Sunday, March 12, 2017

Is black failure due to discrimination?

On the politics of grievance, Ryan Faulk writes:
The real takeaway is that a culture of “racism” and “anti-racism” and “discrimination”, all of these things are things that you get when you have non-whites in your country. They are the politics of grievance. They don’t just exist in the United States, and they have nothing to do with historical events.

Those historical events that they hype up – those are just the things that they latch onto for the United States in particular. Slavery, segregation, and now the new era of “white privilege” and “institutional racism”. These exotic, unfalsifiable and roundabout ideas will increase proportionate with racial diversity.

It won’t stop, there are zero signs of it stopping or even decelerating. It is a function of having Non-Europeans in a European country.
The Cathedral isn't going to relent in pushing the Narrative, even as advances in genetic science require its high priests to wield Occam's Butterknife in ever more elaborate ways. Badwhites, however, are increasingly refusing to play along.

For three decades the GSS has asked respondents if they attribute blacks having "worse jobs, income and housing than white people" to discrimination. The following graph shows the percentages of whites and blacks who attribute black failure to discrimination over that period of time:


Parenthetically, it's reasonable to read "discrimination" as "irrational discrimination" in this context. Most people reading this will distinguish between the two, but the average guy on the street will not. He accepts "discrimination" as a bad word (Cletus excluded).

The average sample size per year for blacks is 184, so there's some noise present but the trend is actually an encouraging one. The survey did capture an apparent spike between 2012 and 2014. It'll be interesting to see what the 2016 data, which will be out soon, shows. Black Lives Matter doing work, baby!

There's no arguing that non-whites are going to latch onto the politics of grievance, though. We WEIRDOs get caught up in quixotic principles. Non-whites don't care about that. They're focused on advancing their own interests. WEIRDOs see something and evaluate it on the basis of Good vs Evil. Non-whites see something and evaluate it on a basis of Good for Us vs Bad for Us.

Since 2000, the survey has branched out beyond the white-black-other trichotomy for race to include Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. The percentages since the turn of the century who, by race, attribute black failure to discrimination:


GSS variables used: RACDIF1, RACE(1,2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10)(15-16), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), AGE(18-39)(40-64)(65-89)

11 comments:

Feryl said...

O'er at Agnostic (and even on Boomer blogs like Sailer's), the topic of the 90's Afro invasion has come up from time to time. Vanilla Ice became a genuine celebrity for being much blacker than nearly any other white person alive in 1990, but quickly became a laughingstock when whites decided to go for the real thing and REALLY black culture became popular seemingly overnight circa early 1992. The biggest rap act of the 80's, the Beastie Boys, did a goofy and non-threatening version of rap (in the 80's, the real bad boys did metal). But in the early 90's, suddenly it was acceptable for thuggish (or at least shamefully misogynistic ) black rappers to invade the stereos and TVs of countless white kids. By the mid 90's, a lot of white kids were trying to be black.

The 90's also had a spate of mainstream/higher budget Black (that's capital B) movies, as well as mixed cast movies with racially charged storylines (in which invariably it's the conservative/"racist" whites who are the main villains).

The reason I bring this pop culture up is that the mania for all things black in the 90's made it much harder to sustain the notion that blacks were second class citizens. If anything, fags and trannys became in our eyes the real victims by the late 90's. Gen X-ers seem to be viscerally stung by confessing to shameful homophobia in the 80's and 90's, whereas few X-ers will admit to iron-clad racism since, well, they remember how many white kids tried to be black in the 90's. X-ers certainly didn't resist the racial PC that Boomers imposed on them.

It is kinda funny how X-ers sorta failed to integrate, because, well, instead of trying to combine white and black culture, they instead insisted on wholesale adoption of another culture. 90's rock was less funky than Boomer classic rock of the 70's and 80's, while Gen X black (or Gen X wigger) music became hostile to melody. Eminem's idea of sounding black is basically trying to drive an ice pick into your ear; it has none of the warmly earthy qualities that real black music is capable of producing.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I recall that for some period of time there was at least an informal distinction between rap and gangsta rap, the former being the pre-92 stuff and the latter increasingly everything that came after '92. Groups like Outkast hearkened back to rap that wasn't completely devoid of harmony and melody in the 2000s but they were exceptions.

Anonymous said...

I just don't understand articles like this, which talks about black people as if they aren't American. 1) blacks are individuals. No matter how much you're too lazy to think about it, you kinda have to factor that in and don't just talk about "the blacks" as if they're some sort of monolithic bloc on everything. Not all black people are the same. That's number 1. 2) blacks (and other non whites) have made huge contributions to the country throughout history, and deserve a seat at the table. Period. It doesn't matter if you like it or not.

All the other crap is just BS. Consider this in all of your psycho analyzing and you might just fix the problem (within yourself).

Audacious Epigone said...

Not all black people are the same.

Brilliant insight, thank you!

Feryl said...

http://time.com/4700311/donald-trump-white-house-counsel-steve-bannon/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true

Bannon mentions the EEOC when complaining about bureaucratic excess. We've come a long way. Depowering the third rail.

One thing to keep in mind is that many of these agencies may have once been necessary and effective, but eventually they become seduced by delusions of their importance. They also must justify their existence with utopian blather, exaggerating problems or outright making things up.

http://flustercucked.blogspot.com/2010/07/40-years-of-lawyer-overproduction-data.html

It's stunning, the growth in lawyers beginning in the mid 60's. The idea that this was an effect of (as opposed to the cause of) deindustralization is absurd because that didn't really take off until the very late 70's at the earliest. Reality is that feminism, government bloat, PC/Left activism, HR, and the rise of cynically stupid lawsuits created a greater demand for lawyers. Also, a generation of mild strivers (Silents) and mega strivers (Boomers) desperately wanted to be modern elites, turning their backs on the farms and factories that previous generations of Americans proudly worked on/in.

The apologists for the modern/feminized/corrupt "economy" (more like racket) are nauseating. First were told that working with your hands is dirty and sinful, so lets push it off onto other countries. Oh, and we're too lazy or demanding to do that kind of work anyway. Then we're told that mechanization and new gee whiz technology is making people obsolete. Whatever excuse they wanna use to continue to let the vultures pick our bones clean.

Note that when America was mostly white, middle class and even some prole people were so disgusted by the "Great Society" (in which crime, violence, and terrorism exploded while LBJ failed to resolve Vietnam) that they promptly evicted Dems from the White House in the 70's and 80's. The only exception was Carter and the Dems getting a shot (with the caveat that he won just 23 states) just after Nixon went down in flames, quickly leading to buyer's remorse as even the Dems contemplated pulling Carter from the 1980 race. Nixon's oily paranoia and downfall make it easy to overlook the fact that Americans, in the absence of Watergate, would've kept the Dems out for 2+ decades. Hell, GW Bush may have even won again had it not been for Perot.

BTW, Dems think the '16 election is outrageous? In which Trump won the EC+30 states+splitting Maine? Carter won the whole she-bang with just 23 states+DC. Had he not been a Southerner, he would've flopped in the South and the Dems would've been frozen out of the White house for two entire decades.

The Pop. vote emphasis is a red herring, especially in 2016. America's diversity (don't libs love that?) means that heavily populated states that have nothing in common with vast regions elsewhere should not be able to impose their mores on everyone else.

Feryl said...

Excuse me, dense metro areas that have nothing in common with the hinterlands. BTW, unfairness wise, why do Minneapolis, Chicago, and NYC get to disenfranchise rural and smaller city voters in MN, Illinois, and NY?

Feryl said...

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/03/selfie-white-joggers-african-american-neighborhood-sets-off-debate-quest-understanding/ (from the LA times).

I'm kinda amazed they even ran this story, since it involves an idealistic black guy (who's attacked as a race traitor) sticking up for benign white neighbors with no phony attempts by the reporter to smear the character of the whites involved. Underneath the obligatory "gentrification" lament, it's obvious to anyone with a clue that ethnic groups claim territory and don't like it when others tread on their turf. Maybe, just maybe, in some corners of our society, we're seeing 70's and especially 80's/90's born people matter of factly recognize that not only has our attempt to integrate been a net negative, but it's also been proven over the last 50 years that ethnocentric behavior just is, whether anyone likes it or not. People still prefer their own kind, no different than what they felt a thousand years ago.

In the Chuck Murray dust-up, middle aged conservatives are vigorously attacking the notion that Murray is a "bigot". What they should be focusing on is that HBD awareness is natural and not deserving of violent suppression. And Murray himself, being an elite 40's birth anxious to stay in the cool kid's club, has since the Bell Curve's release drawn attention to lower class whites and married outside of his race. It's as if tasting the forbidden fruit of HBD awareness is a sin that he's sought absolution of.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Whether or not any "smoking guns" are found, Trump regularly drawing attention to voter fraud keeps any change away from the electoral college exceedingly unlikely. The sort of fake vote mills that would be created in the depths of Marin county in a national popular vote boggle the mind.

As for Murray et al, Z-Man's take on it is great. Murray is in his seventies. He's done intellectual yeoman's work and he's a decent sort, middle American as academics come. Instead of throwing his hands up and swearing he's not an evil badthinker, why not take an nuance-free, crystal-clear stand defending free speech and mocking the affirmative-action rabble that attacked him?

I think he married a Vietnamese woman first, got divorced, and then married a whitbread lady who he is still married to now, so there's that.

Feryl said...

Well-educated (e.g., powerful) Americans favored the GOP in the mid century-1990's. Certainly, urban/coastal Dem bastions that date to the Ellis Island days have tried to steer the General election to the Dems, with apparent success in JFK's case. We all know what non-Germanic ethnic whites in the NE and Chicago are capable of. Be that as it may, large scale fraud used to be deterred by the number of wealthy and influential GOP'ers.

What's alarming is that post 2000, there's been a huge surge of Leftism among among elites and a flood of invaders to boot. Social status is now derived from pushing yourself far above the interests and values of prole whites. Push 'em down, elevate yourself.

Seems to me that most prole whites were welcoming or indifferent towards immigrants before 9/11 and before the financial calamity of the last 10 years. So ostensibly conservative elites, before the 2000's, could have a lax attitude towards immigration that blended fairly well with proles. So long as conservatism was primarily based on muh capital gains tax and muh unions and regulations destroyed America, elites were comfortable with the GOP.

Now that proles have correctly identified our main problem (immigration) and are now busy showing the more pro-invader party the door (the Dems), most elites are spitefully defecting to the Dems if they hadn't done so already in the Bush/Obama era. What's utterly surreal is how educated Americans in the Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush 1/Clinton era resented government largess and nanny-statism. But now that Trump is making it harder to hire cheap illegals while proles embrace a return to opportunity and cultural stability, elites have succumbed to amnesia regarding how effing terrible (most) Dem policies have always been for the wealthy. And post 1963, Dem policies have an abysmal track record at keeping the peace, which you'd think the comfortable class would be more concerned about. As they were in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

A state like California, where half the population favors making the entire state a "sanctuary state" and entire metropolises are SWPL and/or NAM controlled, where all the levers of power on in the Democrat party's hands, there's no way election fraud would ever be prosecuted. It would have to be done by the FEC and obfuscation from the state government would be relentless.

Anonymous said...

We're asked to believe that blacks are just as capable as whites in building and maintaining an advanced civilization but instead of going off on their own and doing so they would rather, for some mysterious reason, live among whites, suffer "racism", and take the financial hit. Ludicrous. Everybody's living off of whitey, they're all sponges, and that's why whitey and whitey alone can't be allowed to have group interests. The Jews, Asians, and Hispanics who attribute black failure to discrimination are working their own sponge game, they don't actually believe it. (I mean, how could they?)

Anti-racism has become a racist code for anti-white. Modern anti-racism is a type of racist colonialism designed to keep whitey's wallet (and his daughter's legs) open. An artificial excuse to stay close to a group so you can exploit them. There's no great moral principles involved, it's simply robbery. The left and all these groups routinely violate the so-called principles of anti-racism when it benefits them, or simply when it hurts whites. "Good for the Jews/Hispanics/Asians/the Left" isn't their actual operating model "what's bad for whites" is, and all these groups would gladly self-immolate as long as they can use whitey as the starting torch. Thus Jews and leftists support the mass migration of Muslims into the West. If only white conservatives would stop propping up this robbery and genocide. . .