The Rise of Racial Conservatism
By • 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. |
- 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. ↑
- 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.
“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 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 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:
By 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 on 8/11/08 at 9:21 pm
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 on 11/3/07 at 11:45 am