Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Racialist non-whites and non-racialist whites

To assert that whites don't think in racial terms and non-whites do is hardly novel in the Steveosphere, but the narrative that holds white racism to be ubiquitous and oppressive relies on the assumption that whites are racially conscious.

There is little evidence for this assumption. The GSS asked respondents to choose the three most important ways they self-identify from a list of ten descriptors. One of these was by racial or ethnic background. The graph shows the percentages by race of those who included this among the top three most important methods of self-identification:


The sample sizes for Hispanics (37) and Asians (44)* are small, but the pattern is clear. Only one out of ten whites included this among their top three. Among non-whites, about four out of ten did.

Since minorities are by definition not in the majority, it is expected that a distinguishing attribute will be deemed more important by the minority than it will be by the majority. The option combines race and ethnicity, though. When whites are broken down by ethnic group, only those of German descent constitute a larger American population than blacks do. But it's not just race that whites ignore. They don't think in ethnic terms, either.

As the percentage of the population that is white continues to shrink, white racial self-awareness will increase. This question set was only posed in 2004, so it's not possible to gauge the change in self-identification over time, but just looking at different age generations bears this out. By age range, the percentage of whites who include race or ethnicity among the top three ways they identify themselves:

18-29: 17.2%
30-44: 9.9%
45-64: 8.8%
65+: 5.3%

A colorblind society is a society in which everyone is the same color. Diversity leads to more racialism. Those who relentlessly promote it should be asked to explain why they support increasing the amount of racialism in society.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1), SOCID1, SOCID2, SOCID3, AGE(18-29)(30-44)(45-64)(65-89)

* Hispanic also includes "some other race", as it is a method of racial identification used almost exclusively (97% of the time) by Hispanics. The Asian category includes Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and "other Asian".

44 comments:

Razib said...

N's too small to get a regional feel via REGION variable alas....

The Undiscovered Jew said...

AE,

I was surprised that the young are more likely to say being white is important to them. I would have thought this would be more true as people get older.

As the percentage of the population that is white continues to shrink, white racial self-awareness will increase.

Whites are already racially "unconscious" in the sense that they do act racially, but usually in covert ways.

The 1996 welfare reform act is a good example with the Gingrich Republicans getting the white vote angry over "welfare queens", ie, NAMs.

Another example is zoning regulations in wealthy areas to keep price out NAM homeowners.

In the future whites will act *overtly* in their own interests. But first, whites need to be shown it is socially safe to discuss their own concerns.

One of my hopes for HBD is that it will allow a much more honest discussion of race so that whites can openly say what they think without being attacked.

Jokah Macpherson said...

I agree with UJ, the percent of whites identifying with a race by age group is pretty surprising. I think it may be a function of increasing minority populations. In the map you link to, the whites in the southeast seem to largely identify themselves as ethnically "American" while the still largely white heartland is filled with "Germans" and a few "Dutch" and "Norwegian" counties. It may turn out that the rest of the nation will more and more resemble the South as whites cast aside ethnic identities to defend their self-interests from other races.

This reminds me of Stephen Colbert's deadpan where he claims he doesn't see race. The converted in the audience laugh but it is really the left who holds the irreoncilable position of favoring affirmative action in a race-blind society.

OneSTDV said...

"In the future whites will act *overtly* in their own interests. But first, whites need to be shown it is socially safe to discuss their own concerns."

But hasn't progress been in the other direction? Haven't whites been systematically reducing their own power and ability to speak candidly about race? Haven't whites largely allowed a NAM monopoly of discussion on race to arise?

I just don't foresee a social shift allowing whites to speak honestly about race, especially in the manner observed amongst HBD blogs.

In general about the racialist attitudes: I've conversed often with black liberals online. Many of them complain that whites will refuse to see blacks as anything but black. Cornel West observed he was never a professor, just a black man, when he tried to hitch a cab.

Yet, as I stated in these discussions, not even knowing about this data, blacks are the ones that support the idea of racial self-identification. It's blacks that support black solidarity and defining one's self primarily on racial grounds. But in the discrimination model, it's important blacks place blame on white prejudice.

Anonymous said...

"But hasn't progress been in the other direction? Haven't whites been systematically reducing their own power and ability to speak candidly about race?"

The ones who control public discourse have. But there is a definite groundswell of support for WN online, which is the medium of the future. I've been poking around on the internet since the late 90's, when Stormfront was the only game in town. Now, not only are there tons of websites, but respectable ones to boot. And many non-WN conservatives who accept the movement, which is equally important.

There is a massive amount of brainwashing that goes on with regards race, in school and the media, and it's really hard to break free of unless you get smacked in the face by reality. That's why people in lily-white communities in the Upper Midwest could vote for Obama, while those in the South, who live with blacks every day, are still racist as hell and voted Republican.

That is also why far right parties are winning seats in Europe, despite a massive campaign against them by the regime.

Stopped Clock said...

Im surprised that such an extremely tiny proportion of respondents chose political party as one of their top three. I guess I'm truly odd in that respect. I mean, I'm well aware that most people just don't care about politics that much, but I didn't think that such a vast majority would fail to list political affiliation as one of their three strongest identifications.

Im not sure I'd list race as one of my top three. It seems kind of redundant in a 99% white town. If I lived somewhere more diverse, though, I probably would feel differently.

silly girl said...

"But hasn't progress been in the other direction? Haven't whites been systematically reducing their own power and ability to speak candidly about race? Haven't whites largely allowed a NAM monopoly of discussion on race to arise?"

This NAM monopoly on race discussions really is foolish because important issues are just ignored. The civil rights movement was championed by whites while there is still slavery in Africa. No racial group is perfect, but whites have made progress. What other racial group has made more progress and is more fair or more caring and sharing? Can I move to India and hope to rise to the top? What about China or Japan? They only take people who have more assets in human or physical capital than they consume. Do African countries invite immigrants of other races to come in and allow them to pursue their dreams with subsidies paid for by their governments? Is their blind justice there? Is it even a goal in their minds?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

There is no serious White Nationalist movement. Most of them are just too content to just groan, whine and bitch. Few are actually working seriously toward their stated goals. Indeed, why not - it's quite seductive for their intellectuals to simply bask and enjoy themselves in the adoration and devotion of a group that perceives themselves to be marginalized. The social dynamics of a culthood do not care a whit about the truth content of its axioms or claims. Because the hypocrisy about HBD is so overwhelming, WNs use their strong background and knowledge of race and IQ issues, to infer that their entire intellectual edifice is strong, when it is in reality laughably weak. Most of them show a perfunctory understanding of ethnicity, genetics, or evolutionary psychology outside of their favorite topic. At Mencius' place, one of them actually asked if Africans had ever built a walled city, perfectly ignorant about Great Zimbabwe or the Benin Kingdom. They haven't been challenged, which is a damn shame.

Here are some of the questions I want answered to my satisfaction:

1. Why do high-IQ Whites necessarily have the same "ethnic genetic interests" as other Whites? Even if the United States becomes some new Latin American polity, the elite tend to prosper under such systems as well; in fact, probably even more so, as they can usurp meritocratic challenges to their power from the underclass, and simply create institutions to promulgate their political power through hereditarian means. Think of the Ecoles and the Baccalaureate system of France, and the light-skinned overclass of Mexico. There's no prima facie case they don't win if the proles lose.

2. How do you draw the relevant ethnic lines in creating this political revival? For example, Italian-Americans have substantial North-African admixture. Perhaps the observed social outcomes of those "mulattos" causes the famous Italian sensitivity to certain types of ethnic slurs. Will they also be excluded from the fruits of White Labor as well? N/A at Race History Notes makes it perfectly clear he wants some tight distinctions, eschewing Slavs and other dirty peoples in favor of his Nordics. I agree with many of them that "stereotypes" tend to be unfortunately true; but some of those existed long before African-Americans had significant political power. I'm interested in the IQ and social tendencies of the Irish, the Slavs, Italian Americans, the Jews, and I hope WNs also share my enthusiastic spirit in investigating those same questions.

3. Have they ever stopped to consider that perhaps the PC attitudes and less racialist thinking of their ethnic group, might not simply be a sign of a weak and malleable culture, but a genetic fault endemic to Whites? (A deleterious polymorphism they want to keep in-breeding) If Blacks are not fit to live in civilization, because of fixed proclivities to rape, kill, and murder, then surely Whites who repeatedly let in foreign immigrants in, across different countries, against their EGIs don't deserve the fruits of prosperity either? I should only see it fit to conclude that the East Asians shall inherit the Earth.

And they very well might, too. WNs and other fools like to invent all sorts of reasons East Asians are really inferior to White culture, despite having higher average IQs, but they don't hold up to close scrutiny. The very criticism WNs make of the current politics is that Whites are insufficiently racialist to minority aggression, whilst my experiences with East Asians and our knowledge of the Tibetan independence movement doubts me to believe they hold any such qualms. It seems they're the group more prepared to make the individual sacrifice of wealth and status in favor of the whole. Indeed, China has already implemented eugenic policies to slow their population growth and cull their "imbeciles". It has also begun training more engineers per year than the United States does. Only that nation enjoys the prerogative to let the rest of us go to hell.

- Billare

Anonymous said...

Billare:

Are you seriously claiming that it's better to be a high IQ white in Mexico than it is in the United States? True, your relative status to your neighbours is much higher, but life is more than a status game. I'd rather live in a homogeneous white country where everything runs smoothly because even the working class is relatively high IQ, and where crime rates are such that you don't need to worry about living in gated communities or having armed guards.

2. The nordic vs. slav debate has been beaten to death on various fora for years and I don't know why you're bringing it up. Basically, it's an irrelevant debate started by Germanophile internet warriors who hate Slavs. Nordic is a racial term, while Slavic is an ethnic one. I know plenty of nordic Slavs. They are perfectly assimilable into the "white" portion of the United States, as has been proven by history. Ditto the Irish.

Italians are a mixed bag, depending on where they come from, and Jews don't fit into a white Christian society very well.

3. White Nationalism was basically the default state of white Americans pre 1965, and it worked very well. That the Chinese are presently more nationalistic than white Americans is not surprising, and has nothing to do with genetics. They have a single party government that is working for their ethnic interests, not against them, and telling them that they are a superior people.

White Americans have a government which acts in their worst interests, and are indoctrinated from cradle to grave that they are evil and that their highest calling in life is to bend over backwards to serve minorities. In addition to brainwashing, there are various financial hardships waiting for people who don't toe the line. Of course you will see a difference in nationalistic sentiment between these two population groups.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

I just don't foresee a social shift allowing whites to speak honestly about race, especially in the manner observed amongst HBD blogs.

We will find out how popular race realism becomes in a few years when the DNA data is in.

As of now, I'll remain optimistic about the future of HBD.

Indeed, China has already implemented eugenic policies to slow their population growth and cull their "imbeciles".

Eugenic policies won't be of much help to a country like China which has relatively low levels of crime and social dysfunction. China already has a decent genetic base to work with and there isn't much room for improvement, short of some sort of massive genetic engineering project.

Also, the coastal areas where the higher IQ Chinese live have the lowest TFRs compared to the rural areas (Hong Kong has a birthrate below 1.0).

Nor is the gender imbalance working in China's favor:

China's gender imbalance 'likely to get worse'

Stopped Clock said...

Billare, Im going to give you short answers that aren't necessarily rebuttals but things I think you should consider.

1) Really, high IQ whites dont have the same interests as low IQ whites and never will, but intelligence is only about 50-80% heritable, and almost everyone has relatives who are in a different income bracket than they themselves are. There is no true hereditary overclass in America, unlike in Mexico and much of the Third World, and today's rich whites could see their grandchildren grow up poor. (A smaller proportion of today's poor whites will probably live to see their grandchildren grow up rich.) There is, of course, a growing trend towards interracial marriage that could weaken racial identities among all races and lead us more towards a society stratified by class instead of race.

3) I dont think whites are genetically prone to excessively altruistic behavior compared to other races. Really, when you look at the past, whites and/or Europeans are behind both the kindest and cruelest events in almost every century, as well as being the creators of both scientific racism and affirmative action. Other places, like Korea and Japan, have cultural isolationist traits that have kept them off the list of places for hungry immigrants to go for an easier life, but there is no science behind the East Asian cultural uniformity, that's just the way they are. I suspect that as their countries mature (Korea's only been democratic for about 30 years and Japan only about 60), they'll go down the same track as Western Europe has, and suffer even more than Europe has, due to the even greater IQ gaps between East Asians and those others. It's already started, really, now that Korean and Japanese bachelors are importing dark-skinned wives from Indonesia and the Philippines.

Whiskey said...

I have a post up "How Many White Men Are Getting Married" that relates to this problem, which Razib NAILED.

I.E. the GSS data (which on the face of it supports my thesis of delayed marriage or non-marriage) is bunk.

You find, year after year after year, over and over again, very small observations. For example, year 1975, has only 7 and 10 observations for White Men ages 53 and 54 respectively. That's non-random selection. NO Ages I've found have had samples even approaching 30 observations. It's not good.
--------------------------
And there's a huge error in this testing of the racialist attitudes among Whites/non-Whites -- GENDER.

Bluntly put, everyone knows that the Affirmative Action Gravy Train is oriented towards: White Women, Blacks, Hispanics, and Gays. That is the political coalition that supports it, and the lack of high rates of marriage, and lasting marriage (which has been essentially redefined as a short term Free Agent Contract ala the NFL) means White Women no longer worry about husbands.

White Women will always be hostile to White Men, excepting the few sexually desirable Alphas, because White men are workplace competitors, generally viewed as more threatening than Gays, Blacks, Hispanics etc. and increased opportunities for White Women can only come, broadly speaking, by reducing that for White Men.

This is NOT: a Gramscian Long March through society, brainwashing, evil media people using mind-control rays.

This is: Demographic change, principally a shift to a female dominated workplace (women now with the layoffs make up the majority of workers for the first time) AND the erosion of marriage making women single or acting like it (if marriage is a short-term contract which lets face it given high divorce rates it is).

White Women have built-in incentives to be "anti-Straight White Guy" in terms of AA, and other policies. Even if they avoid living among non-Whites. This is seen consistently with the Gender Gap, and also as Steve Sailer points out, among the voting pattern for White Married vs. Single Women. Single Women voted 70-29 for Obama. Single Women also according to the Census Bureau make up the majority of Women for the first time of record keeping.

Audacious Epigone said...

UJ and Jokah,

The putatively race-blind perspective many major pundits maintain (like Bill O'Reilly, who is Colbert's primary inspiration) is a major reason punditry is so often uninsightful. But the Steveosphere is slowly injecting an hbd-realist perspective into the mainstream--Derbyshire puts it in NRO, Michelle Malkin on Fox, Mickey Kaus and even William Saletan on Slate, Pat Buchanan on MSNBC, etc. Instapundit occasionally excerpts Randall Parker, Marginal Revolution Steve Sailer, the New York Times Jason Malloy or Half Sigma, and so forth.

SC,

Right, but as 99% white towns increasingly become a relic of the past, that feeling of redundancy will lessen. Younger people are more likely to live in urban (and thus racially diverse) areas than older generations are. Consequently, race/ethnicity is more salient among the former than among the latter.

Silly Girl,

More people need to shoot down the NAM narrative in a way like Pat Buchanan does: The West didn't invent slavery, it ended the practice.

Billare,

Racial nationalism is not necessarily confined to national borders. Black nationalism in the US is a movement primarily of those with West African ancestry because that's who is in the US, but geographically its not more specific than that, as pan-African flag illustrates.

Those at the top of SWPL foodchains may not see the white middle or working class as groups they share any interests with, but they are a small portion of the total white population, and as SC points out, the 'risk' of downward mobility is real.

Re: the weakness of whites in letting in non-whites, I think many WNs would say Jewish leftists are a driving force.

Whiskey,

Just because the sample size at a specific age is small does not mean the entire sample is worthless. Virtually every scientific poll released by major polling organizations only includes a handful of guys aged 53. Say we have a poll on Obama's approval with 900 participants. From age 18-80, if half are men and assuming an equal distribution by age (which, I know, isn't exactly correct, because the trend is going to be downward after age 60 or so, but the point is still easily made), we're looking at 7 men per year--7 guys who are 18, 7 who are 19, 7 who are 20, etc.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Why do high-IQ Whites necessarily have the same "ethnic genetic interests" as other Whites? Even if the United States becomes some new Latin American polity, the elite tend to prosper under such systems as well.... - Billare

It depends on what you consider prosperity. I wish the elites considered prosperity to be safe neighborhoods, safe cities in which no one would want walled and gated living arrangements, etc. Unfortunately, Latin American and Californian elites seem to think prosperity is when other people in your city are much worse off than you.

What high-IQ whites in general consider prosperity, I don't know. My guess is that (otherwise) smart people support mass immigration, AA, etc., either as a way of getting Leftie Points or, in the former case, as a way of getting cheap labor. The only reason for affluent whites to constantly slur and lie about lower-middle class whites is to get Leftie Points - there is simply no other benefit.

Have they ever stopped to consider that perhaps the PC attitudes and less racialist thinking of their ethnic group, might not simply be a sign of a weak and malleable culture, but a genetic fault endemic to Whites? - Billare

Well, some of them have.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Derbyshire puts it in NRO, Michelle Malkin on Fox, Mickey Kaus and even William Saletan on Slate, Pat Buchanan on MSNBC, etc.

Malkin, Kaus and Buchanan never mention IQ or genetics. Their arguments are "Krikorian" style arguments against immigration. By Krikorian style I mean they make the case against immigration in terms of everything except genetics and neurology.

In their defence, I suspect many pundits know about the Bell Curve, but they won't speak up publicly about it for fear of being ejected from the NY-DC cocktail party circuit.

I don't expect them to do so until scientists like Steven Pinker, Geoffrey Miller, and Jonathan Haidt publicly cross the HBD Rubicon when the genetic data is in and they feel they can talk about race without risk of being ostracized by the Great and the Good.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

... Italian-Americans have substantial North-African admixture. Perhaps the observed social outcomes of those "mulattos" causes the famous Italian sensitivity to certain types of ethnic slurs. Will they also be excluded from the fruits of White Labor as well? N/A at Race History Notes makes it perfectly clear he wants some tight distinctions, eschewing Slavs and other dirty peoples in favor of his Nordics.

I can't speak for n/a, but some Nordicists just want to be separate from southern Euros, rather than despising them. It is part of the same idea that ethnic separatism is a good thing in an of itself.

Myself, I don't really care about ethnicity per se. Given only native-born Americans, I'd be dramatically more comfortable in a town consisting only of people descended from all the European countries my grandparents didn't originate in, than in a community which was 80% ethnically identical to me, 10% Black Muslims, and 10% La Raza. (With actual foreign-born people, I don't really know. I've never mixed much with recent immigrants, at least not in their communities.)

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

To answer your question, "How do you draw the relevant ethnic lines in creating this political revival?", my answer is: leave it to the states. A state can come up with any definitions it wants. At that point what how it treats the various groups it defines is an open question.

The ideal way for things to be done would be to clarify our notions of civil rights such that the right to live in an unmixed community is considered one. The way to rob people of a civil right is to redefine it as being something other than a civil right. I'm not saying that rights to live in unmixed communities should be considered absolute and paramount. Right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as free speech, free worship, freedom to emigrate, etc., are more important. I'm just saying that the right to live in mixed community is not absolute either.

Thus it should be up to states whether to choose a specific ethnic/racial future, and whether to allow their communities to do so. Maybe it is too much for every American to expect to have the option of moving to 49 other states. Maybe 29 or 39 is enough. A clarified picture of states' rights could (and should) allow states to control domestic immigration to them, while keeping their hands off the right to emigrate (and speak freely, and vote if a resident, etc.) Any state which adopted racialist settlement policies would become more popular with a small group and less popular with the rest.

And what is wrong with that? If you let a state restrict legal rights to buy property (not sell or own property - rights which should not be restricted) to whoever it wanted, it would drain like-minded people from other states. A very few states would want to keep out East Asians, Jews, southern Europeans, etc. Irrational? Yes, says me. So the unfortunate Jews wouldn't be able to move to Idaho, or something. (Just as Jews, and all other whites, and Asians, and whoever can't safely move to most neighborhoods in several cities. Let's not pretend that the status quo is hunky-dory.)

Many more states would want to keep out high-crime groups. Rational, says me. It is sad that this essentially means that law-abiding blacks and Chicanos are suffering for the crimes of their co-ethnics. That's still not as bad as everyone suffering for it. People who are seriously offended by non-multicultural states, or states that allow communities to be monoracial, can always go and live in the interracial states that will continue to form the bulk of the United States. The interracial states will be low-trust economies, but economies can survive with low-trust if they also have rich cities, natural resources, etc. The white and white-Asian states (northwest, upper midwest, etc.), will be more like Sweden, using high-trust social interactions, high educational standards, etc., to compensate for lower populations, being despised by the New York Times, not having oil, etc.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Ack ... typo in my second paragraph:
Right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
... should read "Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Audacious Epigone said...

UJ,

You're right. The point I meant to make is that all three of those high-profile commentators are familiar with Steve Sailer and other HBDers and give nods to them and the things they write. While most of the major media ignore or try to destroy guys like Steve, a small but growing segment of the major media accept him as legitimate. That is progress, on the intellectual front, anyway.

Public Enemy,

Shouldn't SWPLs and fair-minded moderates favor kicking the line-drawing to the states? That way the nasty, deplorable middle-class white and Asian racists will leave their states and go live together in darkness. Sounds like a win-win for everybody!

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Shouldn't SWPLs and fair-minded moderates favor kicking the line-drawing to the states? ... Sounds like a win-win for everybody! - Audacious Epigone

That would indeed by the logical solution under economic ideas of optimality. Furthermore, if the process were democratic, the states most likely to ban a group from in-migrating would be states with few members of that group - governments craft their policies to cause minimal upheaval. The most racially-mixed states are typically governed by multiracial alliances; I see no reason to think this would change. Democracy would never result in a racial map that looked like this. First off, two of the blackest states, Alabama and Mississippi, are part of the "Nordish nation". They should logically be part of a black or multiracial area. I have a bunch of other objections, but the only one I'll mention is that none of the states is non-racial.

A map like that would have to be imposed by force. Per a myriad of Supreme Court decisions, Federal statutes, EOs, etc., democratic separatism is illegal just like revolution, which seems pretty backwards.

The problem is, the leftist enforced-integrationists are unconscious of their very real power, while being all-too-conscious of their moral superiority. They're not inclined to compromise. I've often imagined a grand bargain to offer to the establishment - Would you guys abandon affirmative action and mass immigration if it meant fewer of the Klansmen and neo-Nazi which you imagine to be under every bed? In truth, the establishment is not scared of the KKK or the NSDAP or whoever, which is why they are so shrewd in using those threats.

If whiterpeople had an ounce of humility they'd note the peculiarly high opinion whites have of NAMs they don't mix with much. They'd also note that the tremendous guilt they feel when mixing with blacks is hardly healthy. I'm quite certain that someone with my viewpoint - support of partition and democracy, opposition to violence, hatred, Nordicism, and secession - simply doesn't exist to most whiterpeople.

Put another way, they are so much whiter than me I have simply become transparent.

Anonymous said...

Public Enemy no. 0:

I was playing around in MS Paint today indulging in a little armchair racial quarterbacking (As a Canadian, that will likely be as far as it goes. lol). Anyways, I was drawing up a plausible map of an independent Western Canada, and added the Pacific Northwest and some of the Rocky Mountains/ Great Plains states, as I have noticed that the geography and people are quite similar on either side of the 49th parallel.

After seeing the "Nordish States" map that you posted, I thought I'd try my hand at designing a better North American Union, so to my map you will see that I have added other coloured lines, based on cultural/demographic areas. It was a rush job, but you should be able to get the gist of it.

I think it would work pretty well. There are a few tricky parts (Pennsylvania, lower New England, multicultural cities in otherwise all white regions) that I couldn't figure out how to reconcile, but feel free to add your input.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1198/northamerican.jpg

-ASDF

Anonymous said...

Are you seriously claiming that it's better to be a high IQ white in Mexico than it is in the United States?

Why the hell not? Is it not quite fitting that Carlos Slim of the Feudal World recently overtook Bill Gates of the Dynamic One in wealth? Look at African countries. There is a professional civil service class, in the best run of them, that routinely expropriates the mineral wealth and perhaps, only after being forced out, runs off to a European country to better spend the loot. This behavior is only more enabled by globalization, since the serfs can be supported past the subsistence level. And why not act as those generals and plutocrats do? Their families, and perhaps some members of the extended family prosper, even at the cost of great suffering to their peoples. This is because individual genetic interests are actually paramount, not group ones. You are merely elevating group selection above its natural power.

White Nationalism was basically the default state of white Americans pre 1965, and it worked very well.

How do you even write something like this seriously? I suppose the Union fought for the elimination of slavery in the Civil War only as pretext and propaganda. Fine propaganda, designed to appeal to...whom, exactly? No, if there's one thing that leftists can document very well, it's that whites never felt complete rapport with their fellow co-ethnics at any point in America's history. There is some truth to the statement that "race" is a social construction, some, even though it has real biological relevance. It becomes one because we are good at observing the macro attributes of their fellow human beings.

That the Chinese are presently more nationalistic than white Americans is not surprising, and has nothing to do with genetics.

I think I am garbling the exact methods of the experiment, but there is one informative one comparing the attitudes of White, Black, and Asian babies and their responses when stressed. When the children were turned face down in an uncomfortable position, they measured the length it took for them to cry out. The results were the usual progression: Blacks first, Whites intermediate, Asians last, having made hardly any fuss at all. East Asians are more amenable to the top-down authority of government. I remember debating Taiwanese independence with a few of them in my acquaintance, and was struck at how hardly any of them accepted Wilsonian self-determination arguments.

- Billare

Anonymous said...

I don't think whites are genetically prone to excessively altruistic behavior compared to other races...whites and/or Europeans are behind both the kindest and cruelest events in almost every century

I dispute the first assertion in toto, and the psychological connection you are trying to draw in the second.

First the second one. I'd venture your characterization depends very much on the higher level technology of the weapons of war utilized by the West, from guns to gas chambers to Communist purges. Stalin did not murder millions of men by hand; he signed off on lists. Murder becomes academic when it is detached from the personal experience. On the other hand, I would not be surprised to find evidence of internecine warfare all throughout Africa in the prehistory period. We have some documentation that the Bantu replaced vast swaths indigenous peoples on their southern migration from the coastal cradle of West Africa.

From a comment of Peter Frost on his blog:

"Sub-Saharan societies tend to externalize their intermale mate competition, i.e., warfare with neighboring tribes provides young single men with a way to obtain sexual access to women. (The relationship between endemic warfare and polygynyis often recognized in the ethnographic literature).

I'm not sure what physical traits would be most useful in tribal warfare, but I don't think overall size would be the most important one."

I have articulated a theory of the tendency for greater altruism within whites in a previous post, more specifically attuned to the differential out-group affinities between the blacks & whites, which I also think translates to political positions they take in the United States. I will write a longer post soon fully explicating it more thoroughly. (By the way, I doubt I am the first to think of these things. But I suspect that some of the authors I'm reading couldn't even sell textbooks if they took their thinking all the way regarding racial issues). The main gist of it is - in a polygynous society, a strange man leading a group is more likely to kill you and rape your wives, rather than helping your group as he might in a harsher environment.

- Billare

Audacious Epigone said...

ASDF's map.

Audacious Epigone said...

Billare,

You mention your postings. Where might I find them?

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

ASDF, I'll take a closer look at your map later. At first glance, it looks like British Columbia is peeling away from Montana and Washington, a bad idea as this would let in too much seawater. Seriously though, your map is are better looking than mine.

Right now I'm trying a more serious attempt at looking at a separatist future. I have done a bit of quarterbacking myself, but this time I decided to make up some rules first, and then let the numbers decide.

First, in this model I have decided that no states are broken up. More people would experience good outcomes if certain states (CA and TX) are broken up, but my modelling is complicated enough with 51 units, rather a kazillion census areas.

Second, I have fast-forwarded to 2038. It's the year we hit 400 million, approximately. I used population multipliers of 1.42 for the total, 2.34 for Hispanics, 1.65 for Asians and blacks, and 1.16 for non-Hispanic whites (which I got by dividing per-thousand birthrates by 10). This assumes equal survival rates (unrealistic, but it is the future).

Third, I decided to take Audacious Epigone's GSS data on racial identification as gospel, only in this model, it translates 1:1 to both separatism and activism. Since as we've seen with affirmative action, laughably biased concepts of "hate crime", etc., overall populations don't matter as much as how much a group fights for its own interests. I assumed members of a group were equally racial no matter what state they're in (unrealistic, but it is the future).

Rules:

If two-thirds of a state's racial activists are from a given race, that state becomes a homeland for that race. In my conception of civil rights, this means members of other races can't buy property or sign housing leases there, but have all other rights. (I feel that Amerindians should be a homeland group everywhere, except maybe Hawaii.)

If blacks and Hispanics combined exceed 50% of racial activists, it is an affirmative action state. If not, it is a non-racial state.

I'll post the results after I've checked some numbers.

Anonymous said...

"1. Why do high-IQ Whites necessarily have the same "ethnic genetic interests" as other Whites?"

Because, while some of you high-IQ Whites may feel no loyalty to our White prole distant cousins, the incoming Mexican peasants, who will NOT view you as family, will HATE YOUR GUTS.

Mostly Amerindian Mestizoes respect and accept the Mexican light skinned elite because those elite were in power when the Mestizoes were born. A Being low - IQ they don't much think to question the social order they were born into.
Then, too, on an instinctive level, they recognize that their elites are, at least distantly, related. So Mexico continues to limp along, poverty- and corruption-ridden, as it is.

But when those dull-witted Mestizoes move, ah, THEN they notice who's their own and who's not. And you, most assuredly in their view, I anticipate you'll soon discover, are NOT.
And because they see YOU as other, regardless of your own high-falutin' tolerance and such-like, they WILL murder you.
Count on it.
And when that day comes, pray that one of those White hayseeds you've so disparaged, devalued and denigrated, takes pity on your sorry, prodigal carcass and hands you a rifle and shows you how to use it.

So if the White proles lose, you lose, as your new-and-improved, imported proles will kill you when their numbers are sufficient that they can revolution. They have promised to do so. Haven't you been listening to La Raza's rhetoric?

And THEN, when you're nicely divested of your holdings, and even your life, they will import their own old elites from back in Mexico.
Mexico is waging the next generation of warfare. Good Luck!

Anonymous White Jane

Anonymous said...

0..

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Okay, with the GSS numbers AE supplied (i.e. 10% white racialism, 43% La Razaism), and the assumptions above:

There are 20 multicultural AA states, with a combined population 20% black, 16% Hispanic, and 58% non-Hispanic white.
There are 15 non-racial states, 9% black, 8% Hispanic, 77% NH white.
Thus there are 35 states that aren't racial homelands.

There are 8 white homelands (Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia), 2% black, 3% Hispanic, 90% NH white*.

There are 3 black homelands (DC, Louisiana, and Mississippi), 43% black, 4% Hispanic, 50% NH white.

There are 4 La Raza homelands (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas), 8% black, 45% Hispanic, 35% NH white.

There is 1 Asian homeland (Hawaii, which presumably would also be a homeland for its indigenous people), 2% black, 11% Hispanic, 17% NW white, 43% Asian, 8% native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.

* This is probably the most important statistic in this projection. I am going to try to estimate the portion of these states' population in 2038 by other means, since my usage birthrate data is rather crude at present.

Anonymous said...

Whoops, that was weird.

Public Enemy No. 0, thanks for that link. That was extremely interesting, and one of the most intelligent WN discussions I've read yet.

Some thoughts:

Ian Jobling sounds like a sharp guy. Perhaps he should be the one in charge. But notice the hostility amongst that community to an utterly uncontroversial point outside of it. Some of them were even disputing racial admixture, anywhere.

I am curious about the "compensatory" value required by women for interracial dating. I've seen conflicting studies.

I don't like Rushton. He's sloppy, and I'm sure he has animus. It shouldn't matter to his scholarship, but it's evident.

I had no idea TUJ hung out these circles. Interesting.

The best quote I read:
When it comes to race differences, white nationalists take a strong innatist position: there are differences between the races, they’re innate, and we can’t do anything to change that. But when it comes to ethnocentrism, they lean towards social constructivism: indoctrination has the power to radically change our personalities, and our instincts can’t resist it. White nationalism is thus an odd amalgamation of contradictory theories of personality.

- Billare

Anonymous said...

Public Enemy No. 0,

One thing I dislike universally amongst all political philosophies is a lack of realism. I hate it in pie-in-the-sky druggie libertarians, I hate it in Health Care Utopian Progressives, I hate it in Focus-On-The-Family Evangelicals, I hate it in Revivalist White Nationalists. Conversely, I respect a realistic worldview in any partisan. Before you do all that dividing of peoples and casting them into their proper lots, can you draw me a plausible map on how you intend to get from the current state of elite-sanctioned denialism to the New Constitutional Convention?

Anonymous said...

Er,

- Billare.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Things change dramatically if white racialism increases. Assuming it rises to half that of the next least-racialist group (Asians), it will be at 18%. It is almost three decades away, so that kind of rise seems plausible. (My model is flexible enough to account for this increase, though I still haven't attempted to model racialism varying state to state; if I did it would surely be highest in most mixed states, probably resulting in a defeat for both AA and separatism, but that is a whole 'nother post.)

So, with white racialism at 18%, pan-Asianism at 36%, pan-Africanism at 39%, and La Razaism at 43%, in 2038 there would be:
18 affirmative action states
17 non-racial states,
14 white homelands (85% white by population)
1 black homeland (DC), and
1 La Raza homeland (New Mexico).

Somewhat surprising ... even given the regional concentrations of non-whites, and the higher birthrates of non-white groups, there are still only two non-white homelands. (Note that plenty of states have non-white majorities in 2038, but I'm positing that sooner or later, blacks and Hispanics will figure out they're not really allies.)

(Speaking of surprising, notice that these assumptions predict that the four most Hispanic states in the country are still less than 50% Hispanic even in 2038? That's what my numbers say, but now I'm doubting my birthrate data even more.)

Anyway, neither of the above scenarios is quite optimal. Ideally there should be three or four homelands for blacks and a similar number for Hispanic, with over a dozen for whites, leaving half the country non-racial. (That was the scenario I quarterbacked on my White America post on the subject a while ago.)

In sum, there are a LOT of assumptions in there. If some of the jump out as needing to be changed let me know.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Before you do all that dividing of peoples and casting them into their proper lots, can you draw me a plausible map on how you intend to get from the current state of elite-sanctioned denialism to the New Constitutional Convention?

Oh, that's easy. First -

... wait a minute, did you say "plausible"?

You are correct. I do have the cart before the horse. And I can't quite do a map. Instead, some thoughts:

A lot of the thoughtcrimes the modern race realists have been committing over the past couple decades are going to be proven correct in the next five years or so by genetic research. There will be few apologies, but who cares. If Nick Griffin can wash the egg off his suits, the Steve Sailers can forgive and forget.

As far as non-genetic stuff goes ... stuff regarding black culture, look for more violence in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Leftist social policies increase anger both among beneficiaries and whites. Sotomayor's appointment will not calm Hispanic anger one iota. Expect continuing bronze and black agitation; eventually it must register, and it can't blame everything on an all-white establishment any more. Whites must wake up eventually.

Anti-white newspapers are losing ground to the more balanced web. Eventually there must be a tipping point when realists outweigh white nationalists in the public's perception. If I could snap my fingers and reform all the Klansmen and neo-Nazis, or all their non-white counterparts, I'd reform the whites.

In terms of the actual Constitution ... if I'm not mistaken, if a convention is called by the states, Congress has nothing to do with the amending process. It would be up to the legislatures to determine their powers. When 38 states decide they want to determine their own futures, the deed is done. Twenty-nine years is a long time.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Okay, I looked at some projections that say in 2050, the country will be 15% black, 46% gringo, 9% Asian, and 30% Hispanic. So I fudged some population growth data so the country would be 14.5% black, 48% white, 7.6% Asian, and 26.5% Hispanic in 2038. (In my above posts, the country as 14.4% black, 57% white, 4.3% Asian, and 21% Hispanic in 2038.)

In this case, my 10% white racialism assumption gives
27 affirmative action states,
9 non-racial states,
7 white homelands,
3 black homelands,
4 La Raza homelands, and
1 Asian-Hawaiian homeland.
(I think I'll create a map of this one and put it on my blog in the next few days.)

18% white racialism gives
17 AA states,
20 non-racial states,
9 white homelands,
1 black homeland,
3 La Raza homelands, and
1 Asian-Hawaiian homeland.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Ian Jobling sounds like a sharp guy.

Jobling is pretty sharp and I suggested he come over to HBD where he could make more contributions than if he works by himself.

I had no idea TUJ hung out these circles. Interesting.

I only occasionally post over there.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

ASDF, I surmise that your goals in making that map were quite a bit different from mine. It's a nice-looking map but cultural regions will be different from racial ones ... "The South" includes overwhelmingly white West Virginia as well as Louisiana and Mississippi, which should be majority-black in 2060 or something.

You're right about western Canada. That region may feel disenfranchised by the Ontario-Quebec population duopoly, but it's still a much bigger proportion of population than the NW-thru-Minnesota region of the US. Western Canada launched its own successful party and transformed Canada's ruling party. They would certainly be natural partners for the states immediately to their south, with Vancouver joining Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland as the center-left bastions in a more conservative regions.

The facts are interesting - is that Italian-majority areas I see in Saskatchewan? Or Ukrainian-majority? They're struggling to find a word to use instead of "Amerindian" ... surely Inuits are "as North American" as Mohawks. And Quebec is Canadian-majority, while the only French-majority area is in Alberta. Reminds me of all the "American-majority" areas in the US; a lot of our perceptions of geographics/demographics depend on how people answer census questions.

Anonymous said...

Public Enemy No. 0,

I like the scientific method of your projections. I have a few variables that might throw a wrench into the plans though. Firstly, is there any way to account for the likely exodus of racially aware whites from the sand states/big cities? They could probably bump a number of normal states to white homeland status.

Secondly, I just can't see the deep south becoming a black homeland. I'm not good with data, but if I had to make a bet, it would be that of all the regions, whites in the south are the most militaristic, racially aware, and fertile. The minute the federal government no longer has the power to boss them around, you can bet that they'll tell the blacks in their states to F O.

As far as Canada goes, yes, Western Canada did have some political success a while ago, but the new Conservative party, rather than changing Ottawa, has been changed by it. That is the nature of federal politics. You have to play ball with Ontario and Quebec to get a majority in parliament. The Conservatives have drifted from a center-right party into the center, and are practically indistinguishable from the Liberals, though their base, to whom they pay lip service, is whiter and more conservative. It is quite like your Republican party. There is zero room for discussion of immigration in the Conservative tent.

Canada would function much better as a confederacy of those regions I outlined on the map than as a larger whole, but people are irrationally attached to the idea of Canada as a country, even as the administration destroys a valid Canadian ethnic identity by slowly replacing them as citizens with third worlders.

As far as the ethnic groups on the map go, the coloured areas are not _______ majority, but rather that whatever nationality listed was the most popular response in the census. Therefore, those regions in Saskatchewan have a lot of Ukrainians, but they are not a 50%+ majority. I do believe that the "French" respondents from Alberta are Metis, but I'm not sure. The Quebecois call themselves "Canadiens". They don't identify as French from France, and the French in France certainly don't think of them as that way.

As far as the Eskimos (I don't call them Inuit) go, that northern region is their own territory, so I guess they get to call themselves what they like. The differentiation between them and North American Indians is probably as much as North American Indians to Aztecs, so it can be significant.

-ASDF

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Firstly, is there any way to account for the likely exodus of racially aware whites from the sand states/big cities? They could probably bump a number of normal states to white homeland status.

Indeed it could. It would make sense to assume that, prior to racialist state laws being passed, there would be some drift in the same direction. I didn't make up any such numbers because:
(a) It would take time, and I've got other projects begging for attention, and
(b) because it would make the process I'm envisaging seem easier. I'm trying to be conservative in a sense - trying to err on the side of my case not being quite so good.

Secondly, I just can't see the deep south becoming a black homeland. I'm not good with data, but if I had to make a bet, it would be that of all the regions, whites in the south are the most militaristic, racially aware, and fertile. The minute the federal government no longer has the power to boss them around, you can bet that they'll tell the blacks in their states to F O.

This is a good point. The urban establishment of the South (Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans) is probably about as left as SF, NY, LA. The rest of the region is quite the reverse. Perhaps whites in the region will adopt an intransigent never-give-an-inch mentality, but they may also be attracted to a sort of bargain along the lines of 'We'll leave you two states if agree to quit settling in the rest." The whole process I'm thinking of depends on bargaining, as does democracy in general.

There is zero room for discussion of immigration in the Conservative tent.

That I did not know. A shame.

Canada would function much better as a confederacy of those regions I outlined on the map than as a larger whole, but people are irrationally attached to the idea of Canada as a country, even as the administration destroys a valid Canadian ethnic identity by slowly replacing them as citizens with third worlders.

Sounds familiar. Just as, when I read conservatives talking about Trudeau, it reminds me of US conservatives talking about Johnson. The problem is, the people who set up federations and confederations have very sensible ideas about division of labor ... and then the voters come along, miss all the nuances, and start demanding the wrong services from the wrong levels of government. Unscrupulous politicians are only too happy to oblige.

It's funny to watch state Attorney General races in the United States. Each AG candidate promises to fight crime - even though in most states, the AG has nothing to do with "crime". The AG is just the chief lawyer for the state, but the public doesn't know that, so they think his job is like the US Attorney General scaled down, or a District Attorney scaled up. The candidates don't care a fig, they just promise to fight crime. I blame declining educational standards.

As far as the ethnic groups on the map go, the coloured areas are not _______ majority, but rather that whatever nationality listed was the most popular response in the census.

Oh, I get it. If it were only overall majorities I'm sure most areas would be blank. (The US Census uses pluralities too, with tons of counties coming up plurality American.)

The differentiation between them and North American Indians is probably as much as North American Indians to Aztecs, so it can be significant.

Of course. It just amuses me the lengths to which people will go to avoid "Amerindian". Makes no sense - there's no other term that means precisely the same thing.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps whites in the region will adopt an intransigent never-give-an-inch mentality"

I can see segregation starting up again in the South pretty quickly as blacks start misbehaving as soon as their various benefits start to dry up. The plantation industry might see a revival as they have to resort to menial jobs.

"...but they may also be attracted to a sort of bargain along the lines of 'We'll leave you two states if agree to quit settling in the rest."

But which states will they give up? Every state will have a faction saying "my family has been here for centuries. Why don't you leave YOUR state and come over here?"

"That I did not know. A shame."

I have been subjected to some serious vitriol when I've broached the subject of immigration on various Canadian conservative websites. It is a combination of true believers and self-censorship (ie "we can't give the Liberals any ammunition). That's why I live vicariously through the US White Nationalist movement, such as it is. As it becomes accepted wisdom down here, it will eventually percolate up to Canada, where it might finally find an accepting audience as we will have non-white majorities in all our major cities.

-ASDF

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

But which states will they give up? Every state will have a faction saying "my family has been here for centuries. Why don't you leave YOUR state and come over here?" - ASDF

Absolutely. It is this kind of thing that may sink any unbroken-state partition plan. This is why people either lazier or much more diligent than myself tend to break states up in their projections. (The lazy ones don't do any math; the more diligent ones deal with thousands of counties.)

Most likely for the deep South, would be a gerrymandered black state made out of the lower Mississippi, New Orleans, and that strip of heavily black counties in Alabama. I'm feeling a mildly diligent mood coming on so maybe I'll put some #s together ... check out my blog in a day or so. (Also the promised map is on my blog in a post that is heavily derived from this thread.)

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

On second thought, a brand new gerrymandered-to-be-black state isn't as likely as states simply devolving some of these decisions on the counties and towns. If such a state were created, it would have a pretty odd shape. Here is a map indicating the complex human geography of the region.

Audacious Epigone said...

Public Enemy,

Great interactive site. Thanks for the link.

Anonymous said...

I am as racially blind as you are epigone. Even if there is blatant discrimination committed on me, I will just shrug them off unless I get beaten by baseball bats. The Bible is clear, racists are described in the Bible as "people with evil in their hearts". I leave them all to God. - aussiegardener.