Racial discrimination against whites in South Africa

Posted by C.A.R.D in African, Against, Anti-White, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discrimination, Genocide, Racism, Racist, South Africa, Whites, jobs.
trackback

After years of black Africans fighting racism in South Africa, now white students there are claiming that the government is discriminating against them. And now, they’ve decided to protest in an unusual way.

Students in Pretoria blacken their faces to protest what they see as the lower status of whites in modern South Africa. The group of eleven then registered as Africans with the South African department of labour said that it gives them a better chance of gaining employment.

Ernst Roets, student leader, said: “People are being driven to the point where they say well, we have no option left. We can’t get a job in South Africa. We are being discriminated against. We have to leave the country and see whether we can make a living for ourselves somewhere outside.”

The students have appealed to everyone born in the South Africa to register for employment as African, rather than other options viz. white, coloured or Indian.

Roets further added:”Being an African just gives you so much more privileges, and it has come to a point where if you are not an African, then you are treated as a second class citizen.”

South Africa experienced 46 years of white rule during the apartheid era. The country’s first multi-racial elections took place in 1994.

Genocide in South Africa

A genocide is taking place in South Africa. It is no less a silent genocide, one in which the world’s mainstream media will not even mention. We are currently in communication with some informants from South Africa and will post this information detailing the deadly situation and what you can do to help. Please check back soon to see these new developments.

The Realist Vision

By Ian Jobling • 2/13/07

Buy The Blank Slate from Amazon.com.

Previous articles on The Inverted World have established that the age we live in suffers from two fundamental illusions: race denial and the “whites as cancer” myth. In this article, we will begin to investigate the reasons for these illusions. Why does the West refuse to accept the evidence for the reality of racial differences? And why does it regard the white race as the cause of the world’s evil, when in fact it is the race of compassion and accomplishment?

To get a grasp on these questions, we must first recognize that race denial does not exist in isolation. Our age’s hostility to the idea of innate racial differences is part of its broader hostility to the very idea of innateness. The Lawrence Summers case made clear that American cultural elites are almost as horrified by the idea of innate sex differences as innate race differences. MIT psychologist Steven Pinker’s 2002 book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature makes clear the strength of the taboo against the very idea of a human nature.

Since the 1960s, practioners of the sub-discipline of the human sciences known originally as “sociobiology” and later as “evolutionary psychology,” such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, David Buss, and Steven Pinker himself, have been arguing for the existence of an innate human nature. Evolutionary psychology is a complex and wide-ranging field that will be covered in detail in future articles. In rough summary, however, evolutionary psychologists believe that human nature evolved to enable individuals to produce as many offspring as possible in the pre-state environments in which humans have spent the majority of their history. Evolutionary psychology is substantially consistent with a common-sensical, tradititional view of human nature. Its proponents believe that the sexes are naturally different: men are more prone than women to all forms of competitive behavior, whereas women are more interested in child-rearing. Men also evolved to seek out more sexual partners than women since promiscuity enables the former, but not the latter, to produce more children¹. Evolutionary psychologists argue that warfare and other forms of violence are innate human behaviors that become activated under the right conditions; the fact that violence is rife in primitive societies puts this claim on strong ground².

Above all, in this view, man is an egoistic creature. Although they do account for man’s genuine altruism, evolutionary psychologists believe man’s instincts evolved to assure the individual’s own survival and those of his offspring first and foremost. This fundamental necessity inevitably leads to competition among men.

Although evolutionary psychologists focus on human universals rather than on racial differences, the mainstream academy and society at large have heaped on them the same kind of abuse that race realist scholars have suffered, as Pinker makes clear in a chapter aptly called “Fear and Loathing.” His compilation of insults against sociobiologists include the familiar accusations of Nazism, flagrant misrepresentations, and low blows³.

Pinker traces the roots of the hostility to the idea of innateness to the Enlightenment. One of the key ideas that emerged in this period was the Blank Slate theory of mind: generally attributed to the 17th century philosopher John Locke, this view posits that humans are born without any innate ideas or behaviors. Rather, it is experience alone that forms their character. As Locke said:

Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? … Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.

Locke’s theory of the Blank Slate is one of the cornerstones of modernity and is essential to his political philosophy, which is the origin of the liberal democracies that govern the West today. People who come into the world as Blank Slates are not subject to an order decreed by God that requires they obey kings. Nor is there any essential difference between aristocrats and commoners: all come into the world equally blank and unformed. The Blank Slate leaves people free to choose their own governance based on the lessons of experience.

If freedom was one promise of the Blank Slate, perfectibility was another. For if we are all born Blank Slates, everything that we dislike about our nature can be corrected. All the disruptive forces of life—greed, lust for power, violence—, none of these are intrinsic to our nature. Rather, they are taught to us by experience.

Consequently, the Enlightenment also gave rise to the idea that it was modern societies that inculcated egoism, competition, and violence into a nature that had originally been free of them. Originally, man had been a “Noble Savage” who lived peacefully and happily in a state of nature. The figure with whom the ideas of the Noble Savage and the state of nature are most identified is Rousseau, who wrote that “man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau postulated a time before the birth of modern society when men lived in harmony.

The example of savages, most of whom have been found in this state, seems to prove that men were meant to remain in it, that it is the real youth of the world, and that all subsequent advances have been apparently so many steps towards the perfection of the individual, but in reality towards the decrepitude of the species.

For Pinker, the theory of the Blank Slate and the Noble Savage is at the root of the modern age. It is fundamental to Marxism, for example. For Marx, there was no innate human nature; rather, it was society that instilled a nature in human beings. As he wrote, “All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.”⁴ The modern humanities and most of the social sciences are heavily influenced by Marx and preach the same social determinism. The founders of anthropology believed in the Blank Slate. Ashley Montagu said:

Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned, acquired, from his culture, from the man-made part of the environment, from other human beings.⁵

Margaret Mead said: “Human nature is the rawest, most undifferentiated of raw material.”⁶

Today’s pop psychology, which blames our unattractive behaviors on childhood trauma, is another product of the Blank Slate/Noble Savage worldview.

Pinker gives so many juicy examples of the absurdities to which the Blank Slate/Noble Savage worldview drives people that I must quote several. Hillary Clinton attributed her husband’s infidelities to childhood trauma:

He was so young, barely 4, when he was scarred by abuse that he can’t even take it out and look at it. There was terrible conflict between his mother and grandmother. A psychologist once told me that for a boy being in the middle of two women is the worst possible situation. There is always the desire to please each one.⁷

When Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, journalist Alfie Kohn blamed American culture: “We have a cultural addiction to competition in this country. We’re taught in classrooms and playing fields that other people are obstacles to our success.”⁸

The headline of a 1998 Boston Globe article breathlessly announced, “Girls Appear to Be Closing Aggression Gap with Boys.” The body of the article revealed, however, that the gap was not going to go away soon: girls committed murder at one-tenth the rate of boys.⁹

Another Boston Globe article could almost have been penned by Rousseau:

I would submit that the world native Americans knew was more stable, happier, and less barbaric than our society today… . there were no employment problems, community harmony was strong, substance abuse unknown, crime nearly non-existent. What warfare there was between tribes was largely ritualistic and seldom resulted in indiscriminate or wholesale slaughter. While there were hard times, life was, for the most part stable and predictable. ¹⁰

And so forth. The writer of this article would be surprised to learn that Chippewa Indians in the early 19th century were more than five times more likely to die from inter-tribal warfare than 20th-century Germans and Russians from the World Wars.¹¹

Its promise of freedom and perfectibility makes the Blank Slate/Noble Savage worldview highly attractive. Pinker aptly entitles it the “Utopian Vision,”¹² as its holders believe that by transforming social institutions, we can achieve heaven on earth. In suggesting human freedom and perfectibility are limited, evolutionary psychology and race realism strike at the core of the Utopian Vision. If our personalities and abilities are largely decided by our genetic makeup before we are even born, we have little ability to choose who we are. Furthermore, if violence and selfishness are innate human tendencies, changing social institutions will not get rid of them. Nor will social engineering turn us all into intelligent and high-minded model citizens; nor will it make the races equal in abilities and behavior.

Pinker calls innatist views of human nature the “Tragic Vision,” but this name is excessively gloomy and negative. A better name is the “Realist Vision.” Partisans of the Realist Vision do not wish to spread woe and sorrow among their fellow men; rather, they aim to bring society into its maturity. Just as recognizing his limitations is an essential part of the individual’s transition from adolescence to adulthood, so a society as a whole has not achieved maturity until it recognizes the limitations on its ability to shape human nature.

America Awakes

By Sam Raymond and Ian Jobling • 6/22/07

This finally got the message across.

Recent weeks have been a heartening time for race realists. For decades, we have watched white Americans sleepwalking into the horror of racial dispossession. Mass non-white immigration seemed an unchangeable fact of American life and the reign of diversity as our central cultural value seemed impregnable. However, the rejection of the immigration bill supported by President Bush has been so galvanic that it marks a basic cultural shift. Whether or not the bill passes—and it is looking increasingly unlikely that it will—, we have seen the emergence of a new immigration restrictionist consensus both among American whites and the mainstream conservative commentators who speak for them. While couched in racially neutral terms, moreover, the new restrictionist consensus is clearly rooted in an incipient race realism.

Commentators still commonly oppose amnesty on the grounds that it rewards law-breakers and is unfair to legal immigrants who wait their turn. However, it is plain that the reaction against the Bush immigration bill involves much more than indignation at the unfair treatment of Bangladeshis patiently waiting to become Americans. Rather, the focus on illegal immigration has made Americans aware of the problems created by non-white immigration in general, whether legal or not. Americans have come to recognize that Hispanics and other immigrant populations bring the plagues of gang crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, and other underclass phenomena. Furthermore, the intense anti-American nationalism of Hispanics has forced whites to confront basic issues of racial power. Finally, the American majority has seen that mass immigration is promoted by the business community to keep labor cheap, and thus works against the majority’s own interests. The result of all these recognitions is a white population that is up in arms.

Majority resentment is so powerful that intellectuals have begun to respond. The conservative commentariat has deserted Bush en masse on the issue of amnesty. Beyond this, establishment columnists have started promulgating ideas that would have been considered hair-raisingly radical even five years ago: Peggy Noonan, the consummate voice of the conservative mainstream, has proposed an immigration moratorium; Ann Coulter has written of the threat of a future non-white overclass. It is plain then that a sea-change is occurring in American consciousness.

White Americans and Immigration

Whites are without anything that can be called a “viewpoint.” While all other racial groups are allowed, and even encouraged, to have their own racial viewpoint on issues that impact them as a group, whites, by contrast, remain racially unconscious by and large, and often stubbornly so. A combination of genetic traits (which leads whites towards greater abstract and universalist thinking) coupled with the prevailing anti-white leftist cultural dynamic encourages whites to remain racially unconscious. Most whites assume a kind of generous reciprocity among all groups, which is not in fact evenly shared. The Chinese and Japanese, both very intelligent groups, nevertheless have a strong sense of ethnocentrism. General Douglas MacArthur was able to impose many changes on the post-World War II Japanese, but a widespread sense of racial guilt for their wartime atrocities was not among them. Indeed, the Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians and other groups are often exasperated at Japanese refusals to own up to their racial crimes.

By contrast, it is much easier to inculcate guilt in whites. Indeed, as the Realist has argued, the average white has been convinced that his people’s history consists of one racial crime after another.

This too.

Despite their lack of racial consciousness, immigration nevertheless is an issue that rankles the majority of whites for reasons they are still, as yet, unable to articulate. It is one of those “gateway” issues (like the proverbial “gateway drugs”) that can lead them on to harder positions and a more developed racial consciousness. This is no doubt why our political elite class has tried, and is now failing, to keep whites ignorant of the demographic transformation of America and the cultural transformation that is its inevitable result.

Immigration is not, of course, the only racially charged issue in American political life. The clear racial antagonism underlying the debates over affirmative action, multiculturalism, and bilingualism can also stir up white indignation. However, these other issues have failed to lead to white racial consciousness because the conservative establishment has obfuscated their nature. Conservatives have defused racial conflict around these issues by treating racial conflict itself as a noxious atavism. The problem, in the establishment’s view, is not that whites refuse to fight and win racial conflicts; rather, it is that minority groups persist in seeking their own interests. By insisting on racial preferences and multiculturalism, the argument goes, minorities prevent America from achieving the egalitarian, color-blind Utopia that is the natural state of man.

The immigration debate, however, unavoidably raises questions of racial power. This fact explains why our political elite class has historically assiduously ignored the obvious demographic transformation of America. The media, the educational establishment, Big Religion, politicians, bureaucrats, and the not-for-profit foundations go to great lengths to keep white Americans from pondering their demographic future, or indeed, their everyday safety at the hands of nonwhites.

An early voice for our side.

Up until 2001, the strategy worked. Even though illegal immigration was occurring at unprecedented levels in 2000, there was little conservative anger at George Bush’s plans for amnesty during his first presidential campaign. Immigration took a back seat to Social Security reform, tax cuts, and education in that election, and Pat Buchanan failed to garner even 500,000 votes.

The key event in the shift in white consciousness was 9/11. The World Trade Center attacks confronted whites with the hostility of non-white populations in their midst. The coverage of radical Islam that resulted from the attacks deepened the sense of threat, as did investigations into the scandalous failure of immigration authorities to keep dangerous people out of the country.

The Minuteman Project, despite its present-day internal turmoil and avowed racially neutral approach, nevertheless also helped to raise awareness of our broken borders. That it took ordinary citizens with lawn chairs, binoculars and walky-talkies to “do the job our own government won’t” was a vivid illustration of the failure to enforce the law. The fact that the Minutemen were attacked and vilified by President Bush only brought greater attention to their cause.

Likewise, the huge rallies last summer of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in cities across the country forced whites into awareness of how rapidly America was changing. The rallies, to a large extent, backfired on their organizers. The sea of Mexican flags at the rallies, and the desecration of the American flag at the hands of some protesters, left a lasting impression on white America. “Diversity” was not the peaceful mutual enrichment of the races that it had been billed to be. Rather, diversity seemed to be leading to a struggle for racial dominance, and the American government did not seem to be fighting on the right side. The fact that hundreds of thousands of illegals could flood our streets while the law did nothing outraged many white Americans who were previously unmotivated on the issue, with talk radio as a barometer.

The American awakening was aided by a new breed of conservative commentators who made immigration their central focus. Michelle Malkin’s detailed investigations of the ineptitude of immigration law enforcement and Hispanic nationalism were crucial, as were Heather MacDonald’s reports on immigrant crime and social dysfunction. Lou Dobbs cast illegal immigration as part of the “War on the Middle Class” waged by business seeking cheap labor.

Today, the issue of immigration is the overriding concern of conservatives. Compare the beginnings of the 2008 presidential campaign with that of 2000. John McCain’s long advocacy of amnesty has already damaged his campaign, probably beyond repair. Mitt Romney’s outspoken rejection of the immigration bill has, by contrast, bolstered his campaign. Rudy Giuliani, though pro-amnesty in the past, has denounced the current bill. These politicians are responding to the increasingly well-organized mass of American whites who are willing to telephone congressmen, complain on talk show programs, and post messages on website forums by the millions urging that the tide of non-white immigration be stopped.

Doing the job his government wouldn’t.

Poll numbers reveal that restrictionist sentiments are not confined to a radical minority, but are broadly shared. It is well known that a large majority of Americans oppose the current bill. A Rasmussen poll found only 26 percent of Americans supported the bill, while 48 percent opposed it. Moreover, the poll made it clear that all of the attention devoted to illegal immigration has led to a reaction against legal immigration as well. Steve Sailer, working with the polling data collected by Rasmussen, found that 73 percent of whites, 81 percent of blacks, and 57 percent of other races rated immigration reduction as “very important.” When asked whether legalizing the status of illegal aliens is very important, only 27 percent of whites agreed, along with 28 percent of blacks and 47 percent of others.

A detailed poll on attitudes towards immigration conducted by Phyllis Schlafly’s conservative Eagle Forum found that 70 percent of whites thought too many legal immigrants were allowed into the country each year, along with 84 percent of blacks, and 61 percent of other races.

It is significant that blacks are even more likely to be opposed to high levels of immigration than whites. This attitude clearly stems not from any great love for white America, but because blacks are the native racial group that is most directly in competition with immigrants.

While most poll questions show whites’ views on immigration are in line with those of other Americans, there is some evidence of white radicalism on the issue of deportation. No less than 42 percent of whites in the Eagle Forum poll said they strongly supported deporting America’s 12 million illegal aliens, and 25 percent somewhat supported it. A majority of black and other race voters felt the same way, although the numbers were lower, with 57 percent and 58 percent respectively supporting deportation. That so many people, and especially white Americans, would tell a pollster they support deportation is very significant in this politically correct age when saying the wrong thing can cost someone his job. Sentiment in favor of mass deportation may be even higher than the poll numbers indicate; after all, four percent of whites answered “not sure” on this question.

The poll also found that Protestants were tougher on immigration issues than Catholics, Evangelicals, and those of other affiliations. Married people and those with children were more likely to support deportation and immigration reduction than the single and childless. As far as income level goes, the only consistent difference was that the wealthy were more sympathetic to immigration than the poor and the middle class. For example, 66 percent of those earning less than $100,000 per year supported deportation, but only 51 percent of those earning more did. This split is consistent with the thesis of “The Ideology of the Professionals,” the last column on The Inverted World, which argued that anti-ethnocentric bias was the basis of the identity of America’s wealthy, professional class.

Although polling shows sizeable majorities of white Americans want less immigration (and even sizeable majorities of nonwhites), politicians will only respond to problems that generate voter intensity. While the average white wants less immigration, he also wants less government, less regulation, and less taxation. Generally, however, whites do not feel passionate about any of these issues. However, both polls reveal that immigration does evoke intense feelings. In cases where the polls gauged intensity of sentiment, respondents were more likely to express strong than moderate support of immigration restriction.

Conservatives and Immigration

As whites have become more aware of the threat of racial conflict and the growing non-white underclass, they have dragged their so-called “leaders” in the conservative movement towards a harder line. Before 9/11, immigration restrictionism was not a central conservative issue. Some of the giants of the conservative movement, such as Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Russell Kirk, and so forth, showed little awareness the issue was brewing during their days. Outlets like the Rush Limbaugh Show, Human Events, the Heritage Foundation, and the Fox News Channel, went on year in and year out without ever talking about the increasingly obvious demographic transformation of America. Perhaps they avoided the issue in an attempt not to antagonize donors in the business community. Only a few conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage made immigration a central concern in the 1980s and 90s, and were ostracized by the Republican establishment for doing so.

After 9/11, the new breed of mainstream conservative immigration critics like Malkin, Mac Donald, and Dobbs arose, and their message has proved so powerful and popular that their viewpoint has now become dominant among the conservative commentariat.

Peggy Noonan surprised us.

Indeed, the debate surrounding the last two attempts to pass an amnesty bill saw the emergence a new restrictionist consensus among conservative commentators. Many who used to support Bush down the line have broken bitterly with him. A good example is Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech-writer whose column appears the Wall Street Journal, hardly an organ of populist radicalism. Noonan was one of the most ardent of Bush-boosters during his first term. In 2003, she dubbed him “President Backbone” and spoke of him in terms reserved for great presidents: “George W. Bush is an American of the big and real America. He believes in it all—in the vision of the founders, in the meaning of freedom, in the founding and enduring ideas of our country… . America appears to have a President worthy of its people.” Although Noonan never seems to have praised amnesty in her columns, she never criticized Bush’s immigration policy during his 2000 campaign and first term, and was generally favorable to Hispanic outreach.

In the succeeding years, Noonan’s attitude toward Bush progressed from euphoria, to sympathetic criticism, to active disappointment, and finally to resolute enmity. There were many causes of the progression—doubts about the conduct of the Iraq War, and disapproval of Harriet Miers and excessive federal spending—but clearly, the overriding one was amnesty. Noonan began criticizing the President on amnesty in 2005 and has devoted three of her last four columns to the issue. Her savage rejection of Bush is evident in passages like the following:

Naturally I hope the new immigration bill fails. It is less a bill than a big dirty ball of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity, with a touch of class malice, and it’s being pushed by a White House that is at once cynical and inept. The bill’s Capitol Hill supporters have a great vain popinjay’s pride in their own higher compassion. They are inclusive and you’re not, you cur, you gun-totin’ truckdriver’s-hat-wearin’ yahoo. It’s all so complex, and you’d understand this if you weren’t sort of dumb.

Although Noonan’s anger is particularly intense, the same sentiment about Bush is evident in many other writers who used to ardently defend him, including Laura Ingraham, Cal Thomas, and Mark Steyn.

Noonan’s writing reveals another interesting aspect of the progression of conservative opinion on immigration: the pundits are not merely rejecting amnesty, but have started opposing the very principle of mass immigration. Although Noonan pays deference to the nation of immigrants rhetoric that has always been fundamental to her beliefs, she comes out in favor of an immigration moratorium:

We should close the border, pause, absorb what we have, and set ourselves to “patriating” the newcomers who are here. The young of AmeriCorps might help teach them English. Those reaching retirement age, who happen to be the last people in America who were taught and know American history, could help them learn the story of our country. We could, as a nation, set our minds to this.

As novel as this sort of proposal is in mainstream conservative writing, Noonan shows no recognition of the horror that mass immigration could potentially visit upon America. However, there are glimpses even of that in the writing of Ann Coulter, who has always shown white nationalist impulses. In “Bush’s America: Roach Motel,” Coulter recognizes the full danger of racial conflict in a white minority America:

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

Coulter’s makes oblique, but unmistakable, reference to biological racial differences and their effects culture:

If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation’s history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

She has clear white nationalist sympathies.

Coulter is no fringe writer. Though controversial, she is an icon whose columns are read by millions. That Americans would respond to such a clear appeal to racial self-interest speaks volumes.

It is also worth noting that the career of neoconservative Hispanic Linda Chavez is finally taking a long overdue corrective. For years, she was somehow able to pass within the conservative movement as a “reasonable voice” on Hispanic issues. However, her attacks on immigration restrictionists as racists were liberal boilerplate.

This changed after her last column, in which she called amnesty’s opponents “a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them.” Chavez’s attempt to discredit the immigration reform movement through the cliché of the angry, ignorant white racist cut no ice whatsoever among conservatives. As Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review Online’s Corner said, “That anyone who disagrees with her about immigration policy is a racist is all that Chavez seems to have learned from her years of work on the issue. I will never trust her judgment again.” It appears that among conservatives at least, the charge of racism has been defanged when it comes to immigration.

Ponnuru’s response reveals the enduring weakness of the new restrictionist consensus, however, as does the very name of the person who wrote it. Race realists will agree with Chavez that the race is central to the immigration debate, despite their abhorrence of her anti-white, pro-La Raza interpretation of race. Moreover, race realists believe that immigration must be opposed from a specifically pro-white perspective that an Indian commentator is unlikely ever to understand.

However, immigration reform is a big issue that will require a large and politically centrist coalition to bring about. In the near term at least, the most good will be done by commentators and activists who use non-racial arguments. Dan Stein, president of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform offers a good example of such coalition-building. He takes Linda Chavez on at National Review Online here:

Chavez seems no different than the Southern Poverty Law Center — she is an enemy of intellectual freedom trying to control debate and discussion through intimidation. The immigration issue is complex and emotional, and it is ill-served by ad hominem namecalling.

Furthermore, the new conservative restrictionism, while couched in egalitarian terms, is like a cocoon in which the chrysalis of realism slowly matures. Although the new conservatives reject the idea of innate racial differences and superficially oppose white racial solidarity, their commentary on minority social dysfunction, the betrayal of the American majority by the government, and anti-American immigrant nationalism buttresses the position of race realists and creates an atmosphere in which we can thrive.

The opponents of illegal immigration also give race realists an example to emulate. The new restrictionist consensus began with the activism of a small base. Is it too farfetched to hope that a base of activists could inculcate in Americans a deeper awareness of the reality of race?

Finally, on a personal note, I am amazed at how easy it now is to be outspokenly critical of immigration among white people, even those I have only just met. For a long time, we knew the polls were in our favor, but people would still not feel comfortable speaking openly about the issue. All that has changed. The open borders advocates are finally on the defensive. The battle is now joined.

Sam Raymond is a writer and attorney.

Anti-American or Anti-White?

By Ian Jobling • 8/1/07

Buy War Crimes at Amazon

Whatever its outcome on the battlefield, the War on Terror has had at least one beneficial result: a large share of the American public has realized that their elites are biased. Ever since 2002, we have been subjected to a welter of hysterical and inflated complaints about imperialism, the treatment of enemy combatants, wiretapping, and so forth, coming from academics, celebrities, politicians, and the news media. This hateful din has convinced Americans that the perspective of their ruling class is fundamentally skewed.

The bias that Americans are perceiving is the “whites as cancer” myth. As defined in the inaugural article of this site, this myth consists of the belief that:

1. Whites are the only “racist” race. That is, they are the only race that has historically believed itself superior to other races; this belief has led whites to treat other races in a uniquely cruel manner.
2. White racism and imperialism are the primary explanation for the failings of non-whites.

According to the myth, the Nazis expressed the essence and natural endpoint of Western culture. Accordingly, the elites think America is little better than Nazi Germany and desperately search for parallels. They view America as a country that persecutes minorities, represses freedom of expression, and treats non-whites abroad with the callous cruelty of a master race.

The majority of white Americans can see how crazed this fantasy is. While there are perfectly good reasons to oppose the continuation of the Iraq War and other aspects of the War on Terror, there is no parallel at all between Nazi Germany and a country where airlines can be sued for refusing to let Arabs board and enemy detainees can challenge their detention in the courts. The magnitude of the distortion has led to a whole conservative industry exposing bias in the news media, the entertainment industry, and the academy.

The conservative critique of bias has not yet, however, gone to the heart of the matter. Although the conservatives expose bias everywhere, they call it anti-Americanism without recognizing its racial basis.

Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson’s War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy the Military and Lose the War on Terror is a perfect illustration of the strengths and weaknesses of the conservative critique of bias. He gives copious evidence of the elites’ routine and mindless misrepresentations of the U.S. military and the War on Terror. However, he characterizes the anti-war movement as “anti-American and antimilitary”¹ while his own examples make clear that it is American whites and the West as a whole that is really under attack. The very word “imperialism,” constantly on the lips of anti-war liberals, places the War on Terror in a distinctively Western tradition.

One of the key fallacies that Patterson exposes is the belief that American non-whites suffer a disproportionate share of casualties in wartime. The implication is that the American military is the product of a racist society that has no concern for minority lives.

The claim has been a liberal stand-by ever since Vietnam. John Kerry in his 1971 testimony before the Senate alleged that “blacks provided the highest percentage of our casualties.” Patterson makes clear that this canard is still beloved of television talking heads.²

The allegation continues to be made about the military. For example, Charles Rangel said, “the disproportionately high representation of the poor and minorities in the enlisted ranks has been documented.” Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 portrays military recruiters targeting minority areas.³ Such beliefs are one of the bedrock tenets of the campus-protesting crowd: “Our military is racist, homophobic, sexist and screwing people,” said one protester in 2005 at San Francisco State University.⁴

This piece of conventional wisdom has never been true. Blacks were 13.5 percent of the draft-eligible population during the Vietnam War, but represented just 10.6 percent of soldiers. Today, the racial makeup of new recruits to the military is almost exactly the same as that of the country as a whole.⁵ Furthermore, blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among war casualties. Blacks and Hispanics make up 9.5 and 10.5 percent, respectively, of casualties in Iraq, but 15 and 14 percent of the adult population.⁶

Liberals also view the War on Terror as a white supremacist war in the tradition of Western imperialism. Columbia University professor Nicholas de Genova said at an anti-Iraq War teach-in in 2003:

U. S. patriotism is inseparable from imperial warfare and white supremacy. U. S. flags are the emblem of the invading war machine in Iraq today… . The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military.⁷

MIT professor Noam Chomsky, the guru of the anti-war left, also sees the war this way. In Imperial Ambitions, a collection of interviews with Chomsky, the interviewer asks whether the Iraq War is a continuation of Western imperialist policies based on the ideas “of the Herrenvolk and the Master Race.” Chomsky consents without reservation: “Racism is inherent in imperial rule—it’s almost invariable.”⁸ Columbia professor Edward Said also made the link between the War on Terror and Nazism. U.S. policy, he said, was the work of a “small cabal … avenging the Judeo-Christian god of war.” America was guilty of “reducing whole peoples, countries and even continents to ruin by nothing short of a holocaust.”⁹

Some of the most shameless slanders of the U.S. have concerned its treatment of enemy detainees. Here too comparisons to Nazis abound, and not just among marginal figures, but among the high and mighty. For example, Senator Dick Durbin said, on the basis of uncorroborated e-mail on activities at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp:

If I read this [e-mail] to you and did not tell you that it was … describing what Americans have done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by the Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings.¹⁰

Durbin’s is only one voice in the chorus of lamentation over Guantanamo Bay. Jimmy Carter has said that the “torture” of prisoners there proves that Americans believe the enemy to be “subhuman.”¹¹

Patterson shows how mild military interrogation techniques actually are. They include horrors like poking detainees in the chest in a “mild, noninjurious” fashion, “light pushing,” and repeating the same question. Even the notorious waterboarding merely consists of pouring water over a detainee to induce a drowning sensation. U.S. soldiers go through the same and worse as part of their training.¹²

Patterson also documents the news media’s negativity towards the Iraq War. For example, a survey conducted in January 2005 found 1,992 stories on suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks and 887 stories about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers, but only 16 about success in the fight against terrorists and seven relating to positive developments relating to the upcoming Iraqi elections. When Iraqi voters ratified the new constitution in October 2005, the Washington Post put the story on page A13 with the disconsolate headline: “Sunnis Failed to Defeat Iraq Constitution: Arab Minority Came Close.” The stories on the front page were “Military Has Lost 2,000 in Iraq,” “Bigger, Stronger Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of U.S. Deaths,” and “Bush Aides Brace for Charges.”¹³

This negativity is clearly also based in the “whites as cancer” myth. The news media focus on events like Abu Ghraib that make American troops seem like imperialist oppressors. The New York Times ran no fewer than 50 above-the-fold articles on this troubling, but insignificant, event while burying stories about bravery in battle deep in the paper.¹⁴

Patterson illustrates the skewed perspective that underlies such coverage through the example of Eason Jordan, former Chief News Executive for CNN. In 2004, the man told a group of journalists that he “knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy.”¹⁵ There was never any evidence for this view, and Jordan resigned his post shortly after. However, that a man who believed such things could rise so high in his profession is evidence that journalists are prone to take seriously any kind of slander against the American military.

Anti-war liberals’ insults against their own people have been accompanied by an eagerness to apologize for the other side of the War on Terror. In 2002, Washington Senator Patty Murray defended Osama bin Laden with these words:

He’s been out in these countries for decades building schools, building infrastructure, building day care facilities …, and people are extremely grateful. He’s made their lives better. We have not done that.¹⁶

Such absurdities also stem from the “whites as cancer” myth, whose partisans believe non-whites are morally superior to whites, and inevitably blame the latter for the former’s troubles.

It may seem odd to criticize anti-war liberals for bias against whites when so many of them are white themselves. A political ideology supported people with names like Durbin, Carter, Murray, Moore, and Kerry can hardly be explained as a minority attack on majority America. Rather, the motivation behind this movement is anti-ethnocentric snobbery, discussed here and here. Snobs of this variety slander their own people in order to make themselves appear broad-minded and intelligent.

Such snobbery is illustrated perfectly by the views of film and television celebrities, who have regularly stigmatized war supporters as ignorant and parochial, in contrast to their own enlightened cosmopolitanism. Michael Moore said in an interview with a British news paper that Americans were “possibly the dumbest people on the planet.”¹⁷ Larry Hagman, who played J. R. on Dallas, called Bush “a sad figure—not too well-educated, who doesn’t get out of America much. He’s leading the country towards fascism.”¹⁸

Conservative critics of anti-American bias have accomplished the crucial task of demonstrating to a large share of the public that we live in an Inverted World. They have proved that our elites view America, a country that is shamefully and dangerously indulgent towards non-whites, as the new Third Reich, and at the same time look eagerly for the redeeming virtues of figures like Osama bin Laden. However, the critics of bias have not yet understood the nature of the bias that they are attacking: it is not anti-American, but anti-white. The “whites as cancer” myth still exerts such a powerful sway over the Western mind that the conservatives cannot name it outright and can only denounce it in a mystified form. Hopefully, however, the intense anger provoked by the anti-war movement will eventually force whites to recognize its real motive.

Principles of the Pro-White Movement

Principles of the Pro-White Movement

By Ian Jobling • 7/7/08

A revolution requires a declaration of principles.

[What follows is an attempt to summarize and synthesize my writings for The Inverted World and to formulate a working manifesto for the pro-white movement. I consider this statement a draft to be updated yearly as our conception of the pro-white project changes. I look forward to your suggestions for improvements.]

The state of the white race in the West confronts us with a horror unprecedented in the annals of human history. Demographers predict whites will be a minority in the United States in 40 years and in Western Europe shortly after. Since the West condones interracial breeding, there is a serious prospect that the white race as we know it will disappear in the next two or three centuries.

An even more urgent threat is that whites will lose political control over their ancestral homelands and be put at the mercy of alien races who are unfriendly to our people.

Because culture is rooted in biology, the subjugation or extinction of the white race may well mean the death of Western culture and its fundamental ideals of individualism, pluralism, tolerance, and the rule of law. If the white West is not preserved, it is quite possible that what we today call the Third World will become the whole world, and the light of humanity and progress will be extinguished.

This prospect, while fearsome enough, does not express the full horror of our plight. What gives the situation of whites its uniquely dreadful and grotesque cast is that it is taboo for us to voice any desire for our continued existence. Our current cultural establishment labels “racism” and “hatred” any word of complaint that whites may breathe about their impending subjugation and obliteration. These labels are a slander wicked almost beyond imagining. Indeed, the hatred is on the side of the people who express indifference towards or even eagerness for the destruction of a people.

The pro-white movement is committed to the preservation of the white race and its unique culture. Pro-whites, as the movement’s adherents call themselves, frankly admit that they prefer their own people to others and see no evil in doing so. Pro-whites resemble the Jewish activists who attempted to awake a callous and bigoted world to the prospect of the Holocaust during the Nazi period or Spartans trying to preserve their society from Persian rule.

In furtherance of our goal of racial preservation, the pro-white movement will spread awareness of the threats to the white race and the reasons for preserving it. We will seek to overcome the slanders against our race and our movement that have made it disreputable for whites to defend themselves against extinction. Finally, we will do all in our power to restore to America a government that respects the white race and promotes its interests.

Why Preserve White Societies?

White societies are worth preserving not merely because of the inherent value of ethnic autonomy, but also because of the precious uniqueness of Western culture, which only whites have succeeded in creating.

Scholars have found that Western culture is distinguished by preference for the rule of law, individualism, pluralism, and tolerance. Also, whites have a uniquely powerful urge to discover the objective truth about the world. This urge has led the West far more than other cultures to defend the individual exercise of reason from suppression by state and ecclesiastical authorities. Additionally, the Western taste for the truth has created a culture uniquely capable of self-criticism and innovation in science, technology, philosophy, and the arts.

The unique attributes of Western culture are due in part to whites’ relatively high intelligence and providence, or ability to defer gratification for greater future rewards.

Without the white race, it is quite likely that people would still be living pre-modern despotisms like the ancient Persian or Chinese empires, since more or less all of the technological, scientific, philosophical, and political innovations that led to modernity were accomplished by whites.

Cultural differences among the races are almost certainly in part due to biological differences. Psychologists have found that the black-white IQ gap, the most intensively studied racial difference, is certainly genetic in origin. It is the consensus among behavior geneticists that personality traits are about 50 percent heritable, so it stands to reason that other racial differences have some biological basis as well.

The influx of non-whites into America erodes our culture. Unintelligent and improvident populations like blacks and Hispanics, through high rates of crime and other forms of social irresponsibility, threaten a peaceful, prosperous society. Not only do these populations act as a drag on the white population, but they tend to corrupt our nation by lowering standards. Indeed, the current mortgage crisis and concomitant stock market collapse are in part due to minority activism to lower home lending standards.

Irresponsible populations have other negative effects on America’s economy. They mean higher taxes for welfare and prisons and a strained social infrastructure. The influx of poorly achieving and crime-prone Hispanics into the schools has caused white flight into an ever-shrinking number of decent school districts. Consequently, housing prices in good neighborhoods soar, and whites go deep into debt in order to provide a future for their children.

Furthermore, non-white groups are a threat to the culture of freedom that white societies have established. Non-whites do not seem to possess the broad-minded tolerance of free expression that is fundamental to Western culture.

Finally, the research of Harvard professor Robert Putnam has demonstrated that diversity destroys trust. In an empirical study of communities, Putnam concluded:

people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down,’ that is, to pull in like a turtle… [They tend to] withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.

As commentator Ilana Mercer put it, “Greater diversity equals more misery.”

The inherent value of racial autonomy, the preciousness of Western civilization, the distrust and misery bred by racial diversity, and its negative economic impact—together these form a compelling justification for preserving white societies.

Leukophobia

Despite the fact that whites invented the critique of ethnocentrism, contemporary common wisdom has it that whites are the only “racist” race and that all other peoples are noble savages who have been cruelly exploited by us. The pro-white movement dubs the bias against the white race “leukophobia,” or fear and loathing of whites. The counterpart of leukophobia is “chromophilia,” or unwarranted idealization of non-whites.

Leukophobia causes our society not only to exaggerate examples of white egotism and destructiveness, but actually to fabricate white racism hoaxes. Leukophobia is an accepted, mainstream racial hatred, so pervasive that it seems like common sense. Leukophobia has so far been successful in discrediting anyone who has tried to preserve and defend the white race.

Leukophobia creates an inverted world in which the blame for racism falls on the race that has done most—indeed, far too much—to end it. Whites invented the concept of human rights in the name of which the oppression of ethnicities can be criticized. Whites were the first to abolish slavery. American whites have even gone to the extreme of making non-whites a privileged class through affirmative action in order to bring out about racial equality.

The Inverted World has discussed several examples of leukophobia and chromophilia. For example, American history textbooks, in the words of Diane Ravitch, display “a barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry.” The textbooks lay heavy emphasis on slavery, racial subjugation, and war crimes perpetrated by whites, while ignoring or whitewashing similar, or worse, practices perpetrated by other peoples. The myth that Americans frequently committed atrocities against Asians during the Vietnam War is another example of anti-white bias in our understanding of history.

Leukophobia even causes the news media to fabricate instances of white racial hatred. The Duke rape and Jena 6 cases are recent examples.

Leukophobia takes its most blatant form among non-whites, large minorities or even majorities of whom fantasize that whites are conspiring to undermine them. The beliefs of Jeremiah Wright are not marginal among blacks. One quarter of blacks think that whites invented AIDS as a means of racial genocide, and 50 percent think that the CIA and FBI have flooded black neighborhoods with guns and drugs so that they will harm one another. Mexican-Americans share similar beliefs about whites.

Even as the shapers of opinion exaggerate and even fabricate instances white racial hatred, examples of non-white racial hatred are ignored. Thus, when whites are even suspected of committing crimes of racial hatred, as in the Duke rape and Jena 6 cases, there is massive press coverage. But proven crimes of racial hatred committed by minorities receive little coverage.

Similarly, the shapers of public opinion suppress awareness of non-white misbehavior, or even more despicably, blame it on whites. Such is the purpose of the myth of racial profiling, which illegitimately pins the blame for high non-white incarceration rates on white police officers and judges.

The Causes of Leukophobia

Leukophobia has many different causes. Among them are minority egotism, which makes whites a scapegoat for minorities’ social dysfunction, and the horrific forms that white ethnocentrism has taken in the past, such as the Hitler regime, American slavery, the Klan, and the neo-Nazis.

Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.

The primary reason for the ascendancy of leukophobia is diversity snobbery. Various currents in 19th and 20th century thought made tolerance and openness to diversity the virtues that we most esteem. This attitude is particularly prevalent among the wealthy and powerful in America. Leukophobia originated with intellectuals in the early 20th century, spread to college students in the 1960s and to the professional class in the 1970s, and dominates all of the American elite today. While tolerance and openness are great virtues, they turn into vices when taken to destructive extremes.

Diversity snobbery is rooted in the aspiration to show oneself more tolerant and open than others. Diversity snobs slander today’s white majority or the “racist” America of the past so that their own superior virtues can shine more brightly by comparison.

A particularly obnoxious example of the slanders to which diversity snobbery gives rise is the elites’ assertion that America’s immigration reform movement is rooted in “ugliness” and “hatred,” to use the New York Times’ terms or “bitterness,” to use Barack Obama’s. The white working and middle class support the immigration reform movement because they are on the front lines of the demographic transition currently taking place in America. It is they who are suffering from the importation of unintelligent, crime-prone populations into the US. It is they who have to send their children to school with aspiring gangsters. All that the immigration reformers are asking for is enforcement of our current immigration laws. It is monstrous to describe the white majority’s concern for its way of life as “hatred.”

Another manifestation of diversity snobbery is the completely unfounded belief that greater racial diversity leads to greater creativity. In fact, the relatively homogeneous and white racialist culture of early 20th century America produced an explosion of creativity that dwarfs the achievements of the post-Civil Rights era. Think of the extraordinary transformation that took place in America between the end of the 19th century—the age of horse-drawn carts, vaudeville, and typhoid epidemics—and 1950, the age of Pan Am, CBS, and penicillin. All of this was accomplished by us white-bread Americans without any help or other enrichment from Somalis, Guatemalans, or Koreans. It is unlikely that the diverse America of the future will be able to match our ancestors’ record of achievement.

Discrimination and Segregation

The term “civil rights” as it is currently used in America is an Orwellian abomination that actually designates a restriction of rights. The right to racial discrimination, including segregation in housing and schools, is founded on the principle of free association, a right that is normally respected and protected by the law. The pro-white movement supports the extension of this principle to all associations.

In many contexts, it is perfectly legal for Americans to form racially exclusive associations, and there are tens of thousands of them: the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the National Association of Asian-American Professionals are examples.

If racially exclusive professional groups are legal, there is no reason why racially exclusive neighborhoods should not be. If we can have the National Association of Black Journalists, why is it illegal for a group of white neighbors form an association that declares their neighborhood will be all white? Why is it illegal for white parents to decide to establish a racially exclusive school? There is no foundation in the Constitution for such inconsistencies in laws governing associations, nor can moral arguments justify depriving Americans of a fundamental right.

Consider what would happen if a judge told the National Association of Black Journalists that it could no longer exist because it excludes people on the basis of race. Imagine the outcry! The group’s members would regard this as a tyrannical violation of their rights. Pro-whites think the same of all anti-discrimination laws.

Goals of the Pro-White Movement

The pro-white movement will attempt to preserve the white race in America through lawful activism. The following will be our primary goals and activities:

• Improving our movement’s image: The pro-white movement should stand in the public mind for all that is best in the Western tradition, not what is worst. We should make ourselves the representatives of the humane and civilized ideals of the West, not its undeniable history of oppression and atrocities. The public should associate pro-whites with Galileo, John Locke, and Thomas Edison, not with Hitler and the Klan.
• Lobbying for accurate portrayals of white history and culture: The ugly stereotypes that attach to the pro-white movement are only an extreme version of the ones that tarnish the image of the white race as a whole. We want the world to see whites not as the only “racist” race but as the torchbearers of compassion and accomplishment.
• Lobbying for the dissemination of accurate information on race: Journalists, academics, and other molders of public opinion should be honest about racial differences and diversity’s true effects on America. They should also stop slandering whites in order to bolster the leukophobic myth.
• Restoring Americans’ right to free association: People have a natural right to form racially exclusive associations, just as Hispanic nurses and black journalists do. To this end, we support the restoration of Americans’ right to racial discrimination in living arrangements and other aspects of life. If whites want to form racially segregated neighborhoods and schools, it is their right to do so.
• Ending mass immigration: America should stop importing non-white peoples who erode the Western values on which this nation was founded.
• An end to minority preferences: Preferences for minorities in education and hiring discriminate against the race that founded and built America. Affirmative action also places power in the hands of people who are alien to our white culture and way of life. Minority preferences should be ended.

A Shocking Self-Respect

The pro-white viewpoint may seem shockingly radical. However, we ask you to read our words carefully and consider our ideas seriously. Are these the ravings of madmen, or reasonable conclusions from plausible premises? If our viewpoint is shocking, it is not because we are unreasonable, but because our society is. We ask the white race to show some self-respect, but whites are so used to thinking of themselves as the world’s only racist race that they have forgotten what self-respect is.

Ask yourself whether diversity has really been as enriching as you were told it would be. Hasn’t it rather meant the insecurity and loneliness of alien neighborhoods, shocking insults directed against your culture by minority demagogues, the increasingly crippling expense of living in a decent school district, and a gnawing suspicion that the world has gone wrong?

White men and women, remember that you are the heirs of the race that brought man out of the darkness of despotism and ignorance into the light of freedom and knowledge. See the hosts of your ancestors beseeching you not to let their hard-won civilization perish. Tremble before the prospect of your descendants under alien rule and of a world without blond hair. Join our cause and declare to the world that the white race will not go quietly into the night!

The Destructive Class

The Destructive Class

By Ian Jobling • 10/1/07

A number of articles on The Inverted World have argued that the reason for the success of the “whites as cancer” myth is that our culture associates anti-Western, pro-diversity attitudes with positive traits like intelligence and courage. This “anti-ethnocentric” snobbery emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and was particularly strong among the professional classes and those who aspired to join them. Anti-ethnocentrism proved an effective ideology for legitimating professionals’ class power. It made slandering whites appear to be a courageous act of resistance to the “pre-fascist” white majority.

Anti-ethnocentrism has proved spectacularly successful. As the pundit David Brooks has demonstrated in Bobos in Paradise, the spirit of multiculturalism spread from professionals to executives, creating a wealthy elite of “Bobos,” or bohemian bourgeois, who have managed to reconcile big business with the values of the 1960s counterculture.

Today, it is a cliché that openness to diversity is associated not merely with intelligence and courage, but with a whole host of other desirable qualities. However, when you read the writings of the diversity rhapsodists, you find evidence for these claims slender to non-existent. Diversity-boosting, in fact, resembles religion more than social science. Its practitioners are perfectly willing to run roughshod over the evidence out of zeal for their idol.

A particularly striking example of this blind faith in diversity is the work of economist Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class (Rise) and The Flight of the Creative Class. His argument is that success in today’s economy depends on building and catering to a “Creative Class” through openness to diversity and high immigration levels. However, he ends up showing in spite of himself that diversity is a weakness, and diversity-boosting is the ideology of an elite.

Florida believes we live in a “Creative Economy,” in which economic success is dependent on innovation. Creativity depends on a highly educated and affluent class of knowledge workers consisting of:

people in science and engineering, architecture and design, education, arts, music and entertainment, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology and/or new creative content. Around the core, the Creative Class also includes a broader group of creative professionals in business and finance, law, health care, and related fields. These people engage in complex problem solving that involves a great deal of independent judgment and requires high levels of education or human capital.

Florida estimates that 30 percent of the employed belong to the Creative Class, or 38 million people.¹

The Creative Class is united by a common culture that stresses individuality, meritocracy, and “diversity and openness.”

The Creative Class people I study use the word [diversity] a lot… . Diversity is simply something they value in all its manifestations. This is spoken of so often, and so matter-of-factly, that I take it to be a fundamental marker of Creative Class values.²

Diversity here means not merely racial diversity, but also homosexuality and other forms of nonstandard behavior.

Rise gives detailed descriptions of the culture of diversity that the Creative Class has created. The class’s anti-ethnocentrism is apparent. For example:

In some Creative Class centers like Silicon Valley and Austin, the traditional office Christmas party is giving way to more secular, inclusive celebrations. The big event at many firms is now the Halloween party: just about anyone can relate to a holiday that involves dressing up in costume.³

During its leisure hours, the Creative Class tends to spurn both excessively Western institutions like the art museum, symphony, opera, and ballet, as well as traditional American entertainments like baseball and football games. Rather, the Creative Class enjoys the cosmopolitan “street life” in “multiuse urban neighborhoods” that offer ethnic restaurants, art galleries, and small theaters. Particularly prized are cosmopolitanism and eclecticism. The creative like a neighborhood where they can find German films and Senegalese music jostling against each other. They especially love hybrid art forms such as “Afro-Celt” music.⁴

Nostalgia for ‘60s counterculture is another Creative Class trait. Florida describes his delight at attending “Hippie Hour” at a bar in Austin, Texas, the quintessential Creative Class city. Far from being a downscale event, as its name would suggest, “Hippie Hour” attracted much of the local elite. Florida was overjoyed at the diverse crowd of “hippies, musicians, Latinos, politicians, and high-tech business types.”⁵

Openness to diversity is the key to America’s continued prosperity, in Florida’s view, because it is the vital element of the creative personality: “economic growth is powered by creative people, who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas.”⁶ He bemoans the traditionalism of America under the Bush administration: “On sexual orientation, scientific research, the arts, and civil rights, the current conservative leadership is more backward-looking than ever.”⁷ He argues that this traditionalism is causing a “reverse brain drain,” as the Creative Class leaves for Europe and Canada, where it feels more welcome.⁸

Friendliness to diversity is also essential because immigration imports talent. Florida positively falls over himself lauding the accomplishments of immigrant entrepreneurs, with names like Gururaj Deshpande, Pradeep Sindhu, and Jing Jong Pan, who have started up high-tech companies.⁹ Stepped-up screening of immigrants since 9/11 has made it much more difficult for them to enter, and we risk losing them to other countries, Florida warns.¹⁰

Startlingly, Florida’s own work reveals that his thesis has no ground in fact. Besides paeans to the creative life, Rise also contains discussions of Florida’s empirical research on innovation, including its relationship to diversity. The scientific and descriptive sections of the book flatly contradict each other. When he correlates what he calls the “Innovation Index” of American cities, which is the number of patents granted per capita, with the “Melting Pot Index,” or the percentage of a city’s inhabitants that is foreign-born, Florida finds no relationship between the prevalence of immigrants and innovation or job growth.¹¹

Furthermore, there is actually a negative relationship between the concentration of high-tech companies in a region and its percentage of non-whites. Florida is disappointed to find that:

The world of high-tech creativity doesn’t include many African-Americans. Several of my interviewers noted that a typical high-tech company “looks like the United Nations minus the black faces.”¹²

Florida saves his thesis by showing there is a relationship between innovation, sexual diversity, and lifestyle diversity: the most creative places tend to have higher percentages of homosexuals and bohemians. Nevertheless, his findings on race render his unqualified celebrations of diversity ridiculous.

Other passages in Florida’s books have the same effect. One problem that concerns him is the growing wealth gap between the Creative Class and the rest of society, and the wealth gap, of course, is in large part a gap between whites and non-whites. Florida quotes the speech of gourmet chef Anthony Bourdain during a high-society awards ceremony for cooking in New York:

“The restaurant industry would collapse without the Mexicans and Central Americans who came to this country with no skills at all.” Yet, he told the stunned audience, “you look at the audience and you’ve never seen so many white people in one place since George Wallace ran for president.”¹³

Florida devotes a few generic lamentations to the exclusion of blacks and Hispanics from the ranks of the creative. However, he never explores the ways in which this exclusion challenges his thesis. Clearly, the Creative Class enjoys the idea of racial diversity more than the reality. The type of diversity that it likes—Thai restaurants attended by Egyptian software engineers looking out on black street performers—is of a very artificial and carefully policed sort.

Florida, in fact, finds real diversity depressing and frightening, as most of the Creative Class no doubt would. During his discussion of wealth inequality, he tells of the time he took a wrong turn while traveling to a speaking engagement and found himself in a Hispanic neighborhood in East Palo Alto.

Here the streets were lined with shabby storefronts announcing check cashing and cerveza fria. Instead of people who looked forever young [as the Creative Class does], here were teenagers who looked old too soon.¹⁴

Yet another passage that contradicts Florida’s thesis comes at the very beginning of Rise, where he proposes this thought experiment:

Take a typical man on the street from the year 1900 and drop him into the 1950s. Then take someone from the 1950s and move him Austin-Powers style into the present day. Who would experience the greater change?

Florida performs the experiment to highlight the enormous changes in American social values since the 1950s. However, it is also a test of his theory, although Florida does not acknowledge the fact. If diversity and creativity were related, you would expect there to be far more technological innovation in the later period than the earlier, when America was more homogeneous and unfriendly to diversity.

However, the opposite is true. It is certainly, Florida says, the first man who would experience greater technological change. The period from 1900 to 1950 teemed with life-changing inventions: the automobile, the airplane, the nuclear bomb, television, antibiotics, the refrigerator, the computer, and so forth. Additionally, it was the period in which some of the major inventions of the 19th century, such as electricity, the telephone, and the radio, first received widespread use. The period saw the construction of much of America’s transportation infrastructure, such as railways, airports, roads, and bridges, as well as the first skyscrapers. The time traveler would find a world transformed almost beyond recognition.

Such would not be the case for a man transported from 1950 to the 21st century. Certainly, the personal computer and the Internet are major, transforming innovations, as all of us certainly recognize. However, there are few others:

If he took a train, it would likely be on the same line leaving from the same station. He could probably board an airplane at the same airport… . Television would have more channels, but it would still be basically the same… . In fact, with just a few exceptions, such as the PC, the Internet, CD, and DVD players, the cash machine and a wireless phone that he could carry around with him, he would be familiar with almost all current-day technology. Perhaps disappointed at the pace of progress, he might ask: “Why haven’t we conquered outer space?” or “Where are all the robots?”¹⁵

Florida’s books constantly undercut his thesis that diversity and creativity are linked. In fact, rather than proving the link, he unwittingly exposes it as a sham that rests on blind faith. His own research, as well as the tidbits of common sense that surface here and there, suggest that increasing diversity actually leads to a decline in creativity. This will come as no surprise to Realists, who recognize that the white race has usually been in the forefront of creativity ever since the time of the ancient Greeks. As Charles Murray has shown in Human Accomplishment, 97 percent of the major scientific innovators in human history have been white.

So what is the reason for the sham? There are undoubtedly many, but one of them is its usefulness in the struggle for social power. By flaunting its friendliness to diversity, the Creative Class advertises itself as a vanguard of intelligence, broad-mindedness, and compassion struggling against the backwards and repressive conservative white majority. One of our central tasks as Realists must be to expose the destructive lust for power that lies behind the rhetoric of diversity.

The Rise of Racial Conservatism

By Ian Jobling • 11/1/07

Young whites tend to be conservative on racial issues.

The last column on The Inverted World delivered some bad news to race realists: we are a small minority of the white population, and our numbers are concentrated among the poor and poorly educated.

Further examination of data from the General Social Survey (GSS), supplemented by the results of Gallup polls, brings more bad news, but also some hope. First the bad news: not only is realism rare among whites, but it is becoming more so. Even worse, realism is virtually non-existent among young whites; almost all realists are middle-aged or elderly. While racial right organizations, such as the New Century Foundation (publisher of American Renaissance), the Council of Conservative Citizens, and Stormfront, tell followers that their ideas are gaining traction, all the hard evidence indicates the contrary. Absent a radical change in strategy that rehabilitates their political outlook, realists can only expect their ranks to grow smaller and smaller, and older and older, as the years go by.

Now the good news: racial liberalism, whose core propositions are that whites are a cancer and diversity is a strength, is also declining. The white majority appears to reject the “whites as cancer” myth, or the belief that whites are responsible for the failings of non-whites. Only a small and decreasing minority of whites think that black socioeconomic underperformance is due to white racial discrimination. Whites are also increasingly unfavorable to government aid for blacks.

Whites’ attitude towards the proposition that diversity is a strength is more complex. Their view of immigration, a good indicator of their feelings about diversity, is highly contradictory. When asked whether immigration in the abstract is good or bad for the country, the majority of whites answer the former. However, when asked about immigration’s impact on specific aspects of American society, such as the economy, taxes, and moral values, whites are much more likely view immigration as harmful than beneficial.

In short, we are witnessing the growth of a racial conservatism that whole-heartedly rejects race realism and other racialist beliefs, but is also skeptical towards racial liberalism. Unlike realism, racial conservatism appeals to young and old alike: on all the measures I looked at, young whites were at least as conservative as their elders.

The decline of realism

As I mentioned in the last column, race realism is currently a position held only by a small minority of whites. Furthermore, race realism has been declining ever since the GSS started measuring it in 1977. As the chart below shows, in 1977, twenty-six percent of whites believed socioeconomic differences between whites and blacks had an innate basis; in 2004, only seven percent did.¹

Even worse, virtually none of the young espouse realism. Thirty-six percent of 81 to 89 year olds are realists, and a flat zero percent of 18 to 20 year olds. Age is, in fact, an even better predictor of realist beliefs than education and income. The correlation between age and adherence to realist beliefs is an almost perfect 0.92.

The decline of race realism has gone hand in hand with the decline of other racialist beliefs. Racialists believe not only that the races are biologically different, but in segregation and loyalty to one’s own race above others. The following graphs on white support for a law against interracial marriage show exactly the same trends by year and age as the graphs on race realism.

The same pattern of steadily declining support, especially among the young, also characterizes responses to other GSS questions that measured racialism, such as whether respondents would vote for a black president, support racially segregated neighborhoods, and mind sending their children to a school that was attended by black children. While race realism does not necessarily entail other forms of racialism, it is plain that whites associate the two and have rejected them in tandem.

The decline of the “whites as cancer” myth

While the statistics on race realism are quite grim, realists can take heart in the decline of “whites as cancer” myth. Believers in this myth reflexively blame whites for the evils of the world; one manifestation of the myth is the unlikely theory that white racial discrimination is responsible for minority underperformance in America.

Whites are less and less likely to believe the discrimination theory as the years pass, suggesting that the “whites as cancer” myth is losing its hold on their minds. In 1977, 41 percent of whites saw discrimination as the reason for black underperformance, but only 27 percent do today.

Furthermore, younger whites are less likely to espouse the discrimination theory than older ones. Only 24 percent of whites in the 18-30 year old age group believe in this explanation against 40 percent of whites in their 70s and 80s.

A corollary of the discrimination hypothesis is that the legacy of white racism obligates us to help blacks through government aid and racial preferences. These beliefs are declining as well. In 1975, 20 percent of whites thought the government should help blacks. Today, only a surprisingly small minority of 10 percent do. Whites in the 18-30 year old age group are no more likely than the general white population to support government aid to blacks.

Opposition to affirmative action has been massive and consistent ever since the GSS started tracking it in 1994, with only about 10 percent of whites supporting it. Once again, young whites are no more likely to support affirmative action than older ones.

Diversity double-think

There is no direct measure available of the extent to which whites believe diversity is a strength. However, their views of immigration, the source of diversity, is a good measure of this belief.

The evidence indicates that liberals have been considerably more effective in convincing whites that diversity is a strength than that whites are a cancer. However, a more careful look suggests that whites’ faith in diversity is fragile. Even though most whites believe immigration in the abstract is beneficial, whites are also inclined to say that immigration is harmful when asked about its impact on specific aspects of American society. It seems as though the fear of being labeled xenophobic and racist is strong enough to convince whites to parrot the official mantra; however, faith in diversity is being corroded by doubt, and it may well collapse like a hollow log.

A Gallup poll of 2006 found that 68 percent of whites think that immigration is “a good thing for this country,” versus 27 percent who think it is a “bad thing.” White sentiment about immigration turned more negative after 9/11, but quickly rebounded.

Also, immigration restrictionism has declined among whites since the 1990s. In 1994, 57 percent of whites believed immigration should be decreased against 41 percent in 2006.² Nevertheless, whites were still three times more likely to think immigration should be decreased than that it should be increased.

Despite their favorability to immigration in the abstract, whites generally view its impact on specific aspects of America as harmful. A Gallup poll of 2007 found, for example, that 49 percent of whites think immigration makes the economy worse, versus 24 percent who think it makes the economy better. Perceptions of immigrants’ impact on crime, taxes, job opportunities, and moral and values were also lopsidedly negative. The only aspect of society that whites thought immigrants improved was food, music, and the arts.

Since 2001, whites have been becoming more negative about the impact of immigration. Their views of immigration’s impact on the economy and social and moral values illustrate the general pattern.

Even the percentage of whites who think immigration has a positive effect on food, music, and the arts has been declining.

On the issue of illegal aliens, whites take an enforcement first attitude. Seventy-three percent of whites believe border enforcement and immigration reduction are very important, but only 27 percent think legalizing illegals is very important.

Finally, the young are less likely to believe that immigration is beneficial than their elders. Just over half of 18-20 year olds think that immigrants improve American society, against 79 percent of 81-89 year olds.

* * *

This review of white attitudes towards race paints a mixed picture for realists. On the one hand, we are clearly failing in our current efforts, especially among the young. On the other hand, the liberals are also losing. Today’s white majority today rejects liberal anti-white beliefs and is ambivalent towards diversity.

One way of interpreting this state of affairs is that the racial dynamics of the civil rights era, when racialism and liberalism were the dominant positions, are fading. Most whites turned away from the racialist vision of George Wallace long ago, but today they are turning from the liberalism of Lyndon Johnson as well.

Those of us who wish to rehabilitate race realism and white racial consciousness would do well to target the racial conservatives. To this end, we should learn as much as possible about them. Are they more inclined to be pro-war or anti-war, fundamentalists or religious moderates, free traders or protectionists? Such scrutiny may yield the reason why our views are so unpopular.

We realists need to listen to the white majority before whites listen to us. This may be a humbling experience, but it is a necessary one if we are to reverse our legacy of failure.

If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don’t have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started.

Notes and References

1. In “Class and Racial Liberalism,” I said nine percent of whites were realists. This number was the average of the percentages of whites in 2002 and 2004 who said black socioeconomic underperformance had an innate basis. I used this number because I was basing my estimates of white beliefs throughout the article on the average of the responses for 2002 and 2004. ↑
2. The 1994 statistics are from the GSS. The other figures are from the 2006 Gallup poll. ↑

Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You’ll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.

• Home
• Top
• << Previous article
• Next article >>
• Post a Comment
• Printer-friendly
• Send to a friend
• Archive

Comments

Data like these are always suspect. People are increasingly reluctant to say anything about race, let alone something to a stranger that might be construed as negative. But, realistically speaking, most everybody, including white liberals and nearly all blacks, see through racial nonsense.

Moreover, young people are programmed in group think by the liberal establishment and its corporate toadies from birth. Ask them any political or cultural question and you’ll get the liberal party line. That is about all they’re taught these days, and they know better than anyone the penalties for wrong thought. That they might not be swallowing the whole thing is a sign that you can only fool all of the people some of time, including children. That race relations are deteriorating by the day — and that people grow out of liberalism with age and experience —indicates there’s something rotten in the orthodoxy.

In any case, you can’t win this argument against race liberalism. You can barely wage it anymore (and soon not at all). All you can do is to continue to piss into the wind and wait.

By
//<![CDATA[
var l=new Array();
l[0]=’>’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<’;l[4]=’ 100′;l[5]=’ 107′;l[6]=’ 99′;l[7]=’ 105′;l[8]=’ 114′;l[9]=’>’;l[10]=’\”‘;l[11]=’ 116′;l[12]=’ 101′;l[13]=’ 110′;l[14]=’ 46′;l[15]=’ 104′;l[16]=’ 116′;l[17]=’ 117′;l[18]=’ 111′;l[19]=’ 115′;l[20]=’ 108′;l[21]=’ 108′;l[22]=’ 101′;l[23]=’ 98′;l[24]=’ 64′;l[25]=’ 50′;l[26]=’ 51′;l[27]=’ 54′;l[28]=’ 57′;l[29]=’ 95′;l[30]=’ 115′;l[31]=’ 105′;l[32]=’ 118′;l[33]=’ 97′;l[34]=’ 100′;l[35]=’ 114′;l[36]=’:';l[37]=’o';l[38]=’t';l[39]=’l';l[40]=’i';l[41]=’a';l[42]=’m';l[43]=’\”‘;l[44]=’=';l[45]=’f';l[46]=’e';l[47]=’r';l[48]=’h';l[49]=’a ‘;l[50]=’<’;
for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”);
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
rickd on 11/3/07 at 11:45 am

“Even worse, virtually none of the young espouse realism. Thirty-six percent of 81 to 89 year olds are realists, and a flat zero percent of 18 to 20 year olds. Age is, in fact, an even better predictor of realist beliefs than education and income. The correlation between age and adherence to realist beliefs is an almost perfect 0.92.”

This explains why most, if not all, of my attempts to discuss race-realism amongst friends and relatives falls flat at best, or is met with a hostile reaction at worse.

The decline in race-realism is due to a concerted effort by the MSM and government institutions (ie public grade schools and universities, etc.) that insists on promulgating the specious notion: Nurture, NOT nature, is by far the main determinant in shaping the individual.

We can see by the charts, their efforts have been successful.

This trend we are witnessing can be traced back to the fundamental principle: If you penalize something you get less of it. Conversely, if you reward something you get more of it. Hence: white-race-realists are small in numbers.

By Taryton on 11/3/07 at 1:17 pm

I went from standard racial liberalism, to racial conservatism (Jack Kemp style, “safe” GOP orthodoxy), to racial realism / being pro-white.

By Irish on 11/6/07 at 2:05 am

“Jack Kemp style, “safe” GOP orthodoxy”

Many people have the wrong impression about what Jack Kemp really stands for. He is regarded by the liberal establishment as a conservative; but in reality, all his actions define him as a flaming liberal.

I would rather see Hillary Clinton in the White-house rather than Jack Kemp! Jack Kemp has to be one of the most nauseating RINO’s ever to hold public office. His latest venture into speading racial egalitarianism can be found in his new book, coauthored with Henry Cisneros.

If Jack Kemp is an accurate representation of racial conservatism, we’re in much deeper trouble than I first thought.

Please check out this interview of Kemp and Cisneros on CNBC:

<a href=”http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=533162932&play=1”>http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=533162932&play=1</a>

By Taryton on 11/6/07 at 1:26 pm

I am a few weeks to my 60th birthday. I remembered White America

before it was converted to multiracial, and multiethnic.

White America was a safe place, with excellent schools that taught the three R’s. Students learned, attended safe schools where there was no such things as drugs, gangs, and police, and

security on campus. All Whites regardless of their class, lived in clean, neat, and safe neighborhoods. The country was

prosperous, and respected throughout the world. This when the

majority of Whites acted as a tribe, and for their preservation.

In the late 1950’s and into the 1960’s a changed took place that

was mass media driven, with support of the Federal Government.

Because of the constant propaganda, and defaming, and suppressing the opposition. The enactment of Civil Rights legislation that was enforced by the courts, and opening up

third world immigration.

Today American is broke, has to borrow billions of dollars

through the sale of treasuring bonds to the communist Chinese.

Wars, and rumor of more wars. Crime out of control. The Welfare state ever growing. Our cities, and towns Turning into third world enclaves. Schools do no teach.

Laws passed by congress, and signed by the president, that can turn our country into a dictatorship overnight. Hate laws that

will suppress all contrary views.

If the Country was still 90% White, the conditions for the country, and the world would be different. Because a more educated electorate, backed up by a truthful media would have

prevented all the corruption, madness, and the insanity of today.

The lesson of history, no multiracial nations survived. America

will be the same. What keeps America going is false illusions,

and lies propagated by the mass media. This cannot prevent the

inevitable.

By David on 11/7/07 at 11:52 pm

David,

Very well written. I am curious what you believe will be the result after America crumbles.

By Henry Stanton on 11/8/07 at 9:22 am

Both anti-white racism and pro-white “racism” are dying off. While this is better for whites than anti-white “racism,” race realists should not be satisfied with race blindness. Hopefully the death of the witch hunt will give more room for politically incorrect viewpoints.

By
//<![CDATA[
var l=new Array();
l[0]=’>’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<’;l[4]=’ 108′;l[5]=’ 121′;l[6]=’ 114′;l[7]=’ 97′;l[8]=’ 68′;l[9]=’>’;l[10]=’\”‘;l[11]=’ 109′;l[12]=’ 111′;l[13]=’ 99′;l[14]=’ 46′;l[15]=’ 108′;l[16]=’ 105′;l[17]=’ 97′;l[18]=’ 109′;l[19]=’ 103′;l[20]=’ 64′;l[21]=’ 57′;l[22]=’ 53′;l[23]=’ 51′;l[24]=’ 50′;l[25]=’ 110′;l[26]=’ 105′;l[27]=’ 116′;l[28]=’ 115′;l[29]=’ 117′;l[30]=’ 97′;l[31]=’:';l[32]=’o';l[33]=’t';l[34]=’l';l[35]=’i';l[36]=’a';l[37]=’m';l[38]=’\”‘;l[39]=’=';l[40]=’f';l[41]=’e';l[42]=’r';l[43]=’h';l[44]=’a ‘;l[45]=’<’;
for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”);
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
Daryl on 11/9/07 at 5:57 am

Many of the young are in cyberspace and becoming libertarians due to Dr. Ron Paul’s campaign and the proliferation of libertarianism on the web. There is libertarian disagreement though on issues such as immigration, abortion, copyright law, and the state’s existence. Obviously, libertarians are more likely to be ideologically on the fringes in other instances too but they are in categories that are gaining. For example, many libertarians are atheists. I have found that libertarians are quite willing to listen to race-realism(that is only in my own experience and that is because it may be easier to take since I am a non-White person). What I find is that people kind of skirt the issue saying that I only care about culture or ideas. That is something we need to connect we them on. We need to show them how race is intertwined with culture and ideology.

By Gaurav Ahuja on 11/11/07 at 7:25 am

Nice analogy David. I, too, remember white America. Life was easier and more rewarding. You might not have liked your neighbors or your classmates or your coworkers but there was a cohesive element that kept us all on the same page – race! I miss those days and long for them to return. Much like my dreams of winning the lottery. And, both have about the same odds.

By MissScarlett on 11/17/07 at 11:21 pm

To The Realist:

It is true that race realism is in decline if you go by the percentage of Americans who are race realist; however, if you confine yourself to people within the pertinent scientific fields (psychometrics, behavioural genetics, etc.), race realism is actually on the rise. What is mainstream science will be public opinion within thirty years. And therefore, I reason, race realism is on the rise after all.

By
//<![CDATA[
var l=new Array();
l[0]=’>’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<’;l[4]=’ 114′;l[5]=’ 101′;l[6]=’ 120′;l[7]=’ 97′;l[8]=’ 101′;l[9]=’ 99′;l[10]=’ 79′;l[11]=’>’;l[12]=’\”‘;l[13]=’ 109′;l[14]=’ 111′;l[15]=’ 99′;l[16]=’ 46′;l[17]=’ 108′;l[18]=’ 105′;l[19]=’ 97′;l[20]=’ 109′;l[21]=’ 116′;l[22]=’ 111′;l[23]=’ 104′;l[24]=’ 64′;l[25]=’ 114′;l[26]=’ 101′;l[27]=’ 107′;l[28]=’ 97′;l[29]=’ 109′;l[30]=’ 101′;l[31]=’ 114′;l[32]=’ 117′;l[33]=’ 109′;l[34]=’:';l[35]=’o';l[36]=’t';l[37]=’l';l[38]=’i';l[39]=’a';l[40]=’m';l[41]=’\”‘;l[42]=’=';l[43]=’f';l[44]=’e';l[45]=’r';l[46]=’h';l[47]=’a ‘;l[48]=’<’;
for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”);
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
Oceaxer on 11/21/07 at 10:40 pm

Since I found everything presented cheering guess I fit the bill. Since you asked: strongly pro-free trade, atheist and vaguely hawkish (backed the surge). Know you don’t really care, but gives you a data point.

My views on race are: it’s not just a social construct, and the IQ statistics are compelling. But counterpoint.

Anyway, raving liberal as far as present company goes. Hope this isn’t considered trolling. Enjoy ‘The Realist’, just as I enjoy Derbyshire (he’s slightly less ‘racy’ geddit). Like to stay on my toes.

By Baron Veen on 12/6/07 at 10:52 pm

Welcome, Baron Veen.

You pay me a great compliment by putting me on the same level as John Derbyshire in your choice of reading. Imagine, little old me with my obscure website on a par with a writer for a major magazine! While there have been times when I’ve disagreed with Derbyshire, I think he’s one of the most important and lucid writers out there.

The entry by Cosma Shalizi’s entry at Three-Toed Sloth that you link to is a highly abstruse discussion of whether g is a valid statistical construct. I’m sure there are better and worse statistical methods for measuring intelligence, and I’m willing to leave such arguments to the experts, since my eyes glaze over at such highly technical discussions. However, I did scan the article for a bottom line, and Shalizi does say she (he?) is willing to accept that IQ scores are valid predictors of college grades. As long as someone is willing to admit that IQ is a meaningful measurement of success in life, then my case about race is intact, and they can quibble about the fine points of measurement all they want.

Shalizi does, however, try to diminish the importance of IQ as a predictor of success in life by linking to an article about the relationship between SAT scores and college grades. See here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/19/admit

I went and read that article too and found it to be flagrantly dishonest. The article is based on study that found that SAT scores had a minor predictive effect on college performance. However, when you go to the study itself, which is linked to in the article, you find that the authors controlled for “family income, parents’ education, and the Academic Performance Index (API) of students’ high schools”</em> (p. 6). Thus, SAT scores clearly have a much greater effect on college performance than the authors let on.

The authors justify these controls on the grounds that they filter out factors extraneous to aptitude. However, this is certainly not the case. The reason why the parents have a high income and are highly educated is that they have high IQ, and that IQ will correlate strongly with that of the children. Therefore, what the authors are really doing through these controls is stripping out most of the effect of aptitude. If this is obvious to me, I wonder why it wasn’t so to Shalizi with all his statistical prowess!

My impression then is that Shalizi is motivated by a political agenda and that he’s the type of expert who uses his expertise to confuse rather than to illuminate issues. Basically, I just think he’s a little bit shleazy!

By
//<![CDATA[
var l=new Array();
l[0]=’>’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<’;l[4]=’ 116′;l[5]=’ 115′;l[6]=’ 105′;l[7]=’ 108′;l[8]=’ 97′;l[9]=’ 101′;l[10]=’ 82′;l[11]=’ 32′;l[12]=’ 101′;l[13]=’ 104′;l[14]=’ 84′;l[15]=’>’;l[16]=’\”‘;l[17]=’ 109′;l[18]=’ 111′;l[19]=’ 99′;l[20]=’ 46′;l[21]=’ 100′;l[22]=’ 108′;l[23]=’ 114′;l[24]=’ 111′;l[25]=’ 119′;l[26]=’ 45′;l[27]=’ 100′;l[28]=’ 101′;l[29]=’ 116′;l[30]=’ 114′;l[31]=’ 101′;l[32]=’ 118′;l[33]=’ 110′;l[34]=’ 105′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 115′;l[37]=’ 117′;l[38]=’ 116′;l[39]=’ 99′;l[40]=’ 97′;l[41]=’ 116′;l[42]=’ 110′;l[43]=’ 111′;l[44]=’ 99′;l[45]=’:';l[46]=’o';l[47]=’t';l[48]=’l';l[49]=’i';l[50]=’a';l[51]=’m';l[52]=’\”‘;l[53]=’=';l[54]=’f';l[55]=’e';l[56]=’r';l[57]=’h';l[58]=’a ‘;l[59]=’<’;
for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”);
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
The Realist on 12/7/07 at 8:07 pm

I take a historical view of this.  History has showed us again and again that multi-ethnic nations don’t work. Why would America be different?  Remember, before the National Socialists took power, Germans and Jews had the highest rate of intermarriage in European history.  Let me be clear that I’m not, in any way, pro-Nazi, but this statistic is important.  Diversity works the same as an economic price curve.  As prices go up, demand goes down.  The same thing holds true for diversity.  When the number of non-whites goes up, the tolerance for them goes down.  This is why the South has always been more racially aware than anywhere else in America.  The Northeast has always been the most “tolerant.” The NE is also the most segregated and least white.  The Northwest is similar.

We must also recognized advances in racial science.  While the media is scrambling to cover this up, its becoming more obvious that race is real and that the differences explain many social problems.

Last, more Americans are becoming aware of Jewish power.  Main stream academics are now pointing out issues that only “extremists” did in the past.

The power structure can see these changes too.  They see the anti-immigration movement, minutemen, Internet activity, Ron Paul, an open-Holocaust denier receiving 45% of the vote in a Georgia gubernatorial race, and 911 truthers gaining steam.  While these groups don’t necessarily all connect, the point is, there’s something brewing in America that is anti-system, reactionary, and slightly radical.

The power structure is reacting too.  The so called “Patriot act” has nothing to do with “Islamofacists.” If they were that worried about them, we certainly wouldn’t have open borders.  The recent “Homegrown Terrorist and extremism bill” is even more telling.  I can see signs in the media of Internet censorship as well.  People like O’Reily have been doing their best to send a negative image of the Internet.  MSNBC plays a show called “To catch a predator” almost everyday.  The purpose is to condition the public into fearing the Internet.  We’re also going to see the passing of “Hate speech laws.”

So while you may see “race realism” as getting smaller, the power structure isn’t taking any chances.  As the North American Union comes about, a lot of people are going to have nothing to loose. No people in all of history have let themselves get displaced without some kind of resistance. While we all like to believe that “it can’t happen here” I’m sure its safe to say that many people in history have thought the same.

By = H0 on 12/19/07 at 8:47 am

= H0,

I think it’s a terrible disservice to race realism to lump it together with Holocaust denial and “9/11 truth.” Doing so makes people think that race realism is founded on no stronger evidence than Holocaust denial is, and that it’s a theory that only appeals to conspiracy nuts. But that’s far from the case: Holocaust denial, like “9/11 truth,” is founded only on paranoia and hatred, but race realism is the best supported hypothesis in the social sciences.

As far as “Jewish power” goes, I think this bugbear is largely a fantasy. Apparently, Mearscheimer and Walt’s book The Israel Lobby is a shoddy piece of work. See this excellent article.

By
//<![CDATA[
var l=new Array();
l[0]=’>’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<’;l[4]=’ 116′;l[5]=’ 115′;l[6]=’ 105′;l[7]=’ 108′;l[8]=’ 97′;l[9]=’ 101′;l[10]=’ 82′;l[11]=’ 32′;l[12]=’ 101′;l[13]=’ 104′;l[14]=’ 84′;l[15]=’>’;l[16]=’\”‘;l[17]=’ 109′;l[18]=’ 111′;l[19]=’ 99′;l[20]=’ 46′;l[21]=’ 100′;l[22]=’ 108′;l[23]=’ 114′;l[24]=’ 111′;l[25]=’ 119′;l[26]=’ 45′;l[27]=’ 100′;l[28]=’ 101′;l[29]=’ 116′;l[30]=’ 114′;l[31]=’ 101′;l[32]=’ 118′;l[33]=’ 110′;l[34]=’ 105′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 115′;l[37]=’ 117′;l[38]=’ 116′;l[39]=’ 99′;l[40]=’ 97′;l[41]=’ 116′;l[42]=’ 110′;l[43]=’ 111′;l[44]=’ 99′;l[45]=’:';l[46]=’o';l[47]=’t';l[48]=’l';l[49]=’i';l[50]=’a';l[51]=’m';l[52]=’\”‘;l[53]=’=';l[54]=’f';l[55]=’e';l[56]=’r';l[57]=’h';l[58]=’a ‘;l[59]=’<’;
for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”);
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
The Realist on 12/19/07 at 9:33 pm

I’m not personally a holocaust denier nor am I a 911 truther, but just out of curiosity, who do the 911 truthers hate?

Even if I did believe in either of these theories, I don’t think they’re appropriate for a political movement anyway. As far as Jewish power being “largely a fantasy,” I would have to disagree. I just came across this site last night and did a lot of reading so I understand your position on it. So I’m not going to waste time rehashing it. Regardless of any amount of Jewish power, the fault of our predicament is 100% on us.

And as far as the Israel Lobby being “Shoddy work”, I’m pretty certain that to you, anything critical of Jews is shoddy work. So there’s no need to discuss this here, as there are many other places on the net to do so.

Overall, I like this website and think it fills a niche that needed filling. The “Whites as Cancer” myth is a major part of the Western Zeitgeist which is in definite need of deconstruction. Maybe not even deconstruction, as it doesnt take that much though to prove its stupidity, but we should at least develop and understanding of its origins and ways we can educate other confused whites on its falsities.

By = H0 on 12/20/07 at 12:56 am

= H0,

I’m glad you like the site. I hope you return often.

As far as what the 9/11 truthers hate: America, and usually Israel, to begin with, and, after that, God knows what else.

My rejection of the “the Jews did it” theory of multiculturalism is not the result of irrational prejudice, as you suggest, but of years of reflection. See “Class and Racial Liberalism” and “Did the Jews Do It?” as well as other articles on the site for my explanation of why I think multiculturalism is based originated in class conflict rather than ethnic conflict.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/articles/articles/class/ http://inverted-world.com/index.php/articles/articles/didthejewsdoit/

And if The Israel Lobby at all resembles the account given in the article I linked to, it is indeed shoddy work.

You’re right that the key task is making whites aware of the “whites as cancer” myth and the Inverted World. I am constantly thinking about how to do this and will write frequently on this subject in the future.

By
//<![CDATA[
var l=new Array();
l[0]=’>’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<’;l[4]=’ 116′;l[5]=’ 115′;l[6]=’ 105′;l[7]=’ 108′;l[8]=’ 97′;l[9]=’ 101′;l[10]=’ 82′;l[11]=’ 32′;l[12]=’ 101′;l[13]=’ 104′;l[14]=’ 84′;l[15]=’>’;l[16]=’\”‘;l[17]=’ 109′;l[18]=’ 111′;l[19]=’ 99′;l[20]=’ 46′;l[21]=’ 100′;l[22]=’ 108′;l[23]=’ 114′;l[24]=’ 111′;l[25]=’ 119′;l[26]=’ 45′;l[27]=’ 100′;l[28]=’ 101′;l[29]=’ 116′;l[30]=’ 114′;l[31]=’ 101′;l[32]=’ 118′;l[33]=’ 110′;l[34]=’ 105′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 115′;l[37]=’ 117′;l[38]=’ 116′;l[39]=’ 99′;l[40]=’ 97′;l[41]=’ 116′;l[42]=’ 110′;l[43]=’ 111′;l[44]=’ 99′;l[45]=’:';l[46]=’o';l[47]=’t';l[48]=’l';l[49]=’i';l[50]=’a';l[51]=’m';l[52]=’\”‘;l[53]=’=';l[54]=’f';l[55]=’e';l[56]=’r';l[57]=’h';l[58]=’a ‘;l[59]=’<’;
for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(“&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”);
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
The Realist on 12/21/07 at 6:55 pm

dear gaurav, the young in cyberspace you reference resonate with ron paul because he is the outsider in an election where the choice between obama and mccain offer two choices where perhaps the differences are not as cut-and-dry as dr. paul’s “lets get out of all these strange foreign countries” solution. i wouldn’t confuse that with some inherent attraction to the libertarian platform…a platform dr. paul has been noticeably muted with respect to. watching his campaign, a great deal of support for him actually comes from left-wing protest voters and other disaffected democrats. i think the fact that hes running as a republican as opposed to a libertarian speaks volumes about the trajectory hes positioned for his campaign. secondly, i believe you are incorrect to write-off those libertarian or social conservative positions detached from race, as “skirters” to the idea of western culture and civilization simply because they don’t believe that said culture and civilization is genetically determined and, more importantly, sustainable only by members of a particular “race”. they truly believe in the ideals of the englightenment project in its most basic dimensions, where people are judged by the content of their character as opposed to their complexion or facial features. their alternative to your world-view moves away from a “collectivist perspective”(to paraphrase dr. paul) based on race and repositions it to one of individual merit and labour. my position- culture and ideology are not a racial inheritance. to argue as such demonstrates an ignorance of the profound and pendular-like shifts in where political, military and productive capital have been concentrated in the world. if one wants a “racial realist” perspective(and such a position is inherently arbitrary) it would be that no “race” as such has ever shown a monopoly over creativity and enterprise, that it has always shifted and its distribution is fluid and organic, not boxed into your artificial and contrived notions of “race” which neither you or anyone else, have ever been able to define in political terms, let alone scientific ones. the flip-side is true as well…as no race has a monopoly on industry, as no “realist” could ever see a causative relationship between high-culture and race, so to can it never be claimed that a race has a monopoly over hegemony and brutality. it is not hyperbole on my part to say i am a member of the most racist society on earth(India’s). i can attest to the fact that our ads only show fair-complexioned women and men, our movies only fair complexioned “heros” and “heroines”. your cosmetic companies market their products here under labels like “whitening cream” with ads showing the dark becoming white. these are companies like garnier and lever, companies that would never get away with that in the united states and europe. these are failings of my society, not yours! again, we’re the realists and we’re winning. my two cents.

By indianfromindia on 8/11/08 at 9:21 pm

A friend of mine (A sincere White-Sepratist) & I have discussed these issues of race and social, genetic & economic differences fastidiously. I claim to be quite indifferent to the issue of ‘race’, but I am open to discussion. She points to European & Northern Asian genetic resistance to HIV, and other viral infections that Northern European & Northern Asian (Which were descended from the ancient ‘Rus’ viking clan) and black’s exploding HIV rate to evidence that ‘race does matter’.

She also points to the high crime, dropout, and abortion rates among blacks, and has a very introspective view on integration and the decline of our country. Thanks for the insight, most people are afraid to discuss this openly, for fear of being cast as a ‘Hitler’. By the way, we are both young realists (27 & 24)

By Rachel on 9/20/08 at 7:00 pm