Saturday, June 20, 2009

Racialism among whites

The previous post showing more evidence that non-whites are more racialist than whites are led me to wonder how racialism varies among those of European descent. The following table shows the percentage of people, by ancestry, who included race or ethnicity as one of the three most important methods of self-identification from a list of ten possible descriptors:

HeritageRace importantN*
British**2.8%138
Scandanavian^3.0%32
Irish8.6%127
German9.4%148
Eastern European^^10.2%49
French11.2%18
Italian14.3%56

Because the question was only asked in 2004, sample sizes are not as optimally large. The French figure should be seen as suggestive at best. Yet the results have face validity.

The Irish percentage is a little lower than expected. Those of Irish descent are unique among whites in that they have their own ethnic holiday (never mind that St. Patrick was actually British) and benefit from mild, if light-hearted, cultural encouragement in the celebration of that heritage (ie, "Kiss me, I'm Irish" or Riverdance). Like Italians, the disdain their Catholicism brought in the 19th and first half of the 20th Century doesn't hurt, either.

Germans, despite their ancestral homeland's oh-so-atrocious relatively recent history, were forced to suffer the humiliation of anglicizing their surnames during the Great Wars and dropping their purely Teutonic tongues to integrate with broader American society, so in the oppression pecking order, they're a notch above the English.

Those of British ancestry, without claim to historic oppression--Roman legions and the Danegeld are negated by the slave trade the Empire waited all the way until 1833 to thoroughly outlaw--are left to wallow in the crapulence of massive achievement, and are consequently the least likely to think of themselves in racial or ethnic terms. Americans of Scandanavian descent are not far behind.

Despite Sacha Baron Cohen's best efforts, Eastern Europeans in the US are not completely embarrassed by their heritage. Wait, come to think of it, the question was only asked in '04, before Borat or Bruno came into existence and Ali G was just beginning his ascent to household name recognition. Perhaps those anti-Semites have been brought to heel in the interim!

Unsurprisingly, Italians are the most cognizant of their ethnic heritage. Among the European waves, they were impoverished latecomers. Further, they tend to be more easily physically distinguishable from other whites than those of English, French, or German descent are. Still, even this most ethnically conscious European group is far less racialist than are blacks, Hispanics, or Asians in the US.

GSS variables used: SOCID1, SOCID2, SOCID3, ETHNIC

* Respondent sizes vary slightly in some cases for each degree inquired about (most important, second most important, third most important). Those listed in the table represent the smallest number of responses from the three parallel questions.
** British includes those of English, Scottish, and Welsh descent.
^ Scandanavian includes those of Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish descent.
^^ Eastern European includes those of Czeckoslavakian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, and Russian descent.

49 comments:

ironrailsironweights said...

Another factor may be the parts of the United States in which these groups are concentrated. People of Scandinavian and to a lesser extent German ancestry are most common in Midwestern areas that until recently did not have substantial minority populations. That would naturally lead to a de-emphasis on racial identification. In contrast, Italian-Americans are most common in racially diverse Northeastern cities, which will have the opposite effect with respect to racial identification.

Peter

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Those of British ancestry, without claim to historic oppression--Roman legions and the Danegeld are negated by the slave trade the Empire waited all the way until 1833 to thoroughly outlaw--are left to wallow in the crapulence of massive achievement,

What would be an equivalent variable in the World Values Survey?

I'd like to see if England along with Australia, Canada and New Zealand show similarly low levels of ethnic pride and high levels of individualism as Americans of old WASP stock demonstrate compared to other Northern European nations and Catholic European nations.

Bruce G Charlton said...

"Those of British ancestry, without claim to historic oppression--Roman legions and the Danegeld are negated by the slave trade the Empire waited all the way until 1833 to thoroughly outlaw"

Ahem... the British are the nation who _abolished_ slavery; internationally; at truly vast expenditure of energy, money and manpower; with mass public support; and by a gigantic military (mainly naval) operation which spanned many decades.

Until the late 1700s in England, initially among Quakers and later among evangelical Christians - slavery was universal and morally unchallenged.

When the British stopped seeking-out and suppressing slavery, it survived and returned.

There has never been any other moral crusade at any point in history that approaches anywhere near the level of self-sacrifice by which the British abolished international slavery.

Phew! Rant over...

(Of course, it could be argued, for instance by Mencius Moldbug, http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/03/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html - that abolishing slavery was not such a great thing after all - but I am assuming here the usual idea that slavery is an unmitigated evil.)

Anonymous said...

Undiscovered Jew:
I can tell you that white Canadians have extremely low ethnic pride, again with the exception of Italians who never quite assimilated and first generation Southern/Eastern European immigrants. Non-whites are extremely chauvinistic.

White Canadians are, however, very patriotic in the beer/hockey/not-being-American way.

-ASDF

Audacious Epigone said...

Peter,

Good point, geography matters. However, English ancestry is concentrated in the Northeast, which isn't quite as white as the heavily German upper Midwest, so it's not everything.

TUJ,

Good question. There are a couple of variables along the lines you are thinking. I'll take a look.

BGC,

I do hope it is apparent that I was being facetious. Notice the link to Inductivist's post where he observes an apparent inverse relationship between national pride and reason for national pride. The British have the least in actuality while deserving the most based on accomplishment, moral and otherwise.

TGGP said...

There might be something on the GSS page that explains this, but their javascript has been rather hinky for me lately. Anyway, did you do something to combine several responses into one like "eastern european" or "british" that appeared alongside the others? Or did you just separate them into their own results whose total you reported?

bgc said...

Actually, this little analysis could be seen as a revealing facet of the whole 'decline of the West' phenomenon; by which the same groups which built modernity (since the industrial revolution) now find themselves cringeingly unable to defend it.

The British role in slavery is a perfect example. In the UK, I lived through a whole year supposedly 'celebrating' the parliamentary act abolishing the British slave trade; yet this was merely used as yet another reason for the self-excoriation by national elites.

Somehow the greatest triumph of English Christians was turned into anti-English, anti-Christian propaganda.

Furthermore, there was no discussion whatsoever about the actual process of abolition of slavery. Slavery was not abolished by an act of pariament but by many decades of mostly military action, pushed by mass public opinion.

The British-driven world abolition of slavery is a truly amazing story - of which I (English) was largely unaware until I saw it pointed out by Thomas Sowell (from the USA - in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals).

The lack of knowledge about this story will be a major clue in understanding the fatal malaise of Western elites.

togo said...

BBC expresses some ambivalence
re case of modern-day slavery:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/8074292.stm

Audacious Epigone said...

TGGP,

If you download the data that is possible. It's also doable if the sub-group in question happens to be comprised of successive answer categories (ie, for the detailed racial breakdown, Indians are 4, Chinese 5, Filipinos 6 ... Other Asians 10), so controlling for RACECEN1 and filtering for RACECEN1(4-10) returns a table "for all valid cases" at the bottom that sums the entire Asian sub-category. With ETHNIC, though, it's not so convenient. I just transcribe the numbers to Excel and go from there.

OneSTDV said...

I'm actually quite surprised by how low the numbers are, even for Italians. Almost every Italian I've known (ironically, a majority of them were blond) advertised it. On TV, I've never seen an Italian who didn't mention it. Italians are also well entrenched in popular culture: The Sopranos, Staten Island, the "guido" look, "I'm from Jersey!", etc. I guess all the numbers are significantly lower than I expected. I thought the value for blacks would have been around 85%.

Also, was there any data concerning Jews? That's another group well known for ethnic pride, e.g. "Marry a nice Jewish girl, not one of them shiksas!"

Anonymous said...

One of the foremost points against White Nationalism is that it's not very White.

I mean that in two ways, in a scientific sense (more later), and in a philosophical sense.

If the White Nationalists' scientific assumptions are correct (NOT), then what they do, when they suggest this reification by ethnic interests, is to abandon all the admirable qualities of Western civilization that I personally admire and destroy them at a stroke. I have a particular affinity with the English, so they make a good example; WN assails their inestimable contributions to the Good by discarding the idea of unassailable rights by citizenship articulated in the Magna Carta. It attacks the Western heritage of Law from the Romans to Blackstone to Plessy, and all this for what? To return to the "law of the jungle", as those I oppose nastily put it?

Since many of them are ignorant of argument and history except by mere assertion -- "the history of America before the 1960s was White Nationalism" -- they might not realize something. In most countries, one of the biggest political questions is often the results of the racial census, whose results are vigorously disputed and have huge implications for the divvying up of wealth. I wonder if those erudite realize that that the Black Nationalist Nigeria has affirmative action of its own? See page 7 of this UN White Paper here, in fact, read the whole thing. According to the author,

"Political engineering, based mainly on federalism, consociation, and affirmative action, is central to national-building in Nigeria. However, the frequent recourse to force to contain challenges to its authority to indicative of the tenuous nature of its nation building agenda."

Nationalism is a hugely useful mythos. One of the best humanity's come up with yet, in my estimation. But it's important to distinguish its useful claims from actual reality. When the British-educated elites of that country adopted self-determination as a calling cry, they amalgamated all sorts of ethnic groups that had not traditionally known themselves as such. They are called wazobia, and there there are shifting political alliances between those ethnic groups in hock to larger, more independent, ones for goodies, just like in America. Aborigines are now part of the global Black Power movement, for god-sakes.

The founding mythos of a country is also hugely important. If there are truly exemplars of White Superiority to be found in history, I would say it would best be sought in the American Founders. We hold them to little criticism, paper over their individual foibles, because fundamentally most everyone holds them and the sophistication of government they achieved in high esteem. For example, there was a recent row over the invocation of "Tea Parties" by the Right as a historically inaccurate portrayal of the old reality. Who the hell cares? What happens in Americana if there is an ethnically disparate policy position enacted and the populist rhetoric needs to justify it in the face of dissidents? This is just another example of the lack of realism and serious thought in the whole business that I find ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

See, it's obvious to me that the arguments for reparations are flawed, not because there was no injury caused, or because I think it improper to judge the standards of yesterday by today's mores, but more because it serves little usefulness to ask those questions or address those issues. If the ideas like affirmative action and racial justifications did not radicalize partisans, who tend to be more well-informed and articulate than moderates, it might be fairly considered. Yet these putative admirers of civilization want to transform the Europeans of the Enlightenment into Stalinists, or worse.

This is because politics is the mind-killer (extremely important link). It allows and encourages otherwise smart people to start babbling inane bullshit, and it's important to call out that bullshit if you actually want to get anything done. Again, who exactly is working in a realistic way for White Nationalism? Jared Taylor? He's the one sleeping well while you fitfully.

The main problem is their refusal to put their thinking to the sword, and really test their assumptions and knowledge. There be dragons lurking in those beliefs, questions of history and science that bother even these supposed realists, who fancy themselves paleo-conservatives and "racial realists", coldly applying reason to the facts. What else could explain this frenzied reaction to this chart that N/A posted? (More on that later) Rank speculation, they cry! Stereotypes! Indeed, there is that very compelling evidence of famous psychic unity of the Europeans and the evolution of Ashkenazi intelligence to support them. Yet another seduction of politics and the naturalistic fallacy.

- Billare

Stopped Clock said...

to OneSTDV: I suspect that identifying with one's Italian heritage doesn't necessarily translate into identifying strongly as being white. I've met Greeks and Armenians who don't even consider themselves white, because they're so attached to their nationality. I don't think that many Italians would ever consider themselves nonwhite, but for every other Mediterranean or Middle Eastern border area nationality, ethnocentrism is probably a disincentive to "white" consciousness.

Anonymous said...

"I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins." And thusly the scientific edifice underlying much of the WN rhetoric crumbles due to the logic of J.B.S. Haldane's quip. You see, their main problem, amongst others, is that the power of group selection decreases roughly exponentially as the degree of familial distance between individuals increases. Group selection is much weaker than individual selection, and altruism can be explained using only the latter.

On the other hand, the IQ research has been a veritable godsend for them. Its extensive validation and applicability to important and relevant life outcomes has transformed their philosophy, which was different from the scientific investigation that it had relied upon, from the ad-hoc and ill-supported to the plausible. Human beings are less genetically diverse than other species, but we have no clue about the importance of those differences. Do they all matter, or some of them? Do certain races possess all the "good" traits in the aggregate, or are they apportioned more fairly? Of course, it is easy to understand why WNs break the way they do on these questions. Consider: is their scientific misunderstanding of their extent of genetic diversity amongst sub-Africans random error, or indicative?

Before I expose my understanding of the prodigious ignorance, I want to clarify something that I think it is vitally important, that is, the realization of the dual usage by which different people utilize the word "race". Of course, I want to also preface my thoughts with the usual catch-alls such as, I'm not a professional scientist, some of this is argument by speculation and anecdote, we are speaking about averages, things like that.

Nah, fuck that, who are we kidding, I'm here to flame and insult. But my ranting is almost certainly better than some of the clueless assertions that we're constantly entertained with. I have the temerity not to evangelize rightly controversial positions by doing stupid shit, like assigning individuals numerical IQ numbers based on an extensive knowledge of psychometrics, referring to salient observations of Jewish leftism as "The Jewish Question", and referencing "the illegitimate rules of basketball practiced in the NBA" as Lucius Vorenus, our moron demographer standing against the Philistines, frequently does at Sailer's.

First, race, used equivalently to Cavalli-Sforza's notion of "clinal populations", is a scientific and qualitative description that describes who exactly your ancestors were.

Second, race is also a social construction.

These two superficially contrasting methods of understanding are not opposed whatsoever. Here is an alternate analogy to something most who read this are very familiar with; we have long understood the meaning of our qualitative descriptions of intelligence, and they was no less relevant before Galton codified that rigorously into IQ from its abstraction, and now it has an extensive theory of g and numerous biological correlates. But obviously, hardly anyone cares about the intricacies of such academic matters those researchers debate. Still, the acceptance of IQ's validity is driving real political division, and certainly those who think it's narrative is important will act on that reasoning. It will affect who they like, who they associate with, who they sympathize with, who they marry, who they fuck. Presumably, those choices will shape the fitness of their progeny, and not so for others.

But crucially a problem for the philosophy is that people don't morally reason with the mega-group of "Race" as we understand it in America. To explicitly distinguish between the two aforementioned understandings, I will heretoforth deem them "race1" and "race2", respectively.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

But crucially a problem for the philosophy is that people don't morally reason with the mega-group of "Race" as we understand it in America.

This is true. The WNs rely heavily on the idea of "genetic interests" to support their ideology. However, genetic interests falls apart as a political concept because it does not clearly define where common genetic interests begin.

Genetic interests is also useless in the debate over the significance of race because the controversy over race does not actually revolve around biology but instead revolves around neuro-psychology (to the extent humans view inbuilt psychological traits as different from biology in general).

In fact, we already know race is a valid biological concept because of genetics research. But the fact that we know there is genetic clustering among ethnic groups is not controversial.

It is not biological differences that makes the left throw a fit, it is the idea that neurological differences vary by race. Blonde hair and blue eyes are not important, but the psychological traits that are associated with European ethnic groups are extremely relevant.

Now, so people understand where I am coming from, I actually support whites only immigration because of neurological (and not "biological") reasons.

The major continental population groups assimilate better into nations that are psychologically the closest to their own ethnic group's psychological nature.

While culture is to some extent malleable, I don't believe that culture can be fully separated from the inbuilt neurological base of a country's majority population.

When it comes to psychology, the case for whites acting in their own political interests becomes much stronger because psychology is more important than arguing over superficial physical traits such as eye color.

Anonymous said...

First of all, White Nationalists obviously, obviously, don't believe in overlapping bell curves, IQ or otherwise. For the sake of argument, let's grant that there are objectively good characteristics that we can pluck out from space somewhere, before the fact. Do they ever consider the left's arguments when they say that "race does not exist"? Again, the book I've read points out that the crucial criterion behind that assertion is Sewall's F-statistic, which is a statistical measure of the amount of allele fixation (average, not mode or median) between populations, and it is quite low, around 10% I think, lower than the arbitrary threshold of 30% the authors posit. But realize, that you circumscribe your vision of prototypical upright White Americans, because, by delineating more and more "good" traits, you are eliminating more and more Whites from your pool, since the frequencies aren't fixed in that population. This is why your opponents often say, "two individuals from the different races can be more similar (in a given trait) than two from the same one". You have no idea outside of personality traits given by the Big Five model and IQ how other traits correlate with race. None.

Steve Sailer has to make his ritual peans to that fact as a supplicant to the MSM to be taken seriously, but many of his commentariat don't believe it, not one bit, skeptical mensches that they are. George Bush is intelligent in a way that Sonia Sotomayor is obviously not, and thus they have to cry out in a pathetic refrain when they find a leftist with whom they disagree on appropriate racial public policy, "Where are the test scores? But where are the test scores?" Strangely, they also say things like, "that Sarah Palin sure is gutsy, by God!" You have to understand, to we knowing realists, it's obvious that this woman's got heart enough for the Presidency. (By the way, I realize that IQ isn't that important in this case, I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy.)

There is a stereotype of racialists, too, you know. I wonder what the data would show: would it show that they are upwardly mobile and inquisitive individuals? There is also the curious belief amongst them that the White Godwanaland would necessarily have a Christian morality, and that this is a good thing, that the sort of fundamentalism in a society they like is indicative of high intelligence. Sadly enough, it's the godless Episcopalians and secular Jews who are actually on top of the ethnic heap when it comes to intelligence and income. My boy N/A knows what's up. The Ashkenazi are noted for an involvement in the pornography and finance businesses, but unfortunately for an unreflective morality, they also like to slave away at obscure institutions inventing the technologies and pondering the questions that other people haven't even envisioned yet, and yes, they saved White America a lot of trouble when they largely invented the fucking bomb.

If some of you really believe that by throwing about petty, most importantly, unsupported insults on blogs, that you are solving the problems you worry about, then I feel the proper emotion to be evoked by a humanist is not outrage, or hurt, but honestly, pity. Let the adults put on their thinking caps so that the matter can be discussed fully, so that every interesting discussion that could be tangential to race does not descend into the tedium of black rape statistics (surprisingly salient for their import, more later), black crime statistics, affirmative action, in short, how much whites really rock. If your genes had voice at all they should cry at out your misconceptions.

- Billare

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

But the fact that we know there is genetic clustering among ethnic groups is not controversial.

It is not biological differences that makes the left throw a fit, it is the idea that neurological differences vary by race.
- Undiscovered Jew

I myself would know how to draw a strict distinction between biology and neurology.

In any case even if there were a distinction, I think it is wishful thinking to say that genetic clustering among ethnic groups is not controversial. I've head numerous Jews mocking some hapless gentile for having described someone as "looking Jewish" - surely looks are more biology than neurology. I've heard numerous leftists making points that, if you consider them, boil down to "race doesn't exist" in either sense. (Not to mention the number of them that say this phrase, several times a day before breakfast.)

The Undiscovered Jew said...

In any case even if there were a distinction, I think it is wishful thinking to say that genetic clustering among ethnic groups is not controversial.

Over the past two years there have been dozens of genomic studies showing where different ethnic groups genetically cluster.

Go to Dienekes' Anthropology blog and do a search for the studies.

Nobody has objected to the studies. Where people genetically cluster is not controversial.

The controversy revolves around whether neurological traits also cluster by ethnic group.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Over the past two years there have been dozens of genomic studies showing where different ethnic groups genetically cluster.

And I should mention, I haven't discussed anything like this in person in the past two years. I have read "race doesn't exist" in the past two years though.

Nobody has objected to the studies. Where people genetically cluster is not controversial.

Okay, if you say so. Those articles looked interesting and I saw a distinct paucity of Daily Kos types screaming their heads off. I don't know if you'd count it as controversy when someone who knows nothing about genetics argues with someone who does ... a sort of "one-way battle of wits" that is usually unfair (though unfair in the opposite directions that one-way battles usually are).

My guess is, a lot of people believe that red wolves and coyotes are more genetically different from each other than Nigerians and indigenous Britons. If someone like G. Cochran proves them wrong, is that a controversy or not? I guess it's not a controversy because people who read Cochran don't chat much with people who do.

It's a semantic question and I see points on both sides.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

If someone like G. Cochran proves them wrong, is that a controversy or not?

It isn't as controversial as saying that blacks are genetically and psychologically more prone to commit violent crime than any other ethnic group.

Again, I don't think people will care too much about biological differences across racial groups.

It is the question of whether mental traits (not only IQ, but extroversion/introversion, propensity to violence, altruism, etc) vary by race that is the real game changing stuff.

Anonymous said...

"Let the adults put on their thinking caps so that the matter can be discussed fully, so that every interesting discussion that could be tangential to race does not descend into the tedium of black rape statistics (surprisingly salient for their import, more later), black crime statistics, affirmative action, in short, how much whites really rock."

Even Rev. White moved to Tinley Park.

-Whyte Rock

Anonymous said...

Note: I do not have a problem with Christianity, none at all actually. My mother is a fervent one and sometimes I passionately wish I had the strength that she draws upon from her personal God in times of crisis. Indeed, I have defended Evangelicals from stupid criticisms in various other forums. But evolution makes too much sense and I am too much of a cynic and an absolutist to rediscover that path. However, like many other political positions in history, people do choose their religious affiliation based on its perceived social status. Christian fundamentalism was once favored by the elite in Rome, both it and Judaism, but cultural syncretism has obviously devalued its appeal, along with alot of other historical developments, say, Darwin. The fashionable ones are now a proto-"Gainism" (Half-Sigma goes too far) and anti-racism. It might do well for some of you to try to begin to understand the motivations behind the latter's criticisms.

- Billare

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to draw parallels between Marxism and White Nationalism. Ironically, both of those groups are quite unaware of how closely their ideas comport.

First of all, understand that white nationalists are intensely bothered that there is no racial consciousness evident amongst whites. However, since there can be no systematic criticism of whites acting alone in the manifesto, there must be some nefarious facilitator at work. Ergo, there must be a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy of the the elites and the Jews. Leftist whites are the bourgeoise who must be punished for their endorsement of the capitalists, but first, the Jews.

Now, whenever I pause to ask them to take some time and reflect on just who the elites are in America, you know, sort of like the people who have the income, intelligence and time to read and understand Steve Sailer et. al, they become defensive, and resort to the political playbook of the Left:

Perhaps you're one of them, lurking, sowing dissuasion in the ranks! Do not trust him!

If that doesn't work, then you must be an idiot, someone who is sadly unaware of how salient and important race is. However, if you are white, do not worry, these ideas come naturally to you! You but must only remove the chains of your false consciousness imposed upon you by these amorphous elites, and soon, you too will come to the right-thinking as well. "When blacks begin behaving badly again..." I'm not sure if there isn't a better case of such malevolent genetic aggression against White Males as when old women who shouldn't be driving at all participate in the vicious culling of their population on the battlefields of the interstate highway.

Now where do these people live? You would think they were living in the ghetto, sending their own children to these bad schools for all their rhetoric. No, similar to how white liberals elevate the plight of minorities to ridiculous levels, these same champions of the Right are also largely middle-to-upper class, intelligent people competing in their own personal status games. There's nothing wrong with that per se; I myself tend to enjoy harmless games that academics in the hard sciences play, because it hurts no one whether Steve Hsu is the bestest or perhaps even the bestest bestest physicist in the world. Someone at Marginal Revolution put it well; "let a million status hierarchies bloom!"

On the other hand, we do have to consider the fact that politically endorsed race favoritism has always seemed to end in absurdities wherever it is practiced. They will be practicing a distasteful affirmative action in South Africa, Malaysia, India, for a long time to come, helping no one. These whites, like leftists, really will do it better this time; and yet, may I suggest that the continuous anti-Semitic attacks on a population that lost 6 million of its members scarcely half a century ago that could possibly help you achieve the dream is not so politically wise and belies a lack of commitment to meritocracy?

Razib of GNXP had a great post on this topic, too, when he reviewed the book, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers. From the same post:

"The dynamics this situation created was at times unique, to say the least. The book reports the case of Dieter Bergmann, a Mischlinge [German-Jewish hybrid] who had a Nazi aunt. The aunt wrote to him as follows: 'My dear boy, I think people like you must be exterminated if our fatherland is to remain pure and victorious against the Marxist-Jewish conspiracy. Sorry, my dear boy. You know I love you.'"

Anonymous said...

Finally, of course, since the proletariat must be encouraged in our history, a proper work must detail the glorious end of the capitalist system, when true socialism will take root. This is why WNs are always talking of how things will be in the White future, and take no plausible steps to articulate how they reach that end. How exactly will America transition from elite sanctioned denialism to white separatism? Comrade, those ideas are bourgeois considerations, intellectuals need not bother themselves with such trifles.

I remember reading an astute comment that a racialist wrote when he said something like, "it is a pretty scary notion that white racism is so pervasive and so powerful that they could oppress blacks without even thinking about it." Likewise, it is a pretty scary notion that Jews could have so much immense political power, when all they do is pretty try to excel in the fields they dominate. Unfortunately, this is true in the immoral, mind-killing field of politics as well.

- Billare

David said...

Like usual, AE, interesting post :)

Audacious Epigone said...

Billare,

I confess to being unsure whether or not your orthogonal but thought-provoking comments are directed at myself or if you are shadow boxing, so my blathering will be kept at a minimum.

Like Marxism, white nationalism shares a relative devaluation of the individual. I am less concerned about who the self-described white nationalists currently are as I am about how the saliency of white 'composition' appears inevitably set to grow in the future. A nation in majority-minority status is not appealing, and it is for this reason that some of my goals align with those of WNs, although I do not consider myself one and the methods of attainment I favor are different. Immigration preferences by nationality are currently politically untenable (I realize the diversity visa lottery program is just that--it is untenable going in the direction that makes a hell of a lot more sense, that is), but there are incidental proxies that make sense without racial or ethnic considerations--demonstrable English language proficiency requirements, constitutional knowledge examinations, means and educational attainment testing, values questionnaires, etc. "Cultural federalism" (or whatever phrase is preferrable) and even future secession movements strike me as desirable for the same reasons. I'm not keen on retaining the deadweight the American Southwest is becoming, either.

Parenthetically, racially-conscious whites are not as 'threatening' to Jews in the US as Hispanic immigrants are, the latter being by far the most hostile group according to the ADL.

OneSTDV,

One of the ten responses is "family or marital status". It was chosen by more than half (50.9%) of all respondents as the most important descriptor. Relative comparisons are consequently more interesting than absolute values are, I think.

Because I am not married and have no children, family/marital status probably wouldn't be among my top three, but race/ethnicity honestly probably wouldn't be, either. I'd likely choose occupation first, gender second, and age group third, following the order of attributes through which I am most easily able to identify with others. A business partner, usually irrespective of other demographic issues, is an easy acquaintance. I (strongly!) prefer the feel of the female body squeezed against my own, but that's about the only time I favor being around the fairer gender over those with a Y chromosome. I tend to like talking to, working with, and competing against men more than I do women. If the choice to join a camp of white geezers or a menagerie of people in their twenties was forced upon me, I'd probably elect the latter.

Re: TUJ,

Here's one such graphical display. Not criticized by major media, but not given adequate attention, either. Nothing to see here!

Anonymous said...

AE,

Of course I don't support low-IQ Mexican immigration into the US. That's because I regard this country as bulwark against other primitive political systems, obviously worthy of defending. When I stumbled onto VDare from Marginal Revolution, they provided too many facts, statistics, and grounded theories against that policy for my instinctive libertarianism to argue otherwise.

So I changed my mind. See, that's an eminently sensible action. It's an eminently superior trait. One does not combat tribalism by resorting to rank tribalism or lamenting the lack of it in your political group, even if the differential outcomes of evolution do play a part in that narrative. It doesn't work.

Evolution is not something to be universally elevated or praised. It is the blind idiot god. Fight it.

- Billare

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Billare,

As I wrote before, I explicitly support whites only immigration.

Do you support high IQ immigration which would include NEAsians and upper caste Indians?

If you do, I'll be happy to engage you on this thread in a congenial debate over whether whites only immigration is or is not preferable to high IQ immigration (a high IQ immigration policy would in effect mean only Europeans and NEAsians, with a smattering of upper caste Hindus, would qualify to enter America).

I'm interesting in testing/sharpening my arguments over why whites only is preferable to high IQ only immigration and I'd enjoy the exchange of ideas.

Anonymous said...

--So I changed my mind. See, that's an eminently sensible action. It's an eminently superior trait. One does not combat tribalism by resorting to rank tribalism or lamenting the lack of it in your political group, even if the differential outcomes of evolution do play a part in that narrative. It doesn't work.--

Tell the Jews, Jap and Chinese...Fight fire with fire.

OneSTDV said...

@TUJ:

"I explicitly support whites only immigration."

I'm actually quite surprised by this but I found your argument (based on ability to assimilate) cogent. I think concern over assimilation is probably the primary reasoning to institute whites-only discrimination.

But can you clarify why non-assimilating, but highly valuable groups (such as Chinese immigrants) negatively affect society? Let's assume they don't engage in racialist politics, as there's little evidence that they currently do.

I think I have an answer, but I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

But can you clarify why non-assimilating, but highly valuable groups (such as Chinese immigrants) negatively affect society? Let's assume they don't engage in racialist politics, as there's little evidence that they currently do.

For one thing, you lose the sense of community you would otherwise get in a more homogenous society because culture - while more flexible than some determinists like to think - cannot be perfectly divorced from the founding ethnic group's inbuilt mental characteristics.

Because there are cumulative psychological differences (on top of cumulative cultural and possibly religious differences) between NEAsians and whites, the various ethnic groups will have different personal interests (think about how at many top high schools the top white students will engage in stuff like band or Lacrosse and the Asians will just spend all their time in the library because Asians are much less extrovert and charismatic than whites).

Secondly, you can avoid the negative effects of "valuable but non-assimilating" immigrants by issuing long term work visas that do not lead to citizenship for high skill workers (And by high skill I mean much more skilled than the average H1B holder).

Not every high skilled worker who wants to work in the United States is really interested in becoming an American and taking part in American civic life.

If I were running immigration policy, my motto would be "Be generous with high skill visas but stingy with citizenship".

togo said...

"The dynamics this situation created was at times unique, to say the least. The book reports the case of Dieter Bergmann, a Mischlinge [German-Jewish hybrid] who had a Nazi aunt. The aunt wrote to him as follows: 'My dear boy, I think people like you must be exterminated if our fatherland is to remain pure and victorious against the Marxist-Jewish conspiracy. Sorry, my dear boy. You know I love you.'"

This is pretty peculiar since the NS regime never publicly announced a policy of extermination. The Final Solution was a state secret.

But that bizarre regime, with its borrowings from Marxism-Leninism,
mostly crackpot racial theories and melodramatic rise and fall (not to mention uniforms by Hugo Boss) always seems to offer up more surprises no matter how much it is studied.

togo said...

In the US cultural Marxist Racial State is pretty clear who is "white" -anyone who is not a member of an officially recognized protected minority. Anyone, that is, who is not black, Hispanic, "Native American", South Asian or East Asian.

And yes, Asians do receive AA with respect to federal contracts, SBA loans and probably other things I'm not aware of.

So the regime itself creates the basis for the emergence of a reformed "WNism" without the anti-Semitic baggage.

"WNism", for obvious reasons, is not really applicable to Europe.

Audacious Epigone said...

TUJ,

Wouldn't nationality preferences be more politically palatable than racial preferences would be, with similar practical results? That route seems preferable to me--a little non-European brain-drain doesn't strike me as a pill too bitter to swallow.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

"WNism", for obvious reasons, is not really applicable to Europe.

In Northern Europe, the most successful anti-multicultural parties are those that have married libertarian economics (free trade, low taxes), anti-EU centralization, classical liberal ideas of freedom (freedom of speech, etc), and anti-immigration restrictionism.

These parties include the UK Independence Party, the Vlaams Belang, Geert Wilder's party and the Danish People's Party.

I think that is the model to follow in order to attract upper middle class American whites to immigration restriction, rather than a somewhat more crudely nationalistic party such as the BNP.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Wouldn't nationality preferences be more politically palatable than racial preferences would be, with similar practical results? That route seems preferable to me--a little non-European brain-drain doesn't strike me as a pill too bitter to swallow.

Two things,

1) I think we should draw a distinction between citizenship and long term worker visas.

The benefits of Asian immigration are mostly of an economic and technological nature, not cultural.

We can get the economic/technological benefits of Asian brain power and business talent/investment with a selective and well thought out long term visa program.

(I also support long term visas for the best talent of foreign countries in order to maintain good diplomatic, commercial, and geopolitical relations).

But immigration that leads to citizenship should be primarily concerned with preserving the culture of the United States.

2) It is true that your proposal would be vastly preferable to our present legal immigration policy.

My support for whites only permanent immigration is derived from the fact that psychological distance is linked to the ability to culturally assimilate.

Since genetic closeness correlates with psychological closeness/similarity (in terms of overall average group differences) it logically follows that the culturally optimal immigration system is 100% whites only immigration.

Again, I would be more than happy to settle with your proposal, and it would be a good proposal.

I am just arguing that whites only permanent immigration is an even better immigration system.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone if, constitutionally, Puerto Rico can be given its independence voluntarily? I think states can't be given independence without their consent (or maybe even with their consent for all I know), but I'm not sure about territories.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, meant to write:
Does anyone if, constitutionally, Puerto Rico can be given its independence INvoluntarily?

Anonymous said...

AE:

"But can you clarify why non-assimilating, but highly valuable groups (such as Chinese immigrants) negatively affect society? Let's assume they don't engage in racialist politics, as there's little evidence that they currently do. "

I need to vent a little about that statement. The Chinese may not be as bad for society as Mexicans, but they are still bad.

I live in Vancouver, BC, which is close to 50% Chinese, most of whom moved here in the last 30 years. With the exception of an abundance of Chinese food, they contribute nothing to society and the city is all but unlivable, owing to the fact that it has doubled in size since they started to arrive.

They have not assimilated into Canadian society. Instead, our government is working hard to destroy the notion of a Canadian society (and ethnicity) by saying that we are all the same nationality, no matter where we come from. This is technically true, in that anyone can get a passport, but it is a historical lie, and it smacks you in the face if you ever walk through one of their neighbourhoods. Leaving race aside for a minute (which I don't believe you should), they are culturally utterly alien to North America.

"But what about assimilation? Give them a chance!" you say. Well, my idea of assimilation is that if I closed my eyes and listened to you list off your hobbies, you would be indistinguishable from a white local. I know one guy who can maybe do it. People like him are probably 1 in 1000. The rest exhibit varying degrees of Chinese-itude, from straight off the airplane greater-China-colonising math robots who hate whites and can't speak a word of English, to ones who were born here and who are still quite culturally Chinese, but less antagonistic towards whites and can speak English.

The fact is that North America doesn't need asians. You mentioned that they don't assimilate, but that is a huge problem. Not something to be shrugged off because they contribute economically. Because they don't do that either. They don't do any job that whites can't do themselves. And most of them don't even do those jobs that we supposedly need them for. They do service jobs in their parallel economies.

Them coming here necessitates the dilution, if not destruction, of our culture in order to keep the ethnic strife low. If all Canadians have in common is our diversity, then everything is normal. There's no reason to get upset when you see them indulging in their filthy, third-world habits in public. Or for that matter, when your old high school becomes 90% asian and can no longer field a rugby team. Or how because of the family reunification clause in our immigration code, the "productive" guy from China brings over his elderly parents and in-laws, just in time for them to get in on our public healthcare! They do not contribute anywhere near to what they consume. There's no reason to bring them over.

Audacious Epigone said...

TUJ,

Your position is definitely one I respect, although it seems politically unattainable--although that alone hardly makes it undesirable, coming from someone who supports voluntary positive and negative eugencis and a national consumption tax to replace the federal income tax. Still, I can't reconcile myself to an immigration policy that would keep a Razib Khan from attaining citizenship.

Anon,

Is Vancouver that heavily Chinese? The Wikipedia article reports that the population is 'only' 17% so.

Asians have higher welfare use rates than whites do, but they also have higher average incomes, lower levels of criminality, and higher educational attainment, so I doubt they are, as a (disparate) group, an net economic liability in the US.

Living in the center of the country, I'm not familiar enough with the cultural gap in ethnic Chinese enclaves in the US to comment much beyond that.

OneSTDV said...

"Because there are cumulative psychological differences (on top of cumulative cultural and possibly religious differences) between NEAsians and whites, the various ethnic groups will have different personal interests (think about how at many top high schools the top white students will engage in stuff like band or Lacrosse and the Asians will just spend all their time in the library because Asians are much less extrovert and charismatic than whites)."

Great answer. I was thinking the same thing.

I actually made a similar argument (though in a different context) at my blog:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/05/diversity-programs-conflict-for-hbd.html

start with: "Yet, a conflict arises for the HBD believer..."

Stopped Clock said...

Anecdotal evidence from someone living there suggests that Vancouver is more than 50% Chinese, mostly from Hong Kong. I suspect there's a difference between the total metro area and the city itself. I suspect that if theyre really the majority there's very little incentive for them to assimilate because there's no majority culture for them to assimilate to. If anything, from what I gather, the greatest cultural divide is with Chinese on one side and whites and NAMs on the other.

Anonymous said...

"Is Vancouver that heavily Chinese? The Wikipedia article reports that the population is 'only' 17% so."

It ain't called Hongcouver for nothing!

Anonymous said...

Good grief. I just found this StatsCan document on immigration. Talk about population replacement in action. It's pretty short, but well worth the read.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080402/dq080402a-eng.htm

Stopped Clock: In addition to asians, we have a ton of East Indians (Sikhs) in Vancouver (metro). They are largely working class (jobs Canadians won't do?), but take the place of blacks in our crime and aggressiveness hierarchy. Here is a good article that deals with their penchant for criminality. They and other NAMs constitute a sort of "third position". We as whites definitely don't see them as having more in common with us than Chinese.

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/the_sikhs_of_vancouver/

I will agree with AE that the Chinese are less prone to criminality overall, especially compared with a group like East Indians, but they seem to get involved in specialty crimes. We just busted up a whore house and loan shark ring recently. They are also involved in tax evasion on a massive scale vis a vis their cash-only businesses (East Indians are notorious for this too), which is another reason I doubt their overall economic contributions.

-Canadian Anonymous

The Undiscovered Jew said...

OneSTDV,

Your blog entry is essentially using the same logic I applied to showing how whites only - or at least mostly white - immigration is the optimal immigration policy.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't mind immigration from Latin America or Asia if it were at much lower levels than it is now. Mostly students interested in university study would receive visas, a few African refugees(less than 20,000). Probably life time visas for less than 50,000 immigrants every couple of years to show good faith internationally.

The idea that someone from Brazil or India is equally American as a fourth generation white Protestant is absurd. Nationality, beyond genetics, I believe is innate and has much to do with family history.

Anonymous said...

TUJ,

I wouldn't having that debate with you here at all, I'm just busy at the moment. Basically, stay tuned.

- Billare

Anonymous said...

TUJ,

I would like to direct you towards this paper. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/eraserace.pdf Please read it, it's important.

- Billare

Anonymous said...

Oh, one more great thing about that paper is that it suggests that Whiskey/Testing99 might actually be right, some very small percentage of the time. So it's interesting for that, too.

- Billare