over a decade. All of my close friends that I have a long history of shared experiences with are here. My parents out of the blue moved down to be with us, and are now in a nursing home that they lose a big deposit on if they move. My wife’s career is firmly rooted here, and she would be starting over with total strangers if we moved (and would have to give up on being a partner at her firm which has been very friendly to her having kids and gives her projects she likes).
These are all important things that can’t be replicated in “new city”. Everyone has them, and moving is about more than mere expense. It cuts the ties that matter.
When peoples write about “somewheres” and “anywheres” they aren’t just talking about career mobility. They are also talking about an approach to life. Family, friends, etc…are they deep and permanent or temporary consumer choices? I think this is also a big difference between your perspective and mine.
My best man lives the kind of life you’re talking about. He changes cities every five years. And it’s left him very unsatisfied. He doesn’t have any deep connections in his life. His career has done well and he always lives in the correct zip code, but he’s not happy. It’s caused a lot of strain in his marriage (she took a big career and personal hit for him to make his last move) and they are getting up there in years without having children (how can you do so when you uproot every five years and have debt despite high earnings).
By contrast we have dozens of close friends, with shared values and history together, all having kids at the same time and doing things together. My parents are close to us and see their grandchildren often. Am I really to give all this up just to move away from Baltimore? Especially when, as you point out, the whole country will eventually be minority-majority and there is nowhere to run really.
In addition despite my friends earnings they are always strained (moving is expensive, living in the correct zip code of the correct city is expensive). My wife and I could easily afford a lavish house in the best Howard county zip code if we are willing to take on a 30 year that requires two incomes like all the other UMC people bidding up the same real estate. We choose not to. We want to freedom of a 15 year we can afford on one income. We want to choose our jobs based on what we want rather then what we need. We want time with our kids. We acknowledge that, given our health, having to go down to one income is something we might not have a choice on one day.
No, I don’t think the point of America is to have a giant hostile underclass and a tiny top X% desperately doing nothing but work and consume all day long to afford to live a shallow transitory life whose only purpose is to gain enough separation to pretend that same underclass doesn’t exist.
asdf,
—“You berate me for disparaging low IQs and wanting to be a separatist, but your final insult is “if you can’t afford to get away from them your worthless”.
Nope. I didn’t say that and I didn’t mean that. You made up that “quote.”
You are projecting your own habit of judging people on the basis of whether or not they are members of groups that are “worthless” or not onto me. I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your thinking. If it is the case that the races should separate, is it really realistic to think that the route to that is black and brown people leaving the places they are currently most concentrated like Baltimore?
>—“Amazing. Confirms all my thoughts about your type.”
Ever think about judging people as individuals instead of as member of groups? This is a big way in which you differ from Charles Murray.
>—“If the problem is that “only losers live near brown people…”
I didn’t say that and didn’t mean that. Again you are projecting. My next door neighbor was black for many years. Xenophobia is often highest in rural communities that have never seen an immigrant.
>—-“Lastly, you seem to ENTIRELY discount actually wanting to remain in the same place.’
Nope, not even a little. I have lived in the same house for 41 years. Most people have deep ties to their home (even black and brown people). It’s just that you keep telling us how intolerable and dangerous your living conditions are and how the races need to separate.
It’s not clear how you expect that to happen. Are the black and brown people supposed to leave Baltimore for your convenience or just be more formally confined to ghettos in the original sense of the word?
—Nope. I didn’t say that and I didn’t mean that. You made up that “quote.”
You are projecting your own habit of judging people on the basis of whether or not they are members of groups that are “worthless” or not onto me. I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your thinking. If it is the case that the races should separate, is it really realistic to think that the route to that is black and brown people leaving the places they are currently most concentrated like Baltimore?
*The races already “separate” based on the free choices of individuals. Go to any city and segregation is the revealed preference of its residents. This is what people freely choose.
https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html
Zoom in on Baltimore and look at the White L. People don’t want to live around diversity.
What you want to do is force people together. Take those little patches of black in the white L. That’s subsidized housing, part of a court ordered relocation program were the federal government decided that the White L wasn’t diverse enough.
Multiple court and federal agency orders override the decisions of local property owners. People from the ghetto are brought in paid for by the taxes of the same people that don’t want them around.
There is nothing more LIBERTARIAN than the federal government overriding property rights and Section 8 vouchers. Yes, that’s libertarianism alright!
Why the hell should the person who provides daycare for my kids have to send her kids to private school because you imported section 8 blacks and ruined her perfectly decent suburban school?
I think when people buy a house in a safe suburb with a good school they should be able to preserve that by taking measures to keep the underclass out. Outsiders should keep to their own business instead of forcing their ideology on them.
—Ever think about judging people as individuals instead of as member of groups? This is a big way in which you differ from Charles Murray.
It’s impossible to judge people as individuals. For one you can only ever know a very limited number of individuals in your lifetime. Most of the people in society you will interact with are abstractions.
Am I an individual to the blacks that voted to make Baltimore’s property taxes the highest in the country and then squander it? No. I’m an abstract revenue source. I’m not an individual to these people, and they aren’t individuals to me.
—I didn’t say that and didn’t mean that. Again you are projecting. My next door neighbor was black for many years. Xenophobia is often highest in rural communities that have never seen an immigrant.
*And my best man was Jewish and I went to a high school with five whole white kids in it. All these UMC white liberals paying top dollar to separate themselves from brown people (not talented tenth blacks with degrees, but underclass trash) are as xenophobic as anyone. Probably more so.
Those people that moved out to the exurbs simply can’t afford to economically segregate themselves from blacks like the wealthy do, and you made it illegal for them to enter into voluntary associations to protect themselves, so all that was left was moving so far away the blacks didn’t follow them.
—Nope, not even a little. I have lived in the same house for 41 years. Most people have deep ties to their home (even black and brown people). It’s just that you keep telling us how intolerable and dangerous your living conditions are and how the races need to separate.
It’s not clear how you expect that to happen. Are the black and brown people supposed to leave Baltimore for your convenience or just be more formally confined to ghettos in the original sense of the word?
*What I want you to do is stop importing more brown people into this country because every single one becomes a tax and political burden upon me. It’s really simple.
And if a group of people want to live separated from the underclass let them. Don’t hound them in the courts. Don’t redistrict their school to make it more diverse. Don’t make their admission criteria illegal because it doesn’t lead to the right disparate impact. Don’t Section 8 bomb every decent suburb. Just leave people the fuck alone to live the lives they want.
I would like to know that if I buy a house in a nice suburb that its character will stay basically the same, something that if it weren’t for you moral busybodies interfering I think could actually happen.
asdf,
>—“What you want to do is force people together.”
Nope. I don’t want to force people together OR APART. I want to let people live where they choose. That means if someone of the “wrong” color wants to buy the house next to you or me they are free to do it. That’s what leaving other people alone really looks like. You don’t want to leave other people alone. You want to require them to submit to public policies based on the group stereotypes you shoehorn them into.
>—“I think when people buy a house in a safe suburb with a good school they should be able to preserve that by taking measures to keep the underclass out.”
Yeah, what “measures” exactly? There is a euphemism. “Measures” like the restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press like those you admire so much in Singapore? And do you care as much about excluding the white underclass as the black underclass because you don’t talk much about them at all ?
>—“What I want you to do is stop importing more brown people into this country because every single one becomes a tax and political burden upon me. ”
Now you are just empirically wrong on the facts. “Every single one”? According to Wikipedia Indian Americans lead all ethnic groups in America in MEDIAN family income. Also well ahead of white MEDIAN family income are Philippino Americans, Sri Lankan Americans , Ghanaian Americans and Egyptian Americans. Just less than $1,000 per year below white median family incomes are Guyanese, Nigerian, and British West Indian Americans.
Trailing very far behind are the Native Americans with the real legitimate complaint against the effects of immigration.
>—“I would like to know that if I buy a house in a nice suburb that its character will stay basically the same, something that if it weren’t for you moral busybodies interfering I think could actually happen.”
You can’t have a free market and a guarantee your neighborhood won’t change. That’s not how free markets work.
@asdf + @greg,
>—“What I want you to do is stop importing more brown people into this country because every single one becomes a tax and political burden upon me.”
This is ridiculous. Some people are makers, and pay more in taxes than they consume in services, others are takers. I agree with the libertarian perspective here. Obviously, some immigrants are makers others are takers and the same goes for native born non-immigrants. I’ve seen believable stats that on average, immigrants consume larger number of social services. That is a valid gripe, but not the main issue. Ultimately, I think people want to preserve the identity and culture of the nation, and sublimate that with concerns over taxes or economics or crime. And I’m not convinced it’s wrong for people to want to keep their identity and culture.
I think if a group of home owners want to write covenants to keep the underclass out of their neighborhood they should be able to do it.
You know what an HOA is right?
I also see the USA as a giant HOA that has the right to restrict membership based on what the current members want.
Race is salient for many reasons, but straight up any restrictions against underclass behavior would have a “disparate impact”, and your right back to civil rights boards mandating apartments owners that want to refuse to accept Section 8 vouchers against their will to “fix” the incorrect decisions of the market. Or school district lines being re-written to “diversify” schools (as far as I’m concerned when you buy a house you’ve bought the schools and to change that for social engineering purposes is no different then property confiscation).
You seem to ascribe all sorts of ideas to me that I’ve never voiced. You assume I want racial separatism enforce by government fiat, when I’ve never expressed that view.
You assume I’m a White Supremicist, when if anything I admire the way Asians and Jews run their countries more than whites.
“Now you are just empirically wrong on the facts.”
Yes, I shouldn’t say “every single one”. I am correct about the MEDIAN though. The MEDIAN non-Asian immigrant is a net cost to the state. And most immigration over the last few decades has been non-Asian (mostly south of the border and the islands).
I’m as aware of anyone of the statistics you site. But you must also be aware that these immigrant groups constitute a strong minority of the immigrant population. Filipinos for instance are only 4 million in the USA. After that things really start to fall off. Nigerian Americans are 380k, etc.
Hispanic or Latino is 58 million!
When we debate immigration, we are primarily debating low IQ brown immigration from our southern border which is what has made up a majority of immigration to this country and you know it.
“You can’t have a free market and a guarantee your neighborhood won’t change. That’s not how free markets work.”
Stop outlawing voluntary covenants and contracts. Stop having government agencies sue people for having the wrong racial composition in their neighborhood. Stop government programs to use tax dollars to subsidize having people live in those neighborhoods against the will of the property owners in those neighborhoods. Stop re-districting schools because of progressive social engineering.
If you let people have strong HOAs that keep out the riff raff and don’t force it down their throats then people have a shot at making it work.
> You can’t have a free market and a guarantee your neighborhood won’t change. That’s not how free markets work.
Yes, change is absolutely inevitable. No one is entitled to protection from all change… But change covers absolutely anything and everything. Everything in history was a change and some of it was good, some of it was bad…
In the context of immigration… The pro-immigration position generally expects some cultures and identities to shrink or die while others thrive. This strikes me as unreasonable. People are not entitled to be insulated from all change, but the expectation that some ethnic/linguistic/cultural groups are obligated to shrink or die for the benefit of others is an unreasonable change.
Next, people vote partly by ethnicity and religion and language. In that sense, immigration in the US + European sense is a win/lose proposition that again strikes me as an unfair or unreasonable change. A common libertarian answer is we should move away from majority rule voting, which I find a persuasive argument, but it’s safe to say that majority rule voting is the status quo for the foreseeable future regardless of what myself and a few other libertarians might feel about it.
>You assume I want racial separatism enforce by government fiat, when I’ve never expressed that view.
Thats an inflammatory phrasing, but that’s basically the recent status quo of nation states. I support aspects of that status quo in relation to the alternatives.
I accuse @asdf of wanting that, and of sublimating your true preference, and even lying to yourself, for something that is more socially acceptable, like economics, taxes, crime rates, and housing properties.
@Niko
“Thats an inflammatory phrasing, but that’s basically the recent status quo of nation states. I support aspects of that status quo in relation to the alternatives.”
If you mean that national borders are a kind of segregation…I suppose. Then it seems like you argue in favor of them.
“I accuse @asdf of wanting that, and of sublimating your true preference, and even lying to yourself, for something that is more socially acceptable, like economics, taxes, crime rates, and housing properties.”
You can accuse whatever you want I suppose. I’m dog whistling to myself…that’s a new one. Haven’t we exhausted this whole dog whistling logic. Slate Star had a pretty big post on how dog whistle accusations are malicious and wrong.
My big breakthrough on racism was realizing that all of the “racists” were people concerned about economics, taxes, crime rates, housing, etc. Before that I used to think a large portion of the country were irrational and hateful “deplorables”, because that was what I was taught growing up in the North.
asdf,
>—“I think if a group of home owners want to write covenants to keep the underclass out of their neighborhood they should be able to do it.”
All of a sudden it’s about keeping out the underclass instead of “worthless brown people”? Really? If so, you are in luck because the free market sorts real estate buyers very effectively and efficiently by class. Can’t recall hearing you complain about the white underclass. Sounds like you feel entitled to live in a better neighborhood than you can afford. Most people of any color in a bad neighborhood would prefer a better one.
>—“I also see the USA as a giant HOA that has the right to restrict membership based on what the current members want.”
Nations aren’t HOA’s, If they were it’s likely the Native Americans would have excluded both yours and my ancestors. And most black Americans likely have ancestors who were here before ours as well.
>—“You seem to ascribe all sorts of ideas to me that I’ve never voiced. You assume I want racial separatism enforce by government fiat, when I’ve never expressed that view.”
Can’t help noticing that you couldn’t quite bring yourself to say you never held such views, only that you haven’t “voiced” them. I guess I inferred that that from all the dire warnings about “worthless brown people,” the advocacy of racial separation, and the complaining about current government policy. And from you saying that governments are HOA’s and HOA’s should be able to enforce racial discrimination.
I don’t think my HOA should be able to tell me that I can’t sell my house to a racial minority. You want government to enforce a contract that says they can do that.
Free markets DO undermine racial discrimination. That is one of their many virtues. That is exactly why a southern majority that wanted racial discrimination had to pass Jim Crow Laws (back when America was great).
>—“You assume I’m a White Supremicist, when if anything I admire the way Asians and Jews run their countries more than whites.”
So what? Few racists hate all other races. Most have elaborate hierarchies of which races they prefer and which traits they prefer in those races.
>—“When we debate immigration, we are primarily debating low IQ brown immigration from our southern border which is what has made up a majority of immigration to this country”
Recently. There have been few immigrant groups that weren’t historically demonized as immoral, low intelligence threats to the good citizens already established.
Brown immigrants from south of our border are not any kind of coherent genetic or cultural group. Any competent geneticist will tell you that skin color is an unreliable marker for deep genetic similarity. Skin color evolves much more rapidly than most characteristics as a simple response to sunlight and the trade offs between skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency.
@Greg,
Higher-education sorts adults into distinct and exclusive physical communities. It’s mostly owned by government, and even private colleges are largely financed and supported through government.
Tyler Cowen said that universities don’t want to feel like open market warehouses, they want a distinct community feel with a distinct culture and their distinct cultural values, and that involves excluding people.
Do you support or oppose this type of segregation by government fiat?
asdf,
>—“I generally consider white trash less of a threat because the statistics indicate they are less of a threat.”
You do like to cherry pick statistics. Statistics also indicate that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much lower rate than lower class whites who have been citizens for generations and also lower rates than all citizens in general. They also pay a lot of taxes for entitlements that they don’t qualify for as non-citizens.
>—“Then don’t buy into an HOA that offers that.”
Well how exactly would the HOA that you would really prefer judge that exclusion for brown and black people? Would there simply be a skin tone chart? Would you go by the traditional but biologically nonsensical standard that “one drop” of black blood makes you black? That’s a much more rigorous standard than what Hitler used to define Jewishness.
>—“Native Americans were idiots for not killing every one of us the second we got off the boats. The history of the Native Americans is a powerful argument AGAINST immigration. I don’t want to end up like they did by making their mistakes. We should learn from history.”
So the lesson from history is that it would be better if we could just kill them all if the only alternative is having them assimilate? And this is exactly where it always leads when people insist on defining other races as “worthless.”
>—“Jim Crow was an attempt at empathy and solidarity (working class whites should be able to separate from underclass blacks without paying a fortune to do so).”
So much nostalgia for the good old times when America was “great.”
>—“I don’t know what your definition of racism is. ”
Happy to help with that. Racism is deciding you know enough to judge the “worth” (your word) of an individual solely on the basis of your perception of what you take to be his race, skin color or ethnicity.
I would love to know your definition of race. I doubt that you can come up with one that is biologically or socially coherent.
>—“we took in 58 million people that are on average quite subpar.
Half of all white people are below the median for white intelligence and income and more than half are below the average. No doubt all will be above average in your Lake Woebegone style fantasy HOA.
—You do like to cherry pick statistics. Statistics also indicate that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much lower rate than lower class whites who have been citizens for generations and also lower rates than all citizens in general. They also pay a lot of taxes for entitlements that they don’t qualify for as non-citizens.
*I don’t know how “all immigrants” compare to “lower class whites.”
But I know the statistics for “all non-Asian immigrants” and “whites”. On every metric, whites are better.
“also lower rates than all citizens in general”
Take Asians out of the immigrant population because I have no problem with them.
Take blacks out of the native population because while they are a unique burden to us, the primary issue is that you are cramming more high crime non-whites in.
That’s mostly enough, but to sweeten the deal look at the crime rates for second generation Latinos (or first generation Puerto Ricans). It’s very bad. What happens is that they tend to assimilate to underclass American norms, and their second+ generation crime rate ends up being partway between the white and black rates (exactly where you would calculate it to be based on Latino IQ and the calculations you can find in The Bell Curve).
—Well how exactly would the HOA that you would really prefer judge that exclusion for brown and black people? Would there simply be a skin tone chart? Would you go by the traditional but biologically nonsensical standard that “one drop” of black blood makes you black? That’s a much more rigorous standard than what Hitler used to define Jewishness.
*I don’t know, there were communities in the non-Jim Crow North that had such covenants before 1964. Go look them up? I’m sure the history is documented. I think I saw a Vox article on it once.
“HOA that I would really prefer”
*I doubt that having an HOA exclude blacks overtly would do very well in the current cultural climate. However, there are millions of HOAs that more or less accomplish the same thing through other measures, most commonly in rich liberal communities. So I guess I’d like to copy those to some extent.
If federal disparate impact law were disbanded, then they would likely hold up even if you don’t have the resources and connections that rich white liberals do.
—So the lesson from history is that it would be better if we could just kill them all if the only alternative is having them assimilate? And this is exactly where it always leads when people insist on defining other races as “worthless.”
It’s pretty obvious to me the Native Americans should have killed us for their own good. Do you disagree? Those chiefs that let us get a toehold on this continent lead their people wrong.
—So much nostalgia for the good old times when America was “great.”
*I’m trying to understand why people do things based on logic and evidence. Even Lincoln understood his enemy enough to forgive the planters. For some reason you can only process large swaths of fellow people as being irrational monsters whose motivations come from nowhere.
–Happy to help with that. Racism is deciding you know enough to judge the “worth” (your word) of an individual solely on the basis of your perception of what you take to be his race, skin color or ethnicity.
*Obviously, the worth of an individual varies on any number of factors. For one, “worth” is context dependent. If I’ve got a football team, people who can run and tackle well are “worth” something, but a puny nerd with asthma might be worthless on the field. That same nerd might be valuable if I’m designing a circuit board, who knows.
In general, the context for “worth” in this instance is “net asset to first world societies”. You can calculate this in terms of things like economic productivity versus government services utilized. On the bad side by social metrics like crime, or on the positive with things like Nobels or patents.
Generally, past a certain IQ threshold that would be considered below most whites (but pretty typical for brown people) peoples “worth” on that metric goes negative.
There can be other factors that effect worth like if they are likely to vote for politics that will have a negative effect on the country, or other externalities.
Second, of course there are things besides race that determine worth, and to the extent one has access to that data one should use it! I’m all for making accurate and effective decisions as much as possible.
But what would an immigration policy that judged people as “individuals” look like? Well, it would look a lot like most of the OECD (and Trumps proposed overhaul), in that it would be skills based with some extra bonuses for people that are young, linguistically and culturally close, etc.
And what would be the output of such an immigration plan? A bunch of Asians basically, very few brown people. And they would all have been judged as “individuals” but it turns out there are a lot of Asian individuals with “worth” and not many brown individuals with “worth”, and you’ve just got to accept that. The Canadians managed to accept it. Can you?
—I would love to know your definition of race. I doubt that you can come up with one that is biologically or socially coherent.
*Go on Steve Sailers twitter and keep clicking until you find a decent one. This isn’t hard bro.
—Half of all white people are below the median for white intelligence and income and more than half are below the average. No doubt all will be above average in your Lake Woebegone style fantasy HOA.
*The Bell Curve lays out that most truly worthless people (it doesn’t use that word, but you can see it in things like “people with IQ below X are Y% likely to be criminals/use welfare/etc”) which I’ve been referring to as the “underclass” are pretty far below the white average. It’s almost like an exponential rather than linear curve determining who the worst actors are, and those worst actors have really outsized effects.
There probably are some white people below the “underclass” threshold, but its a pretty small %. It is, to be blunt about it, manageable. The surplus created by the rest is enough to contain and paper over the externalities of the white underclass. Given that the alternatives (you are familiar with them from the 20th century) are horrific and carry their own severe drawbacks (for all of us), it makes sense to just kind of accept that some small % of underclass will always be with us. The Bell Curve gave suggestions to try to convert people on the margins from underclass to working class, and to make life slightly more legible (simple) for the underclass. But at the end of the day, you just have to accept them.
The Bell Curve also said that if Latino immigration continued at these rates the size of the underclass would swell (since a much greater % of Latinos then whites are underclass due to their lower IQ), and that if the % underclass got to high then it would cause a fundamental shift in American culture that we wouldn’t like.
TBC was especially worried that if underclass % came to represent the ratios we see in Latin America that American conservativism would come to resemble Latin American conservatism, which consisted less of any coherent ideology and mainly of the frightened people on the hill who have some property trying to keep the huddle underclass masses in the valley from storming up the hill and violently taking what little they had (see Venezuela).
As for what would happen to American leftism if it expanded its hostile underclass constituency…well we are living it aren’t we.
asdf,
>—“I don’t know, (how HOA’s defined excluded races) there were communities in the non-Jim Crow North that had such covenants before 1964. Go look them up? I’m sure the history is documented. ”
Yes, the history is clear. That would be the “one drop” rule.
It’s remarkable how suddenly fuzzy your otherwise extensive knowledge of this subject can become when the methods and standards used to enforce the policies you want become clear in all their absurdity.
>—“Obviously, the worth of an individual varies on any number of factors. For one, “worth” is context dependent. If I’ve got a football team, people who can run and tackle well are “worth” something, but a puny nerd with asthma might be worthless on the field. That same nerd might be valuable if I’m designing a circuit board, who knows.
And this is exactly why football teams and tech companies evaluate their hires AS INDIVIDUALS, not as representatives of homogeneous racial groups.
>—“But what would an immigration policy that judged people as “individuals” look like? Well, it would look a lot like most of the OECD (and Trumps proposed overhaul), in that it would be skills based with some extra bonuses for people that are young, linguistically and culturally close, etc.”
I like the idea of tending to favor people with skills. I like it enough to avoid undermining it by rejecting those of the wrong color on the grounds that they are just not “linguistically and culturally close” enough due to the subjective bigotry of those who have set themselves up as judges of their “worth.”
>—“Go on Steve Sailers twitter and keep clicking until you find a decent one (a definition of race). This isn’t hard bro.”
I’m not on Twitter at all bro and I am talking to you, not Steve. It actually IS hard to come up with a definition of race that isn’t overwhelmingly subjective and arbitrary and therefore a perfect tool for bigots. It’s amazing how quickly you can lose interest in the central concepts of your ideology once the questions get awkward.
>—“It’s pretty obvious to me the Native Americans should have killed us for their own good. Do you disagree?”
Yes, I disagree. It was disease and better European weapons that doomed the Native Americans not an inadequately racist ideology. Being more hostile would have worked for only a few years and then led to an even worse result for them.
>—” The Bell Curve lays out that most truly worthless people (it doesn’t use that word, but you can see it in things like “people with IQ below X are Y% likely to be…”
You are mistaking correlation for causation. You are also drawing conclusions that are the polar opposite of those drawn by Charles Murray about whether or not people should be judged as individuals or members of vast, poorly defined groups.
And then, to top it off, you are citing him as an authority to justify the opposite conclusions he draws about that.
–Yes, the history is clear. That would be the “one drop” rule.
It’s remarkable how suddenly fuzzy your otherwise extensive knowledge of this subject can become when the methods and standards used to enforce the policies you want become clear in all their absurdity.
*I don’t think I’m fuzzy at all. If that’s what they were, that’s what they were.
I guess the question you have to ask is why so many people were willing to live in communities with these rules *voluntarily*. Why was there such a FREE MARKET DEMAND for this? As I understand it these were largely newly constructed developments where this was laid out in the covenant as the ground rules for everyone that bought in, so they knew about this and choose it of their own free will. There was no government force. No Jim Crow. If people hated it and it hurt sales then the developers would have taken it out. So we are left with the conclusion that they kept it in because *consumers demanded it*. After all, its a lot of trouble to enforce this kind of thing so the only reason to include it is if people were willing to pay a premium for it. So much for the free market driving out “racism”.
I doubt given the Zeitgeist of the times you would ever see something like that today even if it was allowed, but people build other restrictions into their HOAs and zoning covenants that accomplish much the same objective of keeping out the underclass.
—And this is exactly why football teams and tech companies evaluate their hires AS INDIVIDUALS, not as representatives of homogeneous racial groups.
Then why did Google fire James Damore for proposing they treat employees and individuals instead of groups that need to get X% slice of whatever Y good?
—I like the idea of tending to favor people with skills. I like it enough to avoid undermining it by rejecting those of the wrong color on the grounds that they are just not “linguistically and culturally close” enough due to the subjective bigotry of those who have set themselves up as judges of their “worth.”
*Alright. Go and tell Canada, Australia, etc that they need to stop giving skill points to people who do well on the English Proficiency test. It’s built into their immigration programs, bunch of bigots!
—I’m not on Twitter at all bro and I am talking to you, not Steve. It actually IS hard to come up with a definition of race that isn’t overwhelmingly subjective and arbitrary and therefore a perfect tool for bigots. It’s amazing how quickly you can lose interest in the central concepts of your ideology once the questions get awkward.
No, it’s pretty easy. If you give a damn you can spend all the time you want debating splitting/grouping etc etc.
—Yes, I disagree. It was disease and better European weapons that doomed the Native Americans not an inadequately racist ideology. Being more hostile would have worked for only a few years and then led to an even worse result for them.
*Maybe you’re right that they are doomed no matter what, too weak to survive no matter what they did.
I know that those peoples that managed to keep their numbers up did retain control and break away from colonialism because they couldn’t be outright replaced, and if the Native Americans had wiped out the early settler colonies it might have taken very long for Europeans to gain a foothold, perhaps giving them time to recover population from disease and adapt in some way.
But perhaps that is wishful thinking. Maybe you’re right and their lack of IQ just meant they never had any chance of being anything no matter what they did.
Perhaps you’re right and the best play was being replaced by whites. Better to be a welfare client in a white society than the ruler of a backwards society.
Still, those reservations are so damn depressing…
—You are mistaking correlation for causation.
*The low IQ causes the poor outcomes. That is sort of the point of The Bell Curve. What are you proposing, that the crime(etc) causes the low IQ? That this correlation is completely random? Better tell Charles his whole book as a waste of time.
—You are also drawing conclusions that are the polar opposite of those drawn by Charles Murray about whether or not people should be judged as individuals or members of vast, poorly defined groups.
And then, to top it off, you are citing him as an authority to justify the opposite conclusions he draws about that.
*Everything I’ve talked about from Murray comes right out of The Bell Curve. You can find it all in there. He lays out pretty clearly. He also has published his opinion and done interviews on this stuff.
“The thing that has gotten to me over the course of this year and this intense debate has been the idea . . . that the citizens of a nation owe something to each other that is over and above our general obligations to our fellow human beings; that there is a sense in which we should take care of our own, our own in this case meaning Americans. . . . Before, I rejected that pretty much without thinking.”
“Or, as Murray put it at the panel, “it is not enough to live in a wealthy Western advanced society. I want to live in America, and I want to live in America as I think it ought to be thought of.”
He acknowledged that his “grand experiment” would have costs and might not, in the end, reverse the alarming bifurcation of our society. But he also suggested that it would be more than just an experiment. He now views mass low-skilled immigration as inconsistent with a classically liberal society: “Libertarian principles only work when the playing field is pretty damn fair. And I think the low-skill immigration — this is where I really, really change — I think the low-skill immigration deforms a great many of the processes that are required to make the free-enterprise, free-market system that I like work.”
Later he was even more explicit: “I am still in favor of the free market for wages. . . . I’m in favor of all kinds of aspects of the free market. Do I feel that you are living in a market in which market forces are really at work if you have an unending supply of people who are willing to work for low wages? I don’t think so.”
So basically consistent with The Bell Curve.
Is treating “Americans” different rom “Non-Americans” the same as treating all people as equal individuals? No, but though. Charles has chosen his desire to elevate Americans above non-Americans and shape the nature of America to a specific ideal he has rather then commit to some abstract principle of totally equal individuals. Deal with it.
If I could summarize Charles in TBC and other areas:
(We should show empathy to the unfortunate and treat them with dignity, but please don’t import so many unfortunates that our society runs out of surplus, gets all dog eat dog, and losses its fundamental character.)
*You seem to be pretty hung up on this “individual” stuff. Face facts, the human mind is only capable of keeping a very small number of actual “individuals” in its head at any given time. The Dunbar number is 150, and most of those are acquittances.
So we don’t really get to judge the millions/billions of strangers out there that we have to interact with on some level as individuals. We basically judge them as “collections of abstractions we type match.” A college doesn’t necessarily know the “individuals” it admits. It knows that people with a certain SAT, GPA, etc all tend to on average result in “socioeconomic output X” which is in the interest of the school.
Those points of information we gather are what we call in the insurance business “underwriting”. The more data you gather the more of a picture you can get, and the more accurately you can classify likely outcomes for a particular policy holder.
In a world with zero costs, zero frictions, and infinite time we would gather such a complete picture we could perfectly predict the outcomes for every individual. But we can’t. In the real world companies try to evaluate the cost of underwriting (say running a blood test before issuing life insurance) against increased accuracy. And sometimes cost > accuracy gain, and at that point you just say “good enough.
For some decisions, like choosing a spouse, we gather a lot of data. For others, like whether to walk down a particular back alley to get to the store, something like “that brown person wearing a hoodie looks dangerous, maybe I don’t need to go to the store right now” is good enough.
So I think you need to get over this “individual” thing. Human beings within their Dunbar numbers can maybe get a halfway decent picture of a very limited set of individuals in their lives. All the other people you interact with (briefly, as part of a single polity, etc) you are going to pattern match based on limited data points, in many cases practically none at all because the underwriting cost would be too high.
Lastly, you don’t seem to understand the LEFTIST critique of Charles Murray treat every as an individualism. So let me lay it out for you.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
They circle in right a the heart of Murray’s argument in “Chapter 22: A Place For Everyone.”
Murray proposes essentially that:
1) People should have equal political/legal rights (I think he bases this primarily in a sort of religious argument about equal human dignity).
2) That since they individuals are not actually equal in a material sense, we have to accept that material equality is impossible and not try too hard to bring it about.
3) We should try to find some productive place in the community for people of all ability levels where they can find self respect, dignity, and achieve those aspects of human flourishing available to all.
The leftist response to this is essentially “fuck off.”
They say something like:
I don’t want to be merely be equal in the sense of all having a Christian soul, or equal legally/politically, or equal in the brotherhood of man.
I want to be equal materially, sure. But not just that.
I want people to tell me I’m equal in a real world material and social sense. That I’m the equal of Mozart. The equal of “high status person X”. That my accomplishments are they’re equal. That I have the same status and other social goods as them.
To that that each identity group (racial, etc) should be the equal of each other one in status, accomplishment, etc.
And if it is not…then it has to be someones fault. It can’t just be an unfortunate fact of life. It MUST BE because I/my group are being held down. And something must be done about it!
No matter how polite you are about it. No matter how much dignity and respect you show me. No matter what assistance you give me. I will not “accept my place” if it means accepting that I (or my group) have less of the genetic characteristics everyone wants. That can’t be true (even if it is true) because I won’t accept it.
If you’ll accept the schlocky alt-right vision of this leftist critique is goes like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3trMDuL56M
Ephialtes doesn’t have the genetic chops to be in the Spartan phalanx. King Leonidas is polite and nice to him. Gives him dignity and respect. Tell him that while he can’t fight, he can have a place of respect by assisting the fight in non-combat capacity. Basically, he tells him what Charles Murray said in Ch. 22.
But Ephiliates doesn’t want “a place” no matter how much people try to show him respect or acknowledge his dignity. He wants to be EQUAL. In a physical this world sense. Even if it’s impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMOGixYG8s
So he throws a hissy fit and goes to Xerxes. Who offers him MAX HEDONISM (material equality) which is nice and all. But what really gets Ephiliates going is “a uniform”. I.E. to be told he’s equal not in some brotherhood of mankind we all have a role to play sense, but literally equal! Xerxes gives it to him in exchange for his liberty and freedom (like how brown people trade their votes and worldview to leftists for welfare and being told they are equal in the exact same sense).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACwOU1Nkrys
The punishment of course is that no matter how much you dress it up. No matter how much you lie about it. It’s just not true. And no how much one lies to oneself, one knows the truth somewhere deep inside. And Ephiliates realizes he should have done what Leonidas said to begin with (play his appropriate role in the Charles Murray society). And it eats him away.
And that’s part of why this will never work. It’s human nature to reject acknowledging ones own station, especially when as and individual or as part of a group that’s going to be a lowly one. Even if people say nice things about you. Even if your provided for. Even if the whole society shows you as much dignity as Charles Murray wants them to, its just human nature to reject it. Or at least a very strong human temptation.
The villain of Christianity, the thing that supposedly built western society, lived in paradise but rebelled for no other reason then he would not acknowledge anyone above himself!
You can give someone everything. You can show him God’s infinite love. But there is still some evil in the soul that will not accept being second place, ever.
So while I think a lot of Murray’s ideas are great and would love to see them implemented in society, you have to understand that in a world where people are judged as “individuals”, a lot of them are going to feel inadequate (because, quite frankly, they are). They aren’t going to like it. Rhey are going to organize into groups of various kinds and try to overturn the order of things, even if its unjust and hurts people including possibly themselves (better to rule in hell than serve in heaven).
While showing them lots of patience and empathy is probably part of the solution, sometimes blunt honesty and wrath is also part of the solution. Sometimes you’re so out of control, and you take every instance of niceness and understanding as a sign of weakness to exploit, that you’ve got to get knocked down a peg. And sometimes that it going to happen at the group level because groups are what we organize into in big societies to push out interests.
So just accept it bro.
greg,
—All of a sudden it’s about keeping out the underclass instead of “worthless brown people”? Really? If so, you are in luck because the free market sorts real estate buyers very effectively and efficiently by class. Can’t recall hearing you complain about the white underclass. Sounds like you feel entitled to live in a better neighborhood than you can afford. Most people of any color in a bad neighborhood would prefer a better one.
*I don’t particularly want to live in a neighborhood full of white trash…am I now more enlightened? Is my extention of apprehension to white trash make me a better person?
I generally consider white trash less of a threat because the statistics indicate they are less of a threat. My old gentrifying neighborhood had white trash, and they never caused any problems. All the crime came from blacks that traveled in from other parts of the city. The white trash also didn’t vote for the incompetent black democratic politicians that have run the city into the ground, so I don’t have any political issues with them either.
So yeah, I moved out of that neighborhood because I don’t want my kids going to a white trash school (amongst wanting to leave the city generally and other factors), but I’m way less afraid of white trash than black underclass (and for good reasons related to their relative behavior that can be proven mathematically and I’ve experienced first hand).
With such low IQs, brown people and underclass become almost a synonyms. But yes, I don’t particularly mind non-underclass brown people in my neighborhood, there just aren’t very many of them to go around. Unlike progressives, I don’t consider having a few token black degree holders who act white around some mark of sophistication.
I can afford to live in a good neighborhood. What I cannot control, not because there isn’t huge consumer demand for it, but because the government won’t allow it and will actively interfere against it, is to enter voluntary covenants to preserve my investment.
—Nations aren’t HOA’s, If they were it’s likely the Native Americans would have excluded both yours and my ancestors. And most black Americans likely have ancestors who were here before ours as well.
I agree that the Native Americans were idiots for not killing every one of us the second we got off the boats. The history of the Native Americans is a powerful argument AGAINST immigration. I don’t want to end up like they did by making their mistakes. We should learn from history.
—Can’t help noticing that you couldn’t quite bring yourself to say you never held such views, only that you haven’t “voiced” them. I guess I inferred that that from all the dire warnings about “worthless brown people,” the advocacy of racial separation, and the complaining about current government policy. And from you saying that governments are HOA’s and HOA’s should be able to enforce racial discrimination.
I don’t think my HOA should be able to tell me that I can’t sell my house to a racial minority. You want government to enforce a contract that says they can do that.
*Then don’t buy into an HOA that offers that. Nobody forces you into an HOA. Given prevalent cultural norms I’m guessing that very few HOAs would offer such covenants even if allowed. I doubt this would be hard to avoid.
But if it makes you feel better I would easily trade a law against explicit racial discrimination (which I doubt any HOAs are actually going to write in today) for the complete abolishment of disparate impact as a criteria for classifying racial discrimination. There are ways to keep out the underclass without explicitly keeping out blacks, but they will naturally end up meaning there aren’t enough black people around to hit the statistical targets the moral busybodies say need to be hit.
In the modern world we already have measures to keep out the riff raff that are widely used. Zoning and HOA laws that forbid rental units make it so people living in an area generally have to qualify for a loan. Which means they need 20% down. Which means they need to have the basic human discipline to save 20% which is beyond the abilities of most underclass. This is one of the effective ways people protect their investment.
Another is not allowing Section 8 Vouchers to be used. This also keeps the riff raff out. I see nothing free market about government welfare and court enforced rental contracts.
Another is preserving the school boundaries from social engineers. Recently a school in the county got re-zoned to “make it more diverse”. Because being within proximity to white kids is suppose to cure low black IQs (the official line is that those horrible middle class white children were “hoarding opportunity” and that’s why they need to have Jamal knock them around in the hallways).
I’d be happy to get a school voucher and choose my own school, but since that ain’t happening we should at least preserve the value of the schools people paid to get into when they bought their house.
—Free markets DO undermine racial discrimination. That is one of their many virtues. That is exactly why a southern majority that wanted racial discrimination had to pass Jim Crow Laws.
*Jim Crow was an attempt to do what rich Beverly Hills liberals do with money and zoning boards, but for everyone even if they aren’t rich.
The highest demanded good in a free market is the ability to physically separate from the underclass while remaining within commuting distance of job centers. It doesn’t take long looking at Zillow to prove this. The free market provides this as best it can, and usually succeeds if not interfered with. Liberals are, if anything, THE BEST at using the tools at their disposal to price out, district out, and zone out minorities even while living in the same cities as them (sometimes quite close even).
Jim Crow was an attempt at empathy and solidarity (working class whites should be able to separate from underclass blacks without paying a fortune to do so).
Having abandoned it, we still have segregation by income, which takes on a racial characteristic due to wide income differentials, but mostly left working class whites shit out of luck. Underclass blacks basically ended up where they started (ghettos amongst themselves).
I don’t support Jim Crow because, libertarian leanings and all, I can see it involves giving large interventionist powers to the government. I think asking the government to take on a task like that is doomed to failure (and it in fact failed, so it failed the empirical test. I don’t support Jim Crow because I don’t think it works.
However, I do support keeping the government out of the private decisions of individuals. If people want to have an HOA, the government shouldn’t interfere. If a particular area doesn’t have the kind of housing blacks can afford, it shouldn’t purposely Section 8 them in there (especially over the objections of the actual property owner).
On top of that, Jim Crow was implemented at a time when many parts of the South were black majority (before the Great Migration). Having seen what blacks do when they have a political majority (Detroit, Baltimore), perhaps this is just self defense. Black run government is about as far away from libertarian as you can get. It’s essentially tax everything you can get your hands on and funnel it through corrupt spoils networks that squander ever penny.
People mostly left Baltimore City for Baltimore County specifically to ESCAPE *black political control*. Moving from the city to the county HALVES your property taxes, lowers your income tax, and all of the government services get better in quality. In addition to the direct effects of underclass behavior, there is also the political effects of who they elect. These are perhaps greater threat than mere degeneracy. I can take measures to avoid bad neighborhoods. I can’t avoid the tax man.
The important thing is I understand the desire. At least somebody CARED about another human being’s welfare to want to protect them from the underclass. Your attitude is “your own your own and if you drop dead I don’t give a damn”. That’s what we said to all our major cities after Civil Rights got passed and they literally got hollowed out in and orgy of violence and degeneracy.
I may disagree with Jim Crow as an effective way of organizing society based on the evidence I’ve seen, but I don’t consider its advocates IRRATIONALLY EVIL. If anything it takes a certain HUMANITY to want to protect people from the underclass. The easiest possible thing to do is what liberals do today. Wall themselves off in bubbles and throw everyone else to the wolves (while actively denying others the tools they use to protect themselves while vilifying them). There is nothing empathic or big hearted about that. It’s pure Machiavellian egoism.
—So what? Few racists hate all other races. Most have elaborate hierarchies of which races they prefer and which traits they prefer in those races.
*People prefer some traits too other traits. News at 11!
Every single human on the planet is a racist by this criteria.
I don’t know what your definition of racism is. Growing up I was taught that racism is “an irrational hatred of people with a different skin color for absolutely no reason other than pure arbitrary hate.” There was maybe some notion that “ignorance” is involved, but most of the “ignorant” examples I was given just turned out to be basically correct once I learned HBD.
And I really believe that there were a bunch of people like that. I couldn’t quite explain why they were like that, but having been taught that all people and races were identical underneath their skin color I certainly couldn’t think of a rational reason, so it had to be irrational hatred from out of nowhere.
But as you point out, races and people do have different traits. Some of those traits are commendable, and other are to be despised. There was nothing irrational about it. And some of these bad traits really do deserve to be hated.
—Recently. There have been few immigrant groups that weren’t historically demonized as immoral, low intelligence threats to the good citizens already established.
Brown immigrants from south of our border are not any kind of coherent genetic or cultural group. Any competent geneticist will tell you that skin color is an unreliable marker for deep genetic similarity. Skin color evolves much more rapidly than most characteristics as a simple response to sunlight and the trade offs between skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency.
*You know from all of the relevant evidence what these people from south of the border represent on average. I suppose we could debate whether Puerto Ricans are marginally worse than Mexicans…but the bottom line is we took in 58 million people that are on average quite subpar.
asdf,
I didn’t notice the new reply button so my reply landed just above the comment it replied to.
I think he’s confusing “outgroups” with “fargroups”. An outgroup is a group that you don’t identify with that is in frequent contact and competition with your group. For most white liberals, that’s white conservatives. A fargroup is a group that you have little direct contact with – support for or opposition to a fargroup has more to do with its effects on the ingroup/outgroup dynamic than with the fargroup itself. This is why white liberals will often make excuses for, say, North African female genital mutilation – while such things are abhorrent according to their professed principles, criticizing Africans is a trait of the outgroup (white conservatives) and cannot be tolerated.
The attitudes of white conservatives in regard to horrible businessmen is left as an exercise for the reader.
Group (self-) hatred
What if white Progressive see themselves as Multi-Cultural? They like living this reality and dislike the Clarmont Institute anti-diversity message. Sure they get a little self-righteous about it, but this is their American reality.
And how large corporations are global? Being able to work well with people different backgrounds is becoming a competitive advantage.
Nationalist myths are comforting, flattering, and harmful. To the people who listen to them. It’s not as if white Democrats peddling these nationalist myths are doing any harm to themselves, their careers, or their bank balances. By “protecting” their victims? So as to rescue them from a “harmful” argument? Descending from on high to save their victims from the “hate speech” of Candace Owens or Thomas Sowell or Kanye West? Condescending to them, in reality.
A white Democrat pictures an infant when he talks to a black Democrat, talking down to him, using simpler language than when he talks to other white Democrats. Literally, that’s how white Democrats talk to black Democrats. Not as equals, but like paternal, protective adults looking down on their wards. There was a study, and white Democrats talk like tourists to black Democrats, or like grown-ups addressing a child. White Democrats change the way they talk depending on who they’re talking to.
The harm in talking to adults as if they’re kids is actual harm. You do real harm when you push these nationalist myths on your victims. Of course you say you’re “helping” your victim. If you wanted to help you’d get out of the way. You wouldn’t defend your privileges, your subsidies, your boondoggles and bans. You wouldn’t block progress. You’d stop erecting these barriers to work and wealth, separating “our kids” from “their kids” with a million destructive measures at every level of government. You’d have to quit making a lucrative career for yourself out of keeping your victims dependent on the poisonous “help” you boast about.
That’s the harm that white Democrats do not see. Disinviting Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Brandeis or Condoleezza Rice from Rutgers is about protecting a myth or an image. People are the victims. You don’t help an adult by treating him like a child without any agency or powers of his own. Not Palestinians. Not black Americans. Not women either. Think of Mary Wollstonecraft, and the harsh words she didn’t shy from speaking out loud. Not flattering or comforting words: “Considering the length of time that women have been dependent, is it surprising that some of them hug their chains, and fawn like the spaniel?” Offensive, insulting, harsh. But not false.
> Nationalist myths are comforting, flattering, and harmful.
I’d qualify “and harmful” as “potentially harmful and/or beneficial”. It is the absolute faith in an assumption of significant harm/benefit that seems to be at the heart of many historical tragedies.
Your “vindication of the author Mary Wollstonecraft” (sorry, I couldn’t resist using those words in a sentence) carries some irony. Some would argue that the French Revolution inflicted significantly more harm than the generations of oppression it aimed to erase.
Regardless, I think the use of Mary Wollstonecraft and/or William Godwin quotes to denounce progressive ideals is a fun pursuit 🙂
Perhaps they are lying.
Having a pro-out-group bias doesn’t make you self-hating. It means you’ve successfully overcome in-group prejudice. That’s a good thing.
I thought “bias” was bad?
If someone favors non-whites over whites, then they are unfair to whites. When you’re white and you hate whites such bias is particularly…perverse.
How big is this bias, compared to the ingroup bias displayed by other groups?
My bet is that it’s a very small pro-outgroup bias, compared to large ingroup biases that most other group have. Anyway being out-group friendly may not mean you “hate” your own group, it could merely mean you are novelty seeking – maybe you’re a white person who is simply bored with traditional “white” culture, and is interested in exploring other cultures.
Personally, I have to say that I am really bored with “American” cuisine, and more or less avoid it like the plague. Give me sushi, or Indian, or Thai, or Lebanese, or even a burrito. Don’t try to get me to eat a hamburger and fries, and don’t make me watch any football, either. Also beer tastes terrible, I’d rather smoke weed, or go to central America to drink Ayahuasca. Am I a self-hating white because I hate beer and football and hamburgers and fries? I dunno, maybe I just want to try different things.
I suspect he’s referring to people rather than cuisine and such. Would you consider someone who dislikes ‘ethnic food to be racist?
That said, many people absolute think it’s racist that virtually all the musicians and novelists I like are white. (Of course they’re all European)
I would never consider someones music preferences to be in themselves racist. But having a preference for music from other cultures doesn’t mean you hate your own. Having an interest in other cultures indicates a curious and inquisitive mind, IMO.
I didn’t suggest it meant you hate your own culture. I pointed out that if preferring other cultures isn’t evidence of hatred of one’s own, then preferring one’s own culture isn’t evidence of hatred of other cultures. If out group cultural preference isn’t bigotry, then nor is in group cultural preference.
And preferring other cultures isn’t imo evidence of curiosity or inquisitiveness; the willingness to try things from other cultures is, but if, after trying, one finds one prefers one’s own culture’s cuisine or music, then that’s just a subjective preference, likely (certainly with respect to cuisine) innate. No amount of curiosity can make someone who can’t tolerate spicy food more compatible with authentic Indian food. Our tastes don’t, imo, say much about our virtue.
No, overcoming in group prejudice means you prefer neither in nor out group.
Out group preference is as much a prejudice as I. Group preference and just as harmful. If an employer doesn’t hire me because of my race, I’m not consoled if he happens to be the same race as me.
I suspect the out-group preference they are talking about is statistically small. It would be a miracle if the numbers came out to be exactly zero, don’t you think?
Would it be a miracle if people had no in or out group preference with respect to eye color, or would it just be rational?
Also, if a statistically small out group preference is tolerable or even laudable with respect to skin color, I see no reason a statistically small in group preference shouldn’t be tolerable as well. It is quite beyond me how one can condemn one but not the other.
A small out-group preference might be better for generating social cohesion in a multi-ethnic society.
Jewish progressives are the ones driving the anti-white hatred hardest.
The book Whiteshift by Eric Kaufmann gives the best history of this phenomenon and he does cite Reform Judaism as playing a lead role: