Sunday, February 26, 2017

Affirmative action takes from the poor (Ice people) and gives to the rich (Sun people)

Affirmative action in education benefits wealthy black and Hispanics at the expense of poor whites and Asians.

I've had a few conversations about the subject recently where that didn't seem to be intuitive to the people I was talking with so it's worth stating explicitly here even though it's hardly a novel observation on my part.

For simplification, just think about whites and blacks. In both cases, the wealthier a person (or the family he grows up in) is, the better his academic performance tends to be. Whites outperform blacks at every level of socio-economic status (SES), but in the cases of both whites and blacks as SES increases so does academic performance.

So if some number of whites who would otherwise be accepted to a school have to be cut out to make room for a corresponding number of blacks, it tends to be low SES whites who get the cutting. The blacks who get in are those who (relatively) narrowly missed getting in before the racial handicapping. These tend to be high SES blacks.

In the subsequent graph, it's the area inside the red circle that gets cut out by affirmative action and the area inside the green circle that benefits from it:

Comprehending this dynamic would go a long way in helping affluent SWPLs who still don't understand Trump's appeal to working-class whites understand that appeal better.

We continue to have an opportunity with frustrated Bernie Bro-types who keep getting spit on by the Democrat party, most recently with the victory of Perez over Ellison as DNC chair. Sanders started out his campaign shying away from race and making it about social class disparities. He was forced into racial grievance mongering and victimization posturing by the Clinton campaign, but he didn't want to go there initially.

This isn't a novel observation on my part, either. Trump certainly gets it:

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Blacks, Jews, and liberals think whites are more intelligent than blacks

Since 2000 the GSS has asked respondents, broken down by race, if whites and if blacks "tend to be unintelligent or tend to be intelligent", with answers on a 7-point scale, the higher the score the more intelligent the group is perceived to be. Because both questions have been paired every year they've been asked, the same respondents are opining on the perceived intelligence of both whites and blacks.

Every racial grouping, including blacks, perceives whites to be more intelligent than they perceive blacks to be. This holds for both men and women, liberals and conservatives, the young and the old. The differences are a matter of degree, not direction.

The following graph shows how much of an intelligence advantage whites are perceived to have over blacks by the race (and other selected characteristics) of those assessing the intelligence of each. A standard deviation is just over one point on the scale, so you'll notice that the perceived racial gap isn't as large as the fundamental law of sociology reveals it to be, but a perceived gap does indeed exist (n = 11,419) [edit: Altered the color scheme slightly to be a little more intuitive with the age and educational groupings--none of the figures have been edited]:

So much of the Cathedral is founded on racial egalitarianist grounds that undermining those grounds will likely cause the whole edifice to come crashing down. It's why anyone who is perceived to be questioning the building's structural integrity is mercilessly set upon by the Cathedral's inquisitors. Yet it has been constructed on a foundation of loose gravel and sand.

In case you thought otherwise, even if those of European descent won't "go there" when it comes to understanding and eventually acting upon genetic differences across the entire spectrum of human traits, including intelligence, Asians will. If they're precluded from doing so in Western countries, they'll still do so in Asia.

MG recently put together a characteristically excellent post showing that, among other things, what progressives do--irrespective of their virtue-signalling public proclamations--reveals that they are racial realists rather than racial egalitarians. That racial realism manifests itself here, too.

Parenthetically, astute observers will notice that the perceived gap is larger among all whites than it is among either liberal or conservative whites. Self-described moderates tend to be less intelligent and less educated than both liberals and conservatives. That those without college degrees perceive the white-black gap to be twice as large as those with degrees--"clever sillies" if you prefer--do helps make sense of this in the current context.

The GSS has also previously inquired about the perceived intelligence of Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, but only for a single year (2000) in which the racial characteristics of respondents were concurrently tracked. I've posted about that before here, though sample sizes are small. The figures for perceived white and black intelligence in that post only extend through 2008, so this post now updates that one with four more years of additional survey data to draw upon.

GSS variables: INTLWHTS, INTLBLKS, YEAR(2000-2014), RELIG(3), RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), SEX, AGE(18-34,35-54,55-89), EDUC(1-15,16-20), POLVIEWS(1-2,5-6)

Friday, February 24, 2017

Godless gays

John Derbyshire's post entitled "Turkeys Vote For Thanksgiving--Gays Demonstrating For Muslim Immigration" spurred me to take a look at what the GSS has to say about the subject. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by religious affiliation, who believe that "sexual relations between two adults of the same sex" is "always wrong" (n = 33,086):

The GSS shows Derb's title to be an apt one.

The rank ordering is predictable enough, with the possible exception of Jews being more morally tolerant of buggery than even those who do not identify with any religious tradition are. Sodom and Gomorrah?

That those who religiously affiliate as Jewish are not what is conventionally understood to be meant by the adjective "religious" goes some way in explaining this acceptance of homosexuality. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by religious affiliation, who "know God exists" (this is the majority position--60.8% of all respondents assert they know God exists) (n = 18,383):

Only one-third of Jews firmly believe in the existence of God. On this measure anyway, the answer to the question of whether Jewishness is primarily a religious or primarily an ethnic identifier appears to be the latter [edit: Stronger evidence that is indeed the case].

To take this post full circle, the final graph shows the percentages of people, by sexual orientation, who know God exists (n = 7,533):

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, YEAR(1998-2014), RELIG(1,2,3,4,9), GOD(6), HOMOSEX(1)

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Secession is a young man's game

The political dissolution of the US is inconceivable to Boomers. That's not the case among younger Americans, who've had to live with the consequences of the Boomers' obsessive quest to find--or found--the mythical racial El Dorado.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll from 2014 found over 1-in-3 people under the age of 30 lending support to the idea of their state seceding from the union, compared to fewer than 1-in-6 people over the age of 60 feeling the same way.

A recent SurveryUSA poll out of California corroborates this. The percentages of Californians, by age cohort, who are opposed* to Calexit:


Hispanics, with 25% supporting, are the most likely to favor Calexit. Whites (13%) are the least likely to do, with blacks (16%) and Asians (18%) falling in between. Men (21%) are more likely than women (15%) to favor it.

* There are three responses to the question, "remain", "withdraw", or "not sure". This table lists only the "remain" percentages and thus may appear to overstate support for secession. The full results are here.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

#resist is futile

The phrase "fake news" is a beast that has, in a matter of months, been entirely turned on the people who released it on us. Our appropriation has been so thorough that CultMarxists are now insinuating that it originated on the alt right, inspired of course by Hitler:

Having lost control of "fake news", they summoned bahamut "alternative facts" next. It was delivered in critical condition and dead within the week:

That's probably better for the Cathedral, as the alternative facts--human biodiversity, IQ, sexual dimorphism, crime rates, ad infinitum--turret is even easier to turn around on those who deploy it than the stated desire for "an honest conversation about race" is.

What's next?

This week I saw a dumpy middle-aged white woman (no ring) wearing a black t-shirt with white lettering that simply read "#resist". That term is as bad as the clumsy and confusing slogan "love trumps hate".

For one, it concedes a seductiveness about the thing--America First, Make America Great Again, Trump--that must be resisted. You don't get a woman to eat better by telling her over and over again to resist the temptation to have that piece of cheesecake or get a guy off his porn addiction by having him watch it while encouraging him to resist the urge to masturbate.

Its individualistic focus undercuts its crucial role in motivating people to join a cause bigger than themselves Parenthetically, this is why libertarianism's focus on "individual liberty" has a support ceiling of a few percent of aspergy, high IQ male WEIRDOs and no one else. Emphasis on the "non-aggression principle" is better (as a recruiting tool--that's not a subjective judgment on my part).

It's also feeble, exactly the sort of thing that appeals to post-menopausal SWPL women and no else. Something aspirational like "#TheResistance" evokes stronger imagery and is more compelling.

There's no risk in us discussing this. These covens of cat ladies are clueless. They're too self-indulgent to realize any of it. It's another illustration of how all we need is an even playing field to route our opposition.