Class and Racial Liberalism
By • 10/16/07 |
One of the great mysteries of our age is why whites believe that racial diversity is a strength when all the evidence says that it is not. The last column on The Inverted World, “The Destructive Class,” examined a particularly flagrant example of this stubborn refusal to see the truth. In his books about the Creative Class, economist Richard Florida maintains that diversity of all kinds leads to a more creative, innovative society; his own empirical research, however, shows the contrary.
I have argued that one reason for the prevalence of pro-diversity attitudes, or what I will call “racial liberalism,” is the desire of educated, affluent whites to maintain and increase their class power. Through racial liberalism, the white upper class displays its intellectual and moral superiority to the conservative middle- and lower-class white majority. As we saw in “The Ideology of the Professionals,” it was professionals, or workers whose livelihood depends on specialist educational credentials, such as doctors, lawyers, journalists, and engineers, who were in the vanguard of racial liberalism in the 1970s.
Data from the General Social Survey (GSS), a poll of American social attitudes conducted biannually by the National Opinion Research Center, offers powerful evidence for the class theory of racial liberalism.1 The GSS collects impressively detailed information about the demographics, customs, and beliefs of Americans. The data confirm unambiguously that the wealthiest and best educated whites are the most racially liberal. In fact, the correlations between racial liberalism, wealth, and income are generally at 0.8 or higher; such strong relationships are rarely seen in social science.
Additionally, GSS data allow us to probe racial liberals’ motives for supporting diversity and test the class theory of racial liberalism against the dominant one on the racial right: the “the Jews did it” theory. GSS data suggest that Jews are actually a minor factor in the prevalence of pro-diversity orthodoxy and that class considerations are much more important.
Race realism
Race realism is the belief that some racial differences in behavior are rooted in biology. Since one of the premises of racial liberalism is that there are no significant biological differences among the races, the prevalence of race realism in a group is a good measure of its liberalism on race.
One question in the GSS ascertains whether respondents are race realists (realists for short). It asks whether respondents think that blacks have worse jobs, incomes, and housing than whites because of an innate racial difference in the ability to learn.
Race realism is a minority position: only about nine percent of whites2 are realists. In accord with the class theory, belief in race realism is very strongly tied to education. As the chart below shows, 22 percent of whites with less than a high school education believe in the realist explanation of socioeconomic differences against four percent of those with a bachelor’s or graduate degree. The correlation between highest degree attained and belief in race realism is -0.89.3
Income also predicts realism. Thirteen percent of whites with an annual household income of $20-40,000 per year are realists, but only four percent of whites earning $90-110,000 per year. The correlation between income and realism is -0.82.
Predictably, professionals, whose jobs depend on specialized credentials and who are generally well-paid, are the most racially liberal occupation group, just as they were in the 1970s. However, it is surprising that white managers and executives are almost as racially liberal as white professionals, as the chart below shows. In the 1970s, professionals were uniquely liberal, and there was a substantial difference between their views and those of high-income business people on race. For example, in 1974, 40 percent of professionals supported busing, but only 10 percent of business people did.4 Race realism is only slightly higher in the other white-collar groups of sales workers, clerical workers (secretaries, billing clerks, insurance examiners, and other low-level office employees), and technicians, who perform the more routine aspects of operating instruments and machinery. It is whites in non-white-collar sectors, like service and farming, who are most likely to be realists. These data suggest that professionals have been very successful in converting other white-collar groups to racial liberalism.
The GSS also allows us to determine what different categories of white professionals think about race. (These statistics should be taken with a grain of salt, however, as the sample sizes for these categories are often very small.) The only group of professionals that is significantly more likely to be race realist than the white American mean is the medical group (doctors, nurses, and other medical workers), 13 percent of whom are realists. All other groups except the legal group are more prone to race denial than average, the most liberal professions being religious workers, teachers and professors, and professionals in the culture and communications field, such as musicians, journalists, and authors.
Other measures of racial liberalism
While the likelihood of belief in race realism is a good measure of racial liberalism, it is far from perfect. However well supported by the evidence, race realism today is an extremist position held only by a small minority. There are many whites who do not believe in innate racial differences but who nevertheless believe that immigration is harmful to America and that minorities are treated with too much indulgence. While not realists, such people are not racial liberals either.
To provide a broader perspective on racial liberalism among different white groups, I examined their scores on two questions included in the GSS for 2004. The first asked whether respondents agreed with the statement that immigrants improve American society by bringing in new ideas and cultures. The other question asked respondents to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how important they thought it was that the government respect and protect the rights of minorities.
The majority of whites are racially liberal on these questions: 59 percent believe immigrants improve society, and 77 percent answer 6 or 7 on the rights of minorities question.
Responses to these questions by education and income group show almost exactly the same pattern as the responses to the race realism question. There was a nearly perfect correlation between belief that immigrants improve America and education group (0.94); there was also a correlation of 0.65 by income group.
Professionals were again the most liberal group, followed closely by managers and executives. The other white collar groups were less racially liberal on this question, and most of the non-white-collar groups even more so. Though professionals seem to have convinced almost all white-collar workers that race realism is unfounded, there is still substantial skepticism towards racial liberalism on immigration among low-level white-collar workers.
My analysis of responses to the rights of minorities question yielded the same pattern. There was a correlation of 0.95 between highest degree attained and belief that it was important that the government protect minority rights, and a correlation of 0.73 for income.
Competitive altruism
GSS data also allow us to test hypotheses on the motives of racial liberalism. In an article for American Renaissance, Ian Jobling suggested that pro-diversity attitudes among whites were caused by “competitive altruism.” His thesis is that displays of altruism increase social status and that racial altruism was particularly important in gaining social status today. The competitive altruism thesis predicts that the racial liberalism of elites is a product of a more general tendency to display high altruism.
My analysis provided strong support for the competitive altruism thesis. Altruism among whites, as measured by likelihood of doing volunteer work for a charity at least once a month, correlates almost perfectly with income (0.96) and highest degree attained (0.98). While these correlations do not constitute proof that Jobling is right, they do suggest that he is on to something.
Jews, class, and racial liberalism
The majority of the racial right is under the impression that Jews are primarily responsible for the reign of racial liberalism in America. This theory has been strengthened by Kevin MacDonald’s book on Jewish influence in America, The Culture of Critique.
It is certainly true that Jews are more racially liberal than white non-Jews. In 2004, 90 percent of Jews agreed that immigration benefited America against only 53 percent of white Protestants and 49 percent of white Catholics.
However, because they make up such a small share of the population, Jews are also only a tiny minority of racial liberals. In fact, only five percent of whites who believe immigration is beneficial are Jews, and four percent of those who said it was very important that the government should protect the rights of minorities.
By contrast, 15 percent of white racial liberals had a graduate degree and 18 percent earned more than $110,000 per year. This fact suggests that the wealthy and educated play a greater role in promoting racial liberalism than Jews do.
Jews have been sparse among the ranks of racial liberals ever since the GSS began. In 1972, the survey’s first year, for example, only 7.5 percent of whites who supported busing were Jewish. Though Jews are disproportionately liberal, then, it is absurd to hold them responsible for the prevalence of racial liberalism.
It is clear that we have identified at least one source of the blind faith in diversity that holds the world in thrall: it is an intrinsic part of the identity of America’s upper class. This class sports its pro-diversity views as proof of the moral and intellectual superiority that entitles it to rule.
Given the link between education and race denial, the rise in rates of post-secondary education is undoubtedly a large factor in the growing popularity of racial liberalism. In the 1940s, only about five percent of Americans had a bachelor’s degree. In 2003, 27 percent did. It is no coincidence that racial liberalism surged as the fate of more and more people came to depend on the approval of leftist academics.
It is indeed an Inverted World in which high-school dropouts can see the truth better than Ph.D’s, but such is the world we live in. We realists face a daunting struggle. If we are to win, we must prevail against the most powerful and articulate people in America. Forbidding as this prospect may seem, it is impossible to fight an idea if you do not know the motives behind it. Knowing your enemy is the first step towards defeating him.
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. |
- You can access General Social Survey data here. ↑
- The category white in the GSS probably consists almost exclusively of non-Hispanic people of European descent, as there are separate categories for Hispanics and non-European Caucasians like Arabs and Indians. ↑
- Correlations measure the strength of the relationship between two variables, such as highest degree attained and belief in race realism. A correlation of 1 indicates a perfect positive relationship between the variables: they rise and fall proportionally to each other. A correlation of zero indicates that there is no relationship between two variables. A correlation of -1 indicates that there is a perfect negative relationship between two variables: as one rises, the other falls and vice versa. Values between -1 and 0 indicate negative relationships of various strengths, and values between 0 and 1 indicate positive relationships of various strengths. ↑
- Steven Brint, In an Age of Experts: The Changing Role of Professionals in Politics and Public Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 108. ↑
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Very well written article here, right up my alley. I enjoy the way you are using statistics and research, along with graphs, to back up your arguments. This is high quality here, and very beneficial.
I believe that higher education brainwashes students culturally. Smart people are capable of competitive altruism, and even smart people are capable of being sheep.
As for Jews being liberal, their over-representation in high education (which can’t be denied) would explain a lot of it. I’ve always known via viewing exit polls that graduate students and those with post-college education tend to vote Democrat. The link between liberalism, including but not limited to racial liberalism, and higher education, is established enough that only a redneck could miss it.
By on 10/17/07 at 10:02 am
I would definately like to go examine the data myself in order to address the following points I bring up, but I thought I would go ahead and discuss them here. I found this piece very informative and it addresses a lot of issues I have been wondering about recently. Most people on here probably know me as an optimist by now. But after examining this data should there be cause for pessimism or just for a realistic awareness that more definately needs to be done on our part?
I would be interested in looking at year by year trends. Obviously, whites have fallen further into oblivion and ignorance on these issues the further we move from the 60s and 70s, but are we at the point now where the trend is starting to work in the reverse (in our favor)? If so, then when did this positive trend in our favor begin no matter how faint it may be? Was it some time in the early 90s? The late 90s? A lot of key events have happened since those times that I would think would turn more and more whites to our cause, such as the Rodney King riots, the OJ Simpson verdict, 911, Hurricane Katrina, “Immigrants’ Day Off” etc……
Another point I would like to bring up is that we don’t necessarily need a significant percentage of the white population to become race realists in order for positive changes to take place. All we need is for significant numbers of whites to recognize that there is a problem on the horizon if third world immigration and this constant political pandering to nonwhites continues.
I myself didn’t become a race realist until I stumbled upon the AR website 3 and a half years ago. But prior to that time, regardless, I was always very much against the idea of white people becoming a minority in America and my attitudes on the matter were quite activist in nature. I didn’t need to know that blacks have lower IQs than whites for genetic reasons in order to reaffirm my healthy assertion that white America was in trouble.
Having said this, and considering how “extreme” a viewpoint race realism actually is, 9% is really impressive to me. That is a lot larger of a percentage than I would have predicted on my own. And on the more mainstream viewpoints such as immigration being bad for America and such, if at least 20-30% (and growing) of white Americans have healthy attitudes on these issues I feel that that is a sure sign that there is definately a growing awareness and a noticeable spark for potential change in our favor on the horizon.
Another thing that we need to consider is how these survey questions were asked. If they were asked over the phone as opposed to over the internet then that could greatly skew the results for obvious reasons. Also it isn’t just a matter of how these questions were asked but WHAT was asked. Simply asking Americans if they think immigration is good for America can conjure up all sorts of thoughts and reactions. It is such a broad question that the average American is probably prone to think that by answering “no” they are stating that absolutely no immigration at all would ever be good for America including immigration from Europe reflective of the early 1900s or that consisting of small minorities of Japanese professionals. Asking specifically if THIRD WORLD immigration is good for America, would be a completely different matter.
Lastly, I think that it is important for us not to be bitter towards fellow whites who are liberal on the issue of race. As another prominent race realist has said in the past (who will remain nameless), we need to understand that these fellow lost whites aren’t thinking this way because they hate their own race but simply because they just aren’t informed. Please put yourself in their shoes. Imagine if the only people you ever lived around were whites. Imagine having an upper middle class to upper class upbringing where life is overall relatively pleasant for you. You are not aware of the negative impacts of third world immigration simply because they have absolutely no influence on your well-being or lifestyle at least as far as you are aware of. The only impression you have of blacks and hispanics is through what you see in the liberal media. Think about this for a moment. What would your racial viewpoints be like?
By on 10/17/07 at 3:31 pm
Yes. People of above average intelligence are more likely to be anti-racists because they are more likely to get an education and imbibe currently fashionable egalitarian dogmas. By the same token, Jews, who are of above average intelligence, are more likely to receive an education than the general populace, and so are more likely to be racially liberal.
By on 10/17/07 at 7:05 pm
To The Realist, regarding:
“It is indeed an Inverted World in which high-school dropouts can see the truth better than Ph.D’s, but such is the world we live in. We realists face a daunting struggle. If we are to win, we must prevail against the most powerful and articulate people in America. Forbidding as this prospect may seem, it is impossible to fight an idea if you do not know the motives behind it. Knowing your enemy is the first step towards defeating him.”
This was an excellent article, in that it is addressing the relationships between: education, income, and racial liberalism. Moreover, your Reference number 3 is worth repeating here:
“Correlations measure the strength of the relationship between two variables, such as highest degree attained and belief in race realism. A correlation of 1 indicates a perfect positive relationship between the variables: they rise and fall proportionally to each other. A correlation of zero indicates that there is no relationship between two variables. A correlation of -1 indicates that there is a perfect negative relationship between two variables: as one rises, the other falls and vice versa. Values between -1 and 0 indicate negative relationships of various strengths, and values between 0 and 1 indicate positive relationships of various strengths.”
This reference is important to note and comment on, since far too often the academic elites in such fields as Sociology or Psychology these days, forget that proof is not determinable through correlation based research designs. Often “research” of this kind is presented in terms of “proof” as if it were an empirically demonstrated variable of experimental research. In terms that are clever to outright prevaricating, you get nonsense such as this:
“Many previous studies have linked depression and sleep disorders, BYU researcher and clinical psychologist Patrick Steffen said, but his new study looks at racism, sleep disorders and depression together.
‘We found that perceived racism impacts the quality of their sleep and that disturbed sleep is related to depression,” Steffen said. “Individuals who have experienced racism could be thinking about what happened the previous day, feeling stressed about their ability to succeed when being judged by something other than merit—skin tone or a different way of speaking. Sleep is the pathway through which racism affects depression.’” (Study Links Racism, Disorders by Jessie Elder, Deseret Morning News [Salt Lake City,] Feb. 25, 2006 )
See this link:
Here, skips and hops are being made to come as close to jumping the ethical line, as is possible. This is because what has been proven, now must be linked through self reports of “perceived racism,” to be the cause of an exacerbated clinical depression’s and sleep disturbance’s interactions? It is faulty, in that it does not even begin to explore certain interactions within the established psychological disorder of depression and sleep disturbances (which can range from: insomnia to excessive sleeping) and why these occur. So now the new correlated factor is added, without significant empirical findings, to be part of the established dynamic of depression and sleep disturbances, and presented to the general public as, at the very least, a significantly “factual” half-truth?
Now we both know why, such otherwise inconceivable transgressions of established research methods and reporting of their results are allowed, but that is were: politics, dogmas, and science have always had problems. Heck, it can only get worse, right?
Example number two:
“Diversity is strength.
That sentiment has in recent years emerged as an article of faith in American public life.
Research suggests, however, that faith in diversity is being sorely tested. New studies confirm earlier evidence that, at least in the short- to mid-term, diversity weakens civic ties, fostering mutual mistrust and detachment. Beneath all the ‘happy talk’ about diversity, many Americans harbor a deep ambivalence about where it will lead.
‘Most everybody says, “Yes, I’m in favor of diversity and I really like multiculturalism,” but if there’s nothing to pull people together they get kind of nervous. And they really can’t articulate where to draw the line,’ said Joseph Gerteis, a sociologist with the University of Minnesota’s American Mosaic Project, which is probing how Americans think about questions of diversity and solidarity.”(A Diversity Divide by Jonathan Tilove, Newhouse News, July 8, 2007 .)
See this link:
Here we are subjected to academic and “popular” idiocy on a grand scale, almost beyond the breathtaking. Why is it that multiculturalism is favored and fawned upon by so many respondents, but still many report that they, “harbor a deep ambivalence about where it will lead?” Well, there are researched and established principles in psychology that can be referenced, such as cognitive dissonance; however, they won’t use the term here, but it is cognitive dissonance that is being described above on the part of whites in general, along with the concept of group think on the part of our so-called leaders. With cognitive dissonance being, a state of mind where irrationally held beliefs and subsequent behaviors “should” result in “expected” outcomes, that do not translate into reality and thus, provoke a state of psychological discomfort. With group think, groups in positions of decision or authority find tunnel vision and arrogance within their own positions through unabated positive feedback by themselves toward each other, to be “unstoppable.”
The constructs in psychology are there, they are well researched, to a point; they are just not researched in the contexts of Multiculturalism or Marxism, and how these principles are not ingrained into the general public’s overall worldview, only their cosmetics. Or put another way, not to the point yet where lies can intersect and disrupt reality.
So here I guess I would be agreeing with Courtney and Hugh, in noting that while it is a significant finding by the GSS that:
“Thirteen percent of whites with an annual household income of $20-40,000 per year are realists, but only four percent of whites earning $90-110,000 per year. The correlation between income and realism is -0.82.”
It is not the full picture, because many other variables need to be taken into account. The idea that Hugh brings up, that people know what is expected and lie about their views of racial diversity; or Courtney’s observations about how immigration is understood, and the limited proximity to nonwhites of socioeconomically advantaged whites, are all quite valid. And within these observations, do lie the hope that our task as racial realist and white majority preservationists is not as daunting, as might be reflected by these statistical relationships found above in this article. After all, overtime (in mere decades to be truthful,) it will become increasingly impossible for any white region or socioeconomic group to fully shield themselves from “glorious” diversity’s “rewards.”
And it is that point, the point where we retain a reduced but still significant majority of say 62% to 57% of the population, that our message will become far more digestible to whites of all backgrounds and classes.
If not, then indeed, God help us all!
By on 10/17/07 at 8:40 pm
Courtney,
I plan to write more articles using the GSS data and address some of the questions you ask. As I said in the notes to the article, you can access and tabulate GSS data at:
http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/
Here’s a preview. (I haven’t checked over what I’m about to write, so take it with a grain of salt.) I’ve looked at the year by year trends on race realism among whites since 1977, which is the first year the GSS asked the realism question, and as you suspect, realism has been on a steady downtrend and is currently at its lowest ebb. About 26 percent of whites were realists in 1977. Even more discouraging is that the youngest people are the least likely to be realists.
There is another question that yields more encouraging results, however. The realism question is part of a multi-part question that asks people about the causes of black-white socioeconomic differences. One cause listed is racial discrimination. Intriguingly, the percentage of whites who choose that option has been declining at the same time realism has been.
My tentative conclusion from this and other data is that extreme forms of racial liberalism among whites are declining even as realism is. That is, whites are coming around to the mainstream conservative position on race: they don’t think blacks are biologically different from whites, but they don’t think racial socioeconomic differences are whites’ fault either.
Another reason not to get too depressed is that younger whites are less likely to say immigrants improve America than older ones.
By on 10/17/07 at 9:07 pm
There’s a few things on the belief in racial differences graphs that strike me.
-The higher the education, the more indoctrination hence belief in racial differences decreases proportionately. But there is a slight increase at the graduate level when the very bright see past the orthodoxy and opens their eyes.
-Same pattern with income. Those with very high income who can write their own tickets aren’t as shy about expressing their opinions as those whose jobs depend on silence.
-Among occupations, the very dramatic disparity between farmers and everyone else is easily explained. Farmers have first hand experience on the irrefutable influence of genetics. They may not understand the molecular mechanisms at work but they do see and harness the macroscopic effects.
By on 10/18/07 at 1:35 am
Reality Check: I had never thought of that, but modern farming requires a lot of training in selective breeding of livestock and crop genetics which would give them some additional insight into the nature of human variation.
I also noticed that slight uptick in realism at the far right edge of the bell curve. Perhaps Dr. William Shockley and Dr. James Watson will be seen as the visionaries they are at some point in the enlightened future.
Realist: Kudos for the integration of charts. While your articles are a pleasure to read, the visuals will certainly make your work more accessible to a general audience.
By on 10/18/07 at 11:38 am
I’m sure many race conservatives who dislike the Jews will say that they are more likely to rise to the top leadership roles in race liberalism. However, they are more likely to rise to the top leadership positions of any movement (Friedman, Rand, Von Mises, etc in economic conservative movement; Michael Levin, Rabbi Schiller, etc among race conservatives) because Jews have a higher IQ (on average).
Tackling the Jewish IQ in explaining why Jews rise to the top is as necessary as tackling the Black IQ in explaining why they go to the bottom. If you want to explain away Jewish leadership roles in race liberalism, you should write an article on Jewish IQ.
Just as blacks complain that it’s not fair that whites have more leadership roles, while ignoring IQ differences… many race conservatives ignore the Jewish-Gentile IQ differences in complaining that it’s not fair about Jews rising to positions of power (regardless whether they advocate communism, capitalism, sports teams, law, medicine, teaching, nobel prizes, etc)
IQ differences will explain why even if Jews are only a small percentage of a movement, they will always dominate leadership positions.
By on 10/18/07 at 1:23 pm
Although I whole heartedly agree with Jew Realist that IQ does play a very important role in Jewish achievement as does drive, I would also like to see Realist tackle the other unspoken belief that Jews help each other in business.
I believe there are a few signs out there that younger generations of whites are more racially aware. We don’t read about them because they are not reported by the MSM.
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php?article=21099
By on 10/21/07 at 4:23 pm
MissScarlett,
I don’t think that the case described in the article you link to is a sign of race realism or any other kind of racial awareness among the young. The students who walked out of the speech were certainly rejecting the discrimination theory of black underperformance, but that does not mean they accept the reality of racial differences or possess any kind of white racial identity. In fact, it’s more likely they think that we have to move beyond race, as the mainstream conservatives tell us we should, which means that they think both whites and blacks should reject any form of racial allegiance.
As I said in a comment above, I do think that the young are inclined to reject the “whites as cancer” racial liberalism of the kind that the black speaker represents, but that does not mean that they are realists.
By on 10/21/07 at 9:32 pm
It is worth noting the nature of graduate degrees attained here. In the US the percentage of graduate degrees granted that are in either the humanities, cultural studies, or psychology/sociology fields have increased dramatically over the last forty years - I don’t have the numbers in front of me but they should be easy enough to check.
Those are the fields where acceptance of modern racial indoctrination is most imperative. What would the numbers would look like if you removed them from the equation? That should be a very telling answer…
Of course, the power of the academic elite in this country is profound as they ultimately shape the debate surrounding race. The only way to beat them is the same way they beat us and that would be a long march to the institutions… has anyone considered giving grants to academic papers oriented around race realism?
By on 10/22/07 at 7:32 am
Realist,
I understand your point. Would you have walked out? And, if so, why? I would have most definitely. They were being specifically targetted. How many students wished to walk out but could not garner the courage for fear of reprimand?
By on 10/22/07 at 2:14 pm
GetBackJack,
Walking out was exactly the right thing to do: rhetoric like that of the black speaker is too tired and silly to bother responding to. If others were afraid of a reprimand, their fear was misplaced: it was the speaker who got reprimanded! Rejecting racial liberalism is not a dangerous thing to do today. However, expressions of racial identity and partisanship are likely to be frowned upon, whether they come from whites or blacks.
By on 10/23/07 at 5:35 pm
To The Realist, regarding:
“However, expressions of racial identity and partisanship are likely to be frowned upon, whether they come from whites or blacks.”
I hope you were commenting on the white general public as a whole?
As far as the socioeconomic, media, and political elites are concerned, racial solidarity among nonwhites is openly encouraged and even funded. From the cover-ups in regard to group oriented racial violence against whites to the Federal subsidies of groups like La Raza or the NAACP, the “enlightened” among us have absolutely nothing against nonwhite racial unity. Moreover, the more depraved and anti-white it is, all the more do they encourage it; nothing more proves this than their suppressing of attacks against whites such as the Knoxville Atrocity, and their promoting of hoaxes of hate “committed” by whites.
Just something to consider!
By on 10/23/07 at 8:00 pm
Realist,
What I am about to say may be controversial but the more I think about it the harder it is for me to keep it to myself. I applaud you for creating a website that moves away from “the Jews did it” theory. This website is likely to attract an entirely new group of people that haven’t been attracted to the other websites that discuss race. It also has potential to become perhaps more mainstream than the others.
However, when we are talking about percentages of the white population that are racially aware and such I don’t think we should disregard the successes of other websites even if we disagree with their viewpoints. I know you are critical of AR, and rightly so, but I personally don’t see AR as a website that pushes for “the Jews did it” theory. Whether anyone thinks different from me is irrelevant. The main point is that we can’t deny how successful that website has been in gaining followers. I don’t find it’s message offensive in any way shape or form. If anything I see AR as being indifferent more or less to the whole Jewish question which to me is fine. But my main point is that whether we agree or disagree with the direction that website is going in, we can’t deny that that website has been extremely influential to all sorts of white demographics (not just old white men). When I first noticed that website 3 years or so ago, there were probably about 20 regular posters who were almost exclusively male. Now, there are so many hundreds (or more) of regular posters that I can’t even keep up with them and it almost seems like there are now just as many female posters as males. I call that success.
I now want to talk about a more controversial website that will remain nameless (you know which one I am talking about). Yes, it is a website that pushes for “the Jews did it” theory but at the same time it is by far the most successful website out there in gaining followers. It gets about 50 to 100 new members every day and most of them are young people ( I am not making this up; you can actually observe these statistics on their website). I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of the viewpoints of that website, but I have noticed that a lot of posters over there aren’t necessarily anti-Jewish. They are attracted to that website because it is an outlet that gives them a different viewpoint on race that the mainstream media doesn’t dare give. Aside from that website’s viewpoints on Jews, everything else over there that is promoted is pretty healthy. And as I said, we can’t deny that it is attracting hordes of young people every month.
Having said this, I find it hard to believe that the percentage of race realists is currently at its lowest ebb and hasn’t been on any sort of an upswing over the past decade. After observing the trends on a few other racially conscious websites, there has obviously been a growing pool of followers over the past decade and a lot of them have been young people. I just think we need to give credit where credit is due. I agree with you that we need to move away from “the Jews did it “ theory, but it is foolish to say that the other websites have been total failures.
By on 10/24/07 at 12:33 pm
Courtney,
I’ve published three articles dealing with Jared Taylor and AR on this website. One was a blog entry from Lawrence Auster’s website that incited an acrimonious argument with Taylor and is now linked to in his Wikipedia entry. (See:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/anothereagleeyedwhitenationalistfindsme_out/
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/thedeclineofamericanrenaissance/
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/whyistartedthiswebsite/).
I don’t see what would be gained by writing more about Taylor. People can make up their own minds. Also, I’ve never claimed that AR overtly promoted anti-Semitism or that it was a “total failure.”
As far as Stormfront, which is what I assume you mean by “the website that will remain nameless,” I’m not surprised that it’s popular among the young people, as the tone there is one of adolescent rebellion: loud, intemperate, and immature. Goons like David Duke have much the same attraction as a heavy metal band. But you don’t get a serious movement that will appeal to adults from heavy metal.
John PM,
The mainstream, liberal media elites certainly are slanted in the way they report the news. But I don’t think they encourage “depraved” anti-white behavior. The problem seems to me to lie more in what they don’t cover than in what they do. Can you give me an example of the elite media celebrating “depraved” anti-white behavior?
And remember that the Bush administration threatened to take away the NAACP’s non-profit status. That indicates that elite attitudes are more complicated than you let on.
Among the conservatve media, displays of non-white racial identity are condemned. Think of the way conservative commentators have hammered illegals for displaying the Mexican flag during their protests and laid into Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Conservative commentators have managed to make anti-white demagogues disreputable to the general public.
By on 10/24/07 at 6:26 pm
Realist: The coverage of the Jena 6 comes interestingly close to a “celebration” of depraved anti-white behavior. Black thugs stomp a defenseless white boy without direct provocation. They are lionized. Granted, they have not (yet) been literally, formally congratulated for stomping the boy. But the implict logic is that the appearance of racist symbols justifies the slaughter of any random white. This is presented as a given.
I think John P.M. could make a case that the media presentation of the 1992 LA riots (I am not quite creaky enough to independently recall media coverage of the ‘60s riots) represented a celebration of depraved anti-white behavior. The coverage - as usual - suggested that malevolent anti-white rage was understandable, almost justified.
Jew Realist: McDonald would appreciate your point. Take the analysis of your gentile counter-part. Yes, Jews are disproportionately liberal (particularly on questions of race). But they make up such a small percentage of all liberals that it is absurd to suggest they could exert material influence. Well—maybe not SO absurd when you take the IQ edge into account and all that brings with it. Because of the Jewish IQ edge, they will necessarily be successful all out of proportion to their numbers. This should have a positive impact on the liberal agenda and a negative impact on the conservative agenda.
Think of it another way. Congress has been blasted in the media for noticing the slaughter of Armenians by Turks. Editorialists note this is impolite, impolitic and irrelevant. Armenians—fine people that they are, sturdy people that they are—are not the most hyper-articulate tribe on the planet. They are advised to get over genocidal episodes. The contrast with our Jewish friends is—well, distinct.
Bless Levin. He got tired of being mugged and teaching morons. Glad to have him on board. He doesn’t balance out the Dershowitzes though….but maybe a few more Jew Realists will turn the tide. That’s the thing about high IQs, reality infiltrates eventually, we hope…
By on 10/24/07 at 7:24 pm
To The Realist, regarding:
First, “Can you give me an example of the elite media celebrating ‘depraved’ anti-white behavior?”
I must begin this by noting that I never once stated that the elite media “celebrates” depraved anti-white behavior, only that they encourage it. However, I can give you two examples where they have done exactly that. The “Million Man March” was widely and wildly celebrated as if it were a prelude to MLK’s second coming; this was from what I remember, little more than a black Klan rally without the hoods and crosses. The Nation of Islam and its current Fuhrer, have all the credibility of David Duke and the Nazis but was any of this mentioned any further than in passing, as Farrakhan and his minions put on their open little “African American” Aryan fest? Of course not, only the “positives” of the event were focused on.
My second example is more indirect, but nonetheless remains a celebrated piece of black authored anti-white propaganda, that does for that genre, what The Eternal Jew did for promoting anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. This would be the mini-series, “Roots.” Never in the mainstream media as a whole, has this “compelling” and “factual” work ever been challenged, or its consequences explored? No, it has been almost universally celebrated as being a near documentary, on the common slave experience, and white barbarity and greed as being uniquely evil in sustaining it.
As for encouraging, depraved anti-white behavior, I think we are more in agreement; however, please let me point something out, for the purposes of clarification. When something like the Duke “Rape” Hoax is focused upon for weeks, the “victim” taken at her word nearly without question, and the “perpetrators” in that Circus Maximus that is the “mainstream media” nearly fed to the “civil rights” lions, that is encouraging violence and depraved behavior by nonwhites against whites. Moreover, when they all but ignore something like the Knoxville Atrocity, or attempt to refute its racial motives, they are doing more of the same. It would be like a teacher rebuking, without proof , a student as a bully in class, but looking the other way or even excusing his torment on the playground at recess!
Second, “And remember that the Bush administration threatened to take away the NAACP’s non-profit status. That indicates that elite attitudes are more complicated than you let on.”
But has the Bush Administration acted on its threat and will they ever?
There is more than enough standing evidence to not just remove the non-profit status of the NAACP, but to outlaw it altogether as an anti-white and subversive Marxist political organization. It is also amusing, that the more “mainstream” and “accepted” organization that it is, is handed the empty threat, but such near terrorist and violence oriented entities such as La Raza or the Nation of Islam, are given not even that mild “menacing” rebuke?
How curious of Prince George, how curious indeed?
Third and last, “Among the conservative media, displays of non-white racial identity are condemned. Think of the way conservative commentators have hammered illegals for displaying the Mexican flag during their protests and laid into Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Conservative commentators have managed to make anti-white demagogues disreputable to the general public.”
Yes, the “conservative media” do condemn the more open displays of nonwhite racial solidarity and aggression such as you mention above, but they are also doing so within a multicultural and open boarders context. They are mildly bemoaning as “anti-melting pot” or simply outrageously gauche behavior on the part of the “undocumented immigrants,” that which should be called subversive and totally intolerable actions by alien invaders. With but a few exceptions (such as Buchanan, Coulter, and Noonan, which you have noted in the past) most of the conservative media, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, continue to do little more than dance around the issue of these 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.
As for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for years these two have been given kid gloves and allowed to escalate in their absurd antics; when finally they have gone totally off the deep end of The Twilight Zone, they get rebuked. They are both still called “reverends” by most of these fools, and allowed to spew their canned Marxist platitudes when interviewed, without but the most tepid of “incisive” challenges.
Hey, I’m not being intentionally negative here; I am just pointing out that even the most superficial of questioning and commenting on these two race hustlers’ antics overtime will have a collectively positive effect!
By on 10/24/07 at 9:35 pm
“I don’t see what would be gained by writing more about Taylor. People can make up their own minds. Also, I’ve never claimed that AR overtly promoted anti-Semitism or that it was a ‘total failure.’ “
I wasn’t really suggesting that you write more articles about Taylor but I see what you are getting at. In regards to my impression that you were claiming that other websites were total failures, I came to that conclusion after reading the following sentence that you wrote in your first article:
“In furtherance of the last goal, we will show why previous attempts to express white racial interests have failed.”
If I misundertood you I apologize.
In regards to:
“As far as Stormfront, which is what I assume you mean by “the website that will remain nameless,” I’m not surprised that it’s popular among the young people, as the tone there is one of adolescent rebellion: loud, intemperate, and immature. Goons like David Duke have much the same attraction as a heavy metal band. But you don’t get a serious movement that will appeal to adults from heavy metal.”
It appears that most people over there are in their 20s and 30s and there are a lot of intelligent discussions that go on. It is very far from pure immaturity. I think it is good to have young people attracted to a website as opposed to a bunch of old men. And I don’t think it matters why they are attracted to that website. What matters to me is that they are attracted to it at all; enough to become members.
By on 10/24/07 at 9:41 pm
ironic jihad said: “The coverage of the Jena 6 comes interestingly close to a “celebration” of depraved anti-white behavior. Black thugs stomp a defenseless white boy without direct provocation. They are lionized.”
You’re absolutely correct about Jena 6 news coverage. I’ll provide an excellent example of just how pro-black the media elite acually are. In the following video, notice how the CNN reporter [Kira Phillips] describes the unprovoked brutal attack on a single white by six black thugs as just: “Six black kids got in a fight with a single white boy.” She deliberately misleads the audience by downplaying the brutal unprovoked nature of the attack by describing it as merely, A FIGHT! And notice how she uses the racial pejorative “white-boy” when describing the victim. Her pro bias towards blacks is so obvious, you have to ask yourself: is she for real, or just trying to please her PC bosses (or both)?
<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSJmtYYpQI”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSJmtYYpQI</a>
And then there’s this:
Senator Tom Harkin wants to give $500,000 to the anti-white, brown supremacist group, La Raza.
“Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) has included an earmark of $500,000 in the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill for La Raza.
$500,000 for National Council of La Raza, to provide technical assistance on Hispanic workforce issues including capacity building. Language barriers, and health care job training
The $500,000 for La Raza, an organization that supports open borders and a Spanish speaking America, is just part of Harkin’s $37.87 million in ear marks.”
Bottom line: Not only do we have the MSM engaging in depraved anti-white behavior, so, too, are many members of our elected government.
By on 10/25/07 at 11:08 am
Taryton,
I admit that newsclip on the Jena 6 was pretty outrageous, but it provides no support for ironic jihad’s case. The female reporter is not “lionizing” the Jena 6, as ironic said the media were. Rather, she is praising the black protesters for demonstrating against supposed (and mythical) racial double standards in sentencing. That is, she is not justifying violence against whites; rather, she is praising protests against unfair treatment of blacks. I would be interested to see if you can find an example of a news story that stated the blacks’ attack on the whites was justified. Anyway, I have yet to be convinced that media celebrations of anti-white behavior are a real problem.
I know that liberal politicians like Tom Harkin support minority groups who adopt causes that are contrary to the interests of whites. However, that’s a far cry from praising or encouraging anti-white behavior. Liberals like Harkin don’t see race relations in terms of competition, so they don’t think of groups like La Raza as anti-white, but pro-Hispanic. I see no evidence at all that people Harkin believe that Hispanics’ attacking whites or otherwise harming them is a praiseworthy thing. Similarly, I think that the elites see Louis Farrakhan, to the extent that they take him seriously, which few do, as pro-black rather than anti-white.
Now, I certainly do think that media witchhunts against white “racists” are a serious problem—both Jena and the Duke rape case are examples.
Courtney,
If Stormfront is converting a lot of young whites to realism, it does not show up in survey statistics. As I’ll show in my next article, practically no one under the age of thirty is willing to own up to race realism during a survey. I have little doubt that sites like Stormfront are one reason for this disappointing result.
I don’t read Stormfront. When I see they’re promoting David Duke, I know that I’ve stepped into a sewer. That’s the way almost all whites feel, and they’re right. If any people who are both intelligent and sane like the site, I imagine they’ll get over it pretty soon.
By on 10/25/07 at 6:30 pm
To Ironic Jihad, The Realist, and Taryton:
Regarding the issue of the media and other elites “celebrating” the violently depraved behavior of nonwhites against whites, we could argue about this until the cows come ah’ home ah’ mooing! As I noted in my 10/24/07 at 7:35 pm post, my point was originally not to even indicate this of the elites of this country, only that they do encourage it either through their multicultural propaganda, or through their ignoring of the impact a burgeoning nonwhite population has had upon the white population of the USA in terms of: rape, pillage, and carnage. In terms of the news media elites, this is most striking when hoaxed white “hate crimes” are sensationalized and real life racially motivated atrocities are ignored.
Certainly there are instances where this behavior is celebrated, such as I gave above or in the cases such as the Jena 6 and LA Riots. When “racism” or “social inequality” are used to excuse, rather than vilify, the violent behaviors of nonwhites toward white individuals or our society as whole, this is a form of approval and encouragement of it. In other words, celebrating it, as a fanciful “insurrection” or romanticized “retribution” of the oppressed against the oppressor.
Another good example, would be the media’s abysmal handling of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. Here, the murderer of a white policeman is given near celebrity status in Hollywood and across the spectrum of the international anti-death penalty, and other Marxist “civil rights” groups, when all sanity and commonsense indicates that he is guilty and deserves to be executed. The “mainstream” media’s approach has been rather “unbiased” in all this, since usually Officer Faulkner’s widow is given her 15 to 20 second blurb expressing her views on what should happen, against the normal 2 to 3 minutes of Mumia’s supporters and apologists, explaining how he is the “victim” and also nearly a “saint.”
Indeed, all three of you: do they encourage it or “celebrate” it?
Personally, I think we are arguing about differences of our perceived misunderstandings of kind; and ignoring our agreements revolving around the degrees of any given situation/incident; and of course, the elites’ complicity in them!
By on 10/25/07 at 8:39 pm
“Given the link between education and race denial, the rise in rates of post-secondary education is undoubtedly a large factor in the growing popularity of racial liberalism. In the 1940s, only about five percent of Americans had a bachelor’s degree. In 2003, 27 percent did. It is no coincidence that racial liberalism surged as the fate of more and more people came to depend on the approval of leftist academics.”
I found this also to be an interesting observation, but is this a function of wishing for “the approval of leftist academic,” or a testament to the intellectual naivety or even the cognitive weakness, of most people. The aim of these countercultural Marxists has been to brainwash as many people as possible, into believing that the West and the United States in particular are inherently evil and they need to be socially and politically overhauled collectively.
It is a given that when confronted with “authority” figures in a classroom or lecture setting, people in general are going to be somewhat deferential and open to what they have to say. In such a setting that is what you are there for, to be ostensibly learning something from an “expert.” From childhood after all, we are conditioned to do so from the get go; combine with this the fact, that most people are resistant to thinking “too critically” about what such “experts” are imparting as “knowledge” and one does have a rather noxious dynamic.
Think about what college was like, professors are given to be somewhat intimidating and dictatorial when they slip into the multicultural dogma mode. I went to college from 1989 to 1993, and graduate school from 1995 through 1997; in my college years this overt PC hogwash was still in its later germinating period, by graduate school it had more firmly begun its early rooting phase. However, it was in graduate school, not undergrad, where I saw more resistance to it.
Why might that be?
My guess would be, because by graduate school, you have figured out that neither your parents or professors, have it all right or wrong, and nor do you? Rebellion, ability, and reality, have all hopefully synthesized by this point; in such a context of diminished arrogance and reproached naivety, is not honest and deliberate contemplation more probable?
Well, one hopes so!
By on 10/25/07 at 10:12 pm
“I admit that newsclip on the Jena 6 was pretty outrageous, but it provides no support for ironic jihad’s case. The female reporter is not “lionizing” the Jena 6, as ironic said the media were.”
Of course I agree with your interpretation of the CNN video. In general, the “Jena 6” are not directly “lionized” by the news reporters themselves…but nevertheless, they ARE being “lionized” by a large segment of the black community. (i.e. - the standing ovation two members of the “Jena 6” received at the BET awards.)
“Rather, she is praising the black protesters for demonstrating against supposed (and mythical) racial double standards in sentencing. That is, she is not justifying violence against whites; rather, she is praising protests against unfair treatment of blacks.”
I agree with you, again. However, this entire sequence of unlawful incidents is being exploited by the snobby white-anti-racists and black “civil-rights” agitators in order to perpetuate their specious central doctrine which states: “Whites are responsable for all the problems blacks face.”
“I would be interested to see if you can find an example of a news story that stated the blacks’ attack on the whites was justified. Anyway, I have yet to be convinced that media celebrations of anti-white behavior are a real problem.”
Even given the fact the overwhelming majority of the MSM lean to the left, I don’t think there were, or are, any ‘mainstream’ reporters that would go so far as to state, explicitly, that physically attacking whites is justified. However, they are not objective reporters of the news. Most of them often, if not always, slant the news in a leftest direction (we all know that). Also, they present us with “expert” guests—in disproportionate numbers—that are leftists. The type of leftists which make excuses for the large segment of the black community that “lionizes” the “Jena 6.” The guests I’m referring to, are the usual leftist activists (of all races), and Democrat strategists.
<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZoEUB-BwgI”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZoEUB-BwgI</a>
John PM said: “Another good example, would be the media’s abysmal handling of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. Here, the murderer of a white policeman is given near celebrity status in Hollywood and across the spectrum of the international anti-death penalty, and other Marxist “civil rights” groups…”
Great point John. It has become obvious, the left has a perverse infatuation with black criminals. Tom Wolfe, wrote some great essays hitting on that subject years ago.
<a href=”http://www.tomwolfe.com/RadicalChic.html”>http://www.tomwolfe.com/RadicalChic.html</a>
By on 10/26/07 at 11:42 am
“I have little doubt that sites like Stormfront are one reason for this disappointing result. “
I don’t understand how Stormfront has anything to do with this. I see how liberal media and elementary school, highschool, and college brainwashing does, however. As I said before, a lot of people who post over there aren’t anti-semitic. They are over there because that website offers them a healthy alternative on the topic of race as opposed to what the media constantly lies to them about. I also said before that there are a lot of intelligent discussions that go on.
I also think survey results should be taken with a grain of salt. We don’t know exactly why certain groups don’t answer certain survey questions like other groups do. How does Stormfront have a lot to do with discouraging young people from becoming race realists if they just happen to be that website’s biggest pool of fans?
“I don’t read Stormfront. When I see they’re promoting David Duke, I know that I’ve stepped into a sewer. That’s the way almost all whites feel, and they’re right. If any people who are both intelligent and sane like the site, I imagine they’ll get over it pretty soon.”
Well, I’m not so sure about that. As I said, that site gets 50 to 100 new members every day. Whether you like that website or not you have to acknowledge that it is doing something right. As I said before, I don’t agree with all it’s viewpoints but if it is attracting people then let the chips fall where they lay. I am not an anti-semite at all but at the same time I am open to giving all websites that promote race realism especially if they are successful the benefit of the doubt. And I can’t stress enough that only a fraction of that website’s posts go into the Jewish issue.
I think Inverted World needs to continue it’s message to counterattack “the Jews did it theory” and I fully applaud it, but at the same time let’s give credit where credit is due. I don’t agree with all of Stormfront’s viewpoints but I am not going to sit here and insist that that website will eventually go nowhere when, in fact, it’s membership has constantly been growing exponentially over the years.
By on 10/26/07 at 12:36 pm
Courtney,
When you defend Stormfront, you’re defending the people who applauded the destruction of Israel at the last AR conference—the Stormfront contingent that regularly attends AR conferences was certainly responsible for that incident.
Do you consider Holocaust denial intelligent commentary? What about theories of Israeli involvement in 9/11? These topics and their like are not peripheral on Stormfront; rather, they dominate the site. “Healthy alternative,” indeed!
When you claim not to understand why I think Stormfront discredits race realism, you’re being disingenuous and argumentative. It’s obvious why I say that. What those people represent will only repulse the majority of whites.
Also, Stormfront seems to be getting less, not more popular. If you look at the Alexa rankings, you’ll see traffic has been going down over the years:
http://info.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http://stormfront.org
Even if Stormfront were getting more popular, that would not mean that the ranks of race realists were growing. Fahrenheit 9/11 was very popular when it came out, but commentator Byron York in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy concluded that disgust at Michael Moore’s anti-American lunacy was so great that the movie helped conservatives more than liberals. Stormfront plays a Moore-like role in relation to the Realist movement. How do you know that for every one person who joins Stormfront, three more don’t give up on realism after reading this garbage?
Surveys are indeed an imperfect indicator of public sentiment, but they are better than your unsupported assertions, no matter how often you repeat them. So why don’t you try to find some real evidence that realism is increasing?
By on 10/27/07 at 12:06 am
Realist - do you know this article by Michael Levin?
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/141/141_7.pdf
He addresses some of the issues you discuss in your article.
Would Michael Levin not be willing to write for your website? He is a staunch race realist and may have similar reservations as you have about AR’s soft attitude towards nazism and antisemitism.
Good luck with your website. We need to stop the anti-white madness.
By on 10/27/07 at 8:49 am
Realist said: “When you claim not to understand why I think Stormfront discredits race realism, you’re being disingenuous and argumentative. It’s obvious why I say that. What those people represent will only repulse the majority of whites.”
Realist,
I can understand how frustrated you must get. After all, you’ve already went to great lengths to explain why sites such as “Stormfront” et al are detrimental to race realism.
I think Courtney is well intentioned—she’s very anxious to see results. I don’t believe she is being disingenuous or argumentative per se…I believe she hasn’t YET recognised the fact “Stormfront” is leading race realists down the wrong path. For the most part, the anti-Semitism and pro neo-Nazism over there (amongst other things) serves as a fountain of evedence to prove our critics correct.
I think we agree, we must build a solid philosophical foundation then project the image of race realism as one that is morally admirable, culturally desirable, and intellectually unassailable. “Stormfront,” from what I’ve read of it, does the opposite. It repels the mainstream professional class. The very people the ‘Inverted World’ is trying to win over.
By on 10/27/07 at 3:30 pm
To The Realist, regarding:
“You may have some adolescent rebellion of your own that you need to get out of your system. If so, please do it somewhere else, and come back when you’re ready to talk like an adult.”
And in defense of Courtney,
While I am no fan of Storm Front, I do know that it does cover a wide rang of topics which include, but are not limited to: interpersonal/dating issues, science/technology, history, opinion surveys, and current events. This is (and I know this for a fact, as I communicate quite regularly with her offline) what has peeked Courtney’s interest in that website; she is neither an anti-Semite, or an advocate of Herr Obergruppenfuhrer Duke’s nonsense. Moreover, it is not a question of “adolescent rebellion,” but genuine curiosity in reviewing the website and participating in some of the discussions on the topics noted above, that has had her visiting it from time to time.
Courtney is an intelligent young woman, who will in time make up her own mind regarding Storm Front’s viability in this movement; I find it highly doubtful that insulting her, will be of any benefit in aiding that process. I can say this with a degree of amused self-deprecation, because I am given to understand that the SF crowd is less than fond of yours truly; I am invariably described as a sexual deviant or agent provocateur of the Jews, when they are being kind.
In the end, being similarly rude to each other, isn’t going to do ourselves or more importantly the greater cause, any good!
By on 10/27/07 at 5:48 pm
Taryton,
I agree with everything Realist stands for on here also. Anybody who thinks that I support what David Duke stands for has completely misunderstood my entire argument. I’m going to leave it at that.
By on 10/27/07 at 5:59 pm
I deleted the last paragraph from my last comment because it might have been unfair.
I believe I’ve given convincing reasons why Courtney is wrong about Stormfront. There’s no reason to believe that it is increasing race realism—traffic to the site is declining, and the central topics of the site are sure to be obnoxious to most whites, however much Courtney swears that there are intelligent discussions going on if you look hard enough. (Who is going to look hard, though?) As such, I consider it a dead topic, and I don’t want to hear anything more about it unless Courtney or anyone else has something new and substantive to say.
The link to the Alexa web ranking site in my last comment doesn’t work, but you can go to http://alexa.com and search on stormfront.org to see its declining traffic.
By on 10/27/07 at 7:59 pm
I don’t think that the participants in the survey were being truthful. They were responding with the answers they were supposed to give, for fear of embarrassment. In my experience there are very few whites who believe that the races are “equal” in abilities.
By on 10/30/07 at 8:48 pm
martin uk,
I have a few answers to that objection. First, I think one should provisionally accept the best information on a subject as the truth, even if one has doubts. Claiming there might be something wrong with an information source is not a very effective argument against it. To make a serious argument, one must show that some other information source indicates a contrary state of affairs and is more trustworthy. So until someone provides me with some better source of information, I’m going to trust the GSS.
Also, people taking the survey know that the National Opinion Research Center is not going to disclose their identities and that no one will find out about their answers. So what interest would they have in lying? People are loath to lie even when it’s in their interests; it’s implausible that they would lie when they have no interest in doing so.
Finally, the results of the GSS survey do not contradict my commonsensical perception of the world. If whites were constantly talking about biological race differences, I might suspect that the survey underestimated the number of race realists. But, in fact, only a small minority of whites do talk about race differences, so the poll results make sense to me.
By on 10/30/07 at 11:28 pm
“But, in fact, only a small minority of whites do talk about race differences, so the poll results make sense to me.”
Perhaps only a small minority of the white upper class talks about race differences; the reality is that the white upper class does its best to avoid blacks:
- send children to private schools
- live in all-white neighborhoods
- are repulsed by miscegenation
- do not actively support black institutions
- refuse to hire inept blacks at their intellectually rigorous organizations
- are race realists in private
By on 11/24/07 at 4:12 pm
Your article is very insightful. I especially appreciate that you are dispelling the myth of Jews as being responsible agents for liberal social change when, in fact, it is essentially class biased.
My theory of why there is a correlation between advanced formal education or academic training and liberal social ideology is somewhat simpler and possibly paranoid and naive: polls get skewed results because liberals lie. We should really look at residential living patterns rather than telephone polls. How many of these so-called “liberals” live in primarily racially mixed communities? Engage in multicultural activies?
By on 10/17/07 at 5:57 am