A number of articles on The Inverted World have argued that leukophobia, or fear and loathing of whites, is the class ideology of the highly-educated professionals, whom I call the “destructive class.” Today’s NYT column by David Brooks on financial support for Barack Obama is further evidence for this thesis. Obama has a massive lead over McCain in all employment sectors requiring advanced degrees:
As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.
People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.
Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.
I would quibble with Brooks on one point. He says:
Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican.
My examination of survey data in Class and Racial Liberalism shows that, although business managers and executives were more conservative than professionals in the 1970s and 80s, there is little difference in their political perspectives now. I have found no statistics on the OpenSecrets website that contradict my view. Brooks’ words are rooted in an antiquated vision of American class politics.
Since we’re on the subject, I’ll return to a favorite talking point of mine. The data make clear that today’s leukophobia is due much more to class conflict than to ethnic conflict between Gentiles and Jews. I’ll quote from the Class and Racial Liberalism article:
The majority of the racial right is under the impression that Jews are primarily responsible for the reign of racial liberalism [or leukophobia] 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.
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. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
I’ve taken the liberty of forwarding this article to the high-IQ Intentional Community I chair, asking our worldwide members to visit your site and evaluate what they see there with a view to potential affiliation for common cause.
Whether or not my group votes to affiliate, know that I as an individual am at least 90% behind what you’re doing here.
“Spike”
San Diego, CA
http://www.ORIONInitiative.com
By on 7/2/08 at 5:52 am
Meanwhile, back in the world of science, there are leaks in the PC dam:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4251389.ece
The race debate: nothing to do with race
Yes, African-Americans are biologically different from Ashkenazi Jews, but race is utterly useless for scientific research
Kenan Malik
The US Government licenses a heart drug to be used only by African-Americans. A pharmaceutical company trials a white-only anti-hepatitis drug. In a follow-up to the Human Genome Project, geneticists launch an international study to map genetic differences between races to help to provide data for treating diseases. Anthropologists develop a computer program to determine an individual’s race from the shape of his skull. Commercial companies produce DNA kits to allow individuals to trace their racial ancestry. A genetic study claims that Jews are more intelligent because their history of moneylending and other financial occupations has favoured genes associated with cleverness. Another suggests that white Britons are genetically distinct and can trace their ancestry back to a few hundred Stone Age hunters who lived here some 14,000 years ago.
The scientific debate about race is back - and with a vengeance. Where once the idea of race was a scientific embarrassment, with most scientists dismissing racial differences as merely skin-deep, now it is becoming central to much scientific debate. Where once only the lunatic fringe embraced racial ideas, now they have become the currency of distinguished, mainstream thinkers. In genetics, anthropology, psychology and medicine the use of racial categories is becoming the norm in both research and practice. For the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker “the most dangerous idea of the next decade” will be the notion that races “may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments”. Dangerous not because it is a myth but because it is scientifically true but politically inconvenient.
-snip-
By Opinionated on 7/1/08 at 8:43 pm